DOCSLIB.ORG

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service SHOREBIRD TEMPORAL AND SPATIAL USE PATTERNS SURVEY, BRISTOL BAY COAST, APRIL - OCTOBER 2012 Susan E. Savage and Kevin J. Payne ______________________________________________________________________________ December 2013 Photo: Robert Blush Alaska Peninsula / Becharof National Wildlife Refuge PO Box 277 King Salmon, AK 99613 The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans. KEY WORDS: Aerial Surveys, Coastal Surveys, Bristol Bay, Kvichak Bay, Nushagak Bay, Shorebirds Photo: Black-bellied plovers on the Kvichak Bay beach near Naknek, Alaska, July 2008. Suggested Citation: Savage, S.E. and K.J. Payne. 2013. Shorebird Temporal and Spatial Use Patterns Survey, Bristol Bay Coast, April - October 2012. USFWS, Alaska Peninsula/Becharof NWR Report, King Salmon, Alaska. ii CONTENTS CONTENTS .................................................................................................................................................... iii List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................... iv List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................ iv List of Appendices ......................................................................................................................................... v ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 1 STUDY AREA .................................................................................................................................................. 4 METHODS ...................................................................................................................................................... 5 Field Methods ........................................................................................................................................... 5 Summarizing Results ................................................................................................................................. 6 RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................................ 6 Survey Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 6 Shorebird Abundance ............................................................................................................................... 7 Shorebird Distribution .............................................................................................................................. 9 Landscape-Level Events .......................................................................................................................... 16 Incidental Cranes and Marine Mammals ................................................................................................ 16 Project Costs ........................................................................................................................................... 18 DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................................................. 18 Shorebird Abundance, Composition and Habitat ................................................................................... 18 Recommendations for This Survey ......................................................................................................... 22 Recommendations for Future Investigation ........................................................................................... 22 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................................... 22 LITERATURE CITED ...................................................................................................................................... 23 iii List of Figures Figure 1. Survey locations and general geography for the Shorebird Temporal and Spatial Use Patterns Survey, Bristol Bay Coast, April - October 2012. .................................................. 5 Figure 2. Shorebird detections for all surveys by flock size, for the Shorebird Temporal and Spatial Use Patterns Survey, Bristol Bay Coast, April - October 2012 .............................. 10 Figure 3a. Shorebird detections for April and May 2012 surveys by flock size, Bristol Bay Coast ................................................................................................................................. 11 Figure 3b. Shorebird detections for July and August 2012 surveys by flock size, Bristol Bay Coast. ................................................................................................................................ 12 Figure 3c. Shorebird detections for September, October, and November surveys by flock size, Bristol Bay Coast ............................................................................................................... 13 Figure 4a. Point density (density of observations) distributions for all shorebird detections, for the Shorebird Temporal and Spatial Use Patterns Survey, Bristol Bay Coast, April - October 2012 .................................................................................................................... 14 Figure 4. Kernel density (density of observations weighted by flock size) distributions for all shorebird detections, for the Shorebird Temporal and Spatial Use Patterns Survey, Bristol Bay Coast, April - October 2012 ............................................................................ 15 Figure 5. Barometric pressure (inches Hg) as recorded at the King Salmon NWS weather station during the Shorebird Temporal and Spatial Use Patterns Survey, Bristol Bay Coast, April - October 2012. ................................................................................................................... 16 List of Tables Table 1. Shorebirds found in the Bristol Bay Watershed (From Brna and Verbrugge 2013) ......... 3 Table 2. Summary of date, time, conditions, observers and equipment used during the Shorebird Temporal and Spatial Use Patterns Survey, Bristol Bay Coast, April - October 2012. ................................................................................................................................... 7 Table 3. Summary of shorebird counts by size versus date during the Shorebird Temporal and 8patial Use Patterns Survey, Bristol Bay Coast, April - October 2012. ............................... 8 Table 4a. Summary of shorebird counts by survey section versus date during the Shorebird Temporal and Spatial Use Patterns Survey, Bristol Bay Coast, April - October 2012. ........ 8 Table 4b. Summary of shorebird counts per km of Bristol Bay survey section April - October 2012. ................................................................................................................................... 9 iv Table 5. Summary of sandhill crane counts by survey section versus date during the Shorebird Temporal and Spatial Use Patterns Survey, Bristol Bay Coast, April - October 2012. ...... 17 Table 6. Summary of beluga whale counts by survey section versus date during the Shorebird Temporal and Spatial Use Patterns Survey, Bristol Bay Coast, April - October 2012. ...... 17 Table 7. Historic aerial survey data including shorebird counts, Bristol Bay Coast ...................... 19 List of Appendices Appendix I. Constructing Point and Kernel Density Estimates with Shorebird Data. ....................... 28 v ABSTRACT In 2011 seven Alaska Native Tribes requested the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) assess the impact of metal mining in the upper Kvichak and Nushagak drainages, especially to salmon resources and to species that were heavily dependent on marine derived nutrients. EPA requested US Fish and Wildlife Service prepare background information regarding some of these species; subsequently USFWS identified shorebirds as a group of interest. To better quantify shorebird use patterns along the Bristol Bay marine coast, biologists from the Alaska Peninsula/Becharof NWR conducted twelve coastline aerial surveys during the ice-free season (27 April – 24 October) of 2012 to document shorebird temporal and spatial distribution. The survey included the Bristol Bay coast from Coffee Point (north of Egegik) to Cape Constantine (tip of Nushagak Peninsula). Small shorebirds (peeps, primarily Calidris spp.) accounted for 87% of the observations. During spring migration, shorebird counts peaked in early May (37,530 birds) while fall migration had two peaks in late September (20,536 birds) and in early October (30,373 birds). Shorebird numbers were lowest in late May (69 birds) and on the first survey (566 birds). The highest count and concentration of birds were found on the Kvichak River to Clarks
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Bristol Bay, Alaska
    EPA 910-R-14-001C | January 2014 An Assessment of Potential Mining Impacts on Salmon Ecosystems of Bristol Bay, Alaska Volume 3 – Appendices E-J Region 10, Seattle, WA www.epa.gov/bristolbay EPA 910-R-14-001C January 2014 AN ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL MINING IMPACTS ON SALMON ECOSYSTEMS OF BRISTOL BAY, ALASKA VOLUME 3—APPENDICES E-J U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10 Seattle, WA CONTENTS VOLUME 1 An Assessment of Potential Mining Impacts on Salmon Ecosystems of Bristol Bay, Alaska VOLUME 2 APPENDIX A: Fishery Resources of the Bristol Bay Region APPENDIX B: Non-Salmon Freshwater Fishes of the Nushagak and Kvichak River Drainages APPENDIX C: Wildlife Resources of the Nushagak and Kvichak River Watersheds, Alaska APPENDIX D: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Characterization of the Indigenous Cultures of the Nushagak and Kvichak Watersheds, Alaska VOLUME 3 APPENDIX E: Bristol Bay Wild Salmon Ecosystem: Baseline Levels of Economic Activity and Values APPENDIX F: Biological Characterization: Bristol Bay Marine Estuarine Processes, Fish, and Marine Mammal Assemblages APPENDIX G: Foreseeable Environmental Impact of Potential Road and Pipeline Development on Water Quality and Freshwater Fishery Resources of Bristol Bay, Alaska APPENDIX H: Geologic and Environmental Characteristics of Porphyry Copper Deposits with Emphasis on Potential Future Development in the Bristol Bay Watershed, Alaska APPENDIX I: Conventional Water Quality Mitigation Practices for Mine Design, Construction, Operation, and Closure APPENDIX J: Compensatory Mitigation and Large-Scale Hardrock Mining in the Bristol Bay Watershed AN ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL MINING IMPACTS ON SALMON ECOSYSTEMS OF BRISTOL BAY, ALASKA VOLUME 3—APPENDICES E-J Appendix E: Bristol Bay Wild Salmon Ecosystem: Baseline Levels of Economic Activity and Values Bristol Bay Wild Salmon Ecosystem Baseline Levels of Economic Activity and Values John Duffield Chris Neher David Patterson Bioeconomics, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Regional Subsistence Bibliography Volume V Western & Southwestern
    REGIONAL SUBSISTENCE BIBLIOGRAPHY Volume V Western & Southwestern Alaska Number I BY David B. Andersen and Jan H. Overturf Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Subsistence Technical Paper No. 111 Juneau. Alaska 1986 CONTENTS Acknowledgements ............................................ .v Introduction ............................................... ..vi i . Abbreviations .............................................. ..Xl x Bibliographic citations .................................... ..l Keyword Index ................................................ 169 Author Index ................................................ 199 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Many people have contributed time and reference material to help produce this publication. Reference collection work done in 1983 was was greatly assisted by Elizabeth Andrews, Steve Rehnke, John Wright, and Dr. Robert Wolfe who made their own collections of regional references available and offered useful suggestions regarding organiza- tion of the bibliography and additional sources. References collected in 1983 sat for over two years awaiting further work and funding, and. for a time it appeared that they would never make it into print. We have Jim Fall to thank for spearheading efforts to resurrect the project in 1986, offering suggestions for updating the collection with new material, reviewing citations and introductory text, and providing the funds for printing. Others contributing additional reference material to the updated collection include Elizaheth Andrews. Susan Georgette, Judy Morris. and Janet Schichnes. Thanks also to Dan Foster, who expertly prepared the maps appearing in the introduction. to Kathy Arndt, who painstakingly edited an early rough draft of the hihliography. and to Margie Yadlosky, who efficiently handled data entry and editing tasks on the data file. Cover artwork was the creation of Tim Sczawinski. Finally. special thanks go to Louis Brown for his programming wizardry which created the microcomputer version of the data base and the indexing routines.
    [Show full text]
  • BSIERP B69 Appendix
    Technical Paper No. 371 Subsistence Harvests and Uses in Three Bering Sea Communities, 2008: Akutan, Emmonak, and Togiak by James A. Fall, Caroline L. Brown, Nicole M. Braem, Lisa Hutchinson-Scarbrough, David Koster, Theodore M. Krieg, and Andrew R. Brenner December 2012 Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Subsistence Symbols and Abbreviations The following symbols and abbreviations, and others approved for the Système International d'Unités (SI), are used without definition in the reports by the Division of Subsistence. All others, including deviations from definitions listed below, are noted in the text at first mention, as well as in the titles or footnotes of tables, and in figure or figure captions. Weights and measures (metric) General Mathematics, statistics centimeter cm Alaska Administrative Code AAC all standard mathematical signs, symbols deciliter dL all commonly-accepted and abbreviations gram g abbreviations e.g., alternate hypothesis HA hectare ha Mr., Mrs., base of natural logarithm e kilogram kg AM, PM, etc. catch per unit effort CPUE kilometer km all commonly-accepted coefficient of variation CV liter L professional titles e.g., Dr., Ph.D., common test statistics (F, t, 2, etc.) meter m R.N., etc. confidence interval CI milliliter mL at @ correlation coefficient (multiple) R millimeter mm compass directions: correlation coefficient (simple) r east E covariance cov Weights and measures (English) north N degree (angular ) ° cubic feet per second ft3/s south S degrees of freedom df foot ft west W expected value E gallon gal copyright greater than > inch in corporate suffixes: greater than or equal to mile mi Company Co.
    [Show full text]
  • 2013 Bristol Bay Area Annual Management Report
    Fishery Management Report No. 14-23 2013 Bristol Bay Area Annual Management Report by Matt Jones, Tim Sands, Charles Brazil, Greg Buck, Fred West, Paul Salomone, Slim Morstad, and Ted Krieg May 2014 Alaska Department of Fish and Game Divisions of Sport Fish and Commercial Fisheries Symbols and Abbreviations The following symbols and abbreviations, and others approved for the Système International d'Unités (SI), are used without definition in the following reports by the Divisions of Sport Fish and of Commercial Fisheries: Fishery Manuscripts, Fishery Data Series Reports, Fishery Management Reports, and Special Publications. All others, including deviations from definitions listed below, are noted in the text at first mention, as well as in the titles or footnotes of tables, and in figure or figure captions. Weights and measures (metric) General Mathematics, statistics centimeter cm Alaska Administrative all standard mathematical deciliter dL Code AAC signs, symbols and gram g all commonly accepted abbreviations hectare ha abbreviations e.g., Mr., Mrs., alternate hypothesis HA kilogram kg AM, PM, etc. base of natural logarithm e kilometer km all commonly accepted catch per unit effort CPUE liter L professional titles e.g., Dr., Ph.D., coefficient of variation CV meter m R.N., etc. common test statistics (F, t, χ2, etc.) milliliter mL at @ confidence interval CI millimeter mm compass directions: correlation coefficient east E (multiple) R Weights and measures (English) north N correlation coefficient cubic feet per second ft3/s south S (simple) r foot ft west W covariance cov gallon gal copyright degree (angular ) ° inch in corporate suffixes: degrees of freedom df mile mi Company Co.
    [Show full text]
  • The Use of Fish and Wildlife Resources by Residents of the Bristol Bay Borough, Alaska
    THE USE OF FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES BY RESIDENTS OF THE BRISTOL BAY BOROUGH, ALASKA BY Judith M. Morris Technical Paper Number 123 Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Subsistence December 1985 ABSTRACT This report describes contemporary harvest and use patterns of wild fish and game resources of Bristol Bay Borough residents. Located on the Alaska Peninsula, the three borough communities of King Salmon, Naknek, and South Naknek are situated on the banks of the Naknek River. In 1980 the population of the borough was 879, excluding 375 active duty military personnel stationed at the King Salmon Air Force Station. Approximately half of the borough residents were Alaska Natives, most whom consider themselves Aleut. The extent of particpation and level of resource harvest and other socioeconomic data were collected by Division of Subsistence personnel. Data collection was conducted from May 1982 through April 1984. Research methods included participant-observation, mapping, literature review, and two systematic households surveys. Particular attention was focused on the local subsistence salmon fishery. Elements of the fishery, such as targarted species, harvest sites, processing and preservation methods, the composition of work groups and distribution networks were documented. Survey data collected for 1983 showed that sampled borough residents reported a mean per capita harvest of 215 pounds. Caribou and salmon made up 84 percent of the total harvest. It was found that salmon were obtained through harvests with set gill net subsistence gear, sport fishing with rod and reel gear, and fish retained from commercial catches. Many harvesting activities occurred within the Naknek River drainage.
    [Show full text]
  • Population Monitoring and Status of the Nushagak Peninsula Caribou Herd
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Population Monitoring and Status of the Nushagak Peninsula Caribou Herd, 1988-2012 Andy R. Aderman Togiak National Wildlife Refuge Dillingham, Alaska August 2013 Citation: Aderman, A. R. 2013. Population monitoring and status of the Nushagak Peninsula caribou herd, 1988-2012. Togiak National Wildlife Refuge, Dillingham, Alaska. 30 pp. Keywords: caribou, Rangifer tarandus, Togiak National Wildlife Refuge, southwestern Alaska, calf production, recruitment, survival, population estimate, subsistence harvest, management implications Disclaimer: The use of trade names of commercial products in this report does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the federal government. Population Monitoring and Status of the Nushagak Peninsula Caribou Herd, 1988-2012 Andy R. Aderman1 ABSTRACT In February 1988, 146 caribou were reintroduced to the Nushagak Peninsula. From 1988 to 2013, radio collars were deployed on female caribou and monitored monthly. High calf recruitment and adult female survival allowed the population to grow rapidly (r = 0.226), peaking at 1,399 caribou in 1997. Population density on the Nushagak Peninsula reached approximately 1.2 caribou per km2 in 1997 and 1998. During the next decade, calf recruitment and adult female survival decreased and the population declined (r = -0.105) to 546 caribou in 2006. The population remained at about 550 caribou until 2009 and then increased to 902 by 2012. Subsistence hunting removed from 0-12.3% of the population annually from 1995-2012. Decreased nutrition and other factors likely caused an unstable age distribution and subsequent population decline after the peak in 1997. Dispersal, disease, unreported harvest and predation implications for caribou populations are discussed.
    [Show full text]
  • Alaska Peninsula Becharof National Wildlife Refuges
    Fishery Management Plan ALASKA PENINSULA BECHAROF NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES July 1994 Region 7 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service • Department of the Interior FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN ALASKA PENINSULA AND BECHAROF NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES Fiscal Years 1994 - 1998 Prepared By: King Salmon Fishery Resource Office U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service P.O. Box 277 King Salmon, Alaska 99613 May 1994 SUMMARY STATEMENT The Alaska Peninsula and Becharof National Wildlife Refuges Fishery Management Plan (Plan) provides the management direction necessary to ensure conservation of fishery resources and habitat. In addition, the Plan provides for continued use of fishery resources by subsistence, commercial, and recreational users consistent with the purposes for which the Alaska Peninsula and Becharof refuges (Complex) were established and are managed. The Complex's biological and physical environment is described and fishery resources, human use, management history, and major issues and concerns are discussed. This information was obtained from the Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plans, a literature search, and discussions with Alaska Department of Fish and Game personnel. Objectives and tasks are developed to address the issues and concerns. Federal tasks are assigned priorities and costs for each year of continuation. The Plan encompasses a five year period, at which time it will be revised. Major issues and concerns identified include the following: competition between user groups; incomplete salmon escapement data bases to refine management of the Complex fish populations; and inadequate fishery law enforcement. In some cases, concerns were identified because of the perception that they would develop into serious problems if current levels of use or consumption were allowed to continue or expand.
    [Show full text]
  • BRISTOL BAY Geography Bristol Bay Is Sockeye Salmon Country
    BRISTOL BAY Geography Bristol Bay is sockeye salmon country. The region is a land of great inland lakes, ideally suited to the juvenile life of sockeye salmon that are tied to lakes for growth and survival prior to migrating to the ocean (Hilborn et al. 2003). Variation within sockeye salmon leads to stability and options for all salmon lovers – from caddisflies to rainbow trout and brown bears to people around the world. Bristol Bay offers a pristine and intact ecosystem with a notable absence of mining and offshore oil and gas exploration in the region. Jared Kibele, Rachel Carlson, and Marie Johnson. 2018. Elevation per SASAP region and Hydrologic Unit (HUC8) boundary for Alaskan watersheds. Knowledge Network for Biocomplexity. doi:10.5063/F1D798QQ. SASAP | 1 Numerous networks of stream-connected lakes provide extraordinary sockeye salmon rearing habitat. The variety of lake and riverine spawning and rearing habitats in the region mean that the salmon runs in Bristol Bay are uniquely diverse, which contributes to the long-term sustainability of the salmon resource (Schindler et al. 2010). The long-proposed Pebble Mine, situated at the intersection between the Nushagak River and Kvichak River watersheds, would unquestionably and permanently change this salmon landscape. The landscape that features so prominently in Ellam yua [the Yup’ik belief system] is one of low coastal mountains that give way to rolling tundra. Early people and salmon systems The earliest record of human occupation in the Bristol Bay region dates to 10,000 years before present (Boraas and Knott 2014). Salmon use in the region by Yup’ik peoples has been occurring for at least 4,000 years, based on evidence collected from sites on the Kvichak River near salmon-bearing streams.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Subsistence Board Proceedings, April 13, 1994
    STAFF ANALYSIS TEMPORARY SPECIAL ACTION WSA16-02 ISSUES Temporary Special Action Request WSA16-02, submitted by the Togiak National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), requests that Federal public lands on the Nushagak Peninsula be opened to the harvest of caribou by all Alaska residents when the population is above 900 caribou. DISCUSSION The Nushagak Peninsula Caribou Herd (NPCH) is a growing population that is currently well above the population objectives outlined in the Nushagak Peninsula Caribou Management Plan. In recent years, harvest has been below average, owing largely to poor winter travel conditions that prevented hunters from accessing caribou. The proponents are concerned that if the population continues to grow, severe range degradation could occur, causing the herd to move from the Peninsula to areas where favorable forage conditions exist. Expanding the opportunity to harvest caribou on the Nushagak Peninsula to all Alaska residents could be helpful in reducing the population to desired levels and preventing overuse of the range. The proponents believe that increased harvest in the near term will benefit subsistence users in the long term by stabilizing the population, thereby providing a consistent opportunity to harvest caribou on the Nushagak Peninsula. This request was submitted with a letter of support from Choggiung Ltd., an Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) village corporation and land owner on the Nushagak Peninsula (Appendix 1). The applicable Federal regulations are found in 36 CFR 242.19(b) and 50 CFR 100.19(b) (Temporary Special Actions) and state that: …After adequate notice and public hearing, the Board may temporarily close or open public lands for the taking of fish and wildlife for subsistence uses, or modify the requirements for subsistence take, or close public lands for the taking of fish and wildlife for nonsubsistence uses, or restrict take for nonsubsistence uses.
    [Show full text]
  • Managing Alaska's Wildlife
    Managing Alaska’s Wildlife 2010 Report Division of Wildlife Conservation Alaska Department of Fish & Game Director’s Message In my nearly 25 years working as a wildlife profes­ sional with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), I have had the incredible opportunity and pleasure of working with a variety of species in man­ agement and research efforts. From Sitka black-tailed deer, mountain goats, river otters, and black bears in Southeast Alaska, to caribou, moose, wolves, sheep, and brown bears in Northwest Alaska, the encoun­ ters have been phenomenal and memorable. Doug Larsen, director of the Division of Today, as the director of the Division of Wildlife Con- Wildlife Conservation, with a sedated servation, I have the opportunity to see first-hand on mountain goat. Aerial darting is an a regular basis the diversity of responsibilities that important tool for wildlife biologists in face our staff as we seek to conserve and enhance the Alaska, and Larsen’s experience darting State’s wildlife and habitats and provide for a wide goats paid off in 2005 when DWC began range of public uses and benefits. an ongoing study monitoring mountain Management activities conducted by ADF&G include, goat populations and the goats’ seasonal movements in the coastal mountains among other things, surveying populations of moose, north of Juneau. caribou, sheep, goats, bears, and wolves; assessing habitat conditions; regulating harvests of predator and prey populations; providing information and education opportunities to the public; and responding to a host of issues and concerns. We’re extremely fortunate at the Alaska Depart­ ment of Fish and Game to have skilled, educated, experienced, and dedicated staff to enable us to fulfill our mission.
    [Show full text]
  • PCB in Dillingham
    1 PCB in Dillingham Dillingham High school The Squidlets Primary Contact: Ladonya George Valerie Eason August Shade Jae Lee P.O Box 170 Dillingham, AK 99576 Coach: Summer Graber Email: [email protected] 2 PCB in Dillingham Abstract The Bristol Bay is Dillingham’s main source of commerce and subsistence. On November 4, 2011 a super sack containing polychlorinated biphenyls was accidentally dropped into the Bristol Bay. PCB is a pollutant and can harm the local ecosystem including the community that utilizes the resources of the bay. Dillingham does not have any of its own regulations for dealing with hazardous material, therefore not much enforcement can be placed. To prevent further accidents the recommended management plan would include increased regulations on shipping and handling of chemicals into or out of Dillingham, improvements to the physical structure of the dock, as well as continued testing of the marine environment. 3 Introduction The Nushagak bay is located in the Bristol Bay of the South West Alaska. Dillingham is located on the west part of the Nushagak bay. One of the river, north of the Nushagak bay is the Nushagak river. The Bristol Bay is located to the east of the Bering Sea and to the north of the Aleutian chain. The Nushagak bay has 3 other rivers that flow into it; they are the Wood River, Igushik River, and Snake River. The Nushagak bay is affected by tides. The Nushagak bay gets a high and low tide twice a day. While able to change the height of the water level the tide is not strong enough to bring salt water up the bay as far as Dillingham.
    [Show full text]
  • Abundance and Run Timing of Adult Pacific Salmon in Big Creek, Becharof National Wildlife Refuge, 2004 Alaska Fisheries Data Series Number 2005–12
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Abundance and Run Timing of Adult Pacific Salmon in Big Creek, Becharof National Wildlife Refuge, 2004 Alaska Fisheries Data Series Number 2005–12 King Salmon Fish and Wildlife Field Office King Salmon, Alaska September 2005 The Alaska Region Fisheries Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service conducts fisheries monitoring and population assessment studies throughout many areas of Alaska. Dedicated professional staff located in Anchorage, Juneau, Fairbanks, Kenai, and King Salmon Fish and Wildlife Offices and the Anchorage Conservation Genetics Laboratory serve as the core of the Program’s fisheries management study efforts. Administrative and technical support is provided by staff in the Anchorage Regional Office. Our program works closely with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and other partners to conserve and restore Alaska’s fish populations and aquatic habitats. Additional information about the Fisheries Program and work conducted by our field offices can be obtained at: http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/index.htm The Alaska Region Fisheries Program reports its study findings through two regional publication series. The Alaska Fisheries Data Series was established to provide timely dissemination of data to local managers and for inclusion in agency databases. The Alaska Fisheries Technical Reports publishes scientific findings from single and multi-year studies that have undergone more extensive peer review and statistical testing. Additionally, some study results are published in a variety of professional fisheries journals. Disclaimer: The use of trade names of commercial products in this report does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the federal government. Alaska Fisheries Data Series Number 2005-12, September 2005 U.S.
    [Show full text]