'·

BRISTOL BAY DATA REPORT NO. 85-4

Summary of Historical Escapement Data for King, Chum, Pink, and Coho Salmon in the Naknek-Kvichak, Egegik

and Ugashik Drainages 1926-1984.

By Richard B. Russell Fisheries Biologist

Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Commercial Fisheries

King Salmon, Alaska April 1985

ARLI§ . . Alaska Resources Lihrary & !nf~)fmatJon ScrvJCC~

Ubrary Bui\(\ing, Smt~ 111 3211 Providence Dnve

Anchorage. A K 9950R-Hi 1.1

AREA PATA REPORTS: This series of reports is designed to facilitate archiving of small data sets and internal agency information. It generally consists of data sets of less significant nature that frequently are combined on an annual basis and published through the ADF&G Technical Data Report-Series. This series also includes noteworthy field observation, feasibility ~tudies, Board of Fisheries Reports and staff meeting notes. To pranote docunentation of as many observations as possible which would otherwise remain unreported, this informal report series receives very little editing, thus caution is recommended in use of data and any analysis persented within.

List of Tables.

List of Figures

Introduction

Methods

Results

Discussion

Literature Cited

TABLE OF CONTENTS

-i-

Paae

i i

iii

l

l

17

24

LIST OF TABLES

Tab 1 e l. Salmon counts, Kvi chak River, 1932-1984 . .

Table 2.

Table 3.

Table 4.

Table 5.

Table 6.

Table 7.

Table 8.

Table 9.

Table 10.

King salmon escapement counts, Alagnak (Branch) River, 1961-1984. . . . . .

Chum salmon escapement counts, Alagnak (Branch) River, 1961-1984. . .

Pink salmon escapement counts, Alagnak (Branch) River, 1961-1984. .

Coho salmon escapement counts, Alagnak (Branch) River, 1977-1984. . . .

King salmon escapement counts, Naknek River drainage, 1929-1984 . .

Chum salmon escapement counts, Naknek River drainage, 1929-1984 .

Pink salmon escapement counts, Naknek River drainage, 1929-1984 .

Coho salmon escapement counts, Naknek River drainage, 1930-1984

King salmon escapement counts, Egegik River drainage, 1932-1984 .

Table 11. Chum salmon escapement counts, Egegik River

Table 12.

Table 13.

drainage, 1932-1984 .

Pink salmon escapement counts, Egegik River drainage, 1952-1984

Coho salmon escapement counts, Egegik River drainage, 1953-1984 .

Table 14. King salmon escapement counts, Ugashik River drainage, 1926-1984 .

Table 15. Cnum salmon escapement counts, Ugashik River drainage, :1926-1984 .

Table 16. Pink salmon escapement counts, Ugashik River drainage, 1926-1984 .

Table 17. Coho salmon escapement counts, Ugashik River drainage, 1926-1984 . .

-ii-

3

5

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

15

16

18

19

20

21

22

Figure 1 Bristol <Bay area.

LIST OF FIGURES

-iii-

Paqe

2

INTRODUCTION

The Kvichak, Naknek, Egegik, and Ugashik River drainages of Bristol Bay (Figure 1) support runs of sockeye, king, chum, pink, and coho salmon. Sockeye are the most noteworthy species in terms of numbers and commercial value and hence have been studied the most extensively. Total run data (catch plus escapement) are available for sockeye from the early 1950's to the present, permitting managers to evaluate escapement-return relationships and set appropriate escapement goals on a drainage by drainage basis. Total run data for the other four salmon species are far less complete and escape­ment goals have not been set for these species in the above drainages.

As part of an effort to detail what data exists pertaining to the escapements of king, chum, pink, and coho salmon in east side Bristol Bay drainages a revie\"1 of the literature (both published and unpublished) was conducted. Addi­tional data was extracted from the files of both the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in King Salmon. Results of that review are presented in this report.

METHODS

Escapement data for king, chum, pink, and coho salmon have been collected periodically from east side Bristol Bay drainages since 1926. Data have been obtained using a variety of methods including \"leirs, aerial surveys, foot surveys, float surveys, and counting towers. Numerous observers have participated in the data collection. Often projects generating the data \"/ere principally targeting on other species (generally sockeye salmon) so entries pertaining to the above incidental species may be incomplete or not totally descriptive for use as an escapement index for a particular stream in a given year. Data listed in this report are subject to the above constraints. Raw counts rather than expansions are presented whenever a distinction could be made between them.

Any potential user of the data listings in this report should consider the above constraints and use the data with appropriate caution. In nearly all cases the escapement data presented should be considered index values rather than total escapement values.

RESULTS

Kvichak River

Historic Kvichak River escapement counts for king, chum, pink, and coho salmon are presented in Table 1. Very little data exists for any species other than pink salmon. Aerial ·surveys during six years have yielded a mean escapement index value of 115,000 pinks. With a few more years data some escapement return relationships for pinks may become apparent. King salmon are known to spawn in the upper mainstem Kvichak, Pecks Creek, Kaskanak Creek, and possibly in some smaller tributaries such as Yellow Creek. Afew also enter Iliamna Lake but the numbers are very small. The data in Table 1 are too spotty to yeild anything other than a possible range of spal"lning indices for kings. There is

-1-

- ...

N

I

Flgure r.

DRISTOL DAY AREA

RlVtUD ltrl

DIIAWN IY t. ILINIQ

••••

~ "~" .~ ·-. wcioo RIVEII

t.AKEI

GAPI CONU ANTIHI.

BRISTOL BAY

N

CAP I

ta 1 o to aa :aa •• -•••~===-d--..::;-,====----a

... ll ( •

EDIGIK

.... /' r

....... _. __ _

H..IANNA lA~E

ICUMAKlli!J-'""

_)~] I HONVIAHUM

~.,

l(f-...... ------- .... ..........__

.,.

OECHAHOF LAKE ~

vr ..... r·~ L ~j~--

Table l. Salmon counts,ll Kvichak River, 1932-1984.

Year King Salmon Chum Salmon Pink Salmon Coho Salmon

1932 y 6 '113 l ,018 200 No surveys

1966 67,500 "

1968 88,000 "

1976 35 16 'l 00 "

1978 440,000 "

1980 1,000 25,000 "

1984 200 165,000 "

Totals 7,348 l ,018 801 ,800 Mean Index l ,837 l ,018 114,543

ll Aerial peak counts unless otherwise noted

y Weir count

(Literature Cited: 2 and 5)

-3-

only one observation regarding Kvichak chums and there are no data on file describing coho escapements although small numbers of cohos have been re­corded at locations around Iliamna Lake such as the Lower Talarik Creek weir (n = 109 in 1973, n = 13 in 1974). Additional surveys will be necessary in the future if escapement trend information for the above species is desired.

Alagnak (Branch) River

Salmon escapement counts for species other than sockeye date from 1961 to the present. King salmon counts are presented in Table 2. Counts from both count­ing towers and aerial surveys are presented with the aerial counts probably serving as a more reliable indicator in this case. Counting tower operations generally terminated during early August while kings were still migrating up the river to spawning areas so fish were probably missed at the tower for that reason. Additionally, kings are often mid river migrants making them more difficult to count from counting towers. The aerial surveys conducted since at least 1968 were scheduled to target directly on spawning kings and they provide the most useful indicator of king escapement trends. Overall, aerial surveys have yielded a mean annual escapement index of 5,348 kings in the Alagnak River and the run currently appears to be quite healthy. Chum salmon counts are presented in Table 3. Aerial survey counts during recent years have yi e 1 ded much higher mean index va 1 ues than tower counts from earl i er-·years. It is strongly suspected that the aerial survey counts again are a more accurate indicator of chum escapement magnitudes than the earlier tower counts for the same reasons mentioned above in discussing king counts. The Alagnak is the most significant chum salmon spawning area in the Naknek-Kvichak drainage and as such should be considered a prime chum index stream for future escapement monitoring.

Alagnak River pink salmon counts are presented in Table 4. Both counting tower and aerial counts are listed but much more reliance should be placed on the aerial counts. Again, the tower counts were terminated too early to yeild accurate pink tallies and also many pinks spawn in lower river areas downstream of the counting tower sites. An even year mean escapement index of 283,079 pinks has been obtained.

Alagnak cohos have been aerially counted during four different years, see Table 5. These counts were incidental to counts of spawning kings and should be considered minimal indices. Cohos are the latest salmon annually to enter spawning areas and these counts occurred too early in August to yield accurate indices.

Naknek River

King salmon escapements in the Naknek River have been monitored more extensively than those in adjacent drainages, see Table 6. Weirs constructed for several years at the foot of the Naknek River "rapids" yielded accurate counts of migrants entering the rapids in those years. It should be noted ho~1ever that during recent years approximately 15% of the main river kings counted during aerial surveys have been observed spawning downstream of the old weir site and thus the earleir weir counts may have been low by a similar proportion. Float surveys of some major Naknek River tributaries were conducted during the mid

-4-

Table 2. King salmon escapement counts, Alagnak (Branch) River, 1961-1984.

Year

1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984

Total r~ean Index

lJ Aerial peak surveys

(Literature Cited: 5)

Tower Count

3,450 228

42 18

1 ,806 3,504

972 6

330 282

36

96 12

10,782 829

-5-

Aerial Count 1/

551

1 ,465 1 ,250 6,717 4,781 5,250 1 ,420 2,256

824 1 ,596 6,620 7,593 3,634

25,100

5,860 8,540 5,500 3,525 9,135

101,617 5,348

Table 3. Chum salmon escapement counts, Alagnak (Branch) River,. 1961-1984.

Year

1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984

Total f~ean Index

]j Aerial peak surveys

(Literature Cited: 5)

Tower Count

-6-

18 '906 3,846

20' 124 2,562

132

9,990 72

210 5,790

402 48

62,082 5,644

Aerial Count ]j

4' 120

2 '125 35,000 6,350

14,600 75,000 30,000 8,800

87,500

263,495 29,277

Table 4. Pink salmon escapement counts, Alagnak (Branch) River, 1961-1984.

Year

1961 1962

1964

1966

1968

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982 1984

Total r~ean Index

lf Aerial peak surveys

(Literature Cited: 5)

Tower Count

12 2,250

240

1 ,446 24 66

594

4,632 662

-7-

Aerial Count ll

97,000

6,375

736,000

242,000

50,000 567,100

1 ,698,475 283,079

•Table 5. Coho salmon escapement counts, Alagnak (Branch) River, 1977-1984.

Year Aerial Counts _lj

1977 1 , 500

1981 12,000

1982 7,000

1984 5,600

Total 26,100 Mean Index 6,525

_lj Aerial counts of upmigrating fish only (should be considered minimal counts).

(Literature Cited: 5)

~8-

Table 6. King salmon escapement counts .!! , Naknek River drainage, 1929-1984.

r~a i nstem Pauls King Salmon Big Brooks Year Naknek River Creek Creek Creek River

1929 1 ,498 y 1930 1 ,999 y 1931 896 y 1932 1 ,868 ?J 1940 11?1 1941 2?1 1949

3,097 ?J 7?1

1950 1951 1 ,873 ?J 1952 603 ?J 7?J 1953 2,110 ?J 0 2/ 1954 3,474 y 4 2! 1955 4,188 ?J 3-1956 7,378 ?J 33 y 1957 8,504 ?J

23 ?J 1958 1961 7?J 1962 31 ?J 1963 1 ,345 16 2/ 1964 378 1,130 11 13:0' 1965

63311 578 11 10 ~

1966 300 979 'i! 9_] 1967 800 28911 1 , 129 11 18 ?J 1968 1 ,200 2,204~ 3,716 11 1969 1,200 2, 722- 5,000 3/ 1970 2,500 260 1 ,601 -1971 1 ,620 52 704 490 1972 351 156 1 ,224 1 ,060 1973 1 ,315 115 1 , 106 1974 450 91 495 1 ,010 1975 2,250 144 279 779 1976 5,950 31 180 1 ,070 1977 4,830 1 ,860 2,700 1978 4,000 250 300 4,800 1979 1 , 750 1 ,750 3,650 1981 3,470 591 3,950 1982 6,000 1 ,000 3,900 6,900 1983 3,000 800 1 ,400 9,000 1984 2,250 800 1 ,200 8,800

Totals 80,724 3,324 20,484 60,793 194 t'lean Index 2,691 369 1 ,078 2,895 12

l/ Peak aerial counts unless otherwise noted. Z! Heir counts If Float survey counts Note: The Naknek weir, 1929-1957 was located upstream of approximately 15% of the

known king spawning areas in the mainstem Naknek River so weir counts for those years probably underestimate the total mainstem population accordingly.

(Literature Cited: 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6)

_a_

1960's and peak aerial surveys of these same streams have been flown annually since 1970 yielding (when combined with main stem counts) a system wide annual spawning index. As these kings are exploited by four user groups (commercial, sport, subsistence, and personal use fishermen) continued escapement monitoring should be considered a management priority for the future.

Naknek River chums have been counted much less frequently than kings, see Table 7. The counts obtained were generally made incidental to king counts and may not have occurred at the peak of chum spawning. The data indicate that Big Creek and King Salmon Creek are the major spawning components for chums in the tlaknek drainage and that further attention to chum escapement monitoring will be necessary if trends are to be identified.

Pink salmon have been counted using weirs and aerial surveys in the Naknek drain­age. The aerial surveys should be considered a much more reliable indicator of actual escapement strength than the weir counts as most of the pinks spawn down­stream of the weir sites. The recent even-year mean index value of 261,833 pinks indicates the Naknek escapement is currently in good shape.

Coho escapements have received very little monitoring in the Naknek drainage, see Table 9. Mainstem weirs were terminated about the time cohos really begin to move upriver (mid-August). Counts in the kno~m main spawning streams, Big Creek and King Salmon Creek, are practically nonexistent. The only consistent counts occurred at the Brooks River weir operated by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. A program similar to the present day Naknek king escapement survey program needs to be instituted soon to provide a coho escapement data base.

Egegik River

Egegik River drainage king salmon have been counted using weirs and aerial surveys, see Table 10. Weirs were constructed just below the Egegik River rapids and were operated primarily to count sockeye salmon. The counts ob­tained indicate only a small number of kings entered the Egegik rapids each year. Aerial king salmon counts are a recent addition to the overall Egegik district management program and are designed to yield a system wide index of king salmon spawning numbers. Several years of data will be necessary before escapement trends can be described. It does appear, however, that the King Salmon River and its tributaries are the major producers of kings in the Egegik River system.

Chum salmon counts in the Egegik drainage have been obtained at the Egegik River weirs and during aerial king salmon surveys, Table 11. Again the data in­dicates the King Salmon River and its tributaries are the main chum salmon producers.

Pink salmon have been observed spawning at the foot of the Egegik River rapids during recent years, Table 12. Weir counts probably under estimated historic escapement levels as the weirs were located at the upper end of the spawning area. Egegik pinks appear to follow the even year peak pattern common to other Bristol Bay drainages. It is possible that some pinks may spawn in the glacially turbid waters of King Salmon River where they cannot be visually counted.

-10-

Table 7. Chum· salmon escapement counts ll, Naknek River drainage 1929-1984.

Mainstem Pauls King Salmon Big Brooks Year Naknek River Creek Creek Creek River

1929 1 ,044 ?J 1930 331 y 1931 n?J 1932 210 ?J y 1941

111?) 1

1950 1951 255 ?J 1952 11Y 11?J 1953 207 y 9Y 1954 155 ?J 21 ?J 1955 28 y 5?J 1956 85 ?J 40 y 1958 . 2/

6 2; 1961 2 -1962 13 ?J 1963

1,155 ]/ s?J

1967 1970 7,425 1975 625 1976 400 1 ,690 1981 200 1982 100 500 2,900 1983 1 ,800 1984 400 1 , 500 10,500

Total 2,514 500 3,225 25,470 113 Mean Index 229 250 645 4,245 11

l/ Aerial peak surveys unless otherwise noted. 2; Weir counts II Float survey

(Literature Cited: 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6)

-)1-

Table 8. Pink salmon escapement counts 1; Naknek River drainage, 1929-1984.

ll y

Year· Mainstem Naknek River Brooks River

1929 134-V 1930 28¥; 1931 49-1932 395£/

8Y 1940 1941

924£i ly

1950 1951 13£/

9y 1952 1]2/ 1953 157Y 522/ 1954 431£/ 42-y 1955 55Y 2Y 1956 472£/ 212/ 1958 14"Y 1961 l8Y 1962 69Y 1963 215£/ 1964 212/ 1965 3ffi 1966 1967 109Y 1974 362,000 1976 110,000 1978 780,000 1980 160,000 1982 34,000 1984 125,000

Total 1 ,573,67011 622 Mean Index 261,833 41

Aerial peak surveys unless otherwise noted.

Weir counts

Naknek weir (1929-1956) was located too far upstream to accurately reflect pink escapement numbers in the river so only years 1974 - 1984 were used to compute mean index.

(Literature Cited: 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6)

-12.:

Table 9. Coho salmon escapement counts lf, Naknek River drainage 1930-1984.

Hainstem Pauls King Salmon Big Brooks Year Naknek River Creek Creek Creek River

1930 255 ?! No survey 1931 44 21 " 1932 102 y u··

1948 " 3?! 1949 " 2y 1950 708?! II

1951 37 ?! " 1952 15 v " l?J 1953 4?! " 2 2/ 1954 45 y " 135 y 1955 1,386 ¥; " 58?! 1956 1,747- " 366 ?! 1957 " 461 2/ 1958 " 'l! l ,830 2! 1959 " 163 'l/ 1960 " 398 'l/ 1961 " 370 2/ 1962 " 449 2; 1963 " 114 2; 1964 " 392 2; 1965 " 558 'l! 1966 " 319 'l! 1967 " 410 -1981 " l ,435 y 1984 " 400

Total 4,343 400 l ,435 6,031 r1ean Index 434 400 l ,435 335

lJ All counts are partial as cohos continued to the weirs were dismantled each year.

enter local streams well after

2/ Weir counts

y Float survey

11 Aerial survey

(Literature Cited: 2, 3, 5, and 6)

-13-

Table 10. King salmon escapement counts ll, Egegik River drainage 1932-1984.

Egegik Shosky Gertrude Takayoto Contact Year River Creek Creek Creek Creek

1932 103 y 1952 16 y 1953 39 y 1954 49 y 1955 52 y 1956 20 y 1963 175 4 1969 6 1981 515 1982 300 900 300 1983 860 380 375 1984 40 300 600 350 110

Total 800 300 2,875 730 789 Mean Index 80 300 719 365 197

l! Aerial peak counts unless otherwise noted.

y Weir counts

(Literature Cited: 2, 3, 5 and 6)

-14-

Tablell. . Chum salmon escapement counts ll , Egegik River drainage, 1932-1984 .

Egegik Shosky Gertrude Takayoto Contact Year River Creek Creek Creek Creek

1932 513 y 1952 346 y 1953 270 y 1954 669 y 1955 745 y 1956 26 y 1982 12,000 2,000 1983 5,000 3,500 6,000 1984 800 200 13,000 2,400 10,000

Total 3,369 200 30,000 5,900 18,000 Mean Index 481 200 10,000 2,950 6,000

ll Aerial peak counts unless otherwise noted.

y Weir counts

(Literature Cited: 2, 3, and 5)

-15-

Table 12. Pink salmon

Egegik Year River

1952 183 y 1953 82 y 1954 310 y 1955 80 y 1956 206 y 1982 15,000 1983 1984 17 ,obo

Totals 32,861 ~lean Index 4,694

escapement counts

Shosky Creek

No surveys H

H

H

H

H

H

H

l! , Egegik River

Gertrude Creek

5sll

58 58

lJ Peak aerial counts unless otherwise noted

Y Weir counts

l/ Float count

(Literature Cited: 3 and 5)

-16:..

drainage, 1952-1984.

Takayoto Contact Creek Creek

No surveys No surveys H " H H

H H

H H

H H

H H

" H

Historic coho salmon counts for the Egegik drainage are very incomplete, see Table 13. Weir counts terminated too early to yield accurate escape­ment indices. Aerial surveys have identified some spawning streams but a systematic annual survey program has not been implemented. Such a program will be necessary if escapement trends and a realistic escapement goal for the Egegik system are to be obtained.

Ugashik River

Historic king salmon escapement counts in the Ugashik River drainage are pre­sented in Table 14. Counts were obtained at the Ugashik River weirs and through use of aerial surveys. Weirs were constructed on the Ugashik River just up­stream of Ugashik Lagoon and ~Jere operated primarily to count sockeye salmon. Weir counts indicate that only a few kings utilize the Ugashik River itself for spawning. Aerial survey counts indicate the bulk of king salmon escape­ment occurs in the King Salmon River and its tributaries. These aerial surveys target on spawning kings and are an ongoing component of the Ugashik district salmon management program.

Ugashik drainage chum counts are presented in Table 15. Weir counts were ob­tained as described above for kings. Aerial counts were obtained incidental to king counts on peak king salmon surveys and as such may have been a few days one side or the other of the actual peak of chum spawning. Again it is apparent that the King Salmon River and its tributaries are the major chum spawning areas within the Ugashik drainage. Also, recent catch and escapement totals indicate the chum run in the Ugashik district is in a very healthy condition. The 1984 run of at least 380,000 chums is the largest on record for the district.

Pink salmon escapements to the Ugashik River drainage have not been monitored very extensively, see Table 16. Weir counts may have terminated too early to accurateiy reflect pink escapement numbers in the upper Ugashik River. Aerial counts have largely been obtained during king and sockeye escapement surveys. The mainstem King Salmon River may be the most significant pink spawning area

. in the Ugashik drainage.

Coho escapement counts in the Ugashik drainage are presented in Table 17. Again, the data are very incomplete. Cohos enter spawning areas from late August through at least mid-October (personal observations) and the duration of spawning lasts until at 1 east mid-December in some areas. Weir counts terminated too early to accurately reflect coho escapement numbers. Aerial counts were obtained in­cidental to kings and sockeye during mid-August surveys. A program to identify coho spawning··areas, index spawning abundance, and eventually yield a realistic spawning escapement goal needs to be implemented at Ugashik.

DISCUSSION

While research and management programs in east side Bristol Bay drainages have yielded a great deal of information regarding sockeye spawning areas, escapement numbers, escapement return ratios, desired escapement goals, etc. these same biological concerns remain much less well defined for the other four salmon species sharing the same watersheds. With commercial, subsistence, sport, and in some cases personal use fisheries now utilizing these other salmon species a better

Table 13. Coho salmon escapement counts ll, Egegik River drainages, 1953-1984.

Egegik Margaret Lagoon Becharof Cleo Bear Franks Featherly Island Year River Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Arm

1953 84 ?J 1954 113?1 1955 742 ?J 1956 676 ?J 1964 4,000 50 100 500 1966 30 1981 2,000 l ,000 500 200 300 1982 20,000 1984 43,000

Total 68,615 2,000 50 l ,000 100 500 230 300 500 Mean

Index 9,802 2,000 50 l ,000 100 500 115 300 500

ll Aerial peak counts unless otherwise noted

y Weir counts

(Literature Cited: 3, 5, and 6)

-18-

Table 14. King salmon escapement counts ll, Ugashik River drainage, 1926-1984.

Ugashik Dog Salmon King Salmon Painter Pumice Old Year River River & Tri bs River Creek Creek Creek

1926 46 y 1927 21 y 1929 23 y 1930 21 y 1931 12 y 1932 24 2/ 1950 38 II 1951 30 2/ 1952 75 y 1953 24 2/ 1954 30 y 1955 24 2/ 1956 15 .v 1958 800 1 '1 00 1962 6 50 1966 20 370 105 1968 408 74 1969 98 218 1979 2 350 30 50 1980 900 1 ,000 1981 50 300 1982 700 .700 1983 50 965 525 635 1,800 660 1984 840 4 '100 1,880 1 '1 00 880

Total 433 1 ,831 7,203 5,988 4,030 1 ,664 Mean

Index 31 458 720 665 1,008 416

l! Aerial peak counts unless otherwise noted.

y ~~ei r counts.

(Literature Cited: 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6)

-19-

Tab·l e 15. Chum salmon escapement counts ll, Uga?hik River drainage 1926-1984.

Ugashik Dog Salmon King Salmon Painter Pumice Old Mother Goose Year River River & Tribs River Creek Creek Creek Lake & Tribs.

1926 278 y 1927 93 y 1929 557 y 1930 186 2/ 1931 145 "!! 1932 1 ,210 ¥ 1951 104 I; 1952 99 -1953 93 2/ 1954 189 II 1955 26 2/ 1956 63 ?! 1958 300 400 1964 1 ,000 1966 100 265 470 1980 7,000 3,000 1981 200 1982 19,000 35,000

20,00011 650

1983 3 '150 2,700 4,000 3,300 1984 750 119,000 16,000 16,000 14,500 2,500

Total 3,043 3,900 148,900 58,400 36,665 18,270 3 '150 Mean

Index 254 1 ,950 24,817 9,733 9 '166 6,090 1 ,575

l/ Aerial peak counts unless otherwise noted.

y Weir counts

3/ Float count

(Literature crted: 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6).

-20-

Table 16 0 Pink sa: ')n escapement counts JJ, Ugashik. River drainage, 1926-1984.

Ugashik Dog Salmon King Salmon Painter Pumice Old Year River River & Tribs River Creek Creek Creek

1926 17 ?J No Survey 1927 26 2/ " 1929 29 y " 1930 18 ?J " 1931 7?l " 1932 112 2/ " 1951 44 y " 1952 59 ?J " 1953 49 2/ " 1954 1130' " 1955 18 2/ " 1956 26 y " 1980 2,000 " 1982 4,000 2,000 " 1983 800 321 " 1984 5 650 y l 11 "

--

Total 2,518 805 4,650 2,001 3 r·,lean

Index 194 403 2,325 l ,000 2

Jj Aerial peak counts unless otherwise noted.

?J Weir counts

'}! Float counts

(Literature Cited: l , 2, 3, 5, and 6)

-21-

Table 17. Coho salmon escapement counts ll, Ugashik River drainage, 1926-1984.

Mother Ugas.hi k Dog Salmon King Salmon Painter Pumice Old Goose Dago

Year River River & Tri bs River Creek Creek Creek Lake Creek No No

1926 27 ?J Survey Survey 1927 22 ?J 1931 8Y 1932 118 ?J 1949 5,660 ?J 1950 2,586 ¥ 1951 473 _j 1952 138 ?J 1953 142 ?J 1954 465 ~ 1955 76 -1956 320 ?J 1979 " 80 1980 l '500 500 " 1981 2,300 ll ,000 " " 1982 4,000 " " 1983 l ,315 " " 1984 2, l DO 4,000 " " 5

---Totals 12,135 l ,315 ll ,800 ll '500 80 5 Mean

Index 933 l ,315 2,950 5,750 80 5

l! Aerial peak counts unless noted.

?J Weir counts (partial only as weirs normally pulled before peak of coho migration arrived.

(Literature Cited: l, 2, 3, 5, and 6)

-22-

understanding of escapement needs, drainage by drainage, is necessary if proper management of runs and individual stocks is to occur. Until data leadi.ng to such understanding is obtained the establishment of realistic escapement goals for· these species in the respective river systems will be either a very subjective process or not possible. Hopefully, escapement monitoring programs can be implemented in the near future to address these data needs and provide information to fishery managers with which they can adequately protect the long term spawning requirements of these important salmon runs.

-23-

LITERATURE CITED

1 . UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF CDr·1MERCE. 1926-1928. A 1 aska fishery and fur-seal industries. Bureau of Fisheries. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.

2. UNITED STATES DEPARH1ENT OF C0~1t~ERCE. 1929-1939. Annua 1 report of the Bristol Bay district. Bureau of Fisheries. Washington, D.C.

3. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR. 1940-1956. Annual report Bristol Bay. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

4. ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME. 1963-1984. Division of Sport Fisheries, Bristol Bay management files, unpublished records.

5. ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME. 1963-1984. Division of Commercial Fisheries, Bristol Bay management files, unpublished records.

6. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR. 1940-1967. Fish and Wildlife Service. Bristol Bay files, unpublished records.

·' -24-