OCS Study MMS 2000-046 

University of Alaska Coastal Marine Institute 

IN COOPERATION 

Minerals Management Service 

University of Alaska 

State of Alaska 

Annual Report 

Federal Fiscal Year 1999 

SUBMllTED BY 

Vera Alexander 

Director 

University of Alaska Coastal Marine lnstitute 

TO 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Minerals Management Service 

Alaska OCS Region 

Anchorage, Alaska 

June 2000 
Contact information 

e-mail: cmi@sfos.uaf.edu 

phone: 907.474.7707 

fax: 907.474.7204 

postal: Coastal Marine Institute 

School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences 

University of Alaska Fairbanks 

Fairbanks, AK 99775-7220 
Table of Contents 

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 1 

Kachemak Bay Experimental and Monitoring Studies 

[TO 1 19821 

Raymond C. Highsmith and Susan M. Saupe ............................................................................................. 3 

Wind Field Representations and Their Effect on Shelf Circulation Models: 

A Case Study in the Chukchi Sea 

[TO 141941 

Andrey Y. Proshutinsky ............................................................................................................................... 5 

Historical Changes in Trace Metals and Hydrocarbons in the Inner Shelf Sediments, 

Beaufort Sea: Prior and Subsequent to Petroleum-Related Industrial Developments 

[TO 14195 & 151671 

A. Sathy Naidu, John J. Goering and John J. Kelley ................................................................................. 7 

An Economic Assessment of the Marine Sport Fisheries for Halibut, and Chinook 

and Coho Salmon in Lower Cook Inlet 

[TO 141961 

Mark Herrmann, S. Todd Lee, Charles Hamel, Keith R. Criddle, 

Hans T. Geier, Joshua A. Greenberg and Carol Lewis ............................................................................. 9 

The Relationship of Diet to Habitat Preferences of JuvenileFlatfishes in 

Kachemak Bay, Alaska: Phase I 

[TO 142781 

Brenda L. Norcross, Brenda A. Holladay and Amy L. Blanchard .......................................................... 41 

Feeding Ecology of Maturing Sockeye Salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) 

in Nearshore Waters of the Kodiak Archipelago 

[TO 15 1601 

Albert V. Tyler, Bruce C. McIntosh and Charles 0. Swanton ................................................................. 43 

Correction Factor for Ringed Seal Sweys in Northern Alaska 

[TO 15 1621 

Brendan P. Kelly, Lori J. Quakenbush and Brian D. Taras .................................................................... 5 1 

Circulation, Thermohaline Structure, and Cross-Shelf Transport in the 

Alaskan Beaufort Sea 

[IrO 151631 

Thomas J. Weingartner ............................................................................................................................. 65 

iii 

- 
The Alaskan Frozen Tissue Collection and Associated Electronic Database: 

A Resource for Marine Biotechnology, Phase I1 

[TO 15 1641 

Joseph A. Cook, Gordon H. Jarrell, Huascar Azurduy and John Chythlook ........................................ 67 

New Projects ..................................................................................................................................................... 75 

Beaufort Sea Nearshore Under-Ice Currents: Measurements and Analysis 

[TO 151691 

Thomas J. Weingartner ........................................................................................................................ 75 

Kinetics and Mechanisms of Slow PAH Desorption from Lower Cook Inlet 

and Beaufort Sea Sediments 

[TO 151701 

Susan M. Henrichs ............................................................................................................................... 76 

The Role of Zooplankton in the Distribution of Hydrocarbons 

[TO 151711 

Thomas C. Shirley and Switgard Duesterloh .................................................................................... 77 

Cook Inlet Workshop Support 

[TO 151721 

Mark A. Johnson and Stephen R. Okkonen .......................................................................................... 78 

Seabird Samples as Resources for Marine Environmental Assessment 

[TO 15 1731 

Kevin Winker ........................................................................................................................................ 79 

Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Seasonal Variability for Two Arctic Climate States 

[TO 15 1741 

Andrey Y. Proshutinsky, Mark A. Johnson and James Maslanik ......................................................... 80 

Petroleum Hydrocarbon Degrading Microbial Communities in Beaufort Sea Sediments 

[TO 15 1751 

Jon E. Lindstrom andJoan F. Braddock .............................................................................................. 8 1 

Regional Economic Impact Analysis of Subsistence Bowhead Whaling: 

Accounting for Non-Market Activities on Alaska's North Slope 

[TO 151761 

Kelly Giraud, Carol E. Lewis, Hans T. Geier, Joshua A. Greenberg, 

Mark Herrmann and John J. Kelley .................................................................................................... 82 

Funding Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 83 

University of Alaska CMI Publications ........................................................................................................... 85 
Introduction 

The University of Alaska Coastal Marine Institute (CMI) was created by a cooperative agreement 

between the University of Alaska and the Minerals Management Service (MMS) in June 1993, with the 

first full funding cycle beginning late in (federal) fiscal year 1994. CMI is pleased to present this 1999 

Annual Report, our sixth annual report. Of the nine research projects included in this report, four were 

scheduled to end this federal fiscal year or in the first quarter of the next one. Only abstracts and study 

products for those projects are included here because principal investigators are preparing their final 

reports. Eight additional research projects were begun this year. Abstracts for these projects are included 

in the section titled New Projects. 

The Minerals Management Service administers the outer continental shelf (OCS) natural gas, oil, and 

marine minerals program in which it oversees the safe and environmentally sound leasing, exploration, 

and production of these resources within our nation's offshore areas. The Environmental Studies Program 

(ESP) was formally directed in 1978, under Section 20 of the OCS Lands Act Amendments, to provide 

information in support of the decisions involved in the planning, leasing, and management of exploration, 

development, and production activities. The research agenda is driven by the identification of specific 

issues, concerns, or data gaps by federal decision makers and the state and local govenments that 

participate in the process. ESP research focuses on the following broad issues associated with 

development of OCS gas, oil, and minerals: 

What are the fates and effects of potential OCS-related pollutants 

(e.g., oil, noise, drilling muds and cuttings, products of fuel combustion) 

in the marine and coastal environment and the atmosphere? 

What biological resources (e.g., fish populations) exist and which 

resources are at risk? What is the nature and extent of the risk? 

What measures must be taken to allow extraction to take place? 

How do OCS activities affect people in terms of jobs and the economy? 

What are the direct and indirect effects on local culture? What are the 

psychological effects of the proposed OCS activities? 

Because MMS and individual states have distinct but complementary roles in the decision-making 

process, reliable scientific information is needed by MMS, the state, and localities potentially affected 

by OCS operations. In light of this, MMS has developed a locally managed CMI program. Under this 

program, MMS takes advantage of highly-qualified scientific expertise at local levels in order to: 

1) Collect and disseminate environmental information needed for OCS 

oil & gas and marine minerals decisions; 

2) Address local and regional OCS-related environmental and resource 

issues of mutual interest; and 

3) Strengthen the partnership between MMS and the state in addressing 

OCS oil & gas and marine minerals information needs. 

CMI is administered by the University of Alaska Fairbanks School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences to 

address some of these mutual concerns and share the cost of research. Alaska was selected as the location 

for this CMI because it contains some of the major potential offshore oil and gas producing areas in 

the United States. The University of Alaska Fairbanks is uniquely suited to participate by virtue of its 

flagship status within the state and its nationally recognized marine and coastal expertise relevant to the 
broad range of OCS program information needs. In addition, MMS and the University of Alaska have 

worked cooperatively on ESP studies for many years. Research projects funded by CMI are required to 

have at least one active University of Alaska investigator. Cooperative research between the University of 

Alaska and state agency scientists is encouraged. 

Framework Issues were developed during the formation of CMI to identify and bracket the concerns to be 

addressed: 

1) Scientific studies to improve understanding of the affected marine, coastal, 

or human environment; 

2) Modeling studies of environmental, social, and economic processes in order 

to improve predictive capabilities and define information needs; 

3) Experimental studies to improve understanding of environmental processes 

andfor the causes and effects of OCS activities; 

4) Projects which design or establish mechanisms or protocols for the sharing of 

data or information regarding marine or coastal resources or human activities 

to support prudent management of oil & gas and marine mineral resources; and 

5) Synthesis studies of background information. 

Projects hded through CMI are directed towards providing information which can be used by MMS and 

the state for management decisions specifically relevant to MMS mission responsibilities. Projects must 

be pertinent to either the OCS oil and gas program or the marine minerals mining program. They should 

provide useful information for program management or for the scientific understanding of potential 

environmental effects of resource development activities in arctic and subarctic environments. 

Initial guidelines given to prospective researchers identified Cook Inlet and Shelikof Strait, as well as the 

Beaufort and Chukchi seas, as areas of chief concern to MMS and the state. Primary emphasis has 

subsequently shifted to the Beaufort Sea, and to the Chukchi Sea as it relates to the Beaufort Sea. 

However, a strong interest in Cook Inlet and Shelikof Strait remains. 

The proposal process is initiated each summer with a request for letters of intent to address one or more of 

the Framework Issues. This request is publicized and sent to researchers at the University of Alaska and 

to various state agencies, and to relevant profit and non-profit corporations. The CMI technical steering 

committee then decides which of the proposed letters of intent should be developed into proposals for 

more detailed evaluation and possible funding. 

Successful investigators are strongly encouraged to publish their results in peer-reviewed journals as well 

as to present them at national meetings. In addition, investigators report their findings at the CMI's annual 

research review, held at UAF in February. Some investigators present information directly to the public 

and MMS staff in seminars. 

Alaskans benefit from the examination and increased understanding of those processes unique to Alaskan 

OCS and coastal waters because this enhanced understanding can be applied to problemsother than oil, 

gas, and mineral extraction, such as subsistence fisheries and northern shipping. 

Many of the CMI-funded projects address some combination of issues related to fisheries, biomonitoring, 

physical oceanography, and the fates of oil. The ultimate intent of CMI-related research is to identify the 

ways in which OCS-related activities may affect our environment, and potential economic and social 

impacts as well. 
Kachemak Bay Experimental and Monitoring Studies 

Raymond C. Highsmith cffrchl@uaf.edu> 

Susan M. ~aupe' esaupe@circac.org> 

Institute of Marine Science 

University of Alaska Fairbanks 

Fairbanks, AK 99775-7220 

1 Present address: Cook Inlet Regional Citizens' Advisory Council, 910 Highland Avenue, Kenai, AK 9961 1 

Task Order 11982 

Abstract 

This study in lower Kachemak Bay, Alaska, was designed to obtain baseline data on abundance and 

disfribution of intertidal invertebrates and algae and to gather information throughout the year on 

community-structuring mechanisms such as recruitment and succession. Speczjk objectives were I) to 

gain an understanding of the seasonal and interannual relationships among intertidal invertebrates and 

plants, 2) to assess community relationships when recoveringj?om seasonal disturbances in the form of 

cleared substrate, and 3) to determine the role of wave exposure in diffences found in thejrst two 

objectives. 

Quadrats in rocky intertidal habitat on eight sites were cleared of all invertebrates and algae during four 

visits in 1994 and 1995. Control, or uncleared, quadrats were also established to provide community 

assemblages for determining recovery on each site. The dates for creating the quadrats were selected to 

provide substrate for organisms that recruit in dzferent seasons. The quadrats were subsequently 

monitored for organism abundance and percent cover. The acorn barnacles, Semibalanus balanoides and 

Balanus glandulajrst colonized the quadrats in the high and middle tidal zones, often with > 80% cover. 

Fucus gardneri colonized the plots only after barnacles were established. The recovery rates of quadrats 

scraped on dzferent dates were driven by the timing of barnacle recruitment relative to the timing of bare 

substrate availability. 

Recovery of the dominant algae in the low intertidal zone, Alaria flocossa, was dependent on recruitment 

of the thatched barnacle, S. cariosis. Bray-Curtis dissimilarity matrices were calculated on community 

level data to compare recovery rates of scraped quadrats among sites, quadrat scrape dates, and data 

collection dates. Multi-dimensional scaling (MDS) ordination plots of the dissimilarity data show that 

scraped quadrats had not filly converged with control quadrats by the last sampling date, 30 months 

after thejrst set of quadrats were scraped in March 1994. 

Recovery rates varied by the season that quadrats were scraped, with quadrats scraped in July and 

October 1994 showing slower recovery rates than quadrats scraped in March 1994 or 1995. MDS 

ordinations indicate that the extent of recovery on disturbed quadrats compared to control quadrats 

varied among sites. Dzferences in wave exposures on the sites do not account for the dzferences found 

for recovery. 
Study Products 

Reports 

Highsmith, R.C., T.L. Rucker and S.M. Saupe. 1995. Kachemak Bay experimental and monitoring 

studies, p. 44-54. In V. Alexander, University of Alaska Coastal Marine Institute Annual Report 

No. 2. OCS Study MMS 95-0057, University of Alaska Fairbanks. 

Highsmith, R.C. and S.M. Saupe. 1997. Kachemak Bay experimental and monitoring studies, pp. 63-84. 

In V. Alexander, University of Alaska Coastal Marine Institute Annual Report No. 3. OCS Study 

MMS 97-0001, University of Alaska Fairbanks. 

Highsmith, R.C. and S.M. Saupe. 1997. Kachemak Bay experimental and monitoring studies. Draft 

Final Report for Task Order 11982, University of Alaska Coastal Marine Institute, MMS Cooperative 

Agreement Number 14-35-000 1-30661. 

Presentations 

Saupe, S.M. 1995. Kachemak Bay experimental and monitoring studies. University of Alaska Coastal 

Marine Institute Annual Research Review, February 1995, Fairbanks, Alaska. 

Saupe, S.M. 1996. Kachemak Bay experimental and monitoring studies. University of Alaska Coastal 

Marine Institute Annual Research Review, February 1996, Fairbanks, Alaska. 

Saupe, S.M. 1997. Kachemak Bay experimental and monitoring studies. University of Alaska Coastal 

Marine Institute Annual Research Review, February 1997, Fairbanks, Alaska. 
Wind Field Representations and Their Effect on Shelf 

Circulation Models: A Case Study in the Chukchi Sea 

Andrey Y. Proshutinsky <prosh@ims.uaf.edu> 

Institute of Marine Science 

University of Alaska Fairbanks 

Fairbanks, AK 99775-7220 

Task Order 14194 

Abstract 

Arctic pollutant transport models use winds obtainedj-om forecasts of surface atmospheric pressure 

fields. Uncertainties inherent in these forecast pressure fields lead to errors in the calculation of suflace 

winds, and therefore, to errors in circulation-model results dependent upon them. We have investigated 

the dzflerences among three nominally identical wind field representations derivedj-om surface 

atmospheric pressure fields prepared by: 

The European Center for Medium Weather Range Forecasting (ECMWF), 

The US. Navy's Fleet Numerical Oceanography Center (FNOC), and 

The National Centers for Environmental Predictions and the National Center 

for Atmospheric Research (NCEPNCAA). 

We have analyzed: 

Wind and surface atmospheric pressure data fiom the National Weather Service 

oflces at Barrow and Kotzebue, Alaska, to examine drj'ierences between observed 

and estimated winds; 

Ice-drifting buoy data @om the International Arctic Buoy Program (IABP), to 

examine dzJ2erences between observed and interpolated suvface atmospheric 

pressures, and to examine diflerences between observed and simulated ice drift; and 

Differences in shelf circulation, as predicted by 2-0 and 3-0 barotropic shelf 

circulation models when forced by the three windfield representations. 

This study has demonstrated that ECMF sea level atmospheric pressure data with a spatial resolution 

of 1.125" and a temporal resolution of six hours can be recommended as the best source of wind forcing 

data. The FNOC atmospheric pressure fields with a spatial resolution of 2.5" and a temporal resolution 

of six hours can be recommended as well, in the absence of ECMKF data. NCAR data with a spatial 

resolution of about 350 lan and a temporal resolution of 12 hours can be used success@lly for 

climatological simulations. 
Study Products 

Proshutinsky, A. 1998. Wind field representations and their effect on shelf circulation models: A case 

study in the Chukchi Sea. University of Alaska Coastal Marine Institute Annual Research Review, 

February 1998, Fairbanks. 

Proshutinsky, A.. 1999. Climate states of the Arctic Ocean. MMS Information Transfer Meeting, 

January 1999, Anchorage. 

Proshutinsky, A., T. Proshutinsky and J. Maslanik. 1999. Decadal variability of the Beaufort and 

Chukchi Seas. IUGG99 meeting, 19-30 July 1999, Birmingham, UK, Symposium JSP25, abstracts 

B.241. 

Proshutinsky T. and A. Proshutinsky. 1998. Environmental conditions effecting commercial navigation 

along the Northern Sea Route. AGU Spring Meeting, 26-30 May 1998, Boston, MA. 

Proshutinsky, T. and A. Proshutinsky. 1999. Seasonal variability of the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. 

lUGG99 meeting, 19-30 July 1999, Birmingham, UK. 

Proshutinsky, T., T. Weingartner and A. Proshutinsky. 1998. Numerical modeling of seasonal and 

interannual variability of the Chukchi Sea circulation. AGU Spring Meeting, 26-30 May 1998, 

Boston, MA, AGU, EOS, Transactions, OS5 1A-4, S183. 
Historical Changes in Trace Metals and Hydrocarbons 

in the Inner Shelf Sediments, Beaufort Sea: Prior and 

Subsequent to Petroleum-Related Industrial 

Developments 

A. Sathy Naidu <ffsan@uaf.edu> 

John J. Goering <goering@ims.uaf.edu> 

John J. Kelley Mjk@uaf.edu> 

Institute of Marine Science 

University of Alaska Fairbanks 

Fairbanks, AK 99775-7220 

Task Orders 14195 & 15167 

Abstract 

The project objective is to the assess historical changes in concentrations of selected trace metals 

(Cu, Cr, Ni, V, Pb, Zn, Cd, Ba, As, and methyl Ha) and normal, branched and cyclic (tricyclic di- and 

pentacyclic tri-terpenoid) hydrocarbons andpolynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), in nearshore 

sediments of the Beaufort Sea extendingfiom Harrison Bay to Canning Delta. The goal is to ascertain if 

there have been any signij7cant increases in concentrations of the trace metals and the hydrocarbons 

subsequent to the recent development ofpetroleum-related activities. 

This year (1 998-1 999, Phase II study) 24 mudfiactions (< 63 pm size) separated fiom triplicate surficial 

sediment samplesfiom eight stations (out of the 61 total samples collectedfiom 21 stations in September 

1997) were analyzed for all of the above elements except methyl Hg. The methyl Hg (MeHg) analysis was 

on the gross sediment samples. Additionally, total Hg (THg) on gross se-diments and Fe and Mn in the 

mudfiaction were analyzed on one sediment samplefiom the total 21 stations occupied in the study area. 

This year the hydrocarbon analysis on gross sediments consisted of n-alkanes on 18 samplesfiom 13 

stations and PMs, ma-terpenoids and steroids on 39 samplesfiom 20 stations. These analyses on trace 

elements and hydrocarbons together with those run in 1997-98 complete the project's commitment 

inasmuch as analysis of samples is concerned. Time-series comparisons among data fiom 1977, 1986, 

and 1997, based on the trace metal mean concentrations in muddy sediments of the nearshore Beaufort 

Sea, show significantly increased concentrations in V in 1986 and 1997, and in Bafiom 1986 to 1997. 

However, these findings are not reflected in the stratigraphic variations of elements on two cores 

collected at the western and eastern margins of the study area. The stratigraphy demonstrates net 

significant decrease upcore in MeHg, Zn, Cd, and Pb accompanied by no changes in the concentrations 

of other metals. The discrepancy between decadal time-series and stratigraphic data may be due to 

comparision of samples of dtfferent lithologies. The speczjic mechanism and source(s) of the enhanced 

concentrations of V and Ba, identified on the decadal basis changes, are unknown. 

Statistical analyses on the trace elemental data were updated since the last annual report in 1997-98 

(Phase I study) as supplemental data were available in 1998-99. The multiple and partial correlation 

coeflcient analyses suggest that V, Cu, Ni, Zn, As and Mn are chelated with OM in sediments, whereas 

some of the V is adsorbed by clays. Cluster analysis demonstrates the presence of two predominant 
station cluster groups. Stepwise multiple discriminant analysis indicates that Station Group I, mostly 

clustered around Prudhoe Bay, has signifkantly lower concentrations of THg and MeHg compared to 

Station Group 11 located east and west of the bay. The levels of all the metals in the study area are within 

ranges similar to those in unpolluted marine sediments. 

The concentrations of n-alkanes in sediments of this study are generally comparable to values reported by 

earlier workerspom the nearshore Beaufort Sea in 1982 and 1992. The n-alkanes generally show a 

bimodal distribution typical of a mixture of marine autochthonous and terrestrial allochthonous inputs. 

Statistical analysis on the hydrocarbon data is in progress. 

Study Products 

Naidu, A.S. 1998. Historical changes in trace metal and hydrocarbon contaminants on the inner shelf, 

Beaufort Sea: Prior and subsequent to petroleum-related industrial activities. University of Alaska 

Coastal Marine Institute Annual Research Review, February 1998, Fairbanks. 

Naidu, A.S. 1998. Historical changes in trace metal and hydrocarbon contaminants on the inner shelf, 

Beaufort Sea: Prior and subsequent to petroleum-related industrial activities. Mh4S Information 

Transfer Meeting, May 1998, Anchorage. 

Naidu, A.S., J.J.Goering and J.J. Kelley. 1998. Time-series monitoring of trace elements in nearshore 

sediments of the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. Proc.1998 ASLO/ESA Annual Meeting, St. Louis. p. A-63. 

Naidu, A.S., J.J. Goering and J.J. Kelley. 1999. Three-decadal time-series monitoring of trace elements 

in nearshore sediments, Alaskan Beaufort Sea. MMS Information Transfer Meeting, January 1999, 

Anchorage. 

Naidu, A.S., J.J. Kelley and J.J. Goering. 1999. Historial changes in trace metals and hydrocarbon 

contaminants on the inner shelf, Beaufort Sea: prior and subsequent to the petroleum-related 

industrial development. University of Alaska Coastal Marine Institute Annual Research Review, 

February 1999, Fairbanks. 
An Economic Assessment of the Marine Sport Fisheries 

for Halibut, and Chinook and Coho Salmon in Lower 

Cook Inlet 

Mark Herrmann' Mmlh@uaf.eduz 

S. Todd ~ee~ <stoddlee@aol.com> 

Charles Hame13 cchuck.hamel@noaa.gov> 

Keith R. criddle4 ckcriddle@b202.usu.edu> 

Hans T. ~eier~ <fthtg@uaf.edu> 

Joshua A. re en berg^ <ffjag@uaf.edu> 

Carol E. ~ewis~ <ffcel@uaf.edu> 

1 Department of Economics, School of Management, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK 99775-6080 

2~laska Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, 

Seattle, WA 981 15-0070 

3~orth Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 W. 4th Avenue, Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 99501 

4~epartment of Economics, Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322-3530 

5~epartment of Resources Management, School of Agriculture and Land Resources Management, 

University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK 99775-7140 

Task Order 1 41 96 

Abstract 

Cook Inlet Planning Area Oil and Gas Lease Sale 173 includes and abuts productive commercial, 

subsistence, and sportJishing grounds. OCS exploration, development and production activities could 

aflect the productivity of these fisheries, the quality of recreation opportunities, and the demand for 

tourism-related services. The marine sport fisheries of lower Cook Inlet are the focus of a large and 

growing recreation-based economic sector. Sport$sheries provide non-monetary benefits to participants 

and monetary benefits to tourism-related businesses. This study develops a predictive model of 

participation rate changes that can be used in conjunction with a regional input-output model to measure 

the impact of marine sport fisheries on the Kenai Peninsula economy and to predict how those impacts 

will vary as variations in trip characteristics influence participation. In addition to a baseline 

corresponding to an average trip in 1997, the final report will describe the results of six simulations that 

will provide for increased (or decreased) angler success that could arise from changes in stock 

abundance orfrom changes in bag limits. 

Introduction 

The sport fisheries of lower Cook Inlet (Figure 1) contribute to the economic well-being of residents of 

the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska, and the nation. In this analysis, we focus primarily on the marine sport 

fishery for Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis). However, because the marine salmon sport fishery 

is both a substitute and a complement for the sport halibut fishery, the analysis also addresses the marine 

sport fisheries for chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), coho (0. kisutch), and other salmon. 
Figure 1. Location of the study area. 

Pacific halibut are managed by an international agreement between the U.S. and Canada. Under the 

auspices of this agreement, the International Pacific Halibut Commission [IPHC] establishes overall 

harvest limits in ten management zones (2A-C, 3A,B, 4A-E) in the North Pacific, Gulf of Alaska, and 

eastern Bering Sea (Figure 2) while authority to allocate catches among competing interests is delegated 

to the individual nations. With passage of the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 

(MSFCMA), the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) was given responsibility for 

allocating halibut catches off Alaska. While the Council has exercised direct management of the 

commercial catch and bycatch of halibut, it has relied on the Alaska Department of Fish and Game 

(ADF&G) to manage the sport fishery under bag and possession limits established by the Alaska Board of 

Fisheries. Current regulations stipulate a 1 February-3 1 December open season with a two fish daily bag 

limit and a four fish possession limit. 
', 1 

Figure 2. IPHC halibut management areas [IPHC 19991. 

Although salmon management is also subject to international agreement and federal oversight outside of 

state waters, for all practical purposes the Alaska Board of Fisheries controls salmon catches off Alaska. 

ADF&G manages the salmon fisheries according to guideline harvest ranges established by the Board. 

These guideline harvest ranges are intended to allow for the satisfaction of escapement objectives, while 

serving to allocate catch among subsistence, sport, and commercial fishers. 

The mixing of stocks and species fiom several drainages complicates management of Cook Inlet salmon 

fisheries. Consequently, ADF&G employs a combination of in-season management measures including 

time, area, and gear restrictions for the commercial fisheries in districts represented in Figure 3. 
Cook Inlet personal-use fisheries include dip net fisheries in fresh water and along shore immediately 

adjacent to the Kasilof and Kenai rivers and the China Poot and Fish creeks. In addition, there are set 

gillnet fisheries in Kachemak Bay and near the mouth of the Kasilof River. 

Cook Inlet saltwater sportfishing regulations specify a daily bag and possession limit of six other salmon 

(coho, sockeye, chum, and pink) in combination. Bag and possession limits for chinook salmon differ 

depending on whether the catches are taken above or below Bluff Point near Homer. To the north of Bluff 

Point, the daily bag and possession limit is one chinook salmon. To the south of Bluff Point, the daily bag 

and possession limit is two chinook salmon. In addition, there is an annual catch limit of five chinook 

salmon from Cook Inlet salt waters (north of a line between Cape Douglas and Point Adam [Figure 41). 
Figure 4. Cook Inlet map showing Cape Douglas and Pt. Adam. 

During,the past two decades, the share of halibut catch taken in the sport fishery has grown from less 

than 25 to over 18%. Recent sport catches of halibut from Cook Inlet, Prince William Sound, 

Resurrection Bay, Kodiak, Yakutat, and adjacent portions of the Gulf of Alaska (IPHC Area 3A) have 

exceeded 7.5 million pounds round weight [IPHC 19981. (See Figures 5a, b.) 

1977 1982 1987 1992 1997 

Commercial Removals F~ Bycatch Mortality rn Sportfishing 

Figure 5a. Commercial and sport catches, and legal and sub-legal bycatch 

mortality (million lbs. round weight) of Pacific halibut from IPHC 

management area 3A [IPHC 19981. 
Commercial Removals ar Bycatch Mortality rn Sportfishing 

Figure 5b. Commercial and sport catches, and legal and sub-legal bycatch 

mortality (%) of Pacific halibut from IPHC management area 3A 

[IPHC 19981. 

The growth of recreational catches (Figures 5a, b), combined with the adoption of individual fishing 

quotas in the commercial fishery, and growth in the number of vessels licensed to offer charter services 

(Figure 6) have led to proposals to cap sportfishing harvests of halibut. 

Figure 6. Sport and sport/commercial fishing vessels licensed by IPHC to fish 

halibut off Alaska. The series ends in 1996 when licensing functions 

were delegated to the Alaska Commercial Fishery Entry Commission 

[IPHC 19991. 
The economics of the commercial halibut fishery have been subject to considerable analysis, beginning 

with Crutchfield and Zellner [1962]. The demographics of the commercial halibut fishery were examined 

in the EARIR for the implementation of the halibutjsablefish IFQ program [NPFMC 1991a, b]. Criddle 

[1994] describes the bioeconomics of the commercial halibut fishery. The national Research Council's 

(NRC) Committee to Review IFQs [I9991 includes an evaluation of the adoption of individual fishing 

quotas in the commercial halibut fishery. Lin et al. [1988], Homans [1993], and Herrmann [I9961 develop 

econometric models of the exvessel demand for halibut. The economics of Alaska's commercial salmon 

fishery have also been the subject of rigorous study and are described in, for example, Herrmann [1994], 

Herrmann and Greenberg [1994], and Herrmann [1993]. 

In contrast, until recently, there has been little formal analysis of Alaska's marine recreational fisheries 

for halibut and salmon. Coughenower [I9861 provides a qualitative description of the halibut 

guidelcharter fishery. Jones and Stokes [I9871 provide a small sample estimate of the consumer surplus 

associated with Cook Inlet marine recreation fisheries for halibut and salmon. Layman et al. [I9961 

provide a recent estimate of the economic benefits to chinook salmon sport fishers on the Gulkana River, 

Alaska, and Lee et al. [I9991 describe the results of a survey that will be used to obtain estimates of the 

consumer surplus that accrues to participants in marine recreational fisheries off the Kenai Peninsula. 

This analysis relies extensively on the data developed in Lee et al. [1999]. 

Methods 

There are two components to a comprehensive evaluation of marine sport fisheries: estimation of angler 

net benefits and assessment of the economic impact generated by marine recreational fishing. Recreators 

fish because the benefits that they anticipate from fishing and associated activities exceed the costs they 

expect to incur. While assessment of the net non-market benefits that accrue to recreators is difficult, 

several estimation techniques have achieved broad acceptance. Although this analysis does not develop 

estimates of the consumer surplus associated with marine recreational fishing, those estimates are being 

developed in continuing analyses of survey responses described in Lee et al. [1999]. 

Marine recreational fishers can fish from shore, from private boats, from rented vessels, or hire 

charterlguide services. The expenditures associated with each of these choices fuel regional economic 

activity, thus changes in participation that arise from changes in trip attributes affect regional economic 

activity. Impact analysis estimates the direct, indirect, and induced effects on output (production), income 

and employment by industry and aggregated industries. Direct effects are production changes associated 

with immediate final demand changes. Indirect effects are those associated with changes in inputs to the 

production process. Induced effects are those caused by changes in household spending patterns due to 

changes in household income generated by direct and indirect effects. Most economic activities generate 

secondary impacts (indirect effects). That is, when goods or services are purchased, the seller in turn 

purchases goods and services. Secondary impacts are generated whether the initial activity involves 

commerce or recreation. However, different activities generate different impacts. Moreover, the impact of 

alternative activities depends on the scale considered. It is traditional to examine economic impacts at 

local, regional, and national scales. Our focus on the Kenai Peninsula dictates a regional based impact 

assessment. Input-Output (1-0) is the most widely applied tool for assessing regional economic impacts. 

Our analytic framework consists of two parts: a model of the relationship between trip attributes and 

participation rates and an 1-0 model that estimates the economic impact of various levels of participation. 

Participation rates are estimated using an econometric model of the form: 

P(2;:) =f(costi, catchij, sizep other) for all i and j 
where P(7;:) is the probability of taking trip i, costi is the cost of trip i, catchii is the number of fish of 

species j caught on trip i, sizeii is the average size of fish of species j caught on trip i, and other includes 

binary variables to differentiate between the responses of resident and non-resident recreators. The data 

used for estimating the parameters of this model are reported in Lee et al. [1999]. 

The 1-0 framework is based on identifying sectors of regional economies as defined by a sector's usage 

of inputs in the production process and the subsequent distribution of a sector's output throughout the 

economy. Relationships are measured by dollar values of exchanges of goods and services among 

different regional economic sectors, through imports or exports from other regions, and final demand by 

households, govemment entities, and other economic factors. The annual dollar values of 1-0 models 

have been used extensively outside of Alaska for impact analysis of development and government policy 

changes. 1-0 models in other states have described resource issues such as forestry [Summers and Birss 

199 11, regional impacts of federal grazing policies [Geier and Holland 199 11, community development 

strategies [Geier et al. 19941, and the impact of federal land use decisions on regional economies [Fawson 

and Criddle 19941.1-0 models have also been employed to model the Alaska statewide economy 

[Logsdon et al. 1977; Weddelton 19861. 

Figure 7. Simplified input-utput transactions table [Richardson 19721. 

We selected IMPLAN, developed for the U.S. Forest Service [Olson et al. 19931 and the most commonly 

used 1-0 model, as a base for our model. Regional and specialized 1-0 models can be derived from 

IMPLAN through adjusting the national level data to fit the economic composition and estimated trade 

balance for a specific region. 

The IMPLAN database includes 2 1 economic and demographic variables for 528 industrial sectors for all 

counties (and boroughs) of the United States. The database is largely built off of employment and income 

data sets including County Business Patterns, ES 202, and Regional Economic Information System. In 

cases where there are disclosure problems, IMPLAN uses national averages as estimates for income and 

employment. The IMPLAN database is recognized as the best source of U.S. secondary regional 

economic data. Nevertheless, although the national level data is regularly updated, the regional data is 

updated infrequently. Moreover, regions may have unique economic sectors or linkages that are not well 

represented in the basic IMPLAN model. Consequently, it is necessary to update, regionalize, and 

Local Final Demand 

Private 

Households Investment Government 

C1 11 GI 

Ci Ii Gi 

Cn In Gn 

LC LI LG 

vc VI VG 

Mc MI 

C I G 

Exports 

El 

Ei 

En 

LE 

VE 

E 

Purchasing Sectors 

1 .a. j . . . n Total Gross 

Outputs 

XI 

Xi 

Xn 

L 

v 

M 

X 

% I * 

8 

M 

M 

.B i 

Y ?3 

d: n 

Labor 

Other Value 

Added 

Imports 

Total Gross 

outlay 

XI 1 . . . Xtj . . . X11 

Xi1 . . . Xij . . . Xij 

Xnl . . . Xnj . . . Xnj 

L1 ... Lj . . . L, 

v1 . . . vj . . . VU 

MI . . . Mj . . . Mn 

XI . . . xj . . . Xn 
groundtruth the model before relying on it to predict regional economic impacts. In Alaska, with small 

numbers of firms (frequent disclosure problems), and a rapidly evolving and heavily resource-dependent 

economy, it is particularly essential that the transaction coefficients be thoroughly updated and carefully 

groundtruthed with local data and expert knowledge. 

Because the recreational fishing sector is not explicitly reflected in IMPLAN, we have added a 

programming module to IMPLAN that provides specialized treatment of the economic activities 

generated by recreational fishing. This is accomplished by disaggregating the existing IMPLAN sectors, 

which comprise assemblages of recreational sectors. The recreational fishing module utilizes IMPLAN 

generated response coefficients and secondary regional economic data as inputs in model formulation. 

The secondary model data is augmented with primary data for the target industries (e.g., the sportlcharter 

industry) supplied by primary data collection. Thus, this module, through its 1-0 framework, explicitly 

accounts for linkages in regional coastal economies between various economic sectors, according to 

production and consumption patterns. 

Individual sportfishing activities are accommodated differently from direct income-generating activities 

such as guiding, harvesting, and processing. The characteristics of sportfishing necessitate that these 

recreational activities be accounted for by expenditure patterns in retail and service sectors, rather than 

treated as an identifiable economic sector. The recreational fishing module allocates recreational 

expenditures among these sectors. The sportfishing expenditure data to be used in the recreational fishing 

module were developed as a side-product of our Alaska Sea Grant funded survey of sport fishers. 

Baseline expenditures 

The baseline expenditures for residents fishing in the lower Cook Inlet marine fishery were calculated for 

1997 using information from the annual Alaska Department of Fish and Game Alaska sport fish survey 

[ADF&G 19981 and data reported in Lee et al. [1999]. Specifically, the ADF&G survey was used in 

combination with Lee et al. [I9991 to estimate the total number of fishers and the total days fished. All 

other figures were derived exclusively from Lee et al. [1999]. 

Number of fishing angler days 

The annual ADF&G survey estimates the total number of anglers and days fished for all of the major 

sport fishing regions in Alaska. The survey for 1997 estimated the number of residents sportfishing in the 

Kenai marine fishery to be 154,5 10 anglers, nearly identical to the 15 1,590 estimated from Lee et al. 

[1999]. From the ADF&G survey the total number of days fished was estimated at 373,877. However, not 

all of this effort was directed towards the eastern (Cook Inlet) side of the Kenai. To estimate the effort for 

this study, in terms of days fished, only the anglers fishing the Cook Inlet portion were used. 

Estimation of the total days fished in Cook Inlet by sport fishers, for halibut and salmon, is not a 

straightforward task. To calculate these days we decided to use the annual ADF&G survey. This survey 

shows a consistent estimate of the number of recreational fishing days for several years. For example, the 

1997 annual ADF&G survey shows the total number of days fished on both sides of the Kenai to be 2.42 

days per angler. This number is fairly consistent with past findings in the ADF&G survey (see Table 1). 
Table 1. ADF&G estimated average angler days for fishers fishing 

the marine waters off the Kenai Peninsula 1990-1 997. 

Year Average Days 

1990 2.28 

1991 2.18 

1992 2.37 

1993 2.38 

1994 2.42 

1995 2.55 

1996 2.50 

1997 2.42 

A slightly troubling aspect of calculating the total days fished was that Lee et al. [I9991 found a higher 

number of average days fished than did the ADF&G survey. This is troubling given that nearly all other 

similar categories in the two surveys have very consistent findings. With both surveys finding almost the 

identical number of fishers in 1997 this means that Lee et al. [I9991 estimated a higher amount of effort in 

the Kenai region than did the ADF&G survey. For example, for anglers just taking halibut trips Lee et al. 

[I9991 estimated an average of 3.04 days per angler. This number was even higher when the average 

angler days were calculated for trips targeting any type of salmon andlor halibut. We ultimately decided 

to use the effort data that was reported in the ADF&G survey, because it has a long track record of 

obtaining consistent answers and because it has been accepted by many different studies. 

Once it was decided to use effort as reported by the ADF&G survey it became necessary to estimate just 

those fisheries that are in, or launched from, the Cook Inlet side of the Kenai Peninsula. All Kenai 

Peninsula areas reported in the ADF&G survey were included except the areas listed as Seward and 

"other Gulf coast east of Gore Point". Included in the survey were two areas that we originally had 

questions about. The first was the Barren islands: members of the charter boat industry indicated that the 

majority of the boats fishing the Barren Islands originated in ~omer'. Likewise, we were told that most of 

the boats fishing the regions termed "other Cook Inlet/Gulf Coast west of Gore Point" were either taking 

place in the Cook Inlet waters or from vessels originating from ~ome?. 

Assuming that most of the fishers fishing the Barren Islands or "other Cook Inlet/Gulf Coast west of Gore 

point" in the ADF&G study originate from Homer, this brings the percentage of fishers leaving Homer 

much more in line with the percentages estimated in Lee et al. [1999]. Figure 8 shows the percentages of 

fishers fishing out of Homer from the two surveys with and without the Barren Islands and "other Cook 

InletlGulf Coast west of Gore Point" data added to the Homer trips. 

1 Ward, Bob. Homer Charter Association, Personal Communication 1999. 

2 Ward, Bob. Homer Charter Association, Personal Communication 1999. 
w Homer (ADFBG) 

Homer + Barren + Other (ADFBG) 

Homer [Lee et al.] 

Figure 8. Percent of respondent fishing days reported fishing out of Homer 

for the ADF&G study by checking Homer or combining Homer 

and Barren Islands and "other Cook Inlet/Gulf Coast west of Gore 

Point" and the percent fishing out of Homer from Lee et al. [I 9991. 

Table 2 shows the total number of recreational fishing days for people or vessels fishing at or leaving 

fiom the Cook Inlet side of the Kenai Peninsula in 1997. Using the ADF&G survey, we estimate total 

angler days to be 259,615. 

Table 2. Estimated number of person-days fished in the Cook Inlet portion of the Kenai marine sport 

fishery in 1 997. 

Charter 

Private 

Shore 

TOTAL 

Area Days Percent of Total 

Halibut Cove (Kachemak Bay) 156 

Homer (Kachemak Bay) 3,787 

Tutka (Kachemak Bay) 382 

Barren Islands 12,519 

Anchor River Whiskey Gulch, Deep Creek, and Ninilchik River Areas 40,849 

Other Cook Inlet 935 

Other Cook Inlet/Gulf 44,392 

Sub-Total 103,020 39.7% 

Halibut Cove (Kachemak Bay) 978 

Homer (Kachemak Bay) 30,239 

Tutka (Kachemak Bay) 2,404 

Barren Islands 1,970 

Anchor River Whiskey Gulch, Deep Creek, and Ninilchik River Areas 64,886 

Other Cook Inlet 442 

Other Cook Inlet/Gulf 19,975 

Sub-Total 120,894 46.6% 

Homer Spit (Kachemak Bay) 30,034 

Seldovia Bay 2,007 

Anchor River Whiskey Gulch, Deep Creek, and Ninilchik River Areas 1,446 

Shoreline - Other 2,214 

Sub-Total 35,701 13.8% 

259,615 
The ADF&G survey does not break down the estimated effort by area of residency. For our effort we 

need to examine locals (who live on the Kenai), Alaskans (not including locals) and non-residents 

separately. Although the Lee et al. [I9991 survey was given out to all fishers fishing the marine waters off 

of the Kenai Peninsula, our impact study will focus on only the Cook Inlet portion of the fishery. Overall, 

Homer was the most frequent location (45.2%), with Seward (3 1.5%) and Deep Creek1 Ninilchik (29.5%) 

the next most frequent choices. These percentages total more than 100% because they include trips that 

visited multiple sites. Figure 9 shows the percentage of trips weighted when the totals are divided by the 

total reported trips whether they were multiple trips or not. 

Anchor Point Other 

6% 2% 

Seward 

24% 

Figure 9. Location of the respondent's most recent Kenai saltwater 

fishing trip [Lee et al. 19991. 

At this point it should be noted that much of the days fished by area and fishing mode reported in Lee 

et al. [I9991 come from responses to a survey question that was designed to gather information on the 

respondent's most recent trb. This may skew the information for the fishery toward the end of the year 

somewhat, especially for Alaskans who may take multiple trips. Our survey was administered in the 

middle of the fishing season in 1998. ARer deleting trips before 1997,73% of the respondents listed 1997 

as their most recent trip and 27% listed 1998. The 1997 trips would tend to be near the end of the season 

and the 1998 would be more at the beginning. Figure 10 shows the distribution of the month and year in 

which the most recent trip occurred. 
Figure 10. Month in which respondents started their most recent trip. 

Next we compare our non-resident vs. resident breakdown of days fished by respondents of the ADF&G 

survey for the Cook Inlet portion of the fishery. To derive the proportion of days fished from the Lee et al. 

[I9991 survey it is worthy to note that the survey response rate (from total mailed surveys whether they 

were delivered or not) was 73.56% from non-residents and 58.36% from Alaskans. As the surveys were 

sent out from a random draw, to estimate the true proportions of total fishers made up of Alaskans the 

Alaskan figures were inflated by 1.26 so that the proportion of non-resident and Alaskans return to the 

total would be comparable. To compute the days fished for all of 1997 we took the average days fished on 

the last trip by residency and type of trip (adjusted to allow for the differences in the response rates) and 

multiplied them by the number of trips (by type) from the ADF&G survey. For comparison, Figure 11 

shows the estimated percentage of days fished for residents from the two surveys. 

BLee et al. [I9991 .ADF&G 

Figure 1 1. Percent of resident (all Alaskans) fishing days off of the Kenai 

Peninsula from the ADF&G survey (all Kenai fresh and saltwater) 

and the Lee et al. [I 9991 survey (Cook Inlet portion - saltwater). 
These two figures are very similar. (Note that the Lee et al. [I9991 survey numbers reported above are for 

residents fishing in the marine waters and the numbers from the ADF&G survey are for all fisheries (fresh 

and saltwater) off both sides of the Kenai Peninsula.) The Lee et al. [1999] survey is broken down further 

into locals, Alaskans (non-local) and non-residents by days fished (see Figure 12). 

Locals Ei Alaskans Non-residents 

Figure 12. Percent of local, Alaskans (non-locals) and non-resident fishers fishing 

days off of the Kenai Peninsula from the Lee et al. [I9991 survey 

(Cook Inlet portion). 

Figure 13 shows the breakdown of days fished in the Cook Inlet portion of the Kenai Peninsula by type of 

fishing from both surveys. 

Shore Private Charter 

Lee et al. [I9991 .ADF&G 

Figure 13. Percent of local, Alaskans (non-locals) and non-resident fishers 

fishing days off of the Kenai Peninsula fiom the ADF&G survey (all 

of 1997) and the Lee et al. [I9991 survey (Cook Inlet Portion - last 

trip in taken in last five years). 
Again, the two surveys are fairly close; however, there are some differences. The Lee et al. [I9991 survey 

has a slightly increased reported charter effort and decreased shoreline effort, with the private boat effort 

nearly identical between the two surveys. The decreased reported shore effort may be due to the fact that 

effort being reported from the ADF&G survey is for all types of fish including shoreline rockfish, etc. 

The effort being reported in Lee et al. [I9991 is only for salmon and halibut. We would expect that since 

Lee et al. is only for halibut and salmon, the reported shoreline effort would be lower since a lot of 

shoreline effort would be for rockfish, etc. 

In Figure 14 the number of fishing angler days off of the marine Cook Inlet waters of the Kenai Peninsula 

(divided by fisher residence) were further broken out by whether the trip was for shore fishery, private 

boat or charter. 

Local Alaska Non-Resident Total Total 

Lee et al. ADFBG 

[I 9991 

Charter El Private Boat Shoreline I 

Figure 14. Frequency of fishing mode for all Cook Inlet marine fisheries off 

the Kenai (charter, private boat, and shore tips) for both the Lee et 

al. [I9991 survey (last five years) and the ADF&G survey (1997). 

Overall, findings from the ADF&G survey indicate that while the effort of most non-Alaskans is based in 

the charter fishery, Alaskans maximize effort using private vessels. Fewer respondents among either 

group took trips that included shore-based fishing compared to the other modes, probably an indication 

that Kenai Peninsula marine fisheries are not well suited to shore-based fishing. Finally, Table 3 reports 

the percentage of total effort by residency and type of fishing, as per Lee et al. [1999]. 

Table 3. The percentages of days fished by resident and type of activity. 

Local 

AK (non-local) 

Non-Resident 

Total 

Charter PB Shore 

1.2% 7.1% 0.1% 

10.8% 28.0% 1.9% 

35.9% 12.6% 2.5% 

47.8% 47.7% 4.5% 

Total 

8.4% 

40.7% 

51.0% 

100% 
These are the figures that we use to divide up the total days fished in the Cook Inlet portion of the Kenai 

Peninsula marine waters. When the figures in Table 3 are multiplied by the 259,625 total fishing days 

reported in the ADF&G survey, we can estimate the average fishing days by fishers and type of fishing 

(see Table 4). 

Table 4. The estimated 1997 days fished by resident and type of activity. 

Average daily fishing and non-fishing expenditures 

Lee et al. [I9991 asked Kenai fishers to provide detailed information regarding their expenditures on their 

most recent salmon and halibut fishing trips. The average daily expenditures for the fishers are weighted 

by days spent on the Kenai for the non-fishing expenditures and by fishing days for the fishing 

expenditures. The average living expenditures are weighted on all days spent on the trip (both fishing and 

non-fishing). Table 5 reports the average fishing and non-fishing expenditures for fishers fishing the 

marine waters of Cook Inlet off the Kenai Peninsula when the last trip occurred in 1997 or 1998. 

Local 

AK (non-local) 

Non-Resident 

Total 

Table 5. Average daily expenditures for marine sportfishing trips off the Kenai Peninsula by residency 

and fishing type ($/day). 

Auto or Truck Fuel 

Auto or RV Rental 

Airfare 

Other Transportation 

Lodging 

Groceries 

Restaurant and Bar 

Charter PB Shore 

3,028 18,405 304 

28,006 72,723 4,865 

93,113 32,777 6,395 

124,147 123,905 1 1,564 

Total Transportation and Lodging 

Charter or Guide 

Fishing Gear 

Fish Processing 

Derby 

Boat Fuel and repairs 

Moorage or Haul Out 

Total 

21,737 

105,594 

132,199 

259,615 

Local* 

Shore Private Charter 

Alaska 

Shore Private Charter 

14.57 12.99 15.81 

0.39 3.97 

0.35 5.15 

1.31 1.83 

3.86 6.20 21.19 

12.43 14.44 13.76 

3.43 9.58 13.95 

34.29 45.26 75.66 

116.4 

4.50 5.53 3.58 

2.33 7.14 

0.18 2.13 

3 1.53 

5.48 

Non-Resident 

Shore Private Charter 

9.34 7.81 8.08 

28.91 2.92 18.92 

26.9 24.76 32.04 

0.93 2.30 2.33 

14.83 7.83 22.94 

7.47 10.72 9.93 

10.2 6.65 9.63 

98.58 62.99 103.87 

140.75 

20.00 17.12 15.5 

9.62 7.87 32.72 

0.95 1.65 1.37 

15.76 0 

9.00 0 

Total Fishing 

expenditures on a non-ftshing day 

*For the local expenditures, the aggregate non-fishing expenditures for all types of fishing were used because of the low number 

of observations. For instance, the survey only had three observations on local shoreline expenditures. 

**On the days fished, the total expenditures are the sum of the fishing expenditures and the living expenditures which were 

averaged across the total days spent on a trip. 

1 32.55 63.06 167.47 on a fishing day* * 

2.14 32.65 137.06 

30.41 30.41 30.41 

38.79 90.31 204.91 

4.50 45.05 129.25 

34.29 45.26 75.66 

129.15 114.39 294.21 

30.57 51.4 190.34 

98.58 62.99 103.87 
As one would expect, the expenditures rise the further one is away from the Kenai. For the local residents 

(living on the Kenai Peninsula) total transportation and living expenditures are $30.41 per day. 

Transportation and living expenses for non-local Alaska residents ranged between $34.29 to $75.66 per 

day and for non-residents between $62.99 to $103.87. (Not all of these base expenditures will end up 

being spent in the Kenai Peninsula, or elsewhere in Alaska, as will be discussed later.) Living 

expenditures were quite a bit less for non-residents who fished off a private vessel than for the other two 

types of fishing due to the fact that many of these trips were to visit friends and family. 

For fishing expenditures, local expenditures ranged between of $2.14 and $137.06, non-local Alaskan 

expenditures ranged between $4.50 and $129.25; and non-residents between $30.57 and $190.34. These 

expenditures varied greatly with the different type of fishing mode (see Table 6 for summary). 

Table 6. Average (across resident types) daily expenditures for marine sport fishing trips 

off the Kenai Peninsula by trip type ($/day). 

The average expenditure for shoreline fishing was $17.60, for private boat $47.29, and $16 1.19 for 

charter. However, the total private and shoreline living expenditures are nearly equal with the living 

expenditures for private vessel fishers the lowest. This is most likely due to the fact that many of those 

fishing off private vessels are visiting friends or family in the Kenai and fishing off their vessels. By far, 

the largest expenses are associated with the charter industry. Figure 15 shows the expenses for the charter 

industry by residency. 

Shore Private Boat Charter 

Auto or RV Rental 

Airfare 

Other Transportation 

Lodging 

Groceries 

Restaurant and Bar 

Total Transportation and Lodging 

Charter or Guide 

Fishing Gear 

Fish Processing 

Derby 

Boat Fuel and repairs 

Moorage or Haul Out 

Total Fishing 

Total of all expenditures on a non-fishing day 

Total of all expenditures on a fishing day* 

1 Auto or T~ck Fuel 

* On the days fished the total expenditures are the sum of the fishing expendimes and the living expen~tures 

which were averaged across the total days spent on a trip. 

1.65 

12.77 

1.71 

6.59 

12.05 

7.56 

52.14 

11.58 

5.04 

0.95 

22.21 

7.52 

47.29 

52.14 

99.43 

14.74 

13.72 

1.78 

9.32 

1 1.39 

10.10 

72.92 

12.21 

4.91 

0.48 

17.60 

72.92 

90.52 

11.26 

18.44 

1.93 

20.79 

11.13 

11.88 

86.70 

128.64 

9.53 

20.48 

2.55 

0.00 

0.00 

161.19 

86.70 

247.89 

11.87 I 9.82 11.27 
Local Alaska Non-Resident 

Non-Fishing Days Fishing .Total 

Figure 15. Average daily expenditures, by residency, for charter fishing in 

lower Cook Inlet (Alaskan residents do not include Kenai residents). 

The next step in estimating the baseline expenditures for fishing effort in the Cook Inlet waters of the 

Kenai Peninsula is to estimate what percent of these expenditures are spent on the Kenai vs. the rest of 

Alaska (for this section "Alaska" will mean Alaska outside of the Kenai Peninsula) vs. outside of Alaska. 

This is not an easy question and not directly determined from the Lee et al. [I9991 survey. We are 

ultimately interested in the amount spent on the Kenai Peninsula and the rest of Alaska. The following 

assumptions were made for individual daily expenditures: 

Auto and Truck Fuel. Allocate expenses by amount of days spent in each area (Kenai vs. Alaska). 

Auto or RV Renta Fees. Assume that all rentals take place in Alaska outside of the Kenai (most likely in 

Anchorage or Fairbanks). This assumption may underestimate expenditures made on the Kenai but 

probably not too much. There were not any reported rentals by Kenai residents. 

Airfare. Assume that the all of airfare expenses are going out of the state. This will also slightly 

underestimate expenditures in the Alaska portion of the study. 

Lodging (trailerpark, campgrounds, hotels, motels, B&L3, etc.). Allocate expenses by amount of days 

spent in each area (Kenai vs. Alaska). 

Food and Drink [Groceries] purchased at grocery or convenience store. Allocate expenses by amount of 

days spent in each area (Kenai vs. Alaska). 

Food and Drinkpurchased at restaurants or bars. Allocate expenses by amount of days spent in each 

area (Kenai vs. Alaska). 

Guides or Charter Fees. Spent on the Kenai. 

Fishing Gear (bought only for this trip). We are assuming that Alaskans purchase 75% on the Kenai and 

25% elsewhere in Alaska and that non-residents and Kenai residents purchase 100% on the Kenai. This is 

a pretty arbitrary assignment based on our own fishing experiences and talking with industry experts. 

Since these fishing expenditures are expenditures made for this trip only, the purchases could take place 

in a variety of places. Most likely, non-residents will purchase the majority of their gear on site; however, 

some gear may be purchased before arriving on the Kenai. Alaskans will have a better idea of what they 

need to fish and may purchase a substantial amount of gear before arriving on the Kenai. Locals are 

assumed to have purchased most of their gear for this particular trip on site. Because the gear purchase 

questions were specific to the most recent trip, most larger purchases that may be made outside of Alaska, 

like fishing rods, will have previously been made and are not reported here. 

Fish Processing and Packing Fees. Assumed to have been made on the Kenai. 
Fishing Derby Enhy Fees. A Kenai expense. 

Boat Fuel, Lubricants, and Repairs. Again, a somewhat arbitrary assumption that locals and non-locals 

will buy 75% of their boat fuel on the Kenai and 25% somewhere else in Alaska. 

Moorage and Haul Out Fees. A Kenai expense. 

Other Transportation. (such as cruises, packages, etc.). A relatively minor expense that is assumed to 

flow out of Alaska. 

Days spent on the Kenai and in Alaska 

Lee et al. [I9991 asked the Kenai fishers how many days they fished on their last trip, how many days of 

this trip was spent on the Kenai and how many days were spent away from residence. Unfortunately, the 

survey did not distinguish the non-resident non-Kenai trip days between the amount of time they spent in 

Alaska vs. the amount of time they spent on their trip outside of Alaska for non-residents. To estimate this 

we calculated the ratio of time spent on the Kenai and in Alaska for non-residents who flew to Alaska and 

those who did not fly (see Table 7) per fishing day. 

Table 7. The ratio of days fished to total Alaska days spent on Kenai fishing trip for non-residents 

and percent of non-residents who flew. 

To estimate the amount of time spent in Alaska, we assumed the amount of time spent by tourists who 

drove to be the same as that spent by tourists who flew. Therefore, we assume that whether a resident 

flew or not sfhe spent, on average, 3.15 days in Alaska for each fishing day (inclusive of the fishing day), 

3.94 for those fishing in private boats, and 4.89 for those fishing on charters. 

Shore Fishers 

Private Fishers 

Charter Fishers 

Using these figures, the total days spent on the Kenai and elsewhere in Alaska per fishing day are 

reported in Table 8. 

Total Flew Did Not Fly % Flew 

8.29 3.15 16.63 50% 

4.76 3.94 5.94 64% 

7.63 4.89 11.56 63 % 

Table 8. Estimated ratio of days to total days fished spent in the Kenai and elsewhere in 

Alaska (not including the Kenai) per fishing day. 

Fishing Days 

Local Kenai DaysEishing Day 

Other Alaska DaysFishing Day 

AK (non-local) Kenai DaysFishing Day 

Other Alaska DaysFishing Day 

Non-Resident Kenai DaysEishing Day 

Other Alaska Days/Fishing Day 

Shore Private Charter 

1 .OO 1.00 1 .OO 

1.29 1 .OO 1 .OO 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

1.03 1.45 1.73 

0.06 0.00 0.52 

2.00 2.92 2.03 

1.15 I .02 2.86 
Total expenditures assuming 100% of trip attributable to fishing 

By combining the estimated daily expenditures, the estimated time spent per fishing day, and using the 

above assumptions on expenditures, the baseline expenditures were calculated. Tables 9-1 1 show the 

total estimated expenditures for Kenai Residents for the 1997 Cook Inlet marine fisheries off the Kenai 

Peninsula. Tables 12-14 show the expenditures for Alaskans living outside the Kenai area. Tables 15-17 

show the estimated expenditures for non-residents. Table 18 summarizes the individual expenses for 

residents and Table 19 summarizes the total expenses by residency and fishing mode. 

Table 9. Estimated 1997 expenditures for Kenai residents fishing the shoreline in the marine waters of 

Cook Inlet off the Kenai Peninsula for halibut and salmon. Unless otherwise noted, reported 

values are totals. 

- - 

Expenditures 

$/Day Fishing Other Fishing Other 

(Kenai) (Kenai) (Alaska) (Alaska) Total 

Days Fished 

Days spent on ~enai' 

Days spent in ~laska' 

Auto 

RV 

Lodge 

Groceries 

Restaurant & Bar 

Charter 

Gear 

Processing 

Derby 

Boat Fuel 

Haul 

TOTAL 

Table 10. Estimated 1997 expenditures for Kenai residents fishing off a private boat in the marine waters 

of Cook Inlet off the Kenai Peninsula for halibut and salmon. 

Days 

Ratio % of Total Person 

1.00 0.1% 304 

1.29 392 

0.00 0 

Includes days fished. 

Excludes days spent on Kenai. 

Expenditures 

Fishing Other Fishing Other Total 1 

(Kenai) (Kenai) (Alaska) (Alaska) 

Days Fished 

Days spent on ~enai' 

Days spent in ~laska' 

Auto 

RV 

Lodge 

Groceries 

Restaurant & Bar 

Charter 

Gear 

Processing 

Derby 

Boat Fuel 

Haul 

TOTAL 

Days 

Ratio % of Total Person 

1.00 7.1% 18,405 

1 .OO 18,405 

0.00 0 

Includes days fished. ' Excludes days spent on Kenai. 
Table 1 1. Estimated 1997 expenditures for Kenai residents fishing off a charter boat in the marine waters 

of Cook Inlet off the Kenai Peninsula for halibut and salmon. 

I Days 1 Exvenditures 

RV 

Lodge 

Groceries 

Restaurant & Bar 

Charter 

Gear 

Processing 

Derby 

Boat Fuel 

Haul 

TOTAL 

' Includes days fished. 

Excludes days spent on Kenai. 

Table 12. Estimated 1997 expenditures for Alaskans (non-local) fishing the shoreline in the marine 

waters of Cook Inlet off the Kenai Peninsula for halibut and salmon. 

Fishing 0th~ Fishing Other 

(Kenai) (Kenai) (Alaska) (Alaska) Total 

7.82 23,676 23,676 

Days Fished 

Days spent on ~enai' 

Days spent in ~laska' 

Auto 

I Days I Expenditures I 

Ratio %of Prison 

1.00 1.2% 3,028 

1 .OO 3,028 

0.00 0 

Fishing 0th& Fishing Other Total 

'may (Kenai) (Kenai) (Alaska) (Alaska) 

14.57 73,005 4253 77,257 

Days Fished 

Days spent on ~enai' 

Days spent in ~laskaZ 

Auto 

RV 

Lodge 

Groceries 

Restaurant & Bar 

Charter 

Gear 

Processing 

Derby 

Boat Fuel 

Haul 

TOTAL 

Ratio % of 

1.00 1.9% 4,865 

1.03 5,011 

0.06 292 

3.86 19,341 1127 20,468 

12.43 62,282 3628 65,910 

3.43 17,186 1001 18,188 

4.5 16,418 5,473 21,891 

16,418 171,814 5,473 10,009 203,713 

' Includes days fished. 

Excludes days spent on Kenai. 
Table 13. Estimated 1997 expenditures for Alaskans (non-local) fishing off a private boat in the marine 

waters of Cook Inlet off the Kenai Peninsula for halibut and salmon. 

Days I Expenditures 

Days Fished 

Days spent on ~enai' 

Days spent in ~laska' 

Auto 

RV 

Lodge 

Groceries 

Restaurant & Bar 

Charter 

Gear 

Processing 

Derby 

Boat Fuel 

Haul 

TOTAL 

Ratio % ofTotal Person 

' Includes days fished. 

Excludes days spent on Kenai. 

$/Day Fishing other Fishing Other 

(Kenai) (Kenai) (Alaska) (Alaska) Total 

Table 14. Estimated 1997 expenditures for Alaskans (non-local) fishing off a charter boat in the marine 

waters of Cook Inlet off the Kenai Peninsula for halibut and salmon. 

I Days Expenditures I Ratio % ofTota1 Person 

Days Fished 

Days spent on ~enai: 

Days spent in Alaska' 

Auto 

RV 

Lodge 

Groceries 

Restaurant & Bar 

Charter 

Gear 

Processing 

Derby 

Boat Fuel 

Haul 

TOTAL 

' Includes days fished. 

Excludes days spent on Kenai. 

I Fishing other Fishing Other 

(Kenai) (Kenai) (Alaska) (Alaska) Total 
' Includes days fished. 

Excludes days spent on Kenai. 

Table 15. Estimated 1997 expenditures for non-residents fishing the shoreline in the marine waters of 

Cook Inlet off the Kenai Peninsula for halibut and salmon. 

Days Fished 

Days spent on Kenai' 

Days spent in ~laska' 

Auto 

RV 

Lodge 

Groceries 

Restaurant & Bar 

Charter 

Gear 

Processing 

Derby 

Boat Fuel 

Haul 

TOTAL 

' Includes days fished. 

Excludes days spent on Kenai. 

Table 16. Estimated 1997 expenditures for non-residents fishing off a private boat in the marine waters 

of Cook Inlet off the Kenai Peninsula for halibut and salmon. 

Days 

Ratio %of Total pmon 

1.00 2.5% 6,395 

2.00 12,789 

1.15 7,354 

Days Fished 

Days spent on Kenail 

Days spent in ~laska' 

Auto 

RV 

Lodge 

Groceries 

Restaurant & Bar 

Charter 

Gear 

Processing 

Derby 

Boat Fuel 

Haul 

TOTAL 

Expenditures 

'$may Fishing Other Fishing clther 

(Kenai) (Kenai) (Alaska) (Alaska) Total 

9.34 119,451 68,684 188,135 

28.91 582,332 582,332 

14.83 189,663 109,056 298,719 

7.47 95,535 54,933 150,468 

10.2 130,449 75,008 205,458 

20 127,892 127,892 

9.62 61,516 61,516 

0.95 6,075 6,075 

195,482 535,098 890,013 1,620,594 

Days 

Ratio % Of Total Person 

1.00 12.6% 32,777 

2.92 95,709 

1.02 33,433 

Expenditures 

Fishing Other Fishing Other Total 

$/Day (Kenail (Kenai) (Alaska) (Alaska) 

7.81 747,490 261,110 1,008,599 

2.92 377,095 377,095 

7.83 749,404 261,778 1,011,182 

10.72 1,026,004 358,399 1,384,403 

6.65 636,467 222,328 858,795 

17.12 561,145 561,145 

7.87 257,956 257,956 

1.65 54,082 54,082 

15.76 516,568 516,568 

9.00 294,995 294,995 

1,684,747 3,159,365 1,480,709 6,324,821 
Table 17. Estimated 1997 expenditures for non-residents fishing off a charter boat in the marine waters 

of Cook Inlet off the Kenai Peninsula for halibut and salmon. 

Days I Expenditures 

Table 18. Total estimated 1997 expenditures for all residents fishing in the marine waters of Cook 

Inlet off the Kenai Peninsula for halibut and salmon. 

Days Fished 

Days spent on Kenai1 

Days spent in ~laska' 

Auto 

RV 

Lodge 

Groceries 

Restaurant & Bar 

Charter 

Gear 

Processing 

Derby 

Boat Fuel 

Haul 

TOTAL 

Fishing Fishing (Kenai) Other (Kenai) (Alaska) Other (Alaska) Total 

Includes days fished. 

Excludes days spent on Kenai. 

Ratio % of Total Person 

1.00 35.9% 93,113 

2.03 189,020 

2.86 266,304 

Days Fished 

Days spent on ~enai' 

Days spent in ~laska' 

Auto 

RV 

Lodge 

Groceries 

Restaurant & Bar 

Charter 

Gear 

Processing 

Derby 

Boat Fuel 

Haul 

TOTAL 

$/Day Fishing Other Fishing Other 

(Kenai) (Kenai) (Alaska) (Alaska) Total 

8.08 1,527,28 1 2,151,736 3,679,016 

18.92 8,614,727 8,614,727 

22.94 4,336,117 6,109,012 10,445,129 

9.93 1,876,968 2,644,398 4,521,366 

9.63 1,820,262 2,564,507 4,384,768 

140.75 13,105,691 13,105,691 

15.5 1,443,255 1,443,255 

32.72 3,046,666 3,046,666 

1.37 127,565 127,565 - 

- 

17,723,177 9,560,627 22,084,379 49,368,183 

259,615 

478,252 

321,945 

Includes days fished. ' Excludes days spent on Kenai. 
Table 19. Total estimated 1997 expenditures by residency and 

fishing mode for fishers fishing the marine waters of Cook 

Inlet off the Kenai Peninsula for halibut and salmon. 

The following discussion is assuming that 100% of each trip taken, as well as the trip expenditures, were 

attributed to the desire to fish the Kenai for saltwater halibut and salmon. Obviously this is not the case. 

Some of these travelers would have taken the Alaskan and Kenai trips, and made at least partial 

expenditures, even if the Kenai saltwater fishery had not been attractive enough to have drawn them to 

fish. For example, visitors on business trips may well have visited Alaska whether or not they were 

planning to fish on the Kenai. It is fairly accurate to assume that these fishing expenses would not have 

occurred if the respondents had not fished but the assumptions on whether the trip would have been taken, 

and whether the other living and traveling expenses would have occurred, is harder to estimate. More will 

be said about this later, For now, the following living and traveling expenses (reported in Tables 9-1 9) 

are all estimated to have occurred as a direct result of the respondent's desire to fish on the Kenai for 

saltwater salmon and halibut. 

Residency 

Local 

Alaska 

Non-Resident 

Total 

Fishing Mode 

Shore 

Private Boat 

Charter 

Total 

Each of the nine individual total expense categories, broken out by residency and fishing mode, were used 

in the baseline scenario. These expenses are totaled and summarized in Table 18. The total expenses from 

fishing-related activities for salmon and halibut off the Kenai Peninsula for 1997 were estimated to be 

$75,003,482. This is further broken out by area. It was estimated that this fishery provided $26.8 million 

to the Kenai in direct fishing expenses and $21.7 million to the Kenai in living and traveling expenses 

as the result of the fishery. In addition, the fishery was estimated to have provided approximately 

one million dollars to the rest of Alaska in fishing expenses and $25.6 million in living and traveling 

expenses. From this fishery the total direct expenditures to the Kenai were $48.6 million, and $26.4 

million to the rest of Alaska. 

Fishing Non-Fishing Total 

1,016,546 648,419 1,664,965 

6,917,814 9,107,106 16,024,920 

19,603,406 37,710,191 57,313,597 

27,537,766 47,465,716 75,003,482 

21 8,024 1,618,585 1,836,609 

5,561,827 9,784,412 15,346,239 

21,757,916 36,062,719 57,820,634 

27,537,766 47,465,716 75,003,482 

By category, the largest fishing expense was charter and guide fees totaling $16.7 million. Processing, 

boat fuel, and gear all brought in approximately $3 to $4 million. Nearly all fishing expenses are 

estimated to have been spent on the Kenai. For living expenses the single largest category was RV rentals 

as lodging, which was estimated to have brought in $13.8 million. All other expenses ranged between $7 

and $10 million. 

Table 19 breaks out the total expenditures by residency and fishing mode. Non-residents were estimated 

to have spent three-quarters of the $75 million, or $57 million. By fishing mode, the charter industry 

brought in 77% of the total expenditures, approximately $58 million. Expenditures for the private boat 

industry brought in the bulk of the rest. 
Total expenditures assuming that less than 100% of each trip was attributable to fishing 

There are many reasons that a visitor may visit Alaska. Lee et al. [I9991 identified nine primary trip 

purposes. Table 20 shows the reasons that residents who fished the Cook Inlet portion of the saltwater 

halibut and salmon fishery visited Alaska. 

Table 20. Primary purpose of visit to Alaska for Kenai Peninsula saltwater 

halibut and salmon anglers from Lee et al. [1999]. 

The majority (63.5%) of all respondents' main reason for traveling on their fishing trip was to fish. This 

was overwhelmingly true for the Alaska residents, where nearly 90% listed fishing on the Kenai (for 

saltwater halibut or salmon) as the main reason for the trip. However, less than half (43%) of the nonresidents' main purpose was to saltwater fish. For the nonresidents, another large reason to take the trip 

was to visit and vacation in Alaska (24.4%). Freshwater fishing and visiting relatives followed this. 

Primary Reason for Trip 

Fishing on Kenai main reason 

VisitNacation Alaska 

Relatives 

Kenai Freshwater Fish 

Business 

SaltwaterIFreshwater Fishing 

Visit Friends 

Cruise Ship 

Hunting 

It is not likely that there is a one-to-one correspondence between visits to Alaska and the desire to fish 

on the Kenai. For that reason the following assumptions (see Table 21) were made as to what residents 

would do if they had to cancel the Kenai saltwater fishing portion of their trip to the Kenai. 

All Non-Residents (less locals) 

63.5% 87.7% 43 .O% 

14.3% 2.5% 24.4% 

7.0% 2.0% 11.2% 

8.7% 4.9% 12.0% 

2.5% 1 .O% 3.7% 

1.6% 0.5% 2.5% 

0.9% 1.5% 0.4% 

0.7% 0% 1.2% 

0.9% 0% 1.7% 

Table 21. Assumed effects of the cancellation of the saltwater fishing portion of the Kenai trip. 

Primary Reason for Trip 

Saltwater Fishing on Kenai 

VisitNacation in Alaska 

(non-Kenai focus) 

Visit Relatives 

Freshwater Fishing on Kenai 

Business Trip 

Combined Saltwaterlfkeshwater 

fishing 

Visit Friends 

Cruise Ship 

Hunting 

Alaskans 

(less locals) Lower-48 

Cancel Entire Trip 

Cancel Kenai Trip replace these days 

with days in other parts of Alaska 

Still take full trip 

Reduce days spent in Kenai and Alaska 

by amount of days lost saltwater fishing 

Still take full trip 

Reduce days spent in Kenai and Alaska 

by amount of days lost saltwater fishing 

Still take full trip 

No observations 

No observations 

Cancel Entire Trip 

Cancel Kenai Trip replace these days with 

days in other parts of Alaska 

Still take full trip 

Reduce days spent in Kenai and Alaska by 

amount of days lost saltwater fishing 

Still take full trip 

Reduce days spent in Kenai and Alaska by 

amount of days lost saltwater fishing 

Still take full trip 

Still take full trip 

Still take full trip 
To estimate the amount of reduction in time spent on the Kenai and in Alaska for a reduced fishing effort 

we ran the scenarios in Table 20 for the amount of days (instead of number of people) fished, days spent 

on Kenai, and days spent in Alaska. We then used the assumptions about changes in fishing visitation 

rates made in Table 21 to estimate the changes in visitation rates found in Table 22. 

Table 22. Estimated reduction in visitation rates for a 100% reduction in fishing effort (days). 

These are very broad assumptions and there are other likely scenarios such as substitute fishing trips, etc. 

However, we believe that these assumptions are better than assigning 100% of the expenditures from the 

trips to the saltwater halibut- and salmon-fishing component. These percentages can also be used to 

estimate the amount of the baseline expenditures attributable to the fishing component of the trip 

assuming a dollar-for-dollar expenditure pattern with days spent in ~laska~. Thecalculations in Table 22 

indicate that, for Alaskans, 86% of the Kenai living and transportation expenditures can be attributed to 

the fishing component of the trips as can 77.9% of the living and transportation expenditure in Alaska. 

For non-residents (Table 22) we estimate that approximately 60.5% of the living and transportation 

expenditures in the Kenai are a direct result of the fishing component of the trip, but that only 27.9% of 

the total expenditures in Alaska are directly attributable to the fishing component of the trip. 

Fishing Reduction 

Kenai Living Reduction 

Alaska Living Reduction 

Using the assumptions in Table 22, we redid all expense Tables (9-19) to reflect the estimated actual 

expenditures as the direct result of fishing the saltwater Kenai halibut and salmon fishery. Only the 

recalculations of Tables 18 and 19 are produced here (see Tables 23 and 2414. 

Locals Alaskans Non-Residents 

100% 100% 100% 

100% 85.5% 60.5% 

100% 77.9% 27.9% 

There is still the issue, for living expenditures, of whether Alaskans would have spent some portion of these amounts to live and 

do other things on the lost fishing days. We assume that most of these living expenditures are mp specific but there is likely to be 

some overlap with what the Alaskan residents would have spent on living doing an alternative activity. 

The recalculations of Tables 9-17 can be obtained by writing the authors. 
Table 23. Total estimated 1997 expenditures for all residents fishing in the marine waters of Cook 

Inlet off the Kenai Peninsula for halibut and salmon that are attributed directly to the 

saltwater halibut and salmon fishing trip. 

Table 24. Total estimated 1997 expenditures by residency and fishing 

mode for fishers fishing the marine waters of Cook Inlet off 

the Kenai Peninsula for halibut and salmon that are attributed 

directly to the saltwater halibut and salmon fishing trip. 

r 

Days Fished 

Days spent on ~enai' 

Days spent in ~laska~ 

Auto 

RV 

Lodge 

Groceries 

Restaurant & Bar 

Charter 

Gear 

Processing 

Derby 

Boat Fuel 

Haul 

TOTAL 

' Includes days fished. 

Excludes days spent on Kenai 

Days 

259,615 

334,634 

97,542 

Residency 

Local 

Alaska 

Non-Resident 

Total 

Using the estimate of living and transportation expenditures attributed directly to the saltwater halibut and 

salmon fishing trip reduced total expenditures from $75 million to $52 million. All of this $23 million 

dollar reduction in expenditure estimates comes from the living and transportation reductions of $6.5 

million from the Kenai and $16.5 million from outside of Alaska. Table 24 indicates that non-residents 

still make up the majority of the expenditures (69%) while the charter industry makes up 74% of the total 

expenditures by fishing mode. 

Expenditures 

Fishing 

(Kenai) Other (Kenai) Other (Alaska) Total 

3,479,128 879,623 4,358,751 - 4,206,146 4,206,146 

4,668,22 1 2,055,320 6,723,541 

3,891,004 1 ,O 16,043 4,907,047 

3,224,754 961,555 4,186,309 

16,707,284 16,707,284 

2,663,274 131,077 2,794,35 1 

3,784,267 3,784,267 

302,514 302,514 

2,528,733 573,236 3,101,969 

847,38 1 847,381 

26,833,453 15,263,107 704,3 13 9,118,687 51,919,560 

Fishing Non-Fishing Total 

1,016,546 648,419 1,664,965 

6,917,814 7,729,804 14,647,618 

19,603,406 16,003,57 1 35,606,977 

27,537,766 24,381,794 51,919,560 

Fishing Mode 

Shore 

Private Boat 

Charter 

Total 

2 18,024 642,698 860,722 

5,561,827 6,893,339 12,455,166 

21,757,916 16,845,757 38,603,673 

27,537,766 24,381,794 51,919,560 
Input-Output model 

Changes were introduced to the baseline model by correcting four separate zip code models that included 

the western Kenai Peninsula, but excluded Seward and a small part of the borough on the western shore 

of Cook Inlet. Changes in the model are given in employment numbers. The value-added and industry 

output components were also changed proportionately. When these industries were added, the average per 

job value-added and industry output from the national model were used. These changes took place before 

any modifications of RPCs (Regional Production Coefficients) or production functions. 

The Kenai-Nikiski model 

The first model is for the Kenai-Nikiski area. Expert interviews were held with John Williams, former 

Borough Mayor, Becky Hultberg from the Borough Economic Development Office, and Rick Ross and 

Laura Measles of the Kenai Chamber of Commerce. The model had 92 sectors from IMPLAN. The expert 

interviews and correlation of the model with other data sources including the agricultural statistics 

publication from USDA, the Kenai Borough School District employment roster, and other miscellaneous 

sources yielded the extensive changes. A detailed breakdown for this and the models below is in the final 

report for the project, Herrmann et al. [2000]. 

The Homer model 

The sector-by-sector correction of the HomerISeldovia model was completed with input fiom Derotha 

Ferraro, Homer Chamber of Commerce, and Shari Hobbs, Homer Mayor's office. Also taken into account 

were the ES202 files fiom the Alaska Department of Labor. When there was not agreement between 

interview subjects, their answers were averaged. In sectors where ES202 data was relatively complete, 

these data were used. Absent any conflicting information, IMPLAN database numbers were accepted as 

the best estimates. 

The Anchor Point and Ninilchik model 

The documentation for the communities of Ninilchik and Anchor Point relied mainly upon the expert 

testimony of three people, one who was considered expert for both communities, one considered expert in 

Anchor Point, and one for Ninilchik. They were, respectively, real estate agent Emmett Trimble, business 

owner Simone Klutts, and business owner Vicki Stik. All were recommended by the Kenai Peninsula 

Borough Economic Development District. They were presented with the value-added and employment 

report from the IMPLAN zip code model and asked to determine the accuracy of all sectors. 

Soldotna and balance of northern Kenai Peninsula model 

The documentation for these communities relied mainly upon the expert testimony of Kurt Eriksson, 

National Bank of Alaska Soldotna, and Tom Boedeker. They were presented with the value-added and 

employment report from the IMPLAN zip code model and asked to determine the accuracy of all sectors. 

Simulations 

Our focus to date has been on refining the data and models. Although we have run test simulations to 

debug the models, we have not begun our formal simulation analysis. 
Discussion 

We are now poised to begin using the models to explore the effects of changes in sportfishing opportunity 

on angler net benefits and the ultimate impact of those changes on the regional economy through the 

evaluation of various scenarios. The regional economic impacts of these scenarios will be explored by 

representing the effects of the contingent behavior of anglers in the 1-0 model. 

Preliminary Conclusions 

It would be premature to draw conclusions from the data or simulations at this time. 

Student Involvement 

Students working on this project were Chuck Hamel, M.S. student, supported by CMI, Mike Orr, an 

undergraduate whose time (5-8 hours per week for the 1997-98 academic year) was donated to the 

project, and Isaac Wedin, an M.S. student supported by Alaska Sea Grant. 

Acknowledgements 

We are gratell for information provided by the Kenai, Seward, and Homer Chambers of Commerce, 

Becky Hultberg and Craig Layman (Kenai Peninsula Borough Economic Development District), Sheri 

Hobbs (City of Homer), John Williams (former Kenai Peninsula Borough mayor), Tim Evers (Deep 

Creek Charter Association), Frank Libal (Anchor Point Charter Association), Robert Ward (Homer 

Charter Association), Karl Kircher (Kenai Peninsula Fishers's Association), Theo Matthews (United 

Cook Inlet Drifters Associations), Nancy and John Hillstrand (Alaska Custom Seafoods), Kurt Eriksson 

(National Bank of Alaska, Soldotna), Doug Coughenower (Alaska Sea Grant Marine Advisory Program), 

and Emmett Trimble, Simone Klutts, Vicki Stik, and Tom Boedeker. 

Study Products 

Reports 

Criddle, K.R., J.A. Greenberg, H.Geier, C.Hame1, M. Herrmann, S.T. Lee and C. Lewis. 1998. An 

economic assessment of the marine sport fisheries in lower Cook Inlet, p. 5-12. In University of 

Alaska Coastal Marine Institute Annual Report No. 5. OCS Study MMS 98-0062, University of 

Alaska Fairbanks. 

Presentations 

Overviews of the project methodology and progress-to-date were presented at the annual CMI meetings in 

February 1998 and 1999, in a seminar at the MMS offices in Anchorage in April 1998, and at the 

information transfer meeting in Anchorage (January 1999). 
References 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). 1998. Harvest, catch, and participation in Alaska sport 

fisheries during 1997. Division of Sports Fish. Fishery Data Series No. 98-25. 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 1999. 

http://www.state.ak.us~ocaVakpages/FISH.G~/sportf/geninfo/regs/ci-99/cook99.h~ 

Coughenower, D.D. 1986. Homer, Alaska guided sport fishing industry study. Marine Advisory Bulletin 

No. 22, Alaska Sea Grant College Program, University of Alaska Fairbanks. 

Criddle, K.R. 1994. Economics of resource use: A bioeconomic analysis of the Pacific halibut fishery, 

p. 37-52. In D.G. Shaw [ed.], Proc. Fourth International Symp. of the Conference of Asian and 

Pan-Pacific University Presidents, September 1993, Anchorage, AK. Alaska Sea Grant College 

Program, University of Alaska Fairbanks. 

Crutchfield, J.A., and A. Zellner. 1962. Economic aspects of the Pacific halibut fishery. Fish. Indust. 

Res. 1: 1-73. 

Fawson, C., and K.R. Criddle. 1994. A comparative analysis of time series approaches to modeling 

intersectoral and intercounty employment linkages in rural regional labor markets, J. Reg. Sci. 34:57-75. 

Geier, H. and D. Holland. 1991. Economic aspects of federal livestock grazing policy: a regional economic 

analysis for the Okanogan-Ferry Area in Washington. Washington State Univ. Pullman, WA. Dept. of 

Agric. Econ. Staff Paper A.E. 9 1-3. 

Geier, H., D. Holland, and E. Schuster. 1994. Using IMPLAN to analyze small county economies for 

identification of development opportunities. USDA Forest Service Intermountain Research Station 

Research Paper. 

Herrmann, M. 1993. Using an international econometric model to forecast Alaska salmon revenues. Mar. 

Resour. Econ. 8: 249-27 1. 

Herrmann, M. 1994. The Alaska salmon fishery: an industry in economic turmoil. J. Aquat. Food Prod. 

Techn. 3: 5-22. 

Herrmann, M. 1996. Estimating the induced price increase for Canadian Pacific halibut with the 

introduction of the individual vessel quota program. Can. J. Agric. Econ. 44: 151-164. 

Herrmann, M., and J.A. Greenberg. 1994. A revenue analysis of the Alaska pink salmon fishery. North Am. 

J. Fish. Manage. 14: 537-549. 

Herrrnann, M., S.T. Lee, C. Hamel, K.R. Criddle, H.T. Geier, J.A. Greenberg and C.E. Lewis. 2000. An 

Economic Assessment of the Sport Fisheries for Halibut, and Chinook and Coho Salmon in Lower 

Cook Inlet. Final Report. OCS Study MMS 2000-Oxx, University of Alaska Coastal Marine Institute, 

University of Alaska Fairbanks. In press. 

Homans, F.R. 1993. Modeling regulated open access resource use. Doctoral dissertation, Department of 

Agricultural Economics, University of California, Davis. 

International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC). 1998. Pacific halibut stock assessment and fishery 

evaluation (SAFE), Appendix A. In Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation Report for the Groundfish 

Resources of the Gulf of Alaska as Projected for 1999. North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 

Anchorage, AK. 

International Pacific Halibut Commission. 1999. 

h~:Ilwww,iphc.washington.edu/halcom/pubs/annrep/Annuaepo6.pdf. 

Jones and Stokes Assoc. Inc. 1987. South-central sport fishing economic study. Alaska Department of Fish 

and Game, Division of Sport Fisheries, Anchorage, AK. 
Layman, R.C., J.R. Boyce, and K.R. Criddle. 1996. Economic valuation of the chinook salmon sport fishery 

of the Gulkana River, Alaska under current and alternate management plans. Land Econ.72: 1 13-128. 

Lee, S.T., M. Herrmann, I. Wedin, K.R. Criddle, C. Hamel, and J. Greenberg. 1999. Summary of angler 

survey: saltwater sport fishing off the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. Final report, Alaska Sea Grant Project 

98-403 R14-17,40 p. 

Lin, B.-H., H.S. Richards, and J.M. Terry. 1988. An analysis of the exvessel demand for Pacific halibut. 

Mar. Resour. Econ. 4: 305-314. 

Logsdon, C.L., K.L. Casavant, and W.C. Thomas. 1977. Input-output tables for Alaska's economy: A first 

look, Agric. Exp. Sta., Univ. of Alaska, Bull. No. 48. 

Mundy, P.R., K.K. English, W.J. Gazey, and K.E. Tarbox. 1993. Evaluation ofthe harvest management 

strategies applied to sockeye salmon populations of Upper Cook Inlet, Alaska, using run reconstruction 

analysis, p. 107-140. In G. Kruse, D.M. Eggers, R.J. Marasco, C. Pautzke, and T.J. Quinn I1 [eds.], Proc. 

Intern. Symp. on Management Strategies for Exploited Fish Populations, Alaska Sea Grant College 

Program, University of Alaska Fairbanks. 

National Research Committee to Review Individual Fishing Quotas, 1999. Sharing the Fish: Toward a 

National Policy on Individual Fishing Quotas, National Research Council, National Academy Press. 

North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC). 1991a. Environmental Impact Statement, Regulatory 

Impact Review, Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for the Proposed Individual Fishing Quota Management 

Alternatives for the Halibut Fisheries in the Gulf of Alaska and Bering SealAleutian Islands. North 

Pacific Fishery Management Council, Anchorage, AK. 

North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC). 1991b. North Pacific Fisheries Management Council 

Sablefish and Halibut Fixed Gear Fisheries Individual Fishery Quota System Draft Implementation Plan. 

North Pacific Fishery Management Council, Anchorage, AK. 

Olson, D., S. Linda11 and D.W. Maki. 1993. Micro IMPLAN Software Manual. Minnesota IMPLAN Group, 

St. Paul, MN. 

Richardson, H.W. 1972. Input-Output and Regional Economics. Halstead Press, New York. 

Summers, P., and H. Birss. 1991. Revitalizing the timber dependent regions of Washington. Northwest 

Policy Center, Univ. of Washington Graduate School of Public Affairs, Seattle, WA. Report for the 

Washington Dept. of Trade and Economic Development. 

Weddelton, J. 1986. The 1982 Alaska Input-Output model, Univ. of Alaska Fairbanks. Unpublished M.S. 

Thesis. 
The Relationship of Diet to Habitat Preferences of 

Juvenile Flatfishes in Kachemak Bay, Alaska: Phase I 

Brenda 

Brenda 

Arny L. 

L. Norcross cnorcross@irns.uaf.edu> 

A. Holladay cholladay@irns.uaf.edu> 

Blanchard camyb@ims.uaf.edu> 

Institute of Marine Science 

University of Alaska Fairbanks 

Fairbanks, AK 99775-7220 

Task Order 14278 

Abstract 

This pilot study examined the diet of 80 juvenile flathead sole collected in Kachemak Bay, Alaska over a 

range of seasons, depths, and substrates. Samples were gathered prior to the present project during a 

study of seasonal juvenile flatfish habitat which defined the preferred range of depth and substrate for 

flathead sole and rock sole, the most abundantjlatJishes in Kachemak Bay. Diets were examined based 

on season of capture (winter, spring, or summer), depth preference (<40 m: shallower than preferred; 

40-80 m: preferred; > 80 m: deeper than prefed), substrate preference (< 50% mud: larger than 

preferred; >SO% mud: preferred), and fish size. Tenjish with stomach contents (predators) were 

exarninedfiom winter (regardless of depth or substrate), 10 predators from spring (regardless of depth or 

substrate), and 60predatorsfiom summer collections (10 within each of 6 substrate/depth combinations). 

Diets were described based on the numbers of individuals of each prey taxon consumed, and were 

separately described based on prey biomass. Where a single prey taxon accounted for 11 0% of the diet 

either by number of individuals consumed or by biomass, that taxon was considered to be important to 

the diet based on numerical or biomass criteria. Where a prey taxon accounted for 21 0% of the diet both 

by numbers of individuals and biomass, we were reasonably sure that the prey taxon was substantially 

important in the diet of the fish caught in that parameter. Statistical comparisons among the use of a prey 

taxon on any one parameter, e.g., use of Polychaeta during winter, spring, and summer, wereper$onned 

by applying a logistic model to presence/absence of prey. The signijkance level was set to a = 0.05. 

The 65 prey taxa consumed by juvenile flathead sole in this study were divided into 13 general taxonomic 

groups for analysis: Foraminiferida, Polychaeta, Bivalvia, Crustacea (unident$ed), Ostracoda, Copepoda, 

Euphausiacea, shrimps, crabs, Mysidacea, Cumacea, Isopoda, and Gummaridea. The subphylum 

Crustacea provided the greatest variety ofprey taxa and the largest count of individual prey consumed. 

Flathead sole collected during summer usually had stomach contents (N = 60 predators of 79jish 

examined) indicating they fed more often than fish collected during spring (N = I0 predators of 21 fish 

examined) or winter (N= 10 predators of 40fish examined). No prey taxon accounted for 21 0% of both 

numbers of individuals and biomass consumed in all seasons. Copepods were important numerically in 

each season, but provided very little biomass in any season. Based on both numerical and biomass 

criteria, mysids and amphipods were important in the winter diet, polychaetes were important in the 

spring diet, and mysids were important in the summer diet. Sample size was not sufJicient to determine 

whether seasonal diets were significantly diferent based on prey presencdabsence. 
Euphausids were important in all depth ranges when using both count and biomass criteria. Additionally, 

based on these criteria, gammarid amphipods were important in depths of < 40 m; mysids were important 

in depths of 40-80 m; and both shrimps and mysids were important in depths of >80 m. Mysids were 

consumed equally at all depth strata (x2= 0.15, p= 0.926), and shrimps were consumed by more predators 

where depth > 80 m (A?= 8.36, p = 0.015). 

Based on numerical and biomass criteria, 'shrimps " was an important taxon in both less preferred 

(GO% mud) and preferred (>50% mud) substrates, euphausids were important in <50% mud, and 

mysids were important in >50% mud. The logistic model detected no signiJicant dzference in number of 

predators consuming polychaetes, mysids, gammarid amphipods, euphausids, and shrimps over the two 

substrates. The number ofpredators consuming Copepoda was greater on substrate <50% mud than on 

the preferred substrate ($=3.75, p = 0.053). 

No prey taxon was important to all sizes ofjlathead sole based on both prey counts and biomass. The 

taxa Mysidae and Copepoda were important to smalljsh (28-51 mm total length) based on prey counts 

and biomass; Mysidae and Gammaridea were important to medium fish (52-77 mm); and Euphausiacea 

and shrimps were important to largejsh (78-165 mm). Copepoda (X'= 7.53, p =0.023) and shrimps 

(2~7.32, p =0.026) were consumed with dtflerentfiequency amongjsh of dlfSerent sizes. The number 

of small, medium, and large predators consuming Mysidacea, Gammaridae, and Polychaeta were not 

significantly dzferent. 

Though this small sample size (N = 80 predators) was insuflcient to determine ifjlathead sole occur in 

preferred habitats due to the prey associated with those habitats, this research indicated that certain prey 

taxa were consumed within limited ranges of depth and substrate. In particular, shrimps were consumed 

at depths > 80 m and by3athead sole 252 mm. Copepods are consumed on substrates < 50% mud and by 

flathead sole 177 mm. Mysids were consumed equally at all depths and on both substrates. Polychaetes 

and gammarid amphipods were consumed equally on both substrates and by all sizes ofjlathead sole. 

Study Products 

Holladay, B.A. and B.L, Norcross. 1998. Relationship of diet to habitat preferences of juvenile 

flatfishes. University of Alaska Coastal Marine Institute Annual Research Review, February 1998, 

Fairbanks. 

Holladay, B.A., B.L. Norcross and A. Blanchard. 1998. The relationship of diet to habitat preferences 

of juvenile flatfishes in Kachemak Bay, Alaska. Preliminary Report, MMS Task Order #14278. 

University of Alaska Coastal Marine Institute, University of Alaska Fairbanks. 13 p. 

Holladay, B.A., B.L. Norcross and A. Blanchard. 1999. A limited investigation into the relationship of 

diet to the habitat preferences of flathead sole. Final Report. OCS Study MMS 99-0025. University 

of Alaska Coastal Marine Institute, University of Alaska Fairbanks. 27 p. 

Norcross, B.L. and B.A. Holladay. 1998. The relationship of diet to habitat preferences ofjuvenile 

flatfishes in Kachemak Bay, Alaska, p. 45-54. In V. Alexander, University of Alaska Coastal Marine 

Institute Annual Report No. 5. OCS Study MMS 98-0062, University of Alaska Fairbanks. 

Norcross, B.L. and B.A. Holladay. 1999. The relationship of diet to habitat preferences of juvenile 

flatfishes in Kachemak Bay, Alaska. University of Alaska Coastal Marine Institute Annual Research 

Review, February 1999, Fairbanks, 
Feeding Ecology of Maturing Sockeye Salmon 

(Oncorhynchus nerka) in Nearshore Waters of the 

Kodiak Archipelago 

Albert V. Tyler cffavt@uaf.edu> 

Bruce C. Mclntosh cfsbcmi @uaf.edu> 

School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences 

University of Alaska Fairbanks 

Fairbanks, AK 99775-7220 

Charles 0. Swanton ~charles~swanton@fishgame.state.ak.us~ 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game 

1300 College Road 

Fairbanks, AK 99701 -1 599 

Task Order 151 60 

Abstract 

As demands for additional commercial fisheries opportunities increase, forage species may be sought 

after by industry. We are examining the role of forage species as apart of the food energy requirements 

of the sockeye salmon, and looking at the potential impacts that nearshore development in relation to oil 

exploration leases may have on the prey species of the salmon-hence the coupling of this research with 

the Minerals Management Service. The North Shelikof Strait oil and gas lease area is known to be both a 

migration corridor and a foraging area for Kodiak's PaciJic salmon. 

During 1998, a majority of sockeye salmon sampledfiom Kodiak migration pathways of sockeye were 

shown to be feeding until late July when feeding was reduced, con$rming earlier publishedfindings. Both 

time and area eflects on feeding prevalence and dietary content were found to be sign$cant. We are 

continuing our intensive study of feeding prevalence and dietary content of sockeye salmon sampledfiom 

jive Kodiak Archipelago locations along migration corridors and migration terminus areas. 

Background and Relevance 

Sockeye salmon are the economic mainstay of the Kodiak commercial salmon fishing industry. The role 

of the freshwater environment for sockeye salmon production is well understood [Koenings and Burkett 

1987; Stockner 19871, but knowledge of marine life history suffers from numerous data gaps, except in 

the areas of ocean distribution and offshore food web dynamics [Burgner 1991; Pearcy et al. 1988; 

Brodeur 19901. The final stages of maturation in salmon are critical to successful reproduction. Growth 

is directed toward storage of energy reserves and production of gonadal tissue immediately prior to 

cessation of feeding and ascension to freshwater spawning grounds [Brett 19951. Man-made perturbations 

can increase metabolic demands, decrease prey diversity and reduce prey abundance, adversely affecting 

growth and available energy stores [Brett 1983, 1995; Higgs et al. 19951. 
Current knowledge of the nearshore feeding ecology of mature sockeye is limited to several research 

efforts, spanning an area from Oregon to the Sea of Okhotsk, and shows sockeye salmon to vary feeding 

patterns by location presumably in response to prey availability. This precludes generalization to other 

locations, as most studies are site specific [Andrievskaya 1966; Nishiyama 1977; Brodeur 1990; Beachum 

1986; Helton 19911. A recurrent theme in these studies is that euphausiids, fish larvae, decapods, and 

amphipods are the major dietary components of maturing fish in coastal waters. However, in 1994 

predominant prey items (listed by rank) for fish sampled within Kodiak waters were sand lances 

(Ammodytes hexaptem), snails (Limacina helicina) and euphausiids (Thysanoessa spinifera) (Swanton 

1997a). Research areas still to be addressed include the feeding prevalence of mature fish, the stage of 

feeding cessation, and identification of major prey taxa. Evaluation of the food web dynamics and feeding 

habits of mature salmon is necessary for an understanding of potential ingestion pathways for 

hydrocarbon contamination. Prey taxa, identified in initial studies in the Kodiak area, exhibit varied life 

history strategies including habitat utilization. Assessment of differences (temporal and spatial) in 

contamination of these habitats can lead to a more concise evaluation of the impact on salmon once prey 

utilization is known. Identification of feeding prevalence and stage of cessation provides a clearer 

understanding of contamination potential via ingestion. 

The North Shelikof Strait lease area is important for maturing sockeye salmon of Kodiak origin. 

Prevailing currents in lower Cook Inlet and Shelikof Strait potentially extend impacts from oil and gas 

development throughout the inshore areas of the Kodiak Archipelago and eastern Alaska Peninsula. The 

results of this research would be applicable to contingency planning for spill prevention, development, 

and natural gas exploration, as well as establishing pre-impact baseline measures. These results could also 

affect fisheries management policy by identifying significant forage species for sockeye in nearshore 

waters, thus affording these populations protection from potential commercial exploitation. Once key 

forage species are identified in relation to area and month, it will be possible to interpret what is known 

and published of their biology with respect to potential impacts from oil and gas development, 

The primary focus of this study will be restricted to sockeye salmon. As the principle target of the Kodiak 

salmon industry, sockeye landings comprised approximately 93% of the total ex-vessel value for salmon 

in the Kodiak area during 1996 [Kevin Brennan, ADF&G, personal communication]. Differences in 

migration patterns, stock composition, life stage and run timing for each of the other Pacific salmon 

species would require separate methodologies, beyond the proposed scope of this project. Similar studies 

could be initiated for the Cook Inlet region, as well as for other areas having established commercial 

fisheries and local processing facilities. Protocols and methods developed within this study could be 

expanded to these areas, allowing for comparison of findings across a broad geographic area. Limitations 

of personnel and resources, within the context of this study, preclude expanding this research effort 

outside of the Kodiak Management Area. This research project will be two years in duration. 

Objectives 

1) Determine the incidence of feeding (% of stomachs with prey) sockeye salmon from 

three locations known to be migration corridors (Eastside Kodiak, Westside Kodiak, 

and Alaska Peninsula areas) on a weekly basis during June through August. 

2) Estimate incidence of feeding of sockeye salmon from two areas each <5 km from 

their natal stream terminus (Ayakulik and Moser-Olga Bay sections) weekly June 

through August. 
3) Identify and quantify the major prey taxa for sockeye salmon within the Shelikof 

Strait migration corridor and determine if location has an effect on prey types 

utilized. Identification will be made to species level where possible. 

4) The identification of potential mechanisms of indirect effects on sockeye salmon, 

through prey utilization, due to development in oil and gas lease areas. 

Null hypotheses to be tested 

H, 1) There are no temporal or spatial differences in incidence of feeding for migrating, 

mature sockeye salmon. 

H, 2) There is no difference in incidence of sockeye salmon feeding between terminal 

harvest areas and migration corridor areas. 

H,, 3) There is no change, temporally, in incidence of feeding for fish in terminal areas. 

H, 4) Dietary content of sockeye salmon (major prey taxa consumed) is similar among 

areas and is consistent with these fish being opportunistic feeders. 

Methods and Data Analyses 

This project will be conducted in conjunction with the existing Alaska Department of Fish and Game 

(ADF&G) catch-age sampling program. Catch-age sampling is conducted in shore-based processing 

facilities on a weekly basis throughout the duration of the commercial fishing season. The current Kodiak 

catch-age sampling program collects scales from sockeye salmon commercially caught within each of the 

seven geographic districts that constitute the Kodiak Management Area. These scale samples are used to 

generate age composition estimates of the harvest and, in some districts, are employed for stock 

composition estimates using scale pattern analysis. Sample size for each arealperiod in the existing 

ADF&G catch-age sampling program is n=600. Each area is identified by a district, a section within that 

district and a statistical code. Each period is defined by a statistical week, numbered consecutively 1-53 

for a calendar year. 

All limited entry permit holders are required by statute to record the date, district and section their catch 

was obtained in on an ADF&G fish ticket (i.e., a harvest record) at the time of delivery for sale. These 

districts and sections (as described in Alaska Commercial Finfish Regulations for the Kodiak Area) are 

coded by statistical area. Gear type, permit holder(s), catch, delivery and processing dates and times are 

available as well. Characterization of the overall commercial harvest, within each area and island wide, is 

generated through ADF&G fish ticket summaries and age composition data. Sockeye salmon in the 

commercial catch are assumed to be mature fish of predominately local origin. 

This study will use the same procedures and information in identifying the harvest area, gear type and 

date for the catch that is sampled. For this study each sample will consist of a minimum of n= 100 

sockeye salmon stomachs obtained from the commercial fishery and that were caught within a single 

identified area and period. The boundaries of the five study areas of interest are defined in Figure 1. Each 

sample period will coincide with an ADF&G statistical week. An attempt will be made to obtain a sample 

from each area during each period. The first scheduled commercial fishery begins 9 June; the first 

sampling period will be the week of 7 June to 13 June. Sampling will take place in each consecutive 

period through week 35, dependent upon a fishery occurring within a study area during that period. The 

minimum target sample size for determining feeding prevalence will be n= 100 stomachs examined. The 

minimum volumetric subsample (for determining composition of ingested prey items) will be n=30. 
Figure 1. Sampled areas indicating migration corridors. 

Samples will be collected and examined at shore-based processing facilities located in the ports of 

Kodiak, Larsen Bay and Alitak. Standard industry practice in the processing of sockeye salmon consists of: 

1) Removing the head, gills and opercular plate with a mechanical guillotine. 

2) Slicing open the body cavity, from the vent to the pectoral girdle. 

3) Manually removing the viscera from the body cavity. 

4) Separation and salvage of the roe from the viscera. 

Sampling for this project will involve procuring physically intact and complete digestive tracts 

immediately afier the viscera has been removed from the fish in the processing operation. These will be 

collected by ADF&G personnel stationed directly on the processing line. There will be no prior selection 

for size, sex, exterior physical condition of the fish or stomach fullness. After obtaining the stomachs they 

will be examined for presence or absence of food items. Those stomachs containing food items will be 

retained as a subsample and frozen whole (minus extraneous viscera) for prey composition analysis at 

University of Alaska School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences (UAFISFOS) facilities in Fairbanks. 

The commercial deliveries from which samples are collected are expected to be random and 

representative of the catch. Samples from all areas except Moser-Olga will be obtained fkom deliveries 

of purse seine caught fish, due to the non-selectivity of this gear type. The Moser-Olga area is exclusively 

a set-gillnet fishery by regulation; all fish sampled that originate from within this area will have been 

caught with this gear type. Advanced notice of the arrival of deliveries, from the fishing grounds, is 

provided by processing personnel to ADF&G sampling crews on a confidential basis. This information 

will be used in selecting among potential samples to minimize the lapse between the time of capture and 

time of processing, and to ensure that the samples are representative of the study areas. 

In the pilot study conducted in 1994 it was found that salmon held in refrigerated holds displayed little 

additional degradation of stomach contents after the initial effects of post-capture digestion. Samples 

suitable for prey analysis were obtained from catches 72 hours old. This is most likely due to brine 
chilling of the catch to core temperatures approaching 0 "C, typical of most current industry practice. For 

this study sampling will be restricted to catch that is less than 60 hours old, and has been chilled prior to 

delivery and processing. This time frame will be shortened if indicated in initial quality control sampling. 

In the initial stages of sampling, the quality of stomachs and contents will be monitored carefully. During 

this period adjustments can be made in protocols to maximize the utility of subsequent samples obtained. 

In addition, quality control samples will be taken to examine the effects of freezing on the sample tissues. 

Comparisons will be made between samples that are fresh, frozen and preserved with a fmative (e.g., 

formalin). 

Our goal is to examine 100 stomachs from each of the five aforementioned areas on a weekly basis 

between 9 June and 3 1 August, 1998 and 1999. Sampling will consist of Ho 1-addressed through 

sampling for presence or absence of food items, termed "incidence of feeding" or "feeding prevalence";. 

H,, 2-stomach fullness (in 10% increments) is determined visually, with numeric and weight 

subsampling performed on 15 stomachs per arealtime strata; and Ho 3-identification of prey taxa (to 

lowest taxonomic level possible). A 2 x 2 factorial experimental design (intrinsic factors: time and area) 

with a logistic model [Cox and Snell 19891 fit to binomial data (feedinglnon-feeding) will be employed 

with parameters estimated using maximum likelihood estimation [Wilkinson 19901. Differences in 

incidences of prey type by time and area will be tested using chi-square tests [Beachum 19861. 

H, 4 will be addressed through the analysis of frequency of occurrence and percent composition by 

weight of ingested prey, generated from subsampling of stomach contents in each sample. In the twofactor design (factors: area and time) that will be employed, five factor levels will be used for area and 

twelve factor levels for time. Analysis of variance will be used for identification of significant area, time 

and area-time effects on dietary content, using comparisons within and between factor levels. In the event 

some samples are unavailable, empty cells will be addressed through interpolation, post-hoc temporal 

stratification or partial analyses. 

Data management 

The primary data generated from this project will consist of binomial feeding state (feeding or not 

feeding, termed feeding prevalence), prey category weights from each specimen examined and associated 

percentages. Categorical and quantitative data generated from each specimen will be managed in 

spreadsheet fashion and organized by sample stratum. A dedicated statistical package will be used for 

the analyses. The raw data files (ASCII) with header information will be provided to CMI for archival 

purposes. At a minimum, this data set (along with logbooks, notes and miscellaneous materials) will also 

be archived within the Western Region offtce of ADF&G. 

Logistics 

Sampling of the commercial catch will take place in concert with existing ADF&G sockeye and chinook 

(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) salmon age, length, and sex composition programs pelson 1997; Swanton 

1997bl. Commercial salmon fishing within the proposed study area commences 9 June. At a minimum, 

stomach samples will be collected from fish processing facilities located in Alitak Bay, Larsen Bay, and 

the city of Kodiak. Attempts will be made to sample only from those facilities that do not employ 

mechanical evisceration equipment. Initial determination of feeding state and fullness will be made at 

time of collection (where practicable). Subsamples for prey identification and quantification will be 

frozen on site and processed at UAF/SFOS facilities in Fairbanks. Sampling will be conducted by 

graduate student Bruce McIntosh with assistance from available ADF&G technicians; feeding state, 

fullness and all dietary content analyses will be conducted by McIntosh either at ADF&G facilities in 

Kodiak or at the UAF/SFOS facilities in Fairbanks. 
Results 

Stomach samples were taken during the scheduled field period as follows: 

1) A total of 6334 stomachs were examined during the interval 7 June to 26 August 

1998. Sampling goals were met each week during this period except for a few cases. 

Samples were taken in the ports of Kodiak and Alitak from lots of fish caught in 

known designated areas. 

2) An excess of stomachs (1037) was frozen weekly throughout the sampling period. 

3) Samples were taken in a representative manner through the entire migration corridor 

which consisted of the following areas: Ayakulik, Westside Kodiak, Eastside 

Kodiak, Mainland, Cape Alitak. 

4) Adequate numbers of samples were taken from the terminal harvest area of Olga Bay. 

Preliminary Conclusions and Data Analysis 

Data analysis was begun in October 1998 and proceeded through March 1999 when preparations were 

begun for the 1999 sampling period. 

1) Statistical analyses were carried out for possible differences in incidence of feeding, 

i.e., ratios of sockeye with and without prey items. Significant differences occurred 

among most sampling localities for any one-week sampling period. The analysis will 

be repeated in 1999 and the data examined for trends and compared for the two 

years. No conclusions have been drawn at present. 

2) Statistical analyses of incidence of feeding showed significant difference among 

weeks for a given sampling area during the 1998 sampling period. Fewer stomachs 

had prey items as the season progressed. 

3) Analysis of frozen samples was begun, with several hundred stomachs being 

processed. Large numbers of pagurid crab larvae were prevalent among the 

stomachs this year. This is a distinctly different finding from the preliminary study 

carried out in 1994, when crab larvae were rare [Swanton 1997al. 

Acknowledgements 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game has provided logistical support, including transportation to remote 

field sites on Kodiak Island. Laboratory and office support was provided by the UAF School of Fisheries 

and Ocean Sciences. Fish stomach sampling opportunities were provided by Wards Cove Packing Inc. 

The research was supported by funding from CMI. 

Student Involvement 

Mr. Bruce Macintosh is the M.S. degree candidate working on this project. The project will constitute his 

thesis. 
Study Products 

Quarterly reports starting July 1998. 

Annual report (this report) for 1998-99. 

Annual presentation to CMI TSC on 23 February 1999. 

35 mm slides fiom annual presentation have been submitted. 

Field and laboratory data: Data has been recorded on forms especially developed for this project. 

Copies will be submitted to the ADF&G repository at the completion of this project. 

References 

Andrievskaya, L.D. 1966. Food relationships of the Pacific salmon in the sea. Vopr. Ikhtiol. 6:84-90. 

Beachum, T.D. 1986. Type, quantity, and size of food of Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus) in the Strait of 

Juan de Fuca, British Columbia. Fish. Bull. 84:77-89. 

Brett, J.R. 1983. Life energetics of sockeye salmon, Oncorhyncus nerka, p. 29-66. In W.P. Aspey and 

S.I. Lustick [eds.], Behavioral Energetics: The Cost of Survival in Vertebrates. Ohio State University 

Press, Columbus. 

Brett, J.R. 1995. Energetics, p. 3-68. In C. Groot, L. Margolis and W.C. Clarke [eds.], Physiological 

Ecology of Pacific Salmon. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, BC. 

Brodeur, R.D. 1990. A synthesis of the food habits and feeding ecology of salmonids in marine waters 

of the North Pacific (INPFC Doc.) FRI-UW-9016. Fish Res. Inst., Univ. of Washington, Seattle. 38 p. 

Burgner, R.L. 1991. Life history of sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka), p. 4-1 17. In C. Groot and L. 

Margolis [eds.], Pacific Salmon Life Histories. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, BC. 

Cox, D.R. and E.J. Snell. 1989. Analysis of binary data. Chapman and Hall, New York. 

Helton, D.R. 1991. An analysis of the Port Moller offshore test fishing forecast of sockeye and chum 

salmon runs to Bristol Bay, Alaska. M.S. Thesis, University of Washington, Seattle. 

Higgs, D.A., J.S. MacDonald, C.D. Levings and B.S. Dosanjh. 1995. Nutrition and feeding habits in 

relation to life stage, p. 16 1-3 15. In C. Groot, L. Margolis and W.C. Clarke [eds.], Physiological 

Ecology of Pacific Salmon. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, BC. 

Koenings, J.P. and R.D. Burkett. 1987. Population characteristics of sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus 

nerka) smolts relative to temperature regimes, euphotic volume, fry density, and forage base within 

Alaska lakes, p. 216-234. In H.D. Smith, L. Margolis, and C.C. Wood [eds.], Sockeye Salmon 

(Oncorhynchus nerka) Population Biology and Future Management. Can. Spec. Publ. Fish. Aquat. 

Sci. 96. 

Nelson, P.A. 1997. Kodiak Management Area commercial catch and escapement sampling procedures. 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Commercial Fisheries Management and Development 

Division, Regional Information Report 4K97-36, Kodiak. 

Nishiyama, T. 1977. Food-energy requirements of Bristol Bay sockeye salmon Oncorhynchus nerka 

(Walbaum) during the last marine life stage, p. 289-320. In Res. Inst. North Pac. Fish. Spec. Vol. 

Pearcy, W.G., R.D. Brodeur, J.M. Shenker, W.W. Smoker, and Y. Endo. 1988. Food habits of Pacific 

salmon and steelhead trout in midwaters trawl catches and oceanographic conditions in the Gulf of 

Alaska, 1980-1985. Bull. Ocean Res. Inst. 26(11):29-78. 
Swanton, C.O. 1997a. Feeding prevalence and dietary content of sockeye salmon Oncorhynchus nerka 

in coastal waters of the Kodiak Archipelago during July 1994. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 

Commercial Fisheries Management and Development Division, Regional Information Report, 

Kodiak. In press. 

Swanton, C.O. 1997b. Assessment of harvests of Cook Inlet origin Chinook salmon in commercial and 

marine sport fisheries in the Kodiak Management Area, 1997-1999. Alaska Department of Fish and 

Game, Commercial Fisheries Management and Development Division, Kodiak. Unpublished data 

Collection Operational Plan, 91 p. 

Stockner, J.G. 1987. Lake fertilization: The enrichment cycle of lake sockeye salmon production, p. 

198-215. In H.O. Smith, L. Margolis and C.C. Wood [eds.], Sockeye Salmon (Oncolynchus nerka) 

Population Biology and Future Management. Can. Spec. Publ. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 96. 

Wilkinson, L. 1990. The System for Statistics. SYSTAT, Inc. Evanston, IL. 
Correction Factor for Ringed Seal Surveys in 

Northern Alaska 

Brendan P. ~elly' cffbpk@uaf.edu> 

Lori J. C2uakenbush2 <loriq@ims.uaf.edu> 

Brian D. ~aras~ <btaras@alum.rnit.edu> 

1 Juneau Center, School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences, University of Alaska Fairbanks, 

11 120 Glacier Highway, Juneau, AK 99801 

21nstitute of Marine Science, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK 99775-7220 

3~olid Solutions, P.O. Box 81825, Fairbanks, AK 99708-1825 

Task Order 151 62 

Abstract 

Over I50 subnivean breathing holes and lairs, excavated by ringed seals, were located in the shore-fast 

ice of the Beaufort Sea by specially trained Labrador retrievers during the spring in 1998 and 1999. Air 

temperature sensors recorded ambient and lair temperature simultaneously for 12 lairs in 1999 

indicating theji-equency and duration of lair occupation by seals. Distance to pressure ridges or ice 

hummocks (ambush cover) was measured at basking holes and breathing holes not used for basking to 

evaluate basking site selection. Basking surveys were conducted daily porn a tower. Ten ringed seals 

were live-captured in breathing holes; subsequently the use of subnivean lairs and basking sites by eight 

of the seals was monitored by way of VHF radio tags glued to the seals' hair. The under-ice movements 

of three seals were monitored acoustically using ultra-sonic transmitters also glued to the hair. The 

haul-out behavior and movements of three seals continues to be monitored by way of instruments 

transmitting to ARGOS satellites. Analysis of the telemetry data has begun and will provide insights in to 

the environmental influences on haul-out behavior and estimates of the proportion of seals visible during 

aerial surveys. 

Introduction 

Ringed seals are an important resource for Native people of northern and western Alaska, and they are an 

important ecological component of the northern marine ecosystem [Scott 195 1; McLaren 1958a, b; 

Stirling and McEwan 1975; Usher 1976; Stirling and Smith 1977; Nelson 1982; Smith and Hammill 

1987; Smith and Wright 1989; Hammill and Smith 1991; Huntington 1992; Stirling and Britsland 19951. 

The distribution and density of ringed seals in shore-fast ice habitats may be affected by on-ice activities 

including oil exploration and development in the Arctic [Burns and Kelly 1982; Kelly et al. 1986, 1988, 

Burns and Frost 1988; Richardson et al. 19951. 

Shore-fast ice is important as a breeding habitat for ringed seals [McLaren 1958b; Burns 1970; Smith 

19731. Ringed seals maintain breathing holes through the ice by abrading the ice with the claws of their 

front flippers. The holes become snow covered in the fall or early winter, and the seals continue to breathe 

at the ice surface but under the snow [Smith and Stirling 19751. Where the snow drifts to depths of 

20-150 cm above breathing holes, the seals excavate snow caves (lairs) above the breathing holes. The 
lairs provide a protected site for the seals to haul out with ready access only through the underlying 

breathing hole. In late spring or early summer, the seals bask on top of the ice next to breathing holes or 

access holes of opened or collapsed lairs. It is while the seals are lying next to these "basking holes" that 

they are available to be counted during aerial surveys. 

In the Beaufort Sea, during winter and early spring, when the shore-fast ice is most stable, it is used by 

the oil industry for seismic surveys, ice road and gravel island construction. The effects of these human 

activities on ringed seals have been investigated in studies sponsored by the Outer Continental Shelf 

Environmental Assessment Program (OCSEAP) and the Minerals Management Service (MMS). Study 

methods have included visually examining the fate of seal holes over time [Burns and Kelly 19821, 

telemetrically tracking seal movements [Kelly et al. 1988; Kelly and Quakenbush 19901, measuring sound 

levels fiom industrial activities at seal holes (Holliday et al. 19841, and estimating seal densities with 

aerial surveys [Burns and Harbo 1972; Bums et al. 1981; Frost et al. 19881. Estimating the density of 

ringed seals in areas of industrial activity has relied most heavily on aerial survey data [Frost et al. 1988, 

19971. Although, aerial surveys can cover extensive areas, their utility has been limited by three major 

factors: (1) seasonal changes in the distribution of seals are not understood, (2) the proportion of seals 

visible during surveys is not known, and (3) changes in seal numbers at basking sites complicate 

interpretations of population estimates. 

By necessity, aerial surveys are limited to the spring basking period. As the basking period progresses, 

however, many seals abandon their winter home ranges so that by the time surveys are flown the 

distribution and density has changed [Burns and Kelly 1982; Kelly and Quakenbush 19901. Relating the 

distribution and density of ringed seals to industrial activities requires consideration of the timing of 

survey efforts and industrial activities. It is important, therefore, to determine the relationship between 

ringed seal distribution during the periods of industrial activities and during the aerial surveys. 

An unknown proportion of the seals are visible on the ice during surveys; others are on the ice but not 

visible in their subnivean lairs, and yet others are under the ice itself [Kingsley et al. 1985; Small and 

DeMaster 19951. Estimates of the proportion of seals unseen during aerial surveys are needed for 

estimating absolute population size. Previous estimates of the world's population of ringed seals have 

varied from 2 to 7 million [Kelly 19881. The large variance is due, in part, to the lack of data on the 

proportion of the population not seen during aerial surveys. It is now recognized that proper management 

of marine mammals requires reliable estimates of actual population size [Lerczak et al. 19941. 

Aerial surveys of ringed seals have been used to estimate population size [Stirling et al. 1977; Kingsley et 

al. 19851 and to determine relative abundance and distribution, particularly with reference to industrial 

activities [Burns and Harbo 1972; Burns and Kelly 1982; Frost and Lowry 1988; Frost et al. 19881. 

Temporal or spatial comparisons based on aerial survey data have assumed that the unseen proportion is 

effectively constant both within and between years. The assumption is untested for ringed seals, but data 

for harbor seals (Phoca vihrlina richardsi) indicate that variation in the proportion of those seals under 

water and unseen can change population estimates by 25% or more. Telemetric monitoring of harbor seals 

in several locations demonstrated that the proportion of seals out of the water varied between 0.35 and 

0.76 [Huber et al. 1992; Withrow and Loughlin 19951. While similar proportions may or may not apply to 

ringed seals, an additional proportion of ringed seals that are out of the water remain hidden within 

subnivean lairs [Kelly 1 9881. 

Variability in survey estimates of seal density between years could be due to changes in the age structure 

of the population andlor the timing of the collapse of lairs, which is a function of temperature and snow 

conditions. Immature seals molt earlier than older seals and they tend to appear on top of the snow in mid 

to late May regardless of snow conditions that affect lair integrity [Kelly et al. 1986; Kelly, unpublished 
data]. The proportion of ringed seals unseen during a survey may be larger and more variable than that 

found for harbor seals. 

The influence of local weather on the proportion of seals visible has often been noted. For example, 

strong winds are thought to negatively influence the number of seals basking. Meteorological data, 

however, have been measured at terrestrial sites (typically airports) some distance from the sea ice 

environment experienced by seals. 

Associated with the breakdown of winter home ranges are changes in group size of seals visible on the 

ice surface. Winter home ranges break down as new cracks begin to open in the ice and seals move to 

basking areas [Finley 1979; Burns et al. 1981; Kingsley et al. 19851. Group size appears to be greatest at 

cracks and breathing holes that are farthest from pressure ridges and other deformities in the ice capable 

of concealing polar bears [Burns et al. 1981 ; Kingsley and Stirling 19911. The reliability of survey data 

declines as seals become increasingly clustered [McLaren 1 96 1 ; Harkonen and Heide-Jorgensen 1990; 

Frost et al. 19971. 

To aid in the interpretation of aerial survey data, we have located seal lairs and breathing holes using 

trained dogs and telemetrically monitored the behavior and movements of ringed seals before, during, and 

after aerial surveys. We developed those methods in Beaufort Sea studies supported by MMS/OCSEAP in 

1981-1984 [Burns et al. 1981; Burns and Kelly 1982; Kelly 1983, 1984, 1985; Kelly et al. 1985, 1986, 

1988; Kelly and Quakenbush 1987; Burns and Frost 19881 and subsequently used them in the Bering and 

Chukchi seas as well as in the Canadian High Arctic [Kelly et al. 1987, 1989; Wartzok et al. 1987, 1992a; 

Elsner et al. 1989; Kelly 1990, 1996a, b; Kelly and Quakenbush 1990; Kingsley et al. 1990; Kelly and 

Wartzok 1991, 1996, 19981. We have also begun monitoring on-ice weather and the micro-climates 

within subnivean lairs in order to more accurately relate the probability of sighting seals to environmental 

variables. 

Methods 

Study area 

The study area extends seaward fiom Prudhoe Bay (70°22.0'N 148"22.0'W) to just beyond Reindeer 

Island (70'29.1 'N 148"2 1.4'W) and is adjacent to the Northstar oil development area. Shore-fast ice 

covers the area from October to July in most years. Water depths are mostly less than 9 m with a 

maximum of 12 m. Snowfall (measured at Prudhoe Bay) averages between 75 and 100 cm per year, and 

approximately 10 cm usually has accumulated on the ice by the time seals begin whelping in late March. 

Subnivean lairs, however, require a minimum of 20 cm of snow depth and pupping lairs typically are 

found in much deeper snow. Such snow depths are found in drifts that form on the windward and leeward 

sides of pressure ridges and other deformities in the ice. 

Locating seal holes 

We began field work for this project in April and May 1998 with two objectives; to train Labrador 

retrievers to locate the subnivean breathing holes and lairs of ringed seals and to begin monitoring the 

seasonal patterns of lair use by ringed seals. 

Three Labrador retrievers have been trained to associate the odor of ringed seal with the command 

"natchiq". Training for two dogs (aged 8 and 6 months) began in February 1998 in Fairbanks and Juneau. 

When a dog was presented with a piece of ringed seal skin and blubber the trainer would say "natchiq". 

The dogs were then encouraged to retrieve pieces of seal thrown within their view. By throwing the 
pieces into soft snow or heavy brush, we required the dogs to re-locate them by smell. As the dogs set out 

to retrieve the seal pieces, the trainers repeated the command, "natchiq". Once the dogs had associated the 

command with the odor of ringed seal, the training progressed to finding pieces of seal that were hidden 

when the dogs were not present. An assistant would hide the seal piece in snow or deep vegetation, and 

the trainer would give the command and direct the dog on a path downwind of the hiding place. Initially, 

the dogs were directed along paths that would take them within a few meters of the seal pieces, and the 

distances were gradually increased to as much as 500 m. 

Training continued on the sea ice of the Beaufort Sea from 19 April to 21 May 1998. The dogs readily 

made the transition from locating pieces of seal to finding seals holes under the snow. The dogs began 

finding seal holes their first day on the ice. Additional training on the ice revolved around finding seal 

holes in a variety of wind conditions, training the dogs to work ahead of snow machines and to indicate a 

seal hole by digging in the snow, and ensuring that the dogs responded to seal odor but not fox odor. 

When seals were captured, dogs were able to associate the odor with the live animal, which further 

reinforced the training. In 1999, an additional dog (one-year-old) was trained without using pieces of seal 

skin and blubber. This dog worked with the trained dogs and could locate seal lairs and holes on her own 

by the end of the season. 

Monitoring lair occupation 

In winter and spring, the air in subnivean lairs is warmed by the sea water below and additionally by body 

heat when a seal is present in the lair. Occupation of lairs can be determined by monitoring lair 

temperatures [Kelly et al. 1986; Smith 1987; Kelly 1988; Kelly and Quakenbush 1990; Kingsley et al. 

19901. We recorded air temperatures inside and outside of lairs using Hobo Temperature Loggers (Onset 

Computer Corporation). A 1-cm diameter steel rod was used to penetrate the snow above each lair, and a 

5-mm diameter temperature probe was inserted. Loose snow was then packed in around the temperature 

probe. The probe was connected by a small electrical cable to the logger itself which was mounted on a 

wooden stake above the lair. Another temperature sensor located on the logger recorded ambient 

temperature simultaneously. 

Basking holes 

We measured the distance to the nearest pressure ridge or ice hummock (>0.5 m high) near seal holes 

used for basking and near breathing holes that were never used for basking. The number of such 

deformations within a 30-m radius of each hole was recorded. 

Meteorological data 

We operated a meteorological station on the ice within the study area (70°28.5'N 148O22.9.W) from 23 

April to 8 June 1999. Air temperature, snow temperature (10 cm above ice surface), wind speed, and wind 

direction were recorded every 15 minutes using a Campbell Scientific CRlO data logger and SM192 

Storage Module and an R.M. Young 05103 Wind Monitor. Light intensity was measured every half-hour 

using two Hobo Light Meters (Onset Computer Corporation). One sensor faced straight up, and the other 

faced true south. Barometric pressure was recorded hourly at Reindeer Island. 

Seal capture 

Ringed seals were captured in nets that pursed below them when they entered breathing holes. The nets 

were modified from our previous design [Kelly 1996al so that they closed more rapidly (< 2 sec) and 

functioned in shallower water (1 4 m). Nets were monitored by way of a transmitting listening system 
planted in the snow next to the breathing holes. When seals were heard breathing in a hole, a coded radio 

signal was transmitted to a triggering device that dropped a lead weight to purse the net. 

Telemetry 

The amount of time spent out of the water and the location of those haul-out bouts were monitored 

telemetrically using VHF radio transmitters (1 64-1 66 MHz) and satellite transmitters (PTTs at 401.65 

MHz) glued to the hair of seals with fast curing epoxy cement. Under-ice movements of seals were 

tracked using ultra-sonic transmitters similarly attached to seals and received via an array of four 

hydrophones [Wartzok et al. 1992a, b]. 

Radio tags were monitored hourly using a telemetry receiver with an 8-element Yagi antenna on a 50-ft 

high tower fiom two locations. The antenna was rotated through 360" while monitoring and the direction 

from which each signal was received was recorded. Each time a seal came out of the water, as indicated 

by the presence of its radio signal, we attempted to locate it to determine whether it was in or outside of a 

lair. On-ice tracking was conducted on foot or on skis using a hand-held directional antenna system 

consisting of two "H" antennas on a cross-boom connected by coaxial cables to a null combiner 

(Telonics; Mesa, Arizona). With this antenna configuration the direction of the signal is clearly detected 

as the lack of signal (or null) between two strong signals. If a seal was observed basking, considerable 

efforts were made to confirm that the visible seal was indeed a tagged animal. 

Aerial tracking 

A Cessna 185 and a Piper Super Cub were flown at 15 1 m over the study area to listen for VHF signals 

that might not be received from the ground stations and conduct seal surveys prior to the planned surveys 

by Frost et al. [1997]. 

Results 

Field data collection in 1999 ended on 10 June; however, radio signals continued to be monitored from 

aerial surveys and other work conducted by LGL Alaska Research Associates and the seals instrumented 

with PTTs have continued to supply locations and haul-out activity. Data analyses have just begun, thus 

only preliminary results can be presented here. 

Locating seal holes 

We located 5 1 seal holes in the study area in 1998 and 103 in 1999. The greater number found in 1999 

reflect the dogs' greater experience and more time spent searching over a larger area. The ratio of 

breathing holes to lairs was close to unity (1.22: 1 in 1998 and 0.98:l in 1999). 

Monitoring lair occupation 

Air temperature was monitored every 3-5 minutes in eight lairs in 1998 and in 12 lairs in 1999 for periods 

ranging fiom 5 to 47 days (Table I). Distinct diurnal rhythms were observed in ambient air temperatures, 

but that signal was dampened inside of lairs by the warming of the air by seawater from below and the 

insulating snow cover above. Body heat, however, produced strong signals within lairs and haul-out bouts 

were readily discerned (Figure 1). 
Table 1. Ringed seal lairs for which temperature was recorded and the duration of 

those records in 1998 and 1999. 

Lair Resolution Start date End date 

20 Apr 98 17 May 98 

21 Apr 99 20 May 98 

7 May 98 21 May 98 

30 Apr 98 4 May 98 

12 May 98 18 May 98 

7 May 98 21 May 98 

29 Apr 98 18 May 99 

7 May 98 12 May 99 

7 May 98 20 May 98 

20 Apr 99 26 Apr 99 

21 Apr 99 7 Jun 99 

23 Apr 99 6 Jun 99 

24 Apr 99 7 Jun 99 

25 Apr 99 7 Jun 99 

25 Apr 99 7 Jun 99 

28 Apr 99 29 May 99 

26 Apr 99 7 Jun 99 

3 May 99 6 Jun 99 

4 May 99 6 Jun 99 

9 May 99 6 Jun 99 

10 May 99 7 Jun 99 

Lair 98H021 

Seal enters lair 

00:W 01:00 02:W 03:W 04:W 05:W W.W 07:M) 08:W 09:W 10:W 11:W 12:W 13:W 14:W 1500 16:00 17:00 18:00 19m 2&00 21:W 22:O 

TIME 

Figure 1. Temperature record of a ringed seal haul out inside a lair found in the 

Beaufort Sea in 1998. 
Seal capture 

We set nets in 19 seal breathing holes in April and May 1999. We triggered net closures in 15 of those 

holes when we heard seals breathing and successfully captured seals 10 times. Five seals escaped before 

the net closed. In four holes the nets were removed afier 4-8 days without evidence of seals visiting 

them, One seal was captured twice, and another escaped without being tagged. 

Telemetry 

VHF radio transmitters were glued to eight seals and three of those also had PTTs attached to their hair. 

Another three seals had ultra-sonic transmitters glued to their hair in addition to the radio transmitters 

(Table 2). 

Table 2. Ringed seals captured and telemetrically monitored in 1999. 

Capture date Seal ID Sex Weight (kg) VHF radio Other transmitter 

28 April 99 - M (escaped) 

06 May 99 RI99 M 57 164.340 MHz 

07 May 99 RI99 M 57 164.340 MHz (recapture) 

06 May 99 SW99 F 50 164.120 MHz PPT 

13 May 99 MA99 F 50 164.300 MHz Sonic; 69.0 KHz 

14 May 99 VR99 F 59 164.080 MHz Sonic; 72.0 KHz 

15 May 99 SM99 M 56 164.180 MHz 

21 May 99 SP99 F 50 164.040 MHz Sonic; 75.0 KHz 

23 May 99 CH99 F 54 164.210 MHz PPT 

24 May 99 OR99 F 52 164.280 MHz PTT 

The eight radio-tagged seals used as many as four different lairs each; the median number of lairs per 

seal, however, was two. Except for one, all seals were found on one or more occasion resting on top of the 

snow at basking holes. Five of the seals were tracked to a single basking hole, and two seals each were 

tracked to two basking holes. One seal was never found in a lair although it did rest out of the water at a 

basking hole, and another seal was tracked only to lairs. The first haul-out bouts at basking holes by seven 

tagged seals were observed on 21 May, 28 May, 29 May, 30 May, 2 June, 3 June, and 3 June. The 

transition from using lairs versus basking sites was not abrupt; the seals first observed basking on 28 and 

29 May subsequently rested in lairs as late as 3 1 May and 6 June, respectively. The proportion of tagged 

seals hauled out at mid day ranged from 0 to 0.75. 

The three seals tagged with PTTs continue to hau out close to their capture sites and are still being 

tracked. According to data downloaded from the satellite, on 15 June 1999, SW99 was 3 km northwest of 

her capture site, and CH99 was 2.5 km southwest of her capture site. OR99 was 4 km northeast of her 

capture site on 14 June 1999. Three-dimensional underwater tracks were recorded for two of the three 

seals tagged with ultra-sonic transmitters. Tracks indicative of foraging behavior [Kelly and Wartzok 

19961 were recorded on several occasions 2-3 km from the lairs used by those seals. 
Aerial tracking 

Transect lines (13-17) within B3 9 [Frost et at. 19971 were flown on 30 May and transect lines 1 1-17 

were flown on 1 June. Weather prevented any earlier surveys. All VHF signals heard on both surveys 

were also heard from the ice monitoring stations. Two other surveys were flown over our study area. The 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game personnel have flown transects across the Beaufort Sea annually 

since 1996 for the Minerals Management Service [Frost et al. 19971. Another aerial survey effort planned 

by LGL Alaska Research Associates under contract by BP Alaska was unknown to us before our study 

began. We found that their survey altitude of 91 m was causing our radio-tagged seals to dive. On two 

occasions while we were tracking a seal's signal, the signal disappeared as the LGL plane flew over. LGL 

adjusted their flight altitude over our study area to 15 1 m and no additional cases of seals diving in 

response to the aircraft were recorded. Coordination between these two projects will be necessary prior to 

the next field season. 

Logistics 

Helicopter support to remove the field camp from Reindeer Island was not necessary in 1999. The 

Sagavanirktok River broke up slowly due to cold temperatures. Snowfall in the Brooks Range was 

apparently low and the river flow over the top of the ice did not reach the Westdock causeway. We were 

able to transport our camp by snowmachine and sled to the causeway. This was in contrast to 1998 when 

Sagavanirktok River water had surrounded the causeway by 23 May and blocked snowmachine access. 

Discussion 

Aerial surveys for ringed seals have been used: (1) to estimate overall population size; (2) to compare 

local inter-annual changes in density; and (3) to compare densities from area to area. The tradeoff in 

timing the survey as late as possible to catch the peak number of seals hauled out, comes with the risk that 

their distribution no longer represents their winter range when most industrial activity occurred. The 

assumption that the proportion of seals visible on the ice is constant from year to year and area to area for 

the duration of the survey has never been tested. Most survey designs assume that the most comparable 

inter-annual period is the one during which the largest densities were observed. 

McLaren [I96 11 found that the maximal number of ringed seals observed on ice occurred in late spring, 

and that the timing of the peak likely varied with latitude. He also found that as large groups of seals 

formed in late spring, the reliability of population estimates decline. Harkonen and Heide-Jorgensen 

[I9901 echoed those points and indicated that in the Baltic Sea break-up usually begins in early April and 

most ice is melted by mid-May. At higher latitudes the ice persists well into summer. Ognetov [I9931 

surveyed ringed seals in the East Siberian Sea from 2-21 June 1989 and 22 May-9 June 1990. He noted 

changes in distribution as the seals emerged from lairs and began to bask in the open. He described the 

change as a mass emergence of seals, but our observations of the radio-tagged seals indicated a more 

gradual transition from using lairs to hauling out at basking sites. 

McLaren [I9661 noted that the number of seals visible on the ice in Frobisher Bay, Baffin Island, Canada 

peaked between 27 June and 8 July. Smith and Hammill [I9811 observed seals on the ice of southeastern 

Baffin Island in 1978 and reported peak densities on 1 June and 21 June in different portions of their 

study area. They suggested that immigration accounted for the later peak. 

In the Canadian portion of the Beaufort Sea, Smith [I9731 observed the maximal number of ringed seals 

visible on the ice in late June and early July. He considered the optimal survey period to be 2-3 weeks 

prior to ice break-up, generally the first two weeks of July in that region. Stirling et al. [I9751 also 
concluded that late June, immediately prior to break-up, was optimal for aerial surveys in the eastern 

Beaufort Sea. They speculated that inter-annual variation in the timing of break-up might dramatically 

affect the number of seals visible on the ice. Farther east in the Barrow Strait Region of the Canadian 

arctic, Finley [I9761 and Smith et al. [I9781 observed marked increases in the density of seals visible on 

the ice in late June and early July. They chose 18-25 June and 16-28 June, respectively, as preferred 

survey dates. In further investigations, Finley [I9791 again concluded that peak numbers occurred at the 

end of June. Smith et al. [I9791 surveyed the same area on 16-18 July 1978 and concluded they had 

missed the peak number of seals on the ice. Hammill and Smith [I9891 compared results of surveys in the 

Barrow Strait region in 1975 and 1984-1986. They concluded that aerial survey data are difficult to 

interpret because of weather and seasonal effects on the timing and pattern of haul out. 

The optimal time to survey ringed seals in the Beaufort Sea, offshore of Alaska, was determined to be the 

second and third weeks of June according to Burns and Harbo [1972]. They suggested that seals would 

not have begun moving away from their winter home ranges yet and the ice surface would not be flooded 

with water from snow melt and river run-off. Those conclusions are consistent with our observations and 

the continued occupation of the study area by the three seals tagged with PTTs. On the other hand, in 

1998, river run-off had flooded ice near shore by 23 May. Burns and Kelly [I9821 surveyed the Beaufort 

Sea coast of Alaska from 2-9 June 1981. They noted rapid changes in the distibution of seals just prior to 

break-up, and they advanced their surveys in 1982 to 25 May to obtain data on densities and distibution 

that were representative of early spring distributions [Kelly et al. 19881. They noted a slight increase in 

numbers after 1 June but discontinued the surveys on 4 June due to extensive surface water. Frost and 

Lowry [I9881 planned to survey that region from 27 May to 16 June to 'coincide with ice conditions 

which were optimal for sighting seals and with the peak period of seal haul out". In 1985,1986, and 1987, 

however, they noted that substantial snow melt andlor ice break-up by the first week of June negatively 

influenced seal densities on the ice Frost et al. 19881. 

Frost et al. [I9971 have scheduled their recent surveys (1996-1999) for late May to early June to avoid 

the onset of break-up and flooding from river run-off. They also cited Kelly and Quakenbush [I9901 to 

indicate that ringed seals spend increasing amounts of time out of the water as spring progresses. That 

indeed was the case with 13 radio-tagged seals tracked in 1982-1984 and the seals we monitored in 1999, 

although the increase was in total time spent out of the water and was observed for seals within lairs (not 

visible) as well as those visible at basking holes. Frost et al. [I9971 stated that observed annual variability 

in seal densities likely reflects differing ice conditions at the time surveys were conducted. Break-up in 

some years occurred during or before surveys. They suggested surveying in mid-May before there is any 

chance of break-up. 

The data collected in 1999, with further analysis, will be valuable for estimating the proportion of seals 

visible during aerial surveys. The simultaneous collection of on-ice meteorological data and seal haul-out 

behavior will be used to model the influence of weather and snow conditions on the proportions of seals 

visible to aerial observers. Additional monitoring of seal behavior and movements in subsequent years 

will be needed to observe the effects of year-to-year variation in weather and snow conditions. 

Preliminary Conclusions 

We have demonstrated that monitoring lair temperatures is a practical, simple method of monitoring dates 

of lair occupation. The behavior of our radio-tagged seals indicated that the onset of basking does not 

preclude subsequent lair use. We suspect that the dynamics of snow metamorphosis strongly influence the 

timing of lair abandonment, and those dynamics are functions of snow depth, ice thickness, ice 
deformation, cloud cover, and the thermal record of the preceding winter as well as spring air 

temperatures. 

Snow melt and ice break-up in the Beaufort Sea were earlier in the early and mid 1980s than in the 1970s. 

Year-to-year variation remains great, however, with 1998 and 1999 examples of early and late break-ups, 

respectively. Continued monitoring of ringed seal haul-out behavior will provide information on the 

relevant environmental influences as well as direct estimates of the proportion of seals visible during 

aerial surveys. 

Acknowledgements 

This project is funded by the Coastal Marine Institute, the National Marine Mammal Laboratory (National 

Marine Fisheries Service), and the Natural Resources Fund (University of Alaska). ARCO Alaska, Inc, 

provided extensive logistic support in the form of snowmachines, generator, fuel, room and board, air 

transportation of our field crew, and ground transportation of our field gear. Mike Joyce, Linda Allen, 

Michael Stewman and the crew at the Seawater Treatment Plant (ARCO Alaska) were extremely helpful 

with logistics in the field. Special thanks to Ole Olsgard and Dennis Wall in the shop for helping us keep 

everything running. Alaska Clean Seas provided two snowmachines and the Spill Response Team 

delivered them directly to our camp. Four undergraduate students fiom the University of Alaska 

Southeast-Raychelle Daniel, Shannon Crowley, Oriana Harding, and Karen Blejwas-put in many long 

hours in the field. Two University of Alaska Fairbanks graduate students, Michael Simpkins and Jamie 

Womble also assisted the project. The efforts of all students were essential to the project's success and are 

well appreciated. Oriana Harding continues to be of great assistance in data reduction. Doug Wartzok of 

the University of Missouri St. Louis was responsible for the acoustic array that allowed underwater 

tracking. John Bengston and Peter Boveng of the National Marine Mammal Laboratory provided the 

PTTs and excellent help in the field. We are grateful to Matthew Sturm, Cold Regions Research and 

Engineering Laboratory, for his assistance in establishing the meteorological station. We appreciate the 

efforts of pilots Dave Neel, Arctic Wilderness Lodge, and Sandy Hamilton, Arctic Air Alaska, for flights 

over our study area. Kathy Frost and Sue Hills provided coordinates of the aerial survey transects flown 

over our study area and Lloyd Lowry listened for our radio signals when those transects were flown. 

Michael Williams, LGL Alaska Research Associates, was willing to adjust flight altitudes over our study 

area to minimize disturbance to tagged seals. He and his crew assisted us in listening for radio signals 

during the LGL flights. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; U.S. Geological Service, Biological Research 

Division; the University of Alaska, Institute of Arctic Biology; and the Alaska Cooperative Fish and 

Wildlife Research Unit assisted our project by loaning telemetry equipment. Finally, three Labrador 

retrievers-Raven, Jamberry, and Reba-made the study possible by locating seal holes, often under 

adverse conditions. 

Study Products 

Two reports on the progress of this project have been delivered in spoken presentations. On 23 February 

1999, Oriana Harding presented a seminar, "Behavioral ecology of ringed seals," at the University of 

Alaska Southeast, and on the same date Brendan Kelly spoke to the Coastal Marine Institute on 

developing a "Correction factor for ringed seal surveys in Northern Alaska". 
References 

Burns, J.J. 1970. Remarks on the distribution and natural history of pagophilic pinnipeds in the Bering 

and Chukchi seas. J. Marnrn. 5 1 :445-454. 

Burns, J.J., and KJ. Frost. 1988. Winter ecology of ringed seals (Phoca hispida) in Alaska. Final rep., 

OCSEAP Res. Unit 232, Part 1, to U.S. Dept. Comm., NOAA, Natl. Ocean Serv., Ocean Assess. Div., 

Alaska Office, Anchorage. 105 p. 

Burns, J.J., and S.J. Harbo. 1972. An aerial census of ringed seals, northern coast of Alaska. Arctic 

25:279-290. 

Burns, J.J., and B.P. Kelly. 1982. Studies of ringed seals in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea during winter: 

impacts of seismic exploration. Unpubl. ann. rep., OCSEAP Res. Unit 232, to U.S. Dep. Comm., 

NOAA, Off. Mar. Pollut. Assess., Juneau, Alaska. 57 p. 

Burns, J.J., B.P. Kelly, and KJ. Frost. 1981. Habitat use and winter ecology of ringed seals in the Beaufort 

Sea. Unpublished Annual Report, Part 2, OCSEAP Research Unit 232, to U.S. Dept. Commerce, 

NOAA Office of Marine Pollution Assessment, Juneau, Alaska. 8 1 p. 

Elsner, R., D. Wartzok, N.B. Sonafrank, and B.P. Kelly. 1989. Behavorial and physiological reactions of 

arctic seals during under-ice pilotage. Can. J. Zool. 67:2506-2513. 

Finley, K 1976. Studies of the status of marine mammals in the central district of Franklin, N.W.T., 

June-August 1975. Prepared for Polar Gas Project (Toronto, Ont.) L6L Ltd., Toronto, ON. 

Finley, K J. 1979. Haul-out behaviour and densities of ringed seals (Phoca hispida) in the Barrow Strait 

area, N.W.T. Can. J. Zool. 57:1985-1997. 

Frost, K.J., and L.F. Lowry. 1988. Effects of industrial activities on ringed seals in Alaska, as indicated by 

aerial surveys, p. 15-25. In W.M. Sackinger, M.O. Jeffies, J.L. Irnm and S.D. Treacy [eds.], Port and 

Ocean Engineering Under Arctic Conditions, Vol. 11: Symposium on noise and marine mammals. 

Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska. 

Frost, K.J., L.F. Lowry, J.R. Gilbert, and J.J. Burns. 1988. Ringed seal monitoring: relationships of 

distribution and abundance to habitat attributes and industrial activities. Final Rep., OCSEAP Res. Unit 

667, to U.S. Dep. Cornm., NOAA, Natl. Ocean Serv., Alaska Off., Anchorage. 101 p. 

Frost, K.J., L.F. Lowry, S. Hills, G. Pendleton, and D. DeMaster. 1997. Monitoring distribution and 

abundance of ringed seals in northern Alaska. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Final interim 

report, May 1996-March 1997, Cooperative agreement 14-35-000 1 -308 10. 

Hammill, M.O., and T.G. Smith. 1989. Factors affecting the distribution and abundance of ringed seal 

structures in Barrow Strait, Northwest Territories. Can. J. Zool. 67:2212-2219. 

Hammill, M.O., and T.G. Smith. 1991. The role of predation in the ecology of the ringed seal in Barrow 

Strait, Northwest Territories, Canada. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 7:123-135. 

Harkonen, T., and M.-P. Heide-Jorgensen. 1990. Density and distribution of the ringed seal in the Bothnian 

Bay. Holarctic Ecol. 13: 122-129. 

Holliday, D., V, W.C. Curnmings, and B.J. Lee. 1984. Acoustic and vibration measurements related to 

possible disturbances of ringed seals, Phoca hispida. Submitted to National Oceanographic and 

Atmospheric Administration OMPNOCSEAP, 6 January 1984, Tracor Document No. T-82-SD-001, 

Tracor Applied Sciences, San Diego, CA. 

Huber, H., S. Jeffiies, R. Brown, and R. DeLong. 1992. Abundance of Harbor Seals (Phoca vitulina 

richardsi) in Washington and Oregon, 1992.1992 Annual Report to the MMPA Assessment Program. 
Huntington, H.P. [ed.]. 1992. Wildlife Management and Subsistence Hunting in Alaska. Belhaven Press, 

London. 

Kelly, B.P. 1983. Ringed seal snow lairs: use patterns and thermal significance. Fifth Biennial Conference 

on the Biology of Marine Mammals. (Abstract). 

Kelly, B.P. 1984. Ringed seal winter'ecology and impacts of seismic exploration in the Alaskan Beaufort 

Sea (1983). Annu. Rep. RU#232, Part 2, Outer Continental Shelf Environmental Assessment Program, 

Juneau, Alaska. 

Kelly, B.P. 1985. Dependence by ringed seals on subnivean lairs. Sixth Biennial Conference on the 

Biology of Marine Mammals. (Abstract). 

Kelly, B.P. 1988. Ringed seal, p. 59-75. In J. W. Lentfer [ed.], Selected Marine Mammals of Alaska: 

Species Accounts with Research and Management Recommendations. Marine Mammal commission, 

Washington, DC. 

Kelly, B.P. 1990. Tracking ringed seals under the ice of Resolute Passage, N.W.T.-Spring 1990. Interim 

report to Fisheries and Oceans, Winnipeg and The Resolute Bay Hunters and Trappers Association, 

Resolute Bay, N.W.T., Canada. 

Kelly, B.P. 1996a. Live capture of ringed seals in ice-covered waters. J. Wildl. Manage. 60:678-684. 

Kelly, B.P. 1996b. Behavior of ringed seals diving under shore-fast sea ice. Ph.D. Dissertation. Purdue 

University, West Lafayette, Indiana. 

Kelly, B.P., S.C. Arnstrup, C. Gardner, and L.T. Quakenbush. 1987. Predation on ringed seals in the 

western Beaufort Sea. Seventh Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, 5-9 

December 1987, Miami, Florida. (Abstract). 

Kelly, B.P., J.J. Bums, and L.T. Quakenbush. 1988. Responses of ringed seals Phoca hispida to noise 

disturbance, p.27-3 8. In W.M. Sackinger, M.O. Jeffiies, J.L. Imm and S.D. Treacy [eds.],. Port and 

Ocean Engineering Under Arctic Conditions, Vol. 11: Symposium on noise and marine mammals. 

Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska. 

Kelly, B.P., and L.T. Quakenbush. 1987. Trained dogs and wild seals. Whalewatcher, J. Amer. Cetacean 

SOC. 21 :8-11. 

Kelly, B.P., and L.T. Quakenbush. 1990. Spatiotemporal use of lairs by ringed seals (Phoca hispida). Can. 

J. z001.68:2503-25 12. 

Kelly, B.P., L. Quakenbush, and J.R. Rose. 1985. Telemetric studies of winter habitat use by ringed seals. 

Proc. 1985 Arctic Sci. Cod 3656 (Abstract). 

Kelly, B.P., L. Quakenbush, and J.R. Rose. 1986. Ringed seal winter ecology and effects of noise 

disturbance. Outer Cont. Shelf Environ. Assess. Program, Final Rep, Princ. Invest., NOAA, Anchorage, 

Alaska, OCS Study MMS 89-0026; NTIS PB89-234645.61:447-536. 

Kelly, B.P., and D. Wartzok. 1991. Activity patterns of ringed seals (Phoca hispdia) breeding in shore-fast 

ice. Sixth International Symposium on Okhotsk Sea and Sea Ice. Mombetsu, Hokkaido, Japan. 

(Abstract). 

Kelly, B.P., and D. Wartzok. 1996. Ringed seal diving behavior in the breeding season. Cana. J. Zool. 

74: 1547-1555. 

Kelly, B.P., and D. Wartzok. 1998. Do predators cause seals to revise optimum foraging calculations? 

Abstract submitted to the World Marine Mammal Conference. Monaco. January 1998. 

Kelly, B.P., D. Wartzok, and L.T. Quakenbush. 1989. Under-ice range of ringed seals in the Beaufort Sea. 

Eighth Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals. Pacific Grove, CA. (Abstract). 
Kingsley, M.C.S., M.O. Harnmill, and B.P. Kelly. 1990. Detecting ringed seal lairs by the heat they 

radiate. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 6:339-347. 

Kingsley, M.C., and I. Stirling. 1991. Haul-out behaviour of ringed and bearded seals in relation to defense 

against surface predators. Can. J. Zool. 69: 1857-1 861. 

Kingsley, M.C.S., I. Stirling, and W. Calvert. 1985. The distribution and abundance of seals in the 

Canadian High Arctic, 1980-82. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 42:1189-1210. 

Lerczak, J.A., R.C. Hobbs, D.P. DeMaster, and B.L. Taylor. 1994. Evaluation of a proposed regime for 

calculating PBRs. National Marine Mammal Laboratory, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, NOAA, 

7600 Sand Point Way NE, BIN C15700, Seattle, WA 981 15-0070. 

McLaren, I.A. 1958a. The economics of seals in the eastem Canadian Arctic. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. Circular 

No. 1, Montreal, QE. 

McLaren, I.A. 1958b. The biology of the ringed seal seals (Phoca hispida Schreber) in the eastern 

Canadian Arctic. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. Ms. Rep. (Biology) 653.146 p. 

McLaren, I.A. 1961. Methods of determining the numbers and availability of ringed seals in the eastern 

Canadian Arctic. Arctic 14: 162-1 75. 

McLaren, I.A. 1966. Analysis of an aerial census of ringed seals. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 23:769-773. 

Nelson, R.K. 1982. Harvest of the sea: coastal subsistence in modem Wainwright. Rep. for the North Slope 

Borough's Coastal Management Program, North Slope Borough, Barrow, Alaska. 

Ognetov, G.N. 1993. Characteristics of distribution of ringed seal (Phoca hispida) on shore ice on the East 

Siberian Sea. Ehkologiya 2:44-52. 

Richardson, W.J., C.R. Greene, Jr., C.I. Malme, and D.H. Thornson. 1995. Marine Mammals and Noise. 

Academic Press, San Diego. 

Scott, R.F. 1951. Wildlife in the economy of Alaska Natives. Trans. North Am. Wildl. Conf. 16:511. 

Small, R.J., and D.P. DeMaster. 1995. Alaska marine mammal stock assessments 1995. U.S. Dept. 

Comm., NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-57,93 p. 

Smith, T.G. 1973. Censusing and estimating the size of ringed seal populations. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. Techn. 

Rep. No. 427. 

Smith, T.G. 1987. The ringed seal, Phoca hispida, of the Canadian western Arctic. Can. Bull. Fish. Aquat. 

Sci. 216. Ottawa. 81 p. 

Smith, T.G., and M.O. Hammill. 1981. Ecology of the ringed seal, Phoca hispida, in its fast ice breeding 

habitat. Can. J. Zool. 59:966-981. 

Smith, T.G., and M.O. Hammill. 1987. Variability in arctic marine production shown by decrease in body 

condition and reduced reproductive output of ringed seal populations in the Amundsen Gulf and 

southeastern Beaufort Sea. ICES 1987 Syrnp/No. 19, Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans, Arctic Biological 

Station. 

Smith,T G., and I. Stirling. 1975. The breeding habitat of the ringed seal (Phoca hispida); The birth lair 

and associated structures. Can. J. Zool. 53:1297-1305. 

Smith, T.G., and H. Wright. 1989. Economic status and role of hunters in a modern Inuit village. Polar 

Record 25:93-98. 

Smith, T.G., K. Hay, D. Taylor, and R. Greendale. 1978. Ringed seal breeding habitat in Viscount Melville 

Sound, Barrow Strait and Peel Sound. INA Publ. No. QS-8 160-022-EE-A1. ESCOM Rep. No. AT-22. 

Ottawa. 85 p. 
Smith, T.G., G.A. Sleno, and D. Taylor. 1979. An aerial survey of marine mammals in the region north of 

Cornwallis Island, N.W.T. Fisheries and Marine Technical Report 837, Arctic Biological Station, 

Fisheries and Marine Service, Dept. Fisheries and the Environment. 

Stirling, I., R. Archibald, and D, De Master. 1975. Distribution and abundance of seals in the eastern 

Beaufort Sea. Beaufort Sea Technical Report #1, Beaufort Sea Project, Dept. of the Environment, 

Victoria, B.C. 

Stirling, I., W.R. Archibald, and D. DeMaster. 1977. Distribution and abundance of seals in the eastern 

Beaufort Sea. J. Fishe. Res. Bd. Can. 34:976-988. 

Stirling, I., and E.H. McEwan. 1975. The caloric value of whole ringed seals (Phoca hispida) in relation to 

polar bear (Ursus maritimus) ecology and hunting behavior. Can. J. Zool. 53 : 102 1-1 027. 

Stirling, I., and N.A. 0ritsland. 1995. Relationships between estimates of ringed seal (Phoca hispida) and 

polar bear (Ursus maritimus) populations in the Canadian Arctic. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 

52:2594-2612. 

Stirling, I., and T.G. Smith. 1977. Interrelationships of Arctic Ocean mammals in the sea ice habitat, p. 

129-136. In Circumpolar Conference on Northern Ecology. Section 11. Natl. Res. Council. Ottawa. 

Usher, P.J. 1976. Evaluating country food in the northern native economy. Arctic 29:105-120. 

Wartzok, D., R. Elsner, B.P. Kelly, G. Mimken, and L.T. Quakenbush. 1987. Visual, acoustic, and 

vibrissal contributions to under-ice navigation by ringed seals, Phoca hispida. Seventh Biennial 

Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, December 1987, Miami, Florida. (Abstr.) 

Wartzok, D., R. Elsner, H. Stone, B.P. Kelly, and R.W. Davis. 1992a. Under-ice movements and sensory 

basis of hole finding by ringed and Weddell seals. Can. J. Zool. 70:1712-1722. 

Wartzok, D., S. Sayegh, H. Stone, J. Barchak, and W. Barnes. 1992b. Acoustic tracking system for 

monitoring under-ice movements of polar seals. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 

92:682-687. 

Withrow, D.E., and T.R. Loughlin. 1995. Haulout behavior and method to estimate the proportion of 

harbor seals missed during molt census surveys in Alaska. Annual report for 1994 under the NMFS, 

MMAP population assessment program, NOAA, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, Silver Spring, 

MD 20910 May 1995.39 p. 
Circulation, Thermohaline Structure, and Cross-Shelf 

Transport in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea 

Thomas J. Weingartner <weingart@ims.uaf.edu> 

institute of Marine Science 

University of Alaska Fairbanks 

Fairbanks, AK 997757220 

Task Order 151 63 

Abstract 

Ipropose to obtain time-series measurements of current and water properties fiom moored instruments 

deployed along the outer shelfand slope of the Alaskan Beaufort Sea for a period of one year. My goals 

are to: I) quantzB the vertical and cross-shore spatial and temporal scales of variability in the 

circulation and the density (thermoha1ine)field in this region, and 2) estimate the transport within the 

eastward flowing subsurface undercurrent. The flow and the density structure on the outer shelfand slope 

afect the cross-shelf transfer of momentum, water properties-heat, salt, nutrients and contaminants. 

The region is also an important migratory corridor for marine mammals, particularly bowhead whales, 

which feed there duringpart of the year. On average, the near-surface flow (<-.TO m depth) here, and 

over the inner she$ is westward and forced by the winds. However, flow reversals are common and often 

a result of upwelling of the undercurrent. Further, the pressurejeld responsible for the undercurrent 

must influence the dynamics of the inner shelf: The undercurrent originates in the eastern Arctic as a 

result of injlow through Fram Strait and is fed by outflowsfiom the Eurasian shelfseas. Hence it is 

circumpolar in its extent and in its waterproperties. It could thus transport pollutants @om these regions 

to the Alaskan she& The proposed observations will provide information crucial in guiding model 

development and evaluating the performance ofpollution transport models. The study site is practical 

@om the resource manager's perspective and for logistical reasons), and optimalfiom a scientijic 

perspective because measurements here will capture the integrated efects of the circumpolar forcing 

which we believe accelerate the undercurrent. 

Logistics 

Two moorings were deployed in late September 1998 Erom the Canadian icebreaker Sir Wilfied Laurier, 

and both were scheduled for retrieval using the same vessel in September 1999. Due to weather 

conditions only one mooring was recovered; an attempt to retrieve the second mooring will be made 

in September 2000. 
The Alaskan Frozen Tissue Collection and Associated 

Electronic Database: A Resource for Marine 

Biotechnology, Phase II 

Joseph A. Cook <ffjac@uaf.edu> 

Gordon H. Jarrell *ghj@uaf.edu> 

Huascar Azurduy 

John Chythlook 

University of Alaska Museum 

University of Alaska Fairbanks 

Fairbanks, AK 99775-6960 

Task Order 15164 

Abstract 

The Alaska Frozen Tissue Collection (AFTC) is the primary regional archive for frozen zoological 

samples and a major contributor to biotechnology studies of the North PaciJc and Arctic oceans. It has 

become the world's third largestfiozen tissue collection for wild mammals. These specimens span five 

decades offield work, and include samples from throughout Alaska's waters. This is the largest collection 

of these species worldwide and it is heavily used by marine scientists. 

Between 1 July 1998 and 30 June 1999 the AFTC accessioned tissuesfrom 419 marine mammals 

representing 14 species, as well asJTsk and marine invertebrate samples. Twenty loans representing 277 

individual animals have been made to 13 research projects and two educational exhibits. Cooperative 

agreements have been developed or continued with individual collectors and organizations, including the 

North Slope Borough, the Alaska Marine Mammal Tissue Archival Project (AMMTAP), and an ongoing 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) subsistence seal harvest project. 

Introduction 

Archives such as museum collections are crucial to the study of long-term ecological change. While 

significant environmental change is usually long term, most environmental assessment projects are 

relatively short term and few agencies gather or archive specimens. Many projects generate unique and 

important samples, frequently at tremendous expense, but these are often destroyed or lost after fulfilling 

their primary function. Also, the high cost of sampling fauna in remote locations dictates archiving as 

much information as possible, often and most durably in the form of museum specimens. In Alaska most 

marine sampling can be described as remote. Because it is difficult to predict which data will be important 

for future research, or even what methods may be available, accumulation of well-documented specimens 

is vital. The AFTC provides a protocol and facility to ensure that such material is available to the general 

scientific community in perpetuity. 
The AFTC was started in 1991 and contains primarily mammal and bird specimens, but both the 

collection and its associated database are organized to incorporate specimens from fish, amphibians, and 

mollusks. In general, tissues in the AFTC are vouchered by standard museum preparations stored at room 

temperature in one of the Museum's zoological collections. Thus, a typical recently acquired marine 

mammal might be represented by skeletal material catalogued in the storage range, several vials of organ 

samples in the ultra-cold freezers of the AFTC, original collection data in archives, and associated 

morphological, taxonomic, and geographic data in the mammal collection's database. These varied 

preparations for a specimen provide the opportunity for truly integrated multidisciplinary studies. Such 

studies of marine systems are now being realized because of the availability of the AFTC. 

Methods 

Past support from CMI leveraged state support in the form of a permanent half-time position. We are 

expanding the AFTC with current CMI support by creating an additional graduate assistantship, ensuring 

that material from Native subsistence hunts is actively archived. This position allows us to accomplish 

several things: 

Expand the scope of the collection by continuing to recruit contributions of marine 

mammal, bird, fish, and invertebrate specimens from Cook Inlet, Shelikov Strait, and the 

Beaufort and Chukchi seas, especially those taken by subsistence hunters of marine 

mammals. We have had plentiful cooperation from Native communities and state and 

federal agencies and now we have the personnel to consistently respond to these 

opportunities. 

Free existing staff to concentrate on the increasingly demanding aspects of collection 

management, permit management, and security. The tasks of handling, storing, and 

documenting the present volume of the collection continue to grow. We need to develop 

additional back-up systems for the freezers, an automated object-tracking system, and 

project-level tracking in our database to group accessions and specimen loans. These 

efforts will increase the accountability of collection users, and allow us to develop a web 

interface for collection usage. 

CMI support will secure the AFTC subsistence coordinator as a second permanent, 

state-funded position, thus ensuring a broad, long-term, systematic record of marine 

populations in Alaska. 

Dessauer & Haher [I9841 describe methods for curation of frozen tissue collections. The AFTC is 

housed in two ultra-cold (-80°C) freezers in the Museum. Samples are in 2-ml plastic cryo-tubes and 

organized in boxes stacked in metal racks for efficiency. The freezers have temperature-activated local 

and remote alarms at the university's Department of Safety Services. A third ultra-cold freezer is located 

next to the AFTC and is immediately available in the event that a primary freezer fails. 

The AFTC catalog numbers are assigned from pre-numbered data sheets, usually in the field. Separate 

tubes for different tissues are color coded with inserts in the tops of the tubes. For large mammals, a 

2-02 portion of tissue is subsampled from heart, liver, kidney, and skeletal muscle. In the event of 

particularly rare specimens, several tubes of each tissue are saved. 

Samples must be well documented. To assure that the taxonomic identity of the sample can be verified, 

traditional dry or fluid-preserved voucher specimens are deposited in one of the Museum's zoological 

collections. Exceptions are made for species for which the taxonomic identity is unequivocal and for 

which voucher specimens are unwieldy (e.g., bowhead whales). The original data sheets are retained in 

bound volumes by the mammal collection. Data for mammals, including specimens without vouchers, are 
maintained in the catalog database of the mammal collection. A summary database can be interrogated on 

the Museum's web site (www.uaf.edulmuseum/mammal). 

Like other Museum specimens, samples from the AFTC are available to all qualified investigators. In 

contrast to other museum specimens, frozen tissues are intended for consumptive analysis. Therefore 

requests for frozen specimens are evaluated carefully by the curator. Depending on the rarity and/or age 

of the requested samples, the curator may require documentation of the capability of the requester to 

successfully analyze the samples and publish the results. In all cases, less than half of the original sample 

is loaned. Most users are amplimng DNA by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and therefore require only 

minute quantities of tissue. 

Results 

Collection growth 

The AFTC continues to build an unparalleled collection of marine mammals of various vintages. A large 

number of these specimens are the result of continued collaboration with the Alaska Department of Fish 

and Game. Lloyd Lowery (ADF&G, Fairbanks) allowed us to subsample frozen tissues from thirty 

phocid seals taken from 1984 to 1986 from the RN Alpha Helix. These samples significantly enhance the 

mammal collection because many of these individuals were already represented by previously catalogued 

skeletal specimens. Ted Miller (Memorial University of Newfoundland) was instrumental in our 

acquisition of the early ADF&G seal parts. He is using the large series of phocid bacula from that 

accession and has decided to archive bacula from 20 Canadian hooded seals (Cystophora cristata) at MUN. 

Table 1. A summary of marine mammal accessions in FY99. 

# 

1 

-50 

1 

1 

30 

77 

60 

3 

1 

20 

6 

30 

10 

23 

57 

1 

36 

4 

7 

1 

MATERIAL 

mandible 

skulls, fetal seals in alcohol 

skull (uncleaned) 

skull (beachcast) 

tissue samples (1 984-86) 

tissue samples 

tissue samples 

tisz samples 

pre-MMPA rug mount 

bacula 

tissue samples 

tissue samples 

heads with tissues 

tissue samples 

tissue samples 

head 

heads with tissues 

tissue samples 

frozen animal, beluka skull 

bacula (from 1964) 

whole frozen neonate 

SPECIES 

harbor seal 

various hair seals 

Stejneger's beaked whale 

bearded seal 

various hair seals 

bowhead (54), belukha (12), harbor 

porpoise (I), various hair seals (10) 

polar bear 

bowhead 

polar bear 

hooded seals 

walrus 

various hair seals 

harbor seals 

harbor seals 

various hair seals, belukha, grey whale 

Steller sea lion 

harbor seals 

bowhead and belukha 

ringed seals (3), belukha (1) 

Steller sea lion 

harbor seal 

SOURCE 

ADF&G (Frost) 

ADF&G (Burns) 

NMFS (Mahoney) 

UAM (Winker) 

ADF&G (Lowry) 

NSB (O'Hara) 

USGS-BRD (Evans) 

ADF&G (Sheffield) 

citizen 

Univ. of Newfoundland 

USF&WS (Togiak NWR) 

ADF&G (Sheffield) 

ADF&G (Vanek) 

ADF&G (Jemison) 

ADF&G (Sheffield) 

UAF-IMS (Springer) 

ADF&G (Vanek) 

ADF&G (Sheffield) 

NMFS (Mahoney) 

ADF&G (Pitcher) 

NMFS (Adams) 
Tom Evans of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USF&WS) delivered tissue samples from 60 polar 

bears gathered between 1985 and 1992. Combined with the 40 Canadian blood samples received last 

May from Malcolm Ramsay, our holdings of this critical species now have substantial geographic and 

temporal scope. Gerry Shields (UAF) has been using these genetic samples for his continuing study of the 

molecular systematics and phylogeography of ursids. That work has resulted in seven peer-reviewed 

publications to date (and a doctoral dissertation). 

Other important acquisitions included the beach-cast skull of a Cuvier's beaked whale (Ziphius 

cavirostris) from Barbara Mahoney (National Marine Fisheries Service WS], Anchorage), the 

donation of a pre-Marine Mammal Protection Act polar bear rug from Barbara McConnell of 

Sacramento, a beach-cast skull of a bearded seal from Kevin Winker (UA Museum curator of birds) and 

tissue samples from bowheads taken at Kaktovik and Barrow (North Slope Borough and ADF&G). 

Thirty sea lion heads collected by the North Pacific Universities Research Consortium from the 

subsistence hunt in the Pribilof Islands were prepared as skulls with tissues. Muscle and skin samples 

from two harbor seals from the Akutan area were sent to the NMFS Southwest Fisheries Laboratory for 

use by Robin Westlake in genetic analyses. Vibrissae from 18 harbor seals were provided to Amy Hirons 

of Don Schell's (Institute of Marine Science [IMS]) lab for ongoing stable isotope work. 

There were five substantial marine mammal accessions in the first quarter of 1999. Gay Sheffield 

(ADF&G, Fairbanks) collected tissues from 30 ice seals taken in subsistence hunts on the northwest coast 

of Alaska. These include ringed seals (Phoca hispida), bearded (Erignathus barbatus), and spotted seals 

(P. largha). Sheffield also located, and provided to the AFTC, 45 more tissue samples fiom these species 

seals collected from the RN Alpha Helix by Lloyd Lowry in 1984 through 1986. Some samples match 

skulls already in the catalogued collection. Sheffield has been a consistent supporter of the AFTC and will 

receive a museum appreciation award in May 1999. 

The Alaska Native Harbor Seal Commission (ANHSC) and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game 

(Vicki Vanek, ADF&G, Kodiak) contributed heads and tissues from ten harbor seals. Lauri Jemison 

(ADF&G, Juneau) sent in heads, tissues, and parasites from 23 harbor seals. These were extremely well 

prepared and documented with samples already prepared for subsequent transfer to four ongoing 

investigations. Togiak National Wildlife Refuge donated tissue samples from six walrus. 

Collection use 

The AFTC sent samples from 30 harbor seals provided by the Alaska Native Harbor Seal Commission 

to Michael Castellini (IMS, UAF) and to Sarah Iverson (Dalhousie University, Halifax) for metabolic 

analyses. Teeth from the same seals were sent to Laurie Jemison (ADF&G, Juneau) for age analysis. 

Samples from two of these were also sent to Greg O'Corry-Crowe (NMFS, LaJolla) for Robin 

Westlake's doctoral work. 

The mammal collection contributed the full skeleton of a Cuvier's beaked whale to the new Near Island 

Research Laboratory at the Fishery Industrial Technology Center at Kodiak. The loan was noted by 

statewide newspapers because it is articulated for a permanent exhibit at the new building. 

Joshua Snodgrass, working with Diane Gifford-Gonzalez at the University of California (UC) Santa 

Cruz, spent a week gathering materials for a guide to the post-cranial osteology of northern Pacific 

pinnipeds. Their main objective is to provide a useful and widely available guide for archaeologists and 

paleontologists, who often must try to identi.fy isolated andlor fragmentary elements to taxon. The 

impetus for this project is based on Paul Koch and Rob Burton's work. Burton visited the collection fiom 

Santa Cruz one year ago and their research is revealing a changing stable isotope signature in Pacific 
coast pinnipeds and that a large proportion of the pinniped bones recovered from paleo-Indian middens 

have been misidentified in the past. 

Table 2. Summary of marine mammal usage in FY99. 

Sylvia Brunner, working with Peter Shaughnessy at the University of Sydney, spent one month in August 

and September measuring all otariid seal skulls in the collection for a taxonomic revision of sea lions and 

fur seals. Dr. Brunner's project has involved a nine-month tour to all of the world's major collections of 

marine mammals. She returned in order to continue working with our specimens of fin seal and sea lion. 

Most otariid diversity is in the Southern Ocean, but the within-species samples for northem fur seals are 

large enough to evaluate variation associated with age and sex. The Museum conducted four permitted 

transactions under the Marine Mammal Protection Act in support of Dr. Brunner's taxonomic revision of 

otariid seals. One of these resulted in the re-identification of eight mid-nineteenth-century specimens at 

the Swedish National Museum. Dr. Brunner remained in residence working in the mammal collection 

until early April. 

SPECIES 

harbor seals 

Cuvier's beaked whale 

various pinnipeds 

harbor seals 

various pinnipeds 

harbor seals 

harbor seals 

bowhead 

sea lions and fur seals 

walrus and harbor porpoise 

Townsend's fir seal 

southern fur seal and 

California sea lion 

belukha 

Calif. sea lion 

Townsend's fur seal 

walrus 

harbor seals 

harbor seals 

harbor seals 

Weddell seals 

Laura Litsky, a student working with Glen VanBlaricom at the University of Washington, visited the 

Museum for a week in March as part of her effort to develop a comprehensive catalog of all material from 

USER 

Jemison, ADF&G 

Near Island Research 

Laboratory, Kodiak 

Snodgrass, UC Santa Cruz 

Iverson, Univ. Dalhousie 

Davis, UAF Archeology 

O'Corry-Crowe, SWFC 

Hirons, lMS 

Batcheler, Univ. Essen 

Brunner, Univ. Sydney 

Wayne, UCLA 

Brunner, Univ. Sydney 

Brunner, Univ. Sydney 

Mahoney, NMFS 

Brunner, Univ. Sydney 

Brunner, Univ. Sydney 

Chin, UAM 

Burek, veterinary pathologist 

Boveng, NMML 

O'Corry-Crowe, SWFS 

Strobeck, Univ. Alberta 

MATERIAL 

teeth for age analysis 

full skeleton for display 

full skeletons for development of faunal key 

blubber samples 

full skeletons for ID of species in 

archeological middens 

tissue for genetic stock distinction 

vibrissae for stableisotope analysis 

skin with vibrissae for functional anatomy. 

skulls measured for taxonomic revision of 

Otariidae 

tissue for molecular genetic analysis of 

evolution. 

borrow of skulls fiom MVZ 

borrow skulls from Chicago Field Museum 

teeth for aging 

borrow skulls from Swedish National 

Museum 

borrow skeleton from MVZ 

mandibles for exhibit 

pathological tissue for diagnosis 

teeth, age analysis 

tissue for genetic analysis 

blood for paternity analysis 

# 

35 

1 

25 

30 

9 

2 

18 

2 

80 

2 

2 

2 

2 

8 

1 

2 

2 

25 

25 

4 
Steller sea lions. Litsky was here to discuss database structure, and to learn protocols for subsampling 

frozen specimens at the National Marine Mammal Laboratory. 

Tyson Sacco, a doctoral student from UCLA, visited the collection for two weeks to measure 303 bear 

skulls, including 73 polar bears, for his thesis project, "Ecomorphology and Evolutionary Biology of the 

Ursidae". 

Tissue samples from a walrus and a harbor porpoise were sent to Klaus Koepfli, a doctoral student in 

Robert Wayne's laboratory at UCLA. The samples will be used to characterize the molecular evolution of 

a gene in the pathway that synthesizes cellular cholesterol. Teeth from two belukha whales were sent to 

Barbara Mahoney (NMFS, Anchorage) for aging. 

Some of the earliest specimens to be catalogued into the AFTC are blood samples from Antarctic Weddell 

seals collected in 1991. Donald Siniff of the University of Minnesota requested four of these in May for 

paternity analyses in order to complete a pedigree of the White Island population and test genetic 

distances and population subdivision in the McMurdo Sound region. 

Collaborations with agencies involved in marine mammal research continue to grow. In September, 

Gordon Jarrell spent four days in Barrow working with the North Slope Borough's wildlife biologists on 

sampling protocols. He also helped with the necropsy of four subsistence-taken bowhead whales. We 

have also begun discussions with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Alaska Native Sea Otter 

Commission regarding the archiving of both existing and future samples from subsistence-taken sea 

otters. 

Discussion 

The AFTC continues to grow rapidly, recruiting specimens of Alaska marine mammals that have been 

residing in several agencies involved in marine mammal management. There are still important series of 

historic specimens essentially idle in agency freezers and storage facilities, but in each case that we know 

of the owners have agreed to eventually transfer the material to the AFTC, or agreed to arrange for 

subsampling into the AFTC. An end to this phase is finally in sight. Soon we will have incorporated the 

historic backlog of existing samples from Alaska into the AFTC and we are increasingly focusing on 

bringing material into the collection as it is collected. 

There have been substantial gains here as well. The National Marine Fisheries Service, Native 

co-management projects, and ADF&G are now including the AFTC in their sampling protocols. The 

Alaska Native Harbor Seal Commission is now sending all samples collected from subsistence hunters 

directly to the AFTC and forwarding all requests for specimens that it receives to the Museum. The 

ANHSC recognizes that this will make the specimens available to the greatest number of users, integrate 

their specimens with an already-substantial resource, and ensure a consistent record of specimen usage. 

The AFTC has widespread support for its general emphasis on arctic fauna. We will be adding an 

additional 27-cubic-foot freezer plus carbon dioxide backup systems for the existing freezers in the near 

future. We will also begin moving the database onto its own networked server using enterprise-caliber 

software and the data model developed at the UC Berkeley Museum of Vertebrate Zoology. 
Acknowledgements 

Many biologists throughout Alaska have enthusiastically embraced the concept of a regional tissue 

archive. We cannot name all of those individuals, but sincerely appreciate the various contibutions to 

the AFTC. At the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Vicki Vanek and Gay Sheffield have recruited 

significant numbers of specimens and even hding from their colleagues. John Burns, Lloyd Lowry, 

and Kathy Frost continue to develop extensive temporal series of specimens acquired through ADF&G. 

Barbara Mahoney of the National Marine Fisheries Service in Anchorage continues to be a conscientious 

supporter. Also with NMFS, Laura Litsky of the National Marine Mammal Laboratory in Seattle 

magnanimously facilitated the subsampling the substantive holdings of that institution. At the North 

Slope Borough, Todd O'Hara, Johnny Tundra, and Robert Suydam have made the Department of Wildlife 

Management into a regular conduit of samples from subsistence hunters to the AFTC. Various biologists 

with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and USGS-Biological Resources Division (e.g., Joel Miller, 

Steve Amstrup, Tom Evans) provided samples of walrus, polar bear and sea otters. Collaborations 

with Paul Becker and the Alaska Marine Mammals Archival Project (AMMTAP) resulted in several 

significant accessions. Malcolm Ramsay, University of Alberta, provided a large series of Canadian polar 

bears. Alan Springer and Amy Hirons of UAFYs Institute of Marine Science have collaborated on many 

aspects of sample collection and processing. This work was accomplished under the following permits: 

National Marine Fisheries Service 704-1444; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service PRT-832903; CITES 

US807212; U.S. Department of Agriculture 44014 and 44020; and annual permits from the Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game. We thank the permit officers for facilitating the administration of these 

permits. 

Study Products 

A large number of research projects are supported by this collection. Gordon Jarrell explained the 

significance of the AFTC at CMI's January information transfer meeting in Anchorage. In February, Joe 

Cook presented the CMI annual research review. The 5 April 1999 edition of the Fairbanks News-Miner 

featured an extensive description of management and use of scientific collections including the AFTC. 

The article was subsequently carried in Ketchikan and Anchorage papers. 

References 

Dessauer, H.C. and M.S. Hafner. 1984. Collections of Frozen Tissues: Value, Management, Field and 

Laboratory Procedures, and Directory of Existing Collections. Assoc. of Systematics Collections, 74 p. 
New Projects 

Eight new projects are being kded this federal fiscal year along with the ongoing projects reported 

above. Abstracts are presented here to show the full range of work being supported by the University of 

Alaska Coastal Marine Institute. 

Beaufort Sea Nearshore Under-Ice Currents: 

Measurements and Analysis 

Thomas J. Weingartner cweingart@ims.uaf.edus 

Institute of Marine Science 

University of Alaska Fairbanks 

Fairbanks, AK 99775-7220 - -- - - - - - - 

Task Order 1 51 69 

Abstract 

We propose to measure and analyze currents in the landfat (nearshore) ice zone of the Beaufort Sea in 

the vicinity of Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. Our objective is to quantify the circulation variability in this region 

where current measurements are largely lacking during the Jeeze-up, ice-covered, and ice melt seasons. 

This information is deemed critical for designing oil spill response protocols for ofshore drilling 

operations. The data will also be usefhl in evaluating regional numerical circulation models that would 

be used for oil spill trajectory predictions. Although these are the principal reasons for undertaking this 

study, the data are expected to have broader scientiJic applications to other Arctic shelves. For example, 

current energy is expected to be low beneath the landfast ice zone, implying little vertical mixing. Low 

vertical mixing has potentially important implications for the formation ofJonts and the circulation 

structure on the inner she& These data will enable us to better understand mixingprocesses on the 

innermost portions of Arctic shelves. 
Kinetics and Mechanisms of Slow PAH Desorption from 

Lower Cook Inlet and Beaufort Sea Sediments 

Susan M. Henrichs chenrichs@ims.uaf.edu> 

Institute of Marine Science 

University of Alaska Fairbanks 

Fairbanks, AK 99775-7220 

Task Order 15170 

Abstract 

Sediments are important reservoirs for PAH (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon) contamination in the 

marine environment. Previous CMI-funded studies of lower Cook Inlet sediments have shown that a 

substantial part of aromatic hydrocarbon adsorption is not reversible over short reaction times and using 

moderately low water:particle ratios. Also, adsorption inhibits aromatic hydrocarbon biodegradation. 

Organic matter is probably the main adsorber of aromatic hydrocarbons. However, firthey study is 

needed to develop the ability to predict how adsorption and desorption would affect the persistence of 

aromatic hydrocarbon contamination in Alaska's marine sediments. We propose an experimental 

investigationof the kinetics of desorption ofPAHfiom lower Cook Inlet and inner Beaufort Sea shelf 

sediments. In addition, we propose experimental studies to examine the reasons that desorption of 

aromatic hydrocarbons fiom sediments is often slow and incomplete, which will lead to better predictive 

capability based on sediment organic matter sources and composition. These experimental studies are 

relevant to the Alaska CMIfiarnework issue of "better understanding of environmental processes, or the 

causes and eflects of OCS activities. " 
The Role of Zooplankton in the Distribution of 

Hydrocarbons 

Thomas C. Shirley <fftcs@uaf.edu> 

Switgard Duesterloh <ftsd@uaf.edu> 

Juneau Center, School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences 

University of Alaska Fairbanks 

11 120 Glacier Highway 

Juneau, AK 99801 

Task Order 151 71 

Abstract 

This project proposes to investigate the role of zooplankton in distributing oil components, and to clarza 

the effects of hydrocarbons on copepod reproduction. It will add to our understanding of the relationships 

between seasonal variations in the lipid content of copepods, pteropods and euphausiids, and their 

accumulation of hydrocarbons. The large numbers of these taxa found in stomachs of forageJsh and 

commercially valuablejsh indicated their importance in the food chain. Zooplankton therefore influence 

energy flux and the distribution of toxins through several trophic levels and may have great affects on 

the ecosystem. Samples ofpredominant zooplankton will be analyzed for ratios of triglycerides, 

phospholipids and wax esters. Oil exposure experiments with fieshly collected plankton will be correlated 

with measurements of lipid content and composition throughout a reproductive season. In addition, 

incorporation of hydrocarbons into copepod reproductive tissue and feces will be analyzedfor a better 

understanding of their role in the distribution of hydrocarbons. Experiments will be conducted to evaluate 

the influence of experimental oil exposure on egg production of the copepod species Neocalanus spp. and 

Pseudocalanus spp., which use dzflerent life strategies for egg production. Copepods play an important 

role in carbon flun in marine ecosystems. Vertical transport of carbon@om the euphotic sur$ace water to 

the benthos occurs when copepods feed on diatoms and incorporate them into larger, negatively buoyant 

fecal pellets, which may sediment rapidly. The same mechanism of distribution can be assumed for 

hydrocarbons contained in fecal pellets. Therefore, analysis of hydrocarbon content of fecalpellets 

would provide insights in understanding the role of copepods in distribution and remediation of 

hydrocarbons. The data derivedfiom these experiments are intended to provide baseline information for 

experimentation and modeling of ecosystem processes, which include accumulation of hydrocarbons in 

higher trophic levels such as comrnercialJsh species. 
Cook Inlet Workshop Support 

Mark A. Johnson cjohnson@ims.uaf.edu> 

Stephen R. Okkonen <okkonen@alaska.net> 

Institute of Marine Science 

University of Alaska Fairbanks 

Fairbanks, AK 99775-7220 

Task Order 15172 

Abstract 

The waters of Cook Inlet, Alaska, are characterized by complex circulation with variability at tidal, 

seasonal, annual, and interannual time scales. While circulation is dominated by tidal flow, sign$cant 

non-tidal circulation features exist, including a buoyancy-driven current jlowing to the south along the 

western shore of Cook Inlet, a concentrated, intense, and bathymetrically steered westerlyjlow across 

lower Cook Inlet, and a slowJtow to the north in central and eastern Cook Inlet. Accompanying an 

increase in shipping pressure is an increase in risk forpollutants to enter Cook Inlet, which may azect its 

productive$shery. Knowledge of the current patterns in Cook Inlet is therefore important to determining 

and predicting pollutant pathways. 

This proposal seeh funds to convene a two-day workshop in the fall of 1999 on the circulation of Cook 

Inlet, Alaska. The goals of the workshop are to review what is known about the circulation of Cook Inlet, 

to identz5 the essential circulation features within it, to examine the oil spill trajectory models currently 

in use, and to recommentJield-based research objectives targeted at improving our understanding of 

Cook Inlet circulation dynamics and supporting validation of numerical circulation/spill trajectory 

models. 
Seabird Samples as Resources for Marine 

Environmental Assessment 

Kevin Winker cffksw@uaf.edu> 

University of Alaska Museum 

University of Alaska Fairbanks 

Fairbanks, AK 99775-6960 

Task Order 151 73 

Abstract 

In analyses contractingplaces or events in time are to continue to be used to monitor stability or change 

in the environment among biological systems, archival samples of these biological systems must be 

routinely preserved. Birds are excellent environmental indicators, and can be thought of as small 

biologicalJilters sampling various aspects of marine ecosystems. In preserving samples of these 'ffilters ", 

we enable present and future analyses to determine such diverse questions as changes in contaminant 

levels, causes for population changes, nature of the genetic stock aflected, and other issues related to 

Outer Continental Shelf(0CS) activities. These analyses grow more important every day as we attempt 

to determine the rate and characteristics of natural and anthropogenic changes. 

Demand by researchers for seabird specimens for analyses of contaminants, stable isotopes, genetics, 

and morphology presently exceed available holdings and make it clear that the pittfitlly low injlux of such 

specimens must change ifresearch of this nature is to continue. Eflorts in the preservation of marine 

mammal samples (e.g., AFTC, AMMTAP) are impressive and apparently successfil. Marine birds add 

an important dimension in the higher marine trophic levels and have greater diversity and abundance 

than marine mammals, making them a desirable component of the marine environment to a broad 

array of researchers. This proposal seeks to make marine bird sample preservation active and more 

geographically and taxonomically diverse, rather than passive and haphazardly concentrated 

geographically and taxonomically. The UA Museum can acquire specimens and archive and retrieve 

an array of sample types (e.g., feather, skin, skeleton, tissues), but lacks thepreparator capacity to 

process and preserve these samples. Fresh, unprocessed specimens are available each year @om the 

Gulf of Alaska, Cook Inlet, Bering Sea, Chukchi Sea, and Beaufort Sea through a variety of sources. 

Preserving such samples must be done if we are to meet a demonstrated demand and to Jill a major gap 

in present sample archivingprojects. Assistance in this eflort in the form of a half-time graduate assistant 

to process samples is the key to its ultimate success. 
Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Seasonal Variability for 

Two Arctic Climate States 

Andrey Y. Proshutinsky <prosh@ims.uaf.edu> 

Mark A. Johnson <johnson@ims.uaf.edu> 

Institute of Marine Science 

University of Alaska Fairbanks 

Fairbanks, AK 99775-7220 

James Maslanik cjames.maslanik@colorado.edu~ 

Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences 

University of Colorado at Boulder 

Boulder, CO 80309-021 6 

Task Order 151 74 

Abstract 

Arctic navigation, oil and gas exploration, and arctic pollutant transport depend on arctic environmental 

conditions. Existing atlases, manuals, and reference books contain multi-year mean environmental 

variables and their multi-year mean seasonal variability; however, uncertainties sometimes result ftom 

the existing atlases because they do not take into account climate change and climate variability. Our 

proposed work is motivated by the recent finding of two regimes (or two climate states) of arctic 

atmosphere-ice-ocean circulation described by Proshutinsky and Johnson. Based on our recent work, 

we expect that seasonal variations in the ice concentration, ice thickness, and ice drzj?; ocean currents, 

ocean temperature, and salinity; horizontal and vertical heatjluxes; atmospheric pressure, wind speed, 

cloudiness, and precipitation; river discharge; and permaftost temperature are different for cyclonic and 

anticyclonic arctic climate states. The major goal of this research is to document the atmospheric, ice, 

oceanic, and terrestrial signals showing seasonal variability of environmental parameters during 

cyclonic and anticyclonic climate states in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas. The proposed research will 

analyze observational and model data to document seasonal variability of the Beaufort and Chukchi seas, 

including environmental characteristics for the cyclonic and anticyclonic arctic climate regimes. The 

model simulations will be validated and aided by oceanic, meteorological, and terrestrial data sets 

collected over the past 50 years throughout the Beaufort and Chukchi seas. Our primary focuses will be 

to obtain and to use the newly available satellite and model data. 
Petroleum Hydrocarbon Degrading Microbial 

Communities in Beaufort Sea Sediments 

Jon E. Lindstrom ~janetjon@mosquitonet.com~ 

Joan F. Braddock <ftjfb@uaf.edu> 

Institute of Arctic Biology 

University of Alaska Fairbanks 

Fairbanks, AK 99775-7000 

Task Order 151 75 

Abstract 

Offshore oilfield lease sales have recently occurred in the Beaufort Sea, and the permittingprocess for at 

least one offshore oil production project (Northstar) is currently underway. With increasing pressure to 

develop and exploit hydrocarbon resources offshore, the potential for petroleum contamination of the 

marine environment will become more likely. The major mechanism for removal ofpeh.oleum from 

marine systems is microbial hydrocarbon metabolism. High latitude marine oilspills elsewhere have 

demonstrated that the composition of indigenous microbial communities is an important factor affecting 

rates of hydrocarbon degradation. Additionally, fine-grained sediments also affect hydrocarbon 

bioavailability to microbes. Research performed in the Beaufort Sea in the late 1970s and early 1980s 

indicated that indigenous microbes in the environment were poorly suited for rapid hydrocarbon 

destruction. Little research has been performed on Beaufort Sea hydrocarbon degraders since then, and 

little is known about how sediment microbes may have acclimated to hydrocarbon inputs in the last 20 

years. We are proposing research designed to evaluate the current degree of microbial community 

acclimation to hydrocarbons, the effects ofjne-grained sediments on rates of community acclimation, 

and how Beaufort Sea sediments might affect bioavailability ofpetroleum to communities of acclimated 

microbes. This project has both a jeld and a laboratory component and will entail travel to the Beaufort 

Sea to collect marine surface sediments. The field component includes a survey ofpopulations and 

activities of microbes found at sites known to be influenced by hydrocarbons and others known to be 

hydrocarbon--ee. Samples collected in the field also will be returned to the laborato ry for assessment 

of sediment community adaptability to hydrocarbons and the effects of sediments on hydrocarbon 

bioavailability. Additionally, we plan to teach a workshop for residents of the North Slope Borough on 

petroleum chemistry and how it aflects hydrocarbon physical behavior, toxicity, and persistence in the 

environment. We have also committed to being interviewed about our project on the local radio station 

(KBR W) in Barrow to inform a wider audience about our work. 
Regional Economic Impact Analysis of Subsistence 

Bowhead Whaling: Accounting for Non-Market 

Activities on Alaska's North Slope 

Kelly ~iraud' cffklg@som.uaf.edu> 

Car01 E. L~W~S' cffcel@uaf.edu> 

Hans T. ~eie? cfthtg@uaf.edu> 

Joshua A. re en berg* cWjag@uaf.edu> 

Mark ~errmann' cffmlh@uaf.edu> 

John J. ~elley~ <ffik@uaf.edu> 

'~e~arbnent of Economics, School of Management, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK 997754080 

2 Department of Resources Management, School of Agriculture and Land Resources Management, 

University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK 99775-7140 

31nstitute of Marine Science, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK 99775-7220 

Task Order 15176 

Abstract 

A Pesh look at subsistence economies is needed. Two economic theories, home production theory and 

regional input-output modeling (IMPLAN) are appropriate for policy and resource development analysis 

in Alaska. This will address the absence of the use of comprehensive economic methodologies depicting 

non-formal, subsistence sectors prevalent in rural Alaska economies. MMS can use the modiJed 

IMPLAN model to predict potential impacts in pre-lease and pre-development environmental impact 

statements. This project can also provide an important baseline assessment forfittire comparisons. 

Application of the model to subsistence bowhead whaling oflthe north coast of Alaska, specz3cally the 

Beaufort Sea, will depict the unique features of this cash/non-cash economy. Subsistence activities, 

whaling in particular, are diflcult for contemporary researchers to evaluate or to quantlfi in a format 

understandable by western social scientists. What makes this even more dzflcult is the respected 

reluctance, for cultural reasons, for those participating in subsistence activities to express the importance 

of these activities 

in modem economic or value-based terms. Working in partnership with the North Slope Borough 

Department of Wildlife Management and the Barrow, Kaktovik, and Nuiqsut communities will assure 

accurate and reliable information and ownership of the model by community members. 
Funding Summary 

Student Support 

The cooperative agreement that formed the University of Alaska Coastal Marine Institute stressed the 

need to support education as well as research. The following student support information is summarized 

from proposals and may not accurately reflect actual expenditures: 

Funds from Match from 

MMS other sources 

Fiscal Year 94 

2 Ph.D. students $23,000 $ 9,200 

7 M.S. students 67,000 37,400 

Source Total $90,000 $46,600 

Fiscal Year 95 

4 Ph.D. students 59,600 12,800 

7 M.S. students 1 15,400 57,200 

Source Total $175,000 $70,000 

Fiscal Year 96 

1 Ph.D. student 4,000 0 

10 MS. students 133,000 31,800 

Source Total $137,000 $31,800 

Fiscal Year 97 

1 Ph.D. student 0 21,500 

4 MS. students 76,700 0 

1 undeclaredlundergrad 3,900 0 

Source Total $80,600 $21,500 

Fiscal Year 98 

2 Ph.D. students 27,240 

1 MS. student 10,560 

2 undeclaredlundergrad 2,610 

Source Total $40,410 

Fiscal Year 99 

4 Ph.D. students 26,318 28,710 

4 MS. student 32,419 1 5,444 

2 undeclaredlundergrad 0 8,244 

Source Total $58,737 $52,398 

Total to Date $581,747 $222,298 

These figures show a strong commitment to graduate student education by MMS through CMI. 

Approximately 9.5% of the funding provided by MMS has gone directly to support students involved 

in coastal and OCS-related research in Alaska. 
Total CMI Funding 

The total MMS hding available for funding CMI projects through federal fiscal year 1999 is 

approximately $6 million. Since all CMI-funded projects require a one-to-one match with non-federal 

monies, project commitments through fiscal year 1999 have totaled approximately $12 million. 

Sources of Matching Funds 

Matching for CMI-hded projects has come from a wide variety of sources. Identifying and verifying 

match remains a major administrative challenge in the development of CMI proposals. In general, match 

has been available to those investigators who expend the necessary extra effort to locate and secure the 

support. The following partial list of hd matching participants demonstrates the breadth of support for 

CMI-funded programs: 

Afognak Native Corporation 

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) 

Alyeska Pipeline Service Company 

Ben A. Thomas Logging Camp 

British Petroleum Exploration 

Cook Inlet Regional Citizens' Advisory Council 

Japanese Marine Science and Technology Center (JAMSTEC) 

Kodiak Island Borough 

North Slope Borough 

Oil Spill Recovery Institute 

Prince William Sound Aquaculture Corporation 

University of Alaska Fairbanks 

College of Science, Engineering and Mathematics 

Institute of Arctic Biology 

Institute of Marine Science 

School of Agriculture and Land Resources Management 

School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences 

School of Management 

University of Alaska Museum 

Wadati Fund 

Water Research Center 

University of Northern Iowa 

Some of the CMI-funded projects are closely related to other federally hnded projects which cannot be 

considered as match but nevertheless augment and expand the value of a CMI project. Related projects 

have been funded by the National Science Foundation, the Office of Naval Research, the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration 

including the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the Alaska Sea Grant College Program. 

A positive relationship has been fostered between MMS, the University of Alaska, and the State of Alaska 

since the formation of CMI. Residents of Alaska, as well as the parties to the agreement, benefit from the 

cooperative research that has been and continues to be funded through CMI. 
University of Alaska CMI Publications 

These publications are available fiom CMI until supplies are exhausted. Reports marked with an asterisk 

are no longer available in hard copy fiom CMI. 

Contact information 

e-mail: cmi@sfos.uaf.edu 

phone: 907.474.7707 

fax: 907.474.7204 

postal: Coastal Marine Institute 

School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences 

University of Alaska Fairbanks 

Fairbanks, AK 99775-7220 

ALEXANDER, V.(Director). 1995. University of Alaska Coastal Marine Institute Annual Report No. 1. 

University of Alaska Fairbanks, 16 p. 

ALEXANDER, V.(Director). 1996. University of Alaska Coastal Marine Institute Annual Report No. 2. 

OCS Study MMS 95-0057, University of Alaska Fairbanks, 122 p. 

ALEXANDER, V. (Director). 1997. University of Alaska Coastal Marine Institute Annual Report No. 3. 

OCS Study MMS 97-0001, University of Alaska Fairbanks, 191 p. 

ALEXANDER, V. (Director). 1998. University of Alaska Coastal Marine Institute Annual Report No. 4. 

OCS Study MMS 98-0005, University of Alaska Fairbanks, 81 p. 

ALEXANDER, V. (Director). 1998. University of Alaska Coastal Marine Institute Annual Report No. 5. 

OCS Study MMS 98-0062, University of Alaska Fairbanks, 72 p. 

ALEXANDER, V.(Director). 2000. University of Alaska Coastal Marine Institute Annual Report No. 6. 

OCS Study MMS 2000-046, University of Alaska Fairbanks, 86 p. 

BRADDOCK, J.F. 1998. Microbial Degradation of Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Marine Sediments. 

Final Report. OCS Study MMS 97-0041, University of Alaska Coastal Marine Institute, University of 

Alaska Fairbanks, 82 p. 

COOK, J.A. 1999. The Alaska Frozen Tissue Collection and Associated Electronic Database: 

A Resource for Marine Biotechnology. Final Report. OCS Study MMS 99-0008, University of Alaska 

Coastal Marine Institute, University of Alaska Fairbanks, 23 p. 

DUFF(, L.K., R.T. BOWYER, D.D. ROBY and J.B. FARO. 1998. Intertidal Effects of Pollution: 

Assessment of Top Trophic Level Predators as Bioindicators. Final Report. OCS Study MMS 

97-0008, University of Alaska Coastal Marine Institute, University of Alaska Fairbanks, 62 p. 

HENRICHS, S.M. 1997. A Study of the Adsorption of Aromatic Hydrocarbons by Marine 

Sediments. Final Report. OCS Study MMS 97-0002, University of Alaska Coastal Marine Institute, 

University of Alaska Fairbanks, 47 p. 
JOHNSON, M.A. and S.R. OKKONEN [eds.]. 2000. Proceedings Cook Inlet Oceanography Workshop. 

November 1999, Kenai, AK. Final Report. OCS Study MMS 2000-043, University of Alaska Coastal 

Marine Institute, University of Alaska Fairbanks, 1 18 p. 

KLINE, T.C., JR. and J.J. GOERING. 1998. North Slope ~rn~hidrom~ Assessment. Final Report. OCS 

Study MMS 98-0006, University of Alaska Coastal Marine Institute, University of Alaska Fairbanks, 

25 p. 

*NORCROSS, B.L. 1996. Recruitment of Juvenile Flatfishes in Alaska: Habitat Preference near 

Kodiak Island, Vol. I. Final Report. OCS Study MMS 96-0003, University of Alaska Coastal Marine 

Institute, University of Alaska Fairbanks, 1 18 p. 

*NORCROSS, B.L. 1996. Recruitment of Juvenile Flatfishes in Alaska: Habitat Preference near 

Kodiak Island, Vol. 11. Final Report, Appendices. OCS Study MMS 96-0003, University of Alaska 

Coastal Marine Institute, University of Alaska Fairbanks, 1 18 p. 

NORCROSS, B.L. 1998. Defining Habitats for Juvenile Groundfishes in Southcentral Alaska, Vol. I. 

Final Report. OCS Study MMS 97-0046, University of Alaska Coastal Marine Institute, University of 

Alaska Fairbanks, 13 1 p. 

NORCROSS, B.L. 1998. Defining Habitats for Juvenile Groundfishes in Southcentral Alaska, Vol. 11. 

Final Report, Appendices. OCS Study MMS 97-0046, University of Alaska Coastal Marine Institute, 

University of Alaska Fairbanks, 127 p. 

NORCROSS, B.L. 1999. A Limited Investigation into the Relationship of Diet to the Habitat 

Preferences of Juvenile Flathead Sole. Final Report. OCS Study MMS 99-0025, University of Alaska 

Coastal Marine Institute, University of Alaska Fairbanks, 27 p. 

PROSHUTINSKY, A.Y. 2000. Wind Field Representations and Their Effect on Shelf Circulation 

Models: A Case Study in the Chukchi Sea. Final Report. OCS Study MMS 2000-01 1, University of 

Alaska Coastal Marine Institute, University of Alaska Fairbanks, 136 p. 

SHAW, D.G. 1998. Interaction Between Marine Humic Matter and Polycyclic Aromatic 

Hydrocarbons in Lower Cook Inlet and Port Valdez, Alaska. Final Report. OCS Study MMS 

98-0033, University of Alaska Coastal Marine Institute, University of Alaska Fairbanks, 27 p. 

SCHELL, D.M. 1998. Testing Conceptual Models of Marine Mammal Trophic Dynamics Using 

Carbon and Nitrogen Stable Isotope Ratios. Final Report. OCS Study MMS 98-003 1, University of 

Alaska Coastal Marine Institute, University of Alaska Fairbanks, 137 p. 

WEINGARTNER, T.J. 1998. Circulation on the North Central Chukchi Sea Shelf. Final Report. OCS 

Study MMS 98-0026, University of Alaska Coastal Marine Institute, University of Alaska Fairbanks, 

39 p. 

WEINGARTNER, T.J. and T. PROSHUTINSKY. 1998. Modeling the Circulation on the Chukchi Sea 

Shelf. Final Report. OCS Study MMS 98-0017, University of Alaska Coastal Marine Institute, University 

of Alaska Fairbanks, 75 p.