Sport Fishing Effort, Catch, and Harvest, and Inriver Abundance of Chilkat River Chinook Salmon Near Haines, Alaska in 2000

Fishery Data Series No. 01-12

Sport Fishing Effort, Catch, and Harvest, and Inriver Abundance of Chilkat River Chinook Salmon near Haines, Alaska in 2000

by Randolph P. Ericksen

July 2001 Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Sport Fish

Symbols and Abbreviations The following symbols and abbreviations, and others approved for the Système International d'Unités (SI), are used in Division of Sport Fish Fishery Manuscripts, Fishery Data Series Reports, Fishery Management Reports, and Special Publications without definition. All others must be defined in the text at first mention, as well as in the titles or footnotes of tables and in figures or figure captions.

Weights and measures (metric) General Mathematics, statistics, fisheries

centimeter cm All commonly accepted e.g., Mr., Mrs., alternate hypothesis HA deciliter dL abbreviations. a.m., p.m., etc. base of natural e gram g All commonly accepted e.g., Dr., Ph.D., logarithm hectare ha professional titles. R.N., etc. catch per unit effort CPUE kilogram kg and & coefficient of variation CV at @ 2 kilometer km common test statistics F, t, c , etc. liter L Compass directions: confidence interval C.I. meter m east E correlation coefficient R (multiple) north N metric ton mt correlation coefficient r (simple) milliliter ml south S covariance cov millimeter mm west W degree (angular or ° Copyright ã temperature) Weights and measures (English) Corporate suffixes: degrees of freedom df cubic feet per second ft3/s Company Co. divided by ÷ or / (in foot ft Corporation Corp. equations) gallon gal Incorporated Inc. equals = Inch in Limited Ltd. expected value E mile mi et alii (and other et al. fork length FL ounce oz people) greater than > pound lb et cetera (and so forth) etc. greater than or equal to ³ quart qt exempli gratia (for e.g., harvest per unit effort HPUE example) yard yd less than < id est (that is) i.e., Spell out acre and ton. less than or equal to £ latitude or longitude lat. or long. logarithm (natural) ln Time and temperature monetary symbols $, ¢ logarithm (base 10) log (U.S.) day d logarithm (specify base) log2, etc. months (tables and Jan,...,Dec mideye-to-fork MEF degrees Celsius °C figures): first three degrees Fahrenheit °F letters minute (angular) ' hour (spell out for 24-hour clock) h number (before a # (e.g., #10) multiplied by x minute min number) not significant NS second s pounds (after a number) # (e.g., 10#) null hypothesis HO Spell out year, month, and week. registered trademark â percent % trademark ä probability P Physics and chemistry United States U.S. probability of a type I a all atomic symbols (adjective) error (rejection of the null hypothesis when alternating current AC United States of USA America (noun) true) ampere A probability of a type II b calorie cal U.S. state and District use two-letter of Columbia abbreviations error (acceptance of direct current DC abbreviations (e.g., AK, DC) the null hypothesis when false) hertz Hz horsepower hp second (angular) " hydrogen ion activity pH standard deviation SD parts per million ppm standard error SE parts per thousand ppt, ‰ standard length SL volts V total length TL watts W variance Var

FISHERY DATA SERIES NO. 01-12

SPORT FISHING EFFORT, CATCH, HARVEST, AND INRIVER ABUNDANCE OF CHILKAT RIVER CHINOOK SALMON NEAR HAINES, ALASKA IN 2000

Randolph P. Ericksen Division of Sport Fish, Douglas

Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Sport Fish 333 Raspberry Road Anchorage, AK 99518-1599

July 2001

This investigation was partially financed by the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 777-777K) under Project F-10-15 and F-10-16, Job No. S-1-5.

The Fishery Data Series was established in 1987 for the publication of technically oriented results for a single project or group of closely related projects. Fishery Data Series reports are intended for fishery and other technical professionals. Fishery Data Series reports are available through the Alaska State Library and on the Internet: http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/statewide/divreports/html/intersearch.cfm This publication has undergone editorial and peer review.

Randolph P. Ericksen Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish P. O. Box 240020, Douglas, AK 99824-0020, USA

This document should be cited as: Ericksen, Randolph P. 2001. Sport fishing effort, catch, and harvest, and inriver abundance of Chilkat River chinook salmon near Haines, Alaska in 2000. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fishery Data Series No. 01-12, Anchorage.

The Alaska Department of Fish and Game administers all programs and activities free from discrimination based on race, color, national origin, age, sex, religion, marital status, pregnancy, parenthood, or disability. The department administers all programs and activities in compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.

If you believe you have been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility, or if you desire further information please write to ADF&G, P.O. Box 25526, Juneau, AK 99802-5526; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4040 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 300 Webb, Arlington, VA 22203 or O.E.O., U.S. Depart ment of the Interior, Washington DC 20240.

For information on alternative formats for this and other department publications, please contact the department ADA Coordinator at (voice) 907-465-4120, (TDD) 907-465-3646, or (FAX) 907-465-2440..

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES ...... ii

LIST OF FIGURES ...... ii

LIST OF APPENDICES ...... ii

ABSTRACT ...... 1

INTRODUCTION...... 1

METHODS ...... 3

Inriver Abundance...... 3 Lower river marking...... 3 Spawning ground recovery...... 5 Age and sex composition of the escapement ...... 6 Harvest ...... 7 2000 Haines marine sport fishery harvest...... 7 Contribution of coded wire tagged stocks ...... 8

RESULTS ...... 9

Inriver Abundance...... 9 Age and sex composition of the escapement ...... 11 Harvest...... 11 2000 Haines marine sport fishery harvest...... 11 Age and length of harvest...... 12 Contribution of coded wire tagged stocks ...... 12 Data Files ...... 12

DISCUSSION ...... 12

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...... 19

LITERATURE CITED ...... 21

APPENDIX A ...... 23

LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Numbers of chinook salmon caught in the lower Chilkat River by time period, gear type, and size, June 11 through July 31, 2000...... 9 2. Age composition and mean length-at-age (measured in mm from mid -eye to fork of tail) of chinook salmon sampled during tagging operations on the Chilkat River, by gear type, 2000 ...... 11 3. Number of chinook salmon inspected for marks and number of marked fish recaptured during tag recovery surveys in the Chilkat River drainage, by location, size, and sex, 2000...... 12 4. Age composition of chinook salmon sampled during recovery surveys on the Chilkat River drainage, by spawning tributary, 2000...... 14 5. Estimated abundance of chinook salmon in the 2000 Chilkat River escapement, by age and sex...... 15 6. Total estimated effort, catch, and harvest of chinook salmon in the Haines marine boat sport fishery, by biweek, May 8 through June 25, 2000...... 15 7. Estimated age composition and mean length-at-age of harvested chinook salmon in the Haines marine boat sport fishery, by location, May 8 through June 25, 2000 ...... 17 8. Contribution estimates of coded wire tagged chinook salmon to the Haines marine sport fishery, and statistics used for computing estimates by biweek, 2000 ...... 17 9. Numbers of unmarked and marked large (age-1.3 and older) chinook salmon sampled on Chilkat River spawning tributaries and results of chi-square tests to determine if marked fractions were equal, 1994-2000...... 18 10. Estimated annual age compositions and brood year returns of large chinook salmon immigrating into the Chilkat River, 1991–2000 ...... 19 11. Estimated angler effort and large chinook salmon catch and harvest in the Haines marine boat sport fishery for similar sample periods, 1984–2000...... 20

LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Map showing location of sampling sites and release sites of coded wire tagged chinook salmon near Haines and Skagway, Southeast Alaska, 2000 ...... 2 2. Map showing active lower Chilkat River channel, drift areas, and sites of fish wheels in 2000...... 4 3. Daily water depth, temperature, and catch of small, medium, and large chinook salmon in drift gillnets and fish wheels operating in the lower Chilkat River, June 11 through July 31, 2000 ...... 10 4. Cumulative proportion of large chinook salmon captured with drift gillnets in the lower Chilkat River in 2000 compared to mean cumulative proportion, 1991–1999 ...... 10 5. Cumulative distribution function of MEF lengths of large chinook salmon marked in the lower Chilkat River versus lengths of marked fish recaptured on the spawning grounds, and versus lengths of large fish examined for marks on the spawning grounds, 2000...... 13 6. Estimated angler effort for, and harvest and catch of large chinook salmon per salmon hour of effort in the Haines spring marine boat sport fishery, 1984–2000, and estimated inriver abundance of large chinook salmon in the Chilkat River, 1991–2000...... 21

LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Page A1. Sampling statistics and estimated effort, catch, and harvest of chinook salmon at the Letnikof Dock by week, May 8 through June 25, 2000...... 25 A2. Sampling statistics and estimated effort, catch, and harvest of chinook salmon at the Chilkat State Park boat launch by biweek, May 15 through June 25, 2000 ...... 26 A3. Sampling statistics and estimated effort, catch, and harvest of chinook salmon at the Small Boat Harbor by biweek, May 8 through June 25, 2000...... 27 A4. Estimated age composition and mean length-at-age (measured in mm from snout to fork of tail) of harvested chinook salmon in the Chilkat Inlet subsistence gill net fishery, June 20–July 9, 2000...... 28 A5. Computer data files used in the analysis of this report...... 29

ABSTRACT

The harvest of chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha in the Chilkat Inlet spring sport fishery and escapement into the Chilkat River are estimated annually to monitor this important sport fishery and the salmon stock that supports it. An age-stratified mark-recapture experiment was used to estimate spawning abundance of age-1.2 and older chinook salmon returning to the Chilkat River in 2000. Angler effort and harvest of wild mature chinook salmon in the Haines spring marine boat fishery were estimated using a creel survey. Harvest of large (28 inches and greater in total length) chinook salmon and chartered angler effort and harvest were also estimated. One hundred fifty-two (152) medium and large (age-1.2 and older) chinook salmon were captured with drift gillnets and fish wheels and 151 were tagged with solid-core spaghetti tags in the lower Chilkat River between June 11 and July 31, 2000. We examined 700 medium and large chinook salmon on spawning tributaries to the Chilkat River, and 39 of these were marked. On the basis of these data, we estimated that 2,664 (SE = 355) chinook salmon age-1.2 and older immigrated into the Chilkat River during 2000. An estimated 629 (SE = 122) were medium (age-1.2) and 2,035 (SE = 334) were large (age-1.3 and older) fish. An estimated 4,428 angler-hours (SE = 607) of effort (4,043 targeted salmon hours, SE = 532) were expended for a harvest of 49 (SE = 12) chinook salmon (³28 inches), of which 27 (SE = 8) were wild, mature fish. Chartered anglers accounted for 7% of the targeted salmon effort and 25% of the harvest of large chinook salmon. Key words: Mark-recapture, creel survey, angler effort, harvest, marine boat sport fishery, escapement, coded wire tag, age composition, length-at-age, chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, Chilkat River, Kelsall River, Tahini River, Big Boulder Creek, Haines, Southeast Alaska.

INTRODUCTION 1996, 1999). Electrophoretic analysis indicates that this population may be more closely related The purpose of this study was to estimate the genetically to southern British Columbia and sport harvest and escapement of chinook salmon Washington stocks than to other Southeast Alaskan Oncorhynchus tshawytscha returning to the populations (Gharett et al. 1987). Chilkat River during 2000. The long-term goal of A spring marine boat sport fishery occurs annually this study is to develop maximum harvest in Chilkat Inlet (Figure 1) in Southeast Alaska near guidelines for this stock in accordance with Haines and targets mature chinook salmon sustained yield management. returning to the Chilkat River. A creel survey has The Chilkat River is a large glacial system that been used to estimate harvest in this fishery since originates in British Columbia, Canada, flows 1984. The harvest in this fishery peaked at over through rugged, dissected, mountainous terrain, 1,600 chinook salmon in 1985 and 1986 (Neimark and terminates in Chilkat Inlet near Haines, 1985; Mecum and Suchanek 1986, 1987; Bingham Alaska (Figure 1). The mainstem and major et al. 1988; Suchanek and Bingham 1989, 1990, tributaries comprise approximately 350 km of 1991; Ericksen 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, river channel in a watershed covering about 1999, 2000). 1,600 km² (Bugliosi 1988). The spring marine boat fishery in Haines has been The Chilkat River produces the third or fourth popular both with local and non-local anglers; an largest run of chinook salmon in Southeast Alaska estimated 61% of the anglers that fished in 1985 (Pahlke 1997). Chilkat River chinook salmon rear were not from Haines (Bethers 1986). In 1988, primarily in the inside waters of northern anglers fishing in Haines and Skagway for Southeast Alaska, and less so in the Gulf of chinook salmon spent an estimated $1.1 million Alaska, Prince William Sound, and Kachemak (Jones and Stokes 1991). The Haines King Bay (Pahlke 1991, Johnson et al. 1993, Ericksen Salmon Derby, which began in the mid 1950s, is

Figure 1.–Location of sampling sites in the Chilkat Ri ver drainage, near Haines in Southeast Alaska during 2000.

directed primarily at returning Chilkat River The indices were used in a regionwide program to chinook salmon. monitor chinook salmon escapements in Southeast Alaska (Pahlke 1992). Beginning in 1981, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), Division of Sport Concern about Chilkat River chinook salmon Fish began a program to index chinook salmon developed when Stonehouse and Big Boulder abundance in the Chilkat River (Kissner 1982) Creek survey counts declined in 1985 and 1986. by using aerial survey counts in Stonehouse and This decline coincided with high harvests of Big Boulder creeks (Figure 1). These areas were chinook in the commercial troll, commercial drift selected because they were the only clearwater gillnet, and marine sport fisheries in the area. In spawning areas that could be effectively surveyed. 1987, the Department began to restrict sport,

subsistence and commercial fisheries in upper Research objectives in 2000 were: Lynn Canal, and recreational fisheries were 1. estimate the 2000 immigration of medium closed entirely in 1991 and 1992. The Haines (age-1.2) and large (age-1.3 and older) King Salmon Derby was closed, beginning in chinook salmon into the Chilkat River; 1988. 2. estimate age and sex compositions of the Because of these concerns, the Division of Sport escapement of large chinook salmon in the Fish initiated a program to tag wild juvenile Chilkat River; and chinook salmon in 1988 with coded wire tags (CWTs) to identify migratory patterns and to 3. estimate the harvest of wild mature estimate contributions to sport and commercial chinook salmon in the Haines spring fisheries. The Division of Sport Fish also marine boat sport fishery from May 8 to conducted radiotelemetry and mark-recapture June 25, 2000. experiments in 1991 and 1992 to estimate spawning distribution and abundance of large METHODS (age-1.3 and older) chinook salmon in the river. Results of this research indicate that most of the INRIVER ABUNDANCE chinook spawn in two major tributaries of the Chilkat River, the Kelsall and Tahini rivers, and An age-stratified mark-recapture experiment was immature fish are harvested as they rear used to estimate the number of medium (age-1.2) primarily in the inside waters of Southeast and large (age-1.3 and older) chinook salmon Alaska (Johnson et al. 1992, 1993; Ericksen 1996, immigrating to the Chilkat River in 2000. Marks 1999). were applied to fish ³440 mm FL captured in the Mark-recapture experiments have been conducted lower Chilkat River with drift gillnets and fish annually since 1991 to estimate the escapement wheels from June 11 through July 31, between of large chinook salmon. Estimates have ranged the area adjacent to Haines Highway miles 7 and between 2,271 (SE = 408) and 8,100 (SE = 9 (Figure 1). Chinook salmon were marked with 1,193) fish (Johnson et al. 1992, 1993; Johnson a solid-core spaghetti tag and a hole punch in the 1994; Ericksen 1995–2000). Because abundance upper left operculum prior to release. Water appeared relatively high and stable, the Haines depth (cm), and temperature (°C) were recorded King Salmon Derby was held in 1995 for the daily at 0700 and 1330 hours near highway mile first time in eight years, and continues to the 8. Fish were examined for marks on three upriver present time. spawning tributaries of the Chilkat River between July 27 and September 6. The current Chilkat River escapement goal of 2,000 chinook salmon was established in the late Lower River Marking 1970s and is currently under review. Regu- lations in effect during 2000 prevented sport Gillnets 21.3-m long and 3.0-m deep (70 ft x 10 fishing for chinook salmon near the mouth of the ft) were drifted in the lower Chilkat River June 13 Chilkat River (see Ericksen 1998, Figure 2). through July 23, 2000. The gillnets consisted of Anglers were allowed to keep one king salmon two equal-length panels: one of 17.1-cm (6.75-in 28 inches or greater in length per day and in stretch measured) and the other of 20.3-cm (8.0- possession. A nonresident angler annual limit of in stretch measured) nylon mesh. Each day we three king salmon 28 inches or greater in length attempted to complete 43 drifts between 0600 was also in effect during 2000. In addition, and 1400 hours. Fishing was conducted from an effective June 10, the daily bag and possession 18-ft boat in six adjoining 0.5-km-long areas, limit for king salmon less than 28 inches in which were marked along a 3-km-long stretch of length was one for anglers fishing in Taiya Inlet river (Figure 2). This area was about 100-m (near Skagway). Commercial fishing regulations wide and 2 to 3-m deep and located slightly were structured to reduce incidental harvests of down river from the area used prior to 1998 due mature chinook salmon in the Lynn Canal gillnet to shoaling. The 43 drifts took about 6 hours to fishery. complete when fish were not captured. Fishing

9 mile marker

fish wheels

Area #1 0 1 km

Area #2 0 4000 ft

8 mile marker Area #3

Haines Highway Area #4

Area #5

Area #6

Figure 2.–Active lower Chilkat River channel, drift areas, and sites of fish wheels in 2000.

continued uninterrupted from area to area if fish Two 3-basket aluminum fish wheels were were not captured. If a (0.5-km) drift was installed by ADF&G Commercial Fisheries prematurely terminated because a fish was Division (CF) personnel on June 10 and were caught, or if the net became entangled or drifted operated through October 7 to monitor the into shallow water, the terminated drift was escapement of sockeye salmon O. nerka to the subsequently completed before a new drift was Chilkat River. One fish wheel operated adjacent started. If 43 drifts could not be completed to the Haines Highway near mile 9 and the other during the day, additional drifts were added to about 300 m downstream (Figure 2). The wheels the next day’s total to make up the balance. were located along the east bank of the river

where the main flow was constrained primarily The validity of the mark-recapture experiment to one side of the floodplain. Fish wheels were rests on several assumptions: (a) that every fish operated continuously except for maintenance. has an equal probability of being marked during event 1, or that every fish has an equal Captured chinook salmon were placed in a water- probability of being captured in event 2, or that filled tagging box (see Figure 3 in Johnson marked fish mix completely with unmarked fish; 1994), inspected for missing adipose fins, and (b) that recruitment and “death” (emigration) do measured to the nearest 5 mm, mid-eye-to-fork not both occur between sampling events; length (MEF). Fish were initially classified as (c) that marking does not affect catchability (or “large,” “medium,” or “small,” depending on their mortality) of the fish; (d) fish do not lose marks length: fish ³660 mm MEF were designated as between sample events; (e) all recovered marks large, fish ³440 and <660 mm MEF as medium, are reported; and (f) that double sampling does and fish <440 mm MEF as small. Healthy not occur (Seber 1982). chinook salmon ³440 mm MEF were scale sampled, visually “sexed”, marked with a Stratifying the experiment into medium (age-1.2) uniquely numbered spaghetti tag threaded over a and large (age-1.3 and older) fish ensures that solid plastic core and sewn through the bones near abundance and age composition estimates for the base of the dorsal fin, and had a ¼-inch hole large fish are obtained by similar, robust methods punched into the upper edge of the left operculum each year (estimates for age-1. 2 fish have not as a secondary mark. Fish caught in the gill net been possible in most years due to small sample were also marked with a left axillary appendage sizes). This ensures that estimates are compar- clip to identify where the fish was marked in the able with other years when it was not possible to event of tag loss. Small (<440 mm MEF) were estimate the number of medium fish. In addition, sampled and marked as above except given a key experimental assumptions that sampling si unselective by fish size, age, and sex are strained uniquely numbered t-bar anchor tag instead of a when age-1.2 fish are pooled with large fish, and spaghetti tag. Age of each fish was determined meaningful failures can be difficult to detect with postseason by scale pattern analysis (Olsen 1992). a small sample size. Selectivity assumptions for Each fish was then reclassified as large, medium, a stratum of age-1.2 fish are, in contrast, robust. or small, using ocean age, rather than length, as These fish are mostly (>95%) male and span a criteria; fish with three or more ocean years of small range of lengths relative to fish age-1.3 and residence were classified as large, those with two older. ocean years as medium, and younger fish were classified as small. Any fish whose scales could The validity of assumption (a) was tested through not be aged was classified by length as described a series of hypothesis tests (all at a = 0.1). First, above. a contingency table (chi-square statistic) was used to test the hypothesis that fish sampled at different Spawning Ground Recovery spawning tributaries were marked at the same rate. Also, a contingency table was used to test Escapements in the Kelsall and Tahini rivers the hypothesis that fish marked at different times (Figure 1) were sampled for marks by two teams in the emigration (e.g., early vs. late) were of two people. Spawning grounds in the Kelsall recaptured at the same rate. River (including Nataga Creek) were sampled from August 4 to September 5. Spawning The possibility of selective sampling was also grounds in the Tahini River were sampled from investigated because assumption (a) could be August 8 to September 5. Chinook salmon were violated if the sampling rate varied by size or sex also sampled in Big Boulder Creek from July 27 of the fish. The hypothesis that fish of different through September 6. Chinook salmon were sizes were captured with equal probability during captured with gillnets, dip nets, snagging gear, the second sampling event was tested with a bare hands, and spears. Double sampling was Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) 2-sample test prevented by punching a hole in the lower edge comparing the size distribution of marked fish of the left operculum of all captured fish. with those recaptured. If significant differences

were observed between size compositions, the paring the lengths of fish marked in the lower abundance estimate could be stratified by size, river to those sampled on the spawning grounds. age, and/or by sex to reduce bias. The remaining Age and sex selectivity was investigated by assumptions are considered in greater detail under the Discussion section. contingency table analysis. The number of large chinook captured by age or sex in the lower river Abundance (numbers immigrating) of medium, or was compared with the number sampled on the large chinook salmon was estimated using the spawning grounds. If sex compositions differed Chapman’s modified Petersen estimator for a significantly, spawning ground samples alone closed population (Seber 1982): were used to estimate sex composition, as sex determination is known to be more difficult early (n + 1)(n + 1) Nˆ = 1 2 - 1 (1) in the season while marking fish (Ericksen 1995– (m2 + 1) 2000). Age or sex composition of the escapement was (n + 1)(n + 1)(n - m )(n - m ) ˆ 1 2 1 2 2 2 obtained from pooled samples when no var[N] = 2 (2) (m2 +1) (m2 + 2) selectivity was found, or from separate unbiased samples as appropriate. Proportions by age or where n1 is the number of medium or large sex for medium and large fish were estimated by: chinook salmon marked in the lower river, n2 is the number examined on the spawning grounds, na pˆ a = (3) and m2 is the subset of n2 which had been marked n in the lower river.

pˆ a (1 - pˆ a ) Age and Sex Composition of the var[ pˆ a ] = (4) Escapement n -1

Age and sex composition estimates can be biased where pa is the proportion in the population in due to sampling methods. Fish wheels can be age/sex group a, na is the number in the sample selective for smaller fish (Ericksen 1995) and for belonging to group a, and n is the number in the males (Ericksen 1995–2000) in some years. sample that are successfully aged (or sexed). Carcass surveys are known to be sex selective in The abundance at age of large chinook salmon in some situations (Pahlke et al. 1996, McPherson et al. 1997). In addition, significant variation in age the escapement was estimated as: and/or sex compositions between spawning areas ˆ ˆ can bias composition estimates for the entire Na = N pˆ a (5) drainage if sampling is not proportional to abundance. var[Nˆ ] = a (6) All chinook salmon caught in the lower river var[ pˆ ]Nˆ 2 + var[Nˆ ] pˆ 2 - var[ pˆ ] var[Nˆ ] and all live and dead chinook encountered on the a a a spawning grounds were sampled, whenever ˆ possible, for age, length, and sex. Age com- where N is the estimated abundance of large ˆ positions were tabulated separately for fish in the chinook salmon and pa is the estimated lower river gillnet, fish wheels, and in each proportion of age a fish. The abundance of escapement sampling location (tributary). Age chinook salmon by sex in each age cla ss ˆ ˆ composition, mean length-at-age, and variances N a,sex was then estimated by substituting N a,sex , of the catch in each gear type were calculated Nˆ , and proportion of age a fish by sex ( pˆ ) using standard normal statistics. a a,sex for Nˆ , Nˆ , and pˆ in equation 5 and 6. Size selectivity was investigated using two K-S a a tests: one described above, and the other com-

HARVEST Sampling at the Small Boat Harbor and Chilkat State Park boat launch began on May 8 and May 2000 Haines Marine Sport Fishery 15, respectively, and continued through June 25. Harvest There was no type of day stratification at the low-use sites, so each biweekly period was A stratified two-stage direct expansion creel divided into 14 morning and 14 evening survey was used to estimate the harvest of sampling periods of equal length, except for the chinook salmon in the Haines marine boat sport first and last 7-day sampling periods at the fishery. Temporal stratification included 7-day Chilkat State Park boat launch, and the last 7-day (weekly) periods at one high-use site and 14-day period at the Small Boat Harbor. Random (biweekly) periods at two low-use sites. How- selections determined primary units to sample in ever, a separate temporal stratum existed during each morning and evening stratum. To accom- the two weekends of the Haines Derby (May 27, modate the impossibility of sampling three sites 28, 29, and June 3 and 4) at both high- and low- simultaneously with only two technicians, 14 use sites. Each fishing day was defined as changes (period moves) were made to the starting at 0800 hours and ending at civil randomized sampling schedule at low-use sites. twilight, which ranged from 2215 to 2352 hours. Eighteen (18) unique strata were sampled at the low-use harbors during 2000. The three access locations were the Letnikof Dock (the high-use site), the Chilkat State Park During each sample period, all sport fishing boats boat launch, and the Small Boat harbor (Figure 1). returning to the harbor were counted. Boat-parties Prior surveys indicate that anglers landing their returning to the dock were interviewed to catch at the Letnikof Dock account for 62–93% determine: (1) the number of rods fished, (2) of the harvest of chinook salmon. Sampling at hours fished, (3) type of trip (charter or non- each location had days as primary sampling units charter), (4) target species (chinook salmon, and boat-parties as secondary units. Pacific halibut Hippoglossus stenolepis), and (5) number of fish kept and/or released, by species. Sampling at Letnikof Dock occurred from May 8 Interviewing boat-parties also included sampling to June 25, 2000, and contained morning/evening all harvests of chinook salmon for maturity and stratification and weekend/weekday stratification missing adipose fins. Maturity was also of evening strata during the peak of the season. determined (Ericksen 1994, Appendix A) in Morning sampling strata lasted from 0800 hours order to estimate the harvest of wild mature fish until two hours before midday, and evening assumed to be returning to the Chilkat River. sampling strata lasted from two hours before midday until civil twilight. Thus, evening strata In rare cases, some parties were not interviewed, were four hours longer in duration than morning or maturity status could not be determined. strata. This stratification scheme was designed When one or more boat-parties could not be to increase the precision of estimates by interviewed, total effort and catch for the stratum maximizing sampling during hours when most was estimated by expanding by the total number anglers exit the fishery. Random selections of parties returning to the dock during that period. determined primary units to sample in each Similarly, when a boat-party had fish of undeter- stratum. Two morning and three evening strata mined maturity status, interview information for were sampled each week, except as noted below. that boat-party was ignored and expansions (by sample period) were made from harvests by During the peak of the fishery (May 8–June 11) remaining boat-parties and the total number of evening strata at Letnikof Dock were further boat-parties counted. divided into weekday and weekend strata. During this time, two mornings, two-weekday evening, $ The harvest in each stratum (Hh ) was estimated and two weekend/holiday evening periods were (Cochran 1977): sampled each week. In total, 17 unique strata ˆ were sampled at Letnikof Dock in 2000. Hh = DhHh (7)

d h ˆ Age composition and mean length-at-age of å Hhi H = i=1 (8) chinook salmon in the sport fishery harvest, and h d h associated variances were estimated using

mhi standard normal statistics. This calculation for a h ˆ å j=1 hij stratified sampling program is warranted when Hhi = M hi (9) mhi there is no trend in the age composition or sampling is proportional over time. Because where hhij was the harvest on boat j in sampling sampling was not proportional in all strata, a chi- days (periods) i stratum h; mhi was the number square statistic was used to test whether there of boat parties interviewed in day i; Mhi was the was a change in the age composition over time. number of boat-parties counted in day i; dh was the number of days (morning or evening Contribution of Coded Wire Tagged periods) sampled in stratum h; and, Dh was the Stocks number of days in stratum h. The variance of the harvest by stratum was estimated: Technicians retained heads from chinook salmon missing adipose fins, and a plastic strap with a

d unique number was inserted through the jaw of h (Hˆ - H )2 ˆ 2 åi=1 hi h the head. Heads and CWT recovery data were var[Hh ]= (1 - f1h )Dh dh (dh -1) (10) sent to the ADF&G CWT Processing Laboratory

mhi 2 in Juneau, where any tags present were removed, dh (h -h ) 2 å j=1 hij hi decoded, and corresponding information entered + Dhå Mhi (1 - f2hi) i=1 d hmhi(mhi -1) into the tag lab database.

where f1h was the sampling fraction for periods The contribution of all tagged stocks to the 2000 and f2hi was the sampling fraction for boat- Haines marine boat sport fishery were estimated: parties. Catch and effort was estimated similarly, substituting C and E for H in equation æ m ö ˆ ˆ ç ij ÷ ˆ -1 7 through equation 10. Total harvests for the rij = Hi ç ÷q j (11) è lini ø season were the sums across strata SHh and Svar[H ]. Similarly, the effort and harvest by h where Hˆ is the estimated harvest in stratum i, charter boat anglers were estimated by i ˆ considering only data collected from chartered q j is the fraction of stock j marked with CWTs, anglers in equations 7 through 10. ˆ ni is the subset of Hi examined for missing Chinook salmon sampled in the angler harvest adipose fins, mij is the number of decoded CWTs were measured to the nearest 5-mm in fork recovered from stock j, and li = (ai¢ti¢) (aiti ) is the length. Five scales were removed from the left decoding rate for CWTs from recovered salmon. side of each sampled fish (right side if left side See Bernard and Clark (1996) for further details. scales were regenerated), along a line two scale Statistics were stratified by biweek. rows above the lateral line between the posterior insertion of the dorsal fin and anterior insertion Variance of rˆ was estimated using the appropriate of the anal fin. A triacetate impression of the ij scales (30 s at 3,500 lb/in² at a temperature of large-sample formulations in Bernard and Clark 97°C) was used for age determination. Scales (1996, their Table 2) for wild or hatchery stocks were aged using scale pattern analysis (Olsen harvested in recreational fisheries. The total 1992). Information recorded for each chinook contribution of one or more cohorts to one or salmon sampled included sex, length, maturity, more fisheries is the sum of harvests and and presence or absence of adipose fins. variances from the individual cohorts and strata.

RESULTS We examined 476 large, 224 medium, and 78 small chinook salmon on the spawning grounds INRIVER ABUNDANCE for marks (Table 3). Twenty-five (25) large, 14 medium, and one small marked fish were We captured 111 large, 41 medium, and 51 small recovered (Table 3). Two large (one each marked chinook salmon in the lower Chilkat River with at the fishwheel and gillnet) and one medium drift gillnets and fish wheels between June 11 marked fish (fishwheel) were recovered with and July 31, 2000 (Table 1, Figure 3). Of those missing tags but were identified as marked fish captured, 110 large, 41 medium, and 51 small by the opercular punch. chinook salmon were given an external tag. One Similar fractions of large (c2 = 1.703, df = 2, P = large fish captured in the fish wheels had been 0.427) and medium (c2 = 2.244, df = 2, P = previously caught and tagged by the drift gillnet 0.326) chinook salmon sampled at each crew. Capture rates of large chinook salmon spawning tributary were marked. Thus, Petersen peaked on June 27. The mean date of migratory models were used to estimate abundance for each timing (weighted mean, Mundy 1984) in the size group. lower river was June 30 (Figure 4). The cumulative distribution function (CDF) of Fish captured in gillnets were predominantly lengths of large chinook salmon marked in the age-1.3 (47.3%) and classified as female (59.0%, lower Chilkat River was not significantly Table 2). Those captured in the fish wheels were different from the CDF of those tagged chinook classified mostly as males (78.8%) and most salmon recaptured on the spawning grounds (K-S commonly age-1.1 (55.8%, Table 2). Large test, dmax = 0.159, P = 0.658, Figure 5, top). There was also no significant difference in the chinook salmon captured in gillnets and fish CDFs of marked and recaptured age-1.2 fish wheels differed marginally, but not significantly (K-S test, dmax = 0.198, P = 0.836). These in size (K-S test, dmax = 0.245, P = 0.129) or results suggest the second sampling event was not age composition (c2 = 2.37, df = 1, P = 0.123). size-sele ctive, and further stratification was not

Table 1.–Numbers of chinook salmon caught in the lower Chilkat River by time period, gear type and size, June 11 through July 31, 2000.

Time Drift gillnet Fish wheels Combined period Large Medium Small Large Medium Small Large Medium Small Total 6/11–6/15 3 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 1 4 6/16–6/20 4 3 0 2 0 6 6 3 6 15 6/21–6/25 7 1 0 5 4 5 12 5 5 22 6/26–6/30 27 9 0 10 3 1 37 12 1 50 7/01–7/05 14 5 0 4 1 11 18 6 11 35 7/06–7/10 12 2 0 0 2 11 12 4 11 27 7/11–7/15 4 1 0 3 3 6 7 4 6 17 7/16–7/20 7 4 0 5 1 9 12 5 9 26 7/21–7/25 1 1 0 2 1 1 3 2 1 6 7/26–7/31 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 79 26 0 32 15 51 111 41 51 203

18 7

16 6

14 5 12 Small chinook

10 Medium chinook 4 Large chinook Water level 8 3 Water temp. Number of fish 6 2 4

1 Water temperature (C) and depth (cm/30) 2

0 0 7/2 7/5 7/8 6/11 6/14 6/17 6/20 6/23 6/26 6/29 7/11 7/14 7/17 7/20 7/23 7/26 7/29

Figure 3.–Daily water depth (cm/30), temperature (°C), and catches of small (age- 1.1), medium (age-1.2), and large (age-1.3 and older) chinook salmon in drift gillnets and fish wheels operating in the lower Chilkat River, June 11 through July 31, 2000.

1.0

0.9 2000 91-99 Mean 0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

Cumulative proportion 0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0 7/1 7/6 6/11 6/16 6/21 6/26 7/11 7/16 7/21

Figure 4.–Cumulative proportion of large (age-1.3 and older) chinook salmon captured with drift gillnets in the lower Chilkat River in 2000 compared to the mean cumulative proportion, 1991–1999.

Table 2.–Age composition and mean length-at-age (measured in mm from mid-eye to fork of tail) of chinook salmon sampled during tagging operations on the Chilkat River, by gear type during 2000.

Brood year and age class

1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 Total Total 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 aged sampleda DRIFT GILLNET Males Sample size 0 17 11 5 1 34 43 Percent 50.0 32.4 14.7 2.9 41.0 SD 8.6 8.0 6.1 2.9 4.8 Mean length 642 779 865 965 SD 11.8 18.5 25.2 Females Sample size 0 5 33 21 0 59 62 Percent 8.5 55.9 35.6 59.0 SD 3.6 6.5 6.2 4.8 Mean length 633 790 860 SD 16.6 11.1 13.5 All fish Sample size 0 22 44 26 1 93 105 Percent 23.7 47.3 28.0 1.0 SD 4.4 5.2 4.7 1.0 Mean length 640 787 861 965 SD 9.7 9.4 11.7 FISH WHEELS Males Sample size 48 13 9 1 1 72 78 Percent 66.7 18.1 12.5 1.4 1.4 78.8 SD 5.6 4.5 3.9 1.4 1.4 4.1 Mean length 359 567 731 900 880 SD 4.3 26.2 24.9 Females Sample size 0 1 10 3 0 14 21 Percent 7.1 71.4 21.4 21.2 SD 6.9 12.1 11.0 4.1 Mean length 731 790 836 SD 25.1 16.3 All fish Sample size 48 14 19 4 1 86 99 Percent 55.8 16.3 22.1 4.7 1.2 SD 5.4 4.0 4.5 2.3 1.2 Mean length 359 579 762 852 880 SD 4.3 26.9 18.6 19.7 a Includes fish that were not assigned an age.

Table 3.–Number of chinook salmon inspected for marks and number of marked fish recaptured during tag recovery surveys in the Chilkat River drainage, by location, size and sex during 2000.

Inspecteda Marked Large Medium Small Large Medium Small Dates M F U Total M F Total M F Total M F Total M F Total Total Kelsall 8/04–9/05 104 112 0 216 97 2 99 20 0 20 6 8 14 7 1 8 0 Tahini 8/08–9/05 51 61 0 112 99 1 100 50 0 50 4 2 6 6 0 6 1 Big Boulder 7/27–9/06 92 55 1 148 25 0 25 8 0 8 2 3 5 0 0 0 0 Total 247 228 1 476 221 3 224 78 0 78 12 13 25 13 1 14 1 a M = male; F = female; U = not sexed.

necessary. Thus, we estimate that 2,664 (SE = Thus, both sampling events were used to 355) chinook salmon age-1.2 and older immi- estimate the age composition of the escapement grated into the Chilkat River in 2000. Of those, of large fish. 629 (SE = 122) were medium and 2,035 (SE = 334) Sex composition of large chinook salmon was were large fish. These estimates are germane to significantly different between marking and the time of tagging in the lower river, since an 2 unquantified removal occurs (from natural recovery events (c = 9.31, df = 1, P = 0.002), mortality and subsistence fishery harvest) but not between the Tahini and Kelsall River 2 between the two sampling events. spawning grounds (c = 0.063, df = 1, P = 0.801). In addition, sex determination was less Age and Sex Composition of the accurate during the marking event (see Escapement Discussion). Therefore, only the Tahini and Kelsall River samples were used to estimate sex We sampled 777 chinook salmon on the composition by age in the escapement. spawning grounds for age and sex. Of those sampled, 693 were successfully aged (Table 4). The majority (51%) of the estimated escapement The CDF of lengths of large fish sampled in the of medium and large chinook salmon in 2000 lower river was not significantly different from was age-1.3 fish (1995 brood year, Table 5). The the CDF of those examined for marks on the remainder of the escapement was composed of spawning grounds (K-S test, dmax = 0.092, 24% age-1.2, 24% age-1.4, and 1% age-1.5 fish. P = 0.438, Figure 5, bottom). Similarly, age Most (59%) of the fish were males (Table 5). compositions of large fish were not significantly different between spawning tributaries, HARVEST 2 excluding Big Boulder Creek (c < 1.767, df = 1, 2000 Haines Marine Sport Fishery Harvest P = 0.184). The age composition of Big Boulder Creek samples (where production was increased An estimated total of 4,428 (SE = 607) angler- through a streamside incubation box in 1994 and hours of effort was expended in the Haines marine 1995) was significantly different from other boat fishery between May 8 and June 25, 2000 to spawning ground samples, so these samples were catch 103 (SE = 34) and harvest 49 (SE = 12) not used to estimate age or sex composition. The large chinook salmon (Table 6). This was based age composition of large fish was nearly on a sample of 147 boat-parties who fished 1,619 identical between marking and recovery events angler-hours (1,495 salmon-hours), and harvested (c2 < 0.001, df = 1, P = 0.999). In conjunction 33 large (28 inches or greater total length) with results above that suggest no size chinook salmon (Table 6). An estimated 27 (SE = selectivity, neither sampling event appeared to 8) of the chinook salmon harvested in this fishery have been size (or age) selective for large fish. were wild mature fish assumed to be returning to

1.0

0.9 Captures, event 1 n=111

0.8 Recaptures, event 2 n=26

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3 Cumulative proportion

0.2

0.1 P = 0.658 0.0 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1000 1050 Length (MEF) in mm

1.0

0.9 Captures, event 1 n=111

0.8 Captures, event 2 n=471

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3 Cumulative proportion

0.2

0.1 P = 0.438 0.0 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1000 1050 Length (MEF) in mm

Figure 5.–Cumulative distribution function (CDF) of MEF lengths of large (age-1.3 and older) chinook salmon marked in the lower Chilkat River versus lengths of marked fish recaptured on the spawning grounds (top) and versus lengths of large fish examined for marks on the spawning grounds (bottom) , 2000.

Table 4.–Age composition and mean length-at-age (measured in mm from mid-eye to fork of tail) of chinook salmon sampled during recovery surveys on the Chilkat River drainage, by spawning tributary during 2000.

Brood year and age class 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 Total Total 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 aged sampleda TAHINI RIVER Males Sample size 40 93 34 10 0 177 200 Percent 22.6 52.5 19.2 5.6 76.3 SD 3.1 3.8 3.0 1.7 2.6 Mean length 381 578 779 911 SD 4.3 6.6 14.1 Females Sample size 0 1 34 17 0 52 62 Percent 1.9 65.4 32.7 23.7 SD 1.9 6.6 6.5 2.6 Mean length 715 788 876 SD 7.6 9.5 All fish Sample size 40 94 68 27 0 229 262 Percent 17.5 41.0 29.7 11.8 SD 2.5 3.3 3.0 2.1 Mean length 381 580 784 889 SD 4.3 6.7 8.0 8.4 BIG BOULDER CREEK Males Sample size 7 23 69 13 0 112 125 Percent 6.3 20.5 61.6 11.6 69.4 SD 2.3 3.8 4.6 3.0 3.4 Mean length 362 572 753 835 SD 12.9 17.6 9.0 Females Sample size 0 0 33 16 0 49 55 Percent 67.3 32.7 30.6 SD 6.7 6.7 3.4 Mean length 799 851 SD 6.9 9.8 All fish Sample size 7 23 102 29 0 161 180 Percent 4.3 14.3 63.4 18.0 SD 1.6 2.8 3.8 3.0 Mean length 362 572 768 844 SD 12.9 17.6 6.8 10.2 KELSALL RIVER/NATAGA CREEK Males Sample size 18 93 65 24 2 202 221 Percent 8.9 46.0 32.2 11.9 1.0 66.0 SD 2.0 3.5 3.3 2.3 0.7 2.6 Mean length 383 571 763 915 858 SD 4.7 8.2 10.4 Females Sample size 0 2 56 41 2 101 114 Percent 2.0 55.4 40.6 34.0 SD 1.4 4.9 4.9 2.6 Mean length 740 798 852 SD 5.4 6.4 All fish Sample size 18 95 121 65 4 303 335 Percent 5.9 31.4 39.9 21.5 1.3 SD 1.4 2.7 2.8 2.4 0.7 Mean length 383 574 779 876 866 SD 4.7 8.4 6.3 7.1 a Includes fish that were not assigned an age. Not all fish examined for marks were scale sampled (i.e., carcass decayed, part of body missing, etc.).

Table 5.–Estimated abundance of medium and the Chilkat River. About 91% (4,043 salmon- large chinook salmon in the 2000 Chilkat River hours, SE = 532) of angler effort targeted chinook escapement, by age and sex. salmon, and the remainder was directed toward other species, primarily Pacific halibut. Anglers Brood year and age class caught an estimated 145 (SE = 54) small 1996 1995 1994 1993 (sublegal, <28 inches total length) chinook salmon of which 21 (SE = 14) were kept. Seventy-six 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 Total percent (76%) of the estimated salmon effort Male 619 707 241 16 1,583 and 89% of the estimated harvest of chinook SE 120 128 54 11 184 salmon occurred between May 22 and June 18 Female 10 643 412 16 1,081 (Table 6). SE 6 118 81 11 144 Angling pressure for chinook salmon was All fish 629 1,350 653 32 2,664 relatively light during the first and last week, so SE 122 227 118 14 355 our coverage of the fishery for mature chinook salmon was essentially complete. Estimates by site are presented in Appendices A1 through A3. Charter boat anglers accounted for about 7% of the salmon effort (310 salmon- hours, SE = 215), and 25% of the harvest (12, SE = 8) of large chinook salmon in this fishery.

Table 6.–Sampling statistics and estimated effort, catch, and harvest of chinook salmon in the Haines marine boat sport fishery, by biweek, May 8 through June 25, 2000.

May 22–June 04 May 08–21 Non-derby Derby June 05–18 June 19–25 Total Boats counted 20 8 62 37 20 147 Angler-hours sampled 84 29 1,074 237 195 1,619 Salmon-hours sampled 71 29 1,056 196 143 1,495 Chinook sampled 4 0 20 5 4 33 Sampled for ad-clips 4 0 20 5 4 33 Ad-clips 0 0 0 0 1 1 Angler-hours Estimate 317 127 2,180 843 961 4,428 Variance 20,104 5,462 150,766 56,361 136,267 368,960 Salmon-hours Estimate 261 127 2,147 783 725 4,043 Variance 15,780 5,462 155,962 53,573 52,349 283,126 Large chinook catch Estimate 6 5 28 59 5 103 Variance 8 16 25 1,118 17 1,184 Large chinook kept Estimate 6 0 21 17 5 49 Variance 8 0 1 110 17 136 Wild mature chinook kept (excluding hatchery and immature fish) Estimate 1 0 17 9 0 27 Variance 0 0 1 68 0 69 Small chinook catch Estimate 0 5 52 70 18 145 Variance 0 16 501 2,184 163 2,864 Small chinook kept Estimate 0 0 0 7 14 21 Variance 0 0 0 42 154 196

Anglers returning to Letnikof Dock (the high-use Gastineau Channel (1995 brood) were recovered site) were responsible for 50% of the estimated in the 2000 Haines marine creel survey (Table 8). salmon effort (2,030 salmon-hours, SE = 381) Only one of the 33 chinook salmon sampled and 41% of the estimated harvest (20, SE = 3) of between May 8 and June 25 was missing its large chinook salmon (Appendix A1). Anglers adipose fin. Eleven (11; SE = 11) of the returning to the Chilkat State Park boat launch and estimated 49 large chinook salmon harvested in the Small Boat Harbor accounted for an estimated the Haines marine boat sport fishery were of 713 (SE = 194) and 1,300 (SE = 316) salmon- hatchery origin (Table 8). hours of effort, respectively, and took respective DATA FILES harvests of 9 (SE = 8) and 20 (SE = 8) large chinook salmon (Appendices A2 and A3). Data collected during this study (Appendix A5) have been archived in ADF&G offices in Haines, Age and Length of Harvest Douglas, and Anchorage. We sampled a total of 32 chinook salmon for age and length in the angler harvest; 28 of these were DISCUSSION assigned an age. The age composition of the harvest during May was not significantly different Several assumptions, as noted above, underlie from that during June (c2 = 0.444, df = 1, P = our estimate of abundance. Considerable efforts 0.505), so samples were pooled over time. The were made to catch and mark fish in proportion age composition of fish landed at the Small Boat to their abundance (assumption a) by sampling Harbor was obviously different from that of fish uniformly across the escapement. Also, samp- landed at the Chilkat Inlet harbors (Table 7), so ling effort for tag recovery on the Kelsall and these samples were analyzed separately. Tahini rivers (where >90% of spawning occurred in 1991 and 1992; Johnson et al. 1992, 1993) We sampled 18 chinook salmon for age and was fairly constant across the time when length at the Chilkat Inlet harbors (Letnikof spawning fish die and are available for sampling. Dock and Chilkat State Park boat launch), and 17 Previous research on the Chilkat River (Johnson of these were assigned an age (Table 7). Most et al. 1992, 1993) suggests immigration timing is (61.1%, SE = 11.8%) of the fish harvested were similar for Tahini and Kelsall River stocks. female. The predominant age classes were age- Tagging ratios of large chinook salmon found 1.3 (41.2%, SE = 12.3%) and 1.4 (52.9%, SE = on the Tahini (P = 0.054) and the Kelsall-Nataga 12.5%). (P = 0.065) rivers in 2000 were similar. Although We sampled 14 chinook salmon for age and carcass surveys can be sex-selective in some length at the Small Boat Harbor and 11 of these situations (Pahlke et al. 1996, McPherson et al. were assigned an age (Table 7). Three of those 1997), I could not detect a significant difference sampled were <28 inches in total length and from the battery of tests applied in this study. were caught in the Taiya Inlet terminal harvest The assumption of no recruitment during the area for hatchery chinook salmon. experiment is reasonable, because tagging effort was relatively constant and continued until only Fifteen (15) chinook salmon were also sampled about one fish per day was being caught. I could for age and length from the Chilkat Inlet not test the assumption that marking does not subsistence fishery between June 20 and July 9, affect catchability directly. However, recovery 2000. These fish were predominately male and rates were not significantly different between age-1.2 (Appendix A4). large fish marked in the gillnet and those marked 2 Contribution of Coded Wire Tagged in the fish wheels, (c = 2.372, df = 1, P = 0.124). Stocks This suggests fish marked at the fish wheels and gillnets had similar mortality rates. Because all Chinook salmon incubated and reared at the fish had secondary marks that were not lost, Douglas Island Pink and Chum, Inc. (DIPAC) assumption (d) was satisfied. Personnel sampling Gastineau hatchery facility that were released into on the spawning tributaries carefully examined

Table 7.–Estimated age composition and mean length-at-age (measured in mm from snout to fork of tail) of harvested chinook salmon in the Haines marine boat sport fishery, by location, May 8 through June 25, 2000.

Brood year and age class 1996 1996 1995 1994 Total Total 0.3 1.2 1.3 1.4 aged sampleda CHILKAT INLET HARBORS Males Sample size 0 1 3 3 7 7 Percent 14.3 42.9 42.9 38.9 SE 14.3 20.2 20.2 11.8 Mean length 705 807 970 SE 17.8 78.7 Females Sample size 0 0 4 6 10 11 Percent 40.0 60.0 61.1 SE 16.3 16.3 11.8 Mean length 808 939 SE 20.3 28.4 Combined Sample size 0 1 7 9 17 18 Percent 5.9 41.2 52.9 SE 5.9 12.3 12.5 Mean length 705 807 949 SE 11.8 27.1 SMALL BOAT HARBOR Males Sample size 0 3 2 0 5 7 Percent 60.0 40.0 50.0 SE 24.5 24.5 13.9 Mean length 600 835 SE 19.3 7.8 Females Sample size 1 1 4 0 6 7 Percent 16.7 16.7 66.7 50.0 SE 16.7 16.7 21.1 13.9 Mean length 825 610 831 SE 50.5 Combined Sample size 1 4 6 0 11 14 Percent 9.1 36.4 54.5 SE 9.1 15.2 15.7 Mean length 825 602 832 SE 13.2 30.3 a Includes fish that were not assigned an age.

Table 8.–Contribution estimate of coded wire tagged chinook salmon to the Haines marine boat sport fishery, with statistics used for computing estimates by biweek during 2000.

Harvest Sample Adclip Head Detect Decode Tags Contribution Release Brood Hatchery site Tag code year Biweek N SE[N] n a a' t t' m r SE SMALL BOAT HARBOR RECOVERY Gastineau Gastineau 50-04-22 1994 June 19–25 5 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 11 11 Total 11 11

each fish for marks; therefore, failure of Table 9.–Numbers of unmarked and marked assumption (e) is unlikely. large (age-1.3 and older) chinook salmon sampled from Chilkat River spawning tributaries, and I failed to reject the hypothesis that fish sampled results of chi-square tests to determine if marked on the spawning grounds were marked at the same fractions were equal, 1994–2000. rate. Because the power to detect a difference is relatively low, I conducted a meta-analysis of the Big data over years 1994 to 2000 (Table 9) when Kelsall Tahini Boulder tagging methodology was consistent. Results of 1994 unmarked 458 245 40 this analysis strongly suggest that marking marked 24 5 4 fractions are similar on the three spawning c2 = 6.27 2 tributaries (c = 1.16, df = 2, P = 0.561). df = 2 P = 0.043 The immigration timing of chinook salmon through the lower Chilkat River was slightly earlier than 1995 unmarked 223 79 57 marked 11 4 2 average. The mean date of migratory timing 2 0.21 (Mundy 1984) was June 30. In contrast, the mean c = df = 2 date for 1991-1999 was July 3 (Figure 4). P = 0.901 The 2000 immigration of large chinook salmon 1996 unmarked 315 243 123 2,035 (SE = 334) is the lowest abundance marked 13 14 6 estimated since 1991 (Table 10). This is the c2 = 0.72 result of poor 1994 and 1995 brood year df = 2 returns to the Chilkat River (Table 10). P = 0.698 1997 unmarked 466 387 77 Sex was estimated with uncertainty early in the marked 21 13 3 season. Five out of 37 tagged fish that were c2 = 0.67 recaptured on the spawning grounds were sexed df = 2 incorrectly during the marking event, as judged P = 0.714 by sex determination on the spawning ground 1998 unmarked 364 104 31 (where sexual dimorphism is more evident). All marked 21 8 3 of these fish were sexed as female when tagged c2 = 0.94 and as males on the spawning grounds during df = 2 2000. P = 0.625 Sport fishing harvest patterns observed during 1999 unmarked 107 46 57 marked 14 7 2 2000 were different those observed in recent 2 years. During 2000, 41% of the estimated harvest c = 3.84 df = 2 of chinook salmon was landed at the Letnikof P = 0.146 Dock. Since 1995, the harvest from this dock has averaged 79%. In contrast, 40% of the estimated 2000 unmarked 202 106 143 harvest was landed at the Small Boat Harbor. marked 14 6 5 c2 = 1.70 The 2000 estimated harvest of large chinook df = 2 salmon is by far the lowest since 1984 P = 0.427 excluding the years when the fishery was closed Pooled: unmarked 2,135 1,210 528 (Table 11, Figure 6). Also, sport fishing effort marked 118 57 25 was down from past years. Catch of large c2 = 1.16 chinook salmon per salmon hour of effort df = 2 (CPUE) in 2000 was the lowest observed since P = 0.561 the fishery was reopened in 1993 (Table 11, Figure 6).

Table 10.–Estimated annual age compositions and brood year returns of large (age-1.3 and older) chinook salmon immigrating into the Chilkat River, 1991–2000. Age compositions were estimated from pooled age samples of large chinook salmon from the drift gillnet and Tahini and Kelsall spawning tributaries prior to the 1997 return.

Return Age class BROOD YEAR RETURNS year 1.3 1.4 1.5 Total Brood Age class 1991 Abundancea 2,714 2,995 187 5,897 year 1.3 1.4 1.5 Total SE SE 489 541 23 1,005 1986 2,714 3,595 75 6,385 823 b 1992 Abundance 1,689 3,595 5,284 1987 1,689 2,180 115 3,983 525 SE 309 662 949 1988 2,217 4,276 263 6,755 809 c 1993 Abundance 2,217 2,180 75 4,472 1989 2,405 3,077 54 5,536 766 SE 432 425 10 851 1990 450 788 1,239 152 d 1994 Abundance 2,405 4,276 115 6,795 1991 4,077 6,157 219 10,453 1,126 SE 382 681 15 1,057 1992 1,943 2,440 80 4,463 521 e 1995 Abundance 450 3,077 263 3,790 1993 1,016 1,656 32 2,705 347 SE 93 664 52 805 1994 534 653 1,188 160 f 1996 Abundance 4,077 788 54 4,920 1995 1,350 1,350 227 SE 632 120 6 751 Avg. 1,840 2,758 105 4,702 1997 Abundanceg 1,943 6,157 8,100 a Data taken from Johnson et al. (1992). SE 354 930 1,193 b Data taken from Johnson et al. (1993). 1998 Abundanceh 1,016 2,440 219 3,675 c Data taken from Johnson (1994). SE 169 381 48 565 d Data taken from Ericksen (1995). 1999 Abundancei 534 1,656 80 2,271 e Data taken from Ericksen (1996). SE 109 302 27 408 f Data taken from Ericksen (1997). 2000 Abundance 1,350 653 32 2,035 g Data taken from Ericksen (1998). SE 227 118 14 334 h Data taken from Ericksen (1999). Avg. Percent 38.9 58.9 2.2 i Data taken from Ericksen (2000). Abundance 1,840 2,782 102 4,724

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Division of Sport Fish in Douglas, processed and aged scales from sampled chinook salmon. Steve McCurdy supervised the field operations for Employees at the ADF&G Tag Lab in Juneau the project and provided the necessary logistical dissected heads from adipose finclipped chinook support. I would like to thank the creel survey to remove and read coded wire tags. Donna staff of Ryan Boran, Tara Judson, Joanna Buchholz of the Research and Technical Services Stanford and Keri Edwards for their invaluable (RTS) Unit, Division of Sport Fish, opscanned data collection efforts. Tara Judson, and Dave mark sense forms. Bob Marshall with RTS in Folletti captured and tagged chinook salmon at Douglas provided biometric support in the study the fish wheels. Jarbo Crete, Mark Battaion, Eric design, and analysis. Bob Marshall and Scott Holle, Sandy Barclay, Sherrie Duncan and Brian McPherson provided critical review of this Elliott worked in the field to capture, mark, and report. Alma Seward performed final layout and sample fish to complete this project. Sue Millard, typesetting of this report for publication.

19 Table 11.–Estimated angler effort, and large (³28 in.) chinook salmon catch and harvest in the Haines marine boat sport fishery for similar sample periods, 1984–2000.

Effort Large (28") chinook salmon Year Survey dates Angler-hours SE Salmon-hours SE Catch SE Harvest SE CPUEa

1984b 5/06–6/30 10,253 c 9,855 c 1,072 c 1,072 c 0.109 1985d 4/15–7/15 21,598 c 20,582 c 1,705 c 1,696 c 0.083 1986e 4/14–7/13 33,857 c 32,533 c 1,659 c 1,638 c 0.051 1987f 4/20–7/12 26,621 2,557 22,848 2,191 1,094 189 1,094 189 0.048 1988g 4/11–7/10 36,222 3,553 32,723 3,476 505 103 481 101 0.015 1989h 4/24–6/25 10,526 999 9,363 922 237 42 235 42 0.025 1990i 4/23–6/21 i i 11,972 1,169 248 60 241 57 0.021 1993j 4/26–7/18 11,919 1,559 9,069 1,479 349 63 314 55 0.038 1994k 5/09–7/03 9,726 723 7,682 597 269 41 220 32 0.035 1995l 5/08–7/02 9,457 501 8,606 483 255 42 228 41 0.030 1996m 5/06–6/30 10,082 880 9,596 866 367 43 354 41 0.038 1997n 5/12–6/29 9,432 861 8,758 697 381 46 381 46 0.044 1998o 5/11–6/28 8,200 811 7,546 747 222 60 215 56 0.029 1999p 5/10–6/27 6,206 736 6,097 734 184 24 184 24 0.030 2000 5/08–6/25 4,428 607 4,043 532 103 34 49 12 0.025 1984–86 average 21,903 20,990 1,479 1,469 0.081 1987–90 average 24,456 19,227 521 513 0.027 1993–00 average 8,681 7,675 266 243 0.034 a Catch of large chinook salmon per salmon hour of effort. b Neimark (1985). c Estimates of variance were not provided until 1987. d Mecum and Suchanek (1986). e Mecum and Suchanek (1987). f Bingham et al. (1988). g Suchanek and Bingham (1989). h Suchanek and Bingham (1990). i Suchanek and Bingham (1991); no estimate of total angler effort and harvest was provided. j Ericksen (1994). k Ericksen (1995). l Ericksen (1996). m Ericksen (1997). n Ericksen (1998). o Ericksen (1999). p Ericksen (2000).

35,000 1,800 Salmon hrs of effort Harvest 1,600 30,000 CPUE Abundance 1,400 25,000 1,200

20,000 1,000

15,000 800

600 10,000

400 Harvest and CPUE (x10,000) Effort and inriver abundance (x4) 5,000 200

0 0

Figure 6.–Estimated angler effort for, and harvest and catch of large chinook salmon per salmon hour of effort (CPUE) in the Haines spring marine boat sport fishery, 1984– 2000 and estimated inriver abundance of large chinook salmon in the Chilkat River, 1991–2000. Data taken from Tables 9 and 10 (fishery closed in 1991 and 1992).

LITERATURE CITED Ericksen, R. P. 1994. Effort, catch, and harvest of chinook salmon in the spring marine boat sport Bernard, D. R., and J. E. Clark. 1996. Estimating salmon fishery near Haines, Alaska, 1993. Alaska harvest with coded-wire tags. Canadian Journal of Department of Fish and Game, Fishery Data Series Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 53:2323-2332. No. 94-30, Anchorage. Bethers, M. 1986. Annual sport fish management Ericksen, R. P. 1995. Sport fishing effort, catch, and report for northern Southeast Alaska. Unpublished harvest and inriver abundance of Chilkat River report. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, chinook salmon near Haines, in 1994. Alaska Sport Fish Division, Juneau, AK. Department of Fish and Game, Fishery Data Series No. 95-42, Anchorage. Bingham, A. E., P. M. Suchanek, S. Sonnichsen, and R. D. Mecum. 1988. Harvest estimates for Ericksen, R. P. 1996. Sport fishing effort, catch, and selected sport fisheries in southeast Alaska in harvest, fishery contributions, and inriver 1987. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, abundance of Chilkat River chinook salmon, in Fishery Data Series No. 72, Juneau. 1995. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Bugliosi, E. F. 1988. Hydrologic reconnaissance of Fishery Data Series No. 96-48, Anchorage. the Chilkat River Basin, Southeast Alaska. U.S. Ericksen, R. P. 1997. Sport fishing effort, catch, and Geological Survey Water Resources Investigation harvest, and inriver abundance of Chilkat River Report 88-4021, Anchorage, Alaska. chinook salmon, in 1996. Alaska Department of Cochran, W. G. 1977. Sampling techniques, third Fish and Game, Fishery Data Series No. 97-27, edition. John Wiley and Sons, New York. Anchorage.

Ericksen, R. P. 1998. Sport fishing effort, catch, and Mecum, R. D., and P. M. Suchanek. 1987. Harvest harvest, and inriver abundance of Chilkat River estimates for selected sport fisheries in southeast chinook salmon, in 1997. Alaska Department of Alaska in 1986. Alaska Department of Fish and Fish and Game, Fishery Data Series No. 98-31, Game, Fishery Data Series No. 21, Juneau. Anchorage. Mundy, P. R. 1984. Migratory timing of salmon in Ericksen, R. P. 1999. Sport fishing effort, catch, and Alaska with an annotated bibliography on harvest, fishery contributions, and inriver migratory behavior of relevance to fisheries abundance of Chilkat River chinook salmon near research. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Haines, in 1998. Alaska Department of Fish and Informational Leaflet No. 234, Juneau. Game, Fishery Data Series No. 99-19, Neimark, L. M. 1985. Harvest estimates for selected Anchorage. fisheries throughout southeast Alaska. Alaska Ericksen, R. P. 2000. Sport fishing effort, catch, and Department of Fish and Game, Federal Aid in Fish harvest, and inriver abundance of Chilkat River Restoration, Annual Performance Report 1984- chinook salmon, in 1999. Alaska Department of 1985, Project F-9-17, 26 (AFS-41-12B), Juneau. Fish and Game, Fishery Data Series No. 00-28, Olsen, M. A. 1992. Abundance, age, sex, and size of Anchorage. chinook salmon catches and escapements in South- Gharett, A J., S. M. Shirley, and G. R. Tromble. 1987. east Alaska in 1987. Alaska Department of Fish Genetic relationship amo ng populations of Alaskan and Game Technical Data Report No. 92-07, Juneau. chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Can. Pahlke, K. A. 1991. Migratory patterns and fishery J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 44:765-774. contributions of Chilkat River chinook salmon, Johnson, R. E. 1994. Chilkat River chinook salmon 1990. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, studies, 1993. Alaska Department of Fish and Fishery Data Series No. 91-55. Juneau. Game, Fishery Data Series No. 94-46, Anchorage. Pahlke, K. A. 1992. Escapements of chinook salmon Johnson, R. E., R. P. Marshall, and S. T. Elliott. 1992. in Southeast Alaska and transboundary rivers in Chilkat River chinook salmon studies, 1991. 1991. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fishery Fishery Data Series No. 92-32. Juneau. Data Series No. 92-49, Anchorage. Pahlke, K. A. 1997. Escapements of chinook salmon in Johnson, R. E., R. P. Marshall, and S. T. Elliott. 1993. southeast Alaska and transboundary rivers in 1996. Chilkat River chinook salmon studies, 1992. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fishery Sport Fish, Fisheries Data Series No. 97-33. Data Series No. 93-50, Anchorage. Pahlke, K. A., S. A. McPherson, and R. P. Marshall. Jones and Stokes Associates, Inc. 1991. Southeast 1996. Chinook salmon research on the Unuk Alaska sport fishing economic study. Final River, 1994. Alaska Department of Fish and Research Report. December 1991. (JSA 88-028) Game, Fishery Data Series No 96-14. Anchorage. Sacramento, CA. Prepared for Alaska Department Seber, G. A. F. 1982. The estimation of animal of Fish and Game, Sport Fish Division, Research abundance and related parameters, second edition. and Technical Services Section, Anchorage, AK. Macmillan, New York. Kissner, P. D., Jr., 1982. A study of chinook salmon Suchanek, P. M., and A. E. Bingham. 1989. Harvest in southeast Alaska. Alaska Department of Fish estimates for selected sport fis heries in southeast and Game. Annual Report 1981–1982, Project F- Alaska in 1988. Alaska Department of Fish and 9-14, 24 (AFS-41). Game, Fishery Data Series No. 114, Juneau. McPherson, S. A., D. R. Bernard, M. S. Kelley, P. A. Suchanek, P. M., and A. E. Bingham. 1990. Harvest Milligan, and P. Timpany. 1997. Spawning estimates for selected marine boat sport fisheries in abundance of chinook salmon in the Taku River in southeast Alaska in 1989. Alaska Department of 1996. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fish and Game, Fishery Data Series No. 90-51, Fishery Data Series No. 97-14, Anchorage. Anchorage. Mecum, R. D., and P. M. Suchanek. 1986. Southeast Suchanek, P. M., and A. E. Bingham. 1991. Harvest Alaska sport harvest estimates. Alaska Department estimates for selected marine boat sport fisheries of Fish and Game, Federal Aid in Fish Restoration, in southeast Alaska during 1990. Alaska Annual Performance Report 1985-1986, Project F- Department of Fish and Game, Fishery Data Series 10-1, 27 (S-1-1), Juneau. No. 91-48, Anchorage.

APPENDIX A

Appendix A1.–Sampling statistics and estimated effort, catch, and harvest of chinook salmon at the Letnikof Dock by week, May 8 through June 25, 2000.

May 22 - June 04 May 08 May 15 Non- June 05 June 12 June 19 May 14 May 21 derby Derby June 11 June 18 June 25 Total Boats counted 4 6 4 49 15 5 7 90 Angler-hours sampled 29 24 17 966 99 39 39 1,213 Salmon-hours sampled 21 22 17 950 72 25 36 1,143 Chinook sampled 2 2 0 12 1 0 0 17 Sampled for ad-clips 2 2 0 12 1 0 0 17 Ad-clips 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Angler-hours Estimate 64 34 75 1,642 147 91 93 2,146 Variance 1,523 140 4,419 134,521 280 4,732 1,102 146,717 Salmon-hours Estimate 40 32 75 1,619 120 58 86 2,030 Variance 415 140 4,419 137,357 280 1,944 943 145,498 Large chinook catch Estimate 4 2 0 15 1 0 0 22 Variance 8 0 0 5 0 0 0 13 Large chinook kept Estimate 4 2 0 13 1 0 0 20 Variance 8 0 0 1 0 0 0 9 Wild mature chinook kept (excluding hatchery and immature fish) Estimate 0 1 0 12 0 0 0 13 Variance 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Small chinook catch Estimate 0 0 0 7 0 0 4 11 Variance 0 0 0 1 0 0 9 10 Small chinook kept Estimate 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Variance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Appendix A2.–Sampling statistics and estimated effort, catch, and harvest of chinook salmon at the Chilkat State Park boat launch by biweek, May 8 through June 25, 2000.

May 22 - June 04 May 15 Non- June 05 June 19 May 21 derby Derby June 18 June 25 Total Boats counted 0 0 0 10 3 13 Angler-hours sampled 0 0 0 54 60 114 Salmon-hours sampled 0 0 0 54 60 114 Chinook sampled 0 0 0 2 0 2 Sampled for ad-clips 0 0 0 2 0 2 Ad-clips 0 0 0 0 0 0 Angler-hours Estimate 0 0 0 293 420 713 Variance 0 0 0 23,996 13,608 37,604 Salmon-hours Estimate 0 0 0 293 420 713 Variance 0 0 0 23,996 13,608 37,604 Large chinook catch Estimate 0 0 0 9 0 9 Variance 0 0 0 68 0 68 Large chinook kept Estimate 0 0 0 9 0 9 Variance 0 0 0 68 0 68 Wild mature chinook kept (excluding hatchery and immature fish) Estimate 0 0 0 9 0 9 Variance 0 0 0 68 0 68 Small chinook catch Estimate 0 0 0 0 0 0 Variance 0 0 0 0 0 0 Small chinook kept Estimate 0 0 0 0 0 0 Variance 0 0 0 0 0 0

Appendi x A3.–Sampling statistics and estimated effort, catch, and harvest of chinook salmon at the Small Boat Harbor by biweek, May 8 through June 25, 2000.

May 22 - June 04 May 08 Non- June 05 June 19 May 21 derby Derby June 18 June 25 Total Boats counted 10 4 13 7 10 44 Angler-hours sampled 31 12 108 45 96 292 Salmon-hours sampled 28 12 106 45 47 238 Chinook sampled 0 0 8 2 4 14 Sampled for ad-clips 0 0 8 2 4 14 Ad-clips 0 0 0 0 1 1 Angler-hours Estimate 219 52 538 312 448 1,569 Variance 18,441 1,043 16,245 27,353 121,557 184,639 Salmon-hours Estimate 189 52 528 312 219 1,300 Variance 15,225 1,043 18,605 27,353 37,798 100,024 Large chinook catch Estimate 0 5 13 49 5 72 Variance 0 16 20 1050 17 1,103 Large chinook kept Estimate 0 0 8 7 5 20 Variance 0 0 0 42 17 59 Wild mature chinook kept (excluding hatchery and immature fish) Estimate 0 0 5 0 0 5 Variance 0 0 0 0 0 0 Small chinook catch Estimate 0 5 45 70 14 134 Variance 0 16 500 2,184 154 2,854 Small chinook kept Estimate 0 0 0 7 14 21 Variance 0 0 0 42 154 196

Appendix A4.–Estimated age composition and mean length-at-age (measured in mm from snout to fork of tail) of harvested chinook salmon in the Chilkat Inlet subsistence gillnet fishery, June 20 through July 9, 2000.

Brood year and age class 1996 1995 1994 Total Total 1.2 1.3 1.4 aged sampled Males Sample size 9 3 2 14 14 Percent 64.3 21.4 14.3 93.3 SE 13.3 11.4 9.7 6.7 Mean length 666 737 863 SE 34.9 10.8 53.0 Females Sample size 0 1 0 1 1 Percent 100.0 6.7 SE 6.7 Mean length 905 SE Combined Sample size 9 4 2 15 15 Percent 60.0 26.7 13.3 SE 13.1 11.8 9.1 Mean length 666 779 863 SE 34.9 49.1 53.0

Appendix A5.–Computer data files used in the analysis of this report.

FILE NAME DESCRIPTION F2008100M012000.DTA Mark-sense ASCII file containing angler interview data from the Haines marine sport fishery in 2000. HAINE0.PRG Dbase program to generate SAS data file from mark-sense file. HAINESCT.PRN Count file (text) used in HAMC00.SAS to expand for missing interview data. HAMC00.SAS SAS program to estimate effort and harvest in the Haines marine boat sport fishery using HAINESCT.PRN and output from HAINE0.PRG. 00SPORTAWL.XLS Excel workbook containing all age-length data from the Haines marine boat sport fishery and Chilkat Inlet subsistence fishery during 2000. 00POPEST.XLS Excel workbook used to estimate 2000 abundance of Chilkat River chinook. 00SPAWN.XLS Excel workbook containing raw data from chinook sampled on the Chilkat River spawning tributaries during 2000. 00TAGS.XLS Excel workbook containing raw data from chinook captured in the lower Chilkat River during 2000. 00AGESEX.XLS Excel workbook used to estimate the number of large chinook salmon in the 2000 Chilkat River escapement by age and sex.