Cumulative annual count of pink salmon escapement and harvest in Prince William Sound, 2001 – 2015. Jeanette Clark and Robyn Thiessen-Bock. Estimate of total Alaskan salmon abundance by region, 2000-2015. Knowledge Network for Biocomplexity. doi:10.5063/F1BR8QG4.

Prince William Sound commercial salmon fisheries are highly dependent on abundance produced by the region’s hatcheries. Hatchery production in Prince William Sound dates back to 1975 and over time the number of salmon produced by the hatcheries has increased 100 fold.

Through state entities known as Regional Planning Teams, assessments are made of the need and advisability of hatchery produced salmon. With a finding of need, an organization develops a request for a specific level of hatchery production by species which is submitted to the ADF&G Commissioner, who has the authority to authorize the hatchery production proposal. The governance of hatchery production is addressed by the Sustainable Salmon Policy which requires that hatchery stocks not have adverse impacts nor damage the productivity of wild salmon stocks.

One of the characteristics of salmon, whether from hatchery enhancement or not, is the tendency of a portion of the adult population to stray from their origination sites into streams in other areas. A major study initiated by a science panel comprised by State, Federal, University, and Industry partners is in process to address the issue of straying hatchery stock and potential impacts on wild stocks but is not yet completed. In 2017, Prince William Sound hatchery produced salmon were found to be over 50% of returning salmon found in certain streams examined in Kachemak Bay and southern Cook Inlet causing concerns for some about impacts on local wild stocks. Fishermen and hatchery managers from Solomon Gulch Hatchery in Prince William Sound following approval to increase output by 20 million by ADF&G sent a proposal to the Board of Fisheries to authorize the release. The Board of Fisheries cannot revoke or significantly alter the terms of the permit but they amend permit terms related to fish and egg harvest by hatcheries, particularly if there are allocative implications of the hatchery takings. The Board of Fisheries passed the proposal for additional hatchery release. Increases in the total harvest and escapement of pink salmon in Prince William Sound can be interpreted as a signal that hatcheries are not negatively impacting wild stocks, however, escapement estimates cannot separate wild from hatchery enhancement on the spawning grounds.

A consortium of stakeholders spearheaded by the Alaska Outdoor Council and the Alaska Sportfishing Association and including other sportfishing, personal use, and Lower Cook Inlet stakeholders submitted an emergency petition in June to the Board of Fisheries to reverse their decision to authorize the additional taking. The Board of Fisheries response was that the petition did not meet the criteria for emergency and therefore would not be considered under such provisions. The Board held a hearing in Anchorage on the request for reversal on October 16. Public participation was limited to comments during a Committee of the Whole session. A substantial group of Cordova fishermen flew in for the hearing and stood in solidarity during testimony in support of maintaining the authorization. Two motions were made concerning the request for reversal and both were defeated. The authorization for the additional release of 20 million fry by the Valdez Fisheries Development Association stands.

The impacts of the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989 on the fisheries and other resources of Prince William Sound are recognized as profoundly disrupting and harmful to the lives of the people of Cordova in particular but also other communities whose residents utilized the marine resources of the oiled areas for their livelihoods. For Alaskan Native village residents throughout the oil spill area, subsistence harvests for salmon and intertidal resources were reduced and the harvest, consumption, distribution and celebration events associated with subsistence activities were essentially severed for a number of years following the spill.

As one of a number of legal actions seeking compensation and damages for losses, Alaska Native villages in the oiled areas of Prince Williams Sound and Lower Cook Inlet who were no longer able to obtain subsistence resources brought a suit for damages to cultural values associated with the subsistence way of life or “non-economic subsistence claims.” In addition to identifying the centrality of “customary and traditional” subsistence activities to the fundamental essence and character of the communities, the Alaska Native villages argued that ANILCA title 8 stipulates that subsistence is “essential” to Alaska Native “existence” and distinguishes Alaska Native “cultural” uses as distinct from nonnative uses.

In 1994, Justice Holland ruled in Order 190 that Alaska Native losses could not be distinguished from those of the general public that were not eligible for compensation and that the ANILCA distinction identifying Alaska Native “cultural uses” was “of no significance.” The ruling was appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which upheld Holland’s finding noting that the Alaska Native class had failed to prove “special injury” to their communal way of life warranting compensation for non-economic losses. Further, the Ninth Circuit stated that “whatever injury they suffered …though potentially different in degree than that suffered by other Alaskans, was not different in kind” as the right to lead subsistence lifestyles is not limited to Alaska Natives. In a separate ruling concerning economic losses resulting from the oil spill, the Ninth Circuit ruled that like commercial fishermen, subsistence harvesters were entitled to make claims for the value of the resources they take from the sea noting that the spill interfered with subsistence harvesters’ ability to “lawfully and directly make use of the sea in the ordinary course of their business… that business being their very livelihoods.”  Therefore, these decisions determined that under the umbrella of maritime law encompassing cases associated with the Exxon Valdez oil spill, Alaska Natives were only entitled to the economic value of their food losses and not entitled to damages for “cultural” losses as those losses were different only in “degree” and not “kind” for nonnative subsistence users.