NPRA Fish Workshop Final

PROCEEDINGS OF A TECHNICAL WORKSHOP ON FISHES UTILIZED IN SUBSISTENCE FISHERIES IN NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE-ALASKA: BARROW, ALASKA, OCTOBER 26-28, 1988

Report prepared For

NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT P.O. BOX 69, BARROW, ALASKA 99723

JOHN J. BURNS LIVING RESOURCES, INC. P.O. BOX 83570, FAIRBANKS, ALASKA 99708

SEPTEMBER 1990

TABLE OF CONTENTS

BACKGROUND ...... 4

PROCEEDINGS OF OCTOBER 26, 1988 ...... 7 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS ...... 7 SPECIES ACCOUNTS ...... 10 Arctic Cisco ...... 10 Round Whitefish ...... 22 PROCEEDINGS OF OCTOBER 27, 1988 ...... 25 Broad Whitefish ...... 25 PROCEEDINGS OF OCTOBER 27, 1988 ...... 27 Broad Whitefish ...... 27 Dolly Varden Charr ...... 35 Least Cisco ...... 44 Northern Pike ...... 49 PROCEEDINGS OF OCTOBER 28, 1988 ...... 51 GRAYLING ...... 51 Effects of tagging on grayling and other species ...... 56 RAINBOW SMELT ...... 58 HUMPBACK WHITEFISH ...... 62 HABITAT CONCERNS ...... 65 Causeways ...... 65 Gravel Dredging and Mining ...... 69 Seismic Exploration ...... 69 Stream Blockage ...... 70 Action and Reaction to Issues of Development ...... 70 Community and Industrial Water Needs ...... 71 INFORMATION GAPS/FUTURE RESEARCH NEEDS ...... 72 Generic Information Needs ...... 72 SPECIFIC INFORMATION NEEDS ...... 75 Arctic Cisco ...... 75 Broad Whitefish ...... 75 Grayling ...... 76 Least cisco ...... 77 Arctic cisco ...... 77 Bering cisco ...... 77 Char...... 78 Habitats ...... 78 Other species ...... 79 Oceanography/Limnology ...... 80 AQUACULTURE, FISHERY ENHANCEMENT AND REHABILITATION ...... 81 SURVEILLANCE AND COMPLIANCE ...... 82 CONCLUDING REMARKS ...... 84

APPENDIX I: LIST OF PARTICIPANTS ...... 85

APPENDIX II ...... 86

2 INDEX ...... 94

3 BACKGROUND

The health, welfare, life-style and culture of most residents that live on the North Slope of Alaska are intimately tied to the harvesting of renewable resources for local use and consumption. The modern economy of the region is based on a combination of involvements broadly characterized as constituting a combined subsistence/wage economy. Living resources that are intensively harvested include various fishes, marine and terrestrial mammals and birds, and plants. The degree of dependence on these resources is quite variable and, in general, is greatest in the more subsistence oriented (and usually smaller) villages. Subsistence hunting, fishing and gathering continue to be very important activities even in the largest settlement on the North Slope, which is Barrow.

Quite obviously, residents of the region are very concerned about human activities that may adversely affect the abundance and availability of fish and wildlife. This concern is evidenced by the fact that upon formation of an organized borough (the North Slope Borough), that local government entity chose to establish its own Department of Fish and Wildlife Management - an unusual situation for a borough, county or parish (all are basically equivalent local government bodies) in the United States. A prime reason for doing so was to obtain data and information about locally important living resources, and to effectively deal with a variety of very real threats. The threats range from efforts of some "outsiders" to stop continued harvest of important resources (as for instance the bowhead whale), to local reductions of resource abundance and availability resulting from industrial development, community expansion and harvesting.

Petroleum exploration and production are important activities on the North Slope. The Prudhoe Bay oil fields are the largest producers of petroleum in the nation. Exploration on other parts of the North Slope and in the adjacent seas has been continuous, and several new prospects have been found. Other prospects are presumed to exist, particularly in the Harrison Bay area and within the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). One area on the slope has been set aside and specifically designated as a petroleum reserve for the nation. It is the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, designated as NPR-A; a huge area that supports an abundant and relatively diverse fauna and flora and which is intensively used by local residents (Figure 1). Within or closely adjacent to NPR-A there are six communities of mostly Inupiat Eskimos, and several "industrial enclaves". The communities are: Point Lay, Wainwright, Barrow, Atqasuk, Nuiqsut and Anaktuvuk Pass.

One of the first steps that must be taken in order to develop effective programs for managing and protecting fish and wildlife resources is to obtain basic information about them. Such information needs include an understanding of distribution, abundance and trend, population discreteness, migrations and movements, other aspects of natural history, ecology, critical habitats, harvest levels and a host of other things.

4 The acquisition of such basic information for a huge and extremely challenging region like the North Slope is a costly and very long-term undertaking. The acquisition of funds is usually difficult, for a variety of reasons. The NSB Department of Wildlife Management has been particularly vigilant in its efforts to identify and explore potential sources of funds that permit the acquisition of data and information about important fish and wildlife resources.

The State of Alaska, being cognizant of the risks and challenges associated with petroleum development on the North Slope (and elsewhere), developed a program to provide funding to communities and municipalities throughout the state that might be impacted (in a wide variety of ways) by development within NPR-A. The funding was intended to support the acquisition of information that would aid in planning for and mitigating impacts resulting from oil development in NPR-A. Such impacts were anticipated to include those attendant to an influx of additional workers to the region and the state as a whole, thus creating greater demands on the infrastructure of, and services provided by communities both on and off the North Slope, as well as on the fish and wildlife resources within NPR-A.

Clearly, the North Slope Borough has a great interest in securing funds for the purpose of dealing with potential impact mitigation. The NSB provided the necessary "seed money" in order to develop several proposals responsive to the granting agency. Dr. Thomas Albert of the NSB Department of Wildlife Management prepared the proposals and was successful in acquiring funds for a project entitled, Development of Comprehensive Management Plans For Subsistence Use Animals Within NPR-A (State of Alaska Contract No. NPR 87-31-14). Focus of the proposed work was on the immediate acquisition and compilation of existing information about fish and wildlife resources in NPR-A, the recognition of important information needs, consideration of possible mitigation measures and, eventually, recommendations for future studies and mitigation programs.

I was engaged as the project coordinator and, as a primary goal, set out to document and compile available information about terrestrial mammals (primarily caribou and muskoxen) and about several species of fish used by residents of the North Slope.

This report deals with the fishes. There was virtually no published information about the fishes in NPR-A that are of importance to subsistence users, and relatively little about the fishes elsewhere on the North Slope, with the exception of arctic cisco. However, scientists have been involved with studies of the arctic fishes in question, mainly (but not entirely) in areas other than the North Slope. Of equal importance, local knowledge about fishes of the North Slope has been accumulated and passed down, as oral history, for generations by the Inupiat fishers of the region. As an important starting point it seemed prudent to convene a workshop to be attended by highly knowledgeable Inupiat elders as well as by active, recognized scientific experts engaged in study of the arctic fishes of interest to the NSB.

5 The scientists that participated were invaluable because of their scientific training, their personal knowledge of the large body of published information about the species in question, their own first-hand experiences and the fact that they, collectively, constituted the primary repository of what is generally classed as quantifiable scientific information about the fishes and their habitats.

The Inupiat participants were better informed about the physical environment around their respective communities and were also experts with respect to understanding all aspects of natural history as it relates to effective exploitation of the fishes on which they depend for their livelihoods. The Inupiat participants, collectively, constituted a very important repository of accumulated local knowledge, acquired through their own experiences and observations, as well as on the knowledge passed down over time.

The workshop was convened in Barrow during October 26 to 28, 1988. There were 25 attendees (Appendix I) of which 12 were invited fishery scientists or managers, 4 were from the North Slope Borough Department of Wildlife Management, 7 were Inupiat experts, each from a different North Slope community, and 1 was a resident commercial fisherman of the Colville Delta, as well as a biological technician.

We labored in the midst of very unusual circumstances. During the entire time of the workshop, world wide media attention was focused on an intensive, 24 hour a day effort to free three gray whales that were entrapped in sea ice close to Barrow. Continuous chaos seemed to reign at all times, beyond the confines of our meeting room. However, the opportunity to explain, teach, discuss and debate the biology of fishes that many participants had been working with for most of their professional lives, was an effective and infectious catalyst for progress. I think that the result of this collective effort is one of the best and most concise compendiums of information about fishes of NPR-A and the North Slope that currently exists.

The workshop deliberations were recorded. This report is based on outline notes made at the daily meetings, together with condensed accounts of the verbal presentations, from the tape recordings. The report is a bit awkward in that throughout the text I have attempted to repeatedly identify each speaker as the source of specific information provided. This is done by using identifying initials, as listed in Appendix I. Brackets are used to identify explanatory comments that I have inserted. Craig George assisted with the final edits and formatting. Common and scientific names of the fishes that were considered at this workshop are listed in Appendix II.

I am personally indebted to each and every participant for their willingness to share their considerable knowledge.

PROCEEDINGS OF OCTOBER 26, 1988

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Mr. Benjamin P. Nageak (BN), Director of the North Slope Borough, Department of Wildlife Management (DWM), welcomed the workshop participants and offered the services and facilities of the National Arctic Research Laboratory for successful realization of our tasks. He wished us luck in the midst of all the chaos presently occurring because of the international attention and media blitz associated with the efforts to free three gray whales trapped in ice close to shore near Point Barrow.

Dr. Michael Philo (MP) also speaking for the DWM, initiated the more technical discussions by stating his views of the importance of this workshop. In the long-term, the department he represents, wants to foster and participate in the development of a functional management plan for fishes on the North Slope of Alaska. Such a management plan is necessary to assist in coping with 3 on-going circumstances: 1) the direct harvesting of fishes; 2) impacts on fishes and their habitats that result from industrial development in NPR-A and elsewhere on the North Slope and 3) natural fluctuations in populations and/or stocks of fishes important to subsistence and sport fishers.

The need for a management plan stems from past experiences with resources of great local importance, including the drastic decline of the Western Arctic Herd (WAH) of caribou that occurred in the mid-1970's, and the purported decline of bowhead whales. Events associated with the decline of caribou clearly illustrated the unfortunate ramifications of inadequate research and management programs, including severe dislocation of local economies.

No one was aware of the population size and trend of the caribou herd until a crisis situation had developed, starting in 1974. Therefore, no one was aware of the magnitude or causes of the drastic decline. Each interest group (of people) blamed some other group for responsibility. This resulted in a confrontational situation among several groups including local subsistence hunters, other hunters, the regulatory agencies, industry, and the more extreme environmental organizations. Such counter- productive confrontations can largely be avoided if a sound research and management plans are in place.

[In the instance of the decline of the WAH, in the mid-1970's, there had not been an adequate, on-going program of population assessment during the period 1970 to 1974, when the precipitous decline from somewhere around 300,000 to an estimated 75,000 animals was initiated. The decline was first noted in 1974, verified in 1975 and was ongoing at that time. Drastic reductions in harvests, including those made by subsistence hunters, were recommended. Village residents that depended on caribou were not convinced that a decline was underway and did not believe the results of the 1975 census. They opposed reductions in harvest levels, and none were instituted in

7 1975. Ironically, some severe reductions in harvest were naturally imposed by the decline by a great contraction of annual range and reduced availability to hunters at several formerly productive sites. Residents of Anaktuvuk Pass, who are particularly dependent on caribou, failed to secure any. The decline continued and in 1976 emergency regulations were imposed; though not without very bad feelings on the part of local people. Since 1976, the WAH has again increased to an estimated 300,000+ animals. If the increase continues it is highly probable that carrying capacity of the habitat will be exceeded and another decline will occur].

From the perspective of managing living resources of importance to subsistence oriented peoples, the caribou episode was a very significant event. It showed that it is essential to maintain an on-going program of population assessment; that the resource users should collectively be willing to indicate their realistic expectations as far as the number, composition and geographic distribution of desired annual harvests; that expectations of the public must be realistically examined in light of biological realities; that the effected public be provided with information about herd status and trends and be part of the decision making process; and that the impacts of development on caribou and their habitat, must be factored into any management plan.

Each of these points is directly transferable to the management of fishes. This workshop, in which expert scientists and key representatives from communities in and near NPR-A are participating, is a significant step toward eventual achievement of the objectives indicated above. At this workshop we hope to identify the relevant scientific data that are available and to identify additional data needs.

John Burns (JB), the chairperson and moderator, indicated the priority ranking of fish species that will be considered at this workshop (common and scientific names are listed in Appendix II). The ranking is based on information from residents of the NPR-A region, about magnitude of subsistence use and overall importance of the different fishes. Those of high priority include arctic and least cisco , broad whitefish , grayling and arctic char. Those of intermediate priority are round and humpback whitefish , burbot, chum and pink salmon. The remaining species include pike, silver salmon, lake trout , Dolly Varden char and rainbow smelt.

David Norton (DN) suggested that one possible way of facilitating review of the status of scientific information about the primary species would be to approach issues on the basis of actual or perceived problems with, or threats to fishes or their habitats. It may be that several species are affected by the same thing. As an example, there is a perceived problem with arctic cisco. Recruitment of juveniles to the Colville River has been poor in recent years, with virtually no recruitment in summer 1988. Does this short term trend indicate a natural reduction associated with environmental variation, or is it from interrupted migrations resulting from the man-made causeways near Prudhoe Bay?

Bill Bond (BB) expressed the view that workshop participants must explore 3 basic questions: 1) what "space" the species of concern occupies over the course of its life; 2) what "places" within that larger space are important to complete critical life stages; and 3) 8 during what time periods and under what circumstances are the fish of interest moving between the seasonally important places?

Once those general aspects of natural history are understood, one can begin to examine the impacts of industrial development within the places talked about. Each summer, in Canada, the focus is still on studies to delineate the total space used by different species, and on delineating the different places used by the different species [investigating how the different species partition the available space, and how each may be adapted to do slightly different things].

In view of the various options or different ways to approach the workshop, the moderator again reiterated the primary objectives with respect to the biology of fishes important to subsistence users. Those objectives are: 1) to summarize and evaluate the available scientific information about each species; 2) to summarize and evaluate information about the habitats used by each species (the space and places referred to by BB); 3) to determine the significant information needs [existing data gaps] and 4) to examine recognized and perceived threats that are associated with development in NPR-A and adjacent areas.

Terry Bendock (TB) also stressed that we should summarize available information about the known distribution of the different species on the North Slope. For some species, distribution is quite limited and the habitats are quite specialized.

9 SPECIES ACCOUNTS

Arctic Cisco BB was the lead speaker about arctic cisco. This species is common across the Beaufort Sea coast from east of the Mackenzie River Delta to about Point Barrow. Formerly it was thought that they spawned in the Colville River as well as in the Mackenzie River. Presumed spawning in the Colville River was based on the regular presence of young fish. However, in 1983 Dr. Benny Gallaway and others were able to explain the known distribution of arctic cisco based on spawning that was restricted to the Mackenzie River and its tributaries. Based on the idea that the Mackenzie was the focal point from which juvenile fish dispursed, and to which adult spawners returned, they built several hypothetical models to explain the known distribution and movements.

The theory that was advanced was that after emerging from spawning grounds in the Mackenzie River drainages, and being washed out into the Mackenzie estuary/Beaufort Sea coastal zone, some portion of those age o+ fish migrate westward. That westward movement is very close to shore (within a few hundred meters) and occurs over the course of their first summer. The young fish arrive at the vicinity of the Colville River by the end of the summer, by which time they are about 3 inches long. After reaching the Colville River they overwinter in the deeper waters of the delta. During successive summers, until they reach sexual maturity, they move out of the Colville Delta and spread out to feed in near shore waters, as far east as about Prudhoe Bay and as far west as about Point Barrow. After each feeding/growing season they return to the Colville Delta to overwinter.

When they reach sexual maturity, between 6 and 8 years of age, they do not return to the Colville, but instead migrate eastward along the coast to the Mackenzie River, where they go upstream to spawn in autumn.

The information that has been gathered since 1983, supports these hypotheses. Such an ecological strategy by arctic cisco raises concerns about several things, not the least of which are the effects of causeways that extend from shore and potentially block the migration corridor, or adversely modify the environment.

Some arctic cisco spawn for the first time at age 7 to 8. After sexual maturity they spawn in alternate years. During the year of spawning they ascend the Mackenzie to one of the tributary rivers (i.e. Great Bear River, Arctic Red River, Peel River) where they actually spawn. After spawning they move downstream to the Mackenzie Delta to overwinter. A different group moves up-stream to spawn in the following year.

During a non-spawning year the adults summer along the coast in relatively close proximity to the Mackenzie Delta (in comparison to the juveniles). They feed along the coast of the Yukon Territory and Alaska, as far west as about Barter Island: and eastward

10 along the coast of the Tuktoyaktuk Peninsula. During this non-spawning year they feed intensively, regaining condition and developing eggs for the next spawning cycle. They overwinter in the Mackenzie Delta and in the following year again ascend the river to spawn. They are theoretically capable of spawning several times over their life time of 15 to 16 years.

As sexually mature adults the center of distribution is the Mackenzie River and Delta. Adult fish do not return to the Colville River. That explains why commercial catches in the Colville include fish that are mainly 5 to 8 year-olds, with very few that are older.

David Wiswar (DW) reported on evidence that further supports the descriptions presented above. In 1984 and 1985, along the coast of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) a higher proportion of larger size arctic cisco were taken at the eastern-most sampling sites. In both years the fish were larger at Beaufort Lagoon than at Oreatalik, the latter site being between Beaufort Lagoon and Kaktovik. In the last two years of sampling in Camden Bay and Jago Lagoon (west of the previous sites) they did find the larger size arctic cisco.

BB responded to a question about how old arctic cisco get. His answer -- up to 20 years, but the average is probably closer to 14 or 15 years. Larry Moulton (LM) reported catching the occasional 13 and 14 year old fish in the Colville Delta. This indicates that some feeding adults may wander as far eastward as the Colville River area. These few occasional sexually mature fish are, however, exceptions.

Richard Marshall (RM) inquired about characteristics of the Mackenzie River drainages that make them suitable for spawning, and about what requirements seem to be lacking in the Colville River? He referred to similar disjunct patterns of distribution in Siberian coastal waters.

BB noted that in order to answer those questions one must first understand the post-glacial zoogeography of arctic cisco. Their distribution was probably highly compressed during periods of extensive Pleistocene glaciation, and expanded as glaciers retreated. Migratory tendencies may have evolved when suitable feeding range expanded. The restricted spawning may be an artifact of the available refugea during recurring Pleistocene glaciation.

TB noted that arctic cisco do not spawn in the Colville River, or any other Alaskan streams, including the tributes of the Colville, even though they are present in many rivers. He found arctic cisco in 7 different tributaries of the Colville including the Itkillik, Kongakut, Kokoluk (perhaps those fish were Bering cisco), and others. A drainage west of the Colville river that has arctic cisco is the Ikpikpuk River but again, there was no evidence of spawning. Arctic cisco go as far upstream as the Itkillik River, which is the only 2nd order stream in which they were found, and is many miles from the ocean. In all other tributaries of the Colville (1st order) the arctic cisco were near the mouths.

11 BB expressed the view that there are several different spawning stocks, each from a different spawning stream within the larger Mackenzie drainage. Migration timing for those various stocks may differ. Some spawning fish have already ascended upstream from the delta by May or June, probably before break-up. It may be that those early migrants have to go farther upstream to spawn. Other spawning fish continue to pass through the delta in July and August. Some spawners briefly go to the coast in early July. and then go back into the river by late July. These fish are well behind the earlier migrants that pass through the delta in May and June.

It is thought by a colleague, Cass Lindsey, that there are arctic cisco in the Liard River, a tributary of the Mackenzie. If those fish are from the Beaufort Sea, that means that they undertake a spawning migration of 1,700-1,900 kilometers up the Mackenzie River before reaching the Liard.

Fred DeCicco (FD) asked how far up the Mackenzie River the arctic cisco spawn? He noted that unlike all other rivers of northwestern Canada and northern Alaska, the Mackenzie has its origins in the temperature rather than the sub-arctic or arctic zone.

According to BB, so far as is known, the Liard is as far up the main stem of the Mackenzie River as arctic cisco go. Most of the tributaries in which arctic cisco spawn are farther down the Mackenzie stem; in and below Bear River. They spawn in clear water.

Ken Chang-Kue (KC-K) indicated that in 1982, at Rampart Rapids (Fort Goodhope on the Mackenzie River), his crew found partially spawned out arctic cisco that local people indicated were coming down stream and were intermixed with sheefish. There probably was some spawning at the rapids in the main stream of the Mackenzie. However, it is also possible that these fish may have come from an adjacent tributary.

According to BB the other two major tributaries that enter the Mackenzie Delta are the Arctic Red River and the Peel River. Arctic cisco almost certainly spawn in both, though no specific spawning sites have been identified. The apparent situation is that young from the various tributary streams probably intermingle in coastal waters and overwintering areas, and then segregate at spawning time.

LM indicated that researchers from LGL found spawning arctic cisco mainly in tributaries on the west side of the Mackenzie River.

KC-K explained that those western tributaries are large in comparison to tributaries on the east side. An exception is the Great Bear River (east side), which drains Great Bear Lake. It has cold, clear water and flows throughout the year. On the Peel River, at the community of Fort McPherson, which is about 30 mi. up stream from the mouth, there are "runs" of arctic cisco.

According to BB, even after 15 years of study on the Peel River, the actual spawning locations have not been identified.

12 KC-K speaking of the Great Bear River, pointed out that in the course of pre- development research for a proposed pipeline, scientists specifically tried to recover arctic cisco eggs from the extensive cobble/gravel substrate, with no success. However, they did capture gravid, upstream migrants. The entire Great Bear River is a potential prime spawning area.

RM referred to previous comments made by LM about the circumpolar distribution of arctic cisco, and suggested that their pan-arctic distribution may provide some important clues about spawning habitat.

BB responded to the moderator's question of when spawning occurs: spawning begins in September and is probably completed by early October.

KC-K described upstream runs of arctic cisco, past Norman Wells, in mid-August, with spent (spawned out) fish returning downstream just at freeze-up, about mid-October. BB noted his finding that the eastern-most occurrences of juveniles were in Liverpool Bay, near the mouth of the Anderson River. This may be a situation similar to that in the Colville River, which is far to the west (i.e. the juveniles mature in that area before returning to the Mackenzie to spawn). This is a very important matter with great relevance to evaluation of the significance of individual rearing streams. Is the Colville River the main rearing area for juveniles that migrate westward from the Mackenzie? Perhaps there are others, like the Anderson River, that are also important.

It is known that sexually mature arctic cisco go both east and west on their summer feeding forays, but not how far. To the west, they go at least to Herschel Island and to Nunalik. It is suspected that some adults may go as far west as Barter Island. This was verified in summer 1988 when a tagged adult from the Mackenzie was taken by a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service crew at Barter Island. The fish had been tagged at Phillips Bay, on the Yukon Coast, in 1986. Therefore some of the adults go at least that far west during summer feeding, and return again to the Mackenzie River to spawn in the following year. Overwintering fish are in areas close to fresh water, perhaps in estuary conditions. There are salinity gradients present and the fish can select for anything between 1 and 30 parts per thousand (ppt). Arctic cisco have been known to occur in both high and low salinity water in Tuktoyaktuk harbor, during winter. They are caught both above and below the halocline.

Thomas Newbury (TN) asked if the westward movement of age o+ fish is active or passive (i.e. wind or current aided)? BB responded by detailing the progressively later dates when small fish are taken at sampling stations from the Yukon Coast to the Colville River. In Phillips Bay (Canada) they are first encountered around the 12th of July, at Nunalik they appear in late July, at Prudhoe Bay they begin to appear in mid-August and at the Colville in late August. LM added to this general picture indicating that first appearance of these small fish at the barrier islands is on about August 11th.

A question still remains as to the whether their transit is passive or active. In all probability, according to BB it is active, though certainly assisted by favorable currents. 13 With reference to young of the year fish that get flushed out of the Mackenzie in late May- early June, they include not only arctic cisco but also large numbers of young sheefish, young broad whitefish, young least cisco, and young lake whitefish, all of about the same size. Obviously, they do not all behave alike. They do not, for instance all go to Alaska. It is just the arctic cisco that go west. Therefore, there must be some active movement by the arctic cisco.

A general discussion of directional movement of age o+ fish was further prompted by LM. Though these small fish are active migrants to some extent, different summer winds may still be important. The example was that in a summer of strong westerly winds perhaps more fish go east, and vice versa. In other wind conditions perhaps the fish are actively positioning themselves to be transported.

TN asked if there is not always some recruitment of o+ fish into Colville. LM indicated that even in years of recruitment failures, some small numbers of fish get there, but that recruitment is basically zero from a biological standpoint.

FD focused on wind affected movements and asked if there are indications of years with good recruitment of age o+ fish, but still a failure of their appearance in the Colville. The answer, from several people, was that probably occurred in the summer of 1988. LM indicated that cooperative studies across the coast in 1988 should reveal whether there are age related differences in distribution across the coast. BB pointed out that it would be interesting to know if, in years when for environmental reasons the young can not reach the Colville River [even with good hatching success], they end up going some place else? That could be elucidated by sampling over a broad area. The Anderson River may be very important under such circumstances. KC-K stated the same point in different words. What could be a bad year in Alaska, could be a good year in northwestern Canada. As LM said, the Colville and Anderson rivers might be like mirror images in this respect.

RM asked if there was any information about year class strength based on studies in the Mackenzie River. BB responded that there is no information about that. There is no program for getting catch statistics, let alone information on cohort composition. RM and LM referred to work in progress on the Tuktoyaktuk Peninsula that shows the presence of all year classes. Also, though some year classes seem to be missing in the Colville River they do not necessarily seem to be missing in regions farther east.

BB responding to a question from the moderator, indicated that hatching occurs in spring, possibly in April-early May. The young fish are flushed out as sack-fry, but have been actively feeding by the time they move beyond the Mackenzie Delta. Some of those fry are as small as 19 mm though most are 25+ mm. Traces of the yolk sac still persist. Foods at this stage include mainly Cladocerans (copepods). The diet is presumably very restricted because of the small size of the fish's mouth. The flushing of age o+ fish to the Mackenzie estuary occurs over a relatively long time, as fry are coming from several streams that are at different distances from the sea. It is not known if eggs deposited in 14 the more inland streams [more continental climate] hatch earlier, and therefore reach the estuary about the time that young from the more northerly tributaries do. KC-K commented that there are significant temperature gradients along the length of the Mackenzie River.

BB, describing migration along the coast, pointed out that it is also protracted. At Phillips Bay, for instance, arctic cisco begin moving past on the 12th to 15th of July, and continue into September. Presumably this reflects arrival in the estuary over a relatively long period of time.

JB returned to the issue of the apparent lack of some year classes in the Colville Delta, but the more even representation of year classes closer to the Mackenzie. What does this imply? LM said that more information about the strength of different year classes would be obtained in summer 1989, during on-going studies.

BB noted that in the past 5 years or so since formulation and advancement of the single spawning area theory for arctic cisco [that fish in Alaskan waters all originate from the Mackenzie River system], we have gained considerable understanding of the temporal and spatial distribution of the different components of the larger stock. Such biological information is critical in terms of how responsible management agencies deal with various proposed development projects. It is very important to know if there is or is not a spawning population in the Colville River.

TB reported that he caught arctic cisco in 9 different coastal plain lakes, some of which were not stream connected. Average elevation of those lakes was 4 feet above sea level (i.e. they were all essentially at sea level). The largest lake was Teshekpuk, where one of the arctic cisco caught in the month of August was in pre-spawning condition and had eggs of 1.5 mm in diameter. Another gravid female was taken in the Colville River Delta. He suggested that during high water some arctic cisco get into the lakes, perhaps become entrapped and eventually mature where they are.

BB expanded on the occurrence of arctic cisco in lakes. They have been found in lakes within the Mackenzie Delta. They are probably swept into those lakes during spring floods. It is also known that in some lakes many are eaten by pike, and also that there is a movement of those age o+ fish out of the lakes in late summer. The importance of lakes in the total picture [from a recruitment standpoint] is uncertain. In northwestern Canada they do not occur in lakes outside of the Mackenzie Delta, except for tidally influenced ponds.

JB queried members of the NSB Fish and Game Management Committee about arctic cisco in lakes. Raymond Paneak (RP), a resident of Anaktuvuk Pass, said that according to his parents, they are present in two big lakes with outflows to the Itkillik River. Also they supposedly occur in some of the big lakes at the lower end of the Killik River. He would like to know how far up the Colville River that the arctic cisco are known to go. TB responded that they have been caught at Umiat which is 75 river miles from the sea. They were encountered rarely, and usually only in mid-July. 15

Jim Aveoganna, Sr. (JA) of Wainwright said that near his village arctic cisco occur only at 2 locations on one river, and there are none in between, or at other places. In considering this information the workshop participants thought it more likely that such fish, in a river that flows into the Chukchi Sea, may well be Bering rather than arctic cisco. [Bering cisco are common in the Wainwright area].

RM initiated a discussion about individual year classes of arctic cisco, and their apparent strength or weakness in the Colville Delta. There have been predictions of a recruitment failure this year (1988). Some predictions refer to strength of the parent year classes. Apparently there are between 4 and 6 year classes which spawn. A broad age distribution of spawners normally promotes fairly stable initial production.

DW asked if fish returning to the Mackenzie from the Colville spawn in the year they return? According to BB, the answer is not yet known. The largest eastward migrating fish caught in the Endicott (Prudhoe Bay) area are large enough to be spawners. Large pre-spawners are taken in Prudhoe Bay in early July, but not in samples obtained later in the summer. The assumption is that such pre-spawners move to and into the Mackenzie River. The question remains open. NS was asked if the fisherman of Kaktovik catch gravid arctic cisco in early July. He thought not. According to Charles Brower (CB), in Elson Lagoon near Barrow, the ice goes out in early July, and the arctic cisco are there in July and August. Some arctic cisco go past Point Barrow into coastal waters on the Chukchi Sea side.

That observation prompted JB to ask if all of the major streams between Point Barrow and the Mackenzie Delta support overwintering juvenile arctic cisco, particularly rivers such as the Meade, Ikpikpuk, Chipp, Sagavanirktok and Canning. In response LM said they are in the Sagavanirktok, and RM said that their status in the Canning is unknown but under study. The lower Kuparuk River, according to LM, may have a few. He further indicated that in general streams with a high gradient [which includes most the North Slope streams] do not have sufficient channel development in the deltas to support many overwintering cisco or whitefishes. East of the Colville River the sampling effort has been virtually non-existent. TB recounted that a local trapper was aware of arctic cisco being taken in winter in the lower Ikpikpuk River. He also pointed out that on the Beaufort Sea coast of Alaska the species diversity of fishes decreases as one goes eastward.

LM commented that in the Colville Delta the right estuary conditions must exist for arctic cisco to be present. Abundance of arctic cisco abruptly decreases close to and in fresh water conditions. The arctic cisco seem to occur in waters with a salinity of 10 to 25 ppt.

BB responded to a question about overwintering streams and said that although other streams in Alaska have not been adequately sampled, scientists familiar with arctic cisco are generally of the opinion that others besides the Colville do not contribute significantly to the overall availability of overwintering habitat. The moderator reconstructed these general thoughts by stating that although small numbers of arctic 16 cisco may occur in the deltas of several North Slope streams, the important contributor to the adult population is the Colville River. Ramifications of development projects that adversely affect the Colville rearing area, or the ingress and egress of fish to that area, can be expected to be severe. More information about size of the spawning populations in the Mackenzie drainage are needed in order to begin to accurately determine this, according to BB. As stated by RM, studies to determine the similarity or discreteness of "spawning stocks" within the Mackenzie drainage are also important. It is assumed, according to BB, that during the spawning period, when the stocks are presumably segregated in six tributaries of the Mackenzie drainage, they will be found to be genetically different from each other. That work is now in progress. Additionally, there is need for procedures to estimate the population size of all whitefishes, including arctic cisco, in the Mackenzie.

A question was asked by an unidentified speaker as to whether subsistence fishermen on the Mackenzie could possibly tell the difference between the spawning stocks of arctic cisco, based on differences in taste. KC-K said that he has not heard of any such distinction in arctic cisco, but that people at Fort Goodhope say they can distinguish between two kinds of whitefish taken in lakes -- those that actually live in the rivers and those that live in the lakes. The two forms are reported to have a different coloration and a different taste. BB followed up on that by saying that the arctic cisco, regardless of which spawning stock they may be, get most of their food along the coast. [Since taste is a direct reflection of the foods eaten by the fishes, and all spawning stocks of arctic cisco are presumably eating the same foods, it is not expected that they would taste different. The lake whitefish, conversely get most of their food in fresh water. The food of lake-resident fish is different than the food of those in the rivers. Dietary differences can be expected to affect taste]. Amos Agnasagga (AA) referred to another fish that feeds in different habitats, though all are in fresh water. He said that grayling from different rivers in the Point Lay area taste different from each other. The rivers he referred to were the Utukok and the Kuparuk.

JB asked about differences in food habits of juveniles and adults. BB referred back to earlier comments about small fish being limited to eating small prey. The age o+ fish feed almost exclusively on Copepods. They progress, with increasing size, to consume mysids, amphipods and a few isopods. Mysids and amphipods are probably the main foods. Size of the prey consumed is relative to size of the feeding fish. There are data about fish growth and food habits available in the literature.

JB asked if there were indications in the Mackenzie River of changes in relative abundance of arctic cisco. KC-K indicated that, as previously stated by BB, there have been no long term monitoring programs and thus there are no data with which to examine that point. Phillip Masuleak (PM) was asked about changes in subsistence harvests of arctic cisco at Nuiqsut, [a village on the Colville River], during recent years. He responded that at the present time the catches are really low; lower than in the past years. One fisherman who netted for about a week, caught only 2 arctic cisco. Also, in the past week [normally a good time to catch arctic cisco in the lower Colville] two fishermen caught none, and they are pulling nets out. 17

James Helmericks (JH), a resident commercial fisherman of the Colville Delta, reviewed his experience with respect to his catch records over the past 30 years. During that time there has been one other serious decline, which occurred in 1979. In some other years there have been marked fluctuations, though not to the extent of being considered as failures. In the past 3 or 4 years the stock has been declining. In the last 2 years the catch has been sustained by a single year class that arrived in the delta 8 to 9 years ago. This is the 3rd year of their dominance in the catches, and there are no younger fish to fill in behind them. He is expecting further drastic declines in the near-future catches. LM indicated that recruitment of arctic cisco into the commercial fishery of the Colville Delta is generally at about age 5 or 6 years.

AA, in reference to the Kuparuk River near Point Lay, said that about 10 years ago there was an oil drilling site near a creek that flowed into the river. When the drilling rig was active, hardly any fish were taken there. In his opinion the scarcity was not from the drilling, but from the associated pollution. They saw lots of things, including fuel drums, floating downstream. After the operation ceased the fishing slowly improved. The fish involved were grayling and some Dolly Varden char. His expressed concern was about pollution associated with the drilling operations near creeks and rivers.

The comments by AA brought the discussions to issues of habitat concerns and habitat degradation. The moderator asked if there were specific concerns with respect to the habitat of arctic cisco. BB indicated that there was certainly a lot of debate about that issue. There are reasons for concern about areas where arctic cisco concentrate during different seasons, and about the routes between those areas. As examples, hydroelectric projects on spawning rivers such as Liard or the Mackenzie may affect conditions on the spawning grounds proper, flow rates of water in other areas, patterns of fresh water discharge that are vital to the flushing of juveniles at the proper time of the year, etc. Because arctic cisco migrate close to shore there is concern about structures such as causeways, that may block the narrow migration corridor. Dredging may also cause a localized problem.

RM referred to differences of scientific opinion about results of studies on the Endicott Causeway. His opinion, based on a 3 year study of near shore oceanography, is that there are indeed some impacts on habitat. Those impacts are greater in some years than in others, because of wind conditions. Unfortunately, those studies did not relate habitat change to any impacts on the population of arctic cisco. Any presumed cause and effect relationships are, at this time, based on inference. An important point is that the annual variation in conditions that affect the westward migration of age 0+ arctic cisco is great, and we have no idea about how long the studies might have to be continued in order to examine and understand the extent of natural annual variation. That is why the Corps of Engineers terminated the extensive biological studies and relied solely on the unequivocal evidence of habitat change resulting from the construction and continued presence of the Endicott Causeway. On the basis of oceanographic changes caused by the causeway the Corps recommend the initiation of mitigation measures. Many

18 interested parties debate the validity of such an approach and, figuratively speaking, there is far more heat than light about the subject.

FD added that one of the recent major changes along the Beaufort Sea coast is the presence of causeways. More than 30 years of data from the Colville Delta commercial fishery, starting in 1952, show only one significant decline in arctic cisco prior to that which is occurring at present. The initiation and intensification of the current decline happens to coincide with construction and presence of the Endicott Causeway. There is, however, no irrefutable evidence of cause and effect. LM pointed out that sampling programs have, so far, been inadequate to provide the "power" to resolve those issues. RM noted that the first year of recent recruitment failure to the Colville River involved the 1981 year class, and that it coincided with the seaward extension of West Dock [a second causeway west of Endicott]. It was pointed out by LM that in 1981 the o+ Arctic Cisco did not even migrate as far west as the Sagavanirktok River or Prudhoe Bay [so the presence of West Dock may have been irrelevant in that instance].

BB addressing a question about the fecundity of arctic cisco, reviewed the known data about fish in northern rivers of the USSR. In the Lena the average number of eggs per female was found to be 32,400 (r=21,000 to 50,400), in the Kolyma River it was 35,400 (r=24,000 to 52,000) and in the Yennesi River the average was 29,900. The number of eggs produced by a female probably increases as she grows older and therefore larger.

RW spoke about work by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, along the Coast of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Arctic cisco that had been previously tagged during other studies in the Colville and Prudhoe Bay areas were recovered off ANWR, and vise versa. Additionally, fish tagged in the ANWR area have been recovered in Canada.

BB expanded on the interesting location of the ANWR coast from the standpoint of the migrations and seasonal movements of arctic cisco. That area is about half way between the Mackenzie and Colville rivers. There is some overlap of large sub-adults that forage eastward from the Colville Delta with adults that forage westward from the Mackenzie. There is, obviously, significant habitat partitioning. In the Mackenzie River proper, one can sample age 0+ fish as they drift out, but virtually no fish of ages 1 to 5 are present. They are elsewhere. Also, the larger immatures that winter in the Colville Delta, for example, range farther during summer feeding forays than do smaller fish. LM verified that, based on his studies. RM said that in addition to the spatial separation, there are also differences in the salinity preferences among different size fish. RM further noted what he viewed as important aspects of the issue of habitat partitioning. When habitat and feeding opportunities are not limited, one may not find significant habitat partitioning. Conversely, if either becomes a limiting factor, thus creating competition, there tends to be more partitioning.

With respect to stock identity, BB indicated that one of his co-workers (Dr. James Reist) is examining the question of separate breeding populations, and is proceeding on the assumption that each spawning stream supports a genetically different stock. 19 Extensions of the issue of discreet stocks are questions about their absolute and relative population size, the number of young produced and the "behavior" of those different stocks. Is the Colville River population of arctic cisco supported to some disproportionate extent by the production of a single spawning stock, or is it supported by random intermixing of several spawning stocks? These questions are extremely important. For example, if the Colville River fish came from the Peel River and the parent stock is over harvested, impaired or otherwise diminished by development such as a dam, than recruitment to the Colville Delta would be seriously affected. Conversely, if the fish in the Colville represent intermingled stocks, does the fishery there disadvantage that component which is numerically weakest? The answers to all of these questions are not yet available, but the questions are being studied.

One program that should definitely be developed is an area wide effort to determine catches of arctic cisco and to obtain biological samples from those catches. There is no such broad-scale program in Canada and the program in Alaska is fragmentary. In Canada, the Joint Fish and Wildlife Management Committee may develop a harvest monitoring and sampling program.

With regard to questions about potential limiting factors, virtually no scientific data are available. It is assumed that the extent of overwintering habitat may be limiting. RM mentioned that some of the research done in summer 1988 was focused on determining tolerance limits of fish with respect to temperatures and salinities. Results of that work are not yet available. LM reported that under natural conditions in the Colville Delta arctic cisco prefer waters with middle range salinities, i.e. about 24 ppt. The limits that produced high mortality in the experiments were as follows: in fresh water at a temperature of 12oC, and in saline water of 28 ppt. at 3oC. Those values may approximate the outer bounds of conditions encountered in nature. Mortality, in the laboratory, at those extreme conditions was about 75 to 80 percent.

Subsequent discussions on this point were about the ability of unconstrained fish [those in the wild] to escape unfavorable conditions, whereas fish in the laboratory could not escape the experimental conditions .

BB described what is known about spawning habitat of arctic cisco. They spawn when the water temperature decreases to near 0oC. Preferred depth of water is not known, and may be quite variable. Turbidity [clarity of the water] is apparently quite variable. Required substrate is presumed to be small cobble or gravel. In winter, in the various deltas where these fish stay, they probably avoid high salinity water and retreat seaward or farther upriver, depending on the extent of salt water incursions.

In spring, as the flow of fresh water increases and extends longitudinally along the coast [being constrained by a barrier of salt water], it forms an estuarine band of varying width, with lower salinity and higher temperatures, within which the arctic cisco forage and migrate. Most feeding probably occurs in the transition zone between the marine

20 environment and shore. Though the conditions in this restricted zone are not marine, the marine organisms are abundant and are the primary food sources.

The next topic of discussion was that of wintering habitat of arctic cisco. Little is known about that in the Mackenzie Delta. In the Colville Delta, LM indicated that the few deep channels of brackish water between the sea and the fresh water are important. Niglik Channel is one such area. Others are the main and east channels, probably within 10 or 15 miles of the outer delta boundary. Upstream of the brackish water zone there are increasing numbers of least cisco. Other fishes occasionally caught together with the arctic cisco are humpback whitefish and least cisco. Species composition changes as the water becomes fresh, and begins to include broad whitefish, more least cisco and burbot.

Returning to the issue of downstream movements in the Mackenzie drainage, BB noted that in the rivers studied, like the Athasbaska, it occurs immediately after spawning. The downstream run may occur over a relatively long time, perhaps over the course of the winter, to the Mackenzie Delta. It is not known if these post-spawners stay in fresh water very close to the mouth, or whether they go out into brackish water. It must be realized that the different water masses move. In winter, the under ice outflow of fresh water from the Mackenzie is deflected along the Tuktoyaktuk Peninsula. This is a plume of essentially fresh water which increases in extent as spring progresses.

Test fishing in Tuktoyaktuk Harbor, including out to the 5 or 6 meter isobath, which is several miles off shore, showed arctic cisco to be present in the extensive fresh water plume. The mature fish that leave Tuktoyaktuk Harbor in the spring are post-spawners, whereas those which arrive in late August through September are in near-spawning condition. There has been virtually no sampling in November and December, so it is not known if post-spawning, spent fish, return to Tuktoyaktuk Harbor at that time.

To the extent possible, according to BB, the Canadian authorities request that dredging activity not occur inshore of the 5 meter isobath, in order to protect arctic cisco. The least detrimental time to dredge, both in Canada and Alaska, is probably during August. AA said that dredging in the Point Lay area will be bad for belukha whales and seals, as well as for fish.

JB asked if there are proposals to dam any of the rivers in Canada, in which arctic cisco spawn. According to BB there are several hydroelectric dams in the upper reaches of the Mackenzie River (i.e. upstream of Great Slave Lake.] The dams have had serious effects on fish in those upstream areas. Great Slave Lake is so large, however, that it dampens the downstream effects of the dams. At present there are no dams on tributaries to the Mackenzie which are downstream of Great Slave Lake. There are some proposed projects, the largest one of which is on the Liard River. There is considerable concern about a dam on this large and important river in which arctic cisco spawn. There is also a proposal, presently inactive, for a hydroelectric project on the Great Bear River.

21 RM raised the issue of fresh water sources for future development projects that may occur in NPR-A. De-watering of places where fish over-winter has been a problem on the North Slope in the past. Jack Winters (JW), speaking from the standpoint of habitat protection, indicated that now the oil industry avoids taking water out of places where fish are present. They have constructed various kinds of water reservoirs. These are often mined gravel sites which subsequently become flooded. Some are as large as 40 acres and as deep as 52 feet. The sources of water are either from surface runoff, or minor diversions of adjacent streams. These will probably be the procedures for acquisition and storage of fresh water that will be used into the foreseeable future. The petroleum industry does not envision serious problems associated with these methods [and biologists recognize several opportunities to develop small scale programs for fish and wildlife enhancement]. Other water sources are shallow tundra ponds, mostly less than 6 feet deep, that do not support the larger species of fish.

BB returned to the issue of dredging as it may effect arctic cisco. In Tuktoyaktuk Harbor there is a shallow bar that separates the deep river channel from the deep marine waters. A channel through this bar is maintained by dredging. Fish are present all the time. The most favorable time of year for dredging, as previously stated, is in mid-August; a time that is between the heaviest movements of disbursing fish (June and early July) and the heaviest movements of returning fish (late August through October). It is thought that the least amount of adverse impact from dredging would be in early to mid-August. In Alaskan waters, according to LM, August is also the best time to accomplish dredging in habitats used by arctic cisco, though it is not necessarily a good time for arctic char.

With respect to culverts, which are mainly an issue on streams and rivers, comments of various workshop participants were that bridges are more preferable and, in the long run, probably less expensive than culverts.

All of these topics should be addressed in any eventual management plans. [They are further discussed in a subsequent section of this report].

Round Whitefish Group discussion of this species was lead by LM. On the North Slope of Alaska round whitefish are almost strictly a fresh water species that occurs mainly in tributary streams rather than main-stem rivers). They are commonly found in association with grayling. According to TB, their maximum longevity is about 18 years.

Information about the distribution of round whitefish was also presented by TB. They are a fairly widespread species on the North Slope, occurring throughout the central part, to the Kongukuk River. They are conspicuously absent in those drainages of the western part of the North Slope which flow into the Chukchi Sea. The reasons for their absence in the western streams are not known. FD commented that they are also absent from the Wulik and Kivalina drainages, though they are present in the Noatak. These rivers flow into the Chukchi Sea south of the North Slope.

Of 268 North Slope lakes surveyed, according to TB, round whitefish were found in 17 percent of them. In general, they were the 6th most frequently encountered species. Presence was related to lake depth. Of the total cumulative sample of round whitefish (number not reported) caught, 66 percent came from deep lakes (more than 30 ft deep); about 30 percent from medium depth lakes (10 ft to 30 ft deep) and 3 percent from lakes less than 10 ft deep. They were most frequently encountered in deep lakes that are at or above 2,000 ft in elevation (feet above sea level-ASL), though 38 percent were taken in lakes of the coastal plain (i.e. less than 600 ft ASL). Therefore, lake-dwelling round whitefish are most abundant in high elevation, deep lakes.

They are also abundant in rivers, except those that flow into the Chukchi Sea. Test fishing was conducted at 152 river sites across the North Slope, and round whitefish were the 5th most frequently encountered species. In a classification of 1st to 4th order streams, they occurred in greatest numbers in those of 2nd order, such as the Anaktuvuk, Itkillik, and Ikpikpuk, that is to say in the major tributaries to the larger 1st order rivers. They were infrequently found in headwater streams; none were caught in 4th or 5th order streams.

In summary they are a widespread species on most of the North Slope. The center of their distribution in this region is the Central Arctic plain (Colville River drainage, Ikpikpuk and Meade rivers) and they occur in 1st to 3rd order streams. They are also present in the Kongakut River drainages.

LM reported on findings from work he did in 1985 in the Colville Delta and upstream in the main river. In the delta, 1,500 of 38,000 (4.0 percent) sampled fish were round whitefish. In the main river, 18 percent of all fish caught were round whitefish. Obviously, the frequency increased farther upstream from the coast. The age at sexual maturity is 6 to 8 years on the North Slope and 6 to 7 years in Great Bear Lake. TB reported that they spawn in late September to mid-October. Some proportion of the females spawn in consecutive years, though the frequency for the population as a whole is not known. The largest numbers of spawning fish seen by TB were in the main stem of the Colville River up to at least the Killik River. Spawning fish were in dense schools at the lower ends of riffles. They probably also spawn in the major tributaries.

LM continued discussion of this species and reported that the eggs are broadcast when spawned and are demersal (similar to other whitefishes), falling into clean gravel substrate. The incubation period is most probably from mid-October to April-May, and the larval fish emerge as soon as there is water again. Specific food habits of larvae are not known. After 2 or 3 weeks as sack fry they probably begin to consume anything that is small enough to catch and swallow. The juveniles and adults eat insects, most likely a mix of both aquatic and terrestrial forms. Reported foods include fish eggs, immature stages of various insects especially Diptera and Trichoptera, adult Trichoptera, gastropods, Daphnia and other items.

23 Maximum length of adults is on the order of 45 cm (from Galbrith Lake, caught by TB). There may be differences in growth rates of the lake and stream forms, with the lake form growing faster and to larger size. Reports of fecundity in the literature indicate a mean of 5,000 to 6,000 eggs, with a range of 1,000 to 12,000. There is essentially no information on stock or population trends on the North Slope. It is not an important species for subsistence fisherman, perhaps because the size and body shape are such that they are not caught in the commonly used nets. Some fishing is done for them in the Inaru River.

In a general sense round whitefish are a fairly abundant fresh water species. It is not very well studied, perhaps mainly because though common, it is of little significance to subsistence, sport or commercial fisherman. It is an extremely important forage species for other fish including burbot and lake trout. Lake trout are reported to grow faster and larger in lakes that have round whitefish in them, compared to lakes in which they are absent. Round whitefish may compete with grayling for space. Like grayling, they are frequently trapped in intermittent pools and springs. They overwinter in fresh water in springs and deep river channels. In early summer they may move downstream to slightly brackish water, on the order of 5 ppt.

Another anomaly in the distribution of round whitefish on the North Slope, similar to their absence in drainages that flow to the Chukchi Sea, is their absence form Peters and Shraders lakes, which are high and deep. It was stressed that, to date, there have been no broad scale systematic sampling program for this or other species of fish in the rivers and lakes of the North Slope.

According to TB, round whitefish do not migrate in the sense that arctic cisco or char do (i.e. over long distances). They do undertake shorter distance movements between summer and winter habitats, and some individuals may disperse along the coast when salinity conditions permit. There is no strong "schooling" tendency, except when spawning. Any interspecific spatial distribution is not well known.

The controlling factor(s) for stream dwelling round whitefish is probably suitable overwintering habitat. There may also be some competition for spawning habitat considering that, in the Colville River for example, there are 4 different species of whitefishes all of which occur in the same general spawning areas. Is there some kind of competition or limitation? Though the answer is not known, TB pointed out that the whitefishes, as broadcast spawners, often spawn en-mass, and they do not have to maintain or defend a piece of ground like the salmon and char do.

Habitat concerns for round whitefish included those activities of humans which occur away from the coast. Seismic exploratory activity has reportedly been a problem in the past. Dredging could be a problem if done at the wrong time of year, or in important spawning areas. Stream crossings and culverts must be placed with due consideration for spawning areas and for routes of seasonal passage by fish.

24 In Canadian waters near Alaska, according to BB, the round whitefish are also comparatively wide-spread. There have been no adequately extensive or detailed surveys. They are present quite far upstream in the Mackenzie River (to Great Slave Lake) and perhaps into Alberta. They are not known to occur on the Tuktoyaktuk Peninsula, in either streams or lakes.

PROCEEDINGS OF OCTOBER 27, 1988

Broad Whitefish Discussion of the natural history of broad whitefish was begun by KC-K. Their theoretical life span based on studies in the Mackenzie River system, is up to 18 years (by scales) and up to 35 years based on otoliths. LM indicated that in the Colville River individuals as old as 31 years (by otoliths) have been caught. Age at sexual maturity is around 7 or 8 in the Mackenzie Delta and, according to LM, 9 or 10 in the Colville River. Fecundity data are from elsewhere and were given by BB. In the USSR, samples from four different stocks showed different values as follows: sample 1, a mean of 78,900 eggs per female (range = 36,000 to 124,000); sample 2 ranged from 32,900 to 163,400; sample 3, with a mean value only, of 76,600; and sample 4, which included fish of ages 8 to 15, with a mean of 29,100 (range = 9,200 to 84,000. There is a tendency toward greater fecundity with increasing age and size.

Broad whitefish spawn in October and the first half of November in the USSR. In the Mackenzie River they spawn at about the time of freeze-up, which is also in late October through the first week in November. On the North Slope spawning also corresponds with freeze-up, which is a bit earlier than on the Mackenzie. According to TB it is between mid-September and mid-October. The fertilized eggs are like those of the other whitefishes. Spawn is broadcast and the eggs settle into gravel of the bottom. In all areas where they occur, broad whitefish spawn at water temperatures near 0°C. In the upper part of the Kobuk River drainage [which is not on the North Slope] some spawning continues after freeze-up, according to FD. CB indicated that in the Ikpikpuk River spawning is mainly between September 25 and October 10. Freeze-up and water temperatures approaching 0°C are apparently the external critical cues that initiate spawning, according to KC-K.

The frequency of spawning by individual fish is somewhat uncertain. In Minto Flats [Interior Alaska] there is a high incidence of spawning in consecutive years. That may also be the case in the Mackenzie River as few mature non-gravid fish are captured. However, non-gravid adults may be elsewhere and therefore not yet sampled. Some fish, perhaps a large proportion, may spawn in alternate years.

25 coast starting in the first week of June, or later, depending on conditions. They are present at the mouths of natal streams that flow into the ocean. Thus, they enter the estuaries shortly after break-up. BB noted that studies on the Tuktoyaktuk Peninsula show that they are distributed along the coast until late July when they begin to move into the rivers and creeks. During the several weeks spent in coastal waters they must be feeding intensively on plankton. Movement into the streams occurs rather suddenly, though the cue for initiation of that movement is not certain. It could be water current or salinity changes associated with weather, something coming down stream, decreasing photoperiod or other seasonal environmental change.

With these comments in mind, the incubation period in all likelihood, according to KC-K is from Oct/Nov to April/May. The young probably spend some time in the gravel from the time they hatch to the time they emerge. The mechanical effects of break-up probably assist them to emerge. The average time of ice-out near Inuvik is around the last week of May. There are no data on these points from North Slope streams.

Food habits of age 0+ broad whitefish in coastal waters include mainly zooplankton. These are fresh water zooplankton in the mouths of the streams or in the fresh water plumes. They also feed during their upstream movements. Foods were found to consist largely of copepods (61%) and cladocerens (38%) of fresh water origin. These foods are also probably used by very young stages of other whitefishes. It must be remembered that in late spring there is an extensive zone of fresh water along the coast, which comes out of the Mackenzie River and other streams. Juvenile fish ages 1 to 7 or 8 utilize macrobenthos in the lakes which include gastropods (snails), pelecypods, amphipods, and Chironomid larvae. The fish are probably opportunistic predators, provided that there is suitable benthos in the lakes.

Most feeding, according to BB, is done in the lakes. Sexually mature adults moving along the coast and upstream to spawning areas mostly have empty stomachs. The diet of larger fish (sub-adults and adults) varies from lake to lake. There were differences in food habits of fish from the east end of the Tuktoyaktuk Peninsula to the west end. The differences reflect conditions in the different lakes. Shallow lakes freeze to the bottom during winter and have a less diverse fauna than the deeper lakes. The major foods in lakes of the Tuktoyaktuk Peninsula area are as indicated above and also includes dipterid insects, mainly Chironomids (midge larva). In some lakes Notostracans are fairly well represented in the diet. The larger whitefishes seem to go without food during their migrations.

According to LM, the information reported for Canadian waters is also applicable to the Sagavanirktok River region and the lakes near there.

Growth information for broad whitefish is, according to KC-K, available in the literature and there is quite a bit of it.

26 With respect to habitat partitioning among stocks and within stocks, there is no single type of habitat that is used by all life stages of this fish. They depend on a variety of different habitats that are spread over a wide geographical area. As an example, age 0+ fish are flushed out of the Mackenzie River and along the coast of the Tuktoyaktuk Peninsula, in the currents and fresh water plume. Then they move into the tundra lakes and ponds where they feed and grow for several years. Juvenile fish may spend up to four years in suitable tundra lakes. There is a temporal and a spatial separation of the different major cohorts. After the lake phase of their life cycle, broad whitefish make their first migration to active feeding and overwintering areas in coastal estuaries. The juveniles, ages 4 to 8 or 9, make annual migrations back and forth between over- wintering areas in deltas and other suitable habitat, to the more dispersed summer feeding areas along the coast and in the lakes. They feed for a month or two each year. When they reach sexual maturity, after the summer feeding bout they make their first major spawning migration to the Mackenzie Delta where they spawn and then overwinter in the deeper channels and in a few bays along the coast. As an example, over- wintering, post-spawning adults are abundant in Whitefish Bay, along with adolescent (4 to 9 year old) fish.

PROCEEDINGS OF OCTOBER 27, 1988

27 temperatures approaching 0°C are apparently the external critical cues that initiate spawning, according to KC-K.

Hatching, according to KC-K, is in the spring. There is no exact information about when it occurs, so the precise length of the incubation period is also not known. Hatching occurs when river ice is still present. Age 0+ fish begin to show up along the coast starting in the first week of June, or later, depending on conditions. They are present at the mouths of natal streams that flow into the ocean. Thus, they enter the estuaries shortly after break-up. BB noted that studies on the Tuktoyaktuk Peninsula show that they are distributed along the coast until late July when they begin to move into the rivers and creeks. During the several weeks spent in coastal waters they must be feeding intensively on plankton. Movement into the streams occurs rather suddenly, though the cue for initiation of that movement is not certain. It could be water current or salinity changes associated with weather, something coming down stream, decreasing photoperiod or other seasonal environmental change.

Most feeding, according to BB, is done in the lakes. Sexually mature adults moving along the coast and upstream to spawning areas mostly have empty stomachs. The diet of larger fish (sub-adults and adults) varies from lake to lake. There were differences in food habits of fish from the east end of the Tuktoyaktuk Peninsula to the west end. The differences reflect conditions in the different lakes. Shallow lakes freeze to the bottom during winter and have a less diverse fauna than the deeper lakes. The major foods in lakes of the Tuktoyaktuk Peninsula area are as indicated above and also includes 28 dipterid insects, mainly Chironomids (midge larva). In some lakes Notostracans are fairly well represented in the diet. The larger whitefishes seem to go without food during their migrations.

According to LM, the information reported for Canadian waters is also applicable to the Sagavanirktok River region and the lakes near there.

Growth information for broad whitefish is, according to KC-K, available in the literature and there is quite a bit of it.

With respect to habitat partitioning among stocks and within stocks, there is no single type of habitat that is used by all life stages of this fish. They depend on a variety of different habitats that are spread over a wide geographical area. As an example, age 0+ fish are flushed out of the Mackenzie River and along the coast of the Tuktoyaktuk Peninsula, in the currents and fresh water plume. Then they move into the tundra lakes and ponds where they feed and grow for several years. Juvenile fish may spend up to four years in suitable tundra lakes. There is a temporal and a spatial separation of the different major cohorts. After the lake phase of their life cycle, broad whitefish make their first migration to active feeding and overwintering areas in coastal estuaries. The juveniles, ages 4 to 8 or 9, make annual migrations back and forth between over-wintering areas in deltas and other suitable habitat, to the more dispersed summer feeding areas along the coast and in the lakes. They feed for a month or two each year. When they reach sexual maturity, after the summer feeding bout they make their first major spawning migration to the Mackenzie Delta where they spawn and then over-winter in the deeper channels and in a few bays along the coast. As an example, over-wintering, post- spawning adults are abundant in Whitefish Bay, along with adolescent (4 to 9 year old) fish.

Returning to broad whitefish, there was some discussion about the potential impact of beavers, as far as blocking the movement in small streams that provide entrance to and exit from feeding lakes. This is a problem in some areas, but not on the North Slope. It does occur in the Mackenzie drainage.

According to KC-K, in Canadian waters there have been no meaningful attempts to estimate size of various stocks of broad whitefish. The magnitude of migrating fish, in some sampling streams, has been determined. For Alaska, LM reported that in the Colville Delta region they were the second most abundant species (second to least cisco). Farther up the river they were 3rd in abundance after least cisco and humpback whitefish. This was in the main stem Colville between the Itkillik River and the delta. In Dease Inlet and Admiralty Bay, according to MP, they were the second most abundant species, though quite far behind least cisco and only slightly more abundant than humpback whitefish.

On the question of stock separation and/or discreteness, BB indicated that there is some preliminary work underway in the Mackenzie system. There is an indication of some different stock structuring that perhaps is somewhat like that in arctic cisco. There 29 may be discreet spawning stocks associated with different spawning tributaries, or with different spawning areas of the main stem Mackenzie River. Beyond that possibility, there is little else that can be said at this time.

JB asked if the situation in a huge drainage like the Mackenzie could be expected to be similar to that on the North Slope, where there are numerous smaller rivers that produce broad whitefish, and an extensive near shore zone of fresh water during some parts of the year, often protected by barrier islands, within which the broad whitefish feed and intermingle. Given the characteristics of their habitat, which promotes pioneering and "accidental" distributions of these fish, the population could be expected to be genetically quite plastic.

According to LM, every drainage has its own identifiable stock, though within a drainage there may be considerable intermixing. The Dease Inlet situation is therefore very intriguing because there are many opportunities for the existence of different stocks.

JB noted the management challenges associated with fishing on intermingled aggregations of several discreet spawning stocks. Basically, the smaller stocks can be over-fished in the course of catching acceptable proportions of the numerically larger stocks. BB made the same point. Conversely, as pointed out by LM, if broad whitefish comprise one single large stock, there will be rapid replacement of components that may inadvertently be over fished.

JB, returned to the question of which rivers the broad whitefish are known to spawn in. It is known that they spawn in the Sagavanirktok, Colville, Ikpikpuk Chipp and Meade rivers, for certain. This suggests that they may spawn in at least several other rivers on the North Slope. WL added that in his experience they spawn in all the major rivers in the Teshekpuk Lake area including the Aluktuk, Chipp and Ikpikpuk. TB, recounted his recollection that in the Canning River these fish were taken only in the delta. Surveys by others, farther up the Canning River, did not capture many.

With respect to spawner/recruit relationships there are no data and this aspect of population dynamics should be investigated. Similarly, nothing is known about rates of natural mortality, though total mortality has been calculated from the catch curves in monitored fisheries. There is no information, for any stock, about exploitation rates, though according to KC-K there may be some possibility of examining this based on 1980 data from the Mackenzie Delta. LM reported that the catch in the Colville is on the order of 3,000 to 5,000 individuals per year.

From a management perspective and considering only broad whitefish, it appears that fishing is not affecting population abundance (except perhaps in the Chipp River). They are an abundant species that is not intensively fished in many areas at present. None-the-less, it is important to try and get baseline information about population structure and harvest characteristics. One can not assume that fishing effort will remain constant into the future. A good example of how rapid change in fishing effort can occur, is with

30 arctic char. The development of access, as for instance from a new road, results in significant increases of fishing pressure, as was pointed out by RM.

KC-K continued his discussion and introduced the subjects of density dependent and density independent limiting factors. The former are difficult to conceptualize for broad whitefish, but may include such things as crowding in limited over-wintering areas. However, since broad whitefish can over-winter in a wide variety of places, this may not be a problem. In the Mackenzie area it was found that they overwinter in a bay as well as in near-by deep channel areas of the delta. There is quite a bit of space and suitable water conditions. In Alaskan waters, as explained by FD, this may be much more of a problem. In the Sagavanirktok River, for example, development projects such as river crossings in the delta or the causeways along the coast, may well limit winter access to important areas and thus adversely affect the stock. The density dependent aspects of crowding may include increased competition for space and especially for limited oxygen supplies. This is all speculation at present, as mentioned by TB, because the fish can withstand extreme crowding. However, winter stress and mortality were documented in the Sagavanirktok River, with the aid of video equipment placed under the ice (described by RM). The assumption was that the fish were crowded in marginal conditions and eventually depleted the available dissolved oxygen. According to other participants, this may be a common event.

There have been several reported instances, as mentioned by JB, in which dead fish were present at break-up. This was frequently mentioned by village informants during interviews. It was assumed that such die-offs were related to human activities such as seismic exploration in some instances. It could also be due the natural winter die-offs in other instance. WL recounted that in the Kugaru River, which flows into Harrison Bay, there was a winter program of seismic exploration and when spring came there were large numbers of dead fish around. He did not recall the exact dates of the exploration activity. JB pointed out that winter kills have both a density dependent and density independent component because crowding, for instance, can result from too many fish even under normal circumstances of space availability, or unusual conditions of lack of water or dissolved oxygen. LM pointed out that anyone working on the North Slope will find lots of dead fish at one time or another. As he euphemistically described it, they make a lot of mistakes. They go into the wrong areas to over-winter, they get stranded during high water, and things like that.

The presumed occurrence of occasional, perhaps localized disasters to these fish prompted JB to ask if there is any evidence for broad-scale strength or weakness of specific age classes. In response, BB said that the sampling effort is not sufficient to comment on this with respect to broad whitefish. It is not even appropriate to comment on the relative abundance of fish in different years. LM expressed the opinion that there is probably adequate production of young in all years, but each generation (or series of generations) may well be exposed to different environmental regimes, consistent with the great short and long-term variation known to occur in the Arctic.

31 Environmental variability can be considered as a significant density independent factor. Some probable examples include such things as low water conditions which prevent movement of fish out of shallow lakes in which they feed during the summer. All would die over the winter. According to KC-K, such environmental variables may be of greater significance in the smaller drainages of the North Slope area.

Temperature/salinity fluxes may be very important to several whitefish species on the North Slope. Broad whitefish, being less tolerant of higher salinity than the other whitefishes, may be disadvantaged during some years and favored during others, according to KC-K. It was JB's view that the North Slope system includes a seemingly great amount of redundancy which, in actuality, is required to insure that some components of the population will survive during periods when conditions are adverse. BB pointed out that access to lakes, through the numerous small streams is pretty much assured, if only because there are so many of them. In many instances streams on the Tuktoyaktuk Peninsula become blocked with debris deposited by storms (notably log jams) and there is now considerable discussion about how this may block the in-stream movements of broad whitefish, according to KC-K. Much of the driftwood is from the Mackenzie River.

In most northern Alaska rivers according to TB, spawning occurs in the lower parts of main-stem rivers. The Colville is an exception in which there is a broader distribution, farther up the main river. In all rivers broad whitefish spawn above the deltas. BB indicated that the humpback whitefish spawns in the same locations as the broad whitefish, but earlier in the autumn. In the Mackenzie River, according to KC-K, the broad whitefish uses the high water of spring run-off to be flushed out into the estuary, and to gain access to the small streams and lakes.

Lake resident fish may spawn in rivers that enter the lakes. Therefore, they are river spawners. Flowing water is probably a prerequisite. There are, as yet, no indications of any spawning in lakes.

The issue of seasonal movements of the different age cohorts was again reviewed by KC-K. After being flushed out of the Mackenzie River (and all natal streams elsewhere) the age 0+ fish move, in the coastal plume of fresh water, to the mouths of streams that are connected to lakes. They ascend the streams to the lakes and remain there until about age 4+. The lakes offer unique advantages due to rapid early warming and high biological productivity. There are autumn shifts of broad whitefish from the shallow to the deep lakes. Subadult fish, ages 4 to 8, may make annual migrations from the lakes and other summer feeding areas, to over-wintering places in bays or river delta channels of suitable salinity. Some of the larger fish may remain in lakes. After reaching sexual maturity the fish migrate from the over-wintering areas, including lake systems, and move quickly to pre-spawning aggregation sites in August/September. When the water temperature begins dropping, these fish move rapidly upstream to the spawning sites. After spawning, the spent fish move downstream to the outer fringes of the fresh water zone, where they over-winter. It is not known where the non-successive spawners go during the summers between spawning events. 32

There are some differences in the over-wintering areas. In some North Slope rivers, the Colville being one example, broad whitefish winter in fresh water of the main stem. However, in other rivers the winter flow of water drops to almost zero and there are few, if any, suitable areas in which to over-winter.

The summer habitat of adult broad whitefish is not adequately known. The general belief is that in the Mackenzie region these fish spend the summer in the delta, or in drainages near the delta. In Alaskan waters, according to LM, the sexually mature fish are in coastal waters during early summer, and move into the deltas of the spawning streams in July-early August, and then go up river to spawn. BB expressed the view that pre-spawners spend most of the summer congregating in delta areas of spawning streams. The extent to which these pre-spawners feed is not known, but the supposition is that it is not very much. LM reported catching gravid and spent fish together in coastal waters near the Sagavanirktok River. WL reported his observations that in the spring the first fish to leave the streams are pre-spawning females. After a few weeks the males go out. BB, KC-K and LM all reported that sexual segregation has been found for several species of whitefishes. As an example, at different times in the same place catches will be dominated by fish of a single sex. That, of course, is of little consequence, provided both sexes end up in the right place at the right time.

Suitable over-wintering habitat for sexually mature broad whitefish is wide spread and includes some fresh water dominated coastal bays, estuaries, deltas, deep tundra lakes, main stem rivers, etc. Thus, seasonal movements in different drainages are slightly different. [Since the Mackenzie River has a significant fresh water outflow all winter, broad whitefish occupy areas where that plume of fresh water is present. Water flow in North Slope rivers, by comparison, stops or almost stops. Thus, on the North Slope broad whitefish move upstream, above the salt water zones].

Duration of the summer feeding period, as described by KC-K, is from 10 to 100 days, with an average of something between 30 and 40 days. Fish of ages 0+ to 4+ do not undertake annual migrations from the lakes in which they feed and over-winter. However, fish of ages 4+ to 8+ (large subadults) that over-winter in the deeper lakes may undertake annual migrations from the lakes to the delta and estuary systems in which they feed during summer. Their return to a lakes for over-wintering is not necessarily to the one that was previously used. A portion of the 4 to 8 year-olds may not make this annual migration, but rather remain in the lakes. When broad whitefish reach sexual maturity, they may feed briefly in the lake, though they are still the first migrants out, usually in mid- July. They move rather quickly along the coast into the Mackenzie Delta. They are on site, in their pre-spawning aggregations, by August/September. During September and October they are relatively sedentary until the water temperature begins to decrease. Then, over a 1 to 2 week period, they all move upstream to the spawning sites.

Two spawning sites in the Mackenzie River have been identified, according to KC-K, based on radio-tagged fish: one near Fort Goodhope and the other near Point Separation. There may be other sites, as yet undiscovered. A pre-spawning aggregation 33 site in the Mackenzie Delta was located in Horseshoe Bend. A lot of those fish went upstream to Point Separation.

Within or about one week after spawning the spent fish move rapidly back downstream to over-wintering sites in the outer fringes of the Mackenzie Delta or a coastal embayment, within the fresh water zone. Movements of these fish during the spring following spawning are not known. They do not seem to spread out along the coast. Though firm evidence is lacking , it is presumed that they stay in the Mackenzie Delta, or in some of the 2nd order streams just upstream of the delta.

According to JB, the difference between the Mackenzie drainage and drainages on the North Slope are such that significant variations on that scheme can be expected. For instance, there may be no suitable winter habitat along the coast, and little in the lower delta regions of our smaller rivers.

LM indicated that for the North Slope there is, as yet, little information on the lake component of the broad whitefish populations. Studies have been focused on the lower Colville River the, delta and several near shore coastal areas. The pattern is that immature fish move out soon after break-up and are feeding heavily in the delta regions by mid-July. JH interjected his observations that fish are also known to move into 2 Colville Delta lakes at this time. The non-lake component that uses the delta moves into the coastal zone in July, to feed. The mature fish return first [as reported in the Canadian studies] and are upriver by late July. The immature fish return into the Colville River by mid- to late August. That pattern is also evident in the Sagavanirktok River.

BB and KC-K reported that in comparison to North Slope streams, juvenile broad whitefish were not common in the Mackenzie River. As an example, in 1980, when sampling was done during the entire summer in the East Channel and parts of the Main Channel, the catches, according to KC-K, showed that most of the fish were 7+ years and older. Very few were younger. LM indicated that in contrast, he found a complete age spectrum in the coastal and delta regions within his study area in Alaska.

BB described the difference in age structure of fish in the Mackenzie River samples (7+ years and older) with that of samples taken from a small creek on the Tuktoyaktuk Peninsula. The majority of upstream early summer migrants in the small lake-connected stream were younger than age 7. In the USSR where there are many more stocks, in a greater variety of different ecosystems, there is a lot of variation in the life history patterns of these fish. They are a very plastic species.

BB pointed out several aspects of the movement patterns of broad whitefish that must be considered in the development of any management plan. They include the temporal and spatial separation of various population cohorts, all of which are migratory; and the temporal difference in migrations of cohorts through the same migration routes [movements are going on all the time but the different groups are not moving together]. In order to comment on the potential impact of any proposed development project it is necessary to understand all of those different movement patterns. 34

With respect to the question of significant and or critical habitats, KC-K pointed out that the seemingly small, narrow, lake-connected streams are very important pathways to the lakes in which broad whitefish feed, overwinter and develop for several years. In some cases the very small, sometimes intermittent streams, may constitute critical habitats. LM noted that in winter the ability of broad whitefish to move and remain above the periodic intrusions of salt water must not be impaired. Thus, the construction of ice roads, under which the ice becomes very thick and may block passage of fish, requires careful attention and review. FD expressed the view that in the smaller rivers like the Sagavanirktok and Canning, the very limited extent of overwintering habitat makes that habitat critical to the locally supported stock of whitefish.

In view of the new information presented by the Canadian scientists at this workshop, several other attendees revised their assessments about the importance of small streams that connect bays and rivers to lakes. These small streams should be studied more intensively in the future. From the perspective of subsistence fisherman, other critical habitat includes the places where broad whitefish (and other fishes) are readily available to the fisherman.

Dolly Varden Charr For purposes of this report, and to avoid unnecessary confusion, all of the fishes in this group that occur on the North Slope, are herein referred to as char. The presentation about this group of species was begun by TB. There are several different ecomorphs of char and thus several different ecological strategies. There are 4 types of char on the North Slope including: 1) the anadromous or Dolly Varden form, 2) the lake resident form, 3) residual male fish which are offspring of anadromous parents but are not themselves anadromous, and 4) stream resident fish which are usually small and often isolated or blocked from free passage. The anadromous and stream forms are all considered to be Salvelinus malma. The lake resident fish are predominantly S. alpinus. Taxonomy of some stream resident fish is in question.

On the North Slope the general distribution of stream resident char extends from the Canadian border west to the Colville River drainage, and from the Beaufort Sea south to (and beyond) the Brooks Range. The anadromous form occurs from the Canadian border west to the Anaktuvuk River (a tributary of the Colville). On the Colville, therefore, the stream resident form extends farther west to include the Chandler, Killik and Itivaluk rivers. During summer the anadromous form is widely disperse and found in many streams along the Beaufort Sea coast, though they neither spawn nor overwinter in them. The Ikpikpuk River is an example of that. There are incidental reports of char in rivers that flow into the Chukchi Sea. The actual status of char in those drainages is not well known. [Residents of Point Lay have reported them as being abundant in at least the Utukok and the Kukpowruk rivers]. The lake resident char have perhaps the broadest distribution across the North Slope. The only areas where they do not occur are in coastal plain lakes north of the Colville River.

Their presence in lakes of different depths was found to be markedly different, as detailed by TB. Of all the char caught in his survey efforts, none were taken in lakes less than 10 feet deep, 29% were from lakes 10 to 30 feet deep and 71% were from lakes deeper than 30 feet. There is an obvious preference for deeper lakes. Based on elevation, 16% of the char were taken from lakes on the coastal plain, 16% were from lakes in the foothills, and 68% were from mountain lakes. On the basis of size of lakes, char were rather evenly distributed with a slightly higher proportion coming from medium sized lakes (25-249 acres). The smallest lake from which char were taken was approximately 18 acres. A total of 268 lakes were sampled, of which 173 were on the coastal plain, 47 in the foothills, and 48 in the mountains.

TB continued his discussion of char with a review of some of their biological parameters. Maximum reported age of anadromous char (based on otoliths) was 13 years in the Sagavanirktok River. Maximum age in the other forms was 19 for lake residents and 8 for river residents. Age at sexual maturity was found to be: anadromous form, 7 to 8 years; lake form, 9 and river form, 2 years. The age at smolting (anadromous form only) ranged from 2 to 5 years with a majority (95%) at 3 to 4 years, in the Sagavanirktok River. The number of eggs per sexually mature female (fecundity) is, as previously mentioned, correlated with age and size. For anadromous fish of the Sagavanirktok River it was found to average 4,129 eggs. In Chandler Lake (lake resident fish) it was 3,169. There are two reported values for river resident fish, 154 and 114 eggs (from 2 different studies). Anadromous char in the Sagavanirktok River spawned every 1 to 3 years, with alternate year spawning predominating. River resident char spawn in consecutive years and the frequency in lake resident fish is not known with certainty. Anadromous char (Sagavanirktok River) spawn in late September to November. Lake resident char (Chandler lake) begin spawning in early September. River resident char begin spawning in November. On the North Slope, the end of the spawning period in these two forms is not known with certainty.

The time of hatching in anadromous char is mid-April, and they emerge from the gravel in mid-June (Sagavanirktok River). They are sack-fry while in the gravel. It is not known when the lake and river forms of char hatch, though no doubt it is in spring.

Information that was presented about migration applies mainly to the relatively long distance movements of the anadromous form. Little is known about movements of the lake and river forms. In the anadromous form the smolt (2 to 5 yrs old) go to sea mainly in June. Out migration is apparently influenced more by breakup in the coastal zone than by breakup in the rivers. Therefore, fish may be held up in the rivers. Fish from the Sagavanirktok River disperse east and west along the coast. Tag recoveries were from as far west as Point Barrow and as far east as Barter Island. It is presumed that fish from the other North Slope streams do the same, and would therefore be intermingled during this phase. The older age char move farthest from their natal streams. There were large concentrations of young fish (first time migrants), close to their streams of origin.

36 RM noted that studies of the genetics of char showed that intermingling of different spawning stocks is indeed occurring in the Endicott area as char from some Canadian rivers (i.e. Babbage and Firth) have been taken there. Fish of Canadian origin apparently overwintered in the Sagavanirktok River because they were present there in early June. LM indicated that char tagged along the barrier islands in Simpson Lagoon were recovered at many of the rivers along the coast. Obviously there is a whole mix of stocks at sea (in mid-July). BB reported that a fish tagged at Barter Island was recaptured at Shingle Point, which is in Canadian waters. TB expressed the view that in general the char disperse over a much broader area along the coast than do the anadromous species of whitefishes. As a related point, the two species taken during surveys along the Beaufort Sea barrier Islands (i.e. farthest from the mainland shore) were arctic char and arctic cisco. No least cisco, humpback or broad whitefish were taken [again pointing to the larger foraging area of the char and arctic cisco]. FD pointed out that he found indications of a lot of use of alternate wintering areas in juvenile and non-spawning adult char in the Kotzebue Sound region. It is probably the same along the North Slope.

With respect to intermingling and the effects of fishing, TB pointed out that some of the known spawning stocks of char are comprised of only a few hundred individuals. The Lupine River (a tributary of the Sagavanirktok River) supports a very small spawning population, as found by the use of a weir. Fishing of this and other very small populations of intermingled fish, in the ocean, could seriously deplete the numerically weak populations. This concern also applies to removals for purposes of scientific research. DW stated his preference for the use of Floy Tags, as marks for the study of distributions [the brief explanation of why, was not fully recorded on the tape]. LM recapitulated the out migration of char to be as follows: large fish move out first, followed by the small ones; dispersal along the coast, from the delta, is very rapid and none remain in the delta. The fish seem to feed along the near-shore ice margin. In late spring the larger fish go out under the land fast ice and later, in mid June, the smolts are washed out through the lead channels, both over and under the persistent land fast ice. During summer, according to LM, char are quite tolerant of cold temperatures, but not of high salinities.

LM pointed out that there is some suggestion that most char are washed out over the ice and subsequently "re-invade" the near shore zone from the more seaward areas. [An equally plausible situation is the funneling of out-migrants through the deeper channels to more offshore areas, and their spread and return toward shore as the fast ice disintegrates and lifts off the bottom].

Return migration of char to the rivers, according to TB, begins in early August. Earliest arrivals are those that are nearly ready to spawn. Then, in order, come the adult non-spawners, the subadult fish and the juveniles. The youngest age classes return as late as the time of ocean freeze-up. LM added that timing of the fall return of fish is very precise, being within the same few days each year. TB continued by mentioning that movement of the gravid adults, from ocean to the spawning grounds, is quite direct.

Tracking of radio-tagged fish in the Anaktuvuk River showed that one fish in which the transmitter continued to function remained in the same area it had over- 37 wintered, until well after ice-out. FD added that in the Kotzebue Sound area post- spawning char also remain in the rivers for some time after break-up. They seem to go out after the spring high water begins to recede.

RP explained that in the Anaktuvuk Pass area, when the high water of break-up begins to subside and the water again becomes clear, there is an upstream movement of char. It is not known if this is typical of all char, or an attribute of the riverine form. Under these conditions there is also a movement from Chandalar Lake to the Chandalar River. RP went on to describe two different kinds of char in the Anaktuvuk area. One is whiteish and the other reddish in color. The red ones, which are known by the Eskimo name Qanichoyuk, stay in the lakes year round. There are thousands in Chandalar Lake and they go back and forth to the Chandalar River. TB pointed out that char from several interconnected lakes may congregate to spawn in the Chandalar system.

There are no estimates of the abundance of anadromous char on the North Slope. There are, however, population estimates of specific stocks. DW provided information for some systems, based on tag recoveries. In the Chandalar Lake system there are an estimated 2,500 to 5,300 adults of the lake form. TB noted that there are some actual counts (these are not population estimates, but rather minimum counts) for different rivers. Two different index areas were surveyed by air: a 10 mile stretch of the Ivashak River in the Sagavanirktok drainage, and a 3 mile stretch in the Anaktuvuk River, near Rooftop Ridge (Tulagak Airstrip). In the first index area the char were large subadults and non-spawners. Counts in the Ivashak River were made during the period 1971 to 1985, around the date of September 20. There was a concerted effort made to do the census on that date, and they varied by only 3 or 4 days (though in several years poor weather precluded any surveys). The range of those counts was 8,000 to 36,000 fish. Counts in the Anaktuvuk River were made from 1979 to 1985 and the range was 5,000 to 15,000 fish. It is not known how the counts relate to the total number of char present in each river.

LM asked what the minimum size of a fish that could be detected from the air was? TB's response was that it was about 300 mm. There was some discussion about the potential of including other fishes, like grayling or round whitefishes, in the counts. This was discounted on the basis of verification from the ground.

The number of fish in the Ivashak index area was 3 times greater than in the Anaktuvuk, but the area was also three times larger. The numbers of char in the index areas were estimated in order to keep track of trends, not to determine total population size. With respect to trends, in the period 1970-1971, when studies on the Sagavanirktok river were initiated by Harvey Yoshihara, 3 consecutive year classes were found to be missing. They corresponded to the parent years of 1967 through 1969. These failures occurred prior to development of the Prudhoe Bay oil field, and represent natural events (variation). The failures were noted in 4 or 5 separate spawning stocks within that drainage. In the past 3 years, according to RP, there has been a continuing decline of char in the Anaktuvuk River, and catches in the Colville Delta, according to JH, have been declining markedly. In September 1988 only 2 char were taken. Normally the catch is 38 more than 100. TB added that he was informed by the O.J. Smith family of Umiat, that they could not find char in the Anaktuvuk River this summer/autumn [1988]. These failures should definitely be investigated by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.

As a general item, TB pointed out his view that char may be influenced by a variety of limiting factors that naturally contribute to great fluctuations in numbers.

NS, a resident of Kaktovik, voiced a concern about the impact of sport fishing for char in rivers adjacent to the haul road (Dalton Highway). He noted that subsistence fishing (with nets) was closed, while sport fishing was allowed along the haul road. TB pointed out that sport fishing effort and catch were low along the haul road. At West Dock in the Prudhoe Bay, during a 3 week period in summer 1988, a sample of 100 anglers caught 40 fish. Few were reported to have been taken prior to or after the creel census effort (as reported by JW). The total estimated sport catch in the Prudhoe Bay area, in summer 1988 was about 100 char; 200 as the absolute maximum. LM was aware of a single group of people taking well over 500 char in a short period of time in years past. Some groups of sport fisherman flew to the fishing sites on the rivers, by helicopter. This year [1988], similar practices produced very low catches of char.

TB continued his outline of the natural history of char, by addressing the issues of spawning and over-wintering, as indicated by studies conducted in the Sagavanirktok drainage. Again, the data are from work done by Harvey Yoshihara, formerly with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. There are no west bank tributaries to the Sagavanirktok in which anadromous char spawn. This is due to lack of spawning habitat. Conversely, there are several east bank tributaries in which they do spawn. The distribution of spawning anadromous char is restricted to springs and related ground water sources [in juxtaposition to gravel beds in which the fish make redds]. Most springs on the North Slope are along a common latitudinal belt in the foothill region, about midway to the coastal plain.

The char come in, via Prudhoe Bay, in the late summer/fall, spawners first. They mostly spawn in alternate years. On the four spawning areas studied including sites on the, Echooka River (a tributary of the Ivashak), Lupine and Ribdon rivers, and Accomplishment Creek. Up to half of the spawning population in each of these tributaries was tagged (using Floy tags). It was found that the fidelity of adults to spawning sites was almost 100%. All char from these spawning stocks shared a common over-wintering area on the Ivashak River, upstream of the Ecooka River. That over-wintering area was one of the index areas previously mentioned. The pattern was very interesting. In the year of spawning, in the Lupine River for example, the fish over-wintered near the spawning grounds. In the following summer they migrated out to sea. After the summer feeding period they went (as adult non-spawners) to the over-wintering area in the Ivashak River. The same pattern was true for fish of the other tributaries in which spawning occurred. All of the spawning stocks were represented in the "communal" over-wintering area. In the following year they showed up at their respective spawning streams. It is assumed that this or a similar pattern occurs in other drainage systems were anadromous char spawn.

39 Time at sea varies. The large char go out in early June and they return (first) in early August. Again, the spawning fish are followed by the adult non-spawners and, successively, by the younger cohorts. The last ones to leave the ocean are the youngest migratory year classes (3+ to 5+, depending on age at smolting).

Artesian ground water of importance to North Slope char is rather constant in temperature, at between 34o and 36o F. There is some slight variation. All of the char spawn at, or within the influence of the spring areas, and remain there over winter. Pre- smolt char were widely distributed throughout the rivers. During the winter they occur in the same areas where the adults are present.

Characteristics of the areas around a spring were well described by TB. In winter, the upstream of the spring is frozen, usually to the bottom. There is open water at the spring and for a varying distance below it, depending on volume of outflow from the spring. Then the water flows beneath the ice [there is an ice covered channel] for a variable distance that is also dependent on volume of flow and the rate of heat loss. At some point the water freezes and the stream is frozen all the way to the bed. At this point the great aufice sheets (river glaciers) begin. To put these components in perspective, the open water area of the system may be (for instance) 1/4 mile long and the channel of water flowing under the ice, another 1/4 mile long. The char seemed to mainly occur in that part where the ice overlaid the running water, not in the exposed, open part of the stream. RP, however, reported that char are also present in the open part. JB mentioned that there are cyclic changes in the flow of these springs over the winter. TB stressed the vulnerability of char and suggested that these overwintering areas, which are so restricted in extent, are critical habitat for this species. A large segment of the entire spawning segment of a population is within an area no larger than a large room. They are highly susceptible to harvest or to minor perturbations by development.

On the issue of fidelity to spawning sites, JB indicated that more work should be done, and a different sampling protocol applied. Pioneering is most likely done by juveniles and not by adults. Therefore, smolt from a natal stream, as well as smaller juvenile fish, should be marked to determine how they may disperse. The fidelity of adults may, to some extent, be to the stream in which they first spawned, and not necessarily to the stream in which they were hatched. There has to be some mechanism for the repopulation of suitable spawning streams, over time.

During the time when Harvey Yoshihara was working in the Sagavanirktok River, Peter Craig was also doing a study on the Canning River. Both investigators found virtually no evidence of stream interchange by adult char from these two adjacent drainages, according to TB.

TN pointed out the importance of the larger over-wintering areas where many age cohorts, including the non-spawning adults, are present. These areas are certainly critical habitats. They, like the spawning areas, are places where spring water is the main influencing factor. All proposed development activities in the vicinity of spring areas on the North Slope should be critically reviewed. The spring areas are easily found by, for 40 instance, noting the location of aufice fields that persist into July, based on photos obtained from satellites. [Such an effort should be undertaken to determine whether there are suitable spawning sites, and therefore spawning char, in the western part of the North Slope].

In response to a question from RP, results of a radio tagging project in the Anaktuvuk River were discussed. Tags were applied to fish in the large over-wintering aggregation near Rooftop Ridge [the index area on this river]. Winter movement of tagged fish was not significant; they remained in the spring area as part of the aggregation they were with when tagged. There were different aggregations along the course of the river, associated with different spring systems, separated by ice which reached the river bed.

The finding that each spawning group of char is a genetically distinct population is also supported by phenotypic differences. They look somewhat different from each other. As an example, the Anaktuvuk River fish are substantially larger than those from the Sagavanirktok River. Coloration is strikingly different; bright red in the Anaktuvuk and olive-green in the Sagavanirktok. FD and RM commented on other lines of evidence that support the concept of discreet spawning populations and high fidelity to streams of origin.

According to TB our knowledge about char in NPR-A is very incomplete. It is known that migratory char of the anadromous form are present in the coastal zones of both the Beaufort and Chukchi seas. Lake resident char are present on the western North Slope but there is virtually no information about the presence riverine char in the Utukok, Kokolik or Kukpowruk river drainages. They may be present in those rivers.

FD indicated that on the North Slope the fresh water distribution of char is discontinuous, with an absence of these fish in rivers west of the Anaktuvuk, and north of those that flow into the Kotzebue Sound region. However, during summer, feeding migrants occur along the entire coast. The origins of these feeding migrants are poorly known.

FD reported that along the Beaufort Sea coast, tagged char of the Sagavanirktok River stock have been recovered as far east and west as Barter Island and Point Barrow. The recaptures that have been made may not represent the maximum extent of movements. Fish of the Kotzebue Sound stocks [from rivers that flow into Kotzebue Sound] have been taken as far north as Point Hope. It is noteworthy that char taken there are often coming from the north, suggesting that the summer distribution extends farther north.

More field studies on char in the region between Point Hope and Point Barrow are definitely needed.

Discussion returned to other aspects of the natural history of char. TB described spawning as involving the pairing of fish [as compared to mass spawning of whitefishes] and defense of nesting territory in which redds are prepared. Eggs are deposited the

41 gravel of prepared redds and then covered. Little is known about the incubation period expect for the anadromous form [previously described].

Food habits are highly variable depending on habitat, as noted by TB. In fresh water the anadromous char only feed as pre-smolts. Once they begin seasonal movements to the sea all feeding is in near shore habitats during summer. The 1 to 3 year-olds [pre-smolts] generally feed on fresh water macro-benthos; larvae of dipterin insects, Chironomids, etc. Food in the marine system is highly variable depending on where the samples have been taken. The larger char are opportunistic feeders that take other fish, crustaceans, mollusks, gastropods and other items.

RM mentioned that the ice-edge zone is very attractive to char in early summer. Subsequent comment [source not identified] attributed this to the availability of abundant food, mainly amphipods. LM pointed out that the anadromous char can tolerate salinities of up to 20 ppt, with little difficulty. At salinities greater than that the char seek lower salinity waters.

BB discussed food habits of char as known from the Phillips Bay area of the Yukon coast in northwestern Canada. In a sample of 101 stomachs, 32 contained some food remains. Of those 32 stomachs, detailed examinations were done on the contents of 26. Fish and amphipods were the dominant food items, comprising 47% and 29% respectively of the wet-weight biomass of food remains. The fish eaten included rainbow smelt, four-horned sculpin, arctic cod, least cisco, 9-spined stickleback and arctic lamprey.

In Alaskan waters, LM indicated that there are several reports that include lists of prey items utilized by char in the Sagavanirktok Delta, based on studies done in 1984- 1987.

TB indicated that of all the coastal plain lakes that have been surveyed, char have been found in only 1, located near the Chipp River. That is the only land locked population found that occurs virtually at sea level. Lake trout (a relatively closely related species) are common in the area. The sampling effort on the North Slope has been sufficient enough to state that spawning stocks of the lake form of char do not occur in Beaufort Sea drainages west of the Colville River. They are not a significant fish, from the perspective of their biomass, in the inland areas of NPR-A and are greatly overshadowed by the abundant whitefishes.

Parameters of growth, especially for the Sagavanirktok River char, are readily available in the literature. It must be remembered, according to TB, that growth is highly variable among the different forms of char and within the different lakes and drainages. FD mentioned that annual growth can be viewed as very rapid, considering that it occurs within a 2 month feeding period each year.

There are many interesting components of the issue of habitat partitioning with respect to char. They do not compete with other fresh water spawners because of their very specialized use of spring systems in tributary waters. Also, as mentioned by TB, char 42 represent a considerable proportion of the fish biomass in many stream systems, yet they are mostly not competing, except as small pre-smolts, with other fishes for food in the streams. Marine feeding is an adaptation that allows the support of a larger biomass of fishes in the river systems.

TB noted that it is not clear how the different forms of char may partition available habitat. For instance it is not known if the stream resident char occur in the same areas as pre-smolts of the anadromous form, or whether there is some sort of barrier that separates them. There are many streams with char that are apparently isolated by barriers. For instance, the char above Atigun Falls are probably isolated from those below the falls. [Atigun Falls are on a river of the same name, which flows into the Sagavanirktok River].

With respect to population status, there has been no comprehensive examination of harvests by all of the different user groups. Such an assessment, according to TB, should be made periodically. Char are a desirable and therefore targeted group of fishes, utilized by both subsistence and sport fishers. The estimate of catch in 1985, in the Sagavanirktok River area, was on the order of 400-500 fish, according to LM.

Based on all of the bits and pieces of information the stocks are apparently declining, especially in the Anaktuvuk River drainage. However, according to TB, nothing is known about natural variability in char. Char are a group in which extreme variability in the different stocks can be expected to occur. Relative to other North Slope species, char are common and frequently encountered. As a point of speculation, the Sagavanirktok River system may be the major producer of char on the North Slope, though other rivers like the Anaktuvuk and Canning support relatively large populations. The Kongakut is also an important char river about which almost nothing is known. All of the major river systems in the eastern part of the North Slope produce char. Farther east, in the Yukon Territory, the Firth River is important, according to BB.

In summary, the major centers of char production on the North Slope include the Kongakut, Canning, Sagavanirktok and Anaktuvuk Rivers. Ultimate abundance and distribution are limited by the availability of specialized spawning habitat. Compared to whitefishes, char are high on the trophic web. Char are vulnerable to over-exploitation, especially when concentrated in the rivers.

JB queried the workshop participants about problems associated with obtaining reasonable estimates of the size of different stocks of anadromous char. That discussion, and comments by FD indicate that given the conditions that exit in major char rivers of the North Slope, it is possible to get reliable estimates based on aerial survey techniques. However, since the fish are highly mobile within a given drainage system such efforts must be undertaken at the most opportune times, and estimates based only on a single survey are probably not valid. TB discussed those issues based on his experience with trying to estimate the number of spawning char on the Echooka River.

DW asked if the presence (and preference) of char along the ice edge in summer has been reported in the literature. The question was not answered, though FD recounted 43 his observations and the available anecdotal information. It indicates that char feed on the concentrations of prey, including arctic cod, at the ice edge. This whole question should be investigated. RM thought it had been reported in one of the early reports by Envirosphere Co.

FD revisited the question of char distribution, focusing on the pre-smolts, ages 1-4 years. These are not only present near the spawning areas, but throughout most of the suitable drainages. No work has been done in the main stems of the large rivers, so that is an unknown. They occur wherever there is "cover" such as rocks, cut banks and any place else they can take advantage of for escape cover. The winter distribution of these small fish needs to be investigated. There is probably an extensive autumn movement that occurs prior to the greatly reduced water flows of early winter to break-up. It is presumed that these pre-smolts winter around spring areas, though TB found them to be less numerous than expected, in relation to the presumed strength of these age cohorts. LM pointed out that unlike the older fish, pre-smolts may be down in the rocks and gravel. RM indicated that they are found in the gravel; sometimes quite far down.

DW described finding a small pool (approximately 8 meters at the widest dimension) connected to a spring system in the upper Hulahula River, in April. It was densely packed with juvenile char in the 120-150 mm size range. On a subsequent visit, in July, there was no sign of those juvenile fish and only 1 or 2 were caught in the sampling effort. It may have been an overwintering area that is vacated after break-up.

As a concluding remark, TB noted that the spring systems of the central and eastern North Slope are vital to the anadromous form of char and, likewise, the deep lakes are important to the lake form.

Least Cisco The lead speaker in discussions about least cisco was LM. He noted that the theory of "R" versus "K" selected species has already been mentioned several times in these deliberations. Most of the fishes about which we have been talking are K selected. One species that shows a tendency toward R selection is the least cisco, and they are quite abundant wherever they occur. In the NPR-A area they are present in streams, lakes and coastal lagoons. Their general distribution is in the western Beaufort Sea region (Colville River and west). There is a big gap in the distribution of least cisco in the lakes and streams between the Colville River and about Herschel Island, though feeding fish are present in near shore coastal waters during summer. Some Colville River fish move eastward as far as Camden Bay and possibly to Barter Island. They are not numerous east of the Sagavanirktok River. There is also a westward movement of some least cisco from the Mackenzie River. Most least cisco in the Alaska region are in NPR-A, where they are very abundant.

TB verified that none were found during work done by ADF&G, in streams east of the Colville River, though they were in all of the coastal streams north of the Colville.

44 There is only sketchy information about their distribution in the Chukchi Sea drainages. They are known from the Utukok, Kokolik and Kukpowruk rivers. According to JA, they are the most abundant fish in the Kuk River system, near Wainwright.

When and where least cisco are found there seem to be several (at least 3) different types. LM explained that these include an anadromous form that feeds in the marine system during summer; a lake form, which is deeper bodied, larger and darker colored; and a pygmy form of resident fish that matures at a young age (age 3). The small fish occur in lakes. TB found both normal size and pygmy fish, sympatrically, in the same lakes. Teshekpuk Lake is a prime example. It supports a large population of the early maturing dwarf fish that are short lived. It also supports a population of the large lake form fish.

In his survey of lakes, TB found that least cisco were the most commonly encountered fish on the North Slope, occurring in one-third of the lakes surveyed.

Theoretical life-span of anadromous least cisco, according to LM, was found to be up to 20 years (based on otoliths). Specific information about the lake forms is not available. BB indicated that in the Mackenzie River region the maximum age of anadromous fish, based on scales, was 12 years; while the maximum age based on otoliths was 16 years.

Age at sexual maturity for anadromous fish in the Colville River is typically at 7 to 8 years, according to LM. For the dwarf form it is around 3 years. BB added that the age at sexual maturity seems to be quite variable. In the Mackenzie area the minimum age of sexual maturity was at about age 4, though the average is more on the order of 6 to 8 yrs [quite like the Colville River]. Maximum age at sexual maturity was 9 years.

According to LM, spawning occurs at the same time as in other whitefish species of the region; mid-September to probably mid-October. They have been observed spawning under the ice near Nuiqsut (Colville River) during the first week of October and in other places in mid-September. They probably do not spawn in consecutive years, but rather every other year or even less frequently. [These and most other comments refer to the anadromous form, about which there is the most information].

JB asked if there was any information about the relative abundance of the different forms of least cisco. TB and LM, discussing this point between themselves, were in agreement that the dwarf form is the least abundant and the least wide spread [and little is known about their biology]. The lake resident form is very abundant in localized areas and there is some movement of this form into the river systems, especially to spawn. Some lake resident fish spawn in the Nechelik Channel of the Colville River, according to LM. As a note, there is a gradation in the characteristics used to distinguish anadromous and lake forms and sometimes the fish can not be classified with certainty. Apparently, there are ‘intergrades’. TB commented on the question of relative abundance of the different forms from a geographic perspective. In that region of NPR-A that is north of the Colville River, the lake form is the most abundant and is on a par with broad whitefish. In 45 Teshekpuk Lake, least cisco constituted 87% of all fish caught in gill nets. They are abundant in most coastal plain lakes.

Spawning cues, according to LM, probably include factors similar to those influencing other whitefishes; mainly water temperature in autumn. The type of eggs, incubation period, and time of hatching are similar to broad whitefish. In the Colville River spawning is in fresh water, immediately above the delta, but not beyond about Ocean Point. It is presently thought that most main stem spawning by various whitefishes and the least cisco is in that relatively short stretch of the Colville River between the Itkillik River and Ocean Point. TB mentioned that upstream of Ocean Point there is a gap in spawning distribution until the Killik River (a tributary of the Colville) and the northern foothill region.

Within the Colville River relative abundance of least cisco is indicated by catches made in 1985. In the outer delta, according to LM, they were 50% of all fish caught. Near the Itkillik River mouth they constituted 27% of all fish caught; indicating a decrease in relative abundance farther upstream. That sampling was done in summer when a high proportion of least cisco had dispursed out into the marine system.

LM continued the discussion, addressing the issue of food habits. He had no information on the foods of larval least cisco. Juveniles that move into the coastal brackish water zone begin to feed on Copepods and then progressively feed on the smaller mysids. As the fish get larger they feed on larger amphipods and mysids, on which they continue to feed as adults.

There is a substantial body of information in the literature about weight and length at age. Maximum size is reached at about the age of sexual maturity (7 or 8 years). Typical maximum length is on the order of 300 to 350 mm. A 400 mm least cisco is exceptional. They cease growing at about the age of maturity [unlike some fishes that continue to grow throughout life]. Among all stocks and individuals, those that feed in the most optimum areas grow to the largest size.

Habitat partitioning in anadromous least cisco seems to be related to size. The largest fish feed in the coastal zone, farthest from the streams of their origin. The smallest ones are in the delta proper. Apparently there is no such size segregation in winter.

In the marine system, according to LM, least cisco show a moderate tolerance for salt water. They utilize waters of up to about 15 ppt.

Information about fecundity is from fish taken in Dease Inlet. Fecundity increases in relation to size of the fish. The range in number of eggs from 9 fish was 12,200 to 58,000, which is greater then in similar size arctic cisco. This high fecundity also suggests more of an R selected species. The least cisco is an important prey item for other predatory fishes. There are some data in the literature about fecundity of Colville River least cisco. BB presented data from 12 different populations in Soviet waters. The range for the 12 populations combined was 3,700 to 51,500 eggs, and the average for those

46 different population ranged from 5,400 to 32,500. [The different average values for populations indicate great differences from one to another].

According to LM, size of the population of least cisco in the Colville River is apparently stable. There have been no indications of drastic fluctuations, based on 20 years of known catch rates in the commercial fishery conducted by the Helmericks family. If anything, the rates are remarkably similar. The estimate of catchable size least cisco in the Colville River is about 400,000 fish. There are no estimates for other North Slope stocks. These are the most abundant subsistence species in NPR-A. Few fish older than about 16 years are caught. There have been no indications of dominant year classes. Age structured estimates of mortality rates also indicate population stability and a constant mortality rate. The instantaneous mortality rate for the Colville River population is estimated at about 0.13.

JB raised the question of whether the population parameters, as determined on the basis of research in a small part of the lower Colville River, can be applied to North Slope populations as a whole. The answer was - probably not. The questions of stock discreteness and stock identity are being actively studied. Electrophoretic procedures indicate the presence of several identifiable groups, but there is not enough information, as yet, to determine if these groups are separate and, to some degree genetically distinct. There may be multiple stocks within a single population, or within a single river system.

There is little information about any spawner/ recruit relationships.

The question of why least cisco are so abundant in relation to other species is an interesting one. According to LM it may be due to their ability to utilize some of the brackish water areas for over-wintering. Availability of over-wintering habitat is a limiting factor for many of the other species. There are extensive areas of brackish water that can support larger numbers of least cisco during winter. Least cisco (anadromous form) winter in the deltas, in waters that range from 0 ppt to 20 ppt. This compares with summer preferences for water that is less saline than 15 ppt. There may be some displacement (interspecific competition) between arctic and least cisco. When the former are present in large numbers, they may force the latter into more marginal habitat. This year (1988), for example, with the low numbers of arctic cisco, the least cisco have become more dominant in areas normally occupied by arctic cisco, according to JH. Absence of the arctic cisco in waters of intermediate salinity (10 to 18 ppt) allows the least cisco to occupy that vacated habitat.

It appears that as the arctic cisco have declined, there has been an interesting increase in the number of Bering Cisco. [This may be directly related to environmental conditions. Wind and current regimes that are unfavorable for the westward migration of age 0+ arctic cisco to the Colville Delta may favor the eastward movement of Bering cisco from the Chukchi Sea].

An additional insight into habitat partitioning was noted in Dease Inlet during the 1988 field effort of the North Slope Borough. As described by LM, young least cisco were 47 abundant in the inner bay. Farther seaward, toward the barrier islands, older age (larger) fish were more common, with adults being the only fish taken at the barrier islands. This is the same pattern as farther east in the Beaufort Sea.

Spawning habitat is similar to that used by the other whitefishes; clean sand and gravel. When riffles are present spawning occurs below (downstream) of them. Least cisco are broadcast spawners. There is little known about the larval stage of life. Juveniles utilize primarily the delta regions and stay within the river influence on a year round basis. They wander farther as they increase in size.

Winter habitat is in delta regions with sufficient channelization to allow fish to remain in low to medium salinity waters.

Feeding areas of anadromous least cisco are primarily estuarine and they feed mainly on planktonic organisms. BB indicated that their food consists of a higher percentage of Entomastrica than is the case with arctic cisco. In general, in the estuarine areas, food items are similar to those utilized by arctic cisco. As an example, along the Yukon Coast the diet consisted largely of amphipods, isopods and mysids. Copepods accounted for 24% of the total food biomass vs. 23% for amphipods, 13% for isopods and 9% for mysids.

LM said that at times he has found intensive feeding on copepods by small arctic cisco and least cisco. BB gave the example of least cisco feeding on copepods and cladocera. In his study area in Canada these fish move along the coast just as in Alaskan waters. They feed in coastal waters during summer, and in autumn return to the Mackenzie system. However there is some percentage that show movements similar to broad whitefish; that is they use peninsula lakes in which to feed. In the lakes there is noticeable partitioning between the broad whitefish, which feed heavily on benthic organisms, and the least cisco which feed almost exclusively on plankton. For downstream migrants (those least cisco coming out of lakes) cladocerens were 97.4% of the food present in stomachs, on a numerical basis, and 64.2% on a volumetric basis. Of 37 downstream migrants that were examined, 16 contained more than 10,000 cladocerens, and 1 fish had an estimated 66,600.

According to LM there is probably considerable overlap with respect to spatial distribution. All three species (broad whitefish, arctic cisco and least cisco) are taken in the same net sets in the Colville Delta. JB suggested that when these 3 species are in the same highly productive marine feeding areas, the shear biomass of available food usually eliminates competition. In other words, since food is not a limiting factor in those areas, there is no inter-specific competition for it.

LM reiterated that information obtained during his studies is all from deltas and coastal areas in Alaska [i.e. data are from the anadromous form of least cisco] and he has no information from fresh water habitats. TB said that in the fresh water coastal plain lakes, copepods were found to be the major dietary component, though they also fed on the adult stages of various winged insects. BB reported that outside of his study area 48 other investigators found considerable variation in food habits of least cisco among different lakes. In lakes south and west of the Tuktoyaktuk Peninsula it was found that the predominant foods were amphipods, mollusks and other commonly available benthic organisms. These were similar to foods used in BB's study area. The point is that diet is quite variable depending on the lake and the time of year.

LM reported that in summer 1988, in Dease Inlet, they found large least cisco feeding at the inlets between the barrier islands, with a few on the seaward shores. Least cisco, therefore, move well beyond the river deltas, depending on hydrographic conditions, and feed on prey as it is swept out of the lagoons. There are some very active feeding stations along the barrier islands.

With respect to critical habitats for least cisco, there is little to add beyond what has been said for the other whitefishes. According to LM, certainly the spawning habitat of least cisco is not as confined or restricted as it is for char, as an example. To the contrary, the least cisco may well be able to use a variety of habitats that other whitefish species of the North Slope can not.

A brief discussion about least cisco spawning in lakes pointed out that they probably do spawn in them, but nothing is known about it. Many lake type fish end up in the rivers to spawn. BB commented that his colleagues suggest different life functions in different, interconnected lakes. The least cisco may spawn in one lake, feed in another, and perhaps over-winter somewhere else. The fish move among the lakes within such a system.

TB pointed out that on the North Slope there are extremely isolated stocks of least cisco, such as that in Tulugak Lake near Anaktuvuk Pass. The next location where least cisco are found is all the way downstream on the Anaktuvuk River, near the Colville. That is a separation of 90 miles between habitats occupied by least cisco. The next drainage to the west, the Chandalar, has no least cisco in the upper part while drainages even farther west, do have these fish.

LM, in review comments about our discussion of least cisco, pointed out that there are two "types" of lake form fish: 1) those in lakes that are connected to streams and 2) those in isolated, non-connected lakes. In the connected lakes they move back and forth to the streams, much as the broad whitefish do.

According to comments of his co-workers, read by BB, the anadromous and lake forms have been found to be genetically distinct.

Northern Pike JB concluded the discussion of least cisco and, in the time remaining in this part of the workshop, wanted to explore the factors that may be controlling distribution of pike on the North Slope. TB discussed his understanding of factors controlling their distribution.

49 In his view, in the upper Colville drainage, pike are restricted to 2 lakes in the northern foothills of the Brooks Range, near the upper Killik River. There are apparently no pike between there and the upper Ikpikpuk River. They are also in Teshekpuk Lake, as was reported by WL this morning. The presence of pike in Teshekpuk Lake, though known to local subsistence fishers, was not known by the scientific community. In the Colville River/Delta fisheries, pike are only taken as incidentals in the lower part of the river and there is little evidence of occurrence at other places in the Colville drainage. LM reported that pike have been caught in lower Dease Inlet (Beaufort Sea) and JA reported that they are not present in the Kuk River drainages east of Wainwright (Chukchi Sea).

The distribution of pike on the North Slope is very irregular, for reasons that are not apparent. LM reported anecdotal information from fisherman at Nuiqsut (Colville River) indicating that 40 years ago they were never encountered in that area [Fish Creek and Nechelik Channel] but now they occasionally are taken. The numbers are slowly increasing in that area.

Peter Kippi (PK), a resident of Atqasuk, indicated that pike are known from at least one lake in the Meade River drainage. RM suggested that perhaps the limitation to the distribution of pike is the availability of spawning habitat. Pike require vegetated spawning sites in spring and such sites are not ice free at the appropriate time on the North Slope. FD countered that pike can and do use a variety of vegetated habitats, some of which are available on the North Slope. Pike eggs only require 12 to 14 days to hatch. BB mentioned that the disjunct distribution may have something to do with the pike's intolerance of salt water, which restricts movements in the coastal zone; though they have been taken in estuarine areas in other parts of the state, specifically Cook Inlet.

In the Mackenzie Delta, the pike are not in the main channels, but predominate in the side streams and in the delta lakes.

General discussion by various participants at the workshop suggests that pike may be expanding their range and perhaps are only now becoming established on the North Slope. They are abundant in the Mackenzie Delta area to the east, and in the main drainages of the Kotzebue Sound region to the south. The geographic gaps in between are very large. AA reported that they may have pike in the Point Lay area but that remains to be verified.

50 PROCEEDINGS OF OCTOBER 28, 1988

Grayling After introductory remarks about the tasks for today, the group returned to discussions of selected fish species on the North Slope.

FD led the discussion on grayling and began by indicating that they are very wide spread in Alaska and throughout the North Slope. In surveys made by TB, grayling were caught in 28% of the 268 lakes surveyed. Those lakes with grayling were of various types, from deep to shallow and included lakes on the coastal plain, in the foothills and in the mountains. Grayling were the 3rd most frequently encountered species in lakes. In streams of the North Slope, grayling were ubiquitous, occurring in 81% of those surveyed. They were present in first to fifth order streams [from the near the coast to the mountains].

Movements of grayling have not been studied intensively on the North Slope, though some data are available. Biologists of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have radio-tagged grayling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and found that in summer they resided in streams and then made extensive movements to over-wintering areas, in this instance to Peter's and Schrader's Lakes, which were upstream of the summering areas. The main point is that they will occupy summer areas in which they could not survive in winter.

Life span, from the literature, is as long as 22 years, based on otoliths. The specimen of that age was from the Firth River in Canada. Most age determinations of grayling in Alaskan studies were based on scales. From work by TB, the oldest fish (based on scales) from waters of the North Slope were 11 yrs. Fish of that age were sampled in coastal plain lakes and in the Killik River. In the Kavik River, fish of 16+ years old (based on otoliths) were sampled. It was shown by the study in the Kavik River that otoliths were more useful for determining age of larger [older] fish. At ages of six or greater, otoliths provided higher readings than scales.

Maximum size of grayling varies from drainage to drainage. In coastal plain lakes the largest grayling caught in surveys by TB was 46.8 cm. The largest grayling from the Killik river was 47.0 cm long and the largest from the Sagavanirktok River was 40 cm.

In his continuing presentation about grayling FD went on to note that they spawn in consecutive years. There is no evidence for non-consecutive spawning.

With regard to growth, TB mentioned that there seems to be a trend suggesting that growth of grayling in lakes is faster than in streams and the lake fish reach a larger average size. This is similar to the situation with round whitefish. The largest and fastest growing grayling have come from lake sites, though sampling has been limited.

FD continued the discussion of natural history. Grayling spawn in spring. In Interior Alaska the threshold temperature of water that initiates the onset of spawning, is +4oC (about 39°F), and that seems to coincide with findings from the North Slope. In Donally Creek, which is about mid-way in the Mackenzie drainage of Canada, spawning is initiated at around +4oC and continued in waters as warm as +11oC. Thus, grayling spawn at and shortly after breakup. According to BB, this is also consistent with information from Great Slave Lake and tributaries of the Athabaska River, which are farther south than the places mentioned above, being between 50 and 54oN latitude.

FD reiterated that grayling are very widely distributed and they spawn in many locations. They do not necessarily migrate long distances in order to spawn at a few favorable sites. In the Colville, for example, they spawn throughout the drainage including in the main stem, in tributary rivers and in headwater streams. The spawning occurs over a long period of time, commensurate with differences in the time of breakup and the onset of required temperature regimes.

TB noted that in the headwaters of the Colville system, breakup occurs later than in areas closer to the coast. However, spawning is retarded because water temperatures remain cold for some period after breakup. He found spawning around the Umiat area in mid-June. In the Nuka River (a headwater system near Noluck Lake), even though breakup occurred considerably earlier, spawning was retarded until almost the 1st of July, because of the delayed rise in water temperature.

Age at sexual maturity in grayling, according to FD, is variable. Some examples are, in the Kavik River, 5 to 8 years; Firth River, 7 years and older; in lakes near the Firth River spawning occurred in some 4 year old fish [also indicating faster growth and earlier maturity in lake fish]; in Donally Creek more than 90% of male fish were sexually mature by age 4 and females by 5; in the Killik River TB found 5 year old fish spawning and in coastal plain waters [probably lakes] the youngest spawners were 6 years old. The variation in onset of sexual maturity is at least from 4 to 7 years of age. The trend is definitely toward spawning at a younger age in the more southerly latitudes.

Incubation time is variable depending on water temperature (more detailed information is available in the literature), but is fairly short. According to FD it is around 3 weeks. The young are emerged and feeding on their own about 1 month after having been spawned. One participant (unidentified on tapes) indicated that incubation is 18 days at a water temperature of +8oC.

The foods of larval fish probably include very small invertebrates such as cladocerens. Juveniles and adults feed on macro-benthos, aquatic insects and adult flying insects. Grayling are opportunistic feeders. There are many records of feeding on other fishes, sometimes including small sculpins and occasionally large numbers of salmon fry, in other parts of Alaska. The main type of prey on the North Slope is probably aquatic insects, acquired from "drift" [food carried downwind or downstream in the current]. Stomach contents of grayling from lakes on the North Slope showed them 52 to have been feeding primarily on insect larvae, amphipods, isopods and small fish including sculpins and 9-spined sticklebacks.

Information about growth of grayling on the North Slope, according to FD, was acquired incidental to sampling to determine their distribution. In general, growth was faster in North Slope coastal plain lakes than in the Colville River. In the Ivashak River, five year old grayling averaged 258 mm, at six they averaged 297 mm, at seven, 344 mm and at 8, 370 mm. Fish from the Colville River were taken in June and August, during which period growth is probably at the maximal annual rate. At age 0+ those fish averaged 49 mm, with successive length at age as follows: age 1, 76 mm; age 2, 106 mm; age 3, 150 mm and on upwards to 379 mm at age 11.

Habitat partitioning of different cohorts according to FD, probably occurs, at least to some degree. In small streams the adults were in the spawning areas for only a brief time, after which they went elsewhere while the juvenile fish remained. BB added that habitat partitioning is quite variable. One has to remember that streams which may not look favorable for grayling at one time of the year (mid-summer as an example) may be very important spawning areas at the time of breakup. Little tributary streams that may drain a marsh provide lake access when the water is high, but may be almost dry when the water level is low. Collectively, such ephemeral streams can be very important. Another example of a different strategy, such as occurs in the lower reaches of the Athabaska River, involves over-wintering of adults and large juveniles in the river. In the spring when this river becomes heavily silt-laden these fish move into the clear tributaries. The adult grayling spawn and remain in the tributaries to feed through the summer. The large juveniles stay with the adults in the clear tributaries. Just prior to freeze-up the large juveniles and adults vacate the tributaries and return to the main river at the time that it is again becoming clearer due to seasonally reduced water flow and run-off. In these streams the young of the year remain in the tributaries over their first winter and do not move to the main river until the end of their second summer.

LM mentioned that the details of the natural history of grayling that have been studied in the Susitna River drainage of south-central Alaska, shows similarities to those just described for the Athabaska River of Canada. KC-K added that the Great Bear River is a very important summer feeding area for grayling as well as an important over-wintering area. However, the adult grayling move into the tributaries to spawn, and that movement and activity coincides in time with the rush of high water at breakup in the main river. In other words, the grayling vacate the main river during the time when it is least favorable for them.

LM addressed the issue of habitat partitioning within a stream. There is considerable separation of fish of different life stages. Larvae and very small fish will be in shallow, low velocity waters near stream edges. As they grow they move into deeper, higher velocity waters. By the time the fish are large, the larger individuals occupy the best feeding stations, usually just below riffles and pools. There is a great deal of territoriality involved, on a micro-habitat basis. BB pointed out that this also involves segregation by sex; the large males being at for example, the better feeding stations at the head of a pool. 53 Females and juveniles will be farther downstream in the same pool. The youngest fish will be at the periphery and are at the greatest risk [i.e. from predators].

TB hypothesized that the spawning of grayling in tributaries of the Colville River might be an adaptation to very high, short term discharge, and maximum bottom scouring by ice that occurs during breakup. The fish select areas that are subject to the least adverse impact at that time of year. The maximum amount of available habitat is exploited in order to counter the occasional very high risk to some components of the population. Spawning substrate for grayling in streams within NPR-A is highly variable, ranging from sand to large rocky bottom. They use what is available and are at least somewhat successful in many kinds of habitat.

JB noted that on the basis of the preceding discussions it can be assumed that population size and trend of grayling stocks on the North Slope are not known, though all indications are that they are numerous. TB indicated that they are probably more abundant in drainages that enter the Beaufort Sea than in those that enter the Chukchi Sea. However, that is, as yet mainly speculation based on catch rates in gill net samples. Seasonal availability is variable. They are often very concentrated for short periods of time. BB indicated that seasonal migrants may leave a tributary stream over a time period as short as 24 hours, and that fishing at the mouth of such a stream may be on huge, short term concentrations of grayling. Such concentrations have been observed, as reported by TB, during aerial surveys for char. BB said that in the autumn, when they are concentrated in very small areas, they are most vulnerable to fishing.

WL reported that near Teshekpuk Lake where he fishes, grayling are most available during the summer from shortly after breakup to freeze-up. This may be a good summer feeding area.

According to FD, grayling spawn in pairs and usually deposit eggs in small excavated depressions. Therefore, during spawning, previously laid eggs are covered. The eggs fall into the substrate and there is no parental protection. Running water is apparently preferred over still water. In lake systems grayling spawn at the inlets and outlets. Though preferred, running water is not necessary. Fecundity, as would be expected, is very variable. J.B. noted mean values reported in the literature that range from 416 to 12,946 eggs; with significant differences among various stocks. In winter, grayling require water which is more highly oxygenated than that required by other species.

General discussion concluded that grayling are not tolerant of saline water except at very low concentrations. As pointed out by JB, however, they do occur in near estuarine conditions in some locations such as the south side of St. Lawrence Island. MF indicated that they have occasionally been taken in fyke nets in the near-shore Beaufort Sea and LM indicated a measured tolerance for salinities of up to 6 or 7 ppt.

An interesting aspect of feeding in grayling, according to FD, is that when sampled they invariably have a full stomach. This is true throughout the period from 54 breakup to freeze-up. Other fish, for example lake trout, usually have much less food in the stomach. Resident char most commonly have no stomach contents, even in mid- summer. This suggests that grayling are a well adapted species for which food is not a limiting factor. BB added that the continuous feeding activity by grayling may be a reason that they are so vulnerable to overfishing in areas of high fishing pressure. They can be caught at any time by hook and line.

Rearing areas, as previously stated, include the places with slower currents (mainly stream margins) for the smallest size cohorts, with occupation of progressively faster and deeper areas by older and larger fish. On the North Slope the distribution of grayling is ubiquitous and there are no apparent factors that limit distribution. The primary critical habitat on the North Slope is probably suitable over-wintering areas with adequate volumes of well oxygenated water. It must be remembered that much of the area occupied by grayling in summer is not available to them in winter, as many of the lakes freeze to the bottom and many of the streams either freeze or go dry.

At this point BB reiterated that for the different species of fish we have discussed at this workshop, it is important to note that an array of different habitats are used. These habitats are often separated by fairly great distances, are used differentially at different times of year and also differentially by different cohorts of populations. Movement among the different habitats is necessary. If the populations are to be maintained, all of the different habitats must remain available to them, including the seasonally utilized routes of movement.

In connection with those points, JB mentioned the local concerns about future development projects which may result in significant use of water from over-wintering areas, and significant modification or blockage of migration routes by dikes, culverts, ice dams, bridges, rechannalization and other construction activities. BB stressed the importance of informing those involved in planning and construction, that all components of the habitat must be considered when project design criteria are drafted. It is of little value to protect a summer feeding area or over-wintering hole if ingress and egress are blocked. The whole "picture" must be considered, not just certain aspects of it. In dealing with presumed or predicted impacts from a proposed project, the competing issues are often conceptualized in an unrealistic manner. For example, computer models of effects produce quantitative estimates of impact when, in fact, the data used in the models are incomplete, or key aspects of the natural history of a species are not known. The result is that in the risk assessment process, according to JB, a policy maker is often faced with seemingly definitive quantitative estimates of impacts that one can understand, but that may not be real. Conversely, relevant data presented by the scientists is often vague, imprecise and sometimes confusing because the unknowns must be stressed. In reality, adverse impacts are often delayed responses that are the results of destruction by insignificant increments. Each project has little or no observable impact until a critical mass is reached and a resource fails. Also each project is usually evaluated in isolation from others that may have preceded or will follow it.

55 FD continued his discussion of the natural history of grayling. The subject was population dynamics. As already mentioned, grayling are abundant and wide spread on the North Slope, including within NPR-A. There are no known conservation problems at present. There are no population estimates though the stocks on the North Slope are apparently abundant.

In general there seems to be little ecological competition with other species except, perhaps, with round whitefish. Grayling and round whitefish share the same habitats in upstream areas, and have overlapping food habits. Though their life history strategies are similar, there would only be competition if they were both competing for a limited resource. It does not appear that either food or space are limiting.

There is no information, according to MF about discreteness among different stocks of grayling on the North Slope.

There is also no information about spawner/recruit relationships on the North Slope. In Interior Alaska, according to FD, this has been studied. The most significant finding was not about the number of spawners to new recruits, but about recruitment (survival) in relation to environmental conditions. In years of very high water at the time of break-up, recruitment was very low. Larvae tend to be swept into unfavorable areas where they perish. This is a density independent mortality factor. Mortality (natural and fishing) has been studied in the Chena River near Fairbanks and the information is available in reports. TB mentioned that with respect to many of the things we have been discussing about grayling, the Prudhoe Bay industrial complex and the haul road (and adjacent complexes), present examples of how improperly constructed roads and culverts have obstructed the movements of grayling. Improved design criteria are needed. There are ongoing studies of these sorts of things, though PM and WL suggested that construction of the Endicott project involved complete blockage of some small streams, which prohibited passage into and out of lakes. Such blockages can be corrected if that is required.

Effects of tagging on grayling and other species This issue is of concern to subsistence fishers of the North Slope. With respect to the use of tags to study the movements of grayling and other fish in the Canning River, NS asked two questions: Do the tags affect survival and normal behavior of grayling? and is the tagging effort providing useful information? DW stated that Floy tags are the type used in the Canning River study. RM commented that tagging does involve some mortality and some debilitation of fish. There is a trade off because tagging studies are the only available method to learn about many aspects of fish biology. [And the information obtained from tagged fish was used to find the answers to many of the questions we have addressed at this workshop]. A basic question is really how many tagged fish are required to obtain statistically valid samples of different data sets.

56 NS conveyed a concern of some Native fishers that the presence of tags increases mortality of fish. He has heard that the long streamer type tags have become frozen to the ice and therefore prevented fish from moving. He did not see that himself. These comments generated some general discussion about possibilities, but none of the participants could address the issue of freezing, based on personal experience. JH and LM both pointed out that fish restrained by the tags will pull them out. If one holds a fish by the tag [which is similar to having a tag frozen to the ice] it will swim away, having torn away from the tag.

JB continued this aspect of the discussion by recounting numerous reports of tagging related sores on fish, or tagged fish in very poor condition. The subsistence fishers on the North Slope are of the opinion that tagged fish are less likely to survive, or to be healthy. The questions that NS asked are still relevant. Not withstanding the problems associated with tagging, the benefits still outweigh the disadvantages. As an example, the understanding that all arctic cisco on the North Slope are spawned in the Mackenzie River drainages, and return there after maturing elsewhere, was derived from study of the movements of tagged fish. That understanding is crucial to the design of causeways and other structures that affect the near shore movements of migrating arctic cisco. Similarity, our understanding of arctic char, and the importance of discreet spawning stocks, is based on study of tagged fish. There are other equally important examples. Individually identified fish are important for a variety of studies. The basic question is whether the information that is obtained is worth the "cost" in terms of disadvantaging some portion of the fish that are tagged. At present, the benefits exceed the shortcomings. The hypotheses that have been examined by tagging are important to the conservation of several species and, to date, there is no alternative methodology.

RM mentioned, for the benefit of those members of the Fish and Wildlife Management Committee that are present, that the weakest part of any tagging program is the recovery and reporting of tags by subsistence fishers. All fishers on the North Slope should be encouraged to return tags and the Management Committee can play an important role in encouraging that.

KC-K mentioned that the fishery scientists are well aware of the problem of handling and tagging mortality and take all steps possible to try and eliminate it. Those efforts involve less traumatic capture and handling procedures, as well as types of tags best suited to the species being studied. There is a choice of different kinds of tags.

WL raised a very interesting philosophical point. He expressed his view of why fish might have to be tagged in areas of high human presence and/or extensive development. However, he did not understand why biologists tag fish in more wilderness areas, where there are few if any people and no development. FD responded that fish move in and out of areas impacted by people, and it is not possible to understand the annual cycles and movement patterns without representative sampling of the different seasonal aggregations or sub-populations. Knowledge of the movements and distribution of fish, in the contexts of time (season), space (location) and biological functions (spawning, feeding, migrating)

57 are the primary considerations on which to base design criteria and mitigation measures. Such information is in the best interest of the subsistence fishers.

Discussions returned to issues of the biology of grayling and FD pointed out that on the North Slope, the magnitude and rates of fishing and natural mortality are unknown. The data from highly studied populations, such as in the Chena River near Fairbanks, are probably not applicable to the North Slope.

In the evaluation of development in the Prudhoe Bay complex, blockage of tributaries has occurred and fish, including grayling, are known to have been disadvantaged. Recognition of problems has resulted in corrective action to observed blockages. Also, the construction of water pits has and continues to involve design criteria, according to JW, that are favorable to grayling. In an attempt to achieve some degree of habitat diversity the construction of artificial lakes includes shallow areas, irregular shore lines, bays, channels, etc.

NS pointed out that if the Arctic National Wildlife Range is developed for oil, huge amounts of gravel will be required and many gravel pits will be excavated. With some degree of forethought, these pits could be designed to support fish. However his experience indicates that the development will likely have more negative then positive effects on fish. TN expressed the view that increased access will mean more fishing pressure, and this could be significant.

JW noted the current thinking about the placement of gravel pits. When possible, it might be better to put them close to a stream where they can subsequently become connected, either naturally or by channeling. The big, deep pits provide good quality water and suitable over-wintering habitat for grayling. There is a possibility that the amount of over-wintering habitat in a drainage can be increased significantly by such deep, protected areas.

Rainbow Smelt Introductory remarks by JB were about the generally wide distribution of rainbow smelt in near shore embayments and estuaries of the entire North Slope; the concentrations of these fish during late winter/spring; and their intensive use, mainly in the Kuk River where they are taken by people from Wainwright. Though smelt are present in many other areas of the North Slope, no other successful fisheries have been developed.

LM lead the discussion of this species, which he studied as part of his university degree research program. Rainbow smelt are circumpolar in their distribution and are a truly anadromous species [spawn in fresh water, grow and mature in the ocean]. The northern populations, such as in coastal areas of the North Slope, are longer lived than more southerly populations. In the more southerly populations the maximal age is 5 to 6 years. In northern Alaska smelt live as long as about 15 to 17 years. Size of smelt in

58 coastal waters of the North Slope is large compared to more southerly populations. In the north, fish up to 14-16 inches long have been reported.

Age at sexual maturity, as indicated by LM, is on the order of 6 to 7 years in northern Alaska and 2 to 3 years in the more southerly populations. This combination of larger, longer lived, later maturing smelt occurring in the higher latitudes is common in many species of broadly distributed fishes. Spawning is in spring. The environmental cues for the onset of spawning are increasing temperature of fresh water and increasing water flow. They may begin spawning under the ice. TB indicated that in the Colville River spawning occurs in June. LM continued and stated that eggs are deposited in sand and gravel.

In more southerly areas the water temperature cue, according to LM, is around 42-44oF. In northern Alaska they probably spawn when water temperatures are 4-6oC (39-41°F). Rainbow smelt at lower latitudes spawn only once in their lifetime. In northern Alaska the longer lived smelt spawn several times, though the frequency with which they spawn [successive years, alternate years, irregularly] is not known.

BN asked about the relationship between capelin (Mallotus villosus) and rainbow smelt, both of which occur in northern Alaska. The scientists noted that they are very closely related species, though the respective life history strategies are different. Both species, interestingly, have the same characteristic smell of fresh cucumbers. Capelin are salt water spawners that lay eggs in tidal and sub-tidal areas.

The eggs of rainbow smelt, according the LM, are demersal and sticky (adhesive). They sink and become attached to gravel or grains of sand. Therefore they remain on the river bottom in flowing water.

TB indicated that rainbow smelt were taken during sampling studies in the Colville River in June. The sampled smelt ranged in age from 5-10 years, though 7 year-olds were most prevalent. Seventy-seven percent of his samples were comprised of 7 year-olds. In discussions it was pointed out that such a strong representation of age 7 fish might indicate either an aggregation of fish spawning for the first time, or the existence of a very strong year class. Size range of the sampled fish, according to TB, was 198 to 305 mm. Larger fish are known from the Colville Delta and from the Kuk River near Wainwright (up to 350 mm). Timing of the spawning run in the Colville River coincides with ice breakup.

In northwestern Alaska rainbow smelt form large aggregations in brackish water embayments. These aggregations probably increase in size as spring progresses, and then move upstream to spawn when conditions are favorable, at around break-up.

LM continued the presentation about distribution of these fish and indicated that they occur in most of the bays along the Chukchi and Beaufort sea coasts including the Wainwright area, Dease Inlet, probably in Smith Bay, in Harrison Bay, Prudhoe Bay and the Mackenzie system. Therefore, they are broadly associated with many rivers. 59

In response to a question from JB about abundance outside of the Wainwright area, where they are fished intensively, LM indicated that they are abundant elsewhere and represent an under- utilized resource. People other then those at Wainwright have not yet attempted to locate concentrations of these fish.

NS asked if they were present in large numbers in the region east of Prudhoe Bay and LM indicated that they were. However, there are no specific data about the Canning River region, which is of specific interest to NS. DW reported that in studies along the coast of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge they have encountered low numbers of small smelt during summer.

JB asked how far these smelt ascend rivers of the North Slope. LM responded that they do not go farther than they have to in order to reach fresh water (water of 0 ppt). In other words they stay near the mouths of the rivers. BB reiterated that view as far as the situation in the Mackenzie River. AA commented that near his home village of Point Lay, rainbow smelt are present in summer and that spotted seals prey on them quite extensively.

LM continued his account of natural history and indicated that the incubation period of the eggs is about 21 days. The larval fish immediately go out to sea and begin feeding. This normally occurs in June. These events occur over a fairly short period; spawning during about a two week period, hatching after about 3 weeks and immediate movement to the ocean. There is probably a high mortality of spawners.

JB suggested that, as exemplified in the Kuk River near Wainwright, rainbow smelt remain in the sea water/fresh water interface area for many months before spawning. LM followed up that thought by pointing out that the smelt stay in water of down to 22 ppt salinity, as a rule. BB interjected that the preference of smelt for more saline water is probably what keeps them farther off shore and therefore not normally caught by people in the region from Barrow to the east. They only move toward shore when there is an episode of shoreward intrusion of high salinity water.

LM noted that rainbow smelt are not like the whitefish species we have talked about so far [that move and remain within fresh or low salinity water]. The rainbow smelt are a truly anadromous species that lives in salt water and only spawns in fresh water.

JA described his familiarity with rainbow smelt in the Kuk River near Wainwright. The fish are present in the mouth of the lagoon as early as November, but at that time the taste of the smelt is not what the people prefer. They are too salty. However, as the winter advances the fish become less salty. Though they can be caught earlier, they are fished more intensively starting in February. Greatest abundance is the deep channel and they seem to move back and forth [upstream and downstream]. He relayed a story about the efficiency of a store bought lure, which was more effective for rainbow smelt than the traditional, local made lure. Both NS and JA mentioned that the smelt seem to congregate along refrozen tide cracks, perhaps due to greater light penetration. If a seal 60 moves into the lagoon under the ice, then the smelts move out and fishing becomes poor. AA indicated that in the river near Point Lay, they have the same type of problem, but with land otters rather than seals.

According to JA the presence and availability of rainbow smelt during one particularly bad episode of food shortage, saved the people at Wainwright from starvation. In the autumn and winter of 1937 hunting for all animals was poor. There was no food and no supplies from "outside". The only thing that was available was the smelt. People came from several distant locations to fish. There are more smelt now than in times past.

According to LM, rainbow smelt feed mainly on zooplankton. In the progression from larval to adult stages the diet most likely changes in relation to size and availability of prey. BB reported that they sometimes feed on small fish. They are especially voracious predators of small arctic cod and often associate with those cods. LM said that they also feed on a variety of other larval fishes. None-the-less, in the broad content, zooplankton are probably very important. BB reported that 77% of the smelt that had food in their stomachs had been feeding on zooplankton, and specifically on mysids.

A question was asked about how frequently rainbow smelt may feed (every day ?). LM answered that in the summer smelt feed continuously but he had no information about feeding in winter. The "summer" feeding period continues late into autumn if prey is available. BB provided very good information about the general intensity of feeding activity during summer. Of the smelt that he and his colleagues examined, 85 percent had food in the stomach. JH reported that smelt feed, at least to some extent, in October and November, as prey remains, mostly small fish, occur in the stomachs of smelt taken incidentally in the Colville Delta commercial fishery. LM concurred, adding that other fishes, notably the cisco, are also still actively feeding in October/November. The brief discussion of habitat partitioning by smelt of different cohorts and between smelts and other fishes mainly reiterated the true anadromous nature of the rainbow smelt. They live and feed in high salinity water, thus avoiding competition with several of the "anadromous" whitefishes. Their at-sea distribution is not well known. It is known that they occur within (inshore) of the barrier islands in the Beaufort Sea. No sampling has occurred offshore of those islands. BB again pointed out that rainbow smelt are certainly not constrained by salinities, as the whitefish species are.

According to LM, in the Colville Delta region, during winter, rainbow smelt occur over a broad area from Thetis Island, all the way into the delta. The outer bounds of that distribution are not known due to lack of sampling effort. These fish are present where salinities range between the upper 20 and low 30 ppt. Rainbow smelt are present in the bays along the Beaufort Sea coast of Alaska though, according to BB, they account for only 5.5% of the fish caught during scientific sampling programs in the last 15 years. LM referred to winter sampling under the ice near Thetis Island [off the Colville Delta], in which rainbow smelt were something on the order of 20% of the fishes caught.

61 At present there are no data about population size and trend of the rainbow smelt stocks along the North Slope coast. Also, there are no data about stock identification nor about spawner/recruit relationships. A brief discussion about the age structure, based on sampled fish, mainly indicated that the available data are very limited. Small samples obtained by TB indicated a dominant age of spawners in his sample of about 160 smelt to be 7 years. BB reported that the majority of large smelt taken in trap-net samples in Canadian waters were ages 8 to 10 years. KC-K added that in samples from the Middle Channel of the Mackenzie River Delta, the age of rainbow smelt ranged from 3 to 7 years, but more than 50% of a relatively small sample were 5 year old fish.

Young of the year fish were reported as abundant in bays and lagoons during episodes in which high salinity water is pushed shoreward, according to BB. LM pointed out that a probable strategy of rainbow smelt during the open water season is to concentrate in areas of high prey density in the warmest waters of appropriate salinity. As a general observation, he noted that when water temperatures of -2o C and salinity of around 32 ppt are encountered in summer, few of the fish about which we have been speaking [except arctic cod] are present. With respect to critical habitat LM noted that the only obvious one at present is spawning habitat. That habitat is characterized as occurring in river delta channels where fresh water flows over clean sand or gravel. Rainbow smelt require high oxygen levels, which suggests that sediments with high silt loads are not suitable.

Humpback Whitefish As with the preceding discussion about rainbow smelt, this discussion of humpback whitefish was also lead primarily by LM.

Humpback whitefish, according to TB, are residents of fresh water lakes and streams. They are not a dominant species in lakes, though they occur frequently. They occupy lakes that range from shallow to deep. However, the majority of humpbacks taken during sampling surveys were caught in shallow lakes of the coastal plain. None were caught in lakes of the foothills region and only a few were caught in isolated mountain lakes (Galbraith Lake as an example). They were not present in small lakes of any of the three provinces (coastal plain, foothills and mountains).

They occur in all of the low gradient (relatively slow flowing), meandering streams of the North Slope, but are much less frequent in the high gradient rivers such as the Canning, Kongakut, Sagavanirktok and similar "type" rivers. LM indicated that in streams between the Colville and the Mackenzie, humpback whitefish were not present except, as pointed out by TB, in the very lower parts. Therefore, it is not clear if these fish originate in the streams or come in from the sea for short term feeding, or to escape from salt water. According to data presented by TB, humpback whitefish, when present in a stream, were always found in the lower parts of the first order systems.

62 LM found that in the 1985 fyke net sampling program in the Colville River system, humpbacks comprised 7% of the fishes taken in the lower delta. Farther upstream, in the river part of the delta, humpbacks comprised 3 times more of the catches (22%), though the number of all fishes caught was less than in the lower delta. They were fourth in abundance during summer in the lower delta and second in abundance in the upper delta.

According to TB the center of distribution of humpback whitefish on the North Slope is in the central region, from Barrow to the Sagavanirktok River. There are very few east of the Sagavanirktok. Of important note is that they have not been found in drainages that flow into the Chukchi Sea, including the Kokolik, Utukok, Kukpowruk and Kuk rivers. The distribution of humpbacks seems to be mainly in the central coastal plain-Colville drainage.

As a caution, it must be noted that information about the drainages that flow into the Chukchi Sea is very incomplete at this time, and humpback whitefish may actually be present. [They are, according to several village residents]. These whitefish have a low tolerance for salt water and seldom get beyond the lower reaches of a river. BB described them as a whitefish of the rivers and indicated that especially the younger age classes, 0-4 years, seldom go beyond the immediate river mouth. The larger ones may go a bit farther, depending on how far fresh water extends.

The situation in winter seems a bit at odds with that observed in summer. According to LM, the humpback whitefish over-winters in the lower Colville River Delta where salinities are relatively high. They do not move upriver as the broad whitefish do at this time of year. Humpback whitefish actually move downstream to spawn in the lower delta. By comparison to other whitefish, the humpbacks do not seem to move very far in the course of a year.

FD described the situation for humpback whitefish in the southeastern Chukchi Sea region, specifically the Wulik River near Kivalina. He has noted that these fish come into the river from the lagoon, at freeze-up, in order to spawn. They move up to areas of fresh water, 4-5 miles upstream, but not much farther. They are not present in the river during summer, so perhaps they feed in the low salinity lagoons. In fall, most fishing for humpbacks is in the lagoon and river mouth.

The oldest humpback whitefish sampled was determined to have been 37 years, based on otoliths. The life span, on average, is probably to the mid- or upper 20's. Sexual maturity in waters of the North Slope is achieved by age 10 (8 to 10), according to LM. In Canada, according to BB, the humpback is a highly plastic complex of fishes that occur over a huge range extending from the Great Lakes to the arctic islands. This extensive range encompasses a broad variety of conditions, and therefore life history strategies. In the south, some stocks spawn as 2 year- olds, compared to first spawning at age 10, in the far north. The point is that the discussion and comments must be focused on the northern stocks and few inferences can be drawn from other populations in North America.

63 KC-K reported that in the Mackenzie Delta, as in the Colville River, the age at sexual maturity was around 10 years. BB indicated that these whitefish stay very close to the Mackenzie River and do not expand their summer feeding range very far along the coast.

TB provided data from his studies and indicated that in fish from the Colville River, sexual maturity occurred in some 9 year olds ( ages based on analysis of scales). By age 11 years, 100% of the fish were mature. It appears that spawning occurs intermittently [in non-successive years]. According to LM, the spawning cues and time of spawning are the same as for the other whitefishes we discussed.

According to TB, humpback whitefish in the Colville River feed primarily on dipterin larvae and amphipods. Foods of humpbacks from lakes included dipterin larvae and other fish. FD confirmed that they feed on other fish and recounted his observations of humpbacks feeding on sticklebacks.

BB reported what appear to be different ecomorphs of humpback whitefish; those that live and spawn in lakes, and those that live in lakes and migrate into rivers to spawn. TB reported that there is definitely a spawning migration in the Colville River, but there is no known overwintering area upstream of the delta.

The general habitat requirements of humpback whitefish are similar to those already noted for the other whitefish species. Also, as with the other whitefishes, the spawning cue seems to be dropping water temperature in the autumn. BB indicated that they spawn in mid-September and early October; probably at the same places that the broad whitefish spawn. The time of spawning, it should be noted, is as much as several weeks prior to that of broad whitefish. KC-K also supported this view of earlier spawning. He commented that first fish to migrate up the Arctic Red River in autumn are the humpbacks, followed by the broad whitefish. That is also the sequence reported by FD in the Kobuk River.

LM discussed the difficulty of catching humpbacks [this was related to the lack of estimates of stock size] in gear presently used by fishers in the Colville River. In summer 1985 there were only about 300 humpbacks taken. Two factors are operative: they are not caught in the gear used, and they are not a desired subsistence species. [The latter point means that fishing does not necessarily occur where humpback whitefish are most abundant].

64 HABITAT CONCERNS

Causeways The first stated concerns expressed in this part of the workshop were about causeways and how they may affect fish migrations and summer feeding activity along the Beaufort Sea coast. Other concerns, based on workshop discussions, included seismic exploratory activity in and near rivers and lakes, culverts, and various aspects of dredging.

From the perspective of the North Slope Borough the effects of causeways in the Prudhoe Bay region are not adequately known. They may affect migrations of arctic cisco between the Mackenzie and Colville rivers, as well as the summer feeding distribution of fishes that winter in streams of the North Slope and feed along the coast in summer.

LM summarized his thoughts about the causeway issue and stated that "effects" are highly variable depending on the changing overlay of oceanographic and weather conditions, as well as life stage of the kind of fish being considered. In some instances there has been rapid movement of fish through the area with causeways. In other instances there has been inhibition of movements of young fish, in one direction or another. The big concern about causeways is whether there are impacts on fish species in the region which are of a magnitude that affect the populations.

Causeways have produced small scale changes in near shore oceanographic conditions. Those changes, in turn, have changed fish movement patterns. It is not known if those changed patterns have adversely affected the populations of fish involved, though findings to date indicate no measurable effects.

A question from an unidentified member of the Wildlife Management Committee (sitting in the back of the conference room) prompted brief discussion about the changes in ice features that may be related to causeways. TN noted that reports indicate earlier freeze-up and later break-up around the Prudhoe Bay causeways, especially on the west side. He noted further that the causeways are different from each other. West Dock causes much more near shore upwelling than does the Endicott Causeway. Regarding freeze-up, Endicott is in the Sagavanirktok Delta and tends to separate outflow from the east and west channels of the river, whereas West Dock is not in the mouth of a river. FD expressed the view that it is difficult to separate effects of West Dock from those of Endicott, because the influence of the two overlaps. They should be looked at in combination. TN expressed his view that the effects of West Dock can, to some extent, be recognized separately from those of Endicott. Although for some parameters there is overlap (ice features vs. current features). It remains to be seen how many additional causeways may be constructed along the Beaufort Sea coast, north of Alaska. There may be some interest in and incentive for constructing more of them. At this time it appears

65 that there is a very promising oil prospect in the Colville Delta that would require construction of a bridge or causeway if it were to be developed.

For the information of the members of the Wildlife Management Committee, and in response to a question from them, JW explained how the West Dock and Endicott causeways, particularly the latter, cause changes in oceanographic characteristics near shore. LM indicated that West Dock retards spring ice break-up, particularly on the east side. The area between Gull Island Shoals and West Dock now has ice later into the spring than was the case before the causeway was constructed.

JB described the effects of projections such as headlands and causeways on the creation of eddies. Eddies cause gyres which "entrain" ice for various periods of time. In most instances these ice remnants are highly productive. Also, these projections add a degree of complexity to an otherwise unprotected shore and tend to protect ice that forms around them, particularly in the lee of prevailing winds or currents.

The only unanimous conclusion about causeways on the Beaufort Sea Coast is that they produce altered micro-habitats. To date, according to LM, there have been no measurable adverse impacts on population levels of anadromous fishes. Some lower level effects have been noted. The West Dock has produced conditions that prevented summer movements of least cisco from west to east (Colville River to Sagavanirktok River). Under some small scale oceanographic conditions produced by this causeway [unfavorable temperature and salinity] least cisco turned around and moved back into the lagoon. The West Dock causeway may reduce use of the Prudhoe Bay area by least cisco.

Conversely, young arctic cisco that successfully reach the central Beaufort Sea coast were swept through the Prudhoe Bay region in a matter of several days. Data from summer 1986, with which LM was most familiar, confirmed that. Within 5 or 6 days of first being encountered in Prudhoe Bay the age 0+ arctic cisco had passed through. There was a similarly rapid passage in 1985, with no apparent hindrance of movement due to causeways. In one of those years the rapid passage may have been assisted by a severe storm, according to James Silver (JS). Arctic cisco were caught quite far off-shore, which implies occasional off-shore migration. There may be greater risk of higher mortality to age 0+ fish that move off shore. [The extent of off-shore movement by young arctic cisco should be determined].

In some years the passage of age 0+ arctic cisco across Prudhoe Bay is more prolonged than just several days. It often occurs, according to LM, over a 2-3 week period. The migration can be slowed or temporarily stopped by a wind reversal. This may affect where the young arctic cisco first overwinter [i.e. in the Sagavanirktok River Delta rather than in the Colville River Delta]. There was at least one year, according to FD and JW, when higher than average catches of arctic cisco were made in the Sagavanirktok Delta. BB suggested an alternate explanation for high numbers of arctic cisco (young of the year) in the Sagavanirktok Delta. It is that migrating young of the year fish encountered the influence of West Dock, which they could not get past, and were forced to 66 overwinter in the Sagavanirktok Delta. Such an event would probably involve higher than average mortality of young arctic cisco, due to more limited habitat.

This year (1988), age 0+ arctic cisco did not reach the Colville, according to LM. This was no big surprise in view of the wind and ice conditions that prevailed during summer [heavy ice and a high frequency of strong west winds]. FD was of the opinion that the attempted over-wintering of high numbers of arctic cisco in the Sagavanirktok Delta may increase competition for limited habitat, to the detriment of all species. There was at least one documented die-off of fish and such events are not unexpected. LM pointed out that there was a winter study program in 1987-1988, though no one at the workshop is, as yet, aware of the results. This study and the resulting findings should be reviewed.

It is relevant to note that another causeway, the Niakuk, is being considered for construction. This causeway may complicate the picture even more. JW presented an update of information about the status of planning for the Niakuk Causeway. This was followed by a general discussion of causeways. The general opinion of the group was that they have the potential to effect fish movements; under some conditions very significantly. They definitely alter the general feeding movements of those fishes that seek to stay in plumes and eddies of fresh to brackish water. The extent, flow and flux of these plumes change in relation to wind.

TB asked if the present breech in the Endicott Causeway is sufficient to ameliorate any problems that the larger structure may pose. BB expressed the view that it is too far from shore and perhaps too small. The breeches were probably an after-thought as far as fish passage was concerned. LM pointed out that the minimum breaching required to adequately pass fish was thought to be about 1500 feet. The existing breech is 700 feet.

Roads JB remarked that a greater proliferation of roads on the North Slope will certainly occur. One of the main considerations in the siting and design of roads must be that of minimizing habitat alteration. Particular attention must be paid to maintaining natural drainage patterns and seasonal flow rates in rivers and streams. Design criteria for stream crossings should be developed in consultation with biologists familiar with fishes in the streams and lakes. It is usually possible to avoid significant destruction of fish habitat if careful pre-planning to do so is accomplished.

As pointed out by TB and others, it seems as if design criteria for roads in the far north have usually under estimated stream flows. There is a sorry record of inability to keep culverts in place, as exemplified by the Red Dog Road, the Dalton Highway and the road network west of Prudhoe Bay. This has been a recurring problem, mainly because conditions on the North Slope are extreme. Most of the annual run-off in streams and rivers occurs during a 2 or 3 week period in spring, each year.

Many of the streams, even the small ones, are intermittently important to fish, especially whitefish. LM reminded the group that in a large number of instances entire 67 local spawning populations of grayling in a stream have been temporarily blocked by a culvert, for several days.

One of the hard lessons, as pointed out by TB, is that it is very difficult and expensive to correct mistakes. Money has to be re-programmed to design and install replacement structures that were not anticipated. There is often a reluctance to do that. An example of this conservation problem is the existence of a list of culverts on the Dalton Highway that have needed replacement for years, but which remain as they were originally built. Those replacements have still not been made. If the job is not done properly the first time, it may remain a problem for 10 or 15 years.

TN asked if it was always a given that bridges and culverts would negatively affect fish and their habitats? He also asked if it might not be possible to design such installations so that they enhance or create fish habitat? The general opinion was that we will be fortunate if there is no negative effect, much less to have a positive one. [Expressed more positively, it is probably possible to construct bridges, and perhaps culverts, that do not interfere with the free passage of fish].

DW asked about the types of corrective measures that have had to be taken to fix poorly installed culverts. TB responded that the "fixes" have included realignments, changes in elevation and grade, changes in size and any number of other modifications. According to JW, the best approach would be to install bridges across every stream crossing. However, cost becomes prohibitive unless they are compared against future repair costs of maintaining sub-standard installations, and in some cases, loss of fish. LM reminded the group that the primary habitat needs of the fish are for spawning, feeding and overwintering, and access to and from all three. JB pointed out once again that the North Slope supports the abundant fish populations that it does because, in part, during the feeding season fish can spread out in a huge network of coastal waters, streams and lakes. Interruptions or blockages of the seasonal migration routes of fish will reduce, in some instances drastically, the biomass of fish that can be supported. This has direct implications for subsistence fishers.

The situation with regard to design of roads on the North Slope is one that the Borough must continually treat as a high priority item. The roads that are presently being considered should all be examined in light of potential impacts on fish habitat.

FD pointed out that in the case of the Red Dog Mine road, the alternative that was selected happened to be the best choice, from an environmental perspective. The Red Dog project was unique from its inception, according to JB. It was actively promoted by the NANA Regional Corporation, an entity that places a very high value on living resources and subsistence life styles. Therefore, there was always a great deal of emphasis placed on issues of habitat protection. The NANA Corporation was in a position to insure that design criteria were environmentally sound. That is the same type of leverage that the North Slope Borough is seeking with respect to engineering projects within NPR-A and beyond. 68

Roads provide access to places where people can catch fish. This can pose a significant threat to highly accessible stocks or populations of fish through over- exploitation in all fisheries; subsistence, commercial and sport. If unusual access to fishing areas is provided by a new road, necessary regulations should be in place when the road is opened. The operative word is necessary. The need for and nature of regulations, according to RM, should be discussed in a public forum as part of the planning process, and should not come as a surprise to local people. In some rare instances the presence of roads may disperse or redistribute fishing pressure, and therefore ease the intensity of fishing on some populations.

BB and KC-K commented on roads in the Canadian northwest. On the Demster Highway there are now several stream crossings where bridges are being built, after several years, to replace poorly designed culverts.

Another problem with roads and fish habitat is that traditionally, toxic substances were used in their maintenance and those substances end up in the water. They include oils, tars, salts, herbicides, and other things. Currently there are regulations of the State of Alaska that govern use of toxic substances. Other activities associated with roads include gravel mining and rock quarrying.

The best approach from the standpoint of road planning, design and construction is to insure that an interdisciplinary team is involved from the outset [geologists, hydrologists, engineers, biologists and contractors]. It is usually desirable to obtain several years of data prior to initiating road construction. A primary need is for data about volume and velocity of stream flows, which are usually underestimated.

Gravel Dredging and Mining JW stressed that gravel mining and therefore gravel pits are usually associated with all major construction activities on the North Slope including construction pads, roads and causeways. Almost all excavated sites will eventually contain water. It is therefore desirable to consider designing all pits and constructed water impoundments in a way that fish will utilize them.

Seismic Exploration Regarding seismic exploration on land, TB made the strong recommendation that on-site compliance monitoring is very important in order to safeguard streams and lakes. The group agreed and several people commented on different adverse events that had occurred when surveillance and inspection were lax. There have been many complaints from residents of North Slope villages about extensive fish die-offs that resulted from seismic exploration on rivers and lakes. This was especially true in the past, when explosive charges were utilized, but it has continued to occur even with the use of Vibrosis techniques, according to WL. The presence of regulations without monitoring is not

69 enough to actually protect fishery resources, especially when the fishes are concentrated in the limited overwintering habitat.

WL asked if there will be more seismic exploration in the future? The answer was a definite yes; by the oil industry, the North Slope Borough [in its search for additional gas reserves] and others who seek to learn about the stratigraphy of the North Slope. The use of explosive charges, on land, is permitted though such use is discouraged. There are requirements for graduated setbacks from rivers and lakes, depending on size of the explosive charge and distance from a fish-bearing body of water, according to JW. PM recounted his experience about seismic exploration near Nuiqsut, in which fish were killed as a result of placing explosive charges in rivers. This was followed by a discussion [not clearly recorded] among members of the North Slope Borough Wildlife Management Committee, about the need to monitor the activities of seismic exploration companies operating on the North Slope. Such a function might be done by either the NSB Department of Environmental Conservation, or the Department of Wildlife Management. According to JS, compliance with regulations, at least on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, is getting better than it has been. There are no required setbacks from water when vibriosis techniques are used, as that energy source is not considered lethal to fish. JB described the literature reports about the effects of different energy sources on fish, as determined through experiment.

Stream Blockage The general subject of stream blockage was brought up, with little resulting discussion beyond that which has already occurred in this workshop. Blockage of streams and rivers as results of human activities should not be permitted. There may be instances when it is desirable to remove obstacles that result from natural events. [Log jams resulting from severe storms, water falls produced by the local thaw of ice lenses, etc.].

Action and Reaction to Issues of Development The group discussion changed to considerations of how environmental concerns can be built into each and every construction project that may affect fish and wildlife on the North Slope. JB summarized his interpretation of what the NSB government wishes to accomplish as; 1) insuring that the most environmentally sound approaches are incorporated, from the outset, in development projects, and 2) insuring that adequate scientific data are used in the cooperative planning approach. When the cooperative planning approach fails, the NSB must have sufficient and adequate information to force conflict resolution in favor of resource and habitat protection. Basically these approaches involve action rather than reaction. However, when reaction is necessary, it should be based on a sound information base. DW expressed the view that during the earlier days of Prudhoe Bay development, many of the environmental and wildlife related issues involved reaction by the appropriate agencies. However, that has changed. Some of the negative consequences and high mitigation costs of the early development have become

70 obvious. Also, a procedure for a project review and permitting is now in place. This has evolved over time and the North Slope Borough has steadily become more involved.

Community and Industrial Water Needs RM stressed the importance of pre-planning with respect to meeting industry and community needs for water. The day is past when water that is vital to fish (as for instance in deep, over-wintering holes) will be taken for human use. Perfectly adequate alternatives are available. The State of Alaska has regulations that apply to most of the North Slope. None-the-less, concern was expressed about the water situation in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The Fish and Wildlife Service is involved in an effort to address what they refer to as "federal reserve water rights." That is the reservation, prior to consideration for any other use, of water needed by fish and wildlife. The status of that effort is not known.

JW commented that the view of the State is that water is a very limited resource and there is little that can be diverted from fish habitats. There is none that can be "given away" from the important over-wintering habitats of fish. Therefore, in the future, industry and community planners must realistically anticipate future water needs. The required water reservoirs should be designed and constructed in advance of other project components, so they can be evaluated and, more importantly, accumulate water. They can catch and retain run-off water with virtually no adverse effect on fish. A water plan for ANWR and all new development projects elsewhere should involve cooperative input and review. The domestic use of water is immense, not to mention that required for work related uses such as exploration and production drilling.

TB expressed his view, based on work with over-wintering fishes of the North Slope, that the State and Borough should prohibit any use of stream water during late winter-early spring. Alternate sources such as lakes and constructed permanent water sources should be depended on.

JB indicated that comments about water on the North Slope should apply to communities as well as industrial sites. FD asked if, in fact, water is a very limited resource in ANWR? If so, is that not sufficient reason to force planning for adequate alternate water sources. RM was of the opinion that water is in short supply and further, that the potential shortage is reason to force the issue of careful pre-planning. There is, however, an interesting question. Do the agencies have the obligation to plan water supplies for industry or local communities? The agencies currently do it. Industry should either be doing that job, or provide the funds to have it done.

FD noted that reasonable resolutions to various water problems were eventually achieved in Prudhoe Bay, and that similar processes and lessons should be extended to other areas, especially ANWR where water is presumably in such short supply.

71 INFORMATION GAPS/FUTURE RESEARCH NEEDS

Generic Information Needs A basic generic need across the North Slope is for a more extensive inventory of lakes that may support fishes. Such an inventory has been initiated [and was the basis of important information presented in the preceding sections of this report], though it is very incomplete and has been discontinued. Similarly, a catalogue of streams and lakes that support anadromous fishes should also be developed. JB pointed out that local people could become actively involved in lake and stream survey efforts. The starting point for such an effort, according to TB, is to review and summarize all of the existing information, and then develop a plan to proceed in a systematic manner. DN asked about the status and availability of data that has been collected. TB responded that, so far, it has not been put together in any organized manner. There are many different ways to catalogue and compile the available data; by broad geographic regions, by types of streams (spring fed, mountain, etc.) by types of lakes, etc. Parts of the available data bases reside in several different places including files of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, several consulting companies, archives at the University of Alaska Fairbanks and perhaps elsewhere.

With respect to surveys of different habitats, JB thought that certain types could be easily recognized based on aerial photographs and perhaps satellite imagery. More specifically, it might be a relatively easy task to locate most of the char spawning areas by locating springs on photographs taken when a snow cover is present, or aufice fields in summer. LM added that another important mapping task is that of mapping drainages, including interconnected lakes and streams. TN noted that it is supposedly possible to determine depth of lakes via remote sensing but, as pointed out by TB, that information has to be verified and the sampling of fish has to be undertaken. Nothing will totally replace on-the-ground sampling and verification, especially of important lakes and streams used by fish on an intermittent basis.

RM expressed the view that a much better information base about fish harvests is needed. JB expanded on that point a bit, and suggested that subsistence use of fish over a period of time, and in relation to the harvests of other local resources, should be done. The abundance and/or availability of all resources used on the North Slope will vary over time. According to information gathered by JB during interviews of village residents, the availability and biomass contribution of fish is likely to be greater and more dependable, over time, than the availability and contribution of terrestrial mammal resources. This was also noted, on the basis of actual events at Wainwright, in previous remarks made by JA.

The Smith Bay area which is a likely region for future exploration and development, is poorly known. Detailed assessment studies should be conducted there, according to JW. Currently active studies in Dease Inlet, undertaken by the NSB Department of Wildlife Management, should be continued in order to shed light on the

72 population status and biology of fishes in the Chipp and Meade rivers, which are heavily utilized by subsistence fishers. Work in Dease Inlet would also provide some information about fish populations of other western Beaufort Sea drainages, and about the wider ranging coastal water migrants [i.e. char, Bering cisco, arctic cisco, adult broad whitefish and others]. It would be very desirable to move, progressively, to study locations on the Chukchi Sea side, after the Dease Inlet work is completed. LM brought out the differences between applying a "shotgun" approach, wherein a limited amount of information is obtained from many areas, versus a more focused approach in which a representative river/estuary system is examined in detail. The latter is preferable, though there are advantages and disadvantages to both. Proposed petroleum lease sale areas are obvious candidates for study, as are other locations where development, including non-industrial types, are likely to occur. Another approach suggested by BB would be to focus on the species of greatest importance to people, on a village by village basis. TB cautioned that there should be a somewhat broader ecological perspective that includes important forage species, or at least not only the species preferred by subsistence fishers. It is important to know what is happening on a broad scale. Conversely, as pointed out by BB, the reality is that public controversy is likely to focus attention on fishes important to villagers: rainbow smelt in Wainwright, broad whitefish in Barrow, arctic cisco in Nuiqsut, etc. RM stressed that marine fishes should not be overlooked in future studies, though the workshop participants recognized that our charge and focus was the very near shore and fresh water systems of the North Slope, and more specifically of NPR-A.

The importance of different seasonal habitats has been mentioned several times during the past 2 1/2 days. Habitat based studies are in order. A reasonable starting point would be the survey of important over-wintering locations and recognition of movement routes of fish among the seasonably important critical habitats.

DN expressed the view that physiological studies are also very much in order. The adaptations of arctic fishes for, as only one example, survival during the prolonged winter, may be an important bit of information from the standpoint of project development or resource mitigation issues. Inter-species differences in adaptations and physiological capabilities should be understood, though the immediate application of such information is not obvious.

This type of work is very important to discuss, in light of limited manpower and restricted budgets. It is patently obvious, according to BB, that the fish are successfully doing what they have to do. It may not be so important to understand how they do "it" but rather what, where and when they do it. We have to address first things first in the face of rapid changes occurring on the North Slope. TB stated emphatically that our knowledge of the important over-wintering areas is only rudimentary, and must be expanded. During his work he examined only a couple of spring areas, a few main stem river areas, some lakes and a few delta sites. These were only a small fraction of the locations where fish may be present in the region. That work, has unfortunately been discontinued, and was only a rudimentary beginning. Different sub-regions of the North Slope should be systematically examined. These include the lakes, streams and rivers 73 of the central coastal plain; the rivers that flow to the Chukchi Sea; and the rivers and streams in ANWR. Collection and synthesis of "local knowledge," which is the information known to elders and other village residents, will certainly be a useful addition to the stream and lake inventories. [That information, based on village interviews, is in the process of being compiled].

Overwintering areas in main stem rivers seem to be somewhat ephemeral, and change over time. For that reason it is very important to understand the attributes of over-wintering habitat on a conceptual basis. It is also important that the dynamic, changing nature of over-wintering areas be studied. The ramification of natural, dynamic change is that it is not acceptable to designate or set aside an important over-wintering area, and assume that fishes in that particular river will automatically be protected. The forces of change include channel flow, seasonal run-off, ice gouging, blockages and permafrost. LM noted that he has seen major habitat changes in the lower Colville River, and TB has seen major modifications in the middle Colville.

SPECIFIC INFORMATION NEEDS The purpose of discussing specific or narrowly focused information needs is to determine the priority research and management issues on a species by species basis.

Arctic Cisco BB addressed the information needs for arctic cisco. In his view it is important to study the distribution of those components of the population that migrate eastward from the Mackenzie Delta, and the factors which favor eastward vs. westward movement. Such a study is necessary in order to understand the relative importance of the Colville River to arctic cisco of the Beaufort Sea region. RM proposed a hypothesis to test regarding the Colville River fish: it is that they represent a discrete spawning stock. There was no discussion of that hypothesis, though it was noted that genetic based stock identity studies are being initiated. LM mentioned the need to determine if those "arctic" cisco of the western Beaufort Sea are one or more species. [This refers to the known presence of some identifiable Bering cisco, as well as the possibility of unrecognizable intergrades. It is not certain that all of the supposed arctic cisco used for genetic studies of stock differentiation did not include some Bering cisco].

JB pointed out that the identification issue is not clear for several groups including arctic cisco, broad and humpback whitefishes. It would be desirable to encourage additional studies of genetic relationships, to determine the status of those in NPR-A.

BB provided the group with an outline of an ambitious series of studies on arctic cisco in northwestern Canada, that he and his colleagues have plans to pursue. These include a study of the eastward movements of fish along the Tuktoyaktuk Peninsula; a study of the size, age and sex composition of those migrants; of transit and residency time, of biological sampling and genetic identification of fish on the different spawning grounds; of the movements of adult spawners on the spawning grounds and after they leave the spawning grounds and feed in the coastal zone; and determination of the harvest levels of arctic cisco taken in Canadian waters. The last task is now probably more feasible than in the past, because of the establishment of the Joint Fish and Wildlife Management Committee. It is an important project from a management perspective because of the serial nature of the Canadian fisheries, with each community having access to the fish at different times. Identity and magnitude of removals from the different spawning stocks in relation to the size of those stocks is important to know.

Broad Whitefish KC-K pointed out the progress that has been made in understanding the distribution and movements of various age groups of broad whitefish in the Mackenzie Delta system. They have been able to track all year classes from age 0+ to spawning

75 adults. Similar studies in different systems of Alaska's North Slope would be very insightful. Studies of movements of broad whitefish into and out of lakes has provided a great deal of information about habitat partitioning among different age classes. Similar efforts should be undertaken in different drainage systems, including some in the western Beaufort Sea region, to determine if the life history patterns and population dynamics observed in his study area also occur on the North Slope. The current priority area for studies of broad whitefish in the Mackenzie area are of those on the Tuktoyaktuk Peninsula, where the magnitude of catches by local residents remains to be determined.

JB asked if it was actually necessary to monitor magnitude of harvests in order to determine total mortality. LM indicated that it is. Also, from a management perspective, if fishing mortality equals or exceeds natural mortality, there is likely a conservation problem with the stock in question.

Evaluation of harvest levels (determination of fishing mortality) is a generic need for all stocks that are regularly subjected to fishing. This applies to all species utilized by subsistence fishers on the North Slope.

Within NPR-A, broad whitefish are widely distributed and they are the species taken in largest numbers. It is the species on which the greatest proportion of research effort should be devoted. Since broad whitefish occur in several different ecological settings (lake, river and anadromous forms) the natural history and population dynamics of each form should be investigated. It is particularly important, according to LM, to learn about how this species of fish utilizes all of the available habitat, including the interconnected shallow lakes in which they feed during summer. Current knowledge is not adequate for proper management, especially of heavily fished stocks.

Grayling JB asked about the application of findings that are based on research conducted elsewhere. More specifically, the query is whether the large volume of data and information about grayling, which have been studied intensively in other parts of Alaska, is useful to answer questions about the North Slope. FD responded that certain findings are applicable to the species wherever it occurs (i.e., spawning cues, spawning habitat requirements, etc.) but that many parameters vary with environment and therefore may not have much application outside of the circumstances in which the studied population exists. If grayling are a focus of study on the North Slope the research objectives, according to DW, should include determination of early life stage requirements, general distribution on the North Slope, and the characteristics and use of over-wintering habitat. At this stage of community and industrial development on the North Slope, and in consideration of the general abundance of grayling, FD expressed the view that it may be more important to obtain general life history and distributional data rather than to study a single stock very intensively. The intense study of a selected

76 population may be desirable after the preliminary studies are completed [and those initial studies will suggest what high priority stock of grayling should be further investigated].

Least cisco These are probably the most abundant and widely distributed species on the North Slope. They are not preferred by subsistence fishers and are usually discarded when caught. In view of this, they should not be a high priority species for research, until such time as the primary subsistence species have been adequately studied. Not withstanding those comments, least cisco are an important forage species for other fish, and their abundance alone suggests that they are important in the ecological systems they occupy. A great deal of information about least cisco can be obtained during studies of other whitefish species, and should be accumulated. According to RM, it would be desirable to study the ecology of the lake form of least cisco.

Arctic cisco Arctic cisco are important in the region from the Colville River, eastward. They are not a high priority (from a research perspective) within NPR-A. Additionally, they are presently being studied intensively in western Canada, and also in conjunction with the Endicott Causeway, in Prudhoe Bay. Those studies should continue until there are some definitive answers about whether the causeways in the Prudhoe Bay area are impacting recruitment into and survival of cohorts that utilize the Colville River Delta and other rivers along the Beaufort Sea coast of Alaska.

Bering cisco Discussions during this workshop have indicated that very little is actually known about Bering Cisco that occur along the Chukchi and Beaufort Sea coasts. [They might originate from as far away as the Yukon River, or rivers in Russia]. They are a relatively important subsistence species at Point Lay, Wainwright and Barrow and, in the Beaufort Sea, they extend at least as far east as the Colville River, where they are intermingled with arctic cisco. Genetic studies of this species are definitely in order, if only to clear up sampling problems associated with the field identification of both species.

Also, there may be a strong inverse correlation between the abundance of Bering and arctic cisco along the Beaufort Sea coast. Investigation of natural history and ecology of Bering cisco may shed light on the environmental factors that affect the abundance of both species in the central Beaufort Sea region. The natural history parameters of Bering cisco could be investigated on the basis of sampling in Kasegaluk Lagoon (Point Lay) and the Kuk River (Wainwright Inlet).

77 Char The primary information need about arctic char in NPR-A is to determine their presence in streams that flow into the Chukchi Sea, particularly in the Pt. Lay area. In general, arctic char are not an important subsistence species within the geographical confines of NPR-A, though they move along the coast and utilize streams to the south and west of NPR-A. As with several other species that have been discussed, there is a need for additional study of arctic char in several river systems of the North Slope beyond the bounds of NPR-A. The information needs include population dynamics, status and trends, and spawning habitat.

TB further addressed the issue of research needs for char starting with the need to gain a better understanding of their distribution and abundance in the eastern and western extremities of the North Slope. On the Chukchi Sea side it is known that they are present, but it is not known if they over-winter and spawn in rivers that flow into the Chukchi Sea. There should also be some effort devoted to monitoring the status of char stocks in some "key" char rivers, perhaps through establishment of "index count" areas where char could be monitored annually, over a long period of time. Such index areas might be on the Anaktuvuk, Sagavanirktok and Canning rivers.

According to DW, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is planning a research program on the Hulahula River in summer 1989. Other comments summarized research needs for char as including: long term monitoring of fish in index areas; determination of the origin of char in coastal waters of NPR-A; determination of the magnitude of sport and subsistence catches, including harvests made in the Prudhoe Bay area; determination of the status of char in the Chukchi Sea drainages; migration along the Chukchi and Beaufort sea coasts; and cataloging and inventorying of spawning and over-wintering areas.

Habitats NS expressed his view that the highest priority study of fish habitat in NPR-A, and on the North Slope in general, should be the identification and mapping of "Kuglu" which in Eskimo means the deep areas in the streams that support over-wintering fish. This view was reiterated by JA who described the importance of such places, based on his experiences as a life-long resident of Wainwright. There was a general discussion about the importance of wintering areas, which was quite similar to that previously reported. TB reiterated that in streams of the North Slope in which water flow decreases to zero in the winter, fish essentially become entrapped. Though the fish are mobile they can not move from one over-wintering hole to another, except perhaps in the delta areas where water depth is influenced by tides and storm surges.

A point not previously stressed is that the holes that retain water all winter are also very important to the survival of eggs. It is important to insure that these critical over-wintering areas are not damaged or destroyed by de-watering or physical damage by construction or heavy equipment.

TN asked JA about the environmental circumstances that prevailed during 1938 to 1940, when fish were not available to subsistence users. Were those years of exceptional cold or drought? JA did not recall the conditions that prevailed in those years. He did note, however, that fish are more abundant now than in years past, though the reasons for this are not known.

JW was asked if the Alaska Department of Fish and Game prohibits seismic exploration companies from using frozen rivers and lakes as winter roads. He did not know. The regulations pertaining to that are not available in Barrow at this time. In any case, movement of seismic operations on land is regulated either by the Bureau of Land Management (federal lands) or the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (state lands). ADF&G functions in an advisory capacity to both agencies. WL expressed the view that ADF&G should have regulatory authority in this area for the protection of fish, birds and mammals. AA indicated that in the past he has worked with seismic crews that used frozen rivers and lakes for passage and as a platform for shot lines. He was not aware that the activities were detrimental to fish.

Lake trout As pointed out by TB, local knowledge about the distribution of lake trout on the coastal plain of the North Slope is more complete than information available to fishery scientists. Reports of lake trout in some coastal lakes (i.e., Teshekpuk) represent significant range extensions not previously known to science.

The distribution of lake trout within NPR-A is apparently spotty. They are not a primary subsistence species. However, they are very long-lived. TB reported ages in excess of 50 years, and BB, speaking of a fish taken in the Canadian eastern Arctic, reported that one was determined to have been 62 years old. The characteristics of slow growth and great longevity make this species quite vulnerable to over exploitation.

Study of lake trout in NPR-A should be undertaken only on an opportunistic basis, in conjunction with work on other species of higher priority. However, every effort should be made to sample the incidentally caught trout. Information needs are for a better understanding of their distribution on the North Slope and of age structure of those fish in lakes of the coastal plain.

Other species From the perspective of fisheries research, several species are of relatively low immediate priority and information can be obtained on an opportunistic basis in conjunction with on-going sampling programs. Species in this category include round and humpback whitefish , pike, burbot, and coho and chum salmon.

79 Pink salmon may present a good opportunity for artificial propagation. Occasionally they are naturally abundant though they are not a preferred species except perhaps at Barrow.

Rainbow smelt are an abundant and under-utilized species. There are no apparent management problems. It would be useful to obtain information about the late winter/spring distribution along the Beaufort Sea coast, if only to assist subsistence fishers to develop local fisheries for this species.

Oceanography/Limnology RM thought that near shore oceanography in regions important to anadromous fishes should be investigated further. Similarly, JB expressed the view that limnological studies of important lakes, especially those that support feeding concentrations of broad whitefish important to subsistence users, should be accomplished on a systematic basis. Such programs should include the different kinds of lakes on the North Slope and the different primary drainage systems.

AQUACULTURE, FISHERY ENHANCEMENT AND REHABILITATION These topics were introduced to the workshop discussions by JB, at the specific request of the NSB Department of Wildlife Management. As background information, it is quite obvious that the expansion of communities, industrial development and the general modernization of the North Slope communities and industrial enclaves will involve habitat alterations that, without careful planning, will likely be detrimental to fish and wildlife. This does not necessarily have to be the situation. The habitat needs of fish and wildlife can perhaps be incorporated into design criteria. The purpose of this part of the workshop is to discuss the views of experts, about various possibilities.

Some of the activities which change or modify aquatic habitats include the creation of numerous gravel pits, new or modified water impoundments (reservoirs), roads , bridges, culverts drainage ditches, stream re-channelization, shoreline modification and others. It is the stated desire of the North Slope Borough that, so far as possible, all such changes should incorporate, at a minimum, design criteria that are not deleterious to fish. At a maximum, the structures or modifications should enhance fish habitats.

There may be other possibilities for increasing the size of fish populations on the North Slope, and/or increasing the productivity of various species of fish. These goals could perhaps be achieved by undertaking such things as hatchery production of desirable species, aquaculture (used here to mean fish farming), lake and stream fertilization, expanded or increased access to summer feeding areas (for example, by removing stream blockages) and by creating more over-wintering habitat.

All of these possibilities involve manipulative actions by man. Therefore, each should be carefully considered and discussed. The North Slope Borough is interested in developing a demonstration project, if an appropriate one is judged, by the experts, to be desirable.

TB and TN urged caution with respect to artificial propagation projects because in other regions of the world, many have proven to be failures. Worse, some have created serious ecological problems by the introduction of exotic fishes, diseases and parasites. FD expressed the view that in most areas of the North Slope, at present the fish producing habitats are in good condition and supporting populations of fish that are at carrying capacity. Manipulation of those habitats, other than in specific and localized instances is likely to result in more harm than good. Only indigenous (rather than exotic) species should be involved in enhancement programs. BB pointed out that the native species of fish are doing quite well at present and their status is as good as it will likely be from now, into the future. FD also urged great caution and indicated that although there may, in some instances, be merit to assisting the recovery of native fish species, it is not wise to introduce exotic species.

81 RM pointed out that enhancement programs often assume directions that were not originally intended. Usually an initial goal is to assist recovery of natural stocks of fish. Often the goal changes to that of substituting for natural production [in order to compensate for some sort of environmentally degrading development project. That is not an environmentally sound alternative].

TN approached the enhancement issue from a different perspective. If a gravel pit mine or reservoir lake is going to be constructed, can it not be done in such a way that it provides new or additional habitat for fish? JW responded that structures of those types can be designed to support fish. MP pointed out that these are the kinds of projects that the North Slope Borough is interested in promoting.

TB spoke to the specific issue of producing more pink salmon through hatcheries. He considered this to be undesirable for 3 reasons: 1) on the North Slope, pink salmon are at the very periphery of their natural range and are subject to variable but high mortality; 2) hatcheries for pink salmon in optimum parts of that fishes range are only marginally successful [therefore it is not likely that those in marginal range could be expected to succeed]; 3) occasional increases in the number of pink salmon that result from a hatchery will only increase human expectations and dependence on artificial production.

Conversely, TB spoke in support of programs to improve the habitats used by native fish. Such improvements include the things mentioned above such as gravel pits, reservoirs and deep lakes.

JB attempted to summarize the points that have been made so far as being mainly 3. They were: 1) exotic species of fish should not be used in any enhancement effort; 2) enhancement should be a part of all projects that involve the impoundment of water for municipal or industrial use; and 3) the experimental creation of over-wintering habitat which may be the limiting factor for several fishes in some specific streams on the North Slope, should be attempted. Under all circumstances the fish involved should be native to the lake or drainage system involved. The latter point was echoed by LM.

SURVEILLANCE AND COMPLIANCE DN suggested that in any technical plan developed by the North Slope Borough, there should be adequate planning, including provision for manpower and money, to undertake the tasks of monitoring development projects, insuring that standards are met, and that compliance with regulations and agreements is adequate. Regardless of how information is obtained and managed, the NSB must decide who has the responsibility for enforcing policy to achieve habitat protection and the conduct of desired biological studies. Where are the money and people to come from? How are the people to be trained? What are they supposed to do?

82 A technical plan is an opportunity to decide what kinds of expertise the borough will foster and encourage. It is not clear at this time whether appropriate personnel should be associated with the various NSB communities, or be more centralized and dispatched or assigned as need arises.

This issue is important, according to DN, because the NSB and individual communities often find themselves in a "reactionary" mode and they should have adequate manpower with sufficient background and data, to respond in an effective and timely manner. Various data catalogs, such as those about fish spawning and overwintering areas, should be developed and systematically up-dated.

CONCLUDING REMARKS TN thanked and complimented Dr. Thomas Albert and the North Slope Borough for their foresight in seeking funds to hold a workshop such as this one. The State of Alaska, Department of Community and Regional Affairs has shown considerable foresight in funding the effort. It is important to get the experts together, periodically, to discuss the current state of knowledge and to help the NSB to anticipate a variety of things, rather than simply react to events as they happen.

BN provided a brief background of how this particular workshop effort came to pass, utilizing "surplus" seed money from the NSB, augmented by funds from the State of Alaska. Dr. Albert deserves the credit for the initial planning and proposal preparation, and JB, for the organization and execution.

JB asked if there were any other final issues that workshop participants would like to raise. AA asked if there was any information about the effects of dredging on seaweed, mainly kelp. He was concerned about what effect the siltation, which is associated with dredging, might have on kelp and therefore on subsistence resources. There was no answer. DN, commented that some information may be available, based on the Prudhoe Bay experience. There was a large dredging project in that area [and also in the Colville River near Nuiqsut] and there may be records of resulting siltation on marine plants and sessile animals in the Boulder Patch [an area of particularly diverse and abundant benthos near Prudhoe Bay]. Dr. Kenneth Dunton of the University of Alaska Fairbanks has been conducting studies in the Boulder Patch area.

With respect to Point Lay, AA expressed the opinion that dredging would interfere with the normal movements of belukha whales that enter Kasegaluk Lagoon. The residents of the Point Lay are particularly dependent on belukhas for food. He is opposed to dredging in that area.

MP, on behalf of the NSB Department of Wildlife Management, thanked the workshop participants for taking the time, in view of everyone’s busy schedule, to participate in this workshop and provide their very useful input to the borough. He was especially appreciative of those who made presentations during the evenings, about their studies in other parts of Alaska and Canada. Those presentations were very helpful to the fisheries biologists of the NSB Department of Wildlife Management.

BB commented from his vantage point as an invited participant of the workshop. He expressed the view that, through efforts such as this workshop, the NSB is heading in the right direction with respect to the tasks of habitat protection and fisheries management. The workshop participants expressed their thanks for the opportunity to interact with colleagues, and for the unique experience of viewing, very close up, the entrapped gray whales [which were eventually freed].

84 APPENDIX I: LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

(AA) Amos Agnasagga. General Delivery, Point Lay, AK 99759. Member, NSB Wildlife Management Committee. (JA) Jim A. Aveoganna. P.O. Box 70, Wainwright, AK 99782. Member, NSB Wildlife Management Committee. (TB) Terrence N. Bendock. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Sport Fish Division, P.O. Box 3150, Soldotna, AK 99669. (BB) Bill Bond, Freshwater Institute, 501 University Crescent, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3T 2N6. (CB) Charles D.N. Brower. NSB Department of Wildlife Management, P.O. Box 69, Barrow, AK 99723. (JB) John J. Burns. Living Resources, Inc. P.O. Box 83570, Fairbanks, AK 99708. (Workshop moderator). (KC-K) Kenneth Chang-Kue. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Freshwater Institute, 501 University Crescent, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3T 2N6. (FD) Alfred L. (Fred) DeCicco. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Sport Fish Division, 1300 College Road, Fairbanks, AK 99701 (CG) John Craighead (Craig) George. NSB Department of Wildlife Management, P.O. Box 69, Barrow, AK 99723 (JH) James W. Helmricks. Colville Village, Pouch 340109, Prudhoe Bay, AK 99734. (Commercial fisherman in Colville Delta) (PK) Peter Kippi. General Delivery, Atqasuk, AK via Barrow 99723. Member, NSB Wildlife Management Committee. (JK) Jakie Koonuk. P.O. Box 22, Point Hope. AK 99766. Member, NSB Wildlife Management Committee. (WL) William Leavitt. P.O. Box 646, Barrow, AK 99723. Member, NSB Wildlife Management Committee. (RM) Richard Marshall. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 1011 East Tudor Road, Anchorage, AK 99503. (PM) Phillip Masuleak. P.O. Box 215, Nuiqsut, AK 99789. Member, NSB Wildlife Management Committee. (LM) Lawrence L. Moulton. MJM Research, Bainbridge Island, WA. (LM) Lawrence L. Moulton. MJM Research, Bainbridge Island, WA. (TN) Thomas Newbury. US Dept. of Interior, Minerals Management Service, Alaska OCS Region 949 E. 36th Anchorage, AK 99508. (DN) David W. Norton. University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK 99775. (RP) Raymond Paneak. General Delivery, Anaktuvuk Pass, AK 99721, Member, NSB Wildlife Management Committee. (MP) L. Michael (Mike) Philo. NSB Department of Wildlife Management, P.O. Box 69, Barrow, AK 99723. (JS) James B. Silva. U.S. Department Of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Fairbanks, AK 99707. (NS) Nolan Solomon. P.O. Box 84, Kaktovik, AK 99747, Member, NSB Wildlife Management Committee. (JW) Jack F. Winters. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Habitat Division, 1300 College Road, Fairbanks, AK 99701. (DW) David Wiswar. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 101 12th Avenue, Fairbanks, AK 99701.

85 APPENDIX II NAMES OF FISHES OF SUBSISTENCE IMPORTANCE Note: all spellings are subject to change since they are approximations using the English alphabet.

Eskimo English name Scientific name name Iqalussaq Least cisco Coregonus sardinella Qaaktaq Arctic cisco Coregonus autumnalis Tiipuq Bering cisco Coregonus laurettae Aanaakliq Broad whitefish Coregonus nasus Piqutuuq Humpback whitefish Coregonus pidschian Aanaaliqura Round whitefish Prosopium cylindraceum q Sulukpauga Grayling Thymallus arcticus q Tittaaliq Burbot Lota lota Iqaluqpik Arctic char Salvelinus alpinus Iqaluaakpuq Lake trout Salvelinus namaycush Iqalukpik Dolly Varden Salvelinus malma Iqalugruaq Coho (silver) salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch Iqalugruaq Chum (dog) salmon Oncorhynchus keta Amaqtuq Pink (humpback) Oncorhynchus gorbuscha salmon Siulik Northern pike Esox lucius Ilhuagniq Rainbow smelt Osmerus mordax

A Agnasagga, Amos ...... 18, 19, 23, 53, 63, 64, 84, 89, 91 Anaktuvuk River ...... 4, 9, 17, 24, 37, 40, 43, 45, 46, 52, 83, 91 Anderson River ...... 14, 15 ANWR ...... 4, 12, 20, 21, 75, 76, 79 Arctic cisco (C. autumnalis) ...... 5, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 ...... 22, 23, 26, 31, 39, 49, 50, 51, 60, 69, 70, 71, 78, 80, 82 Arctic Grayling (Thymallus arcticus) ...... 2, 9, 18, 19, 24, 25, 40, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 72, 81 Atqasuk ...... 4, 53, 91 Aveoganna, Jim A...... 17, 47, 52, 64, 77, 83, 84, 91 B Barrow ...... 4, 6, 8, 11, 17, 39, 44, 64, 66, 78, 82, 84, 85, 91 Beaufort Lagoon ...... 12 Bendock, Terrence N. .. 10, 12, 16, 17, 18, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 32, 33, 34, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 51 ...... 52, 54, 55, 57, 59, 62, 63, 65, 66, 67, 71, 72, 74, 75, 77, 78, 79, 83, 84, 86, 87, 91 Bering Cisco (C. laurettae) ...... 2, 12, 17, 50, 78, 80, 82, 83, 92 Blockage ...... 58, 59, 61, 74, 86 Bond, Bill ...... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 ...... 36, 39, 44, 45, 47, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 55, 56, 57, 58, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 71, 73, 78, 80, 84, 86, 89, 91 Broad whitefish (C. nasus) ...... 9, 15, 22, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 48, 51, 52, 67, 68, 78, 81, 85 Brower, Charlie ...... 17, 27, 29, 91 Burbot (Lota lota) ...... 9, 22, 25, 85 Burns, John ...... 7, 9, 16, 17, 19, 23, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 42, 46, 48, 49, 51, 52, 57, 58, 60, 62, 63, 64 ...... 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 77, 80, 81, 85, 86, 87, 89, 91 C Chandler River ...... 37, 38 Chipp River ...... 17, 32, 44, 78 Chum salmon (O. keta) ...... 9, 85 Coho salmon (O. kisutch) ...... 85 Colville River, Delta ...... 6, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 29, 31, 32, 34, 36 ...... 37, 41, 45, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 55, 56, 57, 62, 63, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 79, 80, 82, 89, 91 D DeCicco, Fred ...... 13, 15, 20, 24, 27, 29, 33, 37, 39, 40, 43, 44, 45, 46, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59 ...... 61, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 75, 76, 81, 86, 91 Dolly Varden (Salvalinus malma) ...... 2, 9, 19, 37, 92 E Echooka River ...... 41, 46 F food...... 18, 19, 22, 25, 28, 30, 44, 45, 48, 50, 51, 56, 58, 59, 64, 65, 89 G Grayling, Arctic ...... 2, 9, 18, 19, 24, 25, 40, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 72, 81 H Helmericks, James .W...... 19, 36, 41, 50, 60, 65, 91 Humpback whitefish (C. pidschian) ...... 9, 22, 31, 34, 66, 67, 68, 80, 85

87 I Ikpikpuk River ...... 12, 17, 24, 25, 27, 29, 32, 37, 52 Impacts (to fish) ...... 4, 8, 10, 59, 75, 78, 82, 86, 87 Inaru River ...... 25 Itivaluk River ...... 37 Itkillik River ...... 12, 17, 24, 31, 48 Ivashak River ...... 40, 41, 56 K Killik River ...... 17, 25, 37, 48, 52, 54, 55 Kippi, Peter ...... 53, 91 Koonuk, Jakie ...... 91 Kukpowruk River ...... 38, 43, 47, 66 L Lake trout (S. namaycush) ...... 9, 25, 58, 84 Least cisco (C. sardinella) ...... 9, 15, 22, 31, 39, 44, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 70, 82 Leavitt, William ...... 32, 33, 35, 52, 57, 59, 61, 74, 84, 91 Lota lota (see Burbot) ...... 92 M Mackenzie River ...... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 ...... 34, 35, 36, 47, 51, 53, 55, 60, 63, 65, 66, 67, 69, 80, 81 Masuleak, Phillip ...... 19, 59, 74, 91 Migration ...... 11, 13, 16, 20, 28, 31, 35, 36, 38, 39, 50, 58, 67, 70, 72, 83 Moulton, Lawrence L…………………………….12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31 32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, .. 50, 51, 52, 56, 57, 58, 60, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71 ...... 72, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 87, 91 N Nageak, Benjamin ...... 8, 62, 89 Newbury, Thomas...... 14, 15, 43, 61, 69, 72, 77, 84, 86, 87, 89, 91 Norton, Dave ...... 9, 77, 78, 87, 88, 89, 91 O Overwintering ...... 14, 79 P Paneak, Raymond ...... 17, 40, 41, 42, 43, 91 Philo, L. Michael ...... 8, 31, 87, 89, 91 Pink salmon (O. gorbuscha) ...... 9, 87 Pt. Lay ...... 83 R Rainbow smelt (Osmerus mordax) ...... 9, 44, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 78 Red Dog mine ...... 71, 72 Reproduction (spawning) ...... 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34 ...... 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55 ...... 56, 57, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 67, 68, 72, 77, 80, 81, 83, 88 Roads, Impacts from ...... 37, 59, 71, 72, 73, 84, 86 Round whitefish (Prosopium cylindraceum) ...... 24, 25, 26, 40, 55, 59 S Sagavanirktok River ...... 17, 20, 28, 30, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 54, 66, 69, 70, 71, 83 88 salinity ...... 14, 18, 21, 22, 26, 27, 30, 34, 44, 50, 64, 65, 67, 70 Salvelinus spp...... 37, 92 Seismic effects ...... 33, 69, 74, 84 Silva, James ...... 70, 74, 91 Solomon, Nolan ...... 17, 41, 60, 61, 63, 64, 83, 91 T Tagging ...... 2, 43, 60, 61 Teshekpuk Lake ...... 16, 32, 47, 48, 52, 57, 84 Tuktoyaktuk ...... 12, 14, 15, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 34, 36, 51, 80, 81 U Utukok River ...... 18, 37, 43, 47, 66 W Wainwright ...... 4, 17, 47, 52, 62, 63, 64, 77, 78, 82, 83, 91 Winters, Jack ...... 23, 41, 61, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 77, 84, 87, 91 Wiswar, Dave ...... 12, 17, 39, 40, 46, 60, 63, 72, 75, 81, 83, 91 Y Yukon Coast ...... 44 Z zoogeography ...... 12