TOGIAK NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
Dillingham, Alaska
ANNUAL NARRATIVE REPORT
Calendar Year 1989
U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM
REVIEW AND APPROVALS TOGIAK NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
Dillingham, Alaska
ANNUAL NARRATIVE REPORT
Calendar Year 1989
~ Refuge Manager Qflu) Date
Associate Man 1 Ifate 1 Refuges and Wi Review
Regional Office Approval Date TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE
INTRODUCTION i-vi
A. HIGHLIGHTS 1
B. CLIMATIC CONDITIONS 2
C. LAND ACQUISITION
1. Fee Title. NTR 2. Easements. 4 3. Other ... . 4
D. PLANNING
1. Master Plan. . . . . NTR 2. Management Plan. . . 5 3. Public Participation . 7 4. Compliance with Environmental and Cultural Resource Mandates NTR 5. Research and Investigations. . 7 6. Other ...... NTR
E. ADMINISTRATION
1. Personnel ...... 48 2. Youth Programs...... 51 3. Other Manpower Programs ...... NTR 4. Volunteer Program 51 5. Funding ...... 55 6. Safety...... 56 7. Technical Assistance ...... NTR 8. Other (Special Use Permits) ...... 56
F. HABITAT MANAGEMENT
1. General ...... 59 2. Wetlands ...... 61 3. Forests. . NTR 4. Croplands...... NTR 5. Grasslands ...... NTR 6. Other Habitats ...... 61 7. Grazing...... NTR 8. Haying ...... NTR 9. Fire Management ...... 61 10. Pest Control ...... NTR F. HABITAT MANAGEMENT CONTINUED
11. Water Rights ...... 'NTR 12. Wilderness and Special Areas ...... 61 13. WPA Easement Monitoring ...... NTR
G. WILDLIFE
1. Wildlife Diversity...... 64 2. Endangered and/or Threatened Species. 65 3. Waterfowl ...... 65 4. Marsh and Water Birds ...... 67 5. Shorebirds, Gulls, Terns, and Allied Species. 67 6. Raports . . . . 70 7. Other Migratory Birds 71 8. Game Mammals. . 71 9. Marine Mammals. 72 10. Other Resident Wildlife 74 11. Fisheries Resource. . . 75 12. Wildlife Propagation and Stocking ...... NTR 13. Surplus Animal Disposal ...... NTR 14. Scientific Collections ...... 88 15. Animal Control ...... NTR 16. Marking and Banding ...... 88 17. Disease Prevention and Control ...... NTR
H. PUBLIC USE
1. General ...... 91 2. Outdoor Classrooms - Students. NTR 3. Outdoor Classrooms - Teachers. NTR 4. Interpretive Foot Trails . . . NTR 5. Interpretive Tour Routes . . . NTR 6. Interpretive Exhibits/Demonstrations ...... 93 7. Other Interpretive Programs ...... NTR 8. Hunting . 93 9. Fishing ...... 94 10. Trapping...... 98 11. Wildlife Observation. 99 12. Other Wildlife Oriented Recreation 100 13. Camping...... 100 14. Picnicking ...... NTR 15. Off-Road Vehicling ...... 101 16. Other Non-Wildlife Oriented Recreation 101 17. Law Enforcement. . 101 18. Cooperation Associations NTR 19. Concessions ...... NTR I. EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES
1. New Construction . 104 2. Rehabilitation . . NTR 3. Major Maintenance. 104 4. Equipment Utilization. 105 5. Communications Systems 106 6. Computer Systems . . 106 7. Energy Conservation. 107 8. Other ...... NTR
J. OTHER ITEMS
1. Cooperative Programs 109 2. Other Economic Uses. NTR 3. Items of Interest. 109 4. Credits ...... 113
K. FEEDBACK 114 i
INTRODUCTION
Located in the southwestern Alaska, between Kuskokwim Bay on the west and Bristol Bay on the south and east, Togiak National Wildlife Refuge is approximately 400 miles southwest of Anchorage, (Figure 1). The refuge is bordered on the north by the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge, and on the east by Wood-Tikchik State Park.
Togiak National Wildlife Refuge absorbed the former Cape Newenham National Wildlife Refuge, and now comprises 4, 011,000 acres. The designated wilderness area lies in the northern half of the refuge and contains 2,270,000 acres. Eighty percent of the refuge is located in the Ahklun Mountains, where large expanses of tundra uplands are cut by several broad glacial valleys opening on to a coastal plain. Like the majority of refuges in Alaska, Togiak Refuge is roadless.
Archaeological evidence indicates that the Cape Newenham/Togiak region of southwestern Alaska has been continuously occupied by aboriginal people for at least 2,000 years. One site, at Security Cove near Cape Newenham, shows evidence of possible human occupancy dating 4,000 to 5,000 years ago.
Aboriginal people within this area were of two different groups. Kuskwogmiut Eskimos occupied the area from Chagvan Bay north to the Kuskokwim River. The Togiagamiut Eskimos lived the area south of Chagvan Bay east to Togiak Bay. The people in the Nanvak and Osviak Bay areas were known as Chingigmiut, or Cape People, and were considered a branch of the Togiagamiut.
At the time of the 1880 census, over 2,300 Eskimos lived within what is now Togiak National Wildlife Refuge. Elliott (1866) stated that the Togiak River was remarkable with respect to the density of the people along its banks. At that time, 1, 926 people lived in seven villages along the river from Togiak Lake to Togiak Bay. This population reflected the great abundance of the fish and wildlife these people relied upon as their sole source of food and clothing.
The Togiagamiuts, unlike most coastal Eskimos, did not entirely depend upon the fish and wildlife resources of the sea for their subsistence. Sea mammals were hunted, but more effort was expanded in pursuit of the moose, caribou, and brown bear found in the interior mountains and valleys. From their winter villages along the rivers near the coast, hunters and their families traveled into the interior where they spent several months in the spring and fall, berry picking and hunting. In mid summer they would return to their villages to harvest salmon. The food they gathered would hopefully tide them over the coldest months of winter, when the frigid weather conditions would prohibit any hunting and/or fishing activity.
The Kuskwogmiut, who occupied the area west and north of the Togiagamiut, were more dependent on the resources of the sea for their subsistence. TOGIAK NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
LEGEND
f·::~ I .-:::::::i Native Lands Selecled c::J Native Lands Conveyed Refuge Boundary STATE PARK fjr-· BAY ..,,., I ••~!G,.';f\ fl.r.r ..... d u "!).... . ,..;~( t-\.Round .,, <9vs v••••ruf c ..... ISLAND~ ··"'"'"'' s SCAt.( -? / s 0 I() 20 )() <10 !10 ¥1L[S r 0 L 8 A Y 0 ,. •• •• •• 00 KILOMETERS Figure 1. Location and land status of Togiak National Wildlife Refuge. ii They spent little time, if any, hunting land mammals of the interior. The people living in the vicinity of Cape Newenham, for example, obtained their meat, blubber, and oil from seals, beluga whales, and walrus. The latter was especially prized for its ivory, which was used in the manufacture of tools, or as an article of trade. Seabirds were abundant, furnishing people with meat, eggs, and clothing. Salmon and trout were also important items in their diet. Captain James Cook was probably the first white man to see this area. Entering Bristol Bay on July 9, 1778, he continued westward, reaching Cape Newenham on July 16, 1778. Somewhere north of Cape Newenham, possibly in the area of Goodnews Bay, Captain Cook was visited by a group of Eskimos in kayaks. He was of the opinion that these people had not had any previous contact with whites, because there was no tobacco nor any foreign articles in their possession. Russian explorers reached Bristol Bay in the 1790's, but the first contact they had with the Togiagamiut didn't occur until around 1818, when a party of Russian American Company traders established a fort on the Nushagak River. It was from this post that trade was established with the Togiagamiut. The area was rich in furs, and the post was soon handling over 4, 000 pelts annually. A great variety of animals were taken, including brown and black bears, wolves, wolverines, beaver, martin, mink, marmots, muskrats, river otters, ground squirrels, lynx, seals, and red and arctic foxes. Of the various industries created in the area during the 1800's, only the salmon fishery retains its original importance. In 1885, Alaska Packing Company of Astoria established the "Scandinavian" cannery on the west side of Nushagak Bay. With a capacity of 2, 000 cases per day, it operated until the end of World War II. Bristol Bay Canning Company, then called the Bradford Cannery, went into production a few miles from the Scandinavian in 1886, at a site later to become known as Dillingham. By 1897, the fishing industry had invested $867,000 in the Bay. By 1908, the number of canneries operating at Nushagak numbered ten. Interest in gold mining and trapping declined during World War I, and reindeer herding practically became extinct by the mid-1940's. This was due to the near total extermination of reindeer by a series of hard winters. Most of the gold mines closed at the outbreak of World War II; however, platinum mining began in 1926, and continued until 1975. This discovery, at Fox Gulch near the present village of Platinum, produced what was probably Alaska's last big stampede. Miners from all over Alaska and the "Lower 48", came to the mining camp along the tributaries of the Salmon River, which was heralded as the "Dawson of 1937". The platinum stampede was unlike any of the Klondike era: airplanes brought stampeders into Platinum several times a week; few resorted to dog sleds or the long overland treks which were characteristic of "The Trail of '98". Also, power drills and tractors replaced single jacks and horsedrawn wagons. Since 1926, more than 640,000 ounces of this precious metal have been mined from the platinum placers in the Goodnews iii Bay district. By 1934, one company, the Goodnews Bay Mining Company, had nearly acquired all of the claims in existence. After changing ownership several years ago, Hanson Enterprises, as it is now known, worked a dredge continuously until 1975. Since then the dredge has only operated intermittently. Hanson Enterprises is the only company in the United States that primarily produced platinum, and most of the platinum claims it owns are located on lands selected by native villages. Trapping also continues, with fur prices dictating the degree of effort spent in running trap lines. Historical and archaeological features of the refuge primarily consist of former Eskimo villages. Prior to 1969, the area that became Togiak National Wildlife Refuge was part of the public domain, under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management. On January 20, 1969, the Secretary of the Interior issued Public Land Order 4583, withdrawing 265,000 acres of that area and designated it the Cape Newenham National Wildlife Refuge. With this order, the Fish and Wildlife Service assumed its first refuge management responsibilities in the area: to protect and preserve the "outstanding wilderness values" of Cape Newenham. The majority of lands that were to become Togiak National Wildlife Refuge, were withdrawn in 1971, under Section 17(d)(2) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. The withdrawals covered all forms of appropriation under the public land laws, including selection under the Alaska Statehood Act and the mining and mineral leasing laws. The Settlement Act directed the Secretary of the Interior to study all (d) (2) "national interest land" withdrawals as possible additions to the National Wildlife Refuge, Park, Wilderness, and Wild and Scenic River Systems. The Secretary withdrew additional parts of what was to become Togiak National Wildlife Refuge, under Section 17(d)(l), of the Settlement Act. All of these "public interest lands", were also withdrawn from all forms of appropriation under the public land laws, with the exception of metalliferous locations. Congress failed to take action before the five-year deadline expired for the (d)(2) lands being considered for additions in the National Park, Refuge, Forest, and Wild and Scenic River Systems. So, on November 16, 1978, the Secretary of the Interior invoked his emergency withdrawal powers, under Section 204(e) of the Federal Land Policy Management Act to protect these lands, and withdrew nearly 110 million acres of land throughout Alaska. Most of the present Togiak Refuge was covered by this Order, including the (d)(l) and (d)(2) lands, and lands available to the Natives but not yet selected. Fifteen months later, on February 11, 1980, the Secretary issued Public Land Order 5703, under section 204(c) of the Federal Land Policy Management Act, establishing the Togiak National Wildlife Refuge. This order withdrew all lands subject to existing rights for up to 20 years, from all forms of appropriation under the public land laws. As a refuge, iv Togiak became subject to all of the laws and policies 6f the Fish and Wildlife Service, used to govern the administration of the National Wildlife Refuge System. The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 chose a route vastly different from previous solutions to aboriginal land claims. Departing from Lower 48 precedents of reservations and government-subsidized industries, the comprise bill empowered Alaska's Natives with cash and land conveyances. It further provided that corporations would administer this division of wealth. The settlement act abolished aboriginal title to lands in exchange for 40 million acres and compensation totaling almost $1 billion, creating perhaps the largest single transfer of wealth from government to a group of indigenous peoples. Thirteen regional and 220 village corporations were created. Final payments were disbursed from the Alaska Native Fund in 1981, and after a slow start and further legal wrangling the majority of land entitlement have been conveyed. Probably the greatest benefit of the settlement act was forcing native people to become deeply involved in the economy, in the mainstream of the state and the nation. In December 1980, Congress enacted the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. This act, among other things, rescinded Public Land Order 5703, and designated all of the withdrawn land as a refuge. In addition, the Act made Cape Newenham National Wildlife Refuge a unit of Togiak National Wildlife Refuge. The first refuge manager subsequently reported for duty in October, 1981. v The refuge headquarters is located in Dillingham. This community has regularly scheduled airline services, is an important fishing community, and serves as a hub for eleven other villages. MJL 9/89 The Lands Act is the primary statute affecting the planning and management of the refuge. The Act established Togiak as a National Wildlife Refuge; identified its purposes; and required it to be administered subject to existing rights, in accordance with the laws governing the refuge system. Section 303(6)(B), of the Lands Act, stated four purposes of the refuge. The Fish and Wildlife Service has set additional goals for the refuge. All of the following goals and purposes form the major guidance for managing the refuge. They are also the criteria for developing and evaluating management alternatives for the refuge. These purposes are: 1. To conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their natural diversity, in order to: * preserve a natural diversity and abundance of fauna and flora on refuge lands; * conserve salmonid populations and their habitat; conserve marine bird populations and their habitat; * conserve marine mammal populations and their habitat; * conserve and restore to historic levels large mammal * populations; * preserve, restore, and enhance in their natural ecosysf ems (when practicable), all species of animals and plants that are vi endangered or threatened with becoming endangered. 2. Fulfill international treaty obligations of the United States with respect to fish and wildlife and their habitat: * to perpetuate the migratory bird resource. 3. To provide in a manner consistent with the purposes set forth in (1) and (2), the opportunity for continued subsistence use by local residents. 4. To ensure to the maximum extent practicable, and in a manner consistent with the purposes set forth in (1), water quality and water quantity within the refuge. 5. To assure preservation and availability of wild and scenic waterways, lakes, historic and archaeological sites, trails, and other cultural features, geological and paleontological areas, and other scientific and educational values. 6. To provide an understanding and appreciation of fish and wildlife ecology and man's role in his environment, and to provide refuge visitors with high quality, safe, wholesome, and enjoyable recreational experiences; oriented toward wildlife to the extent that these activities are compatible with the purpose for which the refuge was established. 1 A. HIGHLIGHTS In a cooperative effort with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 30 moose were captured and fitted with radio telemetry collars. Work continues on the public use management plan. By the end of the year an internal review draft was nearing completion. Complex issues have dictated slow progress. In the first case of its kind to go to a jury, Richard Clark was convicted of wasting walrus - violation of Marine Mammal Protection Act. Joe Clark (father) and Sam Clark (brother) plead guilty to similar charges. All are residents of Clarks Point, Alaska. Wildlife Biologist/Pilot, Lee Hotchkiss, transferred to the Anchorage Regional Office, Division of Migratory Birds, after 7 1/2 years in Dillingham. The newly transplanted refuge caribou herd continues to do well. By the end of the year we could account for 252 animals, compared to the 148 which were transplanted in February 1988. The refuge fisheries management plan was completed and forwarded to the Regional Office for printing and distribution. Refuge personnel successfully implanted 22 radio transmitters in rainbow trout on the Negukthlik River. Vern Burandt, oldest living refuge volunteer returns for a third time. 454 white-fronted geese were captured and banded. 15 were fitted with radio collars and an additional 50 were fitted with the standard neck collars. 2 B. CLIMATIC CONDITIONS The refuge is located in a climatic transition zone. The primary influence is maritime; however, the arctic climate of interior Alaska also affects the refuge and the Bristol Bay coastal region. Temperatures range from an average minimum of 8. 0 degrees F in December, to an average maximum of 64.0 degrees F in July. The frost- free period is approximately 120 days; ponds and smaller lakes usually freeze in October and thaw in May. Prevailing winds are from the north and northeast during October through March, and from the south and west during April through September. The wind blows almost continuously along the coast, frequently reaching gale force velocities in the Cape Newenham area. Recorded temperatures in Dillingham, Alaska, have ranged from -53 degrees F, to +92 degrees F, with an average of 25 inches of rain and 73.5 inches of snow. Cape Newenham, by comparison, has recorded minimum temperatures of -28 degrees F; maximum temperatures of 75 degrees F; and an average of 37 inches of rain and 81 inches of snow. Fall is the wettest season in this area, while the least precipitation occurs in the spring. The varied topography on the refuge creates microclimates which affect local temperatures, types of precipitation, and wind conditions. January - March The high of 39 degrees F occurred in March. The low of -53 degrees F occurred during January, (Table 1) . The average temperature for the quarter was 14.7 degrees; lower than the long term average (18.3). There were 38 days of precipitation. Snowfall for the quarter was 41.2 inches, rain amounted to 4.57 inches. April - June The average temperature for this quarter (42.5 degrees F) was slightly above the long term average of 41.4 degrees F. A low of 15 degrees F, was registered in April, and the high of 70 degrees F was recorded in June. Long term average temperature range for the quarter is 23.2 degrees F to 60.7 degrees F. From 58 days of precipitation there were 4.37 inches of rain recorded during this quarter, and 9.3 inches of snow. The long term averages for the quarter are 4.56 inches of rain and 5.7 inches of snow. July - September This quarter the average temperature of 54.0 degrees F was slightly above the long term average of 52.1 degrees F. A high for the quarter of 78 degrees F occurred in July. The low of 32 degrees F was recorded in September. There were 57 days of precipitation this quarter resulting in 14.03 inches of rain. 3 Table 1 1989 Climatic Conditions Temnerature (F} Precinitation Month Maximum Minimum Mean No. Days* Rain (in.) Snow (in.) JAN 36 -53 -3.0 11 1. 90 21.0 FEB 36 -9 25.5 13 1. 99 8.0 MAR 39 2 21.6 14 .68 12.2 APR 49 15 33.8 17 .98 5.0 MAY 54 31 42.0 22 1.46 4.3 JUN 70 40 51.6 19 1. 93 0 JUL 78 43 56.1 19 2.66 0 AUG 73 43 56.0 22 6.17 0 SEP 63 32 49.9 26 5.20 0 OCT 55 18 35.5 18 2.11 11.1 NOV 40 1 17.7 19 1. 21 22.2 DEC 39 -12 19.5 19 0.68 20.2 Annual 52.7 12.6 32.6 219 26.97 104.0 *Number of Days of trace amounts or greater precipitation. October - December It is fairly common knowledge in this area that freeze-up begins by October 20. The average temperature this quarter was 24. 2 degrees F. This is comparable to the long term average of 24.4 degrees F. The high of 55 degrees F was recorded in October, and the low of -12 degrees F occurred in December. Precipitation was recorded on 57 days this quarter, with a below average rainfall (4.0") and an above average snowfall (53.5"). There were 219 days of precipitation during 1989. Snowfall for the year (104. 0") was well above the 73.3 inch long term average, but below the record 131.6 inches which fell in 1988. Rainfall (26.97 inches) was also above the long term average (25.08 inches). The 1989 maximum annual average (52.7 degrees F) was significantly above the long term average (42.0 degrees F). While the minimum annual average (12.6 degrees F) was less than half normal averages (26.1 degrees F). 4 C. LAND ACQUISITION 2. Easements A walkway along the highway side of the administrative site was completed by the city in September. An easement for this was granted to the city in 1988. 3. Other There were no major land status changes during 1989. Table 2 shows the current land status as of the end of the year. Table 2 Land Status of Togiak National Wildlife Refuge as of December 31, 1989 Ownership Acres Percent of Refuge FEDERAL 4,011,000 85% NATIVE VILLAGE CORP/GROUP: *Selections 151,000 3% *Conveyances 480,000 10% REGIONAL CORPORATIONS: *14(h)(l) Selections 12,000 <1% *14(h)(l) Conveyances 0 0 *14(h)(8) Selections 5,000 <1% *14(h)(8) Conveyances 0 NATIVE ALLOTMENTS: *Applications 11,000 <1% *Conveyances 33,000 <1% PRIVATE PARTIES: *Selections 0 0 *Conveyances 600 <1% TOTALS: 4,704,000 100% Of the 4,704,000 acres of land within the refuge boundary, approximately 4,011,000 acres (85%) of the area is under federal jurisdiction. About 513,000 acres (10%) of the lands within the refuge boundary have been patented or conveyed to eight native village corporations; Clark's Point, Ekuk, Dillingham, Manokotak, Platinum, Quinhagak, Togiak and Twin Hills; individual natives, private parties, and one native group (Olsonville). About 150,000 acres in the refuge have been selected, but are still under federal jurisdiction; some of these lands may or may not be interim conveyed. 5 D. PLANNING 2. Management Plan Several recommendations in the Togiak Comprehensive Conservation Plan call for the development of specific step down management plans. These plans will describe specific actions that will be taken to implement the general management directions outlined in the Conservation Plan. The preparation of a fisheries management plan and a public use management plan continued during 1989. These two plans were identified in the Conservation Plan as a high priority, and will be necessary to develop meaningful resource programs on the refuge. The fisheries management plan and the public use management plan will be completed in 1990. PUBLIC USE MANAGEMENT PLAN The preparation of the public use management plan for the refuge progressed during 1989. Opportunities for public involvement, continued coordination with the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, and the preparation of the internal review draft document were among the planning activities that were accomplished. · During February, workshops were conducted in Quinhagak, Goodnews Bay, Platinum, Manokotak, Togiak/Twin Hills and Anchorage to provide citizens with information on the planning process. In addition, workbooks were distributed to allow an opportunity for the public to let the planners know how they felt the land and waters within the refuge should be managed. The workbook addressed a wide range of issues including various methods for limiting recreational use, location and types of recreational facilities, impacts of various public uses, appropriate levels of recreational use, and fisheries management. Of the 292 responses received, 157 represented guided sport fish users, 53 represented subsistence users, 32 represented unguided sport fish users, 18 represented sport fish guides, 8 represented unguided non consumptive users, and 34 represented other users and interests. In August, a float trip on the Kanektok River was conducted to allow representatives from the Alaska Department of Natural Resources an opportunity to witness management concerns at the field level. Gary Gustafson, Director of Lands and Waters, Rick Thompson, Southcentral Regional Manager, and Rob Walkinshaw and Alice Illiff, Resource Specialists accompanied Assistant Refuge Manager Jerome and Associate Manager Constantino on the trip. During the course of the trip, consensus was reached on the importance of the resource and the nature of the management problems, however, agreeing on solutions will prove more difficult. 6 ·) Biological Technician Mark Lisac explaining the Public Use Management Plan to Issac Gamechuck at the planning workshop in Manokotak. GS, 3/89 By the end of the year, an internal review draft of the plan was nearing completion with a schedule for release during 1990. FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN The fishery management plan was completed during Fiscal Year 89 and forwarded to the Regional Office and the Department of Fish and Game for review. Wildlife resources reviewed the plan and made several minor changes. The proposed time period for release for public review is January 1990 with a 60 day public review period. By the time the plan is printed it will require revision. f 7 · ) One of the objectives of the Fishery Management Plan is to maintain size and age classes of · resident species such as this rainbow trout. Rainbow trout, a resident species are also to be used as an indicator species. KH 5/89 3. Public Participation Substantial public involvement has been incorporated into refuge biological programs and planning efforts. Village meetings, media releases, and utilizing refuge information technicians to explain programs have all resulted in more widely accepted and successful management programs. In conjunction with these programs, public involvement efforts focused on rural residents in the villages of Manokotak, Togiak, Twin Hills, Aleknagik, and Dillingham. Fisheries projects have been explained to people in the villages of Quinhagak and Togiak. 5. Research and Investigation PUBLIC USE SURVEY CAMPS Monitoring public use on the refuge is difficult due to the remoteness and the variety of access types visitors use. The primary visitor activity is sport fishing which is concentrated on the Kanektok, Togiak and Goodnews Rivers. Guided and unguided visitors access the refuge by ) aircraft, motorboat and river raft. River rafting, or float visitors p ave accounted for approximately 40% of the overall use days on the refuge. 8 Since 1984 the refuge has collected public use informat.ion concerning river rafter (float) use from the three major headwater lakes. The primary goal is to contact all visitors landing at the lakes to determine the following: guided or unguided party; name of guide(s); name of air taxi; number of people in each party; length and purpose of each trip; and the number of use days. Volunteers staffing these projects also inform visitors about the refuge, wilderness ethics, private land status, and demonstrate proper catch and release fishing techniques. In 1989 Kagati and Goodnews Lakes field camps were staffed by two refuge volunteers each. Kagati Lake camp was operated from June 22 to September 11. The Goodnews Lake camp was operated from June 16 to September 3. Togiak Lake visitor information was gathered by special use permit reports from sport fish guides and air taxi operators. The Kanektok River receives the most float use which in 1989 was 285 guided clients and unguided visitors for 2,402 use days (Figure 2). The guides themselves contribute another 94 people and 903 use days. Since 1984, interviewed guided float use on the Kanektok has increased up until 1989 when a slight decrease is observed. Guided float use has accounted for between 70% & 81% of the total use days on the Kanektok River. 3500 3000 ~ KANEKTOK R. Guided 2500 ~~Unguided (I) itl' 0 Q) 2000 (/) ~ ~ GOODNEWS R. .,_ Guided ....0 Q) Unguided .0 1500 E z::J 1000 Unguided 500 0 1986 1987 1988 1989 Figure 2. Guided and unguided float use days documented at Kagati, Goodnews and Togiak lakes public use survey camps. Togiak National Wildlife Refuge, 1986-1989. 9 The Togiak River system has in the past ranked out as the ·refuges' second most popular float river. In 1987 the Togiak fell to number three. Float use has continued to decline and in 1989 guides and air taxi operators reported 34 visitors for 277 float use days. The guides themselves contribute another 3 people and 24 use days. Guided use accounted for 36% of the float use. Float use on the Goodnews River had remained relatively steady in past years, but increased by 300 use days in 1988 and remained high in 1989. Volunteers interviewed 122 guided clients and unguided visitors for 1153 combined use days. The guides themselves contribute another 7 people and 52 use days. Guided use accounted for 11% of the total float use in 1989. Overall float use on the three major rivers of the refuge has increased steadily from 1985 to 1988, but declined slightly in 1989. Guided float use on the refuge in 1989 was down by 809 use days from 1988 figures while unguided use was down 340 use days. Guided use (including guide and client use days) accounted for 53% of the refuge float effort in 1989. SEABIRD COLONY CENSUSING AT CAPE PEIRCE This study was a continuation of the work contracted to LGL-Ecological Research Associates in Anchorage, in 1984. Their study, Population Estimates, Productivity. and Food Habits of Nesting Seabirds at Cape Peirce and the Pribilof Islands, indicated there may have been a significant decline for most species of seabirds, specifically, the black legged kittiwakes. Biological Technician, Lisa Haggblom was assigned the task of continuing the population estimates and productivity portions of the 1984 LGL study. The Cape Peirce colonies have been intermittently surveyed since 1976. This historical data, coupled with standardized observation points, (each marked with a steel rod), and photographs of individual areas of each colony to be surveyed, provides us with the means to assess the status of and fluctuations in seabird populations and productivity. Nesting phenology of the seabirds at Cape Peirce appeared to be on time in 1989. The nest building activity for pelagic cormorants was underway when personnel arrived on April 26. Black-legged kittiwakes began collecting nest materials in earnest in mid to late May. Egg-laying began approximately June 10 for kittiwakes, June 14 for murres, and May 12 for cormorants. The first kittiwake chick was seen July 12, the first murre chick July 10, and cormorant chicks on June 6. 10 · ) Black-legged kittiwakes build nests on the ledges of cliff faces at Cape Peirce. LH 5/89 Kittiwakes had another unsuccessful reproductive year at Cape Peirce. Out of a total of 124 nests, 43.5% of the nests contained at least one egg, and the average clutch size was 1.09. Out of 67 eggs, 28 chicks hatched, with an overall hatching success of 0.37. Out of 28 chicks, 8 survived to fledge, with an overall fledging success of 0. 22. Reproductive success was 0.13, and productivity a low 0.07 (Table 3). ) Table 3 Productivity Parameters and Results for Black-Legged Kittiwakes at Cape Peirce 1984 to 1989 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 Nest attempts 275 260 305 110 109 124 Nest with eggs 99 185 40 44 51 Hatching success 0.02 0.31 0.52 0 . 46 0.37 Fledging success 0.07 0.00 0.03 0.25 0.22 Reproductive success 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.26 0.13 Productivity 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.17 0.07 ) Out of a total of 43 cormorant nests, 79.5% contained eggs , and 1 the average clutch size was 2.91. Out of 98 eggs, 60 chicks hatched, with an 11 overall hatching success of 0. 63. Out of 60 chicks, ·so survived to fledge, with an overall fledging success of 0.85. Reproductive success was 1.54, and productivity 1.22 (Table 4). Table 4 Productivity Parameters and Results for Common Murres Cape Peirce, Alaska 1984 to 1989 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 Sites with eggs 190 40 80 78 Hatching success 0.14 0.20 0.43 0.40 Fledging success 0.88 0.18 0.50 0.70 Reproductive success 0.13 0.18 0.37 0.38 Murres had more reproductive success than kittiwakes at Cape Peirce. Out of a total of 78 sites with eggs, 40 sites had chicks, with an overall hatching success of 0.40. Out of 40 chicks, 37 survived to fledge, with an overall fledging success of 0. 70. Reproductive success was 0. 38 (Table 5). Table 5 Productivity Parameters and Results for Pelagic Cormorants at Cape Peirce, Alaska 1986 to 1989 1986 1987 1988 1989 Nest attempts 48 36 30 43 Nest with eggs 34 34 30 35 Hatching success 0.67 1.00 0.63 Fledging success 0.54 0.65 0.76 0.85 Reproductive success 1.08 1.58 1.84 1.54 Productivity 0.82 1.46 1.84 1.22 12 If there's room for one there is room for ten appears to be the philosophy of the common murre. Here the birds are just beginning to pack the rookeries at Cape Peirce. LH 5/89 Table 6 Total Black-legged Kittiwake (BLKI) and Common murre (COMU) population counts for all plots, Cape Peirce, Alaska 1985-1989 . Population plots Replicate Counts Non-replicate counts Total Common Uncommon Uncommon All plots Year BLKI COMU BLKI COMU BLKI COMU BLKI COMU 1985 937 3081 41 8 777 877 1755 3966 1986 1200 3253 524 872 214 38 1938 4163 1987 1075 3003 52 210 843 369 1970 3582 1988 1295 2820 46 32 1341 2852 1989 1026 2523 147 128 675 2389 1848 5040 a) 1985 population counts do not include plots 19-1 and 19-2 . Pl ots I 19-1 and 19-2 are included from 1985 to 1989 with the common plots. 13 b) Plots on the east side of the Cape Peirce peninsula were not censused in 1988. c) Uncommon plots, both with replicate and non-replicate counts vary from year to year; therefore, the total for all plots should be used in determining differences between years. Procedures for estimating populations for kittiwakes and murres has varied each year. In 1989 Biological Technician Haggblom attempted to standardize the data gathered since 1985. The above table shows a fairly stable population size with a slight increase of common murres. WATERFOWL BROOD SURVEYS In 1983, the refuge began waterfowl production surveys on the Nushagak Peninsula. In 1984, ten brood survey plots were established in two separate areas. These areas were surveyed, on foot, in 1984, 1985, and 1986. Two areas were added to this on-ground survey in 1986. One was located on the Nushagak Peninsula, north of the original ten survey plots, along the Igushik River. The second area was along the western coast of the refuge on the north side of Chagvan Bay. In 1987 all previously established plots (except the two on the north side of Chagvan Bay) were disregarded and a new study plan was written and initiated. Sixty study plots, each one square mile, were randomly selected from approximately 900 square miles of habitat. The two main areas selected were the Nushagak Peninsula and the western coastal region ranging from Quinhagak down to Chagvan Bay. Thirty plots were selected from each of these areas. 14 ,.. Merganser chick wondering "wheres the fish". Red breasted mergansers are common nesters through- out the refuge. This merganser chick drifted away from mom and modeled its fuzzy plumage for refuge volunteers. TL 6/89 U.S.G.S. topographical maps were used to divide the study areas into one square mile plots. A computer generated random number list was used to select study plots. Selected plots not accessible (more than two miles from a waterbody large enough and deep enough for float plane landings) were discarded and another number was drawn. Eighteen additional plots were selected for the 1988 survey, using the same method as in 1987. The new plots were selected from seven areas to complete the representative sample started in 1987. Areas surveyed include Kulukak River (two plots), Kanik River (four plots), Ualik Lake (three plots), Tvativak Bay (two plots), Osviak Slough (two plots), Matogak River (three plots) and Chagvan Bay (two new plots, two previously selected plots). Due to budget restrictions and unavailability of personnel, brood surveys were not conducted during the 1989 field season. Plans are underway to develop a survey method which is economically and physically feasible, which will still be compatible with the state-wide effort to standardize data collection in 1990. ) f 15 GOOSE BANDING Nushagak Peninsula, located in the southeast corner of the refuge, is composed of lakes, ponds, streams, rivers and marsh areas which offer food and shelter to staging, nesting and molting waterfowl. In 1982, a large concentration of geese, (white-fronted and Canada), was observed molting on the peninsula. The concentration of geese was noted during aerial surveys in subsequent years. Nothing was known about the origin of these geese or their status (i.e., failed breeders, immatures, etc.). A banding study was designed in 1987 in an attempt to determine a general age class of this molt group as well as to establish which subspecies of Canada geese are present. The banding effort encountered problems in 1987 when a majority of the wing net material was lost in shipping and resulted in the project being . ) cancelled for the year. Better organization and a change of vendors allowed the project to go on as planned in 1988. In 1989 the project was scheduled to begin the week of July 3, however, during a caribou survey on June 13, Wildlife Biologist/Pilot Hotchkiss discovered a large majority of the white-fronted geese were already flightless. As a result, the starting date was moved up to June 28. Over 90% of the Canada geese were still able to fly at this time. A tentative starting date was set for the week of July 10 for the Canadas, however due to unavoidable circumstances, a drive was not attempted until July 28. ) "It really does work." Volunteers Prisk and Beirman ) watch over penned white-fronts to remove trampled I or overstressed birds . DC 7/89 16 Molting geese were captured using a drive trap technique. Study areas were selected primarily by molting concentrations of geese and on the basis of accessibility by float equipped aircraft. The trap crew and materials were transported to each site using the refuge aircraft (N735EA). Personnel were dispatched to their assigned tasks while the aircraft was used to round up the geese to begin the drive. Two persons were stationed at each end of the trap wing, one person in the middle of each wing, and one person at the entrance of the trap to close the gate. Two Klepper kayaks were also used to drive the birds, one on either side of the aircraft. Constant communication with VHF hand held radios took place between the pilot, Kleppers and persons at the ends of the trap wings. This communication was essential for coordinating the drive. Birds captured were identified, sexed, aged when possible, banded and released. After all birds were processed and released, the trap was dismantled, moved to a new site and reconstructed for the next drive. A goal of 600 white-fronts and 600 Canadas was set again this year. The project was concluded on July 27. A total of three drives were made (2 for white-fronts and one for Canadas) all were successful resulting in 566 geese (450 white-fronts and 116 Canada) wearing Service bands. Because of the delayed start, the majority of the Canadas had already reached flight stage and vacated the area. The refuge also assisted Dennis o'rthmeyer, Northern Prairie Research, in applying visual collars and radio transmitters to white-fronts. GOOSE BANDING - TELEMETRY In a cooperative effort with the migratory bird research division, Dennis Orthmeyer, Northern Prairie Research; Davis, California, participated in this years banding effort. Mr. Orthmeyer' s primary objective was to place radio collars on 15 female white-fronts and yellow visual collars on an additional 50 birds. A variety of measurements were taken on the radio collared birds, including a blood sample. Tests will be conducted on the blood DNA to determine the genetic origin of the Nushagak Peninsula geese and also to determine if they are a subpopulation of the Yukon Delta birds. 17 "This won't hurt a bit." Dennis Orthmeyer, Northern Prairie Research and biological technician Campbell extract a blood sample from a semi-cooperative white front. DF 7/89 Solar panels recharge the radio battery on these ) neck collars, giving the collars a possible life f expenctancy of up to 3 years. DC 7/89 18 All collars were deployed on June 28 approximately 4 miles north of Cape Constantine (N58 25.5' Wl58 55.0'). Information on collar numbers, frequency and band numbers (leg bands are 5037- prefix) is listed in Tables 7 and 8. Table 7 Radio Collared White-Fronts COLLAR FREQUENCY BAND COLLAR FREQUENCY BAND 02 166.840 01701 01 166.530 01755 17 166.700 01710 08 166.770 01760 23 166.798 01720 10 166.790 01762 21 166.950 01730 04 166.990 01763 26 166.055 01740 24 166.125 01764 06 166.076 01750 15 166.890 01765 OS 166.832 01751 19 166.920 01766 07 166.708 01747 Table 8 Visual Collared White-Fronts COLLAR BAND COLLAR BAND COLLAR BAND SKS 01702 9K4 01721 7C2 01739 SK6 01703 9KS 01722 7C3 01741 SK7 01704 9K6 01723 7C4 01742 SK8 01705 9K7 01724 7CS 01743 6KO 01706 9K8 01725 7G6 01744 6Kl 01707 9K9 01726 7G7 01745 6K2 01708 6GO 01727 7GB 01746 6K3 01709 6Cl 01728 7G9 01748 SK9 01711 6C2 01729 8CO 01749 8KS 01712 6C3 01731 8Cl 01752 8K6 01713 6C4 01732 8C2 01753 8K7 01714 6CS 01733 8C3 01754 8K8 01715 6G6 01734 8C4 01756 9KO 01716 6G7 01735 8CS 01757 9Kl 01717 6G9 01736 8C6 01758 9K2 01718 7GO 01737 8C7 01759 9K3 01719 7Cl 01738 8C8 01761 On July 11, Wildlife Biologist/Pilot Hotchkiss, Refuge Manager Fisher, Biological Technician-Wildlife Campbell and Dennis Orthmeyer travelled to King Salmon and the Alaska Peninsula to band white-fronts. With the assistance of the Becharof National Wildlife Refuge staff and Dick Sellars, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, a drive was conducted on July 12 in the Hook Lagoon area. A total of 47 white-fronts were captured, 15 of the females received radio collars and the remaining birds were fitted with standard yellow neck collars. 19 RECOLONIZATION OF THE CAPE PEIRCE TERRESTRIAL HAUL OUT BY PACIFIC WALRUS Walrus have recently begun to recolonize previously abandoned haul- out sites along the Alaskan coast. Every year since 1978 walrus have been reported hauled out in the Cape Peirce/Security Cove region. By 1981 Cape Peirce was re-established as a major haul out site. Its importance rivals the Round Island Game Sanctuary, which was set aside to provide a protected resting place for walrus . Unfortunately, the Cape Peirce haul out site does not enjoy the same level of protection from disturbance by planes, boats, and visitors that the Round Island sanctuary does under State of Alaska stewardship. Haul out activity increased rapidly with a record 12,000 animals in 1985. Since then, a decrease in activity has occurred with only 6,300 animals in 1987, 6,900 animals in 1988, and a peak of 2,435 in 1989. · ) From April 26th to October 7th, the social behavior and herd number of walruses utilizing Cape Peirce were monitored and recorded. Specific objectives were to collect data on population size, distribution, and record any tagged animals. Mechanical and logistical difficulties were encountered with the Telonics receiver and as a result, little monitoring was done for radio-tagged animals. No signals were received. "Why do I always get stuck in the middle?" Pacific walrus haul-out on the beaches of Cape Peirce for a much needed nap. These animals may spend from 3-5 days feeding in the open ) ocean before r eturning to a haul-out . LJ 8/89 I 20 Data was collected daily from each haul out beach using the same location for each count. Counts were conducted in the morning. Two counts were taken at each location and averaged. If the second count varied from the first by more than 5%, a third count was made. Other data collected included weather, tide, disturbances and sightings of marine and other mammals in the area. Information collected at the Cape Peirce haul-out grounds during the past three years is characterized by a synchronous population fluctuation during the summer haul-out period. The correlation between the peak periods at Cape Peirce and those observed at Round Island suggest a movement pattern between the two areas, as well as a conservative population estimate of 15,000 animals utilizing the north Bristol Bay area. A new haul-out site was established during the 1987 season, when approximately 700 animals were observed hauled out on a stretch of beach on the northwest side of Cape Newenham. This site was not a previously documented haul-out location; however, it was used extensively during the 1987 season and was reported by maintenance personnel at Cape Newenham as being used on a regular basis during the 1988 summer. No information was obtained on 1989 use levels for this haul-out. During the past three years, an 8mm movie camera, with an XL601 interalometer was placed on a vantage point to record the movements on one of the main haul out beaches. The camera was set to take a frame every 15 minutes continuously. Unfortunately, repeated battery failures were experienced and only a few days worth of data were collected. As a result of problems incurred in the past, this technique was not utilized in 1989. CAPE PEIRCE ACOUSTICAL STUDY During the 1989 field season, the refuge assisted Marine Mammals Management (Regional Office) with logistical support for biological technicians to conduct an acoustical study at Cape Peirce. Walrus numbers have steadily declined at Cape Peirce and the Round Island State Game Sanctuary in 1987 and 1988. The reason for this decline is unknown. The purpose of this study was to assess the potential for collection of acoustic data. The objectives of the study were as follows: 1. To determine effectiveness of a proposed monitoring program. 2. To implement a monitoring program designed to assess relative sound intensity for various sources, man-made and natural. 3. To determine effectiveness of proposed sampling equipment for assessing absolute frequency and intensity of sounds from various sources. 4. To collect relative sound level data specific to identified sources (e.g., a known vessel at a known distance). 5. To assess the potential for determining cause and effect relationships between known sound sources and individu&l or groups of walrus. 21 Sound level measures were to be conducted at Round Island·and Cape Peirce over a period of several weeks from the end of May to the beginning of July. This time period corresponded to the seasonal haul out of large numbers of male walrus at both sites. Sound level measures were collected with the following two objectives in mind: 1. To take a representative sample of sound levels (both airborne and submerged) to determine the over-all make-up of the acoustical environment. 2. To make opportunistic measurements of anthropogenic sounds as vessels and aircraft approached the sampling area. Samples were not taken randomly, but rather were collected to represent sound level measures under a variety of weather and sea state conditions throughout the daily cycle. Field work at the Cape was delayed because bad weather prevented plane access. Once at the Cape, problems were encountered with equipment, weather, and water depth. As a result, few samples were collected. No published results from the project were available at the time of this report. CARIBOU REINTRODUCTION PROJECT The caribou reintroduction project conducted during the winter of 1988 continues to be a success. The herd was monitored by aerial survey every two weeks for the first six months. Peak calf count for spring of 1988 was 62 calves observed on June 24, 1988. Through the use of photos taken during the July 17, 1989 aerial survey, a peak count of 169 adults and 81 calves was obtained. Aerial surveys are now conducted once a month. A high degree of cooperation continues between the Service, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, the villages of Togiak and Manokotak and Choggiung Corporation. These villages continue to be very interested in the progress and well being of the new herd. It is hoped that with the combined efforts of the Service, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and the local villages of Manokotak, Togiak, and Dillingham, that these transplanted caribou will prosper to a herd size of 500-700 by the year 1993 (see Figure 3). 22 ) . ) Photo taken during a June aerial survey shows good calf recruitment, for the relocated herd on the Nushagak Peninsula. FILE NUSHAGAK PENINSULA CARIBOU HERD Projected Expansion ::> 600 ) 0 m a: < 0 u.. 0 a: w 400 m :;; ::> z 200 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 YEAR 1 Figure 3. Togiak refuge caribou herd current and projected growth J 1988-1994. i 23 . ) During winter months, caribou generally travel in small groups making it possible to obtain composition counts. FILE RANGE INVENTORY AND VEGETATIVE MONITORING - CARIBOU REINTRODUCTION The primary objectives of this study are to: 1. Describe and classify the vegetative composition and structure of the Nushagak Peninsula in order to determine the variety of plant communities and their relationships to major ecological factors. 2. Establish permanent vegetation plots to monitor changes in lichen browse and plant cover following caribou reintroduction. 3. Map the vegetation of the Nushagak Peninsula at 1:63,360 scale using thematic mapper (TM) imagery. 4. Involve the members of the local towns and villages with the reintroduction project and establish an understanding of the Service's role in habitat and game management in this part of the state. Caribou were reintroduced to the Nushagak Peninsula in 1988. The initial herd of 148 animals is expected to increase to 500 within 5 years. This ) anticipated population of caribou may not result in the overgrazing Fhat the extremely high densities (6,000) of reindeer caused on St. Matthew 24 Island, but should be monitored. The basic problem is the lack of information on the vegetation resource with which to manage. This is an opportunity to begin the systematic acquisition and analysis of resource information needed while planning for management of the Nushagak Peninsula rangeland. During 1989 sample sites were selected and exclosure materials were ordered and received. In 1990 vegetative mapping will start and exclosure plots will be established. IMMIGRATION. MOVEMENTS AND SURVIVAL OF MOOSE CALCES ALCES) IN THE TOGIAK NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE Moose have historically existed in the refuge in low densities. Present low moose densities are attributed to the lack of escape cover throughout . l most of the refuge and constant poaching. Examination of winter range along the Togiak River revealed an abundance of willows (Salix spp.) showing little evidence of having been browsed by moose, indicating that available browse during winter months is not a limiting factor to moose population survival or expansion. Vegetation is ideal for supporting a moose population several magnitudes greater than what currently exists. Areas with heavy concentrations of moose show obvious signs of use. Here moose have eaten the bark off the trees due to lack of other food . MJL 3/89 ) A research/management proposal was developed and submitted for apprpval in 1988 to accomplish the following objectives : 25 1. Educate refuge residents on the importance of protecting immigrating moose until a viable population can be established. 2. Determine the annual immigration rate of moose to the Togiak National Wildlife Refuge, and determine if this immigration is permanent or seasonal. 3 . Determine which areas adjacent to the refuge are the most significant for producing moose that immigrate into the refuge. 4. Provide representatives of each adjacent village with opportunities to participate in field work associated with objectives 2 and 3 . . ') Due to unusually cold weather and conflicting schedules, the project did not start until March 6, 1989. Between March 6 and April 7 a total of 32 animals (10 bulls, 22 cows)were fitted with radio collars. One bull and one cow died shortly after being collared in March. The collars were retrieved and placed on different animals. Biological Technician Sheffield and Interpreter Dyasuk attach a radio and visual collar to a sedated moose. MJL 3/89 ) The refuge Cessna (N735EA) was used as a spotter plane to locate , the animals . The capture teams used snow machines and were directed to the 26 ) animal(s) by the aircraft via VHF radio. Moose were darted from the snow machines using the immobilizing drug Carfentanil and were fitted with visual and radio transmitter collars. Data was recorded on time of injection, dart location, time animal became immobile, animal's physical condition, reaction to immobilizing drug, time given antidote, time standing and age of the animal. The darting and injection of immobilizing drug was carried out by Alaska Department of Fish and Game Biologist Ken Taylor. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Biologist Ken Taylor, Biological Technician Wildlife Campbell, ) Fisheries Biologist Harper and Ms. Moose smile proudly as the first radio collar is successfully deployed. MJL 3/89 ) I 27 Table 9 1989 Moose Collar Information COLLAR FREQUENCY LOCATION COLLAR FREQUENCY LOCATION 34 164.700 Killian 32 164.950 Killian 11 165.090 Killian 12 165.050 Killian 10* 164.390 Killian 7 165.180 Youth Cr. 33 164.790 Youth Cr. 45 164.320 Weary Vy. 37* 164.260 Long Arm 36 164.430 Weary Vy. 30 164.870 Youth Cr. 3 164.120 Youth Cr. 1 164.070 Youth Cr. 4 164.930 Youth Cr. 9 164.240 Youth Cr. 2 164.170 Youth Cr. 31 164.020 Killian 29 164.740 Sunshine 44 164.280 Sunshine 43 164.720 Sunshine 40 164.890 Sunshine 13 164.210 Sunshine 39 165.030 Sunshine 14 164.670 Sunshine 8 164.350 Sunshine 37** 164.260 Killian 35 164.100 Killian 10** 164.390 Weary Vy. 6 165.010 Sunshine 5 165.110 Sunshine 41 164.850 Sunshine 42 165.160 Sunshine * Animals died after capture; collars were removed ** Collars were reused Locations where animals were captured are: Killian Creek; Youth Creek; Long Arm Creek; Weary Valley; and Sunshine Valley. Collaring and subsequent radio tracking is expected to provide the following information: - Identify seasonal changes and moose movements between those seasonal ranges. - Provide an index of the annual moose migration rate between refuge lands and adjacent state lands. - Aid in locating moose for obtaining herd composition data and survival rates. - Provide data on predation rates, illegal take and act as a deterrent to illegal take (very important). 28 ·) Thirty moose were released with radio and bright orange visual collars. MJL 3/89 Information generated by this project and provided to villages will give residents of the area a better understanding of moose ecology and management. Information gained through this study will benefit the cooperative agreement that is to be developed between Alaska Department of Natural Resources (State Parks) and the refuge. This agreement is for managing common lands located along the western boundary of the Wood-Tikchik State Park and eastern boundary of the refuge. Educating village residents in the importance of protecting immigrating moose until a viable population is established will be an important part of this project. Development of a conservation ethic among refuge village residents began with the caribou transplant project. During the caribou transplant, village residents showed an interest in establishing a moose population and recognized their participation and cooperation is needed to accomplish these project objectives. This project is a cooperative effort between the Service, Alaska Department of Fish and Game and area villages. ) f 29 1988 - 1989 ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINANTS SAMPLING AT CAPE NEWENHAM AIR FORCE STATION The 2, 359 acre Cape Newenham Air Force Station is located within the refuge and provides valuable habitat for fisheries resources, nesting seabirds, marine mammals, terrestrial mammals and other birds. The radar facility has been in operation since 1954 and has undergone many phases of renovation. Potentially hazardous wastes generated at the station consist primarily of lubricating oils, some solvents, and polychlorinated biphenals from electrical transformers. The need for the Service to determine the presence or absence of contaminants at the Cape Newenham military facility is great because: 1) there is a potential for contaminants to be transferred from the facility through the food chain to Service trust resources; and 2) the Service does not want to inherit a contaminant problem when land management authorities are acquired. This sampling study was divided into two phases. Phase I consisted of collecting and analyzing soil samples from the installation to determine what, if any, contaminants may have entered the environment surrounding the installation. Collection of 54 sediment and 24 soil samples from 13 problem areas was completed on August 10 and 11, 1988. Analytical results were received from Patuxent Analytical Control Facility on June 23, 1989. A Partial Report of Findings: NO. 1 was prepared by Ecological Services Anchorage, October 1989. Sampling site number 12 (Upper Camp) had PCB levels classified as "high" (2530-3096 ppm). The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) policy requires clean-up action at levels above 50 ppm. Under Phase II of this project Regional Director Stieglitz sent a letter informing the U.S. Air Force of the discovery of elevated concentrations of PCB' s at the Cape Newenharn Station. The letter, dated November 1, 1989, also suggested initiating remedial action in consultation with the Environmental Protection Agency, Alaska Department of Environment Conservation, and the Service. By the end of the year the Service had received a response from the Air Force, Lt. Colonel Lamb, stating that a remedial action plan will be in effect the summer of 1990. This plan will consist of: a sampling program to define the extent of contamination; clean-up level objectives and procedures; clean-up verification sampling; quality control measures. The Service will conduct follow up sampling, after the Air Force clean-up effort is complete, to ensure adequate measures have been taken. This work will be scheduled for the summer 1991. AERIAL SURVEYS OF SPAWNING SAlMON AND CHAR During 1989 refuge personnel conducted aerial spawning surveys of the rivers in the Bristol Bay drainage portion of the refuge. Surveys for chinook, sockeye and churn salmon were flown on August 5 using a borrowed OAS Piper super cub. Very few king salmon were observed in the Osviak, 30 ) Matogak, and Quigmy rivers. The Negukthlik and Ungalikthluk rivers were the only rivers with any significant numbers (560) of spawning chinook. The Togiak River was not surveyed by the refuge since the Department of Fish and Game was scheduled to fly surveys on the river. Surveys for coho salmon and Dolly Varden/char scheduled to be flown in October for both Bristol Bay and Kuskokwim Bay drainages were not flown. The survey scheduled for the end of September was put on indefinite hold as we awaited a gear change (floats to wheel skis) and 100 hour inspection of the refuge aircraft. Other planes and pilots were busy at the time with moose surveys and other duties so the surveys were completely missed in 1989. · ) ) Aerial salmon escapement surveys of rivers require many long hours in the refuge cessna. FILE The outlook for chinook salmon in western Bristol Bay rivers still does not look good. The low escapement is believed to be partially due to the incidental by catch that occurs during the large sockeye salmon fisheries. Fish may also be harvested on the high seas, and in other management areas as the fish migrate back to their natal streams. New and innovative methods of controlling this catch while still allowing for the catch of the larger runs of sockeye need to be devised prior to a complete loss of these runs. KAGATI LAKE SOCKEYE SALMON ESCAPEMENT SURVEYS ) I Refuge volunteers, Rob Doyle and Pete Carmichael, collected age, weight 31 ) and length data from 300 beach dead sockeye salmon in Kag·ati Lake during August and September. All samples were taken over a three week period from dead sockeye found on the shoreline. This was the third year that the refuge has sampled sockeye from the lake. All scale samples were sent to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Commercial Fisheries office in Bethel. The results were combined with commercial samples taken in the village of Quinhagak . . ) Scale samples were collected from spawned out sockeye salmon that washed ashore in the lake. PC 8/89 GOODNEWS LAKE TOWER PROJECT A commercial fishery has occurred annually in Goodnews Bay since 1968. Salmon escapement into the Goodnews River has been assessed by aerial surveys and starting in 1981 assisted by a counting tower established on the Middle Fork. Aerial surveys of the river system have been carried out rather sporadically and coho surveys were missed completely during the year. The primary objective of this project was to determine the feasibility of counting salmon at Goodnews Lake and to provide an estimate of the salmon escapement into Goodnews Lake. Due to a lack of funds this project has been dependent upon the operation of the public use camp. Two projects are essentially carried out using only one camp. ) / 32 ) ·) Tower operators counted migrating salmon. This one took the shallow route. KH 8/89 View from atop the Goodnews counting tower looking downstream. KH 7/89 f 33 The Goodnews Lake salmon counting tower operated from June 26 to August 3, and from August 17 to September 1. A preliminary estimate of 28-30,000 sockeye migrated past the counting tower. Coho salmon were also counted, however the data was lost by the field crew and only a very rough estimate of 2, 000-2, 500 fish were counted. An expansion of this count has not been attempted at this time. LAKE TROUT POPULATION STUDY KAGATI LAKE Studies conducted by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (Department) indicate that size and age of lake trout has drastically declined in central Alaska lake populations. The Department has taken steps to curtail the harvest of older age fish from these slow growing populations to both preserve and enhance existing populations. Several lakes within the refuge also contain lake trout populations about which little is known. Sport fishing effort is currently light to moderate, but there is potential for increased use. In 1988 the refuge began a three year study to gather data on the lake trout population in Kagati Lake. The objectives of the study are to: -Determine age and size structure of the lake trout population. -Estimate age at maturity and fecundity of female lake trout. -Determine population size and estimate allowable harvest to maintain historic size and age. A mark-recapture (tagging) study is being used to estimate the size of the population. Lake trout have been captured using nets and angling methods, the latter being most efficient. Length and weight measurements were taken from all fish captured. Sagittal otoliths (middle ear bony structure), stomach and gonad samples were collected from all mortalities with a sampling goal of five fish from each 25 millimeter length increment in the catchable population. In 1988, fifteen days of sampling occurred between July 7 and 28. A total of 177 fish were captured. Of these 163 were tagged and released, 2 were recaptures, and 11 were mortalities. In 1989, thirty-nine days of sampling occurred between June 25 and August 22. A total of 420 fish were captured. Of these 367 were tagged and released, 12 were recaptures with 1988 tags, 11 were recaptures of 1989 tags, and 30 were mortalities/or sacrificed for aging. 34 . ) Lake trout were tagged to monitor movements and to determine population size. TL 8/89 In 1989 lake trout ranged from 380 to 67lmm (14.9-26 . 4 in) and averaged 487mm (19.1 in) in length. Approx imately 80% of the sampled population (N = 396) were from 450 to 520mm (17.7-20.5 in)(Figure 4). Measured weights ranged from 800 to 3,250 grams (2.76-7.2 lbs), and averaged 1,474 grams (3.2 lbs)(N= 392). A preliminary population estimate indicates a population of approximately ) 6, 600 lake trout in Kagati Lake or approximately 2. 7 lake trout per surface acre. This study will continue in 1990 with a similar intense sampling effort. A more reliable population estimate will be possible upon completion of the third year sampling effort . A mortality estimate associated with tagging should be available from tag recapture ratios during all three years. Data on age at maturity and fecundity of females will also be collected. ) I 35 Percent 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 · '1 2 0 385 .OS 425 «5 465 485 505 525 545 565 565 1!05 1125 645 e65 :lOS 415 435 455 475 495 515 535 555 575 5Q5 1115 1535 1155 &75 Length Group (mid point fork length In mm) Figure 4. Lake trout length distribution in Kagati Lake, Togiak National Wildlife Refuge, 1988 and 1989. ) Forty year old (7.2 lbs) captured in Kagati Lake. TL 8/89 .f 36 VILLAGE SUBSISTENCE FISHERY SURVEYS One of the purposes of the refuge is to provide the opportunity for continued subsistence use by local residents. Information on subsistence harvests of resident and anadromous species such as char and their importance for subsistence is currently lacking. To fully understand the population dynamics of fresh water and some anadromous species it is necessary to determine quantities harvested and the importance they play in subsistence catches. Data on the populations is also important to measure impacts and detect trends. The refuge undertook a study to determine the subsistence harvests on the Togiak and Kanektok Rivers. Objectives of the surveys are to: 1. Gather information on numbers of fish utilized for subsistence, by species on the Togiak and Kanektok Rivers. 2. Map primary subsistence use areas. 3. Sample subsistence catches to gather age, weight and length data of the harvests. TOGIAK SUBSISTENCE SURVEY With the use of Refuge Information Technicians, Joshua Andrews and Willie Echuck Jr., subsistence information was gathered from Togiak village residents. A total of 119 households were contacted in the village. Information was gathered from 36 households which included some data from returned state subsistence permits. Eighty two households stated that they did not harvest any fish and 16 did not want to be interviewed. Fish harvest methods were primarily by gill net. Total reported harvest by species was: 5,675 char, 2,208 smelt, 410 kings, 592 chums, 782 coho, 2,138 sockeye, 24 pinks, 22 rainbows, 45 grayling, 253 whitefish, and 17 pike (Figure 5). 37 1,0Xl 0 Char/DV Reds Ch.rn Pi"ks Grayi'lg Pke Hab.t Smet Cd1o Ki1g Whtefish Raii:low Other Species Figure 5. Subsistence harvests from Togiak, Alaska, May 1988-January 1989. Data from 36 harvesting households. A total of 119 households were contacted out of a total of 168. Sixteen refused to participate in the survey and 82 indicated that they did not harvest fish during the year. (Data from 36 harvesting households includes 17 returned subsistence permits). The char harvest of 5,675 comprised approximately 50% of the total number of fish harvested (Figure· 6). Next in importance were smelt and sockeye at 18.1 and 17.6% respectively. Sockeye however were the most important contributor by weight and made up 36.5% of the total harvest followed by char and king salmon. Harvest By Numbers 46.6% e2 Char/DV IIJ Smelt I§ SOckeye ~~~~0.7% [ill Coho 1.5% E] Chum 0 King 17.6% 11.1% • Whitefish D Other species Figure 6. Togiak village subsistence harvests of fish species by weight and numbers. Data comprised of harvest information from 36 households and their harvests between May 1988 and January 1989. Other species include rainbow trout, grayling, pike, halibut and blackfish. Weight data derived from average live weights of commercially caught salmon and freshwater fish samples from the Togiak District or Drainage. 38 Data was also collected from subsistence users as they fished on the river. One hundred twenty eight subsistence users were counted on the river and 50 or 39% were interviewed while icefishing. These users expended 90 hours to harvest 96 char, 20 smelt, and 1 northern pike for a catch per unit effort of 1.3 fish per hour. . ) Refuge Information Technicians Joshua Andrews (left) and Willie Echuck (middle) with Fishery Biologist Harper on a survey on the Togiak River. JD 2/89 Char sizes were also measured while conducting the survey. The median size captured was 41 . 9 em (16.5 in), and averaged .59 kg (1.3lbs.). (Figure 7.) ) 39 6 ... Q) .D E 4 z::J 2 0 9 12 15 18 21 24 Fork Length (in) Figure 7. Length frequency of Togiak River char harvested during subsistence ice fishing activities. February-March 1989. KANEKTOK RIVER SUBSISTENCE SURVEY This study was initiated in 1988 and is currently in its second year. Kathy Cleveland and Charles Evans, Refuge Information Technicians from Quinhagak, surveyed households and conducted river interviews during the months of January to May 1989 to collect subsistence harvest data on fresh water fish. A total of 140 households were identified in the villag~. Ninety-five were contacted, with 11 refusing to be interviewed. In addition they made several trips on snowmachines up the river to gather data on length of time spent fishing, location of activity and the number of fish harvested. Sixty-six households reported a subsistence harvest of 4, 575 char, 13 lake trout, 1,551 rainbow trout, 326 grayling, 8,346 smelt, 1,109 whitefish and 215 blackfish (Figure 8). When combining this information with that of the salmon harvest during the summer, fresh water fish comprise a significant portion of the overall harvest by numbers and weights. Char comprise approximately 19.7% by number and 7. 4% by weight of the fish harvest. (Figure 9). Rainbow trout comprise only 6.7% by number and 3.5% by weight. Both of these fish comprise a valuable component of the winter diet of the village. 40 10,000 8,000 (f).... 6,000 Q) .0 E ::s z <1,000 2,000 0 Sockeye coho char{OV Whitefish Grayling Klng chum Smelt RBT Other Species Figure 8. Reported fish harvested from the village of Quinhagak. Harvest data for fresh water species is based upon reports by 66 ·households surveyed for the period of May 1988 through March 1989. Salmon harvest data is from Alaska Department of Fish and Game data from 65 households. Harvest by weight Harvest by numbers IQ;jCoho f§jt Figure 9. Subsistence harvest of salmon and freshwater species by numbers and weight from the village of Quinhagak. Freshwater species harvest based upon 66 data from households surveyed between May 1988 - March 1989. Salmon data is from Alaska Department of Fish and Game subsistence surveys based upon 65 households. 41 ) 0 ) "The smelt are hitting." Quinhagak village resident Henry Small subsistence fishing on Lower Kanektok River. MJL 2/89 The information gathered will help managers understand the types of fish harvested from the river and the numbers needed for subsistence purposes. Numerous problems such as snow machine break downs precluded the team from making the desired number of trips up the river during the year. Also some resistance to the collection of subsistence information was experienced by the technicians. This seems to be getting better as refuge personnel spend more time in the village. NEGUKTHLIK RIVER RAINBOW TROUT STUDY The refuge completed the first year of a two year study of the rainbow trout found in the Negukthlik and Ungalikthlik Rivers. The objectives of the study are: 1. Determine the life history characteristics of the rainbow trout populations. 2. Determine critical spawning and overwintering habitat areas. 3. Determine the feasibility of monitoring these rainbow trout populations using aerial survey techniques. ) By completing the study objectives the refuge should be in a better 42 position to manage the population and maintain the historical size and age classes. This population is found in two small drainages, the Negukthlik and its tributary the Ungalikthluk River. A considerable amount of float plane traffic occurs on a headwater lake of the Negukthlik River and a sportfish guide also has a base camp operation at the mouth of the river. Half of the Negukthlik and over 90% of the Ungalikthluk River are on the refuge. Preliminary data suggests a small population of approximately 884 fish in 25 Km (16 miles) of river. Fish sizes range up to 72.5 em (28.5 in) and 4.65 kilos (10.24 lbs) with an average of 43.3 em (17 in) and 1.281 kilos (2.8 lbs). The size structure of this population is very different from that of the Kanektok River where a large rainbow trout population is found (Figure 10). Fish size and age in the population makes it one of the most unique fisheries on the refuge and probably reflects a low sportfishing mortality to date. Over 25% of the population is age 9 or older (Figure 11). 60 Kanektok R. 1987 N- 442 50 r2l .... g Negukthllk R.1989 N= 286 Q) <40 r- .0 E z::l 30 r- - 20 &l 10 ~~l - IE~-~ - B R" 0 • -~~ I Jill .. , m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Length (mm) Figure 10. A comparison of the length of Negukthluk River rainbow trout to the Kanektok River rainbow trout population. 43 35 30 -· X t8] Kanektok River 25 X 1987N • 324 ..... • Negukthllk c X 820 X 1989 N • 225 '- Q) "' >< 0.. 15 X ~ >< ;>< >< X >< ~ >< 10 >< >< 1- >< ~ 7' X X >< Q >< )< 5 >< -~ )< >< - - Q )< )< 0 J J ::.. )< 2 >< ~ .lQ 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 n.10 11 12 13 Age - Figure 11. A comparison of age class composition of Negukthluk River and Kanektok River rainbow trout populations. Fish movements have been monitored through tag returns and radio transmitters. Fish were implanted with transmitters in the spring to try and locate spawning areas and home ranges. A second series of transmitters were implanted in the fall that will allow tracking of fish through the winter and into the spawning period of next spring. Winter movements will be important in determining if fish overwinter in areas utilized by subsistence fishermen. Fish movements have been found to be extensive with fish moving in one direction in excess of 32 kilometers (20 mi.), moving down the Negukthlik to the confluence and up the Ungalikthluk, to return later in the fall. Movements have been both onto and off of the refuge. With the use of radio transmitters the location of important spawning and overwintering areas will be delineated in the spring of 1990. The use of aircraft to monitor the number of fish on the spawning grounds will also be attempted during the spring of 1990. 44 Fishery Biologist Harper conducting surgery to place radio transmitter into rainbow trout . RD 6/89 (, ,,.~.==-~- -=... · I A ~ - .B lffbrrrlrlrlrlrlft~lr!JI!I!I!I!@~,,,j,,,,,,,l~rh!rlilrll!rl~r!rlrl,rrl!l!lfr,lr!rlflllt!r!ij,,,,,l,rrhtlliTtlrltllhll!flrtlhl:l,hh!""' Size comparison of two radio transmitters used for tracking rainbows. A, a 6 month transmitter was replaced by the slightly more expensive 9 month transmitter B. MB 9/89 45 Radio implanted fish were checked for location after being released. · MB 6/89 SIDE SCAN SONAR PROJECT TOGIAK RIVER King Salmon Fishery Assistance Office fell short on funds and manpower and did not operate the sonar project on the Togiak River in 1989. This project will be carried out in fiscal year 1990. The use of sonar is a management tool necessary to insure that adequate escapement goals are met. \ KANEKTOK RIVER RAINBOW TROUT STUDY In 1987 the King Salmon Fishery Assistance Office completed a three year study on the rainbow trout population in the Kanektok River. The final report should be out sometime in 1990. GOODNEWS RIVER RAINBOW TROUT STUDY The King Salmon Fishery Assistance Office completed field work on a two year rainbow trout research project on the Goodnews River. The focus of the 1989 (second year) sampling effort was to collect juvenile fish for age validation and increase the coverage of data collection in the Goodnews drainage. Crews operated out of temporary camps and accessed sampling areas along the river by jet outboard powered boats and rubber ) rafts. Sampling methods included minnow traps, backpack electrosho ~ker, and hook and line. The North and Middle Forks of the Goodnews River were 46 sampled, as well as the Kukaktlik River (a tributary of the Middle Fork). A total of 149 rainbow trout were captured in 1989. Of this total, 104 had readable scales. Twenty-three of the size range 27-377 mm (1-14 in) were dissected for otoliths. Data analysis interpretation, and report preparation are in progress. A draft final report will be submitted for refuge and Regional Office review in February 1990. GENETIC STOCK IDENTIFICATION OF BRISTOL BAY SALMON Under a contract with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is undertaking a study to test the feasibility of genetic stock identification of salmon from Bristol Bay, Alaska. As a cooperator in this study the King Salmon Fishery Assistance Office was responsible for collection and shipment of salmon tissue samples to the Alaska Fish and Wildlife Research Center in Anchorage. Target species in 1989 included chinook, chum, coho, and sockeye salmon. A total of nine salmon stocks were sampled from Bristol Bay drainages. Of the targeted Bristol Bay stocks, 100% of the chinook, chum, and sockeye samples were collected. Fifty percent of the targeted Bristol Bay coho stocks were sampled. Of the targeted Kuskokwim Bay stocks, 43% of the chinook, 45% of the chum, 36% of the coho, and 83% of the sockeye salmon stocks were sampled. Refuge samples were collected from the Kanektok River (51 chinook, 92 chum, 100 coho, and 100 sockeye) and the Goodnews River (75 chinook, 75 chum, 75 coho, and 100 sockeye). JET BOAT STUDY Throughout the scoping process for the Fishery Management Plan one issue that kept surfacing was that of jet boats and their impacts on fisheries. Numerous people in the villages, the refuge staff and others felt that there may be an impact to fish eggs in the spawning gravels and to the small fish found in rivers. A study proposal for research into the impact of jet boats was submitted to the Regional Office. The study was approved with revisions for possible funding in 1990. Service funding for this study has not materialized at this time. The National Park Service however has obtained some funding for studying these impacts on the rivers. Their funding will start in Fiscal Year 1991. The refuge is still pursuing funding to start work on refuge rivers. TOGIAK RIVER COUNTING TOWER The Alaska Department of Fish and Game operates a counting tower on the Togiak River, near Togiak Lake. The refuge and Alaska Department of Fish and Game combined forces on the counting tower project during 1987 and 1988. Refuge participation was not available in 1989 due to other priorities. 47 KANEKTOK RIVER ESCAPEMENT SURVEY Refuge personnel stationed at Kagati Lake collected escapement samples from 300 sockeye. In addition the King Salmon Fishery Assistance Office collected scales from 51 chinook, 92 chum, 100 coho and 100 sockeye while conducting the genetic stock Identification work (See Genetic study). GOODNEWS RIVER ESCAPEMENT SURVEY The Alaska Department of Fish and Game collected age, weight and length data from samples in the commercial fishery and at the tower site. The Fish and Wildlife Service also assisted by collecting scales from the genetic stock identification study (See Genetic Study). The AWL information is used in analyzing spawner recruitment information and determining the age and sex composition of the runs. Scale samples from 300 sockeye were collected during August and September by refuge personnel at the lake. These samples were forwarded to the Department of Fish and Game in Bethel for use in spawner recruitment and escapement data bases. GOODNEWS COUNTING TOWER The Alaska Department of Fish and Game operates a salmon counting tower approximately 12 miles upriver on the Middle Fork of the Goodnews River. This tower was operational from June 23 to July 31. Tower counts are used to regulate in-season fishing times, by allowing adequate sockeye and chinook salmon stocks to escape into the rivers to spawn. Information gathered on escapements will also be used in the future to refine escapement indexes for the various species. KUSKOKWIM BAY COMMERCIAL FISHERIES CATCH MONITOR The Alaska Department of Fish and Game office in Bethel normally conducts monitoring projects on the Kanektok and Goodnews rivers. A technician was stationed in Quinhagak from July 1 until the end of August. This technician was responsible for monitoring commercial and subsistence catches, collecting age, sex, length, and scale samples; dissemination of fisheries information to the public; assisting Fish and Wildlife Protection with enforcing regulations; and compiling historical data on the fishery. 48 E. ADMINISTRATION 1. Personnel . ) Front row, left to right: Diane Campbell and Carol Johnson. Back row, left to right : Jon Dyasuk, Mark Lisac, Pete Jerome, Ken Harper, Dave Fisher. FILE 12/89 ) Permanent Employees EOD : 1. David A. Fisher Refuge Manager GS-12 10/22/81 2. Peter J. Jerome Assistant Refuge Manager GS-11 10/01/86 3. Lee A. Hotchkiss Wildlife Biologist/Pilot GS-12 01/24/82 Transferred on: 07/16/89 4. Ken C. Harper Fisheries Biologist GS-11 09 / 01/ 85 5. Jon A. Dyasuk* Interpreter GS-09 09/02/87 6. Mark J . Lisac* Bio-Tech./Fisheries GS-07 02/14/ 85 7. Carol A. Johnson* Secretary GS-05 02/22/88 Temporary Employees 8. Diane Campbell Bio-Tech/Wildlife GS-05 01/17/89 9. Katherine Cleveland* Refuge Information Tech. GS-06 01/01/89 ) Quinhagak, Alaska 10. Charles Evans* Refuge Information Tech. GS-06 02/221 88 Quinhagak , Alaska 49 11. Willie Echuck Jr.* Refuge Information Tech. GS-06 07/06/89 Togiak, Alaska 12. Joshua Andrews* Refuge Information Tech. GS-06 07/06/89 Togiak, Alaska 13. Michelle Bourassa Bio-Tech./Fisheries GS-05 04/25/89 to 09/15/89 14. Lisa Haggblom Bio-Tech./Wildlife GS-05 05/08/89 to 11/10/89 15. Gay Sheffield* Bio-Tech./Wildlife GS-05 01/17/89 to 04/14/89 16. Chris Christansen Pilot GS-12 07/23/89 to 08/11/89 17. Gary Ludwig Pilot (Office of Aircraft Services, Seasonal) GS-12 08/11/89 to 11/17/89 *Local Hire Employees 1989 was a busy year for personnel actions. Wildlife Biologist/Pilot, Lee Hotchkiss, transferred to the Regional Office (Migratory Birds) in July. Lee had been the refuge pilot since January 1982 when he transferred to Togiak National Wildlife Refuge from Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge. He served as the Assistant Refuge Manager/Pilot.for approximately 5 years and 2 1/2 years as the Wildlife Biologist/Pilot. Lee did a fine job in both capacities and his excellent capabilities as a pilot will be missed. Chris Christansen, a Department of Agriculture pilot from Idaho, on loan to Office of Aircraft Services, filled in for 1 month after Hotchkiss left. Chris returned to Idaho in August. He was replaced by Gary Ludwig, a seasonal Office of Aircraft Services pilot. Gary left in November. Gary was replaced by Mike Hinkes. Mike is the Wildlife Biologist/Pilot at the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge and filled in temporarily after Ludwig's departure. Mike is scheduled to move here permanently in January 1990. Ms. Gay Sheffield a former refuge volunteer (1988) was hired as a temporary Bio-Tech. to help work on the public use management plan. She worked from January 17 to April 14 and then went to work as a Game Technician II for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. She finished with the Department in September and worked as a refuge volunteer until November. Ms. Michelle Bourassa also a former refuge volunteer (1988) worked as a Bio-Tech.-Fisheries from April 25 to September 15. She spent most of her time working on the Ungalikthluk and Negukthlik rivers on the rainbow trout tagging project. Ms. Lisa Haggblom, another refuge volunteer (1988), worked as a Bio-Tech, Wildlife from May 8 to November 10. Lisa spent most of the field season conducting seabird studies at the Cape Peirce field camp. 50 The Refuge Information Technician (RIT) program expanded significantly in 1989. Kathy Cleveland, Quinhagak, Alaska, returned in August and we were able to hire two new RIT's from Togiak, Alaska, Willie T. Echuck, Jr. and Joshua D. Andrews. RIT duties consisted of collecting winter subsistence fishing data, dissemination of information concerning the Yukon Delta Goose Management Plan, Togiak River subsistence surveys, Kanektok River subsistence surveys, and Board of Fishery meetings. All the RIT' s attended village, city and traditional Council meetings. The RIT' s were very helpful with the public use management plan. They helped out in notifying the public, and assisted in the translation of the plan to the village people who could not read and write. . ) Region 7 Refuge Information Technicians at a training session in Anchorage. Togiak Refuge Information Technicians that attended are Joshua Andrews (4), Willie Echuck (1), Charles Evans (2) and Kathy Cleveland (3). Refuge Interpreter Jon Dyasuk (5) also attended the session. The refuge staff has increased several fold since 1981. In 1981, there was only one lonely staff member. Today due to the highly complicated issues and management programs we have expanded to a fine complement of permanent, temporary, volunteer, and YCC personnel, (Table 10). ) 51 Table 10 Refuge Staffing Patterns Year Permanent* Tem:Qorar;t* Volunteers YCC 1981 1 0 0 0 1982 3 0 0 0 1983 3 0 2 0 1984 3 4 11 0 1985 5 1 11 0 1986 6 1 15 0 1987 7 4 19 1 1988 7 6 25 2 1989 7 10 19 0 *Includes Local Hire 2. Youth Programs The refuge did not conduct a YCC program this year. We originally intended to hire one YCC and had several local high school students who were interested. However, when commitment time came around these students had all taken higher paying summer jobs. We plan to try again in 1990. 4. Volunteer Program The refuge has participated in the volunteer program for the past six years beginning in 1984. Each year we refine the program and make adjustments or additions to hopefully improve the volunteers' experience and benefit the refuge. In 1989 Biological Technician Lisac became volunteer coordinator. Projects were scaled back, biological technician positions were filled with previous years volunteers, an expediter position (volunteer) was added to handle coordination and local residents were used to help conduct goose banding projects. As a result fewer seasonal volunteers were on staff. 52 Volunteer Carmichael and Doyle enjoy a day of goose banding. Volunteers were trained and supervised in banding procedures to help them gain a more diverse background in refuge projects. DC 7/89 Over 40 prospective volunteer applicants were contacted between February and April, to fill seven vacancies. Response was real slow with the last position being filled in mid-April. In years past we have had to turn away people and have used 12-16 seasonal volunteers. It appears as though interest in volunteering decreased sharply in 1989. Several people contacted were waiting to hear about paying positions or did not want to volunteer for the entire season. We will plan to try and add more bio tech positions in 1990 to insure adequate staffing for certain projects. One position we will pay to fill is that of an expediter/coordinator. This person is required to contribute long hours and is most valuable in coordinating field supplies, aircraft schedules, radio checks (safety), and general maintenance of field equipment. Returning volunteers continue to be a strong asset to our program. Four previous volunteers returned for the 1989 season. Two were hired as biological technicians. Volunteers Robert Doyle (88 & 89), and Vern Burandt (85, 87 and 89), Biological Technicians Lisa Haggblom (87) and Michelle Bourassa (88) returned for the 1989 season. These people provided consistency to our programs and assisted in the training and orientation of new arrivals. ) This was the first season we provided and required volunteers to wear Service uniforms. This practice improved personnel appearance and 53 reception by visitors to the refuge. We will continue this requirement in following seasons. Another positive move we accomplished in our volunteer program was using local Dillingham people. Eight local volunteers were signed on to assist with the capture and banding of white-fronted and Canada geese. In the past we had pulled people from other field projects, to accomplish waterfowl production surveys and goose banding. This year local people were excited about getting involved in a refuge project. This allowed us to keep other programs running and to get individuals from the community more involved with the Service, not to mention the positive public relations we established. One of the participants, a high school student, wrote an article in the local newspaper about her experience banding geese. Assisting refuge staff and seasonal volunteers, local volunteers provided the majority of the manpower needed for the success of the goose banding program. 450 white-fronts and 116 Canada geese were banded in 1989. DF 7/89 Nineteen volunteers spent a total of 877 person days or approximately 9000 hours in volunteer work for the refuge. Following are the people who participated in the volunteer program in 1989, (Table 11): ) 54 Table ll Refuge Volunteers for 1989 Name From 1989 Service Dates Total Person Days Robert Doyle Gunnison, co. Apr. 28 - Sept. 30 150 Vern Burandt Lone Pine, CA. May 10 - Sept. 14 120 Chris Beirman Dearborn, MI. May 22 - Sept. 18 120 Pat Chubb Lubbock, TX. May 22 - Aug. 12 80 Lauri Jemison Acton, MA. May 10 - Oct. 1 140 Pete Carmichael Batavia, NY. June 4 - Sept. 15 105 Tad Lindley Fairbanks , AK. May 26 - Sept. 7 105 Sue Hotchkiss Dillingham, AK. July 10 - July 13 4 Debra Jerome It It It It 4 Bob Cherry It II It II 4 Brad Fisher It It It It 1 Ward Jones It II It It 2 Don LeClair II II II II 2 Max LeClair II II It II 1 Nancy Rosi II II II II 2 Bob Rosi II II II II 2 Michelle Rosi II II II II 2 Rod Mehrtens II II It It 2 John Rinne California Sept. 2 - Sept. 5 3 Gay Sheffield Rhode Island Sent. 10 - Oct. 10 30 19 Volunteers 877 The refuge provided all field gear, food, and equipment (except sleeping bags). Round trip air transportation from Anchorage to Dillingham was also provided. Returning volunteers were furnished round trip airfare from Seattle. All of the volunteers arrived in Dillingham prior to our scheduled volunteer training session. While waiting for the field season to begin, volunteers were kept busy preparing field equipment, sorting and packing field supplies, and participating in the week long training program, which consisted of the following: * First Aid/CPR training and certification. * A discussion of ref~ge history, goals, policies, and regulations. * Use and care of firearms, including cleaning, handling, and firing range practice. * Appropriate refuge visitor interview techniques. * Review and completion of all field data forms. * Aircraft identification. * Service policy on alcoholic beverages and drug use. * Alaska State fishing regulations. * Bear safety. * Cold water survival/hypothermia. * Aircraft safety, including aircraft survival gear and emergency locator transmitter use. * Boat and motor handling, maintenance, and safety. 55 * HF radio use procedures. * Solar panel and 12-volt battery care and maintenance. * Field equipment maintenance and use. * Bird identification. * Fish sampling and identification techniques. * Do's and don'ts when dealing with native residents. * Drinking water safety, Giardia and water filters. A brief description of volunteer projects worked on this year are listed below. * Marine mammal monitoring of haul out sites at Cape Peirce and Nanvak Bay. * Public use surveys at Goodnews Lake and Kagati Lake. * Public use surveys and fish sampling on the Kanektok River and Goodnews River. * Raptor surveys at all field locations. * Compiling data for refuge mammal list. * Continuation of and completion of a draft refuge bird list. * Continuation of the refuge herbarium collection. * Waterfowl migration/staging data collection at Nanvak Bay. * Salmon counting tower at Goodnews Lake. * Lake trout tagging at Kagati Lake. * Radio telemetry monitoring of marine mammals and emperor geese at Cape Peirce. * Goose banding. * Capture, sampling, tagging and transmitter implanting of rainbow trout in the Negukthlik River system. * Radio tracking of moose, caribou and rainbow trout. * Computer data entry. * Report writing. 1989 was another outstanding year for the volunteer program. The refuge staff is fortunate to have this opportunity to work with the many talented people who display a great deal of enthusiasm for working with the general public and wildlife resources. Much of the field data we received as a result of their efforts would have been otherwise impossible to obtain. We feel we were able to view some potential Service employees who were well above average in both talent and integrity. Also, each volunteer expressed appreciation towards the Service for the opportunity to view a unique close-up of our programs, projects, and problems; for giving them a chance to use their talents; and for leaving them with a clearer picture of what the Service is trying to accomplish. 5. Funding Total funding for fiscal year 1989 was $678,000. This includes $70,000 for fisheries administration, and $6,000 for banding geese. 56 Table 12 Funding History for Togiak National Wildlife Refuge FY 1210 1220 1230 1260 1331 8610 Total 1981 10,000 20,000 30,000 1982 130,000 66,000 196,000 1983 130,000 60,000 190,000 1984 250,000 10,000 260,000 1985 280,000 30,000 310,000 1986 322,000 60,000 382,000 1987 1,500 501,000 60,000 562,500 1988 675,000 60,000 735,000 1989 6,000 602,000 70,000 678,000 1990 (proposed) 689.000 79,000 768.000 6. Safety No major accidents occurred during 1989. Monthly safety meetings were held with topics ranging from home fire prevention to aircraft accident survival techniques. An extensive safety program was presented to the refuge volunteers during the week long orientation and training session. Subjects covered included hands on training in the safe use of all types of field equipment, boat and motor operations, hypothermia and cold water near drowning, fuel handling, firearm safety, bear safety and aircraft emergency procedures for passengers. Accidents that occurred during the year were: Accident/incidents Personnel Action: Dislocation of Back Volunteer Hospital visit. Muscle relaxants prescribed. Infected Mosquito Bite Volunteer Hospital visit. Infection lanced/medicated. Safety equipment purchased during the year included fire extinguishers, aircraft helmets for low level survey work, and exposure suits for working around cold water. 8. Other (Special Use Permits) There were a total of 41 special use permits issued this year, (Table 12). Twenty three permits were issued to commercial sport fish guides, four to big game hunting guides, five to air taxi/charter companies, six to other agencies for surveys, three for shore based commercial fishing set net sites and one for military training. 57 · } Sport fish operations such as this temporary base camp outside the refuge, do not require a special use permit. DF 8/89 ) f 58 Table 13 1989 Special Use Permits PERMIT # PERMITTEE PURPOSE OF PERMIT FEE T-01-89 Alaska River Safaris Sport Fishing Guide $100 T-02-89 N.E. Hautanen Big Game Guide $100 T-03-89 Bob Adams II II II $100 T-04-89 Rainbow River Lodge II II II $100 T-05-89 John Peterson II II II $100 T-06-89 Aleknagik Mission Lodge Sport Fishing Guide $100 T-07-89 Beyond Boundaries Expedition II II II $100 T-08-89 Riverbound Float Trips II II II $100 T-09-89 Charles Vandergaw* II II II T-10-89 Alaska Fishing Adventures* II II II T-11-89 Branham Adventures* II II II T-12-89 Lynn Castle, Master Guide II II II $100 T-13-89 Chuck Wirschem II II II $100 T-14-89 Andy's Ak. Fishing Safaris II II II $100 T-15-89 Hugh Glass Backpacking II II II $100 T-16-89 Wood River Lodge II II II $100 T-17-89 Bristol Bay Lodge II II II $100 T-18-89 Fish Alaska II II II $100 T-19-89 Golden Horn Lodge II II II $100 T-20-89 Tikchik Narrows Lodge II II II $100 T-21-89 Gone Fishing II II II $100 T-22-89 Dave Duncan and Sons II II II $100 T-23-89 B & B Fishing Adventures II II II $100 T-24-89 Alaska West Sportfishing II II II $100 T-25-89 Ak. River and Ski Tours II II II $100 T-26-89 Jake's Ak. Wilderness Outfitters 11 11 11 $100 T-27-89 Bush Air Charter Airlines Co. $100 T-29-89 Hermans Air II II II $100 T-32-89 Manokotak Air II II II $100 T-35-89 Peninsula Air II II II $100 T-36-89 Western Alaska Sportfishing* Sport Fishing Guide T-40-89 Geological Survey Geological Surveys N/A T-42-89 Bureau of Land Management Cadastral Surveys N/A T-45-89 Merriam Olson (Dillingham) Commercial Fishing $100 T-49-89 Bureau of Land Management Cadastral Surveys N/A T-51-89 Branch River Air Charter Airlines Co. $100 T-52-89 Ak. Army National Guard Military Training N/A T-53-89 Tom Schlagel (Dillingham) Commercial Fishing $100 T-54-89 Moses Kritz (Togiak)* Commercial Fishing T-55-89 Bureau of Indian Affairs Historical Sites Svys. N/A T-56-89 Bureau of Indian Affairs Native Allotments Svys.N/A Total Permits Issued: 41 Total Fees Collected: $3,000 *Permits never returned for validation. 59 F. HABITAT MANAGEMENT 1. General The refuge includes a variety of land forms; including mountains, U-shaped valleys with sheer walls, beaches, sea cliffs, glacial lakes, and moraines. Most of the refuge interior is dissected mountainous uplands, stretching from the Ahklun Mountains in the west to the Wood River Mountains in the east. The Wood River Mountains rise in elevation from sea level to 1,000 feet in places around Kulukak Bay and more than 5,000 feet in the northeastern corner of the refuge. In the northeastern Ahklun Mountains, elevations also rise above 4, 000 feet, but summits in the southwest are more widely separated, and taper down to lower, smoother hills. Kagati Lake, nestled within the Ahklun Mountains. PC 8/89 Drainages trend southwest, parallel to the mountain range. The wide Togiak River Valley below Togiak Lake makes an otherwise indistinguishable, separation of the Ahklun and Wood River Mountains. Many of the broad U-shaped glacial valleys, which separate the mountains, contain large, deep glacial lakes and snow-melt streams. The refuge coastline includes precipitous cliffs, sand and gravel bars, lagoons, beaches, estuaries, littoral and pelagic waters. The most notable lowland areas are adjacent to J acksmi th, Chagvan, Osviak, and Nanvak Bays, as well as the Nushagak Peninsula (i.e., the Nushagak/Bristol 60 Bay low lands). These lowlands rise from sea level to a maximum of 560 feet near the mountains. Plateaus and benches found on these lowlands contain many small lakes and sloughs. Local relief of the lowlands varies from 50 to 360 feet. · ) Refuge coastline near Cape Peirce. LJ 4/89 Vegetation on the refuge includes plants common to both arctic and subarctic regions. Tundra, which occurs on nearly all of the refuge, is classified into three general types: Moist Tundra is found on approximately 50% of the refuge, and usually forms a complete ground cover. This is the most productive of the tundra habitats. It is comprised of cotton grass, sedges, mosses, grass tussocks, and shrubs, which include willow, Labrador tea, mountain cranberry, and bog blueberry. Alpine Tundra is the second most common type, and is found on the higher mountains and ridges. It consists of low growing mast of lichens, herbaceous and shrubby plants interspersed with patches of barren shelf or broken rock. Plant species found here will primarily include crow berry, dwarf willow, Labrador tea, mountain cranberry, bear berry and blueberry. Wet Tundra only comprises about 2% of the area. Being the least common type of tundra on the refuge, it is mostly found in low coastal zones and drainages with shallow lakes and extensive marsh areas of standing water. The vegetation is made up of a maF of lichens, mosses, and sedges, and may include a few woody species, 61 such as bog cranberry, and bog rosemary. On the drier portions of this type of tundra, dwarf birch and dwarf willow may occur. 2. Wetlands Most of the coastal areas, and to some extent the low lying interior valleys, are pristine wetlands. They range from coastal brackish and fresh water lakes, ponds, and marshes with both stabilized and active dunes; to large inland areas of wide, shallow valleys studded with shallow lakes, ponds, marshes and wet meadows, interspersed with dry uplands on buttes, hills, and plateaus. 6. Other Habitats Willow and alder thickets occur along creek drainages up to elevations of 1,900 feet, (mean sea level). Scattered stands of cottonwood, plus a few well scattered black spruce and white spruce trees are found along the Togiak River drainage. Cottonwood, willow, birch, and alder thickets occur along the Goodnews and Kanektok River drainages. The eastern portion of the refuge, between the Togiak River drainage and Dillingham, has several relatively large stands of black spruce, birch, and white spruce. These stands are islands of trees representing areas free of permafrost, surrounded by moist and wet tundra plains. 9. Fire Management Both refuge fire plans were reviewed and no changes in either plan were necessary. A recommendation to exempt this station from having to complete a refuge fire management plan was forwarded to the regional office. An exemption was received in June. 12. Wilderness and Special Areas Approximately one-half (2,270,000 acres) of the refuge is designated as wilderness. It consists of pristine rivers and streams, alpine lakes, sharply sloped mountains, and is located in the northern half of the refuge. Wilderness additions proposed in the preferred alternative of the Conservation Plan would add approximately 334,000 acres. This represents about 1/3 of what the refuge staff recommended in 1984 to be added to the existing refuge wilderness area. The proposed area includes the old Cape Newenham National Wildlife Refuge, plus lands surrounding the headwaters of the south fork of the Goodnews 62 ) Horned puffins take to awkward flight from their nesting cliffs at Cape Peirce. July, 1985/WSM. In addition to the mainland cliffs, adults made extensive use of off-shore reefs throughout the season. Small numbers of cormorants frequented Nanvak Bay and were seen feeding with kittiwakes in the Bay's mouth i~ June. Arctic terns range widely over the refuge nesting along coastal habitat and gravel bars, and islands in the fresh water lakes and rivers. They nest either singly or in colonies. Parasitic, pomarine and longtail jaegars can also be found migrating along the coast rarely coming ashore except to nest. The pomarine is not known to nest on the refuge. Nesting occurs in low wet tundra to tidal flats and beaches. Jaegers are predatory birds and sometimes appear to be parasitic on gulls and terns by chasing them until they drop or disgorge food items. Gull species using the refuge during migration or nesting are: glaucous-winged (most common migrant and nester), mew (migrant and nester), herring gull (rare migrant), glaucous gull (uncommon migrant), bonapartes gull (uncommon breeder) and sabine's gull (rare migrant). 6. Raptors Eight (8) of the twelve (12) species of raptors that frequent the refuge on a regular basis are the bald eagle, golden eagle, peregrine falcon, northern harrier, rough-legged hawk, osprey, great horned owl and short eared owl. These are also known to nest on refuge lands. Other ra~tors such as the hawk owl, boreal owl and snowy owl are frequent visitors, but 63 . ) Small wilderness tributary stream feeding Goodnews Lake. KH 6/89 I 64 G. WILDLIFE 1. Wildlife Diversity The refuge supports an abundant variety of wildlife. The area is a crossroads for waterfowl and shorebirds coming from wintering areas as far away as Russia, Japan, Mexico, South America, New Zealand, and several of the South Pacific Islands. Bristol Bay, which forms a portion of the southern boundary of the refuge, has been described as the southern terminus of the Arctic Bird Migration Route. Birds from the Asiatic Route, mid-Pacific Route, and North American Pacific Flyway, funnel through the area. ) Porcupines are abundant throughout the refuge. During winter aerial surveys, they could be seen dotting the landscape . MJL 3/89 Thirty-one species of land mammals and 17 species of marine mammals occur on or adjacent to the refuge. Five species of salmon, and 8 species of fresh water sport fish inhabit refuge waters. There are at least 20 additional species of fish occurring in the lakes, coastal ponds and streams throughout the refuge, and even though these fish have no commercial or sport value, many of them are used for subsistence purposes and are important links in the food chain. It's estimated that over 180 species of birds utilize the refuge for staging, nesting, and as a year round residence . An up-dated bird list was compiled by volunteer Donna O'Daniel during the 1988 field season and is currently under staff review. ) f 65 2. Endangered and/or Threatened Species Grey whales are regularly found feeding from April through August in the shallow coastal waters between Kulukak Bay and Cape Newenham. These animals are most frequently observed in large groups of 200 - 300 during April, as they migrate into the area from Pacific waters. Later in the summer, small pods of 5-20 whales were regularly observed along the Hagemeister Straits, and in the Cape PeircejCape Newenham areas. One pair of peregrine falcons were observed again this year on a cliff nesting site near Shaiak Island. Volunteer Lauri Jemison made the identification and located the nest site. The nesting falcons hatched and fledged one chick. No other peregrine nest sites were found on the refuge. The suspected nesting site near the Kanektok River was not active again this year. 3. Waterfowl Nesting of most species of dabbler, diver, and sea ducks, as well as scattered nesting by white-fronted and Canada geese, occurs on the refuge. However, the major attribute of the refuge to waterfowl is the offer of staging and feeding areas during spring and fall migrations. The refuge serves as the apex of a· funnel for waterfowl on the Pacific Flyway corridor, heading to or from the nesting grounds of the Arctic coast and the Yukon-Kuskokwim River Delta. Large eel grass beds in the saltwater lagoons of Osviak Slough, Nanvak Bay, and Chagvan Bay provide important staging and feeding areas. Nanvak and Chagvan bays are the two most important spring and fall staging areas on the refuge; the latter contains an estimated five square miles of eel grass beds. Generally, throughout the winter months (November through mid-April), waterfowl numbers and diversity are low. Approximately 6, 500 common eiders are found in open water leads of shore-fast ice along the Bristol Bay coast. Up to 600 mallards and 300 common goldeneye over winter in any open water available at lake inlets and/or outlets, or along ice free sections of rivers and streams. Spring breakup appeared to occur on schedule again this year. Early migrants began to arrive in the area around April 20. Pintails, shovelers, green-winged teal, brant and even a few Eurasian widgeon began filling the small spaces of open water in the Nanvak Bay/Cape Peirce area by April 30. Due to uncooperative weather and the unavailability of aircraft and personnel, no complete waterfowl surveys were flown during the spring. A partial survey was flown by Wildlife Biologist/Pilot Hotchkiss on April 29. He reported seeing approximately 1, 400 brant, 2, 000 common eider, 200 scaup, 500 pintail and 250 mallards in Chagvan Bay which was already 50% ice free. Nanvak Bay was only 20% ice free and was harboring 1, 200 brant. 66 It is unknown if staging numbers were up or down this spring. Aerial surveys conducted since the early 1970's indicated waterfowl nesting densities on the Nushagak Peninsula to be 32 ducks (16 pair) and 1.2 tundra swans (.06 pair) per square mile. During 1984, refuge staff flew breeding pair surveys and found 13. 8 pair of ducks, 1. 4 pair of swan, and 2.25 pair of geese per square mile on the Nushagak Peninsula. No breeding pair surveys were flown by refuge staff since 1984, due to higher priority field projects. Small breeding populations of oldsquaw, pintails, mallards, green-wing teal, harlequin ducks, black scoters, and red-breasted mergansers nest within the refuge interior. These species usually rear their broods in the freshwater streams that feed (or drain from) large lakes. Waterfowl production surveys have been conducted along the southern edge of the Nushagak Peninsula for four consecutive years (1983-1986). In 1987 all previously established plots (except those at the northern end of Chagvan Bay) were disregarded and a new study plan was written and initiated. Additional plots were selected and surveyed in 1988. No surveys were conducted in 1989. Refer to Section D. 5. for additional information. Again, only one partial waterfowl survey was flown during the fall of 1989 due to low weather, high winds, and aircraft unavailability. Refuge Manager Fisher, Bio-Technician Campbell, and OAS pilot Ludwig attempted a survey on September 13, 1989. The flight covered the coastal area from Kulukak Bay to Chagvan Bay. As usual, black brant were the most abundant with 8,400 being observed during the flight. Other species observed included: Northern pintail (5,685), Unidentified ducks (940), Canada geese (450), Emperor geese (218), common eider (860), black scoter (446), mallard (40), and white-winged scoter (15). Volunteers at Cape Peirce continued to collect data on the emperor goose migration through Nanvak Bay. Migration watches were conducted from September 3 to October 5. Numbers of staging birds were counted in the lower half of Nanvak Bay. A peak of 971 emperor geese were observed on September 7. All birds were scanned for visual collars and a Telonics unit was monitored for radio signals. Only one visual collared emperor was observed during the fall, however the bird was too far away for observers to read the number. In 1984, tundra swan surveys were conducted over most of the Nushagak Peninsula. Due to time and aircraft limitations, surveys were not flown in 1985 and 1986. Surveys were initiated again on an aircraft time available basis during July and August in 1987 and continued in 1988. Areas covered in the 1988 surveys include: the coastal area from Togiak Bay, up around Cape Peirce to Chagvan Bay. Also surveyed were the Dsviak, Matogak, Kinegnak, Slug, Quigmy and Nisua Rivers. No surveys were flown during 1989, however they will be attempted again in 1990. 67 4. Marsh and Water Birds Sandhill cranes are usually the harbingers of spring. Consequently, their arrival is closely watched for and dutifully recorded each year. Refuge staff observed the first returning sandhill cranes of 1989 on April 22, near Dillingham. The cranes arrival date has been recorded since 1983 and ranges from April 13 to April 29 with the majority falling in late April. Other species in the marsh and waterbird category which utilize the refuge as a migration stop over, feeding area, or breeding ground include; Arctic, common, and red-throated loons, red-necked grebes, and double crested, pelagic, and red-faced cormorants. The three cormorant species and the red-throated loons are predominantly associated with refuge coastal and tidal areas. The remaining species are usually scattered throughout the freshwater lakes and wet tundra habitat on the refuge . . ) During the spring and fall, sandhill cranes are frequently found in groups of ten to thirty, in moist tundra habitat, tidal sloughs of the coastline, and along coastal water bodies. During the period of May through July, these birds disperse to establish their breeding territories. Sandhill cranes return to mark the beginning of spring in Southwest Alaska. LJ 5/89 5. Shore Birds, Gulls, Terns, and Allied Species ) Of the 22 species of shorebirds known to pass through the refuge ,t the following have been observed on the refuge during nesting season, either accompanied by broods or exhibiting nesting behavior: black-bellied 68 plover, lesser golden plover, semi-palmated plover, bar-tailed godwit, whimbrel, black turnstone, ruddy turnstone, greater yellowlegs, red-necked phalarope, common snipe, short-billed dowitcher, western sandpiper, pectoral sandpiper, and dunlin. In addition, groups of bristle-thighed curlews have been observed feeding in tidal mud flats along the refuge coastline. Many shorebird species using the refuge are migrants, stopping in to feed and rest for short periods before continuing their migration. Some of these species come from wintering grounds in New Zealand, Japan, and the South Pacific Islands. Most shorebird peeps begin arriving upon spring break-up (mid to late April) , and head south again by mid September. Northern Phalaropes are common nesters on the refuge. LJ 5/89 The steep sea cliffs along the coast, between Togiak Bay and Cape Peirce, and north around Cape Newenham to Chagvan Bay, provide valuable nesting habitat for numerous seabird colonies; one of the most outstanding wildlife features on the refuge. Common murres and black-legged kittiwakes are the most abundant of the cliff nesting seabirds. Other seabirds known to nest on these cliffs are: horned and tufted puffins; parakeet auklets; murrelets, and pigeon guillemots. The first kittiwakes and murres were observed on April 28, when the Cape Peirce camp was staffed. Horned and tufted puffins are both eloquent and awkward residents of the Cape. The largest concentrations of puffins were located on the east ide of Cape Peirce, which is the same area (with the exception of Shaiak 69 Island) in which kittiwake and murre numbers have declined. Horned puffins outnumber tufted puffins by a 3:1 ratio. Puffins roosted in the uppermost regions of the cliffs, leaving the lower portions to the other seabirds. No information was obtained on productivity due to the puffin's habit of nesting in deep rock crevasses, which likely attributed to the low raven predation on puffins in comparison to some of the other species. Pelagic cormorants, the largest in size of the seabirds on Cape Peirce, nested in the lowest regions of the cliffs. In addition to the mainland cliffs, adults made extensive use of off-shore reefs throughout the season. Small numbers of cormorants frequent Nanvak Bay. The cormorants were all ready well into nest building when the Cape Peirce camp was opened on April 26. Arctic terns range widely over the refuge, nesting along coastal habitat and gravel bars, as well as on islands in the freshwater lakes and rivers. ) They nest either singly or in colonies. ) Arctic terns breed throughout the refuge, but most notably in a colony at Togiak Lake near the river mouth. LJ 6/89 Parasitic, pomarine, and longtail jaegars can also be found migrating along the coast, rarely coming ashore except to nest; the exception being the pomarine jaegars which are not known to nest on the refuge at all. Nesting occurs in low, wet tundra or tidal flats and beaches. Jaegars are predatory birds and sometimes appear to be parasitic on gulls and terns, ) by chasing them until they drop or disgorge food items. 1 70 Gull species using the refuge during migration or rtesting include glaucous-winged (most common migrant and nester), mew (migrant and nester), herring gull (rare migrant), glaucous gull (uncommon migrant), and Sabine's gull (rare migrant), and Bonaparte's gull (uncommon breeder). 6. Raptors Nine of the 12 species of raptors that frequent the refuge on a regular basis (bald eagle, golden eagle, peregrine falcon, gyrfalcon, northern harrier, rough-legged hawk, osprey, great horned owl, and short-eared owl) are known to nest on refuge lands. Other raptors, such as the hawk owl, boreal owl, and snowy owl are frequent visitors, but there has been no nesting activity observed. The bald eagle is by far the most visible raptor on the refuge. The first effort at locating and mapping bald eagle nest sites for annual production surveys took place during the winter of 1983-84. This effort was continued during the winters of 1984 through 1988. Follow-up nesting and production surveys were partially completed during the 1984, 1985, and 1986 field season. Complete follow-up surveys were accomplished during the 1987 and 1988 field season. Only a partial survey was completed in 1989. Twenty-two nest structures were located and visually checked to confirm that they were in place and usable by late March 1989. One eagle nest previously located during 1988 was confirmed as destroyed; either by the wind blowing the nest structure out of the trees, blowing the nest structure support tree down, or snow loads dislodging the nest. The twenty-one nest structures were checked again during the period of May 11 through June 15. Seventeen nests were occupied or active; four were found to be inactive. Almost all of the known bald eagle nest structures are constructed in deciduous trees, usually balsam poplar or white birch. A few of the known nest structures are located in the tops of white spruce trees which usually stand alone in open tundra areas. The white spruce nesting trees are not located in clusters as are the deciduous trees that support nest structures. In 1989 a bald eagle nest structure was located on a cliff face near Cape Peirce. The golden eagle nest site at Kagati Lake was found destroyed in 1989, possibly due to heavier than normal snow loads during the winter. This site was originally discovered by refuge volunteers at Kagati Lake in 1985. The nesting attempt by this pair was successful during 1985 and 1987. They were unsuccessful during 1986 and 1988. 71 7. Other Migratory Birds Passerine birds are abundant migrants in southwestern Alaska. Species known to migrate to and breed on the refuge include several species of sparrows, dipper, water pipit, juncoes, lapland longspur, common raven, snow bunting, magpie, gray jay, several species of swallows, black-capped and boreal chickadees, five species of thrushes (varied, gray-cheeked, Swainson' s, hermit and American robin), Arctic warbler, yellow-rumped warbler, yellow warbler, ruby-crowned kinglet, yellow wagtail, Bohemian wax-wing, and rusty blackbird. 8. Game Mammals Moose, caribou, brown and black bear, wolves, and a variety of small game, including snowshoe hare and tundra hare are found on the refuge. Wolves and black bear are rare visitors on refuge lands, and caribou are known to utilize the northern and northeastern portions of the refuge as part of their normal range. Caribou now inhabit the Nushagak Peninsula on the southeast corner of the refuge since the successful reintroduction effort of 1988. Several moose were observed during the summer months by refuge staff. Nine moose were seen regularly during over-flights in the Killian Creek area and three on the Kulukak River near Kulukak Bay during August and September. Moose surveys flown during November located 60-80 moose in the Killian Creek/Youth Creek drainage, Pike Creek, Icy Creek, Sunshine Valley and Weary River drainage. These moose are thought to move back and forth between refuge lands and adjoining state lands along the refuge's eastern boundary. The 1989 moose collaring proposal as described in the Research and Investigations section of this report was designed to look into suspected annual moose migration. One collared animal was found in the Kulukak drainage during the November survey. Each year, favorable snow and ice conditions exist during February, March and early April which allow easy access to the refuge interior by snow machines from adjoining villages. Many moose are taken illegally each year by village hunters during this period of excellent snow machine travel conditions and the refuge moose population declines sharply. This year produced much heavier snow loads than normal making feed and locomotion difficult for the animals. The new caribou herd appears to be doing well. A minimum of 81 calves were produced during the calving season. The high count of 252 caribou was made in December 1989. This shows a 19.2 percent increase over 1988 and a 40.8 percent increase over the original transplanted group. The cooperative spirit fostered by this project continues to this date and appears to be expanding to include other refuge projects and studies. Staff members have been conducting "Caribou Update" meetings in local villages. 72 The caribou herd found north of the refuge boundary in the Kilibuck Mountains appear to be expanding down into the northeastern corner of the refuge. Brown bear are the most abundant big game animal found throughout the refuge. They have been found ranging from coastal beaches inland to high mountain ridges. Nearly all bear observations occurred while over-flying the refuge conducting other missions. A few of the observations were made by staff members stationed in field camps throughout the refuge. A total of 25 bears (23 adults and 2 yearlings) were observed during the spring and summer. Staff could be sure these sightings were not recounts by comparing date and time of observation, family size, colors, markings, or location on the refuge. Any bear observed that could be a recount of a previously observed bear was not included in the overall count. No bear incidents were reported by our field camp or by refuge visitors this year. So far, in the history of the refuge, only one bear incident has been reported. This incident occurred in June 1988 at Goodnews Lake when a young bear made two consecutive late night raids on the food supply and garbage stash at the King Salmon Fisheries base camp. The camp was moved shortly after the incident to a location downstream from the lake and no further incidents occurred. Our own public use survey camp, located on the lower end of Goodnews Lake, approximately 1 1/2 mile west of the King Salmon Fisheries camp did not experience any bear problems. Bear observations in the near vicinity of guide camps, unguided visitors camps, and refuge field camps are common, but all other incidents have been avoided. 9. Marine Mammals The marine estuaries of Bristol and Kuskokwim Bays, bordering the refuge, constitute one of the most productive marine systems in the world. Nutrient laden waters from the Bering Sea, marine upwellings, and ground water run off from the major river systems, contribute to the high productivity of the bays in the Bering Sea. Rich in plankton and forage benthos, the bays support an intricate food chain of which marine mammals are the apex predator. Bristol Bay is a migration corridor for most of Alaska's marine mammals. Walrus seasonally haul out on several of the islands in the bay and at Cape Peirce. Four species of seal: bearded, ribbon, ringed and spottedjharbor, winter along the ice edge with the harbor seals inhabiting the refuge coast throughout the year. Steller's sea lions are also to be found in the bay. Other mammals include harbor porpoise along with gray, killer, beluga, minke, and on rare occasions, Baird's beaked whales. SEALS During the summer field season, the ice associated species recede north with the icepack. Spotted/harbor seals were observed almost daily at Cape 73 Peirce while the field camp was operating. Nanvak Bay, at Cape Peirce, is the only major haul out site in northern Bristol Bay. It is considered to be the northern most pupping colony of harbor seals. Peak populations at Nanvak Bay have declined from numbers in the thousands in 1982 to 343 in 1989. Other minor seal haul outs are known to exist at: Tvativak Bay, Kulukak Bay, Cape Constantine, Hagemeister and Walrus Island, Cape Newenham, Security Cove, Chagvan Bay and the offshore sandbars near Quinhagak and Jacksmith Bay. Generally, all these haul out sites coincide with, and are adjacent to, areas of herring and capelin spawning. SEA LIONS The only documented sea lion haul out site on the refuge is located on the tip of Cape Newenham. An aerial survey conducted in 1987 showed approximately 900 animals in May and 130 animals in December. No aerial survey was conducted during 1988 or 1989. Sea lions were observed several times feeding, at Chagvan Bay and Cape Peirce. At Cape Peirce the sea lions observed seemed to be travelling through the area in small groups of 2 to 5. GRAY WHALES The endangered gray whale migrates through Unmiak Pass and follows the Bristol Bay shoreline on its way north. These animals are often observed throughout the summer, feeding in the near-coast waters of the refuge. A total of 39 gray whales were observed, including three mother calf pairs. KILLER WHALES Each year a family group of killer whales is observed in the waters northwest of Cape Peirce. On May 16, a total of 8 killer whales were seen, two groups of three and two which appeared to be travelling individually. In one case, a walrus was seen swimming in close to the cliffs at Odobenus Cove, on the east side of Cape Peirce Point, its head held high out of the water. A couple of minutes later, a single killer whale was seen swimming toward the walrus, about 50 feet from the cliffs. The walrus remained in close to the cliffs while the whale pursued to within 20 feet. The whale then swam around the cove for a few minutes then departed to the south. Several minutes later the walrus left the cove, but hugged the cliffs all the way out. BELUGA WHALES Beluga whales are an abundant cetacean in the Bristol Bay area. Herds of up to 100 individuals can be seen migrating along the coast. During the 1988 season belugas are usually observed in the Nushagak, Togiak and Goodnews Bay. In 1988 two separate sightings were reported of six belugas 74 feeding in Nanvak Bay however no belugas were seen in the area in 1989. HARBOR PORPOISE Two harbor porpoise were sighted again in August off Cape Peirce. They were observed swimming in a haphazard circular pattern and departed to the south. WALRUS The Pacific walrus population has an extensive seasonal migration. Females, and a few of the males, maintain an association with the pack ice by migrating between the Chukchi Sea and the Bering Sea as the pack ice advances in the autumn and recedes in the spring. After the breeding season (December through March), a large portion of the male population remain in the Bering and Chukchi Seas. With the ice disappearing to the north, these males utilize traditional terrestrial haul out sites. Every year since 1978, walrus have been reported hauled out in the Cape PeircejSecurity Cove region. Since 1981 Cape Peirce has been re established as a major walrus haul out site. Its importance rivals the Walrus Island State Game Sanctuary, which was set aside to provide a protected resting place for walrus. Large numbers of walrus were observed on the refuge at Cape Peirce throughout the summer months of 1983-1986. Extensive use by walrus was seen with peak populations of 5, 000 animals in 1983; 8, 600 animals in 1984; 12,000 in 1985 and 11,800 in 1986. A decrease in activity has occurred with only 6,300 animals in 1987 and a peak of 6,900 animals in 1988. 1989 proved to be an interesting year not only were the numbers low (peak of 2,435 on September 29), the animals did not utilize the main haul out beach until August. The walrus appear to be in poorer condition than in past years. Rib and pelvic bones were outlined against the skin when the animals were moving up the beach. This decline of condition is the result of personal observations, with no statistics to back it up. MARINE MAMMAL HARVESTS Native residents of all the villages, within or adjacent to the refuge, harvest marine mammals throughout the year. This activity is primarily directed towards harbor/spotted seals near coastal villages. 10. Other Resident Wildlife Willow ptarmigan are common on the refuge. Flocks of several thousand birds are commonly observed in dwarf willow and alder thickets on the sides of the mountains, and in the alder thickets along interior rivers and lakes. 75 Fur bearers, such as beaver, river otter, weasel, mink, red fox, and wolverine are common on the refuge. Wolf and lynx, although uncommon, are seen on refuge lands occasionally. A pair of hoary marmots enjoy the day near their burrow at Cape Peirce. LJ 6/89 Other rare occurrences of southwest Alaska resident species on refuge lands are tundra hare and Arctic fox. These species, when observed, are usually in the vicinity of Cape Newenham and Cape Peirce. Other mammals common on refuge lands, are parka squirrels, hoary marmots, porcupines, and snowshoe hares. Sightings of these animals occur throughout the refuge. Year round residents include common and hoary red polls, boreal chickadee, pine grosbeak, white-winged crossbill, gray jay, common flicker, magpie, raven, and downy, hairy, and three- toed woodpeckers. 11. Fisheries Resources Refuge waters contribute significantly to the salmon stocks in Bristol and Kuskokwim Bays. Refuge streams and rivers support anadromous runs of all five species of pacific salmon: king, or chinook, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha (Walbaum) ; and coho, 0. kisutch (Walbaum) ; chum, 0. keta (Walbaum); sockeye, 0. nerka (Walbaum); pinks, 0. gorbuscha (Walbaum) . One of the states largest herring fisheries also occurs in the two bays. ) Ex-vessel commercial value or value of catches to commercial fisherm~n of refuge bound salmon and near shore spawning herring in 1989, was 76 $11,322,026. In addition, anadromous runs of Dolly Varden, Salvelinus malma (Walbaum), and resident populations of rainbow trout, Onchorynchus mykiss (Richardson); lake trout, Salvelinus namaycush (Walbaum); grayling, Thymallus arcticus (Pallas); Arctic char, Salvelinus alpinus (Linneaus); pike, Esox Lucus (Linneaus); burbot, Lota lota (Linneaus); and whitefish, Coregonus sp., contribute to both subsistence and sport harvests from the refuge waters. Sport fishermen are estimated to have spent over $6,000,000 to fish in refuge waters during 1989. Populations of sticklebacks, blackfish, pipefish, and other species (32 total) exist in the thousands of unnamed lakes, rivers, tundra streams, sloughs, and ponds, and bays. Little or no information is known about their numbers or distribution. Fishery Biologist Harper holding an arctic Grayling from a refuge stream. Old age specimens such as this could become scarce as more pressure is being put on refuge fishery resources. RD 5/89 SUBSISTENCE FISHING Residents of four villages within the refuge boundaries and some others living in rural areas adjacent to the refuge utilize the fishery resources on the refuge for subsistence purposes. Subsistence users harvest all five species of Pacific salmon and several resident species. The effort required to obtain a subsistence catch of salmon has 77 proportionally decreased with the exchange of traditional·fishing methods for the more efficient nylon gill net, outboard motor, and skiff. There are numerous fish camps dotting refuge rivers, where signs of old and new can easily be observed. Under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), creation of national parks and refuges was not to change this lifestyle in any way. The act specifically addresses this issue in Section 804: " ... the taking on public lands of fish for non wasteful subsistence uses shall be accorded priority over the taking on such lands of fish and wildlife for other purposes." Therefore in the event that it is necessary to restrict the harvest of fish and wildlife on refuge lands, subsistence users will be afforded the priority use of all surplus not needed to maintain viable healthy populations. Subsistence fishermen have specific periods of the year when harvests occur. Generally, these harvests will coincide with the availability of salmon as they enter the rivers. Resident freshwater species are most often sought for fresh protein during the winter, or in some cases, when they are concentrated on spawning grounds during the spring. Some of the subsistence fishermen in the villages of Togiak, Twin Hills, and Manokotak obtain the required subsistence permit from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Subsistence Division or agents in each village. On the permit, they indicate what they need of each species and at the end of the year return the forms, recording actual harvest. (Table 14). Subsistence personnel from ADF&G also travel to the villages to collect permits that were not returned, and to interview permittees. Kuskokwim Bay villages (Goodnews, Quinhagak, and Platinum), by contrast are not required to have subsistence permits, but are surveyed during the season by ADF&G Commercial Fisheries Division personnel. 78 Table 14 Subsistence Salmon Fishery Harvest Togiak/Kuskokwim Bay** Village Sockeye Chinook Coho Chum Pink Total Quinhagak 450 3,048 3,346 1,262 0 8,106 Goodnews Bay 718 423 829 620 0 2,590 Platinum 151 44 68 140 0 403 Togiak 2,754 589 874 820 98 5,135 Manokotak 4,717 727 291 51 0 5,788 Totals: 8,790 4,831 5,408 2,893 98 22,020 **ADF&G Preliminary Data. Data for Togiak and Manokotak is extrapolated to the number of permits issued. May not reflect the actual harvest. Data for Quinhagak, Goodnews and Platinum is expanded data to reflect village harvest. COMMERCIAL FISHING Since the late 1800's commercial fishing has been the mainstay of the economy in communities adjacent to the refuge. Recently, this economy has spread to all villages located within the refuge, and has become their primary source of income. Salmon stocks, bound for refuge waters, are harvested on a terminal fisheries basis. Specific runs associated with rivers are targeted at the mouth, or within a specific area near the mouth. This insures that the individual runs are afforded maximum management protection. Achieving the escapement goals into individual rivers is possible if data is collected in a timely basis and used to regulate the commercial fishing seasons. There are two Alaska Division of Commercial Fisheries offices that affect management of commercial stocks bound for the refuge. The Bethel office, located north of the refuge, regulates commercial harvests by setting openings for stocks of fish bound for the western portion of the refuge in Kuskokwim Bay. There are two fishery districts there which affect refuge bound stocks: District 4, Quinhagak, centers on the Kanektok River and encompasses the area from the Arolic River to the Oyak River; District 5 encompasses Goodnews Bay. The Dillingham office regulates commercial harvests of fish stocks bound for the Togiak and Nushagak districts bordering the southern portion of the refuge. The Togiak district is encompassed entirely on the refuge, while only two sections of the Nushagak district (Igushik and Snake) target fish bound for refuge waters. 79 The two Kuskokwim fishing districts affecting refuge fishery stocks are relatively new, and commercial harvest records do not exist prior to 1968 for Goodnews, and 1960 for Quinhagak. The fishery in Goodnews was opened by emergency order due to public pressure and the determination of a harvestable salmon surplus by ADF&G surveys. The commercial catch bound for these rivers was worth $1,124,214 to participating fishermen in 1989 (Tables 15 and 16). The wholesale value of these fisheries is probably worth several million dollars more, making them economically important for the region and to the country as a large proportion is exported to Japan. Chinook, coho and sockeye salmon make up the majority of the Kanektok River fishery; the result of very favorable river and or lake spawning habitat on the refuge. Pink and chum salmon also have relatively large runs, but are not as commercially valuable. Escapements in the Kanektok are not well documented. ADF&G would like to monitor the escapements with sonar equipment, but have been plagued by the changing course of the river as well as other site selection problems. Budget cuts were responsible for the complete elimination of the project in 1988. Poor weather conditions also precluded the state from conducting any aerial surveys for coho during 1989. The Goodnews River has large sockeye and coho runs (Table 17). The sockeye run, with escapements during several years approaching 100,000 make this river one of the most northerly producers of significant runs of this species in the state. The coho harvest from the Goodnews is also very large. Goodnews River salmon escapements have been monitored annually since 1981, by an ADF&G counting tower, and sporadically by aerial surveys. The tower is normally in operation for only part of the season, targeting primarily on sockeye, chinook, and chum, and is pulled before the coho run. Aerial surveys for indexes of fish abundance in the river are flown but are missed on years when bad weather is a factor. ADF&G did not fly a survey in 1986, so coho escapement was not estimated for that year however clear weather and water conditions allowed an excellent survey in 1987. Weather again plagued the surveys in 1988 and no surveys were flown. During 1989 no surveys were flown by the department for coho. 80 Table 15 District 4 Quinhagak, 1989 Commercial/Subsistence Salmon Catch/Escapement Sockeye Chinook Coho Chum Pink Total Commercial Harvest 20,582 20,820 44,607 39,395 273 125,677 5-Year Avg. 14,928 25,356 68,308 27,657 9,260 145,509 Subsistence 450 3,048 3,346 1,262 0 8,106 Escapement** 14,735 7,914 1,755* 6,270* Objective*l 32,000 5,000 25,000 30,500 Ex Vessel Value $172,959 $301,791 $195,838 $74,029 $43 $744,660 Encompasses the Oyak Creek, Kanektok River and Arolic River ** Escapement based upon aerial survey flown for index counts; not expanded to escapement estimates. * Chum survey flown late and coho flown too early to give a good index. /1 Total run not accurate Sport fishermen are estimated to have paid close to $3,000,000 to fish the Kanektok and Goodnews rivers in 1989. This money goes to sport fishing guides and lodges, air taxi/charter companies, village corporations, village stores, airline tickets, and sporting goods for the trip. The total commercial value for both rivers is estimated in excess of $5,000,000 including all costs associated with subsistence, commercial, and sport fisheries. 81 . ) Rainbow trout are just one species of fish that attract fishermen to the refuge each year. Volunteer Robert Doyle proudly displays a nice specimen. MJL 6/89 Table 16 District 5 - Goodnews Bay, 1989 Commercial/Subsistence Salmon Catch/Escapement S~ecies Harvest Sockeye Chinook Coho Chum Pink Total Commercial 19,299 2,966 31,849 13,622 82 67,818 5-Year Avg 22,282 5,089 33,388 16,584 2,946 Subsistence/2 869 467 897 760 0 2,993 Escapement 32,672 1,928 N/S 4,362* + Esc. Objective 45,000 4,000 25,000 18,000 + Ex Vessel Value $164,300 $39,372 $150,165 $25,700 $17 $379,554 ADF&G Data, Bethel + Even run year, odd years only a small number of pink run. /1 No escapement estimates, no aerial surveys for coho and no surveys performed for pink salmon. * Coho survey not flown . Chum survey flown too late for good index. /2 Includes Platinum and Goodnews . /3 Escapement is only an index and may only represent 1/4-1/2 of a ~tual escapement. 82 Commercial harvests of all salmon species bound for the refuge in the Togiak and Nushagak districts which produce fish from the refuge were worth only $4,148,374 dollars to the commercial fishermen who participated in these fisheries in 1989 (Tables 17 and 18). The wholesale value, which includes distribution, canning, freezing, etc., of this renewable resource may exceed 25-30 million dollars in 1989. Table 17 Togiak District, 1989* Commercial/Subsistence Salmon Catch /Escapement Species Sockeye Chinook Coho Chum Pink Total Commercial Harvest 88,451 11,604 57,300 203,054 217 xx,xxx 10-Year Avg 453,716 23,275 63,431 294,138 20,352 (1980-89) Subsistence/1 2,709 540 946 881 88 5,164 Escapement 125,080 10,540 N/S 98,380 + xx,xxx Total Run 669 956 45 959 596 453 597 942 Ex Vessel Value ~525,609 ~ 196,409 ~306,887 ~376,475 ~1,405,380 *ADF&G data; includes Togiak, Kulukak, Quigmy, Matogak, and Osviak Rivers /1 Subsistence data from 40 ADF&G permits issued in Togiak and 28 returns. Does not represent total harvest figures for the village. The sockeye return was very dismal, and extensive closures were put into effect to obtain the escapement goal. Due to the poor run the escapement in the Togiak River was only 104,240. This was 50,000 less than the escapement goal of 150,000 sockeye for the lake. Sockeye salmon comprise the majority of the runs in these rivers, with total runs of approximately 1.5 million fish. The sockeye runs are supported by large lake systems within the exterior boundaries of the refuge, where favorable rearing, and some excellent littoral spawning habitat is found. 83 Table 18 Igushik Section, 1989 Commercial/Subsistence Salmon Catch/Escapement* SPECIES Sockeye Chinook Coho Chum Pink Total Commercial Harvest/1 412,000 + + + + 255,178 Subsistence* 4, 719 712 291 51 0 5,788 Escapement 462,000 + + 462,000 Total Run 874 000 + + + + Ex Vessel Value ~2,742,000 ~2,742,000 *ADF&G data Runs of chinook, coho, and chum are small in comparison to the sockeye runs. Runs of coho bound for the Togiak district however are the second largest in the entire Bristol Bay area making up 24% of the bays catch. (Table 19). A late season fishery for coho has developed in the Togiak District. Late season markets became available in Bristol Bay in 1977, and fishermen started actively targeting coho. From 1977 to 1985, coho catches have almost tripled those of early years 1883 to 1922 peak level periods. During this time period the Togiak District has produced approximately 28% of the total coho harvest in Bristol Bay. The 1987 run was very weak and the commercial fishery was cancelled. Again in 1988 indicators pointed to the possibility of a weak run and the fishery was again closed to commercial fishing to meet the lower end of a minimum escapement goal of 25,000 fish. Sportfishing was left open. During 1989 the fishery appeared to be strong, however no surveys were flown to determine if the escapement was met. Chinook and chum salmon bound for the Togiak District, also produce a major portion of the Bristol Bay harvest. Chinook comprised 30%, and chum made up 17%, of the total harvest in 1989. Table 19 Bristol Bay Salmon Harvest District Comparison for Coho, Chinook, and Chum Percentages by Species District Coho % Chinook % Chum % Naknek/Kvichak 23,000 10.0% 6,000 15% 309,000 26% Egegik 49,000 20.5% 2,000 5% 129,000 11% Ugashik 32,000 13.0% 2,000 5% 84,000 7% Nushagak 77,000 32.3% 18,000 45% 446,000 38% Togiak 57,000 24.0% 12,000 30% 203,000 17% Totals 238 000 40 000 1 172 000 84 Counting towers on the Igushik and Togiak rivers are operated by ADF&G, to enumerate the escapement of sockeye salmon into these rivers. They are also used to regulate commercial fish openings throughout the season. Aerial flights are sometimes used for sockeye and other species during the season to measure abundance; however lack of water clarity in the rivers and bad weather have not made counts possible every year. Post season aerial flights are also flown to enumerate chinook, chum, and coho salmon on the spawning grounds, if weather and water conditions permit. This post season method of checking escapements does not allow for tight control to be applied to the fishery to insure that escapement goals are met, but rather measures the success of the management of the commercial openings in the fishery. During 1989 the refuge again conducted spawning ground aerial surveys of refuge rivers that the state had dropped due to budget cuts. See section D.5., Research and Investigation. Herring Pacific herring spawn in various coves and bays along the refuge coastline. This species is also an important link in the Bristol Bay food chain, although not well understood. Subsistence users have long utilized these fish but more recently, herring have been commercially exploited. Togiak Bay, Goodnews Bay, and Security Cove are the three major herring spawning areas with associated commercial fisheries that lie along the refuge coastline. The Togiak Bay area adjoins the southern coast of the refuge and is the only commercial herring fishery in Bristol Bay. This fishery began in 1967 and maintained a low profile for several years. Through 1975, it averaged only 1-3 processors, 24 gill net operators, and an occasional purse seiner. The interest in harvesting Alaska herring stocks increased significantly in 1977, due to a decline in world herring stocks and the subsequent reduction in offshore foreign trawling, as well as the elimination of the Alaska coastal near-shore Japanese gill net fishery. As a result of this increased interest, the Togiak District experienced such an increase in effort that the Alaska Board of Fisheries responded by creating commercial fishing districts at Security Cove and Goodnews Bay. Herring were first observed by the state biologists in the Togiak District on May 5 and the first spawn observed on the 8th of May. A total of 60 linear miles of spawning were observed by ADF&G during aerial surveys. The majority of the spawning occurred May 9 to 11. The fishing comprised of 2 openings for gill nets totaling 5 hours and 2 opening for purse seiners totaling 3 hours. A total of 12,258 short tons was harvested worth 4.9 million dollars (Table 20). 85 Table 20 Togiak District, 1978-1989 Estimated Bio-mass & commercial harvest of Pacific herring Bio-mass Harvest Waste Total %Harvest/gear Dollars Exp Year Est(st) Catch (st) (st) G.Nets P.Seines Roe% (1000's) rate 1978 190,300 7,734 7,734 08 92 8.2 1,300 4.1 1979 239,000 11,558 11,558 40 60 8.6 6,700 4.7 1980 68,700 18,886 5,700 24,586 16 84 9.2 3,055 35.8 1981 158,600 12,542 30 12,572 18 82 9.1 3,989 7.9 1982 97,900 21,489 380 21,869 31 69 8.8 6,175 22.3 1983 141,800 26,287 600 26,887 19 81 8.8 10,517 19.0 1984 114,900 19,300 170 19,450 25 75 9.8 7,211 16.9 1985 131,400 25,616 250 25,886 17 83 9.6 13,696 19.7 1986 94,800 16,260 so 16,310 21 79 9.7 8,660 18.7 1987 88,400 15,204 ? 15,204 17 83 8.8 8,663 19.1 1988 134,717 13,986 ? 13,986 25 75 10.3 14,451 13.2 1989 98,965 12,258 12,258 24 76 8.4 4,983 17.9 ADF&G data. (st) - Short ton. Exp.· rate - exploitation rate A spawn on kelp fishery, associated with the herring fishery has also developed along the refuge coastline. This fishery or harvest is regulated by state emergency order. The Board of Fisheries adopted a management plan in 1984 which allows a harvest quota of up to 350,000 pounds or the equivalent of 1,500 short tons of spawning herring, with a 2-3 year rotational harvest of kelp beds. The roe-on-kelp (rockweed) harvest during 1989 was limited to only one opening. A total of 4 hours picking time, yielded 559,780 pounds of harvestable kelp valued at $448,000 in 1989, a new record harvest (Table 21). 86 Table 21 Togiak District Commercial Roe-on-Kelp Harvest Year Processors Number of Pounds Short tons Ex Vessel Fishermen Harvested Harvested Value 1968 1 1 54,600 27.3 NDA 1969 1 3 10,125 5.1 " 1970 1 5 38,885 19.4 " 1971 1 12 51,795 25.8 " 1972 1 12 64,165 32.0 " 1973 1 10 11,596 5.8 " 1974 3 26 125,646 62.8 " 1975 2 44 111,087 55.5 " 1976 5 49 295,780 148.0 " 1977 5 75 275,774 38.0 " 1978 11 160 329,858 164.9 " 1979 16 100 414,737 209.0 $248,000 1980 21 78 189,000 95.0 $ 95,000 1981 7 108 378,207 190.0 $250,000 1982 8 214 234,924 117.0 $176,000 1983" 4 125 270,866 135.0 $284,000 1984 6 330 407,587 203.0 $203,000 1985 0 ------CANCELLED------0 1986 3 143 374,396 187.2 $187,000 1987 5 187 307,307 153.6 $166,000 1988 10 259 489,320 244.6 $346,000 1989 11 487 559,780 279.9 ~448,000 80-89 Average 8 221 356,755 178.3 $239,000 ADF&G Data (NDA = no data available) NDA - No data available Total value of the herring sac roe, roe-on-kelp and food bait fishery from the southern shore of the refuge was valued at almost 5.5 million (Table 22). Table 22 Togiak herring Fishery Ex Vessel Value 1989 Product Value Herring Sac Roe 4,983,000 Capeline (no fishery in 1989) Roe-on-Kelp 448,000 Food/bait 19,000 Total Estimated Ex-vessel Value: $ 5,450,000 ADF&G data. 87 Capeline, a member of the smelt family is also an important food source. In the past this fish has been thought to be just as abundant as the herring, and has experienced some commercial interest in the Togiak District. No spawning capeline were observed in 1989 and no fishing season was conducted for this species. Kuskokwim Bay herring are harvested on the west coast of the refuge in the Goodnews Bay and Security Cove Districts (Table 23). Since 1978, after the first season, the use of purse seiners has been prohibited and no roe-on-kelp harvest is allowed. Table 23 Goodnews/Security Cove District, 1978-89 Estimated Biomass & commercial harvest of Pacific Herring District Short ton Harvest Waste Total %Roe Value* Exploit Year Biomass* Catch X 1000 Rate(%) 1978 GN 400 sc 1,300 286 286 78 22 1979 GN 7,400 90 90 4.7 39 sc 21,500 424 424 8.5 327 2.0 1980 GN 1,200 448 448 9.5 97 37.3 sc 2,100 697 697 8.2 151 58.1 1981 GN 4,300 657 657 7.7 196 15.3 sc 8,300 1,173 1,173 8.1 347 14.1 1982 GN 2,600 486 486 9.5 188 18.7 sc 5,100 813 813 9.3 271 15.9 1983 GN 3,200 435 435 9.4 185 13.6 sc 6,400 1,073 1,073 9.4 443 16.8 1984 GN 4,100 667 so 717 10.1 168 17.5 sc 5,100 325 10 335 11.8 110 6.6 1985 GN 4,300 724 724 8.7 309 16.8 sc 4,900 703 30 733 10.1 355 15.0 1986 GN 3,000 557 556 10.4 325 18.1 sc 3,700 751 751 11.2 535 20.3 1987 GN 2,000 321 321 7.1 133 16.0 sc 2,300 313 313 9.7 242 13.4 1988 GN 4,479 483 483 8.0 463 10.7 sc 4,906 324 324 9.3 324 6.6 1989 GN 4,040 616 616 8.4 335 15.2 sc 2,830 554 554 9.4 265 19.6 ADF&G data GN = Goodnews SC = Security Cove 88 The herring fishery has been relatively unrestricted, and fishermen are allowed to transfer from the Togiak District to the Security Cove District in Kuskokwim Bay. On the other hand, the Goodnews Bay District was established for the exclusive use by the local commercial fishermen from the villages of Quinhagak, Platinum, and Goodnews Bay, and transfers are not allowed. The herring season in Goodnews Bay opened on May 23 and in Security Cove on May 17. As noted from these tables the biomass of harvested herring is very large, and the financial return great. No research has been done on what impacts this is having on the local sea bird population, as well as marine mammals. Impacts to salmon smolt and anadromous char population that feed upon herring fry is also unknown. Another unknown impact are the lost herring nets. These continue to ghost fish for a long time inflicting mortalities not only on fish but marine birds and mammals. 14. Scientific Collections No live birds or mammals were taken for scientific collection purposes during 1989. PlANTS Plants were collected by refuge staff for the refuge plant collection. Personnel stationed at Cape Peirce collected plants for positive identification and took photos to begin compilation of a refuge plant guide. 16. Marking and Banding GEESE Banding drives were conducted on the Nushagak Peninsula on June 28 and 29 for white-fronted geese and on July 28 for Canada geese. A total of 450 white-fronts and 116 Canada geese were marked with standard service leg bands. In a cooperative effort with Research, 15 female white-fronts were fitted with radio collars by Dennis Orthmeyer, Northern Prairie Research, Davis California. An additional 50 geese also received standard yellow neck collars. (For more information see Research and Investigation, Section D.S. Goose Telemetry). Refuge Manager Fisher, Wildlife Biologist/Pilot Hotchkiss and Biological Tech. Campbell travelled to Becharof Refuge to assist Orthmeyer and the Becharof staff in putting out an additional 15 radio transmitters. 89 Dennis Orthmeyer, Northern Prairie Research, obtains measurements from radio collared white-front. DF 7/89 ) A phone call from Craig Ely, migratory bird research in Anchorage, confirmed that in September, seven of the 15 white-fronts radio collared on the Nushagak Peninsula were located in the Klamath Basin. From December 2, 1989 - December 16, 1989, Craig Ely, joined John Takekawa, Northern Prairie Wildlife Research, Dixon, California, in conducting surveys of waterfowl wintering grounds in Mexico. Nineteen of the 30 geese radio collared in Bristol Bay were located in Mexico during the two week survey. Only two of the 24 Yukon Delta radio-marked geese were located during the trip. An intensive effort will be made to monitor these radio frequencies at the spring staging grounds near Nanvak and Chagvan Bays during 1990. Only three new band returns (all from Canada's banded in 1988) were received this year. One was taken near Anchorage, one at Cold Bay, and one at Baskett Slough National Wildlife Refuge, Dallas, Oregon. I / 90 MOOSE (See Research and Investigation, Section D.S) RAINBOW TROUT (See Research and Investigation, Section D.S) 91 H. Public Use 1. General There are seven villages located either within the refuge boundary or adjacent to the refuge. Quinhagak, Goodnews Bay, and Platinum border on Kuskokwim Bay; Togiak, Twin Hills, Dillingham, and Manokotak border on Bristol Bay. The Kuskokwim Bay villages concentrate their commercial fishing and subsistence activities north of Cape Newenham, utilizing Bethel as their transportation, service, social, and political center. The western Bristol Bay communities usually focus their subsistence and commercial fishing activities east of Cape Newenham to the Nushagak River. These villages utilize Dillingham as a center for transportation, service, political, and social needs. Marine mammal hunting, for several species of seal and an occasional walrus, is a significant component of the subsistence activity in the coastal villages on or adjacent to the refuge. This is partly due to the traditional maritime orientation, but also because moose and caribou populations are extremely low in the vicinity of these villages. Village residents often travel to areas off the refuge to hunt caribou. The majority of non-rural resident public use on the refuge, during May through September, consists of either guided or non-guided sport fishing, big game hunting, and river rafting. A few visitors utilize coastal portions of the refuge for photography, wildlife observation, and waterfowl hunting. Twenty-three commercial sport fish guides were issued special use permits to operate within Togiak Refuge in 1989. Of those, six operate out of lodges based within the Wood-Tikchik State Park. Six operations are located within the refuge and utilize base camp facilities during the summer months. The remaining seven operate float trips on refuge rivers. In 1989, use by commercial sport fish guides represented 83 percent of the total sport fishing activity on the refuge. 92 . ) Sport fish camp on a native allotment located on the Togiak River. Habitat impacts are substantial in a concentrated use area such as this. DF 9/89 Most of the recreational use is by float boat trips (45%). Other access includes motorboats (34%), fly-ins (3%), or a combination of motorboats and fly-ins (18%). Of the 35 river drainages within the refuge, use is primarily concentrated on the three larger rivers, the Kanektok, Goodnews, and the Togiak. The Kanektok River receives the most use with about 700 visitors spending 4,700 use days annually. Float trips lasting eight to ten days represent a majority of the use. The Togiak River receives about 1,000 visitors representing 4,000 use days. Fly-in and motorboat use are the principle access types on the Togiak River. On the Goodnews system, about 350 visitors spend 2, 400 use days annually. Guided motorboat camps and nonguided float boat use characterize the primary user groups. Recreational use also occurs on eleven other river systems in the refuge. It is difficult to predict the trend in recreational use within the refuge if controls had not been imposed in 1984. It is certain that use would have increased, probably substantially. One indication of the demand for use is the number of requests for special use permits the refuge has received since 1984 . Over 35 new requests have been received to date. Estimates are that these new operations would have represented an additional use level of an estimated 1,400 clients and 9,800 use days per season. Most of this use would have been through additional temporary base camps or by float boat trips on the Kanektok, Goodnews and T ~giak Rivers. In addition, it is estimated that existing refuge guide 93 operations would have increased their use by over 4,000 use days. It is assumed that existing levels of unguided recreation indicate current demand because unguided recreation has not been limited. Unguided use has remained relatively stable since 1984. Therefore, it is estimated that if no controls would have been applied in 1984, sport fishing use within the refuge would have doubled from 12,000 use days to well over 24,000 use days. If there are substantial increases, particularly in commercial recreational uses, existing subsistence activities, existing recreational opportunities, wilderness values, and fisheries resources would be significantly affected within the refuge. 6. Interpretive Exhibits/Demonstrations Preliminary design work on the interagency interpretive display to be located in airports in Anchorage and Dillingham was finished this year. By the end of the year a contract had been awarded and work had started. Cooperators in this project include the refuge, the Department of Fish and Game, the Department of Natural Resources, the City of Dillingham, the Bristol Bay Coastal Resource Service Area Board and seven village corporations within the area. The display would delineate land ownership patterns; explain the purposes for establishment of special management areas such as Togiak National Wildlife Refuge and Wood-Tikchik State Park; provide an understanding of the unique cultural, biological and natural resources of the area. 8. Hunting By the end of 1989 the State of Alaska had still not established a system to deal with the 'Owsichek Decision'. That decision handed down on October 21, 1988 stated that the state's system of exclusive guide areas was without legal force and has the potential to impact wildlife resources. The Service continues to maintain commercial hunting operations at the same level as in the past under an interim program. This is to allow the State of Alaska adequate time to develop a legal system for managing commercial sport hunting. Non-local sport hunting. Four big game guides were issued special use permits to operate on the refuge during 1989. Of these, one guide did not bring clients to the refuge. The remaining three guides hunted with fifteen clients and harvested five bears. Waterfowl hunting on the refuge by sport hunters is increasing in popularity. Several sport fishing guides are offering guided packages which include waterfowl hunting. We have initiated a reporting process to document the level of use this activity generates. At this poin,t we have compiled a list of desired hunting areas and species hunted. Primary 94 waterfowl hunting locations include Shallow Pond, the Igushik, Kulukak and Kanik Rivers, Cape Constantine, and Nichols Spit. Mallard, pintail, gadwall, wigeon, green-winged teal and scaup are primary species taken. Local, subsistence hunting. Very little data exists to document the actual harvest and effort expended by local subsistence hunters. The situation varies from year to year depending on weather, traveling conditions, the availability of game, and on the commercial fishing success. Local residents depend quite heavily on small and large game, marine mammals, waterfowl and game birds to fill their larders. Most hunters are opportunistic and hunt during times of game availability. 9. Fishing Sport fishing for resident and anadromous fish in rivers and lakes on the refuge is considered excellent and draws the majority of visitor use. Fishing opportunities include all 5 species of Pacific salmon, rainbow trout, burbot, whitefish, pike, grayling, lake trout, Dolly Varden, char, cod, smelt, flounder and others. These fish are generally sought at different times of the year with the majority of the use occurring during the summer. Of the available species king and coho salmon, rainbow trout and char (spp) are the most avidly pursued by anglers. Subsistence users from the local villages, using various fishing methods account for the majority of the fish taken from the streams and lakes. This majority is changing as the sport fishing use increases. The subsistence users catch the majority of their fish using nets during the ice free season. Other methods include rod and reel, and spears on the Togiak River. Both subsistence and sport fishing efforts are concentrated on the Togiak, Goodnews, and Kanektok Rivers. Due to the remoteness of much of the refuge, access is primarily by plane and boat during the ice free months and snowmachine and 4 wheeler during frozen periods. Approximately 21 guides offer sport fishing packages of various types to people from all over the world. These sport fishing packages range in price from $1,200-4,000 for a 6-10 day fishing excursion which will include float trips, tent basecamps on rivers, and or full lodge accommodations located off the refuge, with daily fly-in fishing to various refuge rivers and lakes. During 1989 sport fishermen are estimated to have spent over $3,500,000 to fish within the refuge. This cost does not include airfare to Alaska or fishing tackle and licenses. Costs of all gear and transportation will probably increase the total to over $6,000,000. Unguided anglers constitute approximately 30% of the angling visitors. They are primarily river rafters, hiring one of five air taxis permitted to operate on the refuge to fly into the headwater lakes of a major river system. There are also some unguided anglers who fly to areas on the rivers to fish for one or two days. There are also those unguided anglers 95 who will fly to one of the villages to launch their own· boats, or rent boats, for river use. This type of day trip user is infrequent, and is primarily an area resident. ·) Some refuge rivers still offer a tranquil setting and a quality experience. KH 9/89 Estimated use levels for the refuge have been difficult to ascertain. Refuge programs such as the public use contact stations at the three major headwater lakes, and creel censuses conducted by the refuge, the King Salmon Fishery Assistance Office, and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game Sport Fish Division have begun to provide a better picture of the use pattern. Most of these studies do not provide complete coverage on an entire river system, nor of all user groups. It has been necessary to rely on use figures reported by the individual permit holders, and staff estimates of unguided users, to acquire a full range of user estimates, (Table 24). ) I 96 Biological Technician Michelle Bourassa and Volunteer Tad Lindley collecting scale samples from a Negukthluk River rainbow trout. Data will be used to monitor fishing pressure. MJL 7/89 Table 24 1989 Estimates of Sport Fishing Use Days on Togiak National Wildlife Refuge Type of Kanektok Goodnews Togiak Other Use River River River Rivers* Total Guided 1,707 927 1,483 861 4,978 Unguided 961 1,101 192 ? 2,254 Totals 2 668 2 028 1 675 861 7 232 1. From refuge public use contact stations at Kagati and Goodnews Lakes, airtaxi reports and sport fish guide reports. * Includes Pungokepuk River and Lake, Gechiak River and Lake, Ongivinuck River and Lake, Amanka River and Lake, Negukthlik River and ponds, Kulukak River and Arolic River. The Kanektok River supports a well publicized sport fishery. Fishermen are attracted by salmon well as rainbow, Dolly Vardenjchar, and grayling throughout the river. Twelve guides operate on this system. Eight guides offer float trips from Kagati Lake to Quinhagak, and two guides offer tent ) camps in the wilderness area. Approximately 58% of the use on the river is by float trip users, while guided users account for an estimated 72% 97 of the total use. The Goodnews River including the main stern, the south fork, and the middle fork has populations of rainbow trout and grayling, and also fair runs of Dolly Varden/char and all five species of salmon; however it is the least used of the major river systems. This could be due to the fact that the lower portion of this system falls outside of the refuge and the use on this area is not monitored by the refuge. Several guides operate on this system within the refuge, offering tent camps with jet boat, or fly in clients to the lakes for float trips. Over 50% of the use on this river is by guided motor boat users, while all guided use accounts for approximately 60% of the total use. The Arctic char/Dolly Varden is found throughout the refuge. Several streams still offer larger specimens. MJL 6/89 The Togiak River supports a large salmon and char sport fishery throughout the main river and a vestigial rainbow and grayling fishery in its tributaries. Of the major river systems, the Togiak supports larger runs of four out of the five salmon species. King salmon runs in the Kanektok are generally larger. The king and coho runs in Togiak River are approx imately two weeks behind the other popular rivers. The angling effort follows this cycle and fly in guides target on Togiak River fish once the in river escapement builds . / The value of the sport fishery on the Togiak River based on the reported 98 level of use by the guides was estimated at approximately $1,000,000 for the 1989 season. Seven guides operate on the Togiak river. Two of the guides offer float trips; one offers a deluxe tent camp, and the remaining five offer daily fly in or fly-in motor boat fishing. Approximately 70% of the use on the river was by fly-in and motor boat users, while guided use accounted for nearly 82% of the total use. 10. Trapping Trapping success on the refuge in 1989 was the poorest during the twenty year record. Extremely cold temperatures and record snow fall prevented trappers from partaking in this usually economically feasible activity. Complete harvest statistics (sex and age structure, and number harvested) is not available at this time. Only 975 beavers pelts were tagged by Alaska Department of Fish and Game in 1989 for all of the local game management units. Normal harvest ranges between 2-3000 beavers. Lynx populations and harvest were extremely low for the third year in a row, indicating that they are at the bottom of their 11 year cycle. No reliable data exists this year concerning the mink and fox harvest. A high occurrence of rabies in the fox population in 1988 was followed by an extreme population crash. Fox pelts have not been highly desirable to fur buyers for several years now. 99 An outbreak of rabies in red fox may have contributed to a population crash. LH 6/89 Wolverine populations and harvest appears to remain stable since aerial land and shoot hunting was abolished. No wolves were reported harvested on the refuge in 1989, although sightings of the animals and their tracks indicates that they occasionally enter the refuge throughout the year. Alaska Department of Fish & Game biologist estimate approximately 7 packs totalling 24 animals inhabit areas adjacent to the refuge and periodically wander across the border into the Togiak, Kulukak, Ungalikthluk and Kanektok River Drainages. No coyotes were harvested within the refuge in 1989, although they appear to be expanding their range into this part of Southwest Alaska. This is a recent event, occurring within the last six years, and the first time coyotes are know to inhabit this area in recorded history. 11. Wildlife Observation During 1989 there were an estimated 900 visits and 1,800 activity hours associated with wildlife observation. Most of this activity is related to sport fishing and river rafting. In 1989 there was a significant increase in interest to visit Cape Peirce to view and photograph the walrus haulout site and sea bird nesting areas. Part of the increase can be attributed to the increase in wildlife observation activity at Round ) Island (sanctuary managed by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game).1 In 1989 Round Island was managed (permit required) at near capacity the 100 entire summer. Apparently it hasn't taken long for word· to spread that another major haulout area exists in Bristol Bay. 12. Other Wildlife Oriented Recreation This activity consists primarily of wildlife photography. It is usually associated with other recreational activities such as sport fishing, hunting, and river rafting. Every year a few outdoor writers/photographers visit the refuge. They are usually associated with a sport fish guiding operation and are getting pictures and information for articles for outdoor and fishing magazines. 13. Camping Camping, as related to subsistence activities conducted by local village residents, occurs primarily on the refuge during the fall and winter months. These activities include trapping, hunting, fishing (fall fishing for spawned out salmon), berry picking, and firewood gathering. Most of the camps are located on native land allotments within the refuge wilderness area. Camping, (non-rural residents use) is usually related to sport fishing, hunting and river rafting. The refuge does not provide any camping facilities. Several sport fish guides provide semi-permanent camps on major river drainages. All other camping is primitive tent camping connected with river rafting and sport fishing. 101 ) Refuge volunteers have gone to all extremes to avoid the bugs. VB 7/89 15. Off-Road Vehicling Snow machines are the only off road vehicles authorized for use on the refuge and are for use only during periods of adequate snow cover. Their use on the refuge during the winter is quite extensive and is usually associated with; travel from one village to another, trapping, firewood gathering, ice fishing and hunting. 16. Other Non-Wildlife Oriented Recreation These are subsistence activities conducted by village residents. These activities consist primarily of firewood gathering and berry picking. 17. Law Enforcement A case that was a carry over from 1988 involved three men; Joseph Clark (63), and his two sons, Sam (26) and Richard (38). The three men killed nine walrus at Cape Peirce on July 27, 1988. The heads were removed from all nine animals. Six animals were towed out and lost at sea, three were left on the beach with a little meat taken from two. The three men were arraigned in federal court on January 5, 1989 for wasting walrus. They were charged with one count each of violating the Marine Mammal Protection Act and one count each of conspiracy to violate the act. The three1 men are Alaska Natives and commercial fishermen from Clarks Point, Alaska. 102 l Three Native hunters were charged for wanton waste by only taking the flippers and ivory of these walrus. GS 1988 Initially all three men offered innocent pleas. As part of a plea bargain agreement, Joe Clark agreed to make a video/film to tell walrus hunters to take the meat of animals they kill and to get them to better understand the law. Clark's plea bargain also involved a $500 fine, forfeiture of one walrus skull with tusks, and six months probation. In June, Sam Clark entered a plea of guilty and Richard a plea of not guilty. Sam's fine was similar to his father's. Richard decided to take his chances in court. He had previous convictions involving felony charges and a guilty plea would have involved a parole violation. On July 19th Richard Clark, in the first case of its kind ever to go to a jury, was found guilty of unlawfully taking walrus in a wasteful manner. His sentencing consists of 3 months jail time and $550 fine. We have recently learned that Richard Clark plans to appeal the case. I 103 ·} Refuge photo used in a Newsweek magazine article on walrus hunting in Alaska. GS 1988 Sport fishing guide, Jim Broady, Aleknagik Mission Lodge, was issued another violation notice for violating his refuge special use permit . A violation notice was issued in 1988 for a similar violation. Bail was forfeited in both instances. A letter from Manager Fisher to Broady explaining that he would not be issued a special use permit to sport fish guide on the refuge in 1990 did prompt a Congressional inquiry and many phone calls. So far we have been able to maintain our position of not having to issue him a permit. Office odds are that Broady will be back guiding on the refuge next summer, without a permit. One German visitor (sport fishing) was issued a citation for shooting two seagulls at Kagati Lake. Refuge volunteers stationed at the lake reported the violation. By the time we received the information at the office the fishing party had started their float trip on the Kanektok River. A few phone calls were made to determine what air charter outfit would be picking them up and when they would be returning to Dillingham. Assistant Refuge Manager Jerome interviewed the offender at Manokotak Air, Dillingham, and issued a violation notice. Penalty for the infraction was $100.00, but was secondary when you consider the fact that both seagulls were eaten for dinner at the lake. Manager Fisher, Assistant Manager Jerome and Wildlife Biologist/Pilot Hotchkiss attended law enforcement training in Marana, Arizona in March . ) f 104 I. EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES 1. New Construction No major new construction took place on the refuge this year. Four outhouses were fabricated from lumber and siding to replace portable canvas facilities at Kagati and Goodnews Lakes. These structures will hopefully provide wind protection for our field crews and the visiting public. ) Refuge warehouse completed in 1988 was a great help during the 1989 field season. Its' size however has already been found to be inadequate. DF 6/89 3. Major Maintenance All vehicles, mobile homes and equipment received routine maintenance as required throughout the year. No major repairs were necessary. N735EA, the refuge Cessna 185, received four 100-hour inspections throughout the year and an annual inspection. Radio and antennae adjustments, loran repair, and a host of other minor problems were conducted by OAS. Maintenance Management System review and property inspection was completed in late 1989. Maintenance and replacement requirements were scheduled for ) the next three to five years on various refuge facilities. 1 105 4. Equipment Utilization and Replacement Two new replacement vehicles, ordered at the end of Fiscal Year 1987, were received in Dillingham during the summer of 1989. The two vehicles, a 1988 Chevrolet Suburban and a 1988 Dodge Ram 3/4 ton pick up, arrived via barge in good condition. A word to the wise for anyone ordering a new vehicle. Be very specific when ordering vehicle options especially towing hitch type bumpers. Instead of a bumper with a two inch or even 1-7/8 inch ball, or even a hole to attach one, we got something they use in the truck commercials to tow a railroad car full of there competitors trucks. To get one vehicle with such an arrangement might be understandable, but for both, each from different manufacturers is quite puzzling. With year end money we have replaced five outboard motors, three inflatable boats with three welded aluminum boats, and two lO'xlS' Hansen weatherports. Four, .338 caliber Ruger rifles were also purchased with year end money to comply with new Region 7 bear protection policy. Slug barrels, fiberglass stocks and magazine extensions were purchased as necessary to properly outfit all refuge shotguns. An Advanced Telemetry Systems receiver and antennas were purchased for the rainbow trout study on the Negukthlik River. A 40 horsepower Yamaha jet drive outboard motor was purchased for the Negukthlik River rainbow trout study. 106 All field camps are supplied via the refuge cessna 185. This makes for numerous flights to set up camps and keep them resupplied. VB 8/89 5. Communications Systems The refuge experienced numerous problems with the radio communications system during the year. The system consists of a base single side band radio station located in the refuge bunkhouse and a remote station in the office. The line between the bunkhouse and office required balancing and connecting several times during the year. The remote system was sent back to the factory for repairs and a loner unit was used during part of the field season. Once this was repaired some of the highest intensity of solar flares in 10 years created so much static during the day that we were unable to contact field stations directly for several days at a time. We have submitted a funding package for a FM radio system. This system would give us the coverage that is needed for law enforcement work and provide a better safety network to cover the refuge. Solar static would not be a problem with the new system. 6. Computer Systems The refuge received three PC/At computers and a laser jet printer during the late spring of 1989. These were much needed pieces of equipment that have helped to eliminate the bottle neck of data processing at the end of ) the field season. The Refuge also got into full swing of using the- new budget process developed as a lotus 123 spread sheet. 107 Secretary Carol Johnson coaches Assistant Manager Pete Jerome in using a lotus spreadsheet to analyze data for the public use management plan. MJL 10/89 The refuge is still short on processing power at certain times of the year. This is especially evident during the fall when all the field projects are finished and the process of analyzing the data comes into play. With all of the deadlines the use of several more computers to crunch numbers would decrease the time needed to complete reports. 7. Energy Conservation Total energy consumption for calendar year 1989 was higher than 1988 . (Table 25). Full occupancy of refuge trailers, the addition of the bunkhouse and storage building, and the colder than normal winter caused the increase in electricity and heating fuel. The addition of two new vehicles caused an increase in gasoline consumption. ) f 108 TABLE 25 Energy Conservation Comparison Energy Unit of Consumption Source Measure CY83 CY84 CY85 CY86 CY87 CY88 CY89 Electricity KWH 25,087 21,106 24,410 23,049 41,988 40,814 51,570 Propane Gal. 189 142 108 165 200 168 190 Vehicle Fuel Gal. 495 821 772 1,098 947 1,256 1,599 Aviation Gas Gal. 1,390 3,205 3,873 4,581 7,330 5,506 6,424 Heating Oil Gal. 958 1,188 1,008 1,704 3,291 3,819 6,537 Misc. Fuel** Gal. 0 252 500 3,279 1,081 1,745 364 **Includes boat gas, kerosene, blazo 109 J. OTHER ITEMS 1. Cooperative Programs A reindeer survey of Hagemeister Island was flown for the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge on May 24 by Wildlife Biologist/Pilot Hotchkiss, Bio-Tech Campbell and volunteer Vern Burandt. A total of 784 reindeer were observed. 3. Items of Interest Secretary Carol Johnson received a special achievement award in January for her outstanding work performance in 1988. Manager Fisher and Interpreter Dyasuk attended several meetings at the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge, Bethel, Alaska, concerning the Yukon Delta Goose Management Plan. Fisheries Biologist Harper met with Carl Berger of the Fisheries Research Division to discuss the radio telemetry project on the Ungalikthluk River. Dillingham ranks number three in cost of food for a family of four being beat out only by Nome and Kotzebue. Food costs in Dillingham are 154% higher than Anchorage according to a market basket survey conducted in March by the Cooperative Extension Service. John Andrew, Reality Division, Anchorage office, visited the refuge to discuss the priorities of acquisition of refuge inholdings. Refuge Manager Fisher attended the Bristol Bay Tribal Government conference and discussed the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the taking of marine mammals on Togiak Refuge and enforcement problems. Goose calendars were mailed to the villages and schools within and adjacent to the refuge, February. Wildlife Biologist/Pilot Hotchkiss and Botanist Bill Kirk, participated in an audio conference with village X-CED education program students. Discussions consisted of plant adaption and plant animal interactions, associated with the caribou reintroduction. Refuge staff prepared comments on the Alaska Department of Fish and Game Bristol Bay Rainbow Trout Management Plan. The comments were sent to the Regional Office for consolidation into a regional review by Fisheries Resources. Copies of the comments were also sent to Sport Fish Biologist Mac Minard. Refuge Information Technician, Lou Mark, Quinhagak, resigned in April as a result of pressure from a few villagers and family members. Refuge Information Technician Wilbur Bavilla also resigned. 110 Biological Technician Lisac and Fisheries Biologist Harper were judges in the annual Dillingham Middle School Science Fair. The field of 50 entries were narrowed down to four who will compete in Anchorage at the State Science Fair. Refuge Manager Fisher attended the annual project leaders meeting in Anchorage. A letter was sent to Qanirtuug, Inc., Quinhagak village corporation in April requesting permission to access their lands to collect fisheries data on the Arolik River. No reply has been received. Fisheries Biologist Ken Harper attended the Togiak Fisheries Advisory meeting in Togiak on April 21. Discussion items included the moose collaring and caribou projects. Also included was a presentation by Game Biologist Ken Taylor about areas within Bristol Bay that are open to subsistence hunting for walrus. Fisheries Biologist Harper attended a meeting in Fairbanks with Jim Reynolds of the Cooperative Fisheries Unit. Purpose of the meeting was to discuss the refuge jet boat study. Graduate students and professors from the biological and engineering programs were in attendance. Refuge Manager Fisher and Interpreter Dyasuk conducted meetings in April in the villages of Platinum, Manokotak, Goodnews Bay, Quinhagak, and Togiak to explain regional policy with respect to spring waterfowl hunting. Wells Stephensen of the Regional Office also attended some of the meetings to explain the marine mammals tagging program and hire local taggers. Biological Technician Lisac attended the Basic Refuge Manager's Academy in Blair, Nebraska from May 1-19. The variety of the information presented and the diversity of the participants made the training an excellent review of the Service. Biological Technician Lisa Haggblom attended a meeting in May in Anchorage with Regional Office personnel and other Service biologists to coordinate field procedures for seabird production surveys. Botanist Bill Kirk (Regional Office) visited the refuge in May to discuss setting up vegetation transects for the caribou range study. Fisheries Biologist Harper attended an interagency meeting in May in Anchorage to discuss the jet boat impact study proposed by the refuge. Representatives from the National Park Service, Cooperative Fishery Unit in Fairbanks, and the Division of Fisheries Management Services were in attendance. Refuge Manager Fisher and Jim Finn, King Salmon Fisheries Assistance Office met with Ron Hyde Sr. of Alaska River Safaris to discuss refuge operations and the Goodnews River rainbow trout study. 111 Wildlife Biologist/Pilot Hotchkiss conducted a caribou · radio tracking demonstration for the Togiak School X-CED students, four students and two teachers participated. Assistant Refuge Manager Jerome and Refuge Information Technicians Echuck and Andrews contacted spotter pilots in Togiak village and made them aware of the potential for disturbing walrus and seabirds at Cape Peirce during the herring season. The refuge staff participated in the annual Dillingham litter pick up day on May 25. Public announcements describing regional policy with respect to hunting arctic nesting geese was aired on local radio station KDLG. Refuge Manager Fisher attended performance management training in Anchorage, June. Cathy Tynen, Budget Officer in the Washington Office; John Rodgers, Deputy Regional Director; George Constantino, Associate Manager; and Ted Heuer, Refuge Staff Specialist, visited the station on June 24. The refuge staff provided an overview presentation of refuge programs. James Allen, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, visited the refuge office to discuss monitoring and compliance of sanitation regulations with respect to refuge guide camps, June 15. Refuge staff met with Subsistence Division staff, Jim Fall, Mike Coffing, Jane Schichnes, and Jody Sites to discuss future subsistence projects in the refuge, June 18. Vivian Mendenhall, Marine Bird Biologist, visited Cape Peirce in June to assist with the seabird productivity survey and review field methodology. Rachel Bedelsky, Marine Mammals Biologist, visited Cape Peirce in June to monitor the effects of noise disturbance on walrus. A contract for the preparation of visitor displays to be located in the Anchorage and Dillingham Airports was awarded to Wilderness Graphics. This is a cooperative project involving 11 agencies and organizations. In June the refuge finally received a new Chevrolet Suburban that was ordered in September 1987. Many of the accessories that were originally requested were not included - very disappointing. Clarification of regional policy with respect to the Service's management authority on navigable waters within the refuge was explained in a memo sent to Terry Eberly of Crystal Creek Lodge. Assistant Refuge Manager Jerome and Associated Manager Constantino accompanied Alaska Department of Natural Resources personnel on a float trip on the Kanektok River. The purpose of this trip was to expose all 112 parties to public use issues on the river and the refuge· and to discuss management options for the pending refuge public use management plan, August. Ms. Lenny Gorsuch, Commissioner, Alaska Department of Natural Resources, visited the refuge office to discuss their agencies role in public use management on Togiak National Wildlife Refuge rivers, August. Two sport fish regulation proposal for the Negukthlik(Ungalikthluk Rivers were submitted to the fisheries board in September. The proposals consist of limiting the rainbow trout fishery to catch and release, single hook and artificial lures only and are aimed to protecting this unique fishery. Refuge Manager Fisher and Assistant Refuge Manager Jerome met with the Regional Office staff on November 18th to brief them on options for the refuge public use management plan. The Regional Director was briefed on the 19th. Personnel from the Department of Fish and Game and Department of Natural Resources were briefed on the 20th. Bill Knauer and Scott Schliebe conducted a sea otter meeting in Dillingham on October 20th. Biological Technician Wildlife Campbell, Refuge Manager Fisher, and Interpreter Dyasuk travelled to Togiak and conducted a briefing with the Togiak City Council on status of the relocated caribou herd, November 7th. Dee Butler and Michelle Chivers, Division of Realty visited the refuge on November 1 to inspect quarters for rental rate adjustments. Biological Technician Campbell and Interpreter Dyasuk travelled to Manokotak on December 28 to conduct a caribou up-date presentation for the village council. All council members were present and asked a variety of questions. The sixth annual Dillingham Chapter Ducks Unlimited banquet was held on November 28th. Biological Technician Lisac, Fishery Biologist Harper and Refuge Manager Fisher all participated as committee members. Preliminary estimates are that approximately $12,000 was raised. Two CITES permits were issued in November to hunters from Denmark and Germany for the transport of caribou and brown bear. Wells Stephensen visited the refuge on his way to of all places Clarks Point to set up a marine mammal tagging program. Fishery Biologist Ken Harper received a special achievement award in December for his high quality of work performance during 1989. 113 4. Credits The 1989 Annual Narrative Report was written by: Staff Members Sections Campbell D(S); F(l,2,6); G(l,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,14,16) Dyasuk D(S); E(l) Fisher Introduction; Highlights; C(l,2); E(l,2,5,8); F(9,12); H(6,10,11,12,13,15,16,17); J(l,3,4); Feedback Harper E(6); G(ll,l6); H(9); 1(5,6) Jerome D(2,3) Johnson I(7) Lisac B; D(S); E(4); G(ll); H(l,8,9,10); 1(1,2,3,4) The report was assembled and processed by Secretary Johnson and edited by the staff. Photo Credits: KH Ken Harper DF Dave Fisher MJL Mark Lisac DC Diane Campbell JD Jon Dyasuk GS Gay Sheffield LH Lisa Haggblom MB Michelle Bourassa VB Vern Burandt RD Robert Doyle TL Tad Lindley LJ Lauri Jemison PC Patrick Chubb 114 K. FEEDBACK Cracking down on illegal walrus hunting is a logistical and legal challenge. These animals inhabit the remote western coast of Alaska, often times far away from the regular reach of both Service and State enforcement personnel. Alaska Natives are allowed to hunt walrus for food and use the ivory to make crafts for resale. However, some Natives, such as in the Clark's Point case killed for the ivory and wasted the remains. Poaching isn't limited to Natives. Non-Native commercial fishermen also kill walrus on fishing grounds, shooting them from their fishing boats which results in these animals sinking before being retrieved. Most of these unclaimed mortalities return to the surface as gas accumulates inside the body cavity and they wash ashore weeks later. Because the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) allows non natives to claim ivory from beached carcasses, ivory hunters in small planes continually patrol the coastline looking for ivory. These patrols often times disturb active marine mammal haul out sites and nesting sea bird rookeries. Alaska Natives have a special responsibility to patrol and police their own ranks. Their claim to hunt these animals for subsistence purposes is legitimate. However if they fail to control their poaching they may lose their special hunting privileges now guaranteed under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Responsible Natives, to include the Eskimo Walrus Commission, need to get the word out. Illegal walrus hunting will not be tolerated and violations will be reported. The threat to these animals could grow more serious as nations restrict the elephant ivory trade. The service needs to increase its' I & E effort and consider locating more special agents in remote areas of Alaska not only to enforce the non waste provisions of the MMPA, but other illegal big game guiding activities as well. Fishery resources are probably the most important resource on this refuge. They annually support a commercial industry worth about 20 million dollars; drive a sport fishery worth about 6 million dollars; help support an estimated 3000 people who utilize the resource for subsistence purposes; and not to mention the fact that they sustain a large majority of other refuge biological systems. Yet it only generates $79,000 (FY 90) when it comes to budgeted refuge monies to be spent on refuge fishery projects. As a result wildlife funds are used just to pay token support. There is however, a feeling that any refuge fishery work should be funded from the fisheries resources program. We have recently completed a fisheries management plan. It will be interesting to see if it does what it's supposed to do - generate funding for fisheries work on Togiak N.W.R. We need to put the FI$H back in the Fish and Wildlife Service. Ask any project leader and they will tell you that one of the key positions on any refuge is the administrative/secretarial type. Some are called clerk typists, refuge assistants, secretaries, administrative clerks, administrative technicians, even labeling them is frustrating. These people, whatever their title, assist and advise GS-11, 12, 13 (now some 14) project leaders, managers, technicians, biologists, pilots, 115 (professional people), about increasingly complex matters. Matters involving policies, budgeting, finance, procurement, property management, personnel, payroll, data processing, permits, record keeping, typing, filing, and public relations. Yet these people are paid the equivalent of laborer rates. In Alaska it is about 1/3 - 1/2 of laborer rates. While most persons possessing these skills in private businesses are the monetary equivalent of at least a GS-7 or GS-9. It takes a lot of time, effort, money and patience to find and train a good administrative person. It also takes job recognition and adequate monetary compensation to keep these people. Most managers can handle the job recognition part but definitely need help with the monetary compensation. It is time that the old stereotyping of these positions is changed, and they become upgraded. It can be done.