735

Ok*

Co.

o

NOAA Technical Report NMFS SSRF-735

History of the Fishery and
Summary Statistics of
the Sockeye Salmon,
Oncorhynchus nerka, Runs to
the Chignik Lakes, Alaska,
1888-1966

Michael L. Dahlberg

August 1979

larine Biological Laboratory '
LIBRARY

OCT 14 1992

Woods Hole, Mass.

J

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Marine Fisheries Service

NOAA TECHNICAL REPORTS
National Marine Fisheries Service, Special Scientific Report— Fisheries

The major responsibilities^ of the National Marine Fisheries Service (N'MPSi are to monitor and assess the abundance and geographic
distribution of fisher\' resources, to understand and predict fluctuations in I he quantity and distribution of these resources, and to establish levels
for optimum use of the resources. NMFS is also charged with the development and implementation of policies for managing national fishing
grounds, development and enforcement of domestic fisheries regulations, surveillance of foreign fishing off I'nited States coastal waters, and the
development and enforcement of international fisher.- agreements and policies. NMFS also assists the fishing industry through marketmg service
and economic analysis programs, and mortgage insurance and vessel construction subsidies. It collects, analyzes, and publishes .statistics on
various phases of the industry.

The -NOAA Technical Report NMFS Circular series contmues a series that has been in existence since 1941. The Circulars are technical
publications of general interest intended to aid con.servat ion and management. Publications that review in considerable detail and at a high
technical level certain broad areas of research appear in this series. Technical papers originating in ec<momics studies and from management in-
vestigations appear in the Circular series.

NOAA Technical Report NMFS Circulars are available free in limited numbers to governmental agencies, both Federal and State. They are
also available in exchange for other scientific and technical publications in the marine sciences. Individual copies may be obtained (unless
otherwise noted) from D822, User Ser\'ices Branch, Environmental Science Information Center. NOAA, Rockville, MD 20852. Recent Cir-
culars are:

700. Expendable bathythermograph observations from the NMFS/
MARAD Ship of Opportunity Program for 1973. By Steven K. Cook.
June 1976, iii + 13 p., 10 figs. For sale by the Superintendent of Docu-
ments, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402; Stock
No. 003-017-00382-5.

701. Seasonal abundance and distribution of zooplankton, fish eggs,
and fish larvae in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, 1972-74. By Edward D.
Houde and Nicholas Chitty. August 1976, iii + 18 p., 14 figs., 5 tables.

702. Length composition of yellowfin, skipjack, and bigeye tunas caught
in the eastern tropical Atlantic by American purse seiners. By Gary T.
Sakagawa, Atilio L. Coan, and Eugene P. Holzapfel. August 1976, iv -^
22 p., 7 figs., 7 tables, 15 app. tables.

703. Aquacultural economics bibliography. By John Von-
druska. October 1976, 123 p.

ments, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402; Stock
No. 003-020-00134-3.

712. Annual physical and chemical oceanographic cycles of Auke Bay,
southeastern Alaska. By Herbert E. Bruce, Douglas R. McLain, and
Bruce L. Wing. May 1977, iii -h 11 p., 16 figs.. 1 table. For sale by the
Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Wash-
ington, DC 20402; Stock No. 003-020-00134-3.

713. Current patterns and distribution of river waters in inner Bristol
Bay, Alaska. By Richard R. Straty. June 1977. iii + 13 p., 16 figs..
1 table.

714. Wind stress and wind stress curl over the California Current. By
Craig S. Nelson. August 1977, iii -t- 87 p., 18 figs.. 1 table. 3 app. For
sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Of-
fice, Washington, DC 20402; Stock No. 003-020-00139-4.

704. The macrofauna of the surf zone off Folly Beach, South Carolina.
By William D. Anderson Jr.. James K. Dias, Robert K. Dias, David M.
Cupka. and Norman A. Chamberlain. January 1977, iv -I- 23 p., 2
figs., 31 tables.

I."). Migration and dispersion of tagged American lobsters, Homarus
cimericanus. on the southern New England continental shelf. By Joseph
R. Uzmann, Richard A. Cooper, and Kenneth J. Pecci. January 1977, v
+ 92 p., 45 figs., 2 tables, 29 app. tables.

706. Food of western North Atlantic tuna' (Thunnus) and lancetfishes
lAlepisaurus). By Frances D. Matthews, David M. Damkaer, Leslie W.

Knapp, and Bruce B. CoUette. January 1977, iii -^ 19 p., 4 figs., 1 table,

11 app. tables.

707. Monthly temperature and salinity measurements of continental
shelf waters of the northwestern Gulf of Mexico. 1963-65. By Robert F.
Temple, David L. Harrington, and John A. Martin. February 1977, iii +
26 p., 5 figs., 10 tables.

708. Catch and catch rates of fishes caught by anglers in the St. Andrew
Bay system, Florida, and adjacent coastal waters, 1973. By Doyle F.
Sutherland. March 1977. iii -I- 9 p., 2 figs., 9 tables.

709. Expendable bathythermograph observations from the NMFS/
MARAD Ship of Opportunity Program for 1974. By Steven K. Cook and
Keith A. Hausknecht. April 1977, iv -i- 45 p., 10 figs., 9 tables, 35 app.
figs. For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402; Stock No. 003-017-00397-3.

715. Bottom obstructions in the southwestern North Atlantic, Gulf of
Mexico, and Caribbean Sea. By (' Michael Russell, Abraham J. Bar-
rett, L. Steve Sarbeck, and John !! iVordlaw. September 1977, iii -f 21
p., 1 fig., 1 app. table. For s.i'e I / the Superintendent of Documents,
U.S. Government Printing Of;' je, Washington, DC 20402; Stock No. 003-
02000140-8.

716. Fishes and associated environmental data collected in New York
Bight, June 1974-June 1975. By Stuart J. Wilk, Wallace W. Morse,
Daniel E. Ralph, and Thomas R. Azarovitz. September 1977, iii + 53
p., 3 figs., 3 tables. For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402; Stock No. 003-017-
0040-4.

717. Gulf of Maine-Georges Bank ichthyoplankton collected on ICNAF
larval herring surveys September 1971-February 1975. By John B.
Colton. Jr. and Ruth R. Byron. November 1977, iii -I- 35 p., 9 figs., 14
tables.

718. Surface currents as determined by drift card releases over the con-
tinental shelf off central and southern California. By James L. Squire,
Jr. December 1977, iii -^ 12 p., 2 figs.

719. Seasonal description of winds and surface and bottom salinities
and temperatures in the northern Gulf of Mexico. October 1972 to Janu-
ary 1976. By Perry A. Thompson. Jr. and Thomas D. Leming. Febru-
ary 1978. iv -f 44 p.. 43 figs.. 2 tables. For sale by the Superintendent of
Documents. U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington. DC 20402;
Stock No. 003-017-00414-7.

710. Midwater invertebrates from the southeastern Chukchi Sea:
Species and abundance in catches incidental to midwater trawling survey
of fishes. September-October 1970. By Bruce L. Wing and .Nancy Barr.
April 1977, iii -t- 43 p., 1 fig., 2 tables, 2 app. tables. For sale by the
Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office. Wash-
ington. DC 20402; Stock No. 003-020-00130-1.

711. A hst of the marine mammals of the world. By Dale W.
Rice. April 1977, iii + 15 p. For sale by the Superintendent of Docu-

720. Sea surface temperature distributions obtained off San Diego,
California, using an airborne infrared radiometer. By James L. Squire,
Jr. March 1978, iii + 30 p., 15 figs., 1 table. For sale by the Superin-
tendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,
DC 20402; Stock No, 003-017-00415-5.

721. National Marine Fisheries Service survey of trace elements in the
fishery resource. By R. A. Hall, E. G. Zook, and G. M. Mea-
burn. March 197«, iii -t- .'il3 p.. rt tables, 3 app. figs., 1 app. table.

NOAA Technical Report NMFS SSRF-735

History of the Fishery and
Summary Statistics of
the Sockeye Salmon,
Oncorhynchus nerka, Runs to
the Chignik Lakes, Alaska,
1888-1966

Michael L. Dahlberg

August 1979

Marine Biological Laboratory J
LIBRARY I

I

OCT 14 1992 i

Woods Hole, Mass.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Juanita M. Kreps, Secretary

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Richard A. Frank, Administrator

National Marine Fisheries Service

Terry L. Leitzell, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) does not approve, rec-
ommend or endorse any proprietary product or proprietary material
mentioned in this publication. No reference shall be made to NMFS, or
to this publication furnished by NMFS, in any advertising or sales pro-
motion which would indicate or imply that NMFS approves, recommends
or endorses any proprietary product or proprietary material mentioned
herein, or which has as its purpose an intent to cause directly or indirectly
the advertised product to be used or purchased because of this NMFS
publication.

CONTENTS

Page

Introduction '■

Sockeye salmon research at Chignik, Alaska 1

The watershed 2

The climate 3

History of the commercial fishery 3

Cannery operations 3

Fishing gear 3

Fishing regulations 6

Catch trend 6

Catches and escapements of the Chignik sockeye salmon runs, 1888-1966 7

Catches and escapements 7

Catch records '

Escapement records '

Catches, escapements, and total runs by stock 8

Estimated migration times and delays between fishery, lagoon, and weir 8

Travel time between Cape Kumlik and Chignik Lagoon 9

Travel time between Chignik Lagoon and Chignik weir 9

Separation of stocks by time of entry 10

Calculation of catches and escapements by stock 11

Summary 12

Literature cited 12

Figures

1. Map of the Chignik River watershed with inset of western Alaska 2

2. Percentages of catches of sockeye salmon taken by trap, seine, and gill net, 1932-66 5

3. Open-closed fishing periods, 1895-1966 5

4. Trends in fishing effort and catch of sockeye salmon per unit of effort at Chignik, 1900-66 6

5. Commercial catches of sockeye salmon at Chignik, 1895-1966 6

6. Commercial catches of sockeye salmon in the Nushagak district, 1893-1966 7

7. Trend in the ratio of escapement to catch for Chignik sockeye salmon, 1922-66 8

8. Numbers of tagged sockeye salmon recovered at Chignik from day 1 to 5 after release of fish tagged

at Aniakchak Bay 9

9. Numbers of days between release and passage through the Chignik River weir for sockeye salmon
tagged and released immediately below the weir 9

10. Numbers of days between release and passage through the Chignik River weir for sockeye salmon
tagged and released at Chignik Lagoon 10

1 1 . Patterns of time of entry for tagged Black Lake and Chignik Lake sockeye salmon, 1962-66 11

12. Calculated catches of Chignik Lake and Black Lake sockeye salmon, 1895-1966, based on time of

entry of the stocks in recent years 15

13. Catch trends for Chignik Lake and Black Lake, 1895-1966, smoothed by a moving average of 5 15

14. Escapement trends for Chignik Lake, Black Lake, and combined stocks, 1922-66, smoothed by a
moving average of 5 15

15. Trends in total run for Chignik Lake, Black Lake, and combined stocks, 1922-66, smoothed by a
moving average of 5 15

Tables

1. Morphometric measurements of Chignik and Black lakes and Chignik Lagoon 3

2. Recapitulation of types of fishing gear and catches of sockeye salmon by gear, fishing seasons, fishing
regulations, and numbers of days fished at Chignik, 1895-1966 4

3. Long-term changes in abundance of Chignik sockeye salmon 7

4. Estimated escapements of sockeye salmon at Chignik, Alaska, for those years in which weir counts

either were not available or were unreliable 8

5. Average duration of time from release to passage through the weir for sockeye salmon tagged in
Chignik Lagoon and sockeye salmon tagged immediately below the Chignik River weir 10

6. Summary of tagging experiments to determine time of entry of the sockeye salmon stocks of Chignik,
Alaska, 1962-66 10

7. Estimates of d, b. and Sp/i for tagging studies of time of entry of Chignik sockeye salmon, 1962-66 11

8. Proportions of Black FUver spawners in the early sockeye salmon escapements, 1960-66 11

9. Summary of catches of Chignik sockeye salmon by nursery lake, 1888-1921 12

10. Summary of catches and escapements of Chignik sockeye salmon by nursery lake, 1922-66 13

11. Selected ratios of catch and escapement statistics for Chignik Lake, Black Lake, and total runs,
1922-66 14

History of the Fishery and Summary Statistics of

the Sockeye Salmon, Oncorhynchus nerka, Runs to

the Chignik Lakes, Alaska, 1888-1966

MICHAEL L. DAHLBERG'

ABSTRACT

Annual runs of sockeye salmon to the Chignik Lakes, Alaska, decreased from an average of 1.9
million during the period 1922-39 to an average of 0.9 million during the period 1919-f)(>. In order to
study the dynamics of the runs' historic catch, escapement and age structure data were compiled by
spawning stock and brood year. The history of fishing and management of the runs from inception of
the fishery until 19fi() is described. The high seas and coastal distributions of Chignik sockeye salmon
indicated significant interception by the fishery in only one area other than the Chignik Bay and
Chignik Lagoon: the fishery at Cape Igvak started in the mid-1960's. Results of the study were used to
construct parent-progeny relationships that formed the basis for a management strategy to restore the
runs to their former level of abundance.

INTRODUCTION

One approach to restoring sockeye salmon stocks' to
their former levels of abundance is to precisely regulate
the harvest of each major race (Royce 1964). According to
Ployce (1960), such a course requires that the manage-
ment agency 1) can define and recognize each major
race' of salmon, 2) has accurate statistics on catch and
escapement, 3) can forecast the returns accurately, 4)
knows the number of spawners needed for maintenance,
and 5) is aware of the gear and time needed to harvest the
desired number of salmon. The management agency does
not have all this knowledge for any race of salmon in
Alaska, but information has become available on the
stocks of one sockeye salmon-producing system of west-
ern Alaska, the Chignik River system, from which it can
formulate a management strategy based on precise regu-
lation of the harvest.

In this paper, historic catch and escapement statistics
are presented for each of the two major stocks of sockeye
salmon in the Chignik River system. Current statistics
have been routinely published and are later cited.

Sockeye Salmon Research at Chignik, Alaska

The potential of the Chignik watershed for controlled
studies of the life history of sockeye salmon was

'Northwest and Alaska Fisheries Center Auke Bay Laborator>', Na-
tional Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, P.O. Box 155. Auke Bay, AK
99821.

-Stock refers to each aggregation that can be managed separately
(Ricker 1966): run, as defmed by Mathews (1966), signifies the total
number of mature sockeye salmon entering the watershed in 1 yr (catch
plus escapement).

^Race, the same as stock; see above.

'Returns refers to the total number of mature progeny produced by
one spawning, regardless of the time of return.

recognized early in the development of salmon research
in Alaska (Gilbert and O'Malley 1921). Parallel studies
of the life history of sockeye salmon were started by the
U.S. Bureau of Fisheries at Karluk in 1921 and at
Chignik in 1922 with the main purpose of ascertaining
"what relation exists between spawning colonies of vary-
ing size and the number of progeny that they furnish"
(Gilbert 1929). The Karluk and Chignik Rivers were
selected because it was believed the fishery operated
solely on fish bound lor these particulair watersheds.

In 1928 the complexities of the life cycle and dynamics
of the sockeye salmon populations of Chignik were
brought to light, and intensive study of the freshwater
life history of the Chignik sockeye salmon began (Higgins
1930). Considerable progress was made in determining
the pattern of the life history of Chignik sockeye salmon
and the relationship between the numbers of spawners
and returning progeny (Holmes 1934). However, in 1934
research was drastically reduced because of budget re-
strictions, and the only activity was collection of scales
for later study (Higgins 1936). A fish-counting weir was
first erected in Chignik River in 1922 to estimate the
escapement. The counting weir was not maintained in
1938, from 1940 through 1948, and in 1951. Each year
since 1952 a weir has been in operation to count the
escapement; because of turbid water and lack of ade-
quate sites, counting towers used in the Bristol Bay dis-
trict are not feasible at Chignik.

Tagging studies were conducted at Chignik by the
Fisheries Research Institute (FRI), University of Wash-
ington, in 1949 and 1952, and a research program funded
by the Chignik salmon canning industry began in 1955.
From 1955 to 1960 the research program consisted of
studies of the age composition of the runs, annual
enumeration of smolts, and an investigation of predation
on juvenile salmon by Dolly Varden, Salvelinus malma,

and coho salmon, Oncorhynchus kisutch, (Roos*- *■ ',
1959, 1960). Beginning in 1961 the FPU intensified eco-
logical studies of the nursery lakes. Results of those
studies have been reported by Narver (1966), Phinney
(1970), Parr (1972), and Burgner and Marshall'. Dahl-
berg (1973) analyzed the historical records of the fishery
and reported on the dynamics of the sockeye salmon
returns to Chignik from the inception of the fishery
through 1966. Although all five species of Pacific salmon
found in North America occur at Chignik, sockeye
salmon are the most abundant and commercially impor-
tant species. This repwrt treats only sockeye salmon at
Chignik. Narver (1966) and Parr (1972) described the life
histories of fishes associated with sockeye salmon in the
Chignik lakes.

The Watershed

The Chignik watershed is located on the Alaska Pe-
ninsula approximately halfway between the tip of the
Alaska Peninsula and Kodiak Island (Fig. 1). Black and
Chignik Lakes drain into the Pacific Ocean and form a
natural northwest-southeast pass through the Aleutian
Mountain Range. The watershed covers an area of
approximately 1,520 km^ including two lakes of 63.8 km'
total surface area. Atwood (1911) and Knappen (1929)

'Roos, J. F. 1959. Report on Chignik adult red salmon studies.

1958. Unpubl. manuscr., 12 p. Fish. Res. Inst., Univ. Washington, Seat-
tle.

'Roos, J. F. 1959. Red salmon tagging at Chignik, Alaska during

1959. Unpubl. manuscr., 9 p. Fish. Res. Inst., Univ. Washington, Seat-
tle.

'Roos, J. F. 1960. Life history of red salmon, Oncorhynchus nerka
(Walbaum), at Chignik, Alaska. Unpubl. manuscr., 56 p. Fish. Res.
Inst.. Univ. Washington, Seattle.

"Burgner. R. L.. and S. L. Marshall. 1974. Optimum escapement
studies of Chignik sockeye salmon. Anadromous Fish Project Final Re-
port for period ending June 30, 1973. Report No. FRI-UW-7401. Fish.
Res. Inst., Univ. Washington, Seattle, 91 p.

discussed in detail the geology of the region and briefly
described the geography and vegetation; Murie (1959)
detailed the fauna of the Alaska Peninsula.

Because the lakes are important as rearing areas for ju-
venile sockeye salmon, they have been closely studied; a
complete description of the two leikes is presented by
Narver (1966). Black Lake is shallow (44% of the area is
<2 m deep), warms rapidly in the spring, and is usually
turbid (typical Secchi disk reading is <1 m) throughout
the summer. Chignik Lake, although smaller in area
than Black Lake, is six times greater in volume and gen-
erally clearer. Although the lakes are different physically
(Table 1), together they show a marked contrast in bio-
logical activity when compared with 24 other sockeye
salmon-producing lakes in western Alaska (Burgner et al.
1969) . The Chignik system ranked second in number of
spawners per unit of lake surface area, first in rate of
photosynthetic activity (area and volume), first in con-
tent of chlorophyl a per unit of lake volume, and second
in content of total dissolved solids, and generally showed
high concentrations of trace elements. Black Lake and
Chignik Lake had the highest standing crops of phyto-
plankton among the lakes compared.

The lakes are connected by Black River (12 km long),
which flows south along the edge of the Aleutian Moun-
tain Range. Two major spawning tributaries enter Black
River. West Fork, entering fi-om the west, drains the
northeast slope of Mount Veniaminoff (Fig. 1), a volcano
which erupted as recently as 1956 (Roos see footnote 7).
Chiaktuak Creek enters from the east and drains a valley
parallel to Chignik Lake. Bearskin Creek also enters
Black River but is of minor importance as a spawning
stream; small numbers of spawners are found occasional-
ly in the upper reaches (Phinney 1970).

The lower lake is drained by Chignik River (7.2 km
long), which is normally influenced by tidal action for
nearly one-half its length. The highest spring tides affect
the river up to the lake outlet.

Mount
Veniaminof

Kilometers

Figure 1.— Map of the Chignik
River watershed with inset of
western Alaska.

Table 1.— Morphometric measurements of Chignik and Black Lakes and Chignik Lagoon (from Dahlberg

1973).

Altitude
(m)

Depth (m)
Mean Maximum

Water
area

(km')

Volume

(km»)

Shoreline

Length
(km)

Development

Flow at outlet

Source

(mVs) Date

Black Lake

15

3

6

41.1

0.10

27.0

1.19

17.0 25 June 1963

Chignik Lake

5

29

64

22.7

0.64

27.7

1.64

79.5 23 June 1963

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

35.8 13 Aug. 1963

Total

—

—

—

63.8

0.74

-

—

— -

Chignik Lagoon

-

3

15

41.8

0.13

46.7

2.04

- -

Chignik Lagoon (12 km long) is a nearly enclosed estu-
ary having a sandy or muddy, flat bottom with scattered
patches of algae and extensive areas of eel grass
(Zostera). Water covers about 42 km^ at high tide, and
about half that at low tide. Low and high tide salinities
range from 10 to 17%. in the upper lagoon and from 30
to 32%. at the sand spit near the outlet. The importance
of the estuary as a secondary rearing area for juvenile
sockeye salmon has been investigated by Phinney (1968);
large catches of postsmolt sockeye salmon have been
taken by beach seine and surface trawl in the lagoon
during June and July (Narver and Dahlberg 1965; Phin-
ney 1968).

The Climate

The climate of the region is strongly maritime because
the Alaska Peninsula is a comparatively small body of
land between two large water masses, the North Pacific
Ocean and the Bering Sea. The weather conditions re-
ported by Atwood (1911) and Knappen (1929) remain
typical. The summers are short and cool; although there
may be many days of wet weather, the rainfall is seldom
excessive. A great many overcast days occur. Violent
winds often exceeding 161 km/h (100 mph) have been
recorded. Winter temperatures are more moderate than
those in Bristol Bay; recording thermometers left in
cabins over the winters of 1961-67 showed a low of -27°C
(-17°F). Ice breakup on the lakes occurs in April or
May, much earlier than in the lakes of the Bristol Bay
district. Long-term weather records are not available for
the immediate area; Kodiak Island (270 km to the north-
east) is the nearest location with extensive weather
records, although some data are available from nearby
Port Heiden on the north side of the peninsula.

History of the Commercial Fishery

Cannery operations. — Commercial exploitation of
Chignik sockeye salmon began in 1888 when the Fisher-
men's Packing Company of Astoria, Oreg., sent a crew to
Chignik Bay to prospect for fish; they returned in the fall
with 2,160 barrels of salted salmon. In 1889 canning
operations were started in plants of the Fishermen's
Packing Company, Chignik Bay Company of San Fran-
cisco, and the Shumagin Packing Company from
Portland, Oreg. (Moser 1899). Operating agreements be-
tween the companies proved so successful in 1890 and
1891 that they joined the pool of canneries of the Alaska

Packing Association in 1892. In 1893 they all became
members of the Alaska Packers Association, and only one
cannery was operated as a result of increased operation
efficiency (Moser 1899).

The ease with which fish were captured at Chignik at-
tracted more investment into the fishery; in 1896 Hume
Brothers and Hume, and the Pacific Steam Whaling
Company each built a cannery (Cobb 1930). In 1901
these companies became part of the Pacific Packing and
Navigation Company, which in turn became part of the
Northwestern Fisheries Company in 1905. In 1910 the
Columbia River Packers Association built yet another
cannery in the area. Competition was intense until 1914
when the three companies then operating — Alaska
Packers Association (APA), Columbia River Packers As-
sociation (CRPA), and Northwestern Fisheries Company
(NFC) — agreed to an equal division of the catch (Rich
and Ball 1930).

Industry relationships remained static until 1926 when
H. W. Crosby operated a floating salmon cannery,
Salmon King, for one season. In 1932 Crosby returned
and built a land-based cannery; the same year, CRPA,
NFC, and APA made a combined pack at the APA can-
nery. The following season, 1933, Pacific American Fish-
eries (PAF) acquired the Northwestern Fisheries Com-
pany, and the PAF, APA, and CRPA combined canning
operations. The APA acquired the Chignik interests of
PAF and CRPA during the ensuing years and continues
to operate their cannery at Chignik (Pacific Fisherman
Yearbook 1915-67; National Fisherman Yearbook 1968,
1969; Pacific Packers Report 1970-76).

Crosby changed the name of his operation to Chignik
Lagoon Packing Company in 1936, and after two other
changes gave it the name Chignik Fisheries Company in
1947. Beginning in 1953, APA and Chignik Fisheries
Company entered into an agreement to can all fish in the
APA cannery; the cannery of the Chignik Fisheries Com-
pany serves as a base of supply and operations for its
fishing fleet (Roos see footnote 7). In 1968, Columbia-
Wards Company purchased the Chignik Fisheries can-
nery and has continued operations under the same
arrangements with the APA (Pacific Packers Report
1976).

Fishing gear. — Pile traps (Scudder 1970) were the
principal fishing gear, and beach seines took a small part
of the catch before 1900. The water at Chignik was too
clear and the channel too narrow for effective gillnetting
(Moser 1899). The number of units of gear operated in

Table 2. — Recapitulation of types of fishing gear and catches of sockeye salmon by gear (percentage), fishing
seasons, fishing regulations, and numbers of days fished at Chignik, 1893-1966 (Dahlberg 196S).

Number of units

Catch by gear

Number

of gear

(percentage

Fishing'

Fishing^

of
days

Gill

Gill

Year

Traps

Seines'

nets

Traps

Seines

nets

season

regulations

fished

Source

1895

Na<

Na

Na

Na

Na

Na

10 June- 2 Aug.

1

45

Moser(1899)

18%

17

10

13

Na

Na

Na

15 June-14 Aug.

1

51

Mo3er(1899)

1897

23

10

10

Na

Na

Na

7 June-27 Aug.

1

68

Moser(1899)

1898

23

Na

Na

Na

Na

Na

9 June- 8 Aug.

1

50

Moser(1899)

1899

Na

Na

Na

Na

Na

Na

9 June-22 Aug.

1

61

Moser(1902)

1900

24

8

26

70.0

5.0

20.0

11 June-12 Aug.

1

52

Moser(1902)

1901

21

Na

Na

Na

Na

Na

13June-24 Aug.

1

60

Rich and Ball (1930)

1902

21

Na

Na

Na

Na

Na

9June-10Aug.

1

52

Rich and Ball (1930)

1903

29

Na

Na

Na

Na

Na

8June-23Aug.

1

63

Rich and Ball (1930)

1904

28

Na

Na

Na

Na

Na

10 June- 9 Aug.

1

50

Rich and Ball (1930)

1905

12

Na

Na

Na

Na

Na

4 June- 13 Aug.

I

57

Rich and Ball (1930)

1906

7

Na

Na

Na

Na

Na

11 June- 12 Aug.

1

52

Rich and Ball (1930)

1907

8

Na

Na

Na

Na

Na

10 June-12 Aug.

2

50

Rich and Ball ( 1930)

1908

8

Na

Na

Na

Na

Na

6 June- 8 Aug.

2

44

Rich and Ball (1930)

1909

8

Na

Na

Na

Na

Na

14June-15Aug.

2

50

Rich and Ball (1930)

1910

18

Na

Na

Na

Na

Na

16June-31 Aug.

2

50

Rich and Ball (1930)

1911

29

Na

Na

Na

Na

Na

15 June- 5 Sept.

2

64

Rich and Ball (1930)

1912

37

Na

Na

Na

Na

Na

10 June- 3 Sept.

2

68

Rich and Ball (1930)

1913

37

Na

Na

Na

Na

Na

9 June-24 Aug.

2

60

Rich and Ball (1930)

1914

9

Na

Na

Na

Na

Na

9 June-27 Aug.

2

64

Rich and Ball (1930)

1915

9

Na

Na

Na

Na

Na

10June-23Aug.

2

58

Rich and Ball ( 1930)

1916

9

Na

Na

Na

Na

Na

12 June- 9 Sept.

2

70

Rich and Ball (1930)

1917

12

Na

Na

Na

Na

Na

lOJune-14 Sept.

2

78

Richand Ball (1930)

1918

12

Na

Na

Na

Na

Na

12Junc- 4 Sept.

2

67

Rich and Ball (1930)

1919

14

Na

Na

Na

Na

Na

17 June-17 Sept.

2

74

Rich and Ball (1930)

1920

12

Na

Na

Na

Na

Na

16 June-14 Sept.

2

72

Rich and Ball (1930)

1921

9

Na

Na

Na

Na

Na

17 June-29 Aug.

2

58

Rich and Ball (1930)

1922

9

Na

Na

Na

Na

Na

16 June-27 Aug.

2

55

Rich and Ball (1930)

1923

9

Na

Na

Na

Na

Na

15 June-22 Aug.

2

52

Rich and BalK 1930)

1924

9

Na

Na

Na

Na

Na

20June-16Sept.

2,5

52

Rich and Ball (1930)

1925

9

Na

Na

Na

Na

Na

19June-llSept.

2,5

46

Rich and BalK 1930)

1926

10

Na

Na

Na

Na

Na

15 June- 3 July

2,5

16

Rich and BalK 1930)

1927

10

Na

Na

Na

Na

Na

16 June- 15 Sept.

2

72

Rich and BalK 1930)

1928

11

Na

Na

Na

Na

Na

12 July -23 Sept.

2,5

58

Richand BalK 1930)

1929

10

Na

Na

Na

Na

Na

13 June-22 Sept.

2

87

Rich and BalK 19301

1930

6

Na

Na

Na

Na

Na

4July-ll Aug.

2,5

26

Mgt. Biol. Annu. Rep.

1931

8

Na

Na

Na

Na

Na

4June-16Sept.

2,5

78

Mgt. Biol. Annu. Rep.

1932

8

1

5

99.4

0.5

0.1

8 June-17 Sept.

2

81

Mgt. Biol. Annu. Rep.

1933

8

22

4

97.0

2.8

0.2

12June-19Aug.

2

54

Mgt. Biol. Annu. Rep.

1934

7

Na

Na

89.5

9.7

0.8

3 June-12 Sept.

2

81

Mgt. Biol. Annu. Rep.

1935

7

Na

Na

78.5

20.6

0.9

4 June-12 Sept.

2,5

80

Mgt. Biol. Annu. Rep.

1936

8

21

4

74.4

23.7

1.9

1 June-lOSept.

2,5

47

Mgt. Biol. Annu. Rep.

1937

8

Na

Na

Na

Na

Na

8 June- 4 Sept.

2,5

35

Mgt. Biol. Annu. Rep.

1938

4

Na

Na

54.3

43.0

2.7

22 June- 1 Sept.

2,5

68

Mgt. Biol. Annu. Rep.

1939

8

14

6

Na

Na

Na

5 June- 1 Sept.

2

70

Mgt. Biol. Annu. Rep.

1940

4

18

2

2.0

92.8

5.2

2 June- 9 Aug.

2

56

Mgt. Biol. Annu. Rep.

1941

8

23

5

68.2

29.9

1.9

4 June-30 Aug.

3

58

Mgt. Biol. Annu. Rep.

1942

4

18

5

63.2

34.1

2.7

8 June-29 Aug.

3

56

Mgt. Biol. Annu. Rep.

1943

4

15

2

70.3

28.0

1.7

5 June-23 Aug.

3

53

Mgt. Biol. Annu. Rep.

1944

4

21

2

59.0

38.9

2.1

5 June-18 Aug.

3

48

Mgt. Biol. Annu. Rep.

1945

5

17

5

66.4

29.8

3.8

8 June-11 Aug.

3

43

Mgt. Biol. Annu. Rep.

1946

7

22

7

49.0

50.0

1.0

3June-20Aug.

3

52

Mgt. Biol. Annu. Rep.

1947

8

58

3

37.2

62.3

0.5

1 June-29 Aug.

4,5

50

Mgt. Biol. Annu. Rep.

1948

7

70

3

34.6

64.8

0.6

1 June-21 July

4,5

28

Mgt. Biol. Annu. Rep.

1949

5

41

2

.10.0

69.6

0.4

lOJune-lSSept.

4,10

28

Mgt. Biol. Annu. Rep.

1950

4

55

18

24.5

74.1

1.4

6June-15Sept.

4,10

38

Mgt. Biol. Annu. Rep.

1951

4

64

0

22.8

77.2

0

6 June-17 Aug.

4,10

24

Mgt. Biol. Annu. Rep.

1952

4

Na

0

28.4

67.9

3.7

16 June-26 June

4,10

8

Mgt. Biol. Annu. Rep.

1953

4

26

0

25.0

75.0

0

22 June-24 July

4,10

14

Mgt. Biol. Annu. Rep.

1954

4

63

1

24.1

75.8

0.1

22 June-26 June

4,10

5

Mgt. Biol. Annu. Rep.

1955

0

55

0

0

100.0

0

18 June-17 July

5,6

20

Mgt. Biol. Annu. Rep.

1956

0

42

0

0

100.0

0

20 June- 1 Sept.

5,6

20

Mgt. Biol. Annu. Rep.

1957

0

37

0

0

100.0

0

26 June-22 Aug.

5,7

40

Mgt. Biol. Annu. Rep.

Table 2.— Continued.

Number of units

Catch by gear

Number

of gear

(percentage)

Fishing^

Fishing^

of
days

Gill

Gill

Year

Traps

Seines'

nets

Traps Seines

nets

season

regulations

fished

Source

1958

0

40

0

0

100.0

0

18 June-22 Aug.

5,8

27

Mgt, Biol. Annu. Rep.

1959

0

29

0

0

100.0

0

17June-18Sept.

5,8

44

Mgt. Biol. Annu. Rep.

1960

0

17

0

0

100.0

0

SJune-USept.

5,7

61

Mgt. Biol. Annu. Rep.

1961

0

33

0

0

100.0

0

8June-27 Aug.

5.6

32

Mgt. Biol. Annu. Rep.

1962

0

25

0

0

100.0

0

20 June-19Aug.

5,9

41

Mgt. Biol. Annu. Rep.

1963

0

22

0

0

100.0

0

3 July- ISept.

9,10

56

Mgt. Biol. Annu. Rep.

1964

0

21

0

0

100.0

0

14 June-27 Aug.

9,10

69

Mgt. Biol. Annu. Rep.

1965

0

24

0

0

100.0

0

19 June-28 Aug.

9,10

42

Mgt. Biol. Annu. Rep.

1966

0

25

0

0

100.0

0

30 June- 7 Sept.

9,10

44

Mgt. Biol. Annu. Rep.

'For the period 1954-66 the number of seines is the weighted daily mean.

'■'Inclusive dates for beginning and end of entire fishing season.

Tishing regulations coded: 1. Weekly closure of 30 h, 0000 Friday to 0600 Sunday. 2. Weekly closure of 36 h,
1800 Saturday to 0600 Monday. 3. Weekly closure of 60 h, 0600 Wednesday to 0600 Thursday; 1800 Saturday to
0600 Monday. 4. Weekly closure of 60 h, 1800 Friday to 0600 Monday. 5. Periodic closure by management biologist.
6. Weekly closure of 3 days. 7. Weekly closure of 2 days. 8. Weekly closure of 4 days. 9. Weekly closure (5 days or
4 days) changed during season by the management biologist. 10. Fishing periods changed by emergency regulations
set by management biologist.

*Na = not available.

Chignik Lagoon and Chignik Bay, length of fishing
seasons, and fishing regulations have varied consider-
ably during 1895-1966 (Table 2; Fig. 2).

Because of the unique time of entry of the Black Lake
and Chignik Lake stocks into Chignik Lagoon, to be
shown later, the distribution of open and closed fishing
periods within each season indicates to some extent
which stock was exploited (Fig. 3). In 1954, for example,
there was only one short open period which resulted in a
fourfold difference in rates of exploitation between
stocks. The lengthy season and the large number of traps
concentrated in this small area (Chignik Lagoon is about
12 km long) indicate an intense fishery from 1900 to 1914.
Moser (1902) visited Chignik in 1898 and again in 1900
and stated, "the lagoon and approaches and the river ap-

Figure 2. — Percentages of catches of sockeye salmon caught by
trap, seine, and gill net in the Chignik fishery, 1932-6fi.

JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT.

5 15 251 5 15 251 5 15 251 5 15 25

JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT

5 15 25l 5 15 25 I 5 15 25! 5 15 25

1896

1898

1900

1902

1901

1906

19

1910

1912

1914

1916

1918

1920
1922
1924
1926
1928
1930
1932
1931
1936
1938
1940
1942
1944

5 15 251 5 15 251
JUNE JULY

i 15 251
AUG.

; 15 25
SEPT.

■^^^^^^^^^^^^a

!■■■■■■

■ ■■■■■
■■■■■■I

■ ■■
• ■■

■ ■

■ ■■

■ 1

■ I ■■

■
■ ■

■■■■■■■
■ ■■■■■1 1

■■ 1

■■■■■■1

■■■■■■■I

■ ■

■ ■
■ ■1

■ ■■■

II ■■■

■ ■■■

llllll

■ ■III

■ III

III

II

■

lllllllllllllllllll
llllllllllllllllll
llllllllllllllllllll
■ ■■■■■■■■■■■lllllll

JUNE JULY

AUG. SEPT.

5

5 15 25! 5 15 251 5 ,15 25| 5 15 25^

lillllilllillli

nil

1946

1948

■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1

IB ■■■

■ ■1

1950

■ ■ ■

■ ■ ■ ■■

■ ■■ I I

i II

1952

■ ■

■ ■ ■

1954

■
1 ■ ■ ■■

1956

1 1 II III

1 III nil II

IIIHHBHHBHI

1958

III III III III! Ill

III III III II

IIIIMIMII M III

HUM iiiiaiiai

1960

II 1 II lliaHHI

■■■■■■■

1 IIIIIIHHII

IHHHH 1

1962

1964

IIB^H
1 1 !■■■■■■!

^^S?

1 1 ■■■■■

■ ■■ 1

1966

^■B ^IBH

■ !■■ ■ Bl

5 15 25
JUNE

i 15 25|
JULY

i 15 251
AUG.

5 15 25
SEPT.

, 15 251
JUNE

; 15 251
JULY

; 15 251
AUG.

5 15 25
SEPT.

Figure 3.— Open and closed fishing periods for the Chignik fishery, 189.5-1966; bars represent time periods open to fishing.

proaches are studded with traps, some with leads 3,500
feet long, and sometimes so interlaced that at a distance
the channel appears completely blocked, and it hardly
seems possible for a fish to pass." Dahlberg (1968) pre-
sented figures showing the location of traps fished in
Chignik Lagoon during 1899 and 1902.

Because there is some question as to the effectiveness
of the older types of gear, I calculated fishing effort from
the data on gear (Table 2) and catch data. The unit of ef-
fort chosen was the trap-day, i.e., the number of traps
fished, which yields the total trap days in season i. Total
trap catch in season i divided by total trap days within
season i yields catch per unit of effort.'

The fishing effort from 1905 to 1909 was low and t}ie
catch of sockeye salmon per unit of effort (CPUE) was
exceedingly high (Fig. 4). The sharp drop in the CPUE

Figure 4. — Trends in fishing effort (solid line) and catch (dotted
line) of sockeye salmon per unit of effort at Chignik, 1900-66.

and the concomitant rise in units of gear between 1909
and 1913 indicate "keen competition" between com-
panies during this period (Rich and Ball 1930). The
agreement in 1914 to equally divide the catch among the
three companies brought about much more efficient con-
duct of the fishery; however, its intensity was to no ex-
tent reduced in later years (Rich and Ball 1930), e.g., in
1922 more than 75% of the run was harvested (Alaska
Fishery and Fur-Seal Industries 1922).'° While it appears
from Figure 4 that the CPUE may have risen during the
period 1950-65, this may be due to a change in the effi-

'Since beach seines gradually replaced traps over the years (Fig. 3,
Table 2), I chose to convert the effort by gill nets and seines to trap effort
in order to make all the fishing effort data comparable between years. I
calculated relative fishing powers, by gear type, from the percentage of
the catch of each type of gear and the number of units of each type of gear
operating concurrently. I found that on the average, one trap was the
equivalent of 5.9 beach seines or 26.2 gill nets. These figures are to be
used with caution since the selectivity of trap sites and the efficiency of
beach seines used during the period 1940 to 1954 and those used in the
1970's are probably not the same. However, these relative fishing powers
can be used for gross comparisons of fishing effort.

'"The data for 1917 to 1950 were taken from the publication series
Alaska Fishery and Fur-Seal Industries. This series was published an-
nually as appendices to the Report of Commission of Fisheries until 1940.
Beginning in that year, they were published in the U.S. Fish and Wild-
life Service's Statistical Digest Series.

ciency or catchability of the newer gear. With the intro-
duction of powered seine blocks, synthetic fiber nets, and
modem seine boats in recent years, one would expect
greater efficiency per unit of gear.

Fishing regulations. — There was little, if any,
enforcement of fishery regulations in the Chignik fishery
before 1922. There were no statutory regulations prior to
1895, only a weekly closure of 30 h for the period 1895-
1906, and one of 36 h for 1907-40 (Table 2). Cooley (1963)
pointed out that starting in 1892 the U.S. Fish Commis-
sion had funds to support only one inspector and an as-
sistant for the enforcement of fishing regulations in the
entire territory of Alaska. They were forced to depend on
industry transportation to make their rounds during the
3-mo season.

A fish-counting weir was first established in Chignik
River in 1922 by the U.S. Bureau of Fisheries. The weir
has not been installed every year since that time, but a
management agent has been on duty to check the fishing
area during closed periods. However, inspection of Fig-
ure 2 shows that until 1925 there had never been <40
days of fishing during the season. In 1924, with the pas-
sage of the White Act," which required 50% escapement
in streams where counting weirs were maintained, the
fishery was subjected to periodic closures by the manage-
ment agent. In 1925 it was required that the minimum
annual escapement at Chignik be set at 1 million fish
(Rich and Ball 1930). This requirement was met nearly
every year until 1938. Management of the Chignik
fishery was based mainly on the rule of 50% escapement
and 50% catch under the White Act until the time of its
repeal in 1957.' In recent yesu-s target escapements esti-
mated from spawner-retum relationships have been used
as management guidelines to secure adequate spawning
densities (Dahlberg 1973).

Catch trend. — The general trend of catch declining
not long after the inception of the fishery is typical of
many other salmon fisheries in Alaska (Fig. 5). Catches

'Public Law 204, 68th Congress, 1924 (Cooley 1963).
^Public Law 296. 85th Congress. 1957.

1B95 1900 OS 10 IS 20 2S 30 35 1*0 45 50 55 60 65
YEAR

Figure .i. — Commercial catches of sockeye salmon at Chignik, 1895-
1966; unsmoothed curve (broken line) and curve smoothed by a
moving average of 5 (solid line).

gradually increased as the fishery developed, leveled off
until the White Act took effect in 1924 at which time they
decreased, remained at an intermediate level for several
years (1925-48), and then dropped shtirply after 1949 to a
low level. The catch data for the Nushagak district of
Bristol Bay (Mathisen 1971), show a unique similarity in
trend (Fig. 6) except for the timing of the fall from ini-
tial high production. The decline of sockeye salmon pro-
duction in the Nushagak district preceded that at
Chignik by a few years. It is noteworthy that these two
independent sockeye salmon systems exhibit the same
historical development and both show a decline in re-
turn per spawner.

I/I 7.2

Z

SS.6

u. 3-2
O

|l.6
z 0.8

Figure 6.— Commercial catches of sockeye salmon in the Nushagak
district. Bristol Bay, 1893-1966 (after Mathisen 1967); unsmoothed
curve (broken line) and cur^■e smoothed by a moving average of .5
(solid line).

CATCHES AND ESCAPEMENTS OF THE
CHIGNIK SOCKEYE SALMON RUNS,

1888-1966

Catch and escapement, age and size composition, sex
ratio, timing of the run, and distribution of the escape-
ment on the spawning grounds Eire among the important
required statistics for setting management regulations
for the establishment and maintenance of maximum sus-
tained yield.

Catches and Escapements

Elscapement records began accumulating after
erection of a weir in Chignik River in 1922. Catch

statistics have been recorded from the beginning of the
fishery in 1888; more detailed records have been kept
since the Chignik canners joined the Alaska Packers As-
sociation in 1893 (Moser 1899). The long-term changes in
abundance of Chignik sockeye salmon have been about
twofold (Table 3).

Catch records. — Several sources of information were
used to compile a complete record of the annual catches
of Chignik sockeye salmon since 1888 (Moser 1899, 1902;
Rich and Ball 1929, 1930; Alaska Fishery and Fur-Seal
Industries 1917-50; Kasahara 1963; Pacific Fisherman
Yearbook 1915-67; Pacific Salmon Inter-Agency Council
1966; Roos", see footnotes 5, 7; Calkins'''). The two most
valuable sources were 1) annual reports of the Chignik
cannery superintendents, Alaska Packers Association,
over the years 1895-1955; and 2) vfirious reports of the
management agents for the U.S. Bureau of Fisheries
(1922-39), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1940-59),
and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (1960-66)
(microfilms of these documents are on file in the archives
of the FRI). I resolved inconsistencies in the reports com-
piled and issued by veirious agencies and individuals by
cross-checking several sources; in the event of a major
disagreement, 1 accepted the daily catch figures com-
piled by either the management agency or canning in-
dustry. Many arithmetical errors were discovered in the
historical records; in these instances, I used the summa-
tion of the daily catch figures (Dahlberg'^). Catch records
were complete for all the years covered in this study
(1888-1966).

Escapement records. — Daily weir counts were used to
compile annual escapement records for those years in
which a weir was operated in the Chignik River. The
counting weir was not maintained in Chignik River dur-
ing 1938, from 1940 through 1948, and in 1951. More-
over, in some years (1924, 1931, 1933) the weir was

"Rocs, J. F. 1957. Report on Chignik adult red salmon studies,
19.55-1956. Unpubl. manuscr., 58 p. Fish. Res. Inst., Univ. Washing-
ton. Seattle.

"Calkins, T. P. 1958. Report on Chignik adult red salmon studies,
1957. Unpubl. manuscr., 59 p. Fish. Res. Inst., Univ. Washington, Seat-
tle.

'^Dahlberg, M. L. 1967. Chignik catch-escapement analysis. Fish.
Res. Inst., Comput. Program FRD 295, Univ. Washington. Seattle, 4 p.

Table 3. — Long-term changes in abundance of Chignik sockeye salmon (Dahlberg 1968).

Chignik Lake

Black Lake

Total run

Escape- Rate of Escape- Rate of Escape- Rate of

Catch ment Total exploi- Catch ment Total exploi- Catch ment Total exploi-
1.(XX)'3 l.CXM's l.CKXJ's tation' 1,(X)0'9 1,000's 1,000's tation' 1,000's l,(XX)'s l,(XX)'s tation'

Mean

1922-39 504 563

Mean

1949-66 240 326

Percent

change- -52.5 -42.1

1,06'

0.472

290

787 0.368 794 1,060 1,854 0.428

346 0.419 385 527 912 0.422

47.0 -10.4 -49.8 -59.5 -55.9 ■H3.9 -51.5 -50.2 -50.8 -3.8

566 0.423

201

'Rate of exploitation as defined by Ricker (1958:20).
-Expressed as a percentage of the mean for the period 1922-39.

damaged by high water, and the escapement was
inaccurately assessed. Because it was desirable to have a
continuous record of past escapements, estimates were
used for missing data (Table 4). The estimates for 1924,
1931, and 1933 were made by U.S. Bureau of Fisheries
personnel stationed at Chignik in these years; the esti-
mate for 1951 represents the total of weekly estimates of
escapement made by the management agent, U.S. Fish
amd Wildlife Service, at Chignik in that yeeu-.

Table 4. — Estimated escapements of sockeye salmon at Chignik,
Alaska, for those years in which weir counts either were not avail-
able or were unreliable (Dahlberg 1968).

Escapement

Description

Year

estimate

of run'

Time period

Source

1924

115,000

-

4 June - 5 July

U.S. Bur. Fish,
personnel

1931

107,600

—

To 10 July

U.S. Bur. Fish,
personnel

1933

426,000

—

After 25 June

U.S. Bur. Fish,
personnel

1938

482,000

550,000

All year

FRI, Dahlberg

1940

329,000

1,100,000

All year

FRI, Dahlberg

1941

906,000

Very light

All year

Fm, Dahlberg

1942

960,000

Very light

All year

FRI, Dahlberg

1943

1,907,000

Excellent run

All year

FRI, Dahlberg

1944

643,000

Unusually poor

All year

FRI, Dahlberg

1945

369,000

Far below
average

All year

FRI, Dahlberg

1946

1,514,000

Good escapement

All year

FRI, Dahlberg

1947

3,781.000

Best run in many
years

All year

FRI, Dahlberg

1948

698.000

—

All year

FRI, Dahlberg

1951

616.000

All year

U.S. Fish and
Wildlife
Service
personnel

'Source: Alaska Fishery and Fur-Seal Industries (1938, 1940-48).

Providing estimates of the escapement for 1938 and the
period 1940-48 was more complex since daily or weekly
estimates of the escapement were not available. In these
cases, the ratio of escapement to catch was calculated
from data obtained immediately before and after the pe-
riod, and escapement in the period was estimated by tak-
ing the product of the catch and the calculated ratio of
escapement to catch. Rounsefell (1958) used a similar
method for estimating the escapement to Karluk Lake
prior to 1921; however, I attempted to correct for an ap-
parent trend in the ratio (Fig. 7).

The predicted ratios were estimated by linear interpo-
lation:

yo + ^ - V (^ -*o)

where x„ = 1936,

>„ = average ratio of escapement to catch for the

period 1933-37 and 1939,
X, = 1951,
y , = average ratio of escapement to catch for the

period 1949-53,

Figure 7. — Trend in the ratio of escapement to catch for Chignik
sockeye salmon. 1922-66. Ratios read from the straight line were
used where data were missing, 1940-4S.

X = year in which an estimate of escapement to

catch was desired,
y = estimated ratio of escapement to catch.

The predicted ratios were calculated from:

1.03 +

(2.10

1.03)

(1951 - 1936)

(x - 1936).

The estimates were calculated from the ratio and catch
for each of the years and compared with qualitative de-
scriptions of the yearly runs (Alaska Fishery and Fur-
Seal Industries 1938, 1940-48) (Table 4). The estimate for
1938 is in close agreement with the figures shown in
Alaska Fishery and Fur-Seal Industries (1938). The esti-
mate of the escapement for 1940 is far from that shown in
Alaska Fishery and Fur-Seal Industries (1949); however,
since no rationale is given for the published figure, the
one calculated from the ratio of escapement to catch was
used. Although the quantitative estimates and quali-
tative descriptions in Table 4 are not directly compar-
able, they do seem to agree in magnitude.

Catches, Escapements, and
Total Runs by Stock

Estimated migration times and delays between
fishery, lagoon, and weir. — Regulation of the Chignik
fishery requires knowledge of the daily total run, which is
the total of the daily catch and daily escapement.
Escapement was counted at the weir in Chignik River.
The daily catch could not be added to the escapement for
the same day because of the migration time between the
fishing area and weir. In addition, until 1966, Chignik
fish were caught in significant numbers only in one near-
by fishing area that was within the management dis-
trict. Migration times must be considered before catch
and escapement data can be combined.

Travel time between Cape Kumlik and Chignik
Lagoon. — Starting in 1960 some purse seine boats in the
Chignik management area began catching significant
numbers of sockeye salmon in Aniakchak Bay and its
western terminus, Cape Kumlik, which is 72 km (45 mi)
east of Chignik Lagoon. Since that time tagging studies
have shown that almost 95% of the sockeye salmon in
this area are bound for Chignik Lagoon (Lechner"*). In
order to assign these fish to the catch of a given day in
Chignik Lagoon, one must know the migration time from
Cape Kumlik to Chignik Lagoon. Travel time can be
estimated from the interval between the release of fish
tagged at Aniakchak Bay and the recovery of the same
fish in Chignik Lagoon. Fish were tagged in Aniakchak
Bay by Richardson'' on 7 July 1963 during a closed
fishing period. The commercial fishery in the district re-
sumed operations on 8 July at 0600 h and continued oper-
ations from 0600 to 1800 h each day through 12 July. The
recovery of tagged fish in Chignik Lagoon reached a peak
2 days after release (Fig. 8). Hartt (1966) has shown that
tagging delays the migration of mature sockeye salmon
on the high seas about 1 day. It appears from Figure 8
that many sockeye salmon can travel from Cape Kumlik
to Chignik Lagoon in 1 day, allowing 1 day for tagging
delay. This is a rate of travel of about 72 km (45 mi) per
day; Hartt (1966) has shown that the rate of travel for

'^Lechner. J. 1969. Identification of red salmon stocks taken in the
Cape Kumlik - Aniakchak Bay fishery, Chignik area, 1967. Alaska Dep.
Fish Game Inf Lead. 1,33, 32 p.

"Richardson, T. H. 1963. Aniakchak tagging program. Alaska
Dep. Fish Game, -Juneau, 2 p.

20 r

DAYS FROM RELEASE

Figure 8.— Numbers of tagged sockeye salmon re-
covered in Chignik Lagoon from day 1 to 5 after
release of fish lagged at Aniakchak Bay in July 1963
(data from Richardson, see text footnote 17).

returns to Bristol Bay is as much as 56 km (35 mi) per
day, becoming faster as the fish near the coast.

lYavel time between Chignik Lagoon and Chignik
weir. — The commercial catch in Chignik Lagoon on a
given day is not taken from the same group of fish that
are counted through the weir on the same day; the mi-
gration time between the fishing area and the weir must
be considered. Normally, sockeye salmon move up-
stream from the lagoon on each high tide and pass im-
mediately through the weir; few fish loiter in the river
downstream from the weir. In tagging experiments to de-
termine time of entry of the stocks, fish tagged and re-
leased in Chignik Lagoon during closed fishing periods
were later counted as they passed through the weir. In
addition, other fish were tagged and released immedi-
ately downstream from the weir and these tagged fish
also were counted as they passed through the weir. Since
the same sampling gear (seine), type of tags (25 mm
diameter disks), and tagging crew were used in both tag-
ging operations, the difference between migration times
through the weir for the two groups of fish should reflect
the migration time between the lagoon and weir (Figs. 9,
10; Table 5).

Two results are apparent from the tagging data: 1)
Tagging delayed migration approximately 1 day, i.e.,
fish tagged immediately downstream from the weir did
not pass through until about 1 day later as shown from
the mode in Figure 9; and 2) assuming a delay in mi-
gration of 1 day due to tagging, the migration time from
Chignik Lagoon to the weir was about 2 days. Since catch
and escapement are recorded by 1-day intervals, a 2-day
lag between the catch and escapement was used as the

DAYS FROM RELEASE

Figure 9. — Numbers of days between release and passage through
the Chignik River weir for sockeye salmon tagged and released
immediately below the weir, 1962-66 (Uahlbcrg 1968).

17 18 19 20

Figure 10. — Numbers of days between release and passage through
the Chignik River weir for sockeye salmon tagged and released at
Chignik Lagoon, 1962-66 (Dahlbcrg 1968).

Table 5.— Average duration of time from release to passage through
the weir for sockeye salmon tagged in Chignik Lagoon and sockeye
salmon tagged immediately below the Chignik River weir (combined
data from 1949, 1962-66) (Dahlberg 1968).

Tagging
location

Number of tagged
fish counted
through weir

Average time from release to

passage through weir (days)

Mean Median Mode

Lagoon

Weir

Difference

488
306

4.16
1.60
2.56

2.48 2.00
0.73 LOO
1.75 1.00

correction factor for the migration time between the
lagoon and weir.

Separation of stocks by time of entry. — For manage-
ment purposes, the sockeye salmon runs to the Chignik
watershed are considered to be comf)osed of two stocks:
Chignik Lake stock and Black Lake stock (Dahlberg and
Phinney'*). Counting the catch and escapement of the
two stocks is complicated. The two stocks travel through
the same fishing area and trunk stream on their spawn-
ing migration, and their times of entry overlap. They do
segregate on the spawning grounds, and their peak
spawning activity generally occurs at different times.

Results of preliminary tagging studies in 1952, 1959,
1960, and 1961 indicated 1) that most of the fish entering
Chignik Lagoon in early June were bound for the spawn-
ing areas of Black Lake and Black River tributaries, and
2) that fish entering in late July were bound for the
spawning areas of Chignik Lake and certain Black River
tributaries (Narver and Dahlberg 1964; Roos, see foot-
note 6).

The FRI conducted more intensive tagging studies
from 1962 to 1966 to determine the consistency of timing
of the runs and to measure overlap in entry time be-
tween the two stocks. Colored, 25 mm diameter disk tags
were used in all the experiments; a different color com-
bination was used during each tagging session. Recovery
was by foot survey of each major spawning area at the
peak of spawning (Table 6).

"Dahlberg, M. L., and D. E. Phinney. 1967. Studies of mature
sockeye salmon at Chignik, 1966. Univ. Washington, Fish. Res. Inst.
Circ. 67-7, 41 p.

Table 6.— Summary of tagging experiments to determine
time of entry of the sockeye salmon stocks of Chignik, Alaska,
l%2-66 (Dahlberg 1968).

Total Total

flsh fish Percentage Tagging

Year tagged recovered recovered location

1962

966

120

1963

1,411

165

1964

1,658

175

1965

1,448

150

1966

1,816

160

Total

7,299

770

12

Lagoon and weir
Weir

Lagoon and weir
Lagoon and weir
Lagoon and weir

I classified the tagged fish into early-season and late-
season spawners and calculated their relative percent-
ages for each tagging date (early spawning peaked in the
first week of August, and late spawning peaked in the
last week of August and early September). Because tag-
ging sites varied between the lagoon and weir, all tagging
dates were standardized to correspond with releases at
the weir. Dates of tagging at the lagoon were adjusted to
compensate for the 2-day migration between the lagoon
and weir.

To obtain a quantitative estimate of the proportion of
each stock present in the catch and escapement on a
given day, I sought a suitable mathematical model. One
approach was to consider the proportion of a stock pres-
ent on a given day as a quantal response to the inde-
pendent variable (time) and proceed with probit analysis
(Finney 1952). However, another approach to analysis of
data of this nature was proposed by Moore and Zeigler
(1967), namely:

P =

1

1 + e-

where P = proportionof early spawners,
\-P = proportion of late spawners,
e = base of Napierian system of logarithms,
t = coded time in days measured from 15
June (day 1),
a, 6 = parameters estimated from tagging
studies,
i = error term, assumed random.

A method of nonlinear least squares which utilized the
techniques of steepest descent and linearization (Gales
1964) was used to fit curves to data collected in each year
and to all tagging data combined (Fig. 11, Table 7).

The entry pattern was nearly the same from year to
year, but the time of entry changed slightly (the data for
1962 all fall to the left, or earlier entry; whereas, the data
for 1965 and 1966 are to the right, or later entry). Time of
entry might be expected to vary with annual fluctu-
ations in environmental conditions, such as, weather and
water temperatures; nonetheless, the curves can be used
to separate approximately the early and late spawners by
entry time and to indicate the daily proportion of each
stock in the fishery and escapement.

10

. D •
O '

• <

7

D

.^•&-o

:'-

~ /

il/':

-

-

■

in

-

-

va^

-

Table 8. — Proportions of Black River spawners in the early sockeye
salmon escapements. 1960-66 (Dahlberg 1968).

ADJUSTED DATE OF TACCINC

Figure 11.— Patterns of time of entry for tagged Black Lake and
Chignik Lake sockeye salmon, 1962-66 (Dahlberg 1968).

Table 7. — Estimates of d, 6. and spji for tagging
studies of time of entry of Chignik sockeye salmon.
1962-66. after the formula of Moore and Zeigler
(1967). see text.

Number of

Year

a

b

ipH

observations

1962

-4.562

0.254

0.010

5

1963

-5.252

0.228

0.058

6

1964

-9.040

0.422

0.013

6

1965

-6.084

0.250

0.007

6

1966

-7.741

0.295

0.031

7

Combined

-5.451

0.239

0.090

30

To precisely regulate the escapement to the Chignik
system, it is imperative to know where the progeny of the
various spawning groups are reared, because manage-
ment is based on the nursery area carrying capacity of
each lake. A knowledge of the time of entry of early- and
late-season spawners is not adequate in itself, because all
the progeny of the Black River tributary spawners (early
season and late season) are reared in Chignik Lake
(Narver 1966). About 13' r of the early spawners use the
river (Table 8).'^ The progeny of the remainder of the
early spawners (which utilize the Black Lake tributar-
ies) are reared in Black Lake; whereas, all the progeny of

'^he percentage of early spawners in the Black Lake tributaries is
determined from aerial surveys of the spawning grounds in each year. The
total number of spawners in Black River tributaries divided by the total
number of spawners counted on all early spawning areas is the propor-
tion u.sed. For the years before 1960 the geometric mean ratio for the years
1960-66 was used. The proportion of Black River spawners observed each
year from 1960 to 1966 is shown in Table 8. .\ test of the consistency of us-
ing aerial survey data to calculate the Black River proportions of the early
escapement was conducted in 1965. .-Xn Alaska Department of Fish and
Game management biologist aerially surveyed the early spawning
grounds and from his counts determined a proportion of 0.0308 Black
River spawners; he accounted for 76' r of the early escapement. On the
same day. I made the same survey using the same airplane with the same
pilot. 1 calculated a proportion of 0.0312 Black River spawners and ac-
counted for 53' r of the early escapement. Thus, although the total counts
were quite different, both observed the same relative proportion of
spawners in Black River tributaries.

Proportion of Black River spawners

Geometric

1960

1961 1962 1963 1964 1965

1966

mean

0.264

0.279 0.279 0.060 0.079 0.031

0.158

0.125

the late spawners are reared in Chignik Lake. On the
average, the portion of the escapement for a given date
whose progeny will be reared in Black Lake is the value
read from the entry curve for the year in question (Fig.
11) minus 13'; , the part of the escapement whose pro-
geny is reared in Chignik Lake. This relationship implies
that all Black Lake fry remain in Black Lake; this condi-
tion may not hold true in every year.

Calculation of catches and escapements by stock. —

The information on catches and escapements was pro-
cessed by computer program after the records had been
compiled and estimated portions collated with the
observed data (Dahlberg see footnote 15). The daily
catches and escapements were divided into Chignik Lake
and Black Lake stocks on the basis of the time of entry
relationship. Time of entry was determined from tagging
studies and the distribution of spawners on the spawning
grounds. For years in which these data were not avail-
able, the average relationship was used. Catches were ad-
justed to allow for migration time from Cape Kumlik to
Chignik Lagoon and the migration time between the
lagoon and counting weir. Escapements of the two stocks
were corrected for weir leakage (Lechner"") and the pro-
portion of Black River spawners in the early escape-
ments.

Estimates of the total catches by stock for the years
1888-1921 were produced from the computer program
(Table 9). Table 10 presents the catches, escapements,"'
and runs by stock for the years 1922-66. Table 11 pre-
sents ratios of escapement to catch, rates of exploita-
tion, and percentages of escapement for each stock. Fig-
ures 12 through 15 show the data in graphical form.

Beginning in 1967, summaries of the annual catch and
escapement of the runs of sockeye salmon to Chignik
have been reported by either FRI (Dahlberg and Phin-
ney see footnote 18; Parr and Pedersen;'" Wells and
Parr") or the Alaska Department of Fish and Game
(Phinney and Lechner;-^ Pedersen and Seibel;^'

-".Jack Lechner. Area .Management Biologist, Alaska Department of
Fish and Game, pers. commun., .August 1965.

■'Includes estimates of missing data for certain years as described pre-
viously. See also Table 6.

•Parr. \V. H.. .Jr.. and P. C. Pedersen. 1969. Studies of adult sock-
eye salmon at Chignik in 1968. Univ. Washington, Fish. Res. Inst. Circ.
69-16. 40 p.

-'Wells, J. W.. and W H. Parr. 1971. Studies of adult sockeye
salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) at Chignik, Alaska, in 1969 and
1970. Univ. Washington. Fish. Res. Inst. Circ. 71-7. 61 p.

-'Phinney, D. E.. and .J. Lechner. 1969. Studies of adult Chignik
sockeye salmon in 1967. Alaska Dep. Fish Game Inf. Leafl. 130, 43 p.

■'Pedersen. P. C, and M. C. Seibel. 1970. Forecast of the 1970
Chignik system red salmon run. Alaska Dep. Fish Game Inf. Leafl. 144,
24 p.

11

Table 9.— Summar>' of estimated catches by the fish-
ery of Chignik sockeye salmon by stock, 1888-1921
(Dahlberg 1968).

Year

Chignik Lake

Black Uke

Total

1888

Na'

Na

13,000

1889

Na

Na

560,000

1890

Na

Na

453,000

1891

Na

Na

775,000

1892

Na

Na

522,000

1893

Na

Na

600,000

1894

Na

Na

600.000

1895

377,820

305,499

683,319

1896

615,671

234,329

850,000

1897

424,084

340,916

765,000

1898

797,466

367,953

1,165,419

1899

382,164

521,585

903.749

1900

588.532

458,839

1.047.371

1901

730,901

176,449

907,350

1902

895,888

886,127

1.782,015

1903

899.462

2.50,528

1.149.990

1904

1,409.452

280,190

1.689.642

1905

981,906

315,209

1.297.115

1906

1,112,235

211,349

1.323.584

1907

1,284,349

338,6.38

1.622,987

1908

1,208.984

421,693

1,630,677

1909

1.427,100

303,704

1,730,804

1910

978.174

336,498

1.314,672

1911

956,734

120,861

1,077.595

1912

949,857

380,975

1,330,832

1913

616,174

217,046

833,220

1914

795,200

261,429

1,056,629

1915

828,295

501,736

1.330,031

1916

710,934

291,977

1.002,911

1917

1,227,044

229,422

1,456,466

1918

1,429,709

112,998

1,542,707

1919

774,379

110,559

884,938

1920

1,407,882

364,828

1,772,710

1921

1,497,970

330,887

1,828,857

'Na =

= Not available.

Pedersen and Petersen^^). Annual reports for the Chignik
Management District are compiled each year by the area
management biologist, Alaska Department of Fish and
Game, and filed with the regional office in Kodiak,
Alaska. Detailed records of the runs by stock, age group,
and sex for the period 1922-66 can be found in Dahlberg
(1968).

I used the information on age composition, catch, and
escapement to estimate spawner-return relationships for
the two stocks of sockeye salmon in the Chignik River
system (Dahlberg 1973). Subsequent estimates of target
escapements from these spawner-return functions have
been considered by the management agency in control-
ling the annual catch.

SUMMARY

I. The abundance of stocks of sockeye salmon at
Chignik, Alaska, decreased from an average of 1.9 mil-
lion during the period 1922-39 to an average of 0.9 mil-
lion during the period 1949-66. The average rate of

'fPedersen, P. C, and D. Petersen. 1971. Forecast of the 1971
Chignik system red salmon run. Alaska Dep. Fish Game Inf. Leafl. 151,
13 p.

exploitation during the two periods was nearly the
same — 0.428 in the early period and 0.422 in the re-
cent period.

2. The high-seas and coastal distributions of Chignik
sockeye salmon were investigated to determine
whether or not Chignik sockeye salmon were inter-
cepted by fisheries along the coast of the Alaska Pe-
ninsula. The Cape Kumlik fishery and, later, the Cape
Igvak fishery harvest an important portion of the
sockeye salmon bound for Chignik. This catch should
be counted as part of the annual Chignik run.

3. Chignik sockeye salmon have been exploited since
1888; several companies operated canneries in the ear-
ly phase of the fishery. The salmon canning industry
coordinated their operations in the 1930's. From 1953
through 1966, two companies operated in the area,
Chignik Fisheries Company and the Alaska Packers
Association.

4. Enforced regulation of the fishery did not exist before
1922; after that year, management agents were sta-
tioned at Chignik each year to inspect the fishing gear
during periodic closures. The White Act required an
escapement equal to 50*^0 of the yearly run; this re-
quirement was met in most years.

5. Catch records and weir counts were used as a basis for
studying the productivity of the system during the
last 40 yr. Since there were no escapement records
from 1940 through 1948, a ratio of escapement to catch
was used to estimate the missing data.

6. Separation of the catch and escapement records for
the two stocks was facilitated by time-of-entry re-
lationship. Results from tagging studies of 1962-66
were used to estimate the relationship; an average
time of entry curve was used to analyze the records
before 1962.

7. Estimated annual catches and escapements for each
of the two stocks were compiled for the period 1922-66,
based upon the methods summarized above.

LITERATURE CITED

ALASKA FISHERY and FUR-SEAL INDUSTRIES.

1917-50. In U.S. Bur. Fish., Appendices to Rep. U.S. Comm. Fish.
1918-1941 and U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Stat. Dig. 1942-1953.
.ATWOOD. W, W.

191 1. Geology and mineral resources of parts of the Alaska Pe-
ninsula. U.S. Geol. Serv. Bull. 467, 137 p.
BURGNER, R. L.. C. J. DiCOSTANZO. R. J. ELLIS. G. Y. HARRY.
,IR.. W. L. HARTMAN, O. E. KERNS, .JR.. 0. A. MA THISEN. and
W. F. ROYCE.
1969. Biological studies and estimates of optimum escapement* of
sockeye salmon in the major river systems in southwestern
Alaska. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv.. Fish. Bull. 67:405-459.
COBB. .J. N.

1930. Pacific salmon fisheries. U.S. Bur. Fish., Rep. U.S. Comm.
Fish., 1930, append. 13:409-704.
COOLEY. R. A.

1963. Politics and conservation. Harper and Row. N.Y,, 230 p.
DAHLBERG, M. L.

1968. Analysis of the dynamics of sockeye salmon returns to the
Chignik lakes, Alaska. Ph.D. Thesis, Ui.iv. Washington, Seattle,
.337 p.

12

Table 10.— Summary of estimated catches and escapements of Chignik sockeye salmon by stock, 1922-66 (Dahlberg 1968).

Catch

Escapement

Total run

Chignik

Black

Chignik

Black

Chignik

Black

Year

Lake

Lake

Total

Lake

Lake

Total

Lake

Lake

Total

1922

900,823

346,011

1,246,834

352,807

86,421

439,228

1,253,630

432,432

1,686,062

1923

562,316

80,556

642,872

213,781

4,642

218,423

776,097

85,198

861,295

1924

767,424

110,937

878,361

910,521

121,983

1,032,504

1,677,945

232,920

1,910,865

1925

436,985

260,999

697,984

677,566

386,364

1,063,930

1,114,551

647,363

1,761,914

1926

173,161

242,054

415,215

695,314

289,009

984,323

868,475

531,063

1,399,538

1927

303,401

137,566

440,967

429,525

857,881

1,287,406

732,926

995,447

1,728,373

1928

774,667

8,595

783,262

1,020,520

507,353

1,527,873

1,795,187

515,948

2,311,135

1929

689,123

359,861

1,048,984

914.307

995,832

1,910,139

1,603,430

1,355,693

2,959,123

1930

27,306

888

28,194

359,405

92,955

452,360

386,711

93,843

480,554

1931

503,584

206,256

709,840

631,986

96,201

728.187

1,135,570

302,457

1,438,027

1932

871,112

704,130

1,575,242

1,113,859

2,151,734

3,265,593

1,984,971

2,855,864

4,840,835

1933

345,469

249,452

594,921

310,088

223,913

534,001

655,557

473,365

1,128,922

1934

525,294

583,048

1,108,342

447,642

866,890

1,314,532

972,936

1,449,938

2,422,874

1935

409,893

209,449

619,342

462,469

194,636

657,105

872,362

404,085

1,276,447

1936

453,914

526,811

980,725

376,838

548,039

924,877

830,752

1,074,850

1,905,602

1937

422,254

207,064

629,318

406,618

205,613

612,231

828,872

412,677

1,241,549

1938

260,879

150,111

410,990

305,827

175,972

481,799

566,706

326,083

892,789

1939

652,780

827,580

1,480,360

512,754

1,142,852

1,655,606

1,165,534

1,970,432

3,135,966

1940

116,336

134,098

250,434

152,957

176,307

329,264

269,293

310,405

579,698

1941

383,764

270,145

653,909

531,904

374,420

906,324

915,668

644,565

1,560,233

1942

354,518

303,987

658,505

516,621

442,981

959,602

871,139

746,968

1,618,107

1943

788,636

459,182

1,247,818

1,205,418

701,859

1,907,277

1,994,054

1.161,041

3,155,095

1944

219,545

182,431

401,976

351,212

291,844

643,056

570,757

474,275

1,045,032

1945

90,563

130,390

220,953

151,326

217,882

369,208

241,889

348,272

590,161

1946

424,682

444,337

869,019

739,884

774,130

1,514,014

1,164,566

1,218,467

2,383,033

1947

768.694

1,316,128

2,084,822

1,393,990

2,386,733

3,780,723

2,162,684

3,702,861

5,865,545

1948

166,244

204,085

370,329

313,319

384,637

697,956

479,563

588,722

1,068,285

1949

418,156

124,390

542,546

574,715

213,269

787,984

992,871

337,659

1,330,530

1950

318,450

34,742

353,192

861,070

206,270

1,067,340

1.179,520

241,012

1,420,532

1951

143,521

115,494

259,015

490,899

125,126

616,025

634,420

240,620

875,040

1952

20,393

106,675

127,068

260,540

34,155

294,695

280,933

140,830

421,763

1953

109,450

185,738

295,188

221,408

168,375

389,783

330,858

354,113

684,971

1954

19,232

72,334

91,566

277,912

184,963

462,865

297,144

257,287

554,431

1955

168,987

179,539

348,526

201,409

256,757

458,166

370,396

436,296

806,692

1956

421,251

246,442

667,693

483,024

289,096

772,120

904,275

535,538

1,439,813

1957

224,757

77,423

302,180

328,779

192,479

521,258

553,536

269,902

823,438

1958

179,949

141,180

321,129

212,594

120,862

333,456

392,543

262,042

654,585

1959

251,547

165,000

416,547

308,645

112,226

420,871

560,192

277,226

837,418

1960

418,356

274,048

692,404

357,230

251,567

608,797

775,586

525,615

1,301,201

1961

278,609

53,852

332,461

254,970

140,714

395,684

533,579

194,566

728,145

1962

292,528

71,562

364,090

324,860

167,602

492,462

617,388

239,164

856,552

1963

323,080

80.258

403,338

200,314

332,536

532,850

523,394

412,794

936,188

1964

427,940

128,950

556,890

166,625

137,073

303,698

594,565

266,023

860,588

1965

152,521

477,032

629,553

163,151

307,192

470,343

315,672

784,224

1,099,896

1966

143,098

79,696

222,794

183,525

383,545

567,070

326,623

463,241

789,864

1973. Stock and recruitment relationships and optimum escape-
ments of sockeye salmon stocks of the Chignik lakes.
Alaska. Plapp. P.-V. Reun. Cons. Int. Explor. Mer 164:98-105.
FINNEY. D. J.

1952. Probit analysis. 2d ed. Cambridge Univ. Press. Cambr..
318 p.
GALES, L. E.

1964. Non-linear least squares parameter estimation. M.S.
Thesis. Univ. Washington, Seattle, 108 p.
GILBERT. C. H.

1929. Quotation in E. Higgins, Progress in biological inquiries,
1927, p. 214. U.S. Bur. Fish.. Rep. U.S. Comm. Fish.. 1928. ap-
pend. 6.
GILBERT. C. H., and H. OMALLEY.

1921. Special investigation of salmon fishery in central and western
Alaska. U.S. Bur. Fish., Rep. U.S. Comm. Fish., 1919, append.
9:143-160.
HARTT. A. C.

1966. Migrations of salmon in the North Pacific Ocean and Bering
Sea as determined by seining and tagging. 1959-1960. Int. North
Pac. Fish. Comm. Bull. 19, 141 p.

HIGGINS. E.

1930. Progress in biological inquiries, 1928. U.S. Bur. Fish.. Rep.

U.S. Comm. Fish., 1929, append. 10:627-680.
1936. Progress in biological inquiries, 1934. U.S. Bur. Fish.. Rep.
U.S. Comm. Fish.. 1935. append. 3:331-399.
HOLMES, H. B.

1934. Natural propagation of salmon in Alaska. Proc. Fifth Pac.
Sci. Congr. 5:3585-3597.

KASAHARA, H.

1963. Catch statistics for North Pacific salmon. Int. North Pac.
Fish. Comm. Bull. 12. 82 p.
KNAPPEN, R. S.

1929. Geology and mineral resources of the Aniakchak
District. U.S. Geol. Surv. Bull. 797:161-223.
MATHEWS, S. B.

1966. The ecortomic consequences of forecasting sockeye salmon
(Oncorhynchus nerka. Walbaum) runs to Bristol Bay, Alaska: a
computer simulation study of the potential benefits to a salmon
canning industry from accurate forecasts of the runs. Ph.D.
Thesis, Univ. Washington. Seattle, 238 p.

13

Table 11.— Selected ratios of catch and escapement statistics for Chignik Lake, Black Lake, and total runs, 1922-6S.

Chignik Lake

Black Lake

Total r

Catch/ Escape- Rate of Escape- Catch/ Escape- Rate of Escape- Catch/ Escape- Rate of Escape-
escape- ment/ exploi- ment escape- ment/ exploi- ment escape- ment/ exploi- ment
ment catch tation (prop) ment catch tation (prop) ment catch tation (prop)

1922

2.553

0.391

0.718

0.281

4.003

0.249

0.800

0.199

2.838

0.352

0.739

0.260

1923

2.630

0.380

0.724

0.275

17.353

0.057

0.945

0.054

2.943

0.339

0.746

0.253

1924

0.842

1.186

0.457

0.542

0.909

1.099

0.476

0.523

0.850

1.175

0.459

0.540

1925

0.644

1.550

0.392

0.607

0.675

1.480

0.403

0.596

0.656

1.524

0.396

0.603

1926

0.249

4.015

0.199

0.800

0.837

1.193

0.455

0.544

0.421

2.370

0.296

0.703

1927

0.706

1.415

0.413

0.586

0.160

6.236

0.138

0.861

0.342

2.919

0.255

0.744

1928

0.759

1.317

0.431

0.568

0.016

59.028

0.016

0.983

0.512

1.950

0.338

0.661

1929

0.753

1.326

0.429

0.570

0.361

2.767

0.265

0.734

0.549

1.820

0.354

0.645

1930

0.075

13.162

0.070

0.929

0.009

104.679

0.009

0.990

0.062

16.044

0.058

0.941

1931

0.796

1.254

0.443

0.556

2.144

0.466

0.681

0.318

0.974

1.025

0.493

0.506

1932

0.782

1.278

0.438

0.561

0.327

3.055

0.246

0.753

0.482

2.073

0.325

0.674

1933

1.114

0.897

0.526

0.473

1.114

0.897

0.526

0.473

1.114

0.897

0.526

0.473

1934

1.173

0.852

0.539

0.460

0.672

1.486

0.402

0.597

0.843

1.186

0.457

0.542

1935

0.886

1.128

0.469

0.530

1.076

0.929

0.518

0.481

0.942

1.060

0.485

0.514

1936

1.204

0.830

0.546

0.453

0.961

1.040

0.490

0.509

1.060

0.943

0.514

0.485

1937

1.038

0.962

0.509

0.490

1.007

0.992

0.501

0.498

1.027

0.972

0.506

0.493

1938

0.853

1.172

0.460

0.539

0.853

1.172

0.460

0.539

0.853

1.172

0.460

0.539

1939

1.273

0.785

0.560

0.439

0.724

1.380

0.420

0.580

0.894

1.118

0.472

0.527

1940

0.760

1.314

0.432

0.567

0.760

1.314

0.432

0.567

0.760

1.314

0.432

0.567

1941

0.721

1.386

0.419

0.580

0.721

1.386

0.419

0.580

0.721

1.386

0.419

0.580

1942

0.686

1.457

0.406

0.593

0.686

1.457

0.406

0.593

0.686

1.457

0.406

0.593

1943

0.654

1.528

0.395

0.604

0.654

1.528

0.395

0.604

0.654

1.528

0.395

0.604

1944

0.625

1.599

0.384

0.615

0.625

1.599

0.384

0.615

0.625

1.599

0.384

0.615

1945

0.598

1.670

0.374

0.625

0.598

1.671

0.374

0.625

0.598

1.670

0.374

0.625

1946

0.573

1.742

0.364

0.635

0.573

1.742

0.364

0.635

0.573

1.742

0.364

0.635

1947

0.551

1.813

0.355

0.644

0.551

1.813

0.355

0.644

0.551

1.813

0.355

0.644

1948

0.530

1.884

0.346

0.653

0.530

1.884

0.346

0.653

0.530

1.884

0.346

0.653

1949

0.727

1.374

0.421

0.578

0.583

1.714

0.368

0.631

0.688

1.452

0.407

0.592

1950

0.369

2.703

0.269

0.730

0.168

5.937

0.144

0.855

0.330

3.021

0.248

0.751

1951

0.292

3.420

0.226

0.773

0.923

1.083

0.479

0.520

0.420

2.378

0.296

0.704

1952

0.078

12.775

0.072

0.927

3.123

0.320

0.757

0.242

0.431

2.319

0.301

0.698

1953

0.494

2.022

0.330

0.669

1.103

0.906

0.524

0.475

0.757

1.320

0.430

0.569

1954

0.069

14.450

0.064

0.935

0.391

2.556

0.281

0.718

0.197

5.054

0.165

0.834

1955

0.839

1.191

0.456

0.543

0.699

1.430

0.411

0.588

0.760

1.314

0.432

0.567

1956

0.872

1.146

0.465

0.534

0.852

1.173

0.460

0.539

0.864

1.156

0.463

0.536

1957

0.683

1.462

0.406

0.593

0.402

2.486

0.286

0.713

0.579

1.724

0.366

0.633

1958

0.846

1.181

0.458

0.541

1.168

0.856

0.538

0.461

0.963

1.038

0.490

0.509

1959

0.815

1.226

0.449

0.550

1.470

0.680

0.595

0.404

0.989

1.010

0.497

0.502

1960

1.171

0.853

0.539

0.460

1.089

0.917

0.521

0.478

1.137

0.879

0.532

0.467

1%1

1.092

0.915

0.522

0.477

0.382

2.612

0.276

0.723

0.840

1.190

0.456

0.543

1962

0.900

1.110

0.473

0.526

0.426

2.342

0.299

0.700

0.739

1.352

0.425

0.574

1963

1.612

0.620

0.617

0.382

0.241

4.143

0.194

0.805

0.756

1.321

0.430

0.569

1964

2.568

0.389

0.719

0.280

0.940

1.062

0.484

0.515

1.833

0.545

0.647

0.352

1965

0.934

1.069

0.483

0.516

1.552

0.643

0.608

0.391

1.338

0.747

0.572

0.427

1966

0.779

1.282

0.438

0.561

0.207

4.812

0.172

0.827

0.392

2.545

0.282

0.717

1922-1939:

Mean

1.018

1.883

0.463

0.537

1.844

10.456

0.431

0.569

0.965

2.163

0.438

0.561

95"^ confidence limits

Upper

1.340

3.334

0.538

0.613

3.822

23.966

0.551

0.689

1.340

3.918

0.518

0.641

Lower

0.696

0.432

0.387

0.461

-0.132

-3.053

0.311

0.448

0.589

0.409

0.358

0.481

1949-1966:

Mean

0.841

2.733

0.411

0.588

0.873

1.982

0.411

0.588

0.779

1.687

0.413

0.586

95% confidence limits

Upper

1.127

4.738

0.495

0.671

1.223

2.763

0.495

0.672

0.974

2.220

0.473

0.646

Lower

0.555

0.727

0.328

0.504

0.523

1.201

0.327

0.504

0.583

1.153

0.353

0..526

Combined:

Mean

0.930

2.308

0.437

0.562

1.359

6.219

0.421

0.578

0.872

1.925

0.426

0.574

95% confidence limits

Upper

1.136

3.492

0.491

0.616

2.326

12.802

0.490

0.648

1.075

2.799

0.473

0.621

Lower

0.723

1.125

0.383

0.508

0.391

-0.364

0.351

0.509

0.668

1.051

0.378

0.526

14

Figure 12.— Calculated catches of Chignik Lake (solid line) and
Black Lake (dotted line) sockeye salmon, 1895-1966, based on time of
entry of the stocks in recent years (Dahlberg 1968).

Figure 1.1.— Catch trends for Chignik Lake (dotted line) and Black
Lake (solid line), 189.')-I966, smoothed by a moving average of .'>
(Dahlberg 1968).

,1.58

1 .'W,,!

57

i.a

■

1 1

in}. 2

z
o

^1.0

-

'-'

1

1;, :

z

HO. 8

-;

;

S

/ A

'-

^0.6
U

r\

Ia y

1 '\ .-'--\

0.14

i- ESTIMATED— 1

1 '

0.2

o1

-J

1 1 1 1

..1,11,1

..1 , . 1

1 , . 1 1 1 . , , 1 1 , 1 1 1

Figure 14. — Escapement trends for Chignik Lake
(dotted line). Black Lake (solid line), and combined
stocks (broken line), 1922-66, smoothed by a moving
average of 5 (Dahlberg 1968).

Figure 15. — Trends in total run for Chignik Lake
(dotted line). Black Lake (solid line), and combined
stocks (broken line), 1922-66, smoothed by a moving
average of 5 (Dahlberg 1968).

-|

25

|20

-'' ;'

i \ ' ',

zi

\ _ / \ ^' 1

? '5

--■■

■»•' \, .' ""' \

z>

:

A r^ '

-I 10

<

1-
o
>-

5

^ 1 , , , ,

1 ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 , , , , , , , . 1 1 , . . 1 . . .. .

15

MATHISEN, 0. A.

1971. Escapement levels and productivity of the Nushagak sock-
eye salmon run from 1908 to 1966. Fish. Bull., U.S. 69:747-763.
MOORE, R. H., and R. K. ZEIGLER.

1967. The use of non-linear regression methods for analyzing sensi-
tivity and quantal response data. Biometrics 23:563-566.
MOSER, J. F.

1899. The salmon and salmon fisheries of Alaska. Eieport of the
operations of the United States Fish Commission steamer
Albatross for the year ending June 30, 1898. U.S. Fish Comm.
Bull. 18:1-178.
1902. Salmon investigations of the steamer Albatross in the sum-
mer of 1900. U.S. Fish Comm. Bull. 21:175-348.
MURIE, O. J.

1959. Fauna of the Aleutian Islands and Alaska Peninsula. U.S.
Fish Wildl. Serv.. North Am. Fauna 61, 406 p.
NARVER, D. W.

1966. Pelagial ecology and carrying capacity of sockeye salmon in
the Chignik lakes, Alaska. Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. Washington.
Seattle, 348 p.
NARVER, D. W., and M. L. DAHLBERG.

1964. Chignik sockeye salmon studies. In T. S. Y. Koo (editor).
Research in fisheries . . . 1963, p. 18-21. Univ. Wash. Coll. Fish.
Contrib. 166.

1965. Estuarine food of Dolly Varden at Chignik, Alaska. Trans.
Am. Fish. Soc. 94:405-408.

NATIONAL FISHERMAN YEARBOOK.

1968, 1969.
PACIFIC FISHERMAN YEARBOOK.

1915-67.
PACIFIC PACKERS REPORT.

1970-76.
PACIFIC SALMON INTER-AGENCY COUNCIL.

1966. Tech. Rep. No. 4:120-122.
PARR, W. H., JR.

1972. Interaction between sockeye salmon and lake resident fish in

the Chignik lakes, Alaska. M.S. Thesis, Univ. Washington, Seat-
tle. 103 p.

PHINNEY, D. E.

1968. Distribution, abundance, and growth of postsmolt sockeye
salmon in Chignik Lagoon, Alaska. M.S. Thesis, Univ. Wash-
ington, Seattle, 159 p.
1970. Spawning ground catalog of the Chignik River system,
Alaska. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Data Rep. 41, 174 p. (micro-
fiche).

RICH, W. H., and E. M. BALL.

1929. Statistical review of the Alaska salmon fisheries. Pt. I: Bristol
Bay and the Alaska Peninsula. Bull. U.S. Bur. Fish. 44:41-95.

1930. Statistical review of the Alaska salmon fisheries. Pt. II:
Chignik to Resurrection Bay. Bull. U.S. Bur. Fish. 46:643-712.

RICKER, W. E.

1958. Handbook of computations for biological statistics of fish
populations. Fish. Res. Board Can., Bull. 119, 300 p.

1966. Sockeye salmon in British Columbia. Int. North Pac. Fish.
Comm. Bull. 18:59-70.
ROOS, J. F.

1959. Feeding habits of the Dolly Varden, Salvelinus malma
(Walbaum), at Chignik, Alaska. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 88:253-
260.

1960. Predation of young coho salmon on sockeye salmon fry at
Chignik, Alaska. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 89:377-379.

ROUNSEFELL, G. A.

1958. Factors causing decline in sockeye salmon of Karluk River,
Alaska. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Fish. Bull. 58:83-169.
ROYCE. W. F.

1960. Fishery regulation in Alaska salmon management. Univ.

Wash., Fish. Res. Inst., Circ. 123, 8 p.
1964. Prospects for Alaska salmon. Pac. Fisherman 62(10):21-24.
SCUDDER, H. C.

1970, The Alaska salmon trap: Its evolution, conflicts, and conse-
Alaska State Lib. Hist. Monogr. 1, 25 p.

MBL WHOI Libr?

illlllilalll9li:ill|!lllllMllllliilllllLllllilll|||

5 WHSE 04518

ft U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OP=FICE: 1979-699-139 /I96 REGION 10

16

NOAA TECHNICAL REPORTS
NMFS CIRCULAR AND SPECIAL SCIENTIFIC REPORT-
GUIDELINES FOR CONTRIBUTORS

FISHERIES

CONTENTS OF MANUSCRIPT

First page. Give the title (as concise as possible) of the paper
and the author's name, and l'(X)tnote the author's affiliation,
mailing address, and ZIP code.

Contents. Contains the text headings and abbreviated figure
legends and table headings. Dots should follow each entry and
page numbers should be omitted.

Abstract. Not to exceed one double-spaced page. Footnotes
and literature citations do not belong in the abstract.

Text. .See also Form of the Manuscript below. Follow the U.S.
Government I'rinting Office Style Manual, 1973 edition. Fish
names, follow the American Fisheries Society Special Publica-
tion No. 6, i4 List of Common and Scientific Names of Fishes
from the United States and Canada, third edition, 1970. Use
short, brief, informative headings in place of "Materials and
Methods. "

Text footnotes. Type on a separate sheet from the text. For
unpublished or some processed material, give author, year, title
of manuscript, number of pages, and where it is filed — agency
and its location.

Personal communications. Cite name in text and footnote.
Cite in footnote: John J. .Jones, Fishery Biologist, Seripps Insti-
tution of Oceanography, La .Jolla, CA 92037, pers. comraun., 21
May 1977.

Figures. Should be self-explanatory, not requiring reference
to the text. All figures should be cited consecutively in the text
and their placement indicated in the left-hand margin of the
manuscript. Photographs and line drawings should be of
"professional" quality — clear and balanced, and can be re-
duced to 6'/; inches (40 picas) for page widthor to3'/s inches (19
picas) for single-column width, but no more than 9 inches (54
picas) high. Photos should be printed on glossy paper — sharply
focussed, good contrast. Label each figure. List, and typed dou-
ble spaced, each figure legend. DO NOT SEND original figures
to the Scientific Editor; NMFS Scientific Publications Office
will request these if they are needed.

Tables. Each table should start on a separate page and should
be self-explanatory, not requiring reference to the text.
Headings should be short but amply descriptive. Use only
horizontal rules. Number table footnotes consecutively across
the page from left to right in Arabic numerals; and to avoid con-
tusion with powers, place them to the left of the numerals. If the
original tables are typed in our format and are clean and leg-
ible, these tables will be reproduced as they are. In the text all
tables should be cited consecutively and their placement indi-
cated in the left-hand margin of the manuscript.

\cknowlcdgments. Place at the end of text. Give credit only
■ those who gave exceptional contributions and not to those
.■.hose contributions are part of their normal duties.

Literature cited. In text as: Smith and Jones (1977) or (Smith
and Jones 1977); if more than one author, list according to years
(e.g.. Smith 1936; Jones et al. 1975; Doe 1977). All papers re-
ferred to in the text should be listed alphabetically by the senior
author's surname under the heading "Literature Cited"; only
the author's surname and initials are required in the author line.
The author is responsible for the accuracy of the literature cita-
tions. Abbreviations of names of periodicals and serials should
conform to Biological Abstracts List of Serials with Title Abbre-
viations. Format, see recent SSRF or Circular.

Abbreviations and symbols. Common ones, such as mm, m,
g, ml, mg, °C (for Celsius), ' r, 7.., etc., should be used. Abbrevi-
ate units of measures only when used with numerals; periods are
rarely used in these abbreviations. But periods are used in et al.,
vs., e.g., i.e.. Wash. (VVA is used only with ZIP code), etc.
Abbreviations are acceptable in tables and figures where there is
lack of space.

Measurements. Should be given in metric units. Other
equivalent units may be given in parentheses.

FORM OF THE MANUSCRIPT

Original of the manuscript should be typed double-spaced on
white bond paper. Triple space above headings. Send good
duplicated copies of manuscript rather than carbon copies. The
sequence of the material should be:

FIRST PAGE

CONTENTS

ABSTRACT

TEXT

LITERATURE CITED

TEXT FOOTNOTES

APPENDIX

TABLES (each table should be numbered with an Arabic
numeral and heading provided)

LIST OF FIGURE LEGENDS (Entire figure legends, includ-
ing "Figure" before each number)

FIGURES

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Send ribbon copy and two duplicated copies of the manuscript
to:

Dr. Jay C. Quast. Scientific Editor

Northwest and Alaska Fisheries Center

Auke Bay Laboratory

National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA

P.O. Box 155

Auke Bay, AK 99821

Copies. Fifty copies will be supplied to the senior author and
100 to his organization free of charge.

UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

MHIIONAI OCEANIC ANO ATMOSPHERIC APMINISIRATION

NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE

SCIENTIFIC RUBllCATIONS STAFF

ROOM 450

I 107 N E <5TH ST

SEATHE.WA 98105

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

NOAA SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS

NOAA. the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, was established as part of the Department of
Commerce on October 3. 1970 The mission responsibilities of NOAA are to monitor and predict the state of the
solid Earth, the oceans and their living resources, the atmosphere, and the space environment of the Earth, and to
assess the socioeconomic impact of natural and technological changes in the environment.

The six Major Line Components of NOAA regularly produce various types of scientific and technical infor-
mation in the following kinds of publications:

PROFESSIONAL PAPERS— Important definitive
research results, major techniques, and special in-
vestigations.

TECHNICAL REPORTS— Journal quality with
extensive details, mathematical developments, or
data listings.

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUMS— Reports of
preliminary, partial, or negative research or tech-
nology results, interim instructions, and the like.
CONTRACT AND GRANT REPORTS— Reports
prepared by contractors or grantees under NOAA
sponsorship.

TECHNICAL SERVICE PUBLICATIONS-

These are publications containing data, observations,
instructions, etc. .A partial listing: Data serials; Pre-
diction and outlook periodicals; Technical manuals,
training papers, planning reports, and information
serials; and Miscellaneous technical publications.

ATLAS— Analysed data generally presented in the
form of maps showing distribution of rainfall,
chemical and physical conditions of oceans and at-
mosphere, distribution of fishes and marine mam-
mals, ionospheric conditions, etc.

Intormatlon on aviltblllty of NOAA publlcaOont can bo obtalnod from:

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE INFORMATION CENTER

ENVIRONMENTAL DATA AND INFORMATION SERVICE

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

6009 Executive Boulevard
Rockvllle, MD 20852