EPA 910-R-14-001B | January 2014 

An Assessment of Potential Mining Impacts 

on Salmon Ecosystems of Bristol Bay, Alaska 

Volume 2 – Appendices A-D 

Region 10, Seattle, WA 

www.epa.gov/bristolbay 
EPA 910-R-14-001B

January 2014

AN ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL MINING IMPACTS ON 

SALMON ECOSYSTEMS OF BRISTOL BAY, ALASKA 

VOLUME 2—APPENDICES A-D

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region 10

Seattle, WA
CONTENTS 

VOLUME 1 

An Assessment of Potential Mining Impacts on Salmon Ecosystems of Bristol Bay, Alaska

VOLUME 2 

APPENDIX A: Fishery Resources of the Bristol Bay Region

APPENDIX B: Non-Salmon Freshwater Fishes of the Nushagak and Kvichak River Drainages

APPENDIX C: Wildlife Resources of the Nushagak and Kvichak River Watersheds, Alaska 

APPENDIX D: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Characterization of the Indigenous 

Cultures of the Nushagak and Kvichak Watersheds, Alaska

VOLUME 3 

APPENDIX E: Bristol Bay Wild Salmon Ecosystem: Baseline Levels of Economic Activity and 

Values

APPENDIX F: Biological Characterization: Bristol Bay Marine Estuarine Processes, Fish, and 

Marine Mammal Assemblages 

APPENDIX G: Foreseeable Environmental Impact of Potential Road and Pipeline 

Development on Water Quality and Freshwater Fishery Resources of Bristol Bay, Alaska 

APPENDIX H: Geologic and Environmental Characteristics of Porphyry Copper Deposits 

with Emphasis on Potential Future Development in the Bristol Bay Watershed, Alaska

APPENDIX I: Conventional Water Quality Mitigation Practices for Mine Design, 

Construction, Operation, and Closure

APPENDIX J: Compensatory Mitigation and Large-Scale Hardrock Mining in the Bristol Bay 

Watershed
AN ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL MINING IMPACTS ON 

SALMON ECOSYSTEMS OF BRISTOL BAY, ALASKA 

VOLUME 2—APPENDICES A-D

Appendix A: Fishery Resources of the Bristol Bay Region 
Fishery Resources of the Bristol Bay Region

Daniel Rinella, PhD.

Alaska Natural Heritage Program

University of Alaska Anchorage

Beatrice McDonald Hall, Suite 106

Anchorage, AK 99508

rinella@uaa.alaska.edu 

907.786.4963

Rebecca Shaftel

Alaska Natural Heritage Program

University of Alaska Anchorage

Beatrice McDonald Hall, Suite 106

Anchorage, AK 99508

rsshaftel@uaa.alaska.edu 

907.786.4965

Dave Athons

Environmental Protection Agency

Kenai River Center

514 Funny River Road

Soldotna, AK 99669

Athons.dave@epamail.epa.gov 

907.714.2481

November 2013

1 
Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................. 1

ECOLOGY AND LIFE HISTORY OF BRISTOL BAY FISHES.................................................................................. 3

General salmon life history ....................................................................................................................... 3

Species-specific life history and ecology................................................................................................... 4

Sockeye salmon..................................................................................................................................... 4

Chinook salmon..................................................................................................................................... 7

Rainbow trout....................................................................................................................................... 9

Coho salmon ......................................................................................................................................... 9

Pink salmon......................................................................................................................................... 12

Chum salmon ...................................................................................................................................... 12

BRISTOL BAY FISHERIES AND FISHERIES MANAGEMENT............................................................................ 15

Historical perspective on commercial salmon fisheries ......................................................................... 15

Current management of commercial salmon fisheries .......................................................................... 16

Description of sport fisheries.................................................................................................................. 19

Management of sport fisheries............................................................................................................... 21

Chinook salmon................................................................................................................................... 21

Sockeye salmon................................................................................................................................... 21

Rainbow trout..................................................................................................................................... 22

SALMON ABUNDANCE TRENDS AROUND THE NORTH PACIFIC, WITH REFERENCE TO BRISTOL BAY 

POPULATIONS ............................................................................................................................................. 22

Sockeye salmon....................................................................................................................................... 23

Size of Bristol Bay, Kvichak, and Nushagak sockeye salmon returns.................................................. 23

Factors affecting Bristol Bay sockeye salmon abundance .................................................................. 30

The decline in Kvichak River sockeye salmon runs............................................................................. 31

Chinook salmon....................................................................................................................................... 33

Threatened and endangered salmon and conservation priorities......................................................... 37

KEY HABITAT ELEMENTS OF BRISTOL BAY RIVER SYSTEMS (OR WHY DO BRISTOL BAY WATERSHEDS 

PRODUCE SO MANY FISH?) ......................................................................................................................... 42

Habitat quantity ...................................................................................................................................... 42

Habitat quality......................................................................................................................................... 45

Habitat diversity...................................................................................................................................... 48

i
Tables

Table 1. Mean harvest by species and fishing district, 1990-2009. ........................................................... 17

Table 2. Bristol Bay escapement goal ranges for sockeye salmon. ........................................................... 18

Table 3. Bristol Bay escapement goal ranges for Chinook and chum salmon ...........................................19

Table 4. The number of businesses and guides operating in the Nushagak and Kvichak watersheds in 

2005, 2008 and 2010 .................................................................................................................................. 20

Table 5. Mean annual returns of sockeye salmon in Bristol Bay, 1956-2010, and percent of total by river 

system......................................................................................................................................................... 32

Table 6. Chinook average run sizes for 2000-2009 for rivers across the North Pacific .............................34

Table 7. Endangered Species Act listings for salmon ESUs in the United States.......................................40

Table 8. Comparison of landscape features potentially important to sockeye salmon production for 

watersheds across the North Pacific and across the Bristol Bay watershed..............................................43

Table 9. A summary of life history variation within the Bristol Bay stock complex of sockeye salmon....49

Table 10. Variation in time spent rearing in fresh water and at sea for Bristol Bay sockeye salmon .......49

Figures

Figure 1. Major river systems and fishing districts in Bristol Bay, Alaska. ................................................... 2 

Figure 2. Sockeye salmon distribution in the Nushagak and Kvichak watersheds....................................... 6 

Figure 3. Chinook salmon distribution in the Nushagak and Kvichak watersheds....................................... 8 

Figure 4. Coho salmon distribution in the Nushagak and Kvichak watersheds............................................. 10

Figure 5. Pink salmon distribution in the Nushagak and Kvichak watersheds...............................................12

Figure 6. Chum salmon distribution in the Nushagak and Kvichak watersheds.............................................13

Figure 7. Relative abundance of wild sockeye salmon stocks in the North Pacific, 1956-2005 ................23

Figure 8. Wild sockeye salmon abundances by region in the North Pacific, 1956-2005 ...........................24

Figure 9. Total sockeye returns by river system in Bristol Bay, 1956-2010 ...............................................26

Figure 10. Sockeye salmon abundances for major rivers of the North Pacific, 1956-2010.....................298 

Figure 11. Chinook salmon abundances by river system, 1966-2010 .....................................................365 

Figure 12. Map of surveyed anadromous streams in the Nushagak and Kvichak watersheds .................43

Appendices

Appendix 1. Chinook and sockeye almon run sizes for Bristol Bay and other regions of the North Pacific.

.................................................................................................................................................................... 56

ii 
INTRODUCTION

Millions of Pacific salmon return from feeding in the open ocean each year and swarm 

through Bristol Bay en route to their natal spawning streams. Nine major river systems 

comprise the spawning grounds for Bristol Bay salmon (Figure 1), and schools navigate toward 

the mouths of their respective rivers as they pass through the Bay. Each summer, thousands of 

commercial fishermen use drift and set gill nets to capture millions of returning fish, making 

Bristol Bay the largest sockeye salmon fishery in the world. Salmon that escape the fishery 

distribute throughout the Bay’s watersheds and spawn in hundreds of discreet populations. 

Sport anglers target those salmon, especially sockeye, Chinook and coho, as they migrate 

through the river systems toward their spawning grounds. Also prized are abundant 

populations of rainbow trout and other sport fish, including Dolly Varden and Arctic grayling, 

which attain trophy size by gorging on energy-rich salmon eggs, flesh from salmon carcasses, 

and invertebrates dislodged by spawning salmon. The abundance of large game fish, along with 

the wilderness setting, makes the Bristol Bay region a world-class destination for sport anglers. 

Alongside recreationists, aboriginal people, guided by an age-old culture, harvest their share of 

migrating salmon and other fish species, which provide a primary source of sustenance.

In this report we reviewed the biology, ecology, and management of the fishes of the 

Bristol Bay watersheds, emphasizing those species of the greatest cultural and economic 

importance – sockeye salmon, Chinook salmon, and rainbow trout. Rather than to imply that 

other fishes are not important, this focus reflected the disproportionate amount of research on 

these species (especially sockeye salmon) and was necessary to keep the amount of material 

manageable. In contrast, there is relatively little information available for the region’s 

freshwater species, despite the importance of some in subsistence and sport fisheries. Our

objectives were to describe the commercial and sport fishery resources of the region and to 

discuss the importance of Bristol Bay salmon populations in the context of the greater North 

Pacific Ocean. The subsistence fisheries and their importance are discussed in the main body of 

the Assessment (Chapters 5 and 12). The literature reviewed consisted primarily of agency 

reports and peer-reviewed scientific papers, although unpublished data and personal 

communications were used where no pertinent published literature existed and popular 

sources were consulted to characterize the more subjective attributes of the sport fisheries. 

Our geographic focus was the Kvichak River watershed (including the Alagnak River) and the 

Nushagak River watershed (including the Wood River). Since the Kvichak and Nushagak 

sockeye salmon populations are components of the Bristol Bay-wide stock complex, however, 

we typically discuss their abundance trends at both the Bristol Bay scale and at the scale of the 

individual river systems. The economics of Bristol Bay’s fisheries and the role of fish in the 

region’s aboriginal cultures are each covered in separate sections of the Bristol Bay Watershed 

Analysis.

1
2 

Figure 1. Major river systems and fishing districts in Bristol Bay, Alaska. 
ECOLOGY AND LIFE HISTORY OF BRISTOL BAY FISHES 

General salmon life history 

Five species of Pacific salmon are native to North American waters – pink (Oncorhynchus 

gorbuscha), chum (O. keta), sockeye (O. nerka), coho (O. kisutch), and Chinook (O. tshawytscha) 

salmon – and all have spawning populations in the Bristol Bay region. These species share a 

rare combination of life history traits that contribute to their biological success, as well as their 

status as cultural icons around the North Pacific rim. These traits – anadromy, homing, and 

semelparity – are described briefly in the following paragraphs. 

All Pacific salmon hatch in fresh water, migrate to sea for a period of relatively rapid 

growth, and return to fresh water to spawn. This strategy, termed anadromy, allows salmon to 

capitalize on the resource-rich marine environment, where growth rates are much faster than 

in fresh water. Thus, anadromy allows salmon to attain larger body size, mature more quickly, 

and maintain larger spawning populations than would be possible with a non-anadromous life 

history (McDowall 2001). A prevailing theory is that anadromy evolves where a disparity in 

productivity exists between adjacent freshwater and marine environments (Gross et al. 1988). 

Freshwater productivity generally declines with latitude, and in the spawning range of Pacific 

salmon is half (or less) of that in lower latitudes. Conversely, ocean productivity generally 

increases with latitude, peaking within the range of Pacific salmon (Gross et al. 1988). 

When salmon enter fresh water to spawn, the vast majority return to the location 

where they were spawned. By this means, termed homing, salmon increase juvenile survival by 

returning to spawn in an environment with proven suitability (Cury 1994). Another adaptive 

advantage of homing is that it fosters reproductive isolation that enables populations to adapt 

to their particular environment (Blair et al. 1993, Dittman and Quinn 1996, Eliason et al. 2011). 

For instance, populations that travel long distances to reach inland spawning sites develop large 

lipid reserves to fuel the migration (Quinn 2005, pgs. 77–78 and figures 4-6), since adult salmon 

generally do not feed after entering fresh water. As another example, sockeye fry from 

populations that spawn downstream of nursery lakes are genetically programmed to migrate 

upstream after emergence, while fry from populations that spawn upstream of nursery lakes 

are programmed to migrate downstream (Burgner 1991, pgs. 33-35). Examples of adaptations 

are many, and include heritable anatomical, physiological, and behavioral traits. Without 

homing, gene flow would occur throughout the species, making adaptation to specific 

freshwater conditions impossible; in this sense, homing counteracts the dispersal effects of 

anadromy (McDowall 2001). Homing is not absolute, however, and a small amount of straying 

ensures that amenable habitats are colonized by salmon (e.g., Milner and Bailey 1989). 

Pacific salmon, quite famously, die after spawning only once. This trait, termed 

semelparity, serves to maximize the investment in one reproductive effort at the expense of 

any future reproductive effort. In salmon, it may have evolved as a response to the high cost of 

migration to natal streams and the associated reduction in adult survival (Roff 1988). The 

evolution of semelparity in Pacific salmon was accompanied by increased egg size so, while long 

migrations may have been a prerequisite, the driving force behind the evolution of semelparity 

was likely the increase in egg mass and associated increase in juvenile survival (Crespi and Teo 

2002). 

3 
As salmon approach sexual maturity, the countershading and silvery sheen that hide 

them at sea give way to characteristic spawning colors, often with hues of red. Males develop 

hooked snouts (the generic name Oncorhynchus refers to this trait) and protruding teeth, and 

their previously bullet-shaped bodies become laterally flattened. These spawning colors and 

secondary sexual characteristics, which develop to varying degrees among species and even 

among populations, probably serve multiple purposes on the spawning grounds, including 

species recognition, sex recognition, and territorial displays.

With few exceptions, preferred spawning habitat consists of gravel-bedded stream 

reaches with moderate depth and current (30–60 cm deep and 30–100 cm per second, 

respectively; Quinn 2005, pg. 108). Females excavate a nest (redd) in the gravel to receive the 

eggs, which are fertilized by one or more competing males as they are released and 

subsequently buried by the female. The seasonality of spawning and incubation is roughly the 

same for all species of Pacific salmon, although the timing can vary somewhat by species, 

population, and region. In general, salmon spawn during summer or early fall and the fry 

emerge from the spawning gravel the following spring. While in the gravel, the embryos 

develop within their eggs and then hatch into fry that continue to subsist on yolk sacs. After 

emerging from the gravel, basic life history patterns of the five species differ in notable ways.

Species-specific life history and ecology 

Sockeye salmon 

Sockeye salmon originate from river systems along the North American and Asian shores 

of the North Pacific and Bering Sea, roughly from the latitude of the Sacramento River to that of 

Kotzebue Sound. The largest North American populations occur between the Columbia and 

Kuskokwim rivers (Burgner 1991, pg. 5). Spawning sockeye are readily identified by their 

striking red bodies with green heads and tails; males additionally develop a large hump in front 

of the dorsal fin. 

Sockeye are unique among salmon in that most stocks rely on lakes as the primary 

freshwater rearing habitat. Some sockeye spawn within the nursery lake where their young will 

rear. Others spawn in nearby stream reaches, and their fry migrate to the nursery lake after 

emerging from spawning redds. Sockeye are by far the most abundant salmon species in the 

Bristol Bay region (Salomone et al. 2011, pg. 1), undoubtedly due to the abundance of 

accessible lakes in this landscape (Figure 1; also see discussion of habitat quantity). Tributaries 

to Iliamna Lake, Lake Clark, and the Wood Tikchik Lakes are major spawning areas, and 

juveniles rear in each of these systems (Figure 2). On average, the Kvichak River, with Iliamna 

Lake as its primary rearing site, produces more sockeye than any other system in the Bristol Bay 

region (see Appendix 1). Juveniles in Bristol Bay systems rear for one or two years in their 

nursery lakes (West et al. 2009, pg. 235), feeding primarily on zooplankton in the limnetic zone 

(Burgner 1991, pg. 37). Many Nushagak River sockeye populations spawn and rear in riverine 

habitats throughout the basin and do not use lakes (Figure 2). 

Fish then typically spend two or three years at sea (West et al. 2009), returning at an

average weight of 5.9 lb (2.7 kg, based on recent commercial catches; Salomone et al. 2011, pg. 

4
105). At sea, sockeye salmon feed on a range of invertebrates, small fish, and squid (Burgner 

1991, pg 83). 

5
6 

Figure 2. Documented sockeye salmon distribution in the Nushagak and Kvichak watersheds. Data are from the Alaska Department 

of Fish and Game's Anadromous Waters Catalog (AWC; Johnson and Blanche 2012). See Section 7.2.5 in the main body of the 

assessment for assumptions and caveats associated with interpreting AWC data. 
Chinook salmon

Chinook salmon spawn in streams on both shores of the North Pacific and Bering Sea, 

roughly from the latitude of central California to that of Point Hope. There are more than a 

thousand North American spawning populations and a much smaller number in Asia. These 

populations tend to be relatively small, however, making Chinook the rarest of North America’s

Pacific salmon species (Healey 1991, pg. 316). They are also the largest of the Pacific salmon; at 

least one specimen over 60 kg has been reported, but most weigh less than 23 kg (Mecklenburg 

et al. 2002, pg. 207).

Chinook salmon have two different behavioral forms. The "stream type" form is 

predominant in Bristol Bay, as well as other areas of northern North America, Asia, and the 

headwaters of Pacific Northwest rivers (Healey 1991, pg. 314). These fish spend one or more 

years as juveniles in fresh water, range widely at sea, and return to spawning streams during 

spring or summer. "Ocean type" Chinook, by contrast, migrate to sea soon after hatching, 

forage primarily in coastal marine waters, and return to spawning streams in the fall (Healey 

1991, pg. 314). In fresh water, juvenile Chinook tend to occupy flowing water and feed on 

aquatic insects. At sea, Chinook are generally pisciverous (Brodeur 1990) and feed higher on 

the food chain than other salmon species (Satterfield and Finney 2002).

Chinook spawn and rear throughout the Nushagak River basin and in many tributaries of 

the Kvichak River (Figure 3). Some life history data are available from adults returning to the 

Nushagak River, Bristol Bay’s largest Chinook salmon run. Essentially all Chinook spend one 

year rearing in fresh water, and the vast majority (typically >90% of a given brood year) spend 

two to four years at sea (Gregory Buck, ADF&G, unpublished data). Fish that spend four years 

at sea are the dominant age class and comprise approximately 43% of the average return, 

followed by those that spend 3 years (35%) and two years (17%) at sea. Chinook salmon 

individuals in recent Bristol Bay commercial catches have averaged 16.6 lb (7.5 kg; Salomone et 

al. 2011, pg. 105). 

7
8 

Figure 3. Documented Chinook salmon distribution in the Nushagak and Kvichak watersheds. Data are from the Alaska Department 

of Fish and Game's Anadromous Waters Catalog (AWC; Johnson and Blanche 2012).
Rainbow trout

Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) are native to western North America and the 

eastern coast of Asia, although their popularity as a sport fish has led to introduced populations 

around the world. Bristol Bay’s rainbow trout are of the coastal variety (sensu Behnke 1992, 

pg. 193), which ranges from the Kuskokwim River to southern California. While classified in the 

same genus as the Pacific salmon, there are some key differences. Foremost, rainbow trout are 

not genetically programmed to die after spawning, making iteroparity (i.e., repeat spawning) a 

feature of most populations. Also, most coastal drainages support populations of both resident 

and anadromous (i.e., steelhead) forms, although only the resident form occurs near the 

northern and southern limits of rainbow trout distribution (Behnke 1992, pg. 197), including the 

Nushagak and Kvichak drainages. Finally, rainbow trout spawn in the spring, as opposed to 

summer or early fall, although their spawning habitat and behavior is otherwise generally 

similar to that of salmon. 

Bristol Bay rainbow trout tend to mature slowly and grow to relatively large size. For 

example, 90% of spawners in Lower Talarik Creek were more than seven years old; the vast 

majority of these were longer than 500 mm and a few exceeded 800 mm (years 1971-1976; 

Russell 1977, pgs. 30-31). Growth (mm/year) was fastest for fish between four and six years of 

age and winter growth appeared to be minimal (Russell 1977, pgs. 44-45). 

Bristol Bay trout utilize complex and varying migratory patterns that allow them to 

capitalize on different stream and lake habitats for feeding, spawning, and wintering. Fish from 

Lower Talarik Creek migrate downstream to Iliamna Lake after spawning. From there, they 

appear to utilize a variety of habitats, as some tagged individuals have been recovered in other 

Iliamna Lake tributaries and in the Newhalen and Kvichak Rivers (Russell 1977, pg. 23). In the 

Alagnak River watershed, a number of rainbow trout life history types have been identified, 

each with their own habitat use and seasonal migratory patterns (Meka et al. 2003). These 

consist of lake, lake-river, and river residents, the latter of which range from non-migratory to 

highly migratory (Meka et al. 2003). Individuals comprising each of these life history types 

migrate in order to spend the summer in areas with abundant spawning salmon (Meka et al. 

2003).

Eggs from spawning salmon are a major food item for Bristol Bay trout and are likely 

responsible for much of the growth attained by these fish. Upon the arrival of spawning 

salmon in the Wood River basin, rainbow trout shifted from consuming aquatic insects to 

primarily salmon eggs for a 5-fold increase in ration and energy intake (Scheuerell et al. 2007). 

With this rate of intake, a bioenergetics model predicts a 100-g trout to gain 83 g in 76 days; 

without the salmon-derived subsidy, the same fish was predicted to lose five g (Scheuerell et al. 

2007). Rainbow trout in Lower Talarik Creek were significantly fatter (i.e., higher condition 

factor) in years with high spawner abundance than in years with low abundance (Russell 1977, 

pg. 35). 

Coho salmon

Coho salmon are native to coastal drainages in western North America and eastern Asia, 

approximately from the latitude of the Sacramento River to that of Point Hope (Sandercock 

9
1991, pg. 398). Coho salmon occur in relatively small populations, and are second only to 

Chinook salmon in rarity. 

Most Alaskan coho salmon populations tend to spend two years in fresh water and one 

year at sea (Sandercock 1991, pg. 405). Few age data exist for Bristol Bay, but samples from 

two years on the Nushagak River indicated that approximately 90% of escaped coho salmon 

shared this age structure, while the remaining fish had spent either one year or three years in 

fresh water (West et al. 2009, pg. 84). Coho salmon individuals in recent Bristol Bay commercial 

catches have averaged 6.7 lb (3.0 kg; Salomone et al. 2011, pg. 105). 

At sea, coho salmon consume a mix of fish and invertebrates (Brodeur 1990, pg. 15). 

Their trophic position is intermediate for Pacific salmon; Chinook salmon consume more fish 

while sockeye, pink, and chum salmon eat more zooplankton and squid (Satterfield and Finney 

2002). 

In fresh water, coho salmon feed primarily on aquatic insects, although salmon eggs and 

flesh can be important nutritional subsidies (Heintz et al. 2010, Rinella et al. 2011). They utilize 

a wide range of lotic and lentic freshwater habitats, including stream channels, off-channel 

sloughs and alcoves, beaver ponds, and lakes. Coho spawn in many stream reaches throughout 

the Nushagak and lower Kvichak watersheds, and juveniles distribute widely into headwater 

streams (Figure 4), where they are often the only salmon species present (Woody and O'Neal 

2010, King et al. 2012, ADF&G Anadromous Waters Catalog). Production of juvenile coho is 

often limited by the extent and quality of available wintering habitats (Nickelson et al. 1992, 

Solazzi et al. 2000), and preliminary work in southcentral Alaska suggests that upwelling 

groundwater is an important feature (D.J. Rinella, unpublished data).

10
11

Figure 4. Documented coho salmon distribution in the Nushagak and Kvichak watersheds. Data are from the Alaska Department of Fish and 

Game's Anadromous Waters Catalog (AWC; Johnson and Blanche 2012).
Pink salmon 

Pink salmon spawning populations occur on both sides of the North Pacific and Bering 

Sea, as far south as the Sacramento River and northern Japan. Northward, small spawning 

populations are scattered along the North American and Asian shores of the Arctic Ocean. 

Most pink salmon in the Kvichak and Nushagak watersheds spawn in mainstem habitats, 

although some tributary spawning occurs (Figure 5). The most abundant Pacific salmon overall 

(Irvine et al. 2009, pg. 2), pink salmon have a simplified life history that relies little on 

freshwater rearing habitat, and their young migrate to sea soon after emerging (Heard 1991, 

pg. 144). Pink salmon typically spawn in shallow, rocky stream reaches relatively low in the 

watershed, although most Nushagak River pink salmon spawn about 200 km above tidewater in 

the Nuyakuk River (Heard 1991, pg. 137). 

Essentially all pink salmon breed at two years of age, and this strict two-year life cycle 

results in genetic isolation of odd- and even-year spawning runs, even within the same river 

system. For reasons not entirely clear, large disparities between odd- and even-year run sizes 

occur across geographic regions and extend over many generations. An extreme example is the 

Fraser River, in southern British Columbia, where millions of pink salmon return during oddnumbered years, yet no fish return during even-numbered years (Riddell and Beamish 2003, pg. 

4). In Bristol Bay rivers, even-year runs currently dominate the returns (Salomone et al. 2011, 

pg. 5). 

Pink salmon are the smallest of the Pacific salmon species; individuals in recent Bristol 

Bay commercial catches have averaged 3.6 lb (1.6 kg; Salomone et al. 2011, pg. 105). Sexually 

mature males become highly laterally compressed and develop a massive dorsal hump, hence 

the common name "humpy." 

Chum salmon

Chum salmon spawn on both shores of the Bering Sea and North Pacific, extending 

south to the latitude of Japan and California (Salo 1991, pg. 234), with scattered spawning 

populations also occurring on the Asian and North American shores of the Arctic Ocean. 

Populations tend to be relatively large, and chum salmon are the third most abundant species, 

behind pink and sockeye salmon. Chum salmon spawn throughout the Nushagak and lower 

Kvichak watersheds (Figure 6). 

Chum salmon, like pink salmon, migrate to sea soon after emerging from spawning 

gravel. Across their range, the vast majority spends two to four years at sea (Salo 1991, pg. 

272). At sea, chum salmon consume a range of invertebrates and fishes, and gelatinous 

material is commonly found in stomachs leading to speculation that jellyfish may be a common 

prey item (Brodeur 1990, pg. 8, Azuma 1992). Individuals in recent Bristol Bay commercial 

catches have averaged 6.8 lb (3.1 kg, Salomone et al. 2011, pg. 105). 

12
13

Figure 5. Documented pink salmon distribution in the Nushagak and Kvichak watersheds. Data are from the Alaska Department of Fish and 

Game's Anadromous Waters Catalog (AWC; Johnson and Blanche 2012). 
14

Figure 6. Documented chum salmon distribution in the Nushagak and Kvichak watersheds. Data are from the Alaska Department of Fish and 

Game's Anadromous Waters Catalog (AWC; Johnson and Blanche 2012).
BRISTOL BAY FISHERIES AND FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

Historical perspective on commercial salmon fisheries

Salmon have long been an important economic driver in Alaska’s economy and have 

played an important role in the state’s history. Commercial fishing interests were among the 

original supporters of the purchase of Alaska from Russia in 1867 (King 2009, pg. 1). The first 

canneries were established eleven years later, and by the 1920s salmon surpassed mining as 

Alaska’s major industry as Alaska became the world’s principal salmon producer (Ringsmuth 

2005, pg. 21). 

In the early years, fish packing companies essentially had a monopoly on the harvest of 

salmon. Packers in Bristol Bay and elsewhere built industrial fish traps, constructed of wood 

pilings and wire fencing with long arms that guided schools of migrating salmon into holding 

pens (King 2009, pg. 4). In Bristol Bay, packing interests also upheld a federal ban on fishing 

with power boats until 1951. Ostensibly a conservation measure, this law served to protect 

obsolete cannery-owned sailboat fleets by excluding independent Alaska-based fishermen who

largely used power boats by this time (Troll 2011, pg. 39). 

Salmon harvest peaked in 1936 then declined steadily for many years, leading to a 

federal disaster declaration in the 1950s (King 2009, pg. 1). A lack of scientific management, 

poor federal oversight, excessive harvest during World War II, and natural changes in ocean 

conditions contributed to the decline. 

Declining salmon runs, along with Alaskans’ desire for more control over their fisheries, 

was a significant factor in the drive toward Statehood (Augerot 2005, King 2009, pg. 2). In 

1955, Alaskans began to develop a state constitution that included provisions intended to 

preserve Alaska’s fisheries and, unique among state constitutions, to guarantee equal access to 

fish and game for all residents. Alaska became a state in 1959, the year that marked the lowest 

salmon harvest since 1900 (King 2009, pg. 3). Statehood was a turning point for Alaska’s 

salmon fisheries, with the end of federal management, fish traps, and undue control of the 

resource by the canning industry. With the mandate for equal access came decentralization of 

the fishing industry, and thousands of individual fishermen began harvesting salmon for market 

to the canneries (Ringsmuth 2005, pg. 65). 

When the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) assumed management of the 

fisheries in 1960, restoring salmon runs to their former abundance became a primary objective. 

Inventorying fish stocks, understanding basic ecology, and improving run strength forecasting 

were central research goals. Of particular importance was the development and application of 

methods for counting salmon runs in spawning streams, which allowed the establishment of 

escapement goals and management based on scientific principles of sustained yield. Bristol Bay 

salmon research has been conducted primarily by ADF&G staff and researchers at the 

University of Washington’s Alaska Salmon Program (see 

http://fish.washington.edu/research/alaska/). The latter, funded largely by the salmon 

processing industry, began researching factors controlling sockeye salmon production in 1947. 

While the scope of their investigations has expanded over the years, sockeye monitoring is still 

a focus and represents the world’s longest-running program for monitoring salmon and their 

habitats. 

15
Over time, a number of state and federal policy changes have affected Bristol Bay 

salmon fisheries. A 1972 constitutional amendment set the stage for a bill that limited 

participation in Alaska commercial salmon fisheries. This legislation, designed to curb the 

expanding commercial fishery, set an optimum number of permits for each fishery, which were 

then issued by the State based on an individual’s fishing history. Permits are owned by the 

individual fisherman and are transferable, making them a limited and valuable asset (King 2009, 

pg. 22). The Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, commonly known as the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, was introduced to Congress by the late senator Ted Stevens as a means 

to curtail high seas salmon fishing. In response to intensive Japanese gill netting in the western 

Aleutians and Bering Sea since 1952, this legislation extended America’s jurisdiction from 12 to 

200 miles (19 to 322 km) offshore. This ensured that salmon produced in Alaskan rivers would 

be harvested and processed locally and gave Alaska’s fishery managers much more control in 

deciding when and where salmon are harvested. Both the Policy for the Management of 

Sustainable Salmon Fisheries and the Policy for Statewide Salmon Escapement Goals were 

adopted in the winter of 2000-2001 (Baker et al. 2009, pg. 2). The former established a 

comprehensive policy for the regulation and management of sustainable fisheries and the latter 

defined procedures for establishing and updating salmon escapement, including a process for 

public review of allocation disputes associated with escapement goals 

The Alaska Department of Fish and Game is responsible for managing fisheries under 

the sustained yield principle. Fishing regulations, policies, and management plans are enacted 

by the Board of Fisheries, which it does in consultation with ADF&G, advisory committees, the 

public, and other state agencies. The Board of Fisheries consists of seven citizens, appointed by 

the governor and confirmed by the legislature, that serve three-year terms. Eighty-one 

advisory committees, whose members are elected in local communities around the state, 

provide local input. While regulations and management plans provide the framework for 

fisheries regulation, local fisheries managers are ultimately responsible for their execution. 

They are delegated authority to make "emergency orders," in-season changes to fishing 

regulations, which allow rapid adjustments to changing conditions, often with very short notice. 

Managers use them to provide additional protection to fish stocks when conservation concerns 

arise and to liberalize harvest when surplus fish are available. Management plans directed at 

specific fish stocks are often based on anticipated scenarios and give specific directions to 

managers, making the in-season management process predictable to ADF&G, commercial 

fishermen, and the public. Alaska’s management of its salmon fishery has proven successful; it 

was the second fishery in the world to be certified as well managed by the Marine Stewardship 

Council (Hilborn 2006) and is regarded as a model of sustainability (Hilborn et al. 2003a, King 

2009). 

Current management of commercial salmon fisheries 

While all five species of Pacific Salmon are harvested in Bristol Bay, sockeye salmon 

dominate the runs and harvest by a huge margin (Table 1). Salmon return predominately to 

nine major river systems, located on the eastern and northern sides of the Bay, and are 

harvested in five fishing districts in close proximity to the river mouths that allow managers to 

regulate harvest individually for the various river systems (Figure 1). The Naknek-Kvichak 

district includes those two rivers as well as the Alagnak. The Nushagak district includes the 

16
Nushagak, Wood, and Igushik Rivers. The Egegik, Ugashik, and Togiak districts include the rivers 

for which they are named. 

Table 1. Mean commercial harvest by species and fishing district, 1990-2009. Unpublished 

data, Paul Salomone, ADF&G Area Management Biologist.

Naknek- Egegik Ugashik Nushagak Togiak Total

Kvichak

Sockeye 8,238,895 8,835,094 2,664,738 5,478,820 514,970 25,732,517

Chinook 2,816 849 1,402 52,624 8,803 66,494

Chum 184,399 78,183 70,240 493,574 158,879 985,275

Pink* 73,661 1,489 138 50,448 43,446 169,182

Coho 4,436 27,433 10,425 27,754 14,234 84,282

*Pink salmon data are from even-numbered years only since harvest is negligible during the 

smaller odd-year runs.

Fishing is conducted with drift or set gillnets. Drift gillnets have a maximum length of 

150 fathoms (274 m) and are fished from boats no longer than of 32 ft. (9.8 m) in length. Set 

gillnets are fished from beaches, often with the aid of an open skiff, and have a maximum 

length of 50 fathoms (91 m). There are approximately 1900 drift gillnet permits and 1000 set 

gillnet permits in the Bristol Bay salmon fishery, of which around 90% are fished on a given year 

(1990-2010 average; Salomone et al. 2011, pg. 84).

The management of the Bristol Bay sockeye salmon fishery is focused on allowing an 

adequate number of spawners to reach each river system while maximizing harvest in the 

commercial fishery (Salomone et al. 2011, pg. 2). This balancing act is achieved through the 

establishment of escapement goals which represent the optimum range of spawners for a given 

river system. Escapement goals are established using a time series of spawner counts where a 

spawning run of a given size (i.e., stock) can be linked to the number of its offspring returning in 

subsequent years (i.e., recruits). Established stock-recruit models (Ricker 1954, Beverton and 

Holt 1957) are then used to estimate the stock size that results in the largest number of 

recruits, or the maximum sustained yield (Baker et al. 2009, pg. 4). In theory, spawning runs 

that are too small or large can result in reduced recruitment. With the former, too few eggs are 

deposited. With the latter, superimposition of spawning redds can diminish egg viability and 

competition in nursery lakes can reduce growth and survival. Once escapement goals are set, 

the timing and duration of commercial fishery openings are then adjusted during the fishing 

season (i.e., in-season management) to ensure that escapement goals are met and any 

additional fish are harvested. Escapement goals are periodically reviewed and updated based 

on regulatory policies, specifically, the Policy for the Management of Sustainable Salmon 

Fisheries and the Policy for Statewide Salmon Escapement Goals. 

Each of Bristol Bay’s nine major river systems has an escapement goal for sockeye 

salmon (Table 2), and in-season management of the commercial fishery is used to keep 

escapement in line with the goals. Management responsibility is divided among three 

managers: one for the Naknek, Kvichak, and Alagnak rivers; one for the Nushagak, Wood, 

Igushik, and Togiak rivers; and one for the Ugashik and Egegik rivers. Fishery openings are 

17
based on information from a number of sources, including preseason forecasts, the test fishery

at Port Moller, the early performance of the commercial fishery, and in-river escapement 

monitoring. 

Table 2. Bristol Bay escapement goal ranges for sockeye salmon.

 River Escapement range 

(thousands)

Kvichak 2,000–10,000

Alagnak 320 minimum

Naknek 800–1,400

Egegik 800–1,400

Ugashik 500–1,200

Wood River 700–1,500

Igushik 150–300

Nushagak-Mulchatna 370–840

Togiak 120–170

Preseason forecasts are the expected returns of the dominant age classes in a given 

river system, and they are based on the number of spawning adults that produced each age 

class. In the Port Moller test fishery, gill netting at standardized locations provides a daily index 

of the overall number of fish entering Bristol Bay (Flynn and Hilborn 2004), with approximately 

seven days’ lead before they enter the commercial fishing districts. Genetic samples from the 

test fishery are analyzed within four days (Dann et al. 2009, pg. 3) to give managers an advance 

estimate of run strength for each of the nine major river systems. Test fisheries in selected 

districts give additional information on run strength and timing. As salmon move into fresh 

water, escapement is monitored with counting towers on each of the major rivers, except the 

Nushagak where a sonar system is used. Counting towers are elevated platforms along small to 

medium-sized (10-130 m wide), clear rivers from which migrating salmon are visually counted 

(Woody 2007). The Nushagak River’s DIDSON sonar uses sound waves to detect and 

enumerate migrating salmon. Since tower and sonar monitoring occurs well upstream of the 

commercial fishery, all information regarding the performance of the fishery must be analyzed 

on a continual basis to ensure escapement levels will be met (Clark 2005, pg. 4, Salomone et al. 

2011).

The fishery is typically opened on a schedule during the early part of the season, during 

which time the frequency and duration of openings are primarily based on preseason forecasts

and management is conservative. As the fishing season progresses and more information 

becomes available, managers make constant adjustments to fishing time and area. If the 

escapement goal is exceeded at a given monitoring station, the fishery is opened longer and 

more frequently. If the escapement goal is not reached, the fishery is closed. Fishing time is 

opened and closed using emergency orders, and fishermen often learn of changes only a few 

hours before they go into effect. Since the bulk of the sockeye salmon harvest occurs during a 

short timeframe - from the last week of June until the middle of July - this short warning system 

is needed to maximize fishing time while ensuring that escapement levels are met. Migrating 

fish move quickly through the fishing districts, and delaying an opener by one day during the 

18
peak of the migration can forego the harvest of a million salmon. This is a significant loss of 

revenue to individual fishermen, and compounded by the missed revenue of workers, 

processors, and marketers (Clark 2005, pg. 5). The fishery will periodically close de facto during 

the peak of the season when catch rates exceed processing capacity and processors stop buying 

fish. This lack of buyers can also curtail salmon harvest early and late in the season when 

numbers of fish do not warrant keeping processing facilities operational.

In-season management is also used to help meet an escapement goal for Chinook 

salmon on the Nushagak River (Table 3), where escapement is monitored by sonar. There are 

also chum, coho, and pink salmon escapement goals on for the Nushagak River and Chinook 

salmon goals for the Alagnak and Naknek rivers (Table 3), but in-season management is not 

used to help attain these goals (Baker et al. 2009). 

Bristol Bay salmon fisheries are regarded as a management success (Hilborn et al. 

2003a, Hilborn 2006), and Hilborn (2006) lists four contributing factors: "(1) a clear objective of 

maximum sustainable yield, (2) the escapement-goal system, which assures maintenance of the 

biological productive capacity; (3) management by a single agency with clear objectives and 

direct line responsibility; and (4) good luck in the form of lack of habitat loss and good ocean 

conditions since the late 1970s." 

Table 3. Bristol Bay escapement goal ranges for Chinook, chum, coho, and pink salmon.

 River Species Escapement goal 

Nushagak Chinook 55,000–120,000

Nushagak chum 200,000 minimum

Nushagak coho 60,000–120,000

Nushagak pink 165,000 minimum

Alagnak Chinook 2,700 minimum

Naknek Chinook 5,000 minimum

Description of sport fisheries

The sport fisheries in Bristol Bay’s river systems are regarded as world class. A recent 

ADF&G report (Dye and Schwanke 2009) notes that "The BBMA [Bristol Bay Management Area] 

contains some of the most productive Pacific salmon, rainbow trout, Arctic grayling, Arctic char 

and Dolly Varden waters in the world. The area has been acclaimed for its sport fisheries since 

the 1930s." Similar views prevail in the popular sport fishing literature, where articles praising 

Bristol Bay as a destination are common. For example, Fly Rod and Reel (Williams 2006) says 

"No place on earth is wilder or more beautiful or offers finer salmonid fishing." Over the years, 

many other articles in Field and Stream, Fly Fisherman, Fish Alaska, Fly Rod and Reel, Salmon 

Trout Steelheader, World Angler, and other magazines have touted the high quality fishing and 

wilderness ambiance. 

Large numbers of salmon and trout are caught in Bristol Bay’s sport fisheries each year 

(see below), but the area is best known for its rainbow trout fishing. ADF&G (1990) notes that 

“Wild rainbow trout stocks of the region are world famous and are the cornerstone to a 

multimillion dollar sport fishing industry.” Articles in the sport fishing press laud the trout 

19
fisheries, especially those of the Kvichak River drainage. Fish Alaska magazine calls the Iliamna 

system “One of the greatest trophy trout fisheries in the world...the crown of Alaska’s sport 

fishing” (Weiner 2006) and names seven Bristol Bay drainages, five of which are in the 

Nushagak or Kvichak river basins, in a rundown of Alaska’s top ten spots for trophy rainbow 

trout (Letherman 2003). Thirty-inch (76 cm) rainbow trout can be caught in many areas of the 

Kvichak River and other drainages (Randolph 2006) and 43% of clients at remote Bristol Bay 

sport fishing lodges reported catching a rainbow trout longer than 26 inches (66 cm) on their 

most recent trip (Duffield et al. 2006, pg. 48). 

Unlike commercial fisheries, whose salient features tend to be readily quantifiable (e.g., 

economics, sustainability), the quality of a sport fishery can hinge on personal and subjective 

attributes. Despite the potential to catch high numbers of sizeable fish, Bristol Bay anglers rate 

aesthetic qualities as most important in selecting fishing locations. Of 11 attributes that 

capture different motivations and aesthetic preferences, including “catching and releasing large 

numbers of fish” and “chance to catch large or trophy-sized fish,” Alaska resident and 

nonresident anglers picked the same top five: “natural beauty of the area”, “being in an area 

with few other anglers”, “being in a wilderness setting”, “chance to catch wild fish”, and 

“opportunities to view wildlife” (Duffield et al. 2006, pg. 45). The same priorities apply for 

nonresident anglers across Alaska (Romberg 1999, pg. 85).

The Bristol Bay region is not linked to the State’s highway system and roads connected 

to the major communities provide very limited access. Small aircraft with floats are the primary 

source of access followed by boats based out of communities and remote lodges (Dye and 

Schwanke 2009, pg. 1). A range of services are available for recreational anglers. Anglers 

willing to pay $7,500 to $9,500 a week can stay in a plush remote lodge and fly to different 

streams each day with a fishing guide (Purnell 2011). Modest river camps, with cabins or wall 

tents, are a lower-budget option. Many self-guided expeditions center on multi-day raft trips 

that use chartered aircraft for transport to and from access points along a river. 

Site-specific data regarding participation, effort and harvest have been collected from 

sport fishing guides and businesses since 2005 (Sigurdsson and Powers 2011). In 2010, the 

most recent year for which data are available, 72 businesses and 319 guides operated in the 

Kvichak and Nushagak watersheds (Table 4; Dora Sigurdsson, ADF&G, unpublished data). In 

addition, Table 4 shows figures for 2005, the first year of data collection, and 2008, a peak year. 

Table 4. The number of businesses and guides operating in the Nushagak and Kvichak

watersheds in 2005, 2008 and 2010.

Watershed 2005 2008 2010

Businesses Guides Businesses Guides Businesses Guides

Kvichak River (including Alagnak River) 53 204 59 274 46 211

Nushagak River (including Wood River) 67 199 60 245 47 162

Kvichak and Nushagak combined1 91 336 92 426 72 319

1 Business and guide totals are not additive because a business and/or guide can operate in 

multiple watersheds. 

20
Management of sport fisheries

The Alaska Department of Fish and Game’s Division of Sport Fish manages recreational 

fisheries in the Bristol Bay Management Area (BBMA), which includes all fresh waters flowing 

into Bristol Bay between Cape Menshikof, on the Bay’s southeast shore, and Cape Newenham 

in the northwest. Four local management plans guide sport fishing regulations in the Bristol 

Bay region (in addition to several statewide plans). The Nushagak-Mulchatna King Salmon 

Management Plan, the Nushagak-Mulchatna Coho Salmon Management Plan and the Kvichak 

River Drainage Sockeye Salmon Management Plan call for sport fishing bag limit reductions or 

closures by emergency order during poor runs. The Southwest Alaska Rainbow Trout 

Management Plan recommended conservative trout management uniformly throughout the 

region, which replaced the fragmentary restrictions that had been established over the 

previous decades. Sport fishing regulations are updated annually and can be accessed on 

ADF&G’s website: http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=fishregulations.sport. 

The Division of Sport Fish uses the annual Statewide Harvest Survey, mailed to 

randomly-selected licensed anglers, to monitor effort, catch, and harvest. Between 1997 and 

2008, angler-days of effort within the BBMA ranged from 83,994 to 111,838 (Dye and Schwanke 

2009, pg. 4). Total annual sport harvest for the same period ranged from 39,362 to 71,539 fish, 

of which sockeye, Chinook and coho salmon comprise the majority (Dye and Schwanke 2009, 

pg. 8). Resident fish species, including rainbow trout, Dolly Varden, Arctic char, Arctic grayling, 

northern pike and whitefish, are also harvested in the BBMA (Dye and Schwanke 2009, pg. 8). 

Harvest rates are lower for these species than for salmon, likely due to restrictive bag limits and 

the popularity of catch-and-release fishing (Dye and Schwanke 2009, pgs. 6 and 8). 

Chinook salmon

In the Nushagak drainage, the general season runs from May 1 to July 31 for Chinook 

salmon, although some areas close on July 24 in order to protect spawners. The daily limit is 

two per day, only one of which can be over 28 inches (71 cm). The annual limit is four fish. The 

Nushagak-Mulchatna King Salmon Management Plan calls for an in-river return of 75,000 fish 

with a spawning escapement of 65,000 fish. The guideline harvest for the sport fishery is 5,000 

fish, although restrictions are triggered if the in-river return falls below 55,000 fish. In other 

Bristol Bay drainages, the daily limit for Chinook salmon is three and the annual limit is five, 

although there are additional restrictions in the Wood and Naknek river drainages.

The major Chinook salmon sport fisheries in the BBMA include the Nushagak, Naknek, 

Togiak and Alagnak rivers and the average annual harvest is 11,100 fish for the period from 

1997 to 2008. The largest individual fishery takes place in the Nushagak River, where harvest 

from 2003 to 2007 averaged 7,281, approximately 58% of the total Bristol Bay sport harvest for 

that period (Dye and Schwanke 2009, pg. 13). 

Sockeye salmon

Sockeye salmon fishing is open year round with a daily limit of five fish. Runs enter 

rivers starting in late June, peak in early July, and continue into late July or early August. The 

Kvichak River Drainage Sockeye Salmon Management Plan places restrictions on the sport 

fishery to avoid conflicts with subsistence users when the escapement falls below the minimum 

sustainable escapement goal of two million fish. Restrictions include actions such as reducing 

21
the daily limit for sockeye and closure of areas for sport fishing that are used by both 

subsistence and recreational anglers.

Sockeye are the most abundant salmon species in the BBMA. Recent annual sport 

harvest ranged from 8,444 to 23,002 fish (Dye and Schwanke 2009, pg. 22). The two locations 

that support the largest sport harvest are the Kvichak River, near the outlet of Iliamna Lake, and 

the Newhalen River, just above Iliamna Lake (Dye and Schwanke 2009, pg. 24). Other drainages 

that support moderate harvests of sockeye salmon include the Naknek and Alagnak rivers and 

the Wood River lake system (Dye and Schwanke 2009, pg. 22).

Rainbow trout

Due to their relatively small spawning populations and their popularity as a game fish, 

fishing regulations for rainbow trout are more restrictive than those for any other species. The 

Southwest Alaska Rainbow Trout Management Plan (ADF&G 1990) calls for conservative 

management, allows limited harvest in specific areas, and bans stocking of hatchery trout 

(although stocking had not been practiced previously). Special management areas were 

created to preserve a diversity of sport fishing opportunities: eight catch-and-release areas, six 

fly-fishing catch-and-release areas, and eleven areas where only single-hook artificial lures can 

be used (Dye and Schwanke 2009, pgs. 34-36). 

In flowing waters throughout most of the Kvichak River drainage, only single-hook 

artificial lures can be used and sport fishing is closed from April 10 through June 7 to provide 

protection for spawning rainbow trout. From June 8 through October 31 anglers are allowed to 

keep one trout per day, with the exception of a number of streams where no harvest is 

allowed. From November 1 through April 9, when anglers are few, the daily limit increases to 

five fish although only one may be longer than 20 inches (51 cm). Rainbow trout fishing 

regulations are similarly restrictive in other drainages across the BBMA.

The most popular rainbow trout fisheries are found in the Kvichak drainage, the Naknek 

drainage, portions of the Nushagak and Mulchatna drainages, and streams of the Wood River 

Lakes system (Dye and Schwanke 2009, pg. 26). Field surveys and the Statewide Harvest Survey 

show that harvest has decreased over the past decade but that total catch and effort have 

remained stable or increased (Dye and Schwanke 2009, pg. 26). The annual BBMA-wide harvest 

between 1997 and 2008 averaged 1900 fish, but the catch estimate over this period was nearly

100 times greater (183,000 fish; (Dye and Schwanke 2009, pgs. 29 and 31). Although the 

fishery is widespread, approximately eighty percent of the total catch (144,400 fish) was from 

the eastern portion of the BBMA, where the Naknek and Kvichak systems are located. Eastern 

BBMA streams with estimated sport catches greater than 10,000 fish in 2008 included the 

Naknek, Brooks, Kvichak, Copper, and Alagnak rivers (Dye and Schwanke 2009, pg. 31). 

SALMON ABUNDANCE TRENDS AROUND THE NORTH PACIFIC, WITH REFERENCE TO 

BRISTOL BAY POPULATIONS

Wild Pacific salmon, from most to least abundant, are pink, sockeye, chum, coho, and 

Chinook (Ruggerone et al. 2010). The relative abundance of Pacific salmon species relates to 

their life histories, as those species that are not constrained by the availability of stream rearing 

habitat (i.e., pink, sockeye, and chum salmon) are able to spawn and rear in greater numbers 

than those that are (i.e. coho and Chinook; Quinn 2005, pg. 319). The highest Pacific-wide 

22
salmon harvest occurred in 2007 and totaled 513 million fish, over 300 million of which were 

pink salmon (Irvine et al. 2009, pg. 2). Approximately five billion juvenile salmon are released 

annually from hatcheries around the North Pacific (Irvine et al. 2009, pg. 6), although none are 

reared or released in the Bristol Bay region. 

Sockeye salmon

Size of Bristol Bay, Kvichak, and Nushagak sockeye salmon returns

Escapement monitoring within the Bristol Bay watershed has been conducted since the 

1950s, when ADF&G established counting towers on the nine major river systems. When 

combined with commercial, subsistence and sport harvest, data from escapement monitoring 

allows estimates of total run sizes. A recent synthesis of salmon returns for 12 regions around 

the North Pacific also extends back to the 1950s, allowing comparisons of wild sockeye salmon 

returns between Bristol Bay and other regions for the period 1956 to 2005 (Ruggerone et al. 

2010). The average global abundance of wild sockeye salmon over that period was 65.3 million 

(M) fish, and Bristol Bay constituted the largest proportion of that total at 46% (Figure 7). Total 

returns to Bristol Bay ranged from a low of 3.5 M in 1973 to a high of 67.3 M in 1980 (Figure 8), 

with an annual average of 29.8 M. The region with the second largest returns is southern 

British Columbia/Washington, which averaged 14% of the total (Figure 7), or 8.9 M salmon. 

Other regions that produce high abundances of wild sockeye salmon include the Kamchatka 

Peninsula, northern British Columbia, Cook Inlet and Kodiak Island (Ruggerone et al. 2010). 

23
24

Figure 7. Relative abundance of wild sockeye salmon stocks in the North Pacific, 1956-2005. See 

Appendix 1 for data and sources. Stocks are ordered from west to east across the North Pacific.
25

Figure 8. Wild sockeye salmon abundances by region in the North Pacific, 1956-2005. See 

Appendix 1 for data and sources. Each graph shows three regions organized from west to east 

across the North Pacific.
Hatchery production of sockeye salmon started in 1977 and accounted for an annual 

average of 3 M fish, or 4% of the world total, during the 10-year period from 1995 to 2005 

(Ruggerone et al. 2010). No hatchery production has occurred in the Bristol Bay region. 

Regions with major hatchery production include Prince William Sound, Cook Inlet, and Kodiak 

Island, which produced a respective 1.0, 0.9 and 0.6 M hatchery fish, on average, from 1995-

2005 (Ruggerone et al. 2010). 

Although the Alagnak River is part of the Kvichak watershed and the Wood River is part 

of the Nushagak watershed, we report sockeye salmon data separately for these systems 

(unless noted otherwise) because ADF&G monitors returns on each. On average, the Kvichak 

River has the largest sockeye salmon run in Bristol Bay, with an average annual return of 10.4 M 

fish between 1956 and 2010 (Figure 9). Iliamna Lake provides the majority of the rearing 

habitat for sockeye in the Kvichak watershed, followed by Lake Clark where the estimated 

proportion of the escapement ranges from 7 to 30% (Young 2005, pg. 2). Runs exceeding 30 M 

fish have occurred three times in the Kvichak River: 47.7 M, 34.6 M and 37.7 M fish returned in 

1965, 1970 and 1980, respectively (Tim Baker, ADF&G, unpublished data). Those runs 

accounted for 57%, 49% and 40% of world production of sockeye salmon during those years 

(Ruggerone et al. 2010). The Egegik River supports Bristol Bay’s second largest run, with a 

mean annual return of 6.3 M fish from 1956 to 2010 (Figure 9). The Nushagak and Wood rivers 

are smaller runs and average returns from 1956 to 2010 were 1.3 and 3.3 M fish, respectively. 

26
27

Figure 9. Total sockeye returns by river system in Bristol Bay, 1956-2010. See Appendix 1 for 

data and sources. Each graph shows three river systems listed from west to east across Bristol 

Bay.
The Kvichak River sockeye salmon runs are not only the largest in Bristol Bay, but also 

the largest in the world (Figures 8 through 10). As noted above, returns to the Kvichak River 

have averaged 10.4 M fish, and this number climbs to 11.9 M fish when returns to the Alagnak 

River are included (Tim Baker, ADF&G, unpublished data). The Fraser River system supports the 

world’s second largest run, with an average of 8.1 M fish for the same period (Catherine 

Michielsens, Pacific Salmon Commission, unpublished data). Other major producers outside of 

Bristol Bay include the Copper, Kenai, Karluk, and Chignik rivers in Alaska and the Skeena River 

in British Columbia (Figure 10). The Kamchatka Peninsula in Russia also has rivers with large 

sockeye runs, but abundances for individual rivers were not readily available. The combined 

runs for the western and eastern Kamchatka Peninsula averaged less than 5 M sockeye during 

the period from 1952 to 2005 (Ruggerone et al. 2010). 

28
29

Figure 10. Sockeye salmon abundances for major rivers of the North Pacific, 1956-2010. See 

Appendix 1 for data and sources. The top graph includes time series for the Nushagak-Wood 

and Kvichak-Alagnak systems from 1956 to 2010, the Chignik River from 1970 to 2010, and the 

Karluk River from 1985 to 2010. The bottom graph shows the Kenai River late run from 1972 to 

2010, the Copper River wild run from 1961 to 2010, the Skeena River from 1985 to 2010, and 

the Fraser River from 1956 to 2010. Rivers are listed in the graphs as they occur from west to 

east across the North Pacific.
Factors affecting Bristol Bay sockeye salmon abundance

Changes in the ocean and freshwater environments that affect sockeye salmon 

abundances and trends across the North Pacific are many. A major driver is the Pacific decadal 

oscillation (PDO), an inter-decadal pattern of correlated changes in sea-level pressures and seasurface temperatures (Mantua et al. 1997). The warm phase of the PDO is characterized by 

warmer than average winter sea surface temperatures along the western coastline of North 

America and increased stream flows around the Gulf of Alaska, both of which are linked to 

increased salmon survival (Mantua et al. 1997, Ruggerone et al. 2007). There are three regime 

shifts documented in the recent climate record that correlate with salmon productivity: 1947, 

1977 and 1989. From 1947 to 1977, the PDO was in a cool phase marked by low productivity 

for Alaskan and British Columbia sockeye salmon. The PDO shifted to a warm phase in 1977, 

after which most North American stocks increased (Figure 8). For Bristol Bay stocks, this warm 

phase corresponded with increased marine growth and, in turn, increased abundances and 

numbers of recruits (returning adults) generated per spawner (Ruggerone et al. 2007). Bristol 

Bay stocks more than doubled during this warm phase and remained high until the mid-90s, 

when declines in the Kvichak and other rivers reduced the overall abundance (Figure 4, 

Ruggerone et al. 2010). Biological indicators suggest that decreased productivity associated 

with a cool phase began in 1989, while climate indices point to a short-lived reversal from 1989 

to 1991, followed by a return to a warm phase (Hare and Mantua 2000). Late marine growth 

and adult length-at-age of Bristol Bay sockeye decreased after the 1989 regime shift, potentially 

reducing stock productivity (Ruggerone et al. 2007).

Another factor affecting sockeye salmon productivity is competition with increasing 

numbers of hatchery smolts released into the North Pacific. Alaska produces the most hatchery 

pink salmon in the world, averaging 42 M fish for the period 1995 to 2005, followed next by 

Russia, with 12.6 M for the same period (Ruggerone et al. 2010). Approximately 75% of the 

pink salmon hatchery production in Alaska occurs in Prince William Sound, with other facilities 

located in Kodiak, Cook Inlet, and Southeast Alaska. Japan dominates the production of 

hatchery chum salmon, with 67.3 M fish returning on average for 1995 to 2005 (Ruggerone et 

al. 2010). Coming in a distant second behind Japan, Southeast Alaska averaged 9.7 M hatchery 

chum salmon for the same period (Ruggerone et al. 2010). Bristol Bay sockeye smolts that 

migrated to sea during even-numbered years and interacted with dominant odd-year Asian 

pink salmon experienced decreased growth, survival and adult abundance compared to the 

smolts that migrated during odd-numbered years (Ruggerone et al. 2003). Additionally, Kvichak 

sockeye salmon productivity was negatively correlated with a running three-year mean of 

Kamchatka pink salmon abundances (Ruggerone and Link 2006).

In the freshwater environment, spawning and rearing habitats can limit sockeye 

salmon populations through negative density dependence. The amount of suitable spawning 

habitat is limited within a given system, so when spawning densities are high and suitable 

spawning sites are occupied, females will dig nests on top of existing nests, dislodging many of 

the previously laid eggs, or die without spawning (Semenchenko 1988, Essington et al. 2000). 

As such, the amount of available spawning habitat can impose an upper limit on potential fry 

production. In nursery lakes, juvenile growth rates decrease with rearing densities (Kyle et al. 

1988, Schindler et al. 2005a), leading to decreased survival for small individuals in the 

30
subsequent marine stage (Koenings et al. 1992). Together, these processes limit the number of 

recruits potentially produced by a large spawning run.

Kvichak sockeye abundances follow five-year cycles that are unique amongst the 

nine major systems of Bristol Bay. Previous hypotheses for the cycle included natural 

depensatory mechanisms, such as predation, and fishing-related depensation. Since the first 

escapement goal was established for the Kvichak River in 1962 until the most recent change in 

2010, the escapement goals were managed to match the cycle year. Most recently, off-cycle 

years had an escapement goal range of 2 to 10 M spawners, while pre-peak and peak cycle 

years were managed for escapement of 6 to 10 M spawners (Baker et al. 2009, pg. 6). In 2010, 

the escapement goal was changed to one goal for all years of 2 to 10 M spawners. Ruggerone 

and Link (2006) recently analyzed the population characteristics of Kvichak sockeye and found 

that the cycle is likely perpetuated by three factors: density dependence during pre-peak and 

peak cycle years reducing productivity in off-cycle years, higher percentage interceptions in offcycle years biasing productivity low, and the dominance of age 2.2 salmon (2 years in fresh 

water and two years in the ocean), which return after five years. Kvichak salmon were shown 

to have high interception rates in the Egegik and Ugashik fisheries in years when the Egegik and 

Ugashik returns were more than double the Kvichak return, which biased the number of 

returning recruits during off-cycle years. They did not find any evidence of natural depensatory 

mechanisms, nor did they find reason to believe that the change in the escapement goal in 

1984 could have had any effect on the decline in the 1990s. 

In recent years, ADF&G has developed genetic stock identification methods, which are 

being used to reanalyze past interceptions of Kvichak salmon from the mixed stock fisheries on 

the east side of the Bay (Dann et al. 2009, pg. 37). It is anticipated that current brood tables 

from which total runs by system are reconstructed will change as this analysis progresses (Tim 

Baker, ADF&G, personal communication) giving researchers a more accurate understanding of 

the dynamics of Bristol Bay stock composition and return dynamics.

The decline in Kvichak River sockeye salmon runs

From 1977 through 1995, during the warm PDO phase, Bristol Bay runs averaged almost 

41 M fish annually, while runs to the Kvichak River averaged nearly 15 M, comprising about 36% 

of the entire Bristol Bay run (Table 5). Beginning in 1996, with the spawning return of the 1991 

brood year, Kvichak runs dropped to an average of 4.7 M fish, comprising less than 14% of the 

total Bristol Bay run (Table 5). This decline was accompanied by a decline in stock productivity, 

as expressed by the number of recruits generated per spawner (R/S). Bristol Bay systems 

averaged approximately two recruits for every spawner prior to the 1977 regime shift, and R/S 

increased substantially for many systems, such as the Egegik and Ugashik rivers, during the 

subsequent warm phase (Hilborn 2006). R/S for the Kvichak averaged 3.2 for the 1972 to 1990 

broods, but five of the nine broods from 1991 onward failed to replace themselves (i.e., R/S 

<1). Productivity also decreased during this time in two other systems on the east side of 

Bristol Bay, the Egegik and Ugashik rivers (Ruggerone and Link 2006). The decline in the Kvichak 

River run led ADF&G to classify it as a stock of yield concern in 2001 (Morstad and Baker 2009, 

pg. 1), indicating an inability to maintain a harvestable surplus. The Kvichak run was further 

downgraded to a stock of management concern in 2003, based on failure to meet escapement 

goals. 

31
Table 5. Mean annual returns of sockeye salmon in Bristol Bay, 1956-2010, and percent of total 

by river system. See Appendix 1 for data and sources. Rivers are listed from east to west across 

Bristol Bay.

Rivers 1956-1976 % 1977-1995 % 1996-2010 % 1956-2010 % 

Ugashik 882,458

4.6

 4,123,115 10.1 3,522,697 10.1 2,722,023 8.8

Egegik 2,320,059

12.0

9,100,953 22.2 8,402,365 24.1 6,321,361 20.4

Naknek 2,200,534

11.4

4,454,164 10.9 5,251,810 15.1 3,811,227 12.3

Alagnak 514,544

2.7

1,360,651 3.3 3,008,922 8.6 1,487,121 4.8

Kvichak 10,482,754 54.3 14,784,340 36.1 4,757,008 13.7 10,407,190 33.6

Nushagak 392,574 2.0 1,919,420 4.7 1,933,461 5.6 1,340,272 4.3

Igushik 516,021 2.7 1,349,775 3.3 1,341,581 3.9 1,029,198 3.3

Wood 1,707,120 8.8 3,150,620 7.7 5,834,787 16.8 3,331,511 10.7

Togiak 305,069 1.6 661,011 1.6 742,696 2.1 547,384 1.8

Total 19,321,134 40,904,050 34,795,327 30,997,285

Ruggerone and Link (2006) analyzed the decline in the Kvichak run starting with the 

1991 brood year and identified a number of potential factors. The number of smolts per 

spawner declined by 48% and smolt-to-adult survival declined by 46%, suggesting that factors 

in both freshwater and marine habitats were involved. The average number of smolts outmigrating from the Kvichak River during the years 1982 to 1993 was approximately 150 M, 

which declined to an approximate average of 50 M from 1994 to 2001 (Ruggerone and Link 

2006). The declines were accompanied by a shift in the dominant age structure of Kvichak 

spawners from 2.2 (i.e., two years in fresh water followed by two years at sea), which 

represented an average of 84% of the return, to 1.3, indicating that salmon were spending less 

time in fresh water and more time at sea. Across the nine monitored Bristol Bay watersheds, 

the decrease in the percentage of 2.2 salmon in the total return correlated strongly with 

decreases in R/S and run size. The decrease in spawner length at age starting in 1991 and 

higher than normal sea surface temperatures in June from 1990-1998 both may have 

contributed to lower reproductive potential, since smaller females produce fewer eggs. 

Competition with Asian pink salmon also may have played a role. Abundances of Asian pink 

salmon have been linked to decreased size at age of returning Bristol Bay sockeye salmon in 

addition to decreased abundance during even-year migrations when interactions are highest 

(Ruggerone et al. 2003). Abundances of Kamchatka pink salmon were high from 1994 to 2000, 

the beginning of which correlates to age-1 smolts from the 1991 brood year. The three eastern 

Bristol Bay stocks that experienced the largest declines during the 1990s (Kvichak, Egegik and 

32
Ugashik rivers) have greater overlap with Asian pink salmon stocks in their marine distribution 

than other stocks that did not decline significantly (Ruggerone and Link 2006, pg. 31). 

Ultimately, conditions outside of the freshwater environment likely led to the decline of 

Kvichak sockeye salmon. Warmer summer temperatures in both fresh water (Schindler et al. 

2005a) and the ocean (Hare and Mantua 2000) and interactions with Asian pink salmon 

affected Kvichak sockeye salmon disproportionately to other systems due to the dominance of 

ocean-age-two salmon in the Kvichak watershed (Ruggerone and Link 2006, pg. 12). Because 

ocean-age-two salmon interact with only one Asian pink salmon population at sea, the effects 

on growth and abundance are greater than for ocean-age-three salmon, which interact with 

both large (even) and small (odd) Asian pink salmon populations at sea and thus, have the 

opportunity for higher growth rates during odd years (Ruggerone et al. 2003). The decrease in 

spawner to smolt survival may also be related to marine conditions causing smaller length at 

age of returning adults and reduced reproductive success (Ruggerone and Link 2006, pg. 15).

In 2009, following several years of improvement, ADF&G upgraded the Kvichak’s 

classification to a stock of yield concern (Morstad and Baker 2009). Since 2004, Bristol Bay 

returns have again totaled more than 40 million fish annually and in 2010 the Kvichak run 

increased to over 9.5 million fish, equating to 23% of the total for the Bay.

Chinook salmon

The total commercial harvest of Chinook salmon in the North Pacific ranged between 

three and four million fish until the early 90s; recent total catches have decreased to one to two 

million fish (Eggers et al. 2005). Lacking escapement data for many runs, commercial harvest is 

a good surrogate for salmon abundance, and suggests a decline in Chinook salmon abundance 

in recent decades. The U.S. makes over half of the total commercial catch, followed by Canada, 

Russia, and Japan (Heard et al. 2007). Recreational, subsistence, and aboriginal catch is 

significant for this salmon species and totaled approximately one million annually in 2003-2004 

(Heard et al. 2007). Washington dominates hatchery production of Chinook salmon, with over 

one billion juveniles released annually from 1993-2001 (Heard et al. 2007). 

The Columbia River historically produced the largest Chinook salmon run in the world, 

with peak runs (spring, summer, and fall combined) estimated at 3.2 M fish during the late 

1800s (Chapman 1986). Peak catches for the Columbia River summer-run Chinook salmon 

occurred at this time, until overfishing decimated the run. Fishing effort then shifted to the fall 

run, which suffered a similar demise in the early 1900s. There are currently five stocks of 

Chinook salmon in the Columbia River watershed listed under the Endangered Species Act and 

the majority of the current returns are hatchery fish (70%, 80% and 50% of the spring, summer 

and fall runs, respectively; Heard et al. 2007).

Currently, the largest runs of Chinook salmon in the world originate from three of the 

largest watersheds that drain to the North Pacific: the Yukon, Kuskokwim and Fraser rivers 

(Table 6). Total Chinook escapements to the Kuskokwim and Yukon rivers have not been 

quantified directly due to their large watershed area, but recent total run estimates based on 

mark-recapture studies put them at 217,000 and 265,000 fish, respectively (Molyneaux and 

Brannian 2006, pg. 102, Spencer et al. 2009, pg. 28). On the Fraser River, the average size of 

the spring, summer, and fall Chinook runs combined (including the Harrison River) for the most 

recent ten-year period (2000-2009) was 287,000 fish (PSC 2011, pg. 87). 

33
Table 6. Nushagak River Chinook average run sizes for 2000-2009, in comparison to other rivers 

across the North Pacific. Other rivers are sorted in order of decreasing run size.

Watershed Region

Average run size 

(2000-2009)

Area15 

(km2)

Nushagak R. Bristol Bay, Western Alaska 151,348 1 31,383

Fraser R., total run British Columbia, Canada 287,475 2 233,156

Kuskokwim R., total run Western Alaska 284,000 3 118,019

Yukon R., total run Western Alaska 217,405 4 857,996

Harrison R. (trib. of Fraser R.) British Columbia, Canada 98,257 5 7,870

Taku R. Southeast Alaska 78,081 6 17,639

Copper R. Southcentral Alaska 75,081 7 64,529

Kenai R. (early and late runs) Southcentral Alaska 70,976 8 5,537

Skeena R. British Columbia, Canada 63,356 9 51,383

Yukon R., Canadian mainstem Yukon Territory, Canada 59,346 10 323,800

Nass R. British Columbia, Canada 31,738 11 20,669

Grays Harbor (Chehalis R. + 5 others) Washington 23,964 12 6,993

Skagit R. Washington 18,286 13 8,234

Nehalem R. Oregon 12,267 14 2,193

1 Unpublished data, Gregory Buck, ADF&G 2 Pacific Salmon Commission 2011, pg. 88

3 Unpublished data, Kevin Schaberg, ADF&G

4 Average from 2000-2004, Spencer et al. 2009, pg. 28 5 Pacific Salmon Commission 2011, pg. 88

6 McPherson et al. 2010, pg. 14 7 Unpublished data, Steve Moffitt, ADF&G 8 Begich and Pawluk 2010, pg. 69 9 Pacific Salmon Commission 2011, pg. 87

10 Howard et al. 2009, pg. 35 11 Pacific Salmon Commission 2011, pg. 87 12 Pacific Salmon Commission 2011, pg. 90

13 Pacific Salmon Commission 2011, pg. 89 14 Pacific Salmon Commission 2011, pg. 93

15 Watershed area from the Riverscape Analysis Project 2010 (http://rap.ntsg.umt.edu). 

34
Chinook sport and commercial harvests in the Nushagak River are larger than all of the 

other systems in Bristol Bay combined (Dye and Schwanke 2009, pg. 13, Salomone et al. 2011, 

pg. 86). The Nushagak produces entirely wild runs that are periodically at or near the world’s 

largest (Figure 8), which is remarkable considering its relatively small watershed area (Table 6). 

Returns consistently number over 100,000 fish, while returns greater than 200,000 fish have 

occurred eleven times between 1966 and 2010 (Figure 11). An especially productive six-year 

period from 1978-1983 produced three returns greater than 300,000 fish (Figure 11). Other 

rivers that produce large returns of Chinook salmon include the Copper, Kenai, and Taku rivers 

in Alaska and the Skeena and Harrison rivers in British Columbia (Table 6). The Harrison River is 

the dominant fall run stock for the Fraser River.

35
36

Figure 11. Chinook salmon abundances by river system, 1966-2010. See Appendix 1 for data 

and sources. The top graph shows total runs for the Yukon River (Canadian stock) from 1982 to 

2009, the Kuskokwim River from 1976 to 2010, the Nushagak River from 1966 to 2010, and the 

Kenai River from 1986 to 2010. The bottom graph shows total runs for the Copper River from 

1980 to 2010, the Taku River from 1973 to 2010, the Skeena River from 1977 to 2009, and the 

Fraser River from 1984 to 2009. Rivers are organized from west to east across the North 

Pacific.
A sustainable escapement goal (SEG) was implemented for Nushagak Chinook salmon in 

2007 with a target of 40,000 to 80,000 fish. Sonar counts used to estimate escapement were 

initiated in 1989 and since that time, the Nushagak run has consistently met the minimum 

escapement for the current SEG and was over the SEG 12 times (Gregory Buck, ADF&G, 

unpublished data). The Nushagak Chinook stock is considered stable (Heard et al. 2007, Dye 

and Schwanke 2009, pg. 17), in contrast to Chinook stocks on the Kuskokwim and Yukon rivers, 

which experienced declines starting in the late 1990s. Both the Yukon and Kuskokwim Chinook 

were listed as stocks of yield concern in 2000 (Estensen et al. 2009, pg. 2, Howard et al. 2009, 

pg. 1). The Yukon River stock is still listed but the Kuskokwim River Chinook stock was delisted 

as a stock of concern in 2007, based on higher than normal returns starting in 2004 (Estensen et 

al. 2009, pg. 2).

The decline in Yukon and Kuskokwim Chinook stocks that began in the late 1990s may 

have resulted from the 1997-1998 El Nino (Kruse 1998b, Myers et al. 2010 pg. 199). That event 

was characterized by sea surface temperatures at least 2° C higher than normal in the Bering 

Sea, along with weak winds and high solar radiation that led to two anomalous phytoplankton 

blooms, typically associated with nutrient-limited waters (Kruse 1998a). The decline in Chinook 

stocks that persisted after the 1997-1998 El Nino indicate that multiple ocean age classes were 

affected by this event (Ruggerone et al. 2009). Alternative hypotheses for these declines have 

been proposed, including density-dependent effects, freshwater mortality, spawner fitness, and 

pathogens, leading to calls for additional research (e.g., Schindler et al. 2013).

Chinook salmon hatchery production contributes to harvests in both southeast and 

southcentral Alaska. The average number of returning hatchery Chinook salmon in Alaska for 

2000 to 2009 was 118,000 fish annually and, in 2009, hatchery Chinook salmon contributed 

16% of the total commercial harvest for the State (White 2010). There are no salmon 

hatcheries located in western Alaska and none of the total runs for the Alaskan rivers listed in 

Figure 11 or Table 6 include contributions from hatcheries (Yukon, Kuskokwim, Nushagak, 

Kenai, Copper, and Taku rivers). Salmon enhancement programs for Chinook salmon in British 

Columbia are significant; for the period 1990 to 2000, hatchery releases averaged 

approximately 50 million fish annually and hatcheries contributed approximately 30% to the 

total Canadian catch (MacKinlay et al. Undated). The Chehalis River hatchery in the Harrison 

River watershed and the Chilliwack River, Inch Creek, and Spius Creek hatcheries in the Fraser 

River watershed all contribute to the Chinook salmon runs on those systems (FOC 2011).

Threatened and endangered salmon and conservation priorities

Although it is difficult to quantify the true number of extinct salmon populations around 

the North Pacific, estimates for the Western United States (California, Oregon, Washington and 

Idaho) have ranged from 106 to 406 populations (Nehlsen et al. 1991, Augerot 2005, pg. 65, 

Gustafson et al. 2007). Chinook had the largest number of extinctions followed by coho and 

then either chum or sockeye (Nehlsen et al. 1991, Augerot 2005, pg. 67). Many of the patterns 

of population extinction are related to time spent in fresh water: interior populations have 

been lost at a higher rate than coastal populations, stream-maturing Chinook and steelhead 

(which may spend up to nine months in fresh water before spawning) had higher losses than 

their ocean-maturing counterparts, and species that relied on fresh water for rearing (Chinook, 

coho, and sockeye) had higher rates of extinction than pink or chum salmon, which go to sea 

37
soon after emergence (Gustafson et al. 2007). No populations from Alaska are known to have 

gone extinct. Salmon populations in the southern extent of their range have suffered higher

extinction rates and are considered at higher risk than populations further to the north (Brown 

et al. 1994, Kope and Wainwright 1998, Rand 2008, Rand et al. 2012).

In addition to the large number of populations now extinct, there are many that are 

considered at risk due to declining population trends. The Columbia River basin dominated the 

list of at risk stocks identified by Nehlson et al. (1991), contributing 76 stocks to the total of 214 

for California, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho. Approximately half of the 214 stocks evaluated 

were listed as high risk because they failed to replace themselves (fewer than one recruit per 

spawner) or had recent escapements below 200 individuals. More recent analyses of the status 

of salmon populations in the North Pacific continue to highlight the declines in the Pacific 

Northwest. A detailed assessment of salmon populations in the Columbia River basin from 

1980 to 2000 showed that many are declining and this trend is heightened when hatchery fish 

are excluded (McClure et al. 2003). A comparison between time periods reflecting both good 

and bad ocean productivity for Columbia River salmon populations further indicates that the 

declining trends are not due to the regime shift of 1977 (McClure et al. 2003). An analysis of 

over 7,000 stocks across the North Pacific found that over 30% of sockeye, Chinook, and coho 

stocks were at moderate or high risk and that the Western U.S. (Washington, Oregon, 

California, and Idaho) had the highest concentrations of high-risk stocks (Augerot 2005, pgs. 66-

67).

A detailed assessment of sockeye salmon populations across the North Pacific highlights 

threats for this species in British Columbia (Rand 2008, Rand et al. 2012). At the global 

population level, sockeye salmon are considered a species of least concern. Ninety-eight

subpopulations were identified for assessment, five of which are extinct and 31 did not have 

the necessary data with which to conduct a status assessment. Of the remaining 62

subpopulations, 19 were identified as threatened (critically endangered, endangered, or 

vulnerable) and two as nearly threatened. British Columbia has 15 threatened (vulnerable, 

endangered, or critically endangered) subpopulations, 79% of the worldwide total. Three key 

threats to sockeye salmon were identified: mixed stock fisheries that lead to high harvests of 

small, less productive populations; poor marine survival rates and high rates of disease in adults 

due to changing climatic conditions; and negative effects of enhancement activities such as 

hatcheries and spawning channels (Rand 2012). Twenty six subpopulations were assessed for 

Alaska: 10 were data deficient, 13 were of least concern (including the one subpopulation 

identified for Bristol Bay), and two populations were listed as vulnerable; one subpopulation in 

the eastern Gulf of Alaska and the Lake McDonald population in Southeast Alaska. The Hugh 

Smith Lakes subpopulation in Southeast Alaska was listed as endangered. Both the Hugh Smith 

and McDonald Lake populations were listed as stocks of management concern by ADF&G in 

2003 and 2009, respectively (Piston 2008, pg. 1, Eggers et al. 2009, pg. 1). Both were de-listed 

within four years after runs met escapement goals for several consecutive years following 

implementation of successful fishing restrictions (Piston 2008, pg. 1, Regnart and Swanton 

2011). 

Government agencies in the United States and Canada are tasked with identifying and 

protecting salmon populations at risk. In the U.S., the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 

manages listings of salmon species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Salmon stocks 

38
considered for listing under ESA must meet the definition of an Evolutionarily Significant Unit 

(ESU): it must be substantially reproductively isolated from other nonspecific population units 

and it must represent an important component of the evolutionary legacy of the species 

(Federal Register 58612, November 20, 1991). Current determinations for the U.S. include one 

endangered and one threatened ESU for sockeye; two threatened ESUs for chum; one 

endangered, three threatened, and one ESU of concern for coho; two endangered, seven 

threatened, and one ESU of concern for Chinook; and one endangered, ten threatened, and 

one ESU of concern for steelhead (Table 7, NMFS 2010). All listed ESUs occur in the western 

contiguous U.S. (California, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho). In Canada, the Committee on the 

Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) conducts status assessments to determine 

if a species is at risk nationally. The Minister of the Environment and the federal cabinet then 

decide whether to list the species under the Species at Risk Act (SARA). Currently, COSEWIC 

status assessments have recommended listing two endangered sockeye salmon populations, 

one endangered coho salmon population, and one threatened Chinook salmon population, but 

none of these assessments have resulted in legal listings under SARA (COSEWIC 2009). On the 

Asian side of the Pacific, no information was found regarding listings of threatened or 

endangered salmon populations under a legal framework. Other assessments of Asian salmon 

distribution and status have relied on interviews with fishery biologists due to the scarcity of 

data and the dominance of hatcheries in Japanese fisheries (Augerot 2005, pg. 66, Rand 2008). 

39
Table 7. Endangered Species Act listings for salmon ESUs in the United States.

Species ESU Name ESA Listing Status Date of Most 

Recent Review

Chinook Sacramento River Winter-run endangered 8/15/2011

Chinook Upper Columbia River Spring-run endangered 8/15/2011

Chinook California Coastal threatened 8/15/2011

Chinook Central Valley Spring-run threatened 8/15/2011

Chinook Lower Columbia River threatened 8/15/2011

Chinook Puget Sound threatened 8/15/2011

Chinook Snake River Fall-run threatened 8/15/2011

Chinook Snake River Spring/Summer-run threatened 8/15/2011

Chinook Upper Willamette River threatened 8/15/2011

Chinook Central Valley Fall- and Late Fall-run species of concern 4/15/2004

chum Hood Canal Summer-run threatened 8/15/2011

chum Columbia River threatened 8/15/2011

coho Central California Coast endangered 8/15/2011

coho Southern OR/Northern CA Coasts threatened 8/15/2011

coho Lower Columbia River threatened 8/15/2011

coho Oregon Coast threatened 8/15/2011

coho Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia species of concern 4/15/2004

sockeye Snake River endangered 8/15/2011

sockeye Ozette Lake threatened 8/15/2011

steelhead Southern California endangered 1/5/2006

steelhead California Central Valley threatened 8/15/2011

steelhead Central California Coast threatened 1/5/2006

steelhead Lower Columbia River threatened 8/15/2011

steelhead Middle Columbia River threatened 8/15/2011

steelhead Northern California threatened 1/5/2006

steelhead Puget Sound threatened 8/15/2011

steelhead Snake River Basin threatened 8/15/2011

steelhead Southcentral California Coast threatened 1/5/2006

steelhead Upper Columbia River threatened 8/15/2011

steelhead Upper Willamette River threatened 8/15/2011

steelhead Oregon Coast species of concern 4/15/2004

The causes leading to extinction and continued population declines are numerous and 

analyses are confounded by the effects of interacting factors within watersheds. In California, 

both the building of dams that eliminated access to upstream spawning and rearing areas and 

destruction of coastal habitat from extensive logging were major contributors to the decline of 

coho salmon populations in the southern extent of their range (Brown et al. 1994). Heavy 

fishing pressure at the end of the 19th century followed by extensive impacts to river habitats 

40
from agriculture, logging, mining, irrigation and hydroelectric dams all led to the extensive 

decline of Columbia River salmon by the mid 20th century (Chapman 1986, McConnaha et al. 

2006). 

Restoration activities to help restore salmon habitat and populations in the Pacific 

Northwest require huge expenditures with results that are often difficult to measure due to 

annual variation, the time lapse between restoration action and effect on the population, and 

changing climate and ocean conditions (GAO 2002, pg. 4). Approximately $1.5 billion was spent 

on Columbia River salmon and steelhead for the period 1997 through 2001 (GAO 2002, pg. 2). 

Predicted outcomes from restoration rarely take into account climate change scenarios. 

Models developed to predict the outcome of restoration on Snohomish basin Chinook salmon 

habitat showed that increased temperatures resulting from climate change changed snow to 

rain in high elevation watersheds and affected three hydrologic parameters that decreased fish 

populations: higher flows during egg incubation, lower flows during spawning, and increased 

temperatures during pre-spawning (Battin et al. 2007). Often used as mitigation for lost habitat, 

salmon hatcheries have resulted in decreased survival of the wild populations they are intended 

to support (NRC 1996, pg. 319, Naish et al. 2008). Impacts of hatchery fish include overfishing of 

wild populations in mixed-stock fisheries (Hilborn and Eggers 2000), competition with wild 

salmon in both fresh water and the ocean (Ruggerone and Nielsen 2009), and a reduction in life 

history diversity making populations more susceptible to climate variability (Moore et al. 2010). 

Due to the high costs of restoration and the difficulty in predicting or measuring 

outcomes, some have argued that the best way to protect salmon for future generations is to 

create salmon sanctuaries that maintain intact and connected habitats throughout the 

watershed from headwaters to the ocean (Rahr et al. 1998, Lichatowich et al. 2000, Rahr and 

Augerot 2006). Protecting entire watersheds is especially important to sockeye, Chinook, and 

coho salmon, which spend 1-2 years rearing in fresh water prior to entering the ocean. These 

sanctuaries would provide habitat for salmon populations with heightened resilience to factors 

outside of management control, such as climate change and changes in the ocean environment. 

The salmon populations in Bristol Bay meet all the criteria for selecting sanctuaries across the 

North Pacific by having intact habitats, abundant populations, and a high diversity of life history 

patterns (Schindler et al. 2010). In addition, several studies have targeted Bristol Bay as a high 

priority for salmon conservation. The Kvichak, Nushagak, and Wood watersheds were ranked 

third, 44th, and fourth, respectively, in an analysis of physical complexity of 1574 watersheds 

from California to the Kamchatka Peninsula (Luck et al. 2010, FLBS 2011). Pinsky et al. (2009)

characterized high conservation value salmon catchments across the North Pacific as the top 

20% (out of 1046 total) based on abundance and run timing diversity. Bristol Bay, the 

Kamchatka Peninsula, and coastal British Columbia all had clusters of high conservation value 

catchments. Fewer than 9% of the high conservation value watersheds had greater than half of 

their area under protected status. 

41
KEY HABITAT ELEMENTS OF BRISTOL BAY RIVER SYSTEMS (OR WHY DO BRISTOL 

BAY WATERSHEDS PRODUCE SO MANY FISH?)

No published materials specifically address the question “Why do Bristol Bay watersheds 

support so many salmon?” While this isn’t particularly surprising given the complexity and 

scope of the question, it does require us to draw on experts and a diverse body of literature to 

posit an answer. Obviously, the simplest answer is “Habitat.” But what is it about the habitat 

in Bristol Bay watersheds that allows them to sustain such prolific fisheries? Our inquiry led us 

to the conclusion that interplay between the quantity, quality, and diversity of habitats in these 

river systems accounts for their productivity. The major habitat attributes discussed here were 

identified in personal communications with Dr. Tom Quinn (University of Washington) and Dr. 

Jack Stanford (University of Montana).

Habitat quantity

An obvious feature of the Bristol Bay watershed is the abundance of large lakes (Figure 

12). The Kvichak River drains Iliamna Lake, Alaska’s largest, in addition to Lake Clark, Nonvianuk 

Lake, Kukaklek Lake, and an array of smaller lakes. The Nuyakuk River, a major tributary to the

upper Nushagak River, drains Nuyakuk, Tikchik, Chauekuktuli, Chikuminuk, Upnuk, Nishlik, and 

a number of smaller lakes. The Wood River, a major tributary to the lower Nushagak River, 

drains an interconnected chain of four major lakes – lakes Kulik, Beverly, Nerka, and Aleknagik –

and several smaller lakes. Lakes cover 7.9% of the Bristol Bay region, which is substantially 

higher than the other major salmon-producing regions analyzed (Table 8). Lakes cover 13.7% of 

the Kvichak River basin (Table 8). Within the Nushagak River basin, lakes cover 11.3% of the 

Wood River drainage and a much smaller percentage of the remainder (1.7%; Table 8). 

Since watershed elevations in the Bristol Bay region are relatively low (Table 8), barriers 

to fish migration are few and a large proportion of the watershed can be accessed by salmon. 

The Nushagak and Kvichak watersheds have over 58,000 km of streams (National Hydrography 

Dataset), of which 7,671 km (13%) have been documented as anadromous fish streams (ADF&G 

2011 Anadromous Waters Catalog; Figure 12). Since fish use must be documented firsthand by 

field biologists, a large proportion of anadromous fish habitat undoubtedly remains 

undocumented. For example, a recent survey targeted 135 undocumented headwater (i.e., 1stand 2nd-order) stream reaches with low to moderate gradient (i.e., <10% channel slope) north 

of Iliamna Lake (Woody and O'Neal 2010, pgs. 11-12). Of these stream reaches, 16% were dry 

or nonexistent, 53% had juvenile salmon, 66% had resident fish, and 3% contained no fish at 

the time of sampling (Woody and O'Neal 2010, pg. 22). 

42
Table 8. Comparison of landscape features potentially important to sockeye salmon production for watersheds across the North 

Pacific (top portion of table) and across the Bristol Bay watershed (bottom portion of table). All landscape data are from the 

Riverscape Analysis Project (Luck et al. 2010). 

Watershed Location

Watershed 

area (km2)

Mean 

watershed 

elevation 

(m)

Number 

of lakes 

> 1 km2

Average 

elevation of 

lakes (m)

% Lake 

coverage in 

watershed 

Mean annual 

sockeye run

(millions of fish, 

1990-2005)+

Kamchatka Russia 53,598 549 82 15 0.4 3.2

Kenai Central Alaska 5,537 522 2 97 2.9 5.2

Copper Prince William Sound 64,529 1,194 9 448 0.5 3.0

Fraser British Columbia 233,156 1,188 119 763 1.6 10.7

Columbia Washington 669,608 1,328 68 1,212 0.2

Bristol Bay Western Alaska 88,233 269* 69 219* 7.9* 42.8

Togiak Bristol Bay 4,600 322 6 160 1.4 0.7

Igushik Bristol Bay 2,126 74 2 15 3.3 1.3

Nushagak (inc. Wood) Bristol Bay 35,237 250 20 325 2.7 6.0

Kvichak (inc. Alagnak) Bristol Bay 25,328 340 29 193 13.7 10.9

Naknek Bristol Bay 9,624 312 8 230 8.3 5.2

Egegik Bristol Bay 7,117 168 1 4 16.5 11.0

Ugashik Bristol Bay 4,201 104 3 4 9.9 3.8

*

Some figures for Bristol Bay represent the weighted average of individual Bristol Bay watersheds.

+

Salmon abundance sources: Kamchatka, Fraser, and Columbia are from Ruggerone et al. 2010 (Fraser and Columbia rivers were 

combined into one region "Southern B.C. and Washington."); Kenai is from sockeye brood tables for Kenai River (pers. comm. Pat 

Shields, 2011); Copper is from sockeye brood tables for Copper River (pers. comm. Jeremy Botz, 2011); Bristol Bay and individual 

watersheds within Bristol Bay are from sockeye brood tables for Bristol Bay (pers. comm. Tim Baker, 2011).

43
44

Figure 12. Map of surveyed anadromous streams in the Nushagak and Kvichak watersheds. Data are from ADF&G 2011 Anadromous 

Waters Catalog.
Habitat quality

In addition to the overall abundance of salmon habitat, there are a number of habitat 

attributes that likely contribute to the productivity of Bristol Bay’s river systems. First of all, 

Bristol Bay streambeds tend to have abundant gravel, which is essential substrate for salmon 

spawning and egg incubation (Bjornn and Reiser 1991, pgs. 95-97 , Quinn 2005, pg. 108). 

Several Pleistocene glacial advances have left behind a complex landscape of gravel-rich 

moraines, melt-water deposits, and outwash plains (Stilwell and Kaufman 1996, Hamilton and 

Kleiforth 2010). As stream channels meander and cut through these deposits, gravel and other 

sediments are captured and formed into riffles, bars and other habitat features. In a survey of 

76 wadeable stream reaches across the Kvichak and Nushagak watersheds, gravel (2-64 mm) 

was the dominant substrate, covering 56% (±15%) of each streambed (D.J. Rinella, unpublished 

data). 

Groundwater inputs to streams and lakes are also an important feature of salmon 

habitat in the Kvichak and Nushagak watersheds. Rainwater and melting snow infiltrate the 

extensive glacial deposits and saturate pore spaces below the water table, thus recharging the 

groundwater aquifer (Power et al. 1999, pg. 402). Ponds are common on the Bristol Bay 

landscape and contribute disproportionately to groundwater recharge (Rains 2011). Once in 

the aquifer, groundwater flows slowly downhill and eventually surfaces in areas of relatively 

low elevation, like stream channels or lake basins. Areas of groundwater upwelling are heavily 

used by spawning sockeye salmon because they provide circulation, stable flows, and stable 

temperatures (Burgner 1991, pgs. 16-19). These habitats include lake beaches and spring-fed 

ponds, creeks, and side channels (Burgner 1991, pgs. 16-19). Studies in the Wood River system 

of Bristol Bay demonstrate the importance of groundwater upwelling to spawning sockeye 

salmon. In lakes, densities of beach spawners were highest at sites with the strongest 

upwelling, while spawners were absent at beach sites with no upwelling (Burgner 1991, pg. 19). 

Beach spawners comprise substantial portions of the spawning populations in three of the four 

main Wood River lakes: 47% in Nerka, 87% in Beverly, 59% in Kulik, but only 3% in Aleknagik 

(1955-1962; Burgner et al. 1969, pg. 420). In a spring-fed tributary to Lake Nerka, the 

distribution of sockeye salmon spawners also corresponded with areas of groundwater 

upwelling (Mathisen 1962, pgs. 145-146). Large numbers of sockeye salmon in the Kvichak 

River system also spawn in lake beaches, spring-fed ponds, and other groundwater-associated 

habitats (Morstad 2003, pgs. 2-17). In addition to spawning sockeye, groundwater is an 

important habitat feature for other salmon species and life history stages. Chum salmon have 

been shown to preferentially spawn in areas of groundwater upwelling (Salo 1991, pg. 240, 

Leman 1993). Groundwater also maintains ice-free habitats used extensively by wintering 

fishes, helps to maintain streamflow during dry weather, and provides thermal refuge during 

periods of warm water (Reynolds 1997, Power et al. 1999).

Salmon themselves are another important habitat feature of Bristol Bay watersheds. 

Each year, the region’s spawning salmon populations convey massive amounts of energy and 

nutrients from the North Pacific to fresh waters. These marine-derived nutrients (MDN), 

released as excreta, carcasses, and energy-rich eggs, greatly enhance the productivity of 

freshwater ecosystems, making Pacific salmon classic examples of keystone species that have 

45
large effects on the ecosystems where they spawn (Willson and Halupka 1995, Power et al. 

1996).

Salmon contain limiting nutrients (i.e, nitrogen and phosphorus) and energy (i.e., 

carbon) in the same relative proportions as needed for growth by rearing fishes, making MDN 

an ideal fertilizer for salmon ecosystems (Wipfli et al. 2004). Given the high densities of 

spawning salmon in some streams, MDN subsidies can be large. On average, spawning sockeye 

salmon import 50,200 kg of phosphorus and 397,000 kg of nitrogen to the Kvichak River system 

and 12,700 kg of phosphorus and 101,000 kg of nitrogen to the Wood River system each year 

(Moore and Schindler 2004). In high latitudes, the importance of marine nutrients is magnified 

by the low ambient nutrient levels in freshwater systems (Gross et al. 1988, Perrin and 

Richardson 1997). In Iliamna Lake, for example, nitrogen inputs from spawning salmon greatly 

exceed inputs from the watershed (Kline et al. 1993). 

Resident fishes (e.g., rainbow trout, Dolly Varden, Arctic grayling) and juvenile salmon of 

species that rear for extended periods in streams (i.e., coho and Chinook) derive clear and 

substantial nutritional benefits through the consumption of salmon eggs and flesh and other 

food sources related to spawning salmon (Bilby et al. 1996). In streams in the Nushagak River 

basin, for example, ration size and energy consumption among rainbow trout and Arctic graying 

increased by 480 to 620% after the arrival of spawning salmon (Scheuerell et al. 2007). The 

increase in rainbow trout diet was attributable to salmon eggs, salmon flesh, and maggots that 

colonized salmon carcasses, while the increase in Arctic grayling diet was attributable to 

consumption of benthic invertebrates dislodged by spawning salmon (Scheuerell et al. 2007). A 

bioenergetics model suggested that these subsidies were responsible for a large majority of the 

annual growth of these fish populations (Scheuerell et al. 2007). In a stream in the Kvichak 

River basin, Dolly Varden moved into ponds where sockeye salmon spawned and fed almost 

entirely on salmon eggs (Denton et al. 2009). The growth rate of these Dolly Varden increased 

three-fold while salmon eggs were available (Denton et al. 2009). On the Kenai Peninsula, 

Alaska, recent work has shown that the number of salmon spawning in a given stream is an 

important predictor of the growth rate and energy storage among coho salmon and Dolly 

Varden rearing there (Rinella et al. 2011). These and other studies indicate that the availability 

of MDN enhances growth rates (Bilby et al. 1996, Wipfli et al. 2003, Giannico and Hinch 2007), 

body condition (Bilby et al. 1998), and energy storage (Heintz et al. 2004) of stream-dwelling

fishes, likely leading to increased chances of survival to adulthood (Gardiner and Geddes 1980, 

Wipfli et al. 2003, Heintz et al. 2004).

MDN is also linked with bottom-up effects on aquatic food webs. In streams, increased 

standing stocks of biofilm (Wipfli et al. 1998, Wipfli et al. 1999, Johnston et al. 2004, Mitchell 

and Lamberti 2005) and macroinvertebrates (Claeson et al. 2006, Lessard and Merritt 2006, 

Walter et al. 2006) have been associated with MDN inputs. Stream-dwelling fishes likely 

benefit indirectly through increased macroinvertebrate production, but this has yet to be 

directly established. Likewise, MDN can comprise a major proportion of the annual nutrient 

budget in Bristol Bay lakes (Mathisen 1972, Koenings and Burkett 1987, Schmidt et al. 1998)

and salmon-derived nitrogen is ultimately taken up by juvenile sockeye salmon (Kline et al. 

1993). However, it is not clear if these nitrogen inputs have measurable effects on sockeye 

salmon populations (Schindler et al. 2005b, Uchiyama et al. 2008).

46
The importance of MDN to fish populations is perhaps most clearly demonstrated in 

cases where MDN supplies are disrupted by depletion of salmon populations. The prolonged 

depression of salmon stocks in the Columbia River basin is a prime example, where a chronic 

nutrient deficiency hinders the recovery of endangered and threatened Pacific salmon stocks 

(Gresh et al. 2000, Petrosky et al. 2001, Achord et al. 2003, Peery et al. 2003, Scheuerell et al. 

2005, Zabel et al. 2006) and diminishes the potential of expensive habitat improvement 

projects (Gresh et al. 2000). Density-dependent mortality has been documented among 

juvenile Chinook, despite the fact that populations have been reduced to a fraction of historic 

levels, suggesting that nutrient deficits have reduced the carrying capacity of spawning streams 

in the Columbia River basin (Achord et al. 2003, Scheuerell et al. 2005). A population viability 

analysis has indicated that declines in MDN have very likely contributed to low productivity of 

juvenile salmon and that increasing the productivity could lead to large increases in the salmon 

population (Zabel et al. 2006). Diminished salmon runs, thus, present a negative feedback loop 

where the decline in spawner abundance reduces the capacity of streams to produce new 

spawners (Levy 1997). Fisheries managers recognize the importance of MDN in sustaining the 

productivity of salmon systems and are now attempting to supplement nutrient stores by 

planting hatchery salmon carcasses and analogous fertilizers in waters throughout the Pacific 

Northwest (Stockner 2003, Shaff and Compton 2009).

In addition to their inherent natural productivity, Bristol Bay watersheds have not been 

subjected to anthropogenic watershed disturbances that have contributed to declining salmon 

populations elsewhere. For example, Nehlsen et al. (1991) reviewed the status of native 

salmon and steelhead stocks in California, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho. They found that 

214 stocks appeared to face a risk of extinction; of these, habitat loss or modification was a 

contributing factor for 194. These cases were in addition to at least 106 stocks that had already 

gone extinct (Nehlsen et al. 1991). A National Research Council committee (NRC 1996), 

convened to review the population status of Pacific Northwest salmon, summarized that:

The ecological fabric that once sustained enormous salmon populations has been 

dramatically modified through heavy human exploitation – trapping, fishing, 

grazing, logging, mining, damming of rivers, channelization of streams, ditching 

and draining of wetlands, withdrawals of water for irrigation, conversions of 

estuaries, modification of riparian systems and instream habitats, alterations to 

water quality and flow regimes, urbanization, and other effects.

Thus, it is generally agreed that a complex and poorly understood combination of factors – with 

direct and indirect effects of habitat degradation at the fore – are responsible for declining 

Pacific Northwest salmon stocks (NRC 1996, Gregory and Bisson 1997, Lackey 2003). 

In watersheds of the Bristol Bay region, including the Nushagak and Kvichak rivers, 

human habitation is confined to a few small towns and villages, roads are few, and large-scale 

habitat modifications are absent. The Riverscape Analysis Project, using spatial data from the 

Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center (Sanderson et al. 2002), ranked 1574 salmonproducing watersheds around the North Pacific based on an index of human footprint 

(http://rap.ntsg.umt.edu/humanfootprintrank; accessed 9/1/11). Of these, the Kvichak River 

ranked 197, the Nushagak (exclusive of the Wood River) ranked 131, and the Wood River 

47
ranked 332. Additionally, invasive fishes and riparian plants, which can negatively impact 

native fish populations, have not been introduced to Bristol Bay’s watersheds.

Habitat diversity

A diverse assemblage of spawning and rearing habitats is an exceedingly important 

feature of Bristol Bay’s riverine ecosystems. Since salmon adapt in predictable ways to 

conditions within their specific environments, a high level of habitat diversity fosters a 

correspondingly high level of population and life history diversity. The utilization of different 

types of spawning habitat is an easily observable example. Suitable lotic habitats range from 

small gravel-bed creeks to large cobble-bed rivers (Hilborn et al. 2003b), and even silt-laden 

glacial streams (Ramstad et al. 2010). Spring-fed ponds are also used, as are areas of 

groundwater upwelling on mainland lake beaches, and rocky beaches of low-lying islands 

(Hilborn et al. 2003b). Sockeye salmon have adapted to each of these environments in 

predictable ways, optimizing behavioral and physiological traits like timing of spawning, egg 

size, and the size and shape of spawning adults (Table 9; Hilborn et al. 2003b). The result is a 

stock complex comprised of hundreds of distinct spawning populations, each adapted to its 

own spawning and rearing environment.

This complexity is compounded by variation within each spawning population, likely in 

ways that are not yet fully understood (Hilborn et al. 2003b). One clear example is variation in 

the amount of time spent rearing in fresh water and at sea (Table 10). Within a given cohort, 

most individuals rear for either one or two years in fresh water, although a small number may 

spend three years or go to sea shortly after hatching (i.e., zero years in fresh water). The latter 

life history is relatively common among Nushagak River sockeye, many of which rear in rivers as 

opposed to lakes. Once at sea, most fish will rear for an additional two or three years, although 

a few will rear for as little as one year or as many as five years. This life history complexity 

superimposed on localized adaptations results in a high degree of biological complexity within 

the stock complex.

48
Table 9. A summary of life history variation within the Bristol Bay stock complex of sockeye salmon (from Hilborn et al. 2003).

Element of biocomplexity Range of traits or options found

Watershed location within Bristol Bay complex Seven different major watersheds, ranging from maritime-influenced systems on the Alaska 

Peninsula to more continental systems

Time of adult return to fresh water June – September

Time of spawning July – November

Spawning habitat Major rivers, small streams, spring fed ponds, mainland beaches, island beaches

Body size and shape of adults 130 – 190 mm body depth at 450 mm male length: sleek, fusiform to very deep bodied, with 

exaggerated humps and jaws

Egg size 88 – 166 mg at 450 mm female length

Energetic allocation within spawning period Time between entry into spawning habitat and death ranges from 1 – 3 days to several weeks

Time spent rearing in fresh water 0 – 3 years

Time spent at sea 1 – 4 years

Table 10. Variation in time spent rearing in fresh water and at sea for Bristol Bay sockeye salmon. Numbers represent percentage of 

fish returning to the respective river systems after a given combination of freshwater and sea rearing periods. + indicate 

combinations that were represented in the data but comprised <1% of returns to the respective river system. Data are from ADF&G 

and cover 1956 to 2005 brood years, except for Nushagak River data which cover 1979 to 2003 brood years.

Number of years spent in fresh water 0 1 2 3

Number of years spend at sea 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 1 2 3

Kvichak + + + + 25 10 + + 58 7 + + + +

Alagnak + + + + 42 40 + + 12 5 + +

Nushagak 2 17 2 + + 11 60 5 + + 1 2 + + +

Wood + + + + 48 43 + + 5 3 + + +

Naknek + + + + 16 44 + + + 17 21 + + + +

Egegik + + + + 9 17 + + 44 29 + + + +

Ugashik + + + + 27 28 + + + 30 15 + + +

Igushik + + + + 20 68 + + 5 5 +

Togiak + 1 1 + 21 63 + + 6 7 + +

49
These layers of biocomplexity result in a situation where different stocks within the 

complex show asynchronous patterns of productivity (Rogers and Schindler 2008). This is 

because differences in habitat and life history lead to different population responses despite 

exposure to the same prevailing environmental conditions. For example, a year with low 

stream flows might negatively impact populations that spawn in small streams but not those 

that spawn in lakes (Hilborn et al. 2003b). Asynchrony in population dynamics of Bristol Bay 

sockeye has been demonstrated at both the local scale (i.e., individual tributaries) and the 

regional scale (i.e., major river systems; Rogers and Schindler 2008). The latter is demonstrated 

nicely by the relative productivity of Bristol Bay’s major rivers during different climatic regimes 

(Hilborn et al. 2003b), where small runs in the Egegik River were offset by large runs in the 

Kvichak prior to 1977, but declining runs in the Kvichak River in the 2000s were in turn offset by 

large runs in the Egegik River (see Figure 9).

Population and life history diversity within Bristol Bay sockeye populations can be 

equated to spreading risk with a diversified portfolio of financial investments (Schindler et al. 

2010). Under any given set of conditions, some assets perform well while others perform 

poorly, but maintenance of a diversified portfolio stabilizes returns over time. Within the 

sockeye stock complex, the portfolio of population and life history diversity greatly reduces 

year-to-year variability in run size, making the commercial salmon fishery much more reliable 

than it would be otherwise. With the current level of biocomplexity in Bristol Bay sockeye, 

salmon runs are large enough to meet bay-wide escapement goals of ~10 M fish nearly every 

year and fishery closures are rare (i.e., less than four closures per 100 years; Schindler et al. 

2010). If Bristol Bay sockeye lacked biocomplexity and the associated stabilizing effects, run 

sizes would fluctuate widely and complete fishery closures would happen every two to three 

years (Schindler et al. 2010). 

While the analyses described here apply to the Bristol Bay commercial sockeye fishery, 

portfolio effects certainly stabilize populations of other fish species and increase the reliability 

of sport and subsistence fisheries. In addition, portfolio effects stabilize and extend the 

availability of salmon to consumers in the watershed food webs. Poor runs in some habitats 

will be offset by large runs in others, allowing mobile predators and scavengers (e.g., bears, 

eagles, rainbow trout) to access areas of relatively high spawner density each year (Schindler et 

al. 2010). Different populations vary in the timing of spawning, which substantially extends the 

period when salmon are occupying spawning habitats (Schindler et al. 2010). 

Since a diversified salmon stock complex is contingent upon a complex suite of habitats, 

an important question becomes: How does habitat diversity in Bristol Bay watersheds compare 

to that in other salmon-producing regions? The Riverscape Analysis Project calculated 

remotely-sensed indices of physical habitat complexity, allowing comparisons among salmon 

producing watersheds at the North Pacific Rim scale (Luck et al. 2010, Whited et al. 2012). 

Rankings of overall physical complexity were based on 10 attributes: variation in elevation; 

floodplain elevation; density of floodplains and stream junctions; human footprint; the 

proportion of watershed covered by glaciers, floodplains, and lakes; and the elevation and 

density of lakes. While the characterization of habitat complexity at this broad spatial scale is 

necessarily imprecise and certainly fails to detect nuanced habitat features, it does seem to 

quantify attributes that are important to salmon as it explained general patterns in salmon 

abundance in validation watersheds (Luck et al. 2010). Overall physical complexity was 

50
relatively high for the watersheds considered in this assessment; of the 1574 Pacific Rim 

watersheds characterized, the Kvichak River ranked the 3rd highest, the Nushagak River 

(exclusive of the Wood River) ranked 44th, and the Wood River ranked 4th

(http://rap.ntsg.umt.edu/overallrank; accessed 9/1/11). 

The studies reviewed here demonstrate how biocomplexity in salmon populations 

provides resilience to environmental change. This resilience can break down when habitats are 

degraded or when the genetic diversity that allows salmon to utilize the full complement of 

available habitats is diminished. The loss of habitat diversity and associated loss of population 

diversity has contributed to declines of once prolific salmon fisheries, including those in the 

Sacramento (Lindley et al. 2009) and Columbia rivers (Bottom et al. 2005, Moore et al. 2010). 

Lindley et al. (2009), summarizing causes for the recent crash in Sacramento River fall Chinook, 

highlighted the importance of life history diversity:

In conclusion, the development of the Sacramento-San Joaquin watershed has greatly 

simplified and truncated the once-diverse habitats that historically supported a highly 

diverse assemblage of populations. The life history diversity of this historical assemblage 

would have buffered the overall abundance of Chinook salmon in the Central Valley 

under varying climate conditions. 

51
References

Achord, S., P. S. Levin, and R. W. Zabel. 2003. Density-dependent mortality in Pacific salmon: the ghost 

of impacts past? Ecology Letters 6:335-342.

ADF&G. 1990. Southwest Alaska rainbow trout management plan. Anchorage, AK.

Augerot, X. 2005. Atlas of Pacific salmon : the first map-based status assessment of salmon in the North 

Pacific. Portland, OR.

Azuma, T. 1992. Diel feeding habits of sockeye and chum salmon in the Bering Sea during the summer. 

Nippon Suisan Gakkaishi 58:2019-2025.

Baker, T. T., L. F. Fair, F. W. West, G. B. Buck, X. Zhang, S. Fleischmann, and J. Erickson. 2009. Review of 

salmon escapement goals in Bristol Bay, Alaska, 2009. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 

Anchorage.

Battin, J., M. W. Wiley, M. H. Ruckelshaus, R. N. Palmer, E. Korb, K. K. Bartz, and H. Imaki. 2007. 

Projected impacts of climate change on salmon habitat restoration. Proceedings of the National 

Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104:6720-6725.

Behnke, R. J. 1992. Native trout of western North America. American Fisheries Society Monograph 6, 

Bethesda, MD.

Beverton, R. J. H. and S. J. Holt. 1957. On the dynamics of exploited fish populations. The Blackburn 

Press.

Bilby, R. E., B. R. Fransen, and P. A. Bisson. 1996. Incorporation of nitrogen and carbon from spawning 

coho salmon into the trophic system of small streams: Evidence from stable isotopes. Canadian 

Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 53:164-173.

Bilby, R. E., B. R. Fransen, P. A. Bisson, and J. K. Walter. 1998. Response of juvenile coho salmon 

(Oncorhynchus kisutch) and steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) to the addition of salmon 

carcasses to two streams in southwestern Washington, USA. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and 

Aquatic Sciences 55:1909-1918.

Bjornn, T. C. and D. W. Reiser. 1991. Habitat requirements of salmonids in streams. Pages 83-138 in W. 

R. Meehan, editor. Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their 

habitats, Special Publication 19. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.

Blair, G. R., D. E. Rogers, and T. P. Quinn. 1993. Variation in life history characteristics and morphology of 

sockeye salmon in the Kvichak River System, Bristol Bay, Alaska. Transactions of the American 

Fisheries Society 122:550-559.

Bottom, D. L., C. A. Simenstad, J. Burke, A. M. Baptista, D. A. Jay, K. K. Jones, E. Casillas, and M. H. 

Schiewe. 2005. Salmon at river's end: The role of the estuary in the decline and recovery of 

Columbia River salmon. National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA.

Brodeur, R. D. 1990. A synthesis of the food habits and feeding ecology of salmonids in marine waters of 

the North Pacific. Fisheries Research Institute, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.

Brown, L. R., P. B. Moyle, and R. M. Yoshiyama. 1994. Historical decline and current status of coho 

salmon in California. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 14:237-261.

Burgner, R. L. 1991. Life history of sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka). Pages 1-117 in C. Groot and L. 

Margolis, editors. Pacific salmon life histories. UBC Press, Vancouver.

Burgner, R. L., C. J. DiCostanzo, R. J. Ellis, G. Y. Harry, Jr., W. L. Hartman, O. E. Kerns, Jr., O. A. Mathisen, 

and W. F. Royce. 1969. Biological studies and estimates of optimum escapements of sockeye 

salmon in the major river systems in southwestern Alaska. Fishery Bulletin 67:405-459.

Chapman, D. W. 1986. Salmon and steelhead abundance in the Columbia River in the 19th century. 

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 115:662-670.

52
Claeson, S. M., J. L. Li, J. E. Compton, and P. A. Bisson. 2006. Response of nutrients, biofilm, and benthic 

insects to salmon carcass addition. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 63:1230-

1241.

Clark, J. H. 2005. Bristol Bay salmon, a program review. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 

Anchorage, AK.

COSEWIC. 2009. Wildlife Species Search. Page Searchable database of wildlife species with listing status. 

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada.

Crespi, B. J. and R. Teo. 2002. Comparative phylogenetic analysis of the evolution of semelparity and life 

history in salmonid fishes. Evolution 56:1008-1020.

Cury, P. 1994. Obstinate nature: an ecology of individuals. Thoughts on reproductive behavior and 

biodiversity. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 51:1664-1673.

Dann, T. H., C. Habicht, J. R. Jasper, H. A. Hoyt, A. W. Barclay, W. D. Templin, T. T. Baker, F. W. West, and 

L. F. Fair. 2009. Genetic stock composition of the commercial harvest of sockeye salmon in 

Bristol Bay, Alaska, 2006-2008. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage, AK.

Denton, K. P., H. B. Rich, and T. P. Quinn. 2009. Diet, movement, and growth of Dolly Varden in response 

to sockeye salmon subsidies. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 138:1207-1219.

Dittman, A. H. and T. P. Quinn. 1996. Homing in Pacific salmon: Mechanisms and ecological basis. 

Journal of Experimental Biology 199:83-91.

Duffield, J., D. Patterson, C. Neher, and O. S. Goldsmith. 2006. Economics of Wild Salmon Watersheds: 

Bristol Bay, Alaska. University of Montana, Missoula.

Dye, J. E. and C. J. Schwanke. 2009. Report to the Alaska Board of Fisheries for the recreational fisheries 

of Bristol Bay, 2007, 2008, and 2009; Special Publication No, 09-14. Alaska Department of Fish 

and Game, Division of Sport Fish, Anchorage, AK.

Eggers, D. M., S. C. Heinl, and A. W. Piston. 2009. McDonald Lake sockeye salmon stock status and 

escapement goal recommendations, 2008. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage, 

AK.

Eggers, D. M., J. R. Irvine, M. Fukuwaka, and V. I. Karpenko. 2005. Catch trends and status for north 

Pacific salmon. North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission.

Eliason, E., T. Clark, M. Hague, L. Hanson, Z. Gallagher, K. Jeffries, M. Gale, D. Patterson, S. Hinch, and A. 

Farrell. 2011. Differences in Thermal Tolerance Among Sockeye Salmon Populations. Science 

332:109-112.

Essington, T. E., T. P. Quinn, and V. E. Ewert. 2000. Intra- and inter-specific competition and the 

reproductive success of sympatric Pacific salmon. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic 

Sciences 57:205-213.

Estensen, J. L., D. B. Molyneaux, and D. J. Bergstrom. 2009. Kuskokwim River salmon stock status and 

Kuskokwim area fisheries, 2009; a report to the Alaska Board of Fisheries. Alaska Department of 

Fish and Game, Anchorage, AK.

FLBS. 2011. Riverscape Analysis Project: Physical complexity ranking results. Flathead Lake Biological 

Station, University of Montana, Missoula, MT.

Flynn, L. and R. Hilborn. 2004. Test fishery indices for sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) as affected 

by age composition and environmental variables. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic 

Sciences 61:80-92.

FOC. 2011. Salmonid Enhancement Program. Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

GAO. 2002. Columbia River basin salmon and steelhead federal agencies' recovery responsibilities, 

expenditures, and actions. General Accounting Office, Washington, D.C.

Gardiner, W. R. and P. Geddes. 1980. The influence of body composition on the survival of juvenile 

salmon. Hydrobiologia 69:67-72.

53
Giannico, G. R. and S. G. Hinch. 2007. Juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) responses to salmon 

carcasses and in-stream wood manipulations during winter and spring. Canadian Journal of 

Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 64:324-335.

Gregory, S. V. and P. A. Bisson. 1997. Degradation and loss of anadromous salmon habitat in the Pacific 

Northwest. Pages 277-314 in D. J. Stouder, P. A. Bisson, and R. J. Naiman, editors. Pacific salmon 

and their ecosystems. Chapman and Hall, New York, NY.

Gresh, T., J. Lichatowich, and P. Schoonmaker. 2000. An estimation of historic and current levels of 

salmon production in the Northeast Pacific ecosystem: Evidence of a nutrient deficit in the 

freshwater systems of the Pacific Northwest. Fisheries 25:15-21.

Gross, M. R., R. M. Coleman, and R. M. McDowall. 1988. Aquatic productivity and the evolution of 

diadromous fish migration. Science 239:1291-1293.

Gustafson, R. G., R. S. Waples, J. M. Myers, L. A. Weitkamp, G. J. Bryant, O. W. Johnson, and J. J. Hard. 

2007. Pacific salmon extinctions: Quantifying lost and remaining diversity. Conservation Biology 

21:1009-1020.

Hamilton, T. D. and R. F. Kleiforth. 2010. Surficial geology map of parts of the Iliamna D-6 and D-7 

Quadrangles, Pebble Project Area, southwestern Alaska. Department of Natural Resources, 

Fairbanks, AK.

Hare, S. and N. Mantua. 2000. Empirical evidence for North Pacific regime shifts in 1977 and 1989. 

Progress in Oceanography 47:103-145.

Healey, M. C. 1991. Life history of chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Pages 311-393 in C. 

Groot and L. Margolis, editors. Pacific salmon life histories. UBC Press, Vancouver.

Heard, W. R. 1991. Life history of pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha). Pages 119-230 in C. Groot and 

L. Margolis, editors. Pacific salmon life histories. UBC Press, Vancouver.

Heard, W. R., E. Shevlyakov, O. V. Zikunova, and R. E. McNicol. 2007. Chinook salmon - trends in 

abundance and biological characteristics. North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission Bulletin 

4:77-91.

Heintz, R. A., B. D. Nelson, J. Hudson, M. Larsen, L. Holland, and M. Wipfli. 2004. Marine subsidies in 

freshwater: Effects of salmon carcasses on lipid class and fatty acid composition of juvenile coho 

salmon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 133:559-567.

Heintz, R. A., M. S. Wipfli, and J. P. Hudson. 2010. Identification of Marine-Derived Lipids in Juvenile 

Coho Salmon and Aquatic Insects through Fatty Acid Analysis. Transactions of the American 

Fisheries Society 139:840-854.

Hilborn, R. 2006. Fisheries success and failure: The case of the Bristol Bay salmon fishery. Bulletin of 

Marine Science 78:487-498.

Hilborn, R., T. A. Branch, B. Ernst, A. Magnusson, C. V. Minte-Vera, M. D. Scheuerell, and J. L. Valero. 

2003a. State of the world's fisheries. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 28:359-399.

Hilborn, R. and D. Eggers. 2000. A review of the hatchery programs for pink salmon in Prince William 

Sound and Kodiak Island, Alaska. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 129:333-350.

Hilborn, R., T. Quinn, D. Schindler, and D. Rogers. 2003b. Biocomplexity and fisheries sustainability. 

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 100:6564-

6568.

Howard, K. G., S. J. Hayes, and D. F. Evenson. 2009. Yukon River Chinook salmon stock status and action 

plan 2010; a report to the Alaska Board of Fisheries. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 

Anchorage, AK.

Irvine, J. R., M. Fukuwaka, T. Kaga, J. H. Park, K. B. Seong, S. Kang, V. Karpenko, N. Klovach, H. Bartlett, 

and E. Volk. 2009. Pacific salmon status and abundance trends. North Pacific Anadromous Fish 

Commission.

54
Johnston, N. T., E. A. MacIsaac, P. J. Tschaplinski, and K. J. Hall. 2004. Effects of the abundance of 

spawning sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) on nutrients and algal biomass in forested 

streams. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 61:384-403.

King, B. 2009. Sustaining Alaska's fisheries: Fifty years of statehood. Alaska Department of Fish and 

Game, Anchorage.

King, R. S., C. M. Walker, D. F. Whigham, S. Baird, and J. A. Back. 2012. Catchment topography and 

wetland geomorphology drive macroinvertebrate community structure and juvenile salmonid 

distributions in southcentral Alaska headwater streams. Freshwater Science.

Kline, T. C., J. J. Goering, O. A. Mathisen, P. H. Poe, P. L. Parker, and R. S. Scalan. 1993. Recycling of 

elements transported upstream by runs of Pacific salmon: II. δ 15N and δ 13C evidence in the 

Kvichak River watershed, Bristol Bay, Southwestern Alaska. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and 

Aquatic Sciences 50:2350-2365.

Koenings, J. P. and R. D. Burkett. 1987. Population characteristics of sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus 

nerka) smolts relative to temperature regimes, euphotic volume, fry density, and forage base 

within Alaskan lakes. Sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) population biology and future 

management, Canadian Special Publications of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 96:216-234.

Koenings, J. P., H. J. Geiger, and J. J. Hasbrouck. 1992. Smolt-to-adult survival patterns of sockeye salmon 

(Oncorhynchus nerka): effects of smolt length and geographic latitude when entering the sea. 

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 50:600-611.

Kope, R. and T. Wainwright. 1998. Trends in the status of Pacific salmon populations in Washington, 

Oregon, California, and Idaho North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission Bulletin 1:1-12.

Kruse, G. H. 1998a. Salmon run failures in 1997-1998: A link to anomalous ocean conditions?

Kruse, G. H. 1998b. Salmon run failures in 1997-1998: A link to anomalous ocean conditions? Alaska 

Fishery Research Bulletin 5:55-63.

Kyle, G. B., J. P. Koenings, and B. M. Barrett. 1988. Density-dependent, trophic level responses to an 

introduced run of sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) at Frazer Lake, Kodiak Island, Alaska. 

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 45:856-867.

Lackey, R. 2003. Pacific Northwest salmon: Forecasting their status in 2100. Reviews in Fisheries Science 

11:35-88.

Leman, V. N. 1993. Spawning sites of chum salmon, Oncorhynchus keta, microhydrological regime and 

viability of progeny in redds (Kamchatka River basin). Journal of Ichthyology 33:104-117.

Lessard, J. L. and R. W. Merritt. 2006. Influence of marine-derived nutrients from spawning salmon on 

aquatic insect communities in southeast Alaskan streams. Oikos 113:334-343.

Letherman, T. 2003. Lair of the leviathon: top ten spots for trophy rainbows. Fish Alaska.

Levy, S. 1997. Pacific salmon bring it all back home. Bioscience 47:657-660.

Lichatowich, J. A., G. R. Rahr, S. M. Whidden, and C. R. Steward. 2000. Sanctuaries for Pacific Salmon. 

Pages 675-686 in E. E. Knudsen, C. R. Steward, D. D. MacDonald, J. E. Williams, and D. W. Reiser, 

editors. Sustainable Fisheries Management: Pacific Salmon. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, LA.

Lindley, S. T., C. B. Grimes, M. S. Mohr, W. Peterson, J. Stein, J. T. Anderson, L. W. Botsford, D. L. Bottom, 

B. C.A., T. K. Collier, J. Ferguson, J. C. Garza, A. M. Grover, D. G. Hankin, R. G. Kope, P. W. 

Lawson, A. Low, R. B. MacFarlane, K. Moore, M. Palmer-Zwahlen, F. B. Schwing, J. Smith, C. 

Tracy, R. Webb, B. K. Wells, and T. H. Williams. 2009. What caused the Sacramento River fall 

Chinook stock collapse? , National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Santa Cruz.

Luck, M., N. Maumenee, D. Whited, J. Lucotch, S. Chilcote, M. Lorang, D. Goodman, K. McDonald, J. 

Kimball, and J. Stanford. 2010. Remote sensing analysis of physical complexity of North Pacific 

Rim rivers to assist wild salmon conservation. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 35:1330-

1343.

55
MacKinlay, D., S. Lehmann, J. Bateman, and R. Cook. Undated. Pacific salmon hatcheries in British 

Columbia. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Vancouver BC.

Mantua, N. J., S. R. Hare, Y. Zhang, J. M. Wallace, and R. C. Francis. 1997. A Pacific interdecadal climate 

oscillation with impacts on salmon production. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 

78:1069-1079.

Mathisen, O. A. 1962. The effect of altered sex ratios on the spawning of red salmon. Pages 137-245 

Studies of Alaska red salmon, University of Washington Publications in Fisheries New Series, 

Volume I. University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA.

Mathisen, O. A. 1972. Biogenic enrichment of sockeye salmon lakes and stock productivity. Verh. 

Internat. Verein. Limnol. 18:1089-1095.

McClure, M., E. Holmes, B. Sanderson, and C. Jordan. 2003. A large-scale, multispecies status, 

assessment: Anadromous salmonids in the Columbia River Basin. Ecological Applications 13:964-

989.

McConnaha, W. E., R. N. Williams, and J. A. Lichatowich. 2006. Introduction and background of the 

Columbia River salmon problem. Pages 1-28 in R. N. Williams, editor. Return to the River: 

Restoring Salmon to the Columbia River. Elsevier Academic Press, San Francisco.

McDowall, R. M. 2001. Anadromy and homing: Two life-history traits with adaptive synergies in 

salmonid fishes? Fish and Fisheries 2:78-85.

Mecklenburg, C. W., T. A. Mecklenburg, and L. K. Thorsteinson. 2002. Fishes of Alaska. American 

Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.

Meka, J. M., E. E. Knudsen, D. C. Douglas, and R. B. Benter. 2003. Variable migratory patterns of different 

adult rainbow trout life history types in a Southwest Alaska watershed. Transactions of the 

American Fisheries Society 132:717-732.

Milner, A. M. and R. G. Bailey. 1989. Salmonid colonization of new streams in Glacier Bay National Park, 

Alaska, USA. Aquaculture and Fisheries Management 20:179-192.

Mitchell, N. L. and G. A. Lamberti. 2005. Responses in dissolved nutrients and epilithon abundance to 

spawning salmon in southeast Alaska streams. Limnology and Oceanography 50:217-227.

Molyneaux, D. B. and L. K. Brannian. 2006. Review of escapement and abundance information for 

Kuskokwim Area salmon stocks. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage, AK.

Moore, J. and D. Schindler. 2004. Nutrient export from freshwater ecosystems by anadromous sockeye 

salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 61:1582-1589.

Moore, J. W., M. McClure, L. A. Rogers, and D. E. Schindler. 2010. Synchronization and portfolio 

performance of threatened salmon. Conservation Letters 3:340-348.

Morstad, S. 2003. Kvichak River sockeye salmon spawning ground surveys, 1955-2002. Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage, AK.

Morstad, S. and T. T. Baker. 2009. Kvichak River sockey salmon stock status and action plan, 2009: a 

report to the Alaska Board of Fisheries. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage, AK.

Myers, K. W., R. V. Walker, N. D. Davis, J. A. Armstrong, W. J. Fournier, N. J. Mantua, and J. RaymondYakoubian. 2010. Climate-ocean effects on Chinook salmon. School of Aquatic and Fishery 

Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.

Naish, K. A., J. E. Taylor, P. S. Levin, T. P. Quinn, J. R. Winton, D. Huppert, and R. Hilborn. 2008. An 

evaluation of the effects of conservation and fishery enhancement hatcheries on wild 

populations of salmon. Advances in Marine Biology 53:61-194.

Nehlsen, W., J. Williams, and J. Lichatowich. 1991. Pacific salmon at the crossroads - stocks at risk from 

Caifornia, Oregon, Idaho, and Washington. Fisheries 16:4-21.

Nickelson, T. E., J. D. Rodgers, S. L. Johnson, and M. F. Solazzi. 1992. Seasonal changes in habitat use by 

juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) in Oregon coastal streams. Canadian Journal of 

Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 49:783-789.

56
NMFS. 2010. ESA Salmon Listings: Listing determinations (endangered, threatened, or species of 

concern) for anadromous fish, including Pacific salmon and steelhead. National Marine Fisheries 

Service, Seattle, WA.

NRC. 1996. Upstream: Salmon and Society in the Pacific Northwest. National Research Council, 

Washington, D.C.

Peery, C. A., K. L. Kavanagh, and J. M. Scott. 2003. Pacific salmon: Setting ecologically defensible 

recovery goals. Bioscience 53:622-623.

Perrin, C. J. and J. S. Richardson. 1997. N and P limitation of benthos abundance in the Nechako River, 

British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 54:2574-2583.

Petrosky, C. E., H. A. Schaller, and P. Budy. 2001. Productivity and survival rate trends in the freshwater 

spawning and rearing stage of Snake River chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). 

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58:1196-1207.

Pinsky, M. L., D. B. Springmeyer, M. N. Goslin, and X. Augerot. 2009. Range-Wide Selection of 

Catchments for Pacific Salmon Conservation. Conservation Biology 23:680-691.

Piston, A. W. 2008. Hugh Smith Lake sockeye salmon adult and juvenile studies, 2007. Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage, AK.

Power, G., R. Brown, and J. Imhof. 1999. Groundwater and fish - insights from northern North America. 

Hydrological Processes 13:401-422.

Power, M. E., D. Tilman, J. A. Estes, B. A. Menge, W. J. Bond, L. S. Mills, G. Daily, J. C. Castilla, J. 

Lubchenco, and R. T. Paine. 1996. Challenges in the quest for keystones. Bioscience 46:609-620.

PSC. 2011. 2010 Annual Report of Catches and Escapements. Pacific Salmon Commission.

Purnell, R. 2011. Abode of the blessed. Fly Fisherman.

Quinn, T. P. 2005. The Behavior and Ecology of Pacific Salmon and Trout. University of Washington 

Press, Seattle, WA.

Rahr, G. and X. Augerot. 2006. A proactive sancutary strategy to anchor and restore high-priority wild 

salmon ecosystems.in R. T. Lackey, D. H. Lach, and S. L. Duncan, editors. Salmon 2100: The 

Future of Wild Pacific Salmon.

Rahr, G., J. Lichatowich, R. Hubley, and S. Whidden. 1998. Sanctuaries for native salmon: A conservation 

strategy for the 21st-century. Fisheries 23:6-36.

Rains, M. 2011. Water sources and hydrodynamics of closed-basin depressions, Cook Inlet Region, 

Alaska. Wetlands 31:377-387.

Ramstad, K. M., C. A. Woody, and F. W. Allendorf. 2010. Recent local adaptation of sockeye salmon to 

glacial spawning habitats. Evolutionary Ecology 24:391-411.

Rand, P. S. 2008. Oncorhynchus nerka. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.

Rand, P. S., M. Goslin, M. R. Gross, J. R. Irvine, X. Augerot, P. A. McHugh, and V. F. Bugaev. 2012. Global 

Assessment of Extinction Risk to Populations of Sockeye Salmon Oncorhynchus nerka. PloS one 

7:e34065.

Randolph, J. 2006. Fabulous Bristol Bay. Fly Fisherman.

Regnart, J. and C. O. Swanton. 2011. Southeast Alaska stock of concern recommendations. Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, AK.

Reynolds, J. B. 1997. Ecology of overwintering fishes in Alaskan waters. Pages 281-302 in A. M. Milner 

and M. W. Oswood, editors. Freshwaters of Alaska: ecological syntheses. Springer - Verlag, New 

York, NY.

Ricker, W. E. 1954. Stock and recruitment. Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Ottawa.

Riddell, B. E. and R. J. Beamish. 2003. Distribution and monitoring of pink salmon (Oncorhynchus 

gorbuscha) in British Columbia, Canada. Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Nanaimo, 

BC, Canada.

57
Rinella, D. J., M. S. Wipfli, C. A. Stricker, R. A. Heintz, and M. J. Rinella. 2011. Pacific salmon 

(Oncorhynchus spp.) runs and consumer fitness: growth and energy storage in stream-dwelling 

salmonids increase with salmon spawner density. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic 

Sciences 69(1):73-84.

Ringsmuth, K. J. 2005. Snug Harbor Cannery: a beacon on the forgotten shore 1919-1980. National Park 

Service, Lake Clark National Park.

Roff, D. A. 1988. The evolution of migration and some life history parameters in marine fishes. 

Environmental Biology of Fishes 22:133-146.

Rogers, L. A. and D. E. Schindler. 2008. Asynchrony in population dynamics of sockeye salmon in 

southwest Alaska. Oikos 117:1578-1586.

Romberg, W. J. 1999. Market segmentation, preferences, and management attitudes of Alaska 

nonresident anglers. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia.

Ruggerone, G., J. Nielsen, and J. Bumgarner. 2007. Linkages between Alaskan sockeye salmon 

abundance, growth at sea, and climate, 1955-2002. Deep-Sea Research 54:2776-2793.

Ruggerone, G., M. Zimmermann, K. Myers, J. Nielsen, and D. Rogers. 2003. Competition between Asian 

pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) and Alaskan sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) in 

the North Pacific Ocean. Fisheries Oceanography 122:209-219.

Ruggerone, G. T. and M. R. Link. 2006. Collapse of Kvichak River sockeye salmon production brood years 

1991-1999: population characteristics, possible factors, and management implications. Page 

103. North Pacific Research Board, Anchorage, AK.

Ruggerone, G. T. and J. L. Nielsen. 2009. A review of growth and survival of salmon at sea in response to 

competition and climate change. American Fisheries Society Symposium 70:241-265.

Ruggerone, G. T., J. L. Nielsen, and B. A. Agler. 2009. Climate, growth and populations dynamics of Yukon 

River Chinook salmon. North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission Bulletin 5:279-285.

Ruggerone, G. T., R. M. Peterman, B. Dorner, and K. W. Myers. 2010. Magnitude and trends in 

abundance of hatchery and wild pink salmon, chum salmon, and sockeye salmon in the North 

Pacific Ocean. Marine and Coastal Fisheries 2:306-328.

Russell, R. 1977. Rainbow trout life history studies in Lower Talarik Creek - Kvichak Drainage. Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game, Sport Fish Division, King Salmon, AK.

Salo, E. O. 1991. Life history of chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta). Pages 231-309 in C. Groot and L. 

Margolis, editors. Pacific salmon life histories. UBC Press, Vancouver.

Salomone, P., S. Morstad, T. Sands, M. Jones, T. Baker, G. Buck, F. West, and T. Kreig. 2011. 2010 Bristol 

Bay Area Management Report. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage, AK.

Sandercock, F. K. 1991. Life history of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Pages 395-445 in C. Groot 

and L. Margolis, editors. Pacific salmon life histories. UBC Press, Vancouver.

Sanderson, E., M. Jaiteh, M. Levy, K. Redford, A. Wannebo, and G. Woolmer. 2002. The human footprint 

and the last of the wild. Bioscience 52:891-904.

Satterfield, F. and B. Finney. 2002. Stable isotope analysis of Pacific salmon: insight into trophic status 

and oceanographic conditions over the last 30 years. Progress in Oceanography 53:231-246.

Scheuerell, M. D., P. S. Levin, R. W. Zabel, J. G. Williams, and B. L. Sanderson. 2005. A new perspective 

on the importance of marine-derived nutrients to threatened stocks of Pacific salmon 

(Oncorhynchus spp.). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 62:961-964.

Scheuerell, M. D., J. W. Moore, D. E. Schindler, and C. J. Harvey. 2007. Varying effects of anadromous 

sockeye salmon on the trophic ecology of two species of resident salmonids in southwest 

Alaska. Freshwater Biology 52:1944-1956.

Schindler, D., D. Rogers, M. Scheuerell, and C. Abrey. 2005a. Effects of changing climate on zooplankton 

and juvenile sockeye salmon growth in southwestern Alaska. Ecology:198-209.

58
Schindler, D. E., R. Hilborn, B. Chasco, C. P. Boatright, T. P. Quinn, L. A. Rogers, and M. S. Webster. 2010. 

Population diversity and the portfolio effect in an exploited species. Nature 465:609-U102.

Schindler, D., C. Krueger, P. Bisson, M. Bradford, B. Clark, J. Conitz, K. Howard, M. Jones, J. Murphy, K. 

Myers, M. Scheuerell, E. Volk, and J. Winton. 2013. Arctic-Yukon-Kuskokwim Chinook Salmon 

Research Action Plan: Evidence of Decline of Chinook Salmon Populations and 

Recommendations for Future Research. Prepared for the AYK Sustainable Salmon Initiative 

(Anchorage, AK). v + 70 pp.

Schindler, D. E., P. R. Leavitt, C. S. Brock, S. P. Johnson, and P. D. Quay. 2005b. Marine-derived nutrients, 

commercial fisheries, and production of salmon and lake algae in Alaska. Ecology 86:3225-3231.

Schmidt, D. C., S. R. Carlson, G. B. Kyle, and B. P. Finney. 1998. Influence of carcass-derived nutrients on 

sockeye salmon productivity of Karluk Lake, Alaska: Importance in the assessment of an 

escapement goal. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 18:743-763.

Semenchenko, N. N. 1988. Mechanisms of innate population control in sockeye salmon, Oncorhynchus 

nerka. Journal of Ichthyology 28:149-157.

Shaff, C. and J. Compton. 2009. Differential incorporation of natural spawners vs. artificially planted 

salmon carcasses in a stream food web: Evidence from delta N-15 of juvenile coho salmon. 

Fisheries 34:62-+.

Sigurdsson, D. and B. Powers. 2011. Participation, effort, and harvest in the sport fish business/guide 

licensing and logbook programs, 2010. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage, AK.

Solazzi, M., T. Nickelson, S. Johnson, and J. Rodgers. 2000. Effects of increasing winter rearing habitat on 

abundance of salmonids in two coastal Oregon streams. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and 

Aquatic Sciences 57:906-914.

Spencer, T. R., J. H. Eiler, and T. Hamazaki. 2009. Mark-recapture abundance estimates for Yukon River 

Chinook salmon 2000-2004. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage, AK.

Stilwell, K. B. and D. S. Kaufman. 1996. Late-Wisconsin glacial history of the northern Alaska Peninsula, 

southwestern Alaska, U.S.A. Arctic and Alpine Research 28:475-487.

Stockner, J. G. 2003. Nutrients in salmonid ecosystems: Sustaining production and biodiversity. 

American Fisheries Society.

Troll, T. 2011. Sailing for salmon: the early years of commercial fishing in Alaska's Bristol Bay, 1884-1951.

Uchiyama, T., B. P. Finney, and M. D. Adkison. 2008. Effects of marine-derived nutrients on population 

dynamics of sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic 

Sciences 65:1635-1648.

Walter, J. K., R. E. Bilby, and B. R. Fransen. 2006. Effects of Pacific salmon spawning and carcass 

availability on the caddisfly Ecclisomyia conspersa (Trichoptera:Limnephilidae). Freshwater 

Biology 51:1211-1218.

Weiner, M. 2006. Crown jewel. Fish Alaska.

West, F., L. Fair, T. Baker, S. Morstad, K. Weiland, T. Sands, and C. Westing. 2009. Abundance, age, sex, 

and size statistics for Pacific salmon in Bristol Bay, 2004; Fishery Data Series No. 09-51. Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game, Division of Commercial Fisheries, Anchorage, AK.

White, B. 2010. Alaska salmon enhancement program 2009 annual report. Alaska Department of Fish 

and Game, Anchorage, AK.

Whited, D. C., J. A. Lucotch, N. K. Maumenee, J. S. Kimball, and J. A. Stanford. In press. A riverscape 

analysis tool developed to assist wild salmon conservation. Fisheries 37(7):305-314.

Williams, T. 2006. Pits in crown jewels. Fly Rod and Reel.

Willson, M. F. and K. C. Halupka. 1995. Anadromous fish as keystone species in vertebrate 

communities Conservation Biology 9:489-497.

59
Wipfli, M. S., J. Hudson, and J. Caouette. 1998. Influence of salmon carcasses on stream productivity: 

response of biofilm and benthic macroinvertebrates in southeastern Alaska, USA. Canadian 

Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 55:1503-1511.

Wipfli, M. S., J. P. Hudson, and J. P. Caouette. 2004. Restoring productivity of salmon-based food webs: 

Contrasting effects of salmon carcass and salmon carcass analog additions on stream-resident 

salmonids. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 133:1440-1454.

Wipfli, M. S., J. P. Hudson, J. P. Caouette, and D. T. Chaloner. 2003. Marine subsidies in freshwater 

ecosystems: salmon carcasses increase the growth rates of stream-resident salmonids. 

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 132:371-381.

Wipfli, M. S., J. P. Hudson, D. T. Chaloner, and J. R. Caouette. 1999. Influence of salmon spawner 

densities on stream productivity in Southeast Alaska. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic 

Sciences 56:1600-1611.

Woody, C. A. 2007. Tower Counts. Pages 363-384 in D. H. Johnson, B. M. Shrier, J. S. O'Neal, J. A. 

Knutzen, X. Augerot, T. A. O'Neil, and T. N. Pearsons, editors. Salmonid Field Protocols 

Handbook. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Woody, C. A. and S. L. O'Neal. 2010. Fish surveys in headwater streams of the Nushagak and Kvichak 

river drainages, Bristol Bay, Alaska, 2008-2010. Fisheries Research and Consulting, Anchorage, 

AK. 

Young, D. B. 2005. Distribution and characteristics of sockeye salmon spawning habitat in the Lake Clark 

watershed, Alaska. National Park Service, Port Alsworth, AK.

Zabel, R. W., M. D. Scheuerell, M. M. McClure, and J. G. Williams. 2006. The interplay between climate 

variability and density dependence in the population viability of Chinook salmon. Conservation 

Biology 20:190-200.

60
Appendix A. Chinook and sockeye salmon run sizes for Bristol Bay and other regions 

of the North Pacific

Table A1. Chinook total run sizes (harvest plus escapement) by river system, 1966-2010

Table A2. Sockeye total run sizes (harvest plus escapement) by river system, 1956-2010

Table A3. Sockeye total run sizes (harvest plus escapement) by region, 1956-2005

61
Table A1. Chinook total run sizes by river system, 1966-2010

Year Nushagak Kenai 

Yukon, 

Canadian 

mainstem

Copper Taku Skeena Nass Nehalem Skagit 

1966 144,145 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

1967 234,216 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

1968 228,551 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

1969 158,627 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

1970 196,081 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

1971 169,206 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

1972 101,001 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

1973 107,999 NA NA NA 38,307 NA NA NA NA

1974 183,287 NA NA NA 35,442 NA NA NA NA

1975 172,144 NA NA NA 46,870 NA 17,874 5,060 22,252

1976 273,657 NA NA NA 44,555 NA 16,583 9,446 23,939

1977 224,104 NA NA NA 41,856 39,606 18,410 11,552 18,514

1978 393,636 NA NA NA 56,386 35,055 21,807 11,676 20,962

1979 361,210 NA NA NA 60,190 28,166 16,229 12,058 22,261

1980 366,555 NA NA 29,659 64,247 38,626 18,744 5,645 30,346

1981 513,708 NA NA 41,047 75,280 42,018 17,606 10,577 20,720

1982 509,867 NA 60,746 84,098 37,042 35,185 13,287 5,111 21,475

1983 482,196 NA 63,427 82,730 19,943 39,510 20,516 4,376 15,225

1984 237,104 NA 66,800 86,373 41,850 53,516 31,408 20,939 15,701

1985 314,434 NA 59,736 55,997 71,814 76,544 24,768 18,845 27,709

1986 165,950 106,917 61,789 103,024 51,190 87,566 47,967 11,570 23,507

1987 231,453 100,123 58,921 69,910 41,474 76,349 26,568 15,268 14,782

1988 141,908 89,462 61,126 55,801 66,601 102,563 21,094 16,684 16,390

1989 187,644 59,409 78,243 73,423 57,086 83,439 36,594 11,650 14,596

1990 156,663 50,751 78,439 52,899 66,517 89,447 33,384 6,617 20,717

1991 246,718 52,810 63,335 68,175 80,066 79,343 13,136 7,498 9,696

1992 232,103 54,302 57,058 64,172 84,882 92,184 25,405 11,558 10,211

62
Table A1. Chinook total run sizes by river system, 1966-2010

Year Nushagak Kenai 

Yukon, 

Canadian 

mainstem

Copper Taku Skeena Nass Nehalem Skagit 

1993 283,385 89,748 52,855 65,301 98,073 96,018 36,678 9,137 7,691

1994 334,604 90,552 77,647 90,073 70,253 68,127 32,864 9,194 7,082

1995 271,126 81,563 71,557 96,710 74,564 48,351 16,187 8,671 10,096

1996 193,029 77,228 93,672 113,868 98,184 96,453 30,889 12,975 13,364

1997 247,097 69,773 70,349 107,760 130,091 65,350 27,658 12,732 7,198

1998 370,883 55,540 41,434 112,365 51,706 65,167 34,922 10,591 16,067

1999 148,963 86,553 49,652 95,951 33,500 70,993 22,310 10,361 5,725

2000 137,979 63,373 30,749 70,746 51,055 77,320 31,159 10,817 18,231

2001 213,128 60,320 62,703 81,155 59,449 112,346 44,595 14,293 15,947

2002 228,919 61,878 51,616 72,972 71,902 63,069 21,528 20,552 20,979

2003 224,724 73,210 90,213 94,505 62,436 82,410 36,503 23,569 11,933

2004 351,928 99,765 59,707 80,559 113,923 61,065 25,137 14,456 25,863

2005 307,245 91,309 79,625 66,341 81,173 39,278 24,067 8,222 24,701

2006 218,031 76,186 72,005 99,877 68,842 43,689 37,098 13,129 23,115

2007 125,077 76,472 39,997 87,770 29,766 44,185 34,221 6,648 13,003

2008 128,445 61,152 37,434 53,880 126,700 54,279 26,202 5,651 15,942

2009 117,530 46,095 69,418 43,007 115,559 55,921 36,865 5,332 13,144

2010 93,677 NA NA 32,999 NA NA NA NA NA

63
Table A1. Chinook total run sizes by river system, 1966-2010

Year Gray's 

Harbor Harrison Fraser Yukon Kuskokwim 

1966 NA NA NA NA NA

1967 NA NA NA NA NA

1968 NA NA NA NA NA

1969 NA NA NA NA NA

1970 NA NA NA NA NA

1971 NA NA NA NA NA

1972 NA NA NA NA NA

1973 NA NA NA NA NA

1974 NA NA NA NA NA

1975 NA NA NA NA NA

1976 6,852 NA NA NA 200,000 

1977 10,086 NA NA NA 210,000 

1978 7,919 NA NA NA 250,000 

1979 10,869 NA NA NA 230,000 

1980 17,067 NA NA NA 220,000 

1981 10,581 NA NA NA 310,000 

1982 9,886 NA NA NA 210,000 

1983 8,473 NA NA NA 160,000 

1984 23,888 131,740 227,421 NA 180,000 

1985 14,225 181,367 303,308 NA 180,000 

1986 25,139 177,662 322,279 NA 160,000 

1987 35,114 81,799 210,498 NA 250,000 

1988 42,811 38,285 167,872 NA 250,000 

1989 57,787 76,294 183,137 NA 280,000 

1990 40,606 180,837 315,961 NA 300,000 

1991 34,569 93,363 209,918 NA 240,000 

1992 34,813 132,042 262,291 NA 280,000 

64
Table A1. Chinook total run sizes by river system, 1966-2010

Year Gray's 

Harbor Harrison Fraser Yukon Kuskokwim 

1993 31,513 120,600 230,837 NA 340,000 

1994 32,468 100,839 246,142 NA 470,000 

1995 34,067 29,840 164,318 NA 420,000 

1996 39,102 38,568 224,127 NA 330,000 

1997 35,927 72,061 274,856 NA 370,000 

1998 23,390 189,103 358,436 NA 260,000 

1999 14,865 107,884 248,823 NA 190,000 

2000 18,595 78,098 233,307 144,173 180,000 

2001 22,405 74,419 251,427 392,000 260,000 

2002 19,787 91,122 312,142 243,443 240,000 

2003 24,945 251,453 483,142 372,697 260,000 

2004 48,690 138,890 333,330 311,377 430,000 

2005 26,365 92,993 265,274 NA 370,000 

2006 27,230 52,798 295,676 NA 380,000 

2007 17,976 83,445 220,651 NA 270,000 

2008 19,149 43,798 231,389 NA 240,000 

2009 14,493 75,550 248,408 NA 210,000 

2010 NA NA NA NA 140,000 

Data Sources

Nushagak: Buck et al. 2012, pg. 20; Kenai: Begich and Pawluk 2010, pg. 69; Yukon, Canadian mainstem: Howard et al. 2009, pg. 35; Copper: Pers. 

comm. Steve Moffitt, ADF&G; Taku: McPherson et al. 2010, pg. 14. 2008/2009 data are preliminary pers. comm. Ed Jones, ADF&G; Skeena: PSC 

2011, pg. 87; Nass: PSC 2011, pg. 87; Nehalem: PSC 2011, pg. 93; Skagit: PSC 2011, pg. 89; Gray's Harbor: PSC 2011, pg. 90; Harrison: PSC 2011, 

pg. 88; Fraser: PSC 2011, pg. 88; Yukon: Spencer et al. 2009, pg. 28; Kuskokwim: Pers. comm. Kevin Schaberg, ADF&G

65
Table A2. Sockeye total run sizes by river system, 1956-2010

Year Ugashik Egegik Naknek Alagnak Kvichak Nushagak Wood Igushik

1956 779,000 2,324,000 3,155,000 1,282,000 13,800,000 106,788 1,494,000 903,000

1957 940,000 2,044,000 2,588,000 474,000 10,711,000 262,805 945,000 440,000

1958 776,702 812,799 603,781 206,930 1,180,705 543,003 1,744,000 276,000

1959 678,064 1,827,157 3,403,474 1,295,000 1,004,118 113,107 3,668,000 995,000

1960 3,377,000 3,600,000 2,095,000 2,289,000 24,942,000 237,544 2,124,466 1,177,000

1961 960,000 4,600,000 1,865,815 509,000 14,279,000 185,798 957,144 632,000

1962 559,409 1,878,432 1,277,933 150,000 4,961,330 114,209 2,438,322 107,024

1963 673,000 1,981,649 1,786,728 368,227 657,349 452,272 1,460,090 212,000

1964 1,101,179 2,056,111 2,685,504 554,998 1,801,221 244,344 2,263,164 338,000

1965 2,236,533 5,344,000 2,270,357 506,729 47,657,000 513,460 1,468,609 410,000

1966 1,315,949 3,331,241 2,418,111 354,000 9,064,868 402,292 2,310,435 470,000

1967 449,557 1,908,340 1,372,352 298,956 5,577,403 114,332 1,017,456 563,134

1968 179,413 1,195,917 2,119,324 302,531 3,471,140 290,366 1,357,407 398,190

1969 372,879 2,273,888 2,623,702 329,748 13,472,862 197,135 1,218,238 1,114,000

1970 1,030,000 2,660,244 2,011,095 479,019 34,599,600 885,640 2,169,211 754,083

1971 1,790,000 2,282,819 3,247,238 599,080 6,948,068 662,007 1,912,659 529,000

1972 129,031 1,884,000 1,810,000 235,000 1,763,000 99,603 935,000 161,000

1973 60,108 788,940 724,941 53,833 336,241 428,733 716,226 133,000

1974 65,801 1,530,000 1,728,781 236,681 4,761,892 240,197 2,211,000 471,000

1975 464,000 2,365,792 3,804,529 128,700 15,359,808 1,071,353 1,836,317 365,000

1976 594,000 2,031,920 2,619,548 152,000 3,789,238 1,079,065 1,602,770 388,000

1977 325,175 2,714,435 2,744,790 177,471 2,266,442 946,903 928,878 164,000

1978 95,380 2,230,099 2,005,239 1,178,690 8,266,273 1,482,163 4,294,726 1,145,339

1979 2,158,312 3,385,860 2,292,995 1,562,870 25,297,982 930,285 3,775,140 1,910,000

1980 4,469,800 3,921,579 5,027,516 1,594,128 37,695,437 5,343,159 4,760,312 3,276,190

1981 3,705,000 5,430,399 7,913,237 862,018 7,489,183 3,764,287 4,926,000 2,410,000

1982 2,603,342 3,919,251 4,226,271 2,173,398 3,328,986 2,889,822 3,864,630 2,029,000

1983 4,565,269 8,024,339 5,754,315 1,531,412 20,983,178 2,073,502 4,484,000 853,000

66
Table A2. Sockeye total run sizes by river system, 1956-2010

Year Ugashik Egegik Naknek Alagnak Kvichak Nushagak Wood Igushik

1984 4,093,955 6,623,390 3,056,116 1,522,640 23,907,123 1,421,706 2,076,000 455,000

1985 7,874,523 9,093,576 3,912,742 733,068 14,061,000 963,888 1,693,723 489,000

1986 6,216,732 6,173,448 4,069,000 1,086,130 2,025,616 2,267,373 1,822,225 908,000

1987 2,925,832 6,884,561 2,485,316 811,320 9,839,116 1,794,967 2,917,462 644,000

1988 2,256,139 8,369,057 1,796,819 872,367 6,940,540 1,093,735 1,793,902 414,000

1989 5,049,283 10,983,145 3,303,641 1,456,693 20,548,328 1,260,160 2,601,691 1,253,000

1990 2,982,276 12,931,258 8,678,358 1,517,000 17,988,530 1,797,229 2,687,000 1,317,000

1991 5,628,282 9,938,166 10,285,831 1,652,944 8,329,970 1,800,480 3,424,694 2,515,000

1992 5,831,999 18,614,125 5,327,022 1,349,052 10,969,638 1,898,491 2,570,505 830,000

1993 5,912,214 24,481,560 4,905,051 2,257,321 9,901,170 2,330,448 3,937,623 1,663,194

1994 5,605,405 12,998,886 3,144,067 1,733,796 22,734,248 1,618,150 3,111,885 1,379,000

1995 6,040,271 16,200,980 3,700,788 1,780,054 28,329,704 792,229 4,191,376 1,991,000

1996 5,237,819 12,253,942 7,076,342 1,916,634 3,538,945 1,804,324 5,160,000 1,514,000

1997 2,239,051 9,362,876 1,515,318 680,123 1,826,856 929,880 3,629,898 314,000

1998 1,794,126 5,060,215 2,784,308 1,072,721 3,550,243 1,022,443 4,101,957 602,074

1999 4,058,177 9,407,420 3,970,846 2,841,755 13,309,000 991,826 6,160,000 1,626,000

2000 2,301,000 8,403,612 4,935,000 2,014,897 3,031,000 1,528,923 5,545,000 1,812,000

2001 1,356,716 4,323,287 6,682,794 1,106,728 1,436,000 2,126,175 4,013,792 1,325,000

2002 2,563,977 5,839,236 2,775,032 793,470 727,186 663,000 3,841,698 213,000

2003 2,584,062 3,503,084 5,182,926 3,790,173 1,750,361 2,273,000 5,743,906 1,036,071

2004 4,160,179 12,865,161 3,948,000 6,667,385 7,902,000 2,227,000 5,948,000 523,000

2005 3,093,169 9,553,946 8,059,330 5,436,640 2,924,275 3,567,000 4,607,385 2,089,000

2006 3,507,652 9,066,558 5,503,654 2,866,000 5,882,074 3,308,000 11,304,221 1,466,000

2007 7,897,526 8,209,756 9,047,000 4,430,633 4,381,000 2,670,000 6,755,813 1,826,000

2008 3,053,322 9,027,266 6,518,196 6,157,000 5,869,320 1,713,315 5,456,186 3,433,000

2009 4,033,383 13,039,645 4,870,271 2,699,010 5,723,862 1,983,000 7,402,102 953,000

2010 4,960,291 6,119,472 5,908,135 2,660,659 9,503,000 2,194,032 7,851,845 1,391,576

67 
Table A2. Sockeye total run sizes by river system, 1956-2010

Year Togiak Kenai Copper, 

wild fish Fraser 

1956 331,000 NA NA 2,866,977

1957 108,066 NA NA 5,401,219

1958 118,000 NA NA 18,778,820

1959 310,000 NA NA 4,769,576

1960 338,000 NA NA 3,421,281

1961 421,520 NA 860,258 4,713,837

1962 174,191 NA 1,112,218 3,512,304

1963 352,000 NA 664,596 3,985,486

1964 367,058 NA 949,861 1,824,500

1965 391,000 NA 1,208,709 3,166,871

1966 338,000 NA 1,402,430 5,459,849

1967 171,109 NA 850,993 6,803,585

1968 135,086 NA 829,329 2,955,662

1969 306,027 NA 1,258,136 4,941,025

1970 425,000 NA 1,492,530 6,163,676

1971 484,000 NA 1,250,648 7,696,359

1972 175,000 831,241 1,168,448 3,708,113

1973 270,000 920,826 668,670 6,878,291

1974 238,000 435,344 869,756 8,616,165

1975 407,392 485,352 538,743 3,683,576

1976 546,000 1,374,607 1,161,149 4,340,815

1977 401,000 2,268,568 1,047,326 5,887,114

1978 770,000 2,096,341 502,359 9,420,144

1979 614,000 797,838 618,538 6,358,912

1980 1,173,000 1,495,962 651,014 3,133,187

1981 999,000 1,184,445 1,297,758 7,741,247

1982 972,230 2,766,912 1,883,434 13,985,095

1983 784,000 3,982,112 1,395,556 5,240,936

68
Table A2. Sockeye total run sizes by river system, 1956-2010

Year Togiak Kenai Copper, 

wild fish Fraser 

1984 383,000 1,287,187 1,821,370 5,919,324

1985 306,198 2,498,144 1,600,390 13,878,493

1986 405,215 2,955,276 1,329,070 15,927,438

1987 574,000 9,425,518 1,721,153 7,680,095

1988 1,001,000 6,094,157 985,913 3,773,551

1989 178,117 6,662,137 1,435,481 18,594,484

1990 342,000 3,290,388 1,459,380 21,985,937

1991 805,000 2,226,730 1,766,134 12,390,664

1992 863,250 8,273,968 1,537,006 6,442,239

1993 697,000 4,451,954 2,039,851 23,630,664

1994 520,207 3,908,776 1,839,406 17,284,640

1995 771,000 2,658,341 1,778,450 4,020,414

1996 585,349 3,743,751 2,888,442 4,520,445

1997 264,239 4,650,889 3,820,171 16,351,769

1998 312,646 1,953,963 1,661,543 10,873,000

1999 565,258 3,018,164 1,568,335 3,643,000

2000 1,127,000 1,842,904 1,206,275 5,217,000

2001 1,436,000 2,214,605 2,000,609 7,213,000

2002 406,000 3,511,797 1,774,724 15,137,000

2003 897,000 4,447,000 1,839,605 4,873,502

2004 508,000 5,716,924 1,739,197 4,184,200

2005 580,171 6,117,166 2,060,867 7,077,100

2006 905,450 2,835,742 2,305,355 12,981,200

2007 1,066,000 3,592,167 2,828,457 1,510,600

2008 891,541 2,065,205 1,051,154 1,755,355

2009 854,568 2,440,138 1,583,006 1,505,096

2010 741,211 3,595,867 1,248,019 29,005,410

69
Table A2. Sockeye total run sizes by river system, 1956-2010

Data Sources: Ugashik, Egegik, Naknek, Alagnak, Kvichak, Nushagak, Wood, Igushik, and Togiak rivers, pers. comm. Tim Baker, ADF&G; Kenai 

River, pers. comm. Pat Shields, ADF&G; Copper River, pers. comm. Jeremy Botz, ADF&G; Fraser River, pers. comm. Catherine Michielsens, PSC.

70
Table A3. Sockeye total run sizes by region, 1956-2005. 

Year Bristol Bay

Russia 

Mainland 

and Islands

West 

Kamchatka

East 

Kamchatka

Western 

Alaska 

(excluding 

Bristol Bay)

South 

Alaska 

Peninsula

Kodiak Cook Inlet

Prince 

William 

Sound

1956 24,174,788 312,723 5,568,959 3,508,292 2,921,799 1,439,813 1,036,251 2,107,703 1,357,869

1957 18,512,871 1,212,664 10,172,076 4,146,156 1,651,132 823,438 976,164 1,272,942 1,219,564

1958 6,261,920 442,975 6,286,252 6,080,691 1,477,590 654,585 1,064,076 1,026,900 795,032

1959 13,293,920 391,364 5,046,656 5,879,205 1,713,792 837,418 1,134,597 1,227,947 767,304

1960 40,180,010 439,229 5,520,707 6,741,619 1,649,156 1,301,201 1,189,167 1,663,849 921,272

1961 24,410,277 441,422 8,884,293 2,865,949 1,284,695 728,145 1,265,417 1,982,278 1,246,740

1962 11,660,850 402,798 8,304,347 2,940,810 1,236,964 856,552 1,870,103 1,962,984 1,446,375

1963 7,943,315 343,339 5,294,022 4,291,282 1,080,004 936,188 1,263,847 1,690,524 965,103

1964 11,411,579 238,866 1,681,381 5,400,484 1,281,320 918,361 1,415,449 1,727,099 1,413,881

1965 60,797,688 293,827 3,616,954 4,299,788 879,413 1,136,937 1,161,768 2,304,205 1,631,195

1966 20,004,896 279,251 2,496,149 5,651,091 1,100,324 816,878 1,630,675 2,849,643 1,867,747

1967 11,472,639 362,571 3,438,364 7,534,661 1,197,823 1,022,036 1,098,764 2,263,184 1,119,440

1968 9,449,374 297,307 952,912 7,347,250 1,017,865 1,771,470 1,832,648 1,906,856 1,334,651

1969 21,908,479 249,157 705,033 6,672,415 1,459,903 997,774 1,566,384 1,341,961 1,728,312

1970 45,013,892 245,200 1,051,653 6,377,430 1,028,643 2,477,613 2,071,227 1,399,803 2,007,971

1971 18,454,871 221,785 1,908,446 4,283,328 1,224,259 2,224,301 1,382,529 1,262,215 1,362,728

1972 7,191,634 201,509 1,708,238 3,917,303 1,025,402 996,272 957,567 1,604,503 1,671,399

1973 3,512,022 202,599 1,266,604 4,389,459 877,777 1,745,569 880,634 1,310,905 986,426

1974 11,483,352 538,427 2,914,942 1,096,312 1,184,430 1,515,481 1,283,380 1,056,869 1,361,911

1975 25,802,891 185,335 1,315,733 3,858,358 1,171,178 1,048,430 854,537 1,331,877 1,092,387

1976 12,802,541 180,082 1,556,672 3,470,759 1,587,266 2,219,569 1,586,702 2,619,311 1,713,575

1977 10,669,094 177,717 412,752 2,648,024 1,469,757 3,082,269 1,645,986 3,194,737 1,629,798

1978 21,467,909 188,339 936,931 3,596,414 2,695,103 2,547,058 1,925,502 3,250,421 1,026,705

1979 41,927,444 256,120 835,766 3,328,120 4,264,190 1,855,669 1,745,390 1,626,406 798,885

1980 67,261,121 192,795 1,353,186 3,221,802 3,261,091 1,534,564 2,235,004 2,485,427 553,557

1981 37,499,124 175,829 1,641,425 2,910,208 3,764,080 3,009,576 1,977,914 2,266,861 1,396,065

71
Table A3. Sockeye total run sizes by region, 1956-2005. 

Year Bristol Bay

Russia 

Mainland 

and Islands

West 

Kamchatka

East 

Kamchatka

Western 

Alaska 

(excluding 

Bristol Bay)

South 

Alaska 

Peninsula

Kodiak Cook Inlet

Prince 

William 

Sound

1982 26,006,930 256,135 1,317,999 2,495,343 1,960,326 2,647,192 2,304,607 4,058,186 3,298,288

1983 49,053,015 272,271 1,363,540 3,255,333 2,962,209 3,289,732 1,994,142 5,983,442 1,544,252

1984 43,538,930 188,414 1,853,895 2,869,830 2,854,259 4,463,088 3,164,169 3,023,601 2,058,228

1985 39,127,718 129,556 3,456,410 2,266,824 5,074,028 1,879,199 4,325,529 4,911,883 2,224,415

1986 24,973,739 177,623 2,993,349 2,088,398 3,648,527 2,750,217 4,020,270 5,195,708 1,999,005

1987 28,876,574 173,853 4,388,792 2,244,085 1,881,441 3,234,737 1,573,040 10,612,907 2,503,899

1988 24,537,559 134,865 2,961,712 1,735,950 2,428,248 1,577,614 5,179,735 7,981,926 591,622

1989 46,634,058 162,907 3,929,794 1,614,359 2,984,749 2,239,029 2,465,794 6,653,855 1,196,514

1990 50,240,651 131,959 6,533,656 683,440 4,066,861 3,209,313 7,291,759 3,791,787 672,793

1991 44,380,367 278,341 6,654,665 716,325 4,709,511 3,506,006 8,376,886 2,341,570 1,737,506

1992 48,254,082 290,791 5,946,498 2,171,680 4,550,924 2,376,718 3,727,396 9,803,503 2,109,967

1993 56,085,581 414,830 6,867,277 3,721,809 5,252,589 2,946,843 1,977,835 5,525,342 2,269,986

1994 52,845,644 330,884 6,052,779 3,184,687 4,707,327 3,067,554 2,732,833 4,823,347 1,925,999

1995 63,797,402 547,226 5,142,880 5,342,393 5,231,199 2,921,709 6,683,435 3,916,052 1,917,252

1996 39,087,355 578,622 5,416,529 5,181,509 3,904,663 3,148,403 6,366,442 4,828,498 3,031,366

1997 20,762,241 273,153 3,623,111 4,525,486 3,327,626 1,613,997 4,081,554 5,623,149 3,734,337

1998 20,300,733 186,020 4,216,452 3,350,431 2,342,865 1,928,313 4,297,254 2,240,231 1,653,216

1999 42,930,282 314,421 4,198,803 4,688,991 3,551,763 4,462,260 6,441,216 3,448,544 2,340,818

2000 30,698,432 402,372 5,731,743 3,228,330 3,417,071 3,054,013 4,468,203 2,071,076 1,640,060

2001 23,806,492 458,915 4,698,927 3,295,161 2,741,406 3,234,246 4,042,683 2,035,309 2,118,769

2002 17,822,599 254,755 11,373,958 1,969,758 2,750,691 2,357,095 2,842,606 3,058,610 1,877,644

2003 26,760,583 189,284 6,430,409 3,111,533 2,998,568 2,108,670 6,492,011 4,147,632 2,104,632

2004 44,748,725 92,408 6,655,869 2,370,070 3,968,890 1,724,633 5,735,821 5,507,777 2,039,862

2005 39,910,916 681,161 9,281,680 3,082,258 5,282,123 2,045,602 4,370,163 6,028,983 2,162,713

72
Table A3. Sockeye total run sizes by region, 1956-2005. 

Year

Southeast 

Alaska 

North 

British 

Columbia

South 

British 

Columbia, 

Washington, 

and Oregon

1956 1,223,955 2,874,454 3,724,473

1957 1,433,321 1,785,678 5,923,358

1958 1,348,999 3,563,691 22,137,627

1959 1,191,656 2,827,063 5,976,277

1960 787,118 1,505,791 4,497,613

1961 996,105 3,161,029 5,430,221

1962 1,033,237 3,567,790 4,092,561

1963 907,045 3,841,872 4,991,161

1964 1,236,191 4,200,152 2,315,203

1965 1,452,134 2,214,164 3,698,689

1966 1,410,391 1,954,638 6,316,328

1967 1,299,903 3,624,937 8,400,670

1968 1,111,561 6,486,401 3,609,851

1969 1,085,977 2,737,311 5,809,127

1970 893,721 1,270,879 7,194,502

1971 833,222 2,565,992 9,733,215

1972 714,626 2,187,271 4,565,063

1973 907,999 6,614,542 8,336,516

1974 1,010,069 2,691,442 10,137,727

1975 924,210 2,341,434 4,472,874

1976 1,638,128 2,592,622 5,296,487

1977 2,040,197 3,045,063 8,025,282

1978 1,480,429 2,612,221 10,353,993

1979 1,927,777 2,414,113 8,310,609

1980 1,506,153 5,903,153 5,106,260

73
Table A3. Sockeye total run sizes by region, 1956-2005. 

Year Southeast 

Alaska 

North 

British 

Columbia

South 

British 

Columbia, 

Washington, 

and Oregon

1981 1,484,281 9,878,197 9,518,792

1982 1,951,773 7,676,011 15,580,715

1983 1,803,879 4,742,841 7,330,812

1984 1,641,315 4,030,945 8,240,361

1985 2,133,525 8,899,568 15,583,867

1986 1,596,155 5,738,111 16,389,443

1987 1,755,611 5,591,872 9,113,405

1988 1,332,203 7,076,794 5,538,086

1989 2,022,589 4,706,414 19,501,105

1990 2,041,318 5,204,017 22,849,561

1991 2,001,214 7,068,326 14,639,516

1992 2,493,953 8,841,375 8,320,825

1993 3,183,080 8,529,952 25,605,669

1994 2,052,188 4,533,119 18,058,968

1995 1,625,062 7,471,188 4,253,526

1996 3,066,710 9,353,278 5,386,660

1997 2,232,489 5,836,899 17,469,309

1998 1,351,217 2,339,626 11,600,660

1999 1,569,562 2,145,620 4,283,929

2000 1,255,042 5,784,376 6,008,081

2001 1,827,078 5,418,729 8,409,348

2002 1,537,801 3,512,452 12,222,016

2003 1,670,133 4,119,532 5,028,196

2004 1,915,752 2,661,373 3,501,674

2005 1,693,703 1,709,492 3,827,344

74
Table A3. Sockeye total run sizes by region, 1956-2005. 

75
AN ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL MINING IMPACTS ON 

SALMON ECOSYSTEMS OF BRISTOL BAY, ALASKA 

VOLUME 2—APPENDICES A-D

Appendix B: Non-Salmon Freshwater Fishes of the 

Nushagak and Kvichak River Drainages 

Author: Michael Wiedmer, Malma Consulting (mwiedmer_malma@gci.net) 
NON-SALMON FRESHWATER FISHES OF THE NUSHAGAK AND 

KVICHAK RIVER DRAINAGES

INTRODUCTION

The fresh waters of the Nushagak and Kvichak river drainages in southwest Alaska (Figure 2-3, 

2-4 in main assessment report) support diverse fish assemblages that combined total at least 9 

families, 17 genera, and 29 species (Table Appendix B-1). An additional six species: Pacific 

herring Clupea pallasii, Pacific cod Gadus macrocephalus, saffron cod Eleginus gracilis, Pacific 

staghorn sculpin Leptocottus armatus, Arctic flounder Pleuronectes glacialis, and starry flounder

Platichthys stellatus are primarily marine species that venture into the lower reaches of the 

drainages (Mecklenburg et al. 2002; Morrow 1980b) and are not discussed here. The five species 

of North American Pacific salmon, keystones of the region’s ecological and economic systems, 

are reviewed in Appendix A of this assessment. Appendix B provides biological, ecological, and 

human use information for the other 24 species supported by the waters of the Nushagak and 

Kvichak river drainages.

This appendix is divided in two sections. The Harvested fish section describes seven species that 

are, or have been, targeted by subsistence, sport, and/or commercial fisheries within the fresh 

waters of the Nushagak and Kvichak river drainages, and that are well distributed across the two 

drainages. The Other species section covers, in less detail, the remaining species that are not 

major targets of local fisheries or species that are not broadly distributed across the watersheds, 

but that nonetheless play important ecological roles in the Nushagak and Kvichak river 

drainages. The relative lack of directed studies limits the information available on the abundance, 

life history, and ecology of many non-harvested fish species.

HARVESTED FISH

Each of the species described in this section: northern pike, humpback whitefish, rainbow trout, 

Arctic char, Dolly Varden, lake trout, and Arctic grayling, are distributed across much of both 

the Nushagak and Kvichak river drainages. Unlike the obligate anadromous1 Pacific salmon 

populations of the Nushagak and Kvichak river drainages, in which essentially all individuals 

migrate from natal lakes and streams to the sea to feed and grow, individual fish in these seven 

species do not need to journey to marine waters to successfully complete their life cycle, 

although some individuals of certain species (e.g., Dolly Varden and humpback whitefish) may. 

Also unlike the North American Pacific salmon, individuals in each of these seven species can

1 Among migratory fishes, Myers (1949) defined, in part, the following distinct movement patterns:

Diadromous. Fishes which migrate between the sea and fresh water.

Anadromous. Diadromous fishes which spend most of their lives in the sea and migrate to fresh water to breed. [A 

pattern expressed by many Alaska fishes].

Catadromous. Diadromous fishes which spend most of their lives in fresh water and migrate to the sea to breed.

[Not a pattern expressed by Alaska fishes].

Amphidromous. Diadromous fishes whose migration from fresh water to the sea, or vice-versa, is not for the 

purpose of breeding, but occurs regularly at some other definite stage of the life-cycle. [A pattern expressed by a 

few primarily marine Alaska fishes (e.g., starry flounder)].

Potamodromous. Fishes whose migrations occur wholly within fresh water. [A pattern expressed by many Alaska 

fishes].

- 1 -

 
Table Appendix B-1.Fish species2,3 reported in the Nushagak and Kvichak river drainages (ADF&G 2012b; Bond 

and Becker 1963; Burgner et al. 1965; Fall et al. 2006; Krieg et al. 2009; Mecklenburg et al. 2002; Morrow 1980b; 

Russell 1980).

Scientific/Common

Family Name Common Name Scientific Name

Principal 

Migratory 

Patterns4

Relative Abundance Abundance relative to 

other Bristol Bay basins

Petromyzontidae/

lampreys

Arctic lamprey Lethenteron 

camtschaticum5

Anadromous

Juveniles common/widespread in 

sluggish flows where fine sediments 

accumulate6

Unknown, presumably 

Alaskan brook similar

lamprey

L. alaskense5 Nonanadromous

Pacific lamprey Entosphenus 

tridentatus5

Anadromous Rare Unknown, presumably 

similar. Not known 

west of Nushagak 

drainage

Catostomidae/

suckers

longnose sucker Catostomus 

catostomus

Nonanadromous Common in slower flows in larger 

streams

Unknown, presumably 

similar

Esocidae/pikes northern pike Esox lucius Nonanadromous Common/widespread in still or 

sluggish waters

Unknown, presumably 

similar

Umbridae/

mudminnows

Alaska blackfish Dallia pectoralis Nonanadromous Locally common/abundant in still or 

sluggish waters in flat terrain

Unknown, presumably 

similar

Osmeridae/smelts rainbow smelt Osmerus mordax Anadromous Seasonally abundant in streams near 

the coast

Unknown, presumably 

similar

pond smelt Hypomesus olidus Nonanadromous Locally common in coastal lakes 

and rivers, Iliamna Lake, inlet 

spawning streams, and the upper 

Kvichak River; abundance varies 

widely interannually

Unknown, presumably 

similar

eulachon Thaleichthys 

pacificus

Anadromous No or few specific reports; if 

present, distribution appears limited 

and abundance low

Unknown, presumably 

similar

Salmonidae/salmonids Bering cisco Coregonus 

laurettae

Nonanadromous 

and Anadromous7

Rare? Very few specific reports Unknown; perhaps 

more abundant than 

elsewhere

humpback 

whitefish

C. pidschian Nonanadromous 

and Anadromous7

Common in large upland lakes; 

locally and seasonally common in 

large rivers

Unknown; perhaps 

more abundant than 

elsewhere

least cisco C. sardinella Nonanadromous 

and Anadromous7

Locally common in some lakes 

(e.g., Lake Clark, morainal lakes 

near Iliamna Lake); less common in 

Iliamna Lake and large slow moving 

rivers such as the Chulitna, 

Kvichak, and lower Alagnak

Unknown; perhaps 

more abundant than 

elsewhere

pygmy whitefish Prosopium 

coulterii

Nonanadromous Locally common in a few upland 

lakes

Unknown, presumably 

similar

round whitefish P. cylindraceum Nonanadromous Abundant/widespread throughout

larger streams in upland drainages; 

but not in headwaters or coastal 

plain

Unknown, presumably 

similar

-continued2 Does not include primarily marine species that periodically venture into the lower reaches of coastal Bristol Bay streams. 3 No species listed here has either Federal or State of Alaska special status (e.g., endangered, threatened) except that the State of Alaska has 

identified Kvichak sockeye salmon as a stock of yield concern (ADF&G 2012c). 4 Anadromous: fishes that spawn in fresh waters and migrate to marine waters to feed; Nonanadromous: fishes that spend their entire life in 

fresh waters, with possible migrations between habitats within a drainage (potamodromous and nonmigratory freshwater fishes); 

Nonanadromous and Anadromous: fish populations in which some individuals have nonanadromous migratory patterns and some have 

anadromous migratory patterns. 5 Nomenclature follows Brown et al. (2009).

6 Juveniles, the most commonly encountered life stage, of Arctic and Alaska brook lamprey are morphologically indistinguishable, so these two 

species are combined here. 7 Anadromy known elsewhere in Alaska, but not verified within either the Nushagak or Kvichak river drainages.

- 2 -

 
Table Appendix B-1.-Page 2 of 2.

Scientific/Common

Family Name Common Name Scientific Name

Principal 

Migratory

Patterns

Relative Abundance Abundance relative to other 

Bristol Bay basins

Salmonidae/salmonids

(continued)

coho salmon Oncorhynchus 

kisutch

Anadromous Juveniles abundant/widespread in 

Nushagak drainage upland flowing 

waters and in some Kvichak R. 

tributaries downstream of Iliamna 

Lake; present in some Iliamna 

Lake tributaries; not recorded in 

the Lake Clark drainage

More abundant in Nushagak 

drainage than elsewhere in 

Bristol Bay, except for the 

North Alaska Peninsula 

Basin

Chinook salmon O. tshawytscha Anadromous Juveniles abundant and 

widespread in upland flowing 

waters of the Nushagak River 

watershed and in the Alagnak 

River; infrequent upstream of 

Iliamna Lake

More abundant in Nushagak 

drainage than elsewhere in 

Bristol Bay

sockeye salmon O. nerka Anadromous Abundant More abundant than 

elsewhere, comparable to 

Egegik basin.

chum salmon O. keta Anadromous Abundant in Nushagak drainage 

upland flowing waters and in some 

Kvichak R. tributaries downstream 

of Iliamna Lake. Infrequent

upstream of Iliamna Lake.

More abundant than 

elsewhere

pink salmon O. gorbuscha Anadromous Abundant, in even years, in 

Nushagak drainage, with restricted 

distribution, and in some Kvichak 

R. tributaries downstream of 

Iliamna Lake. Rare upstream of 

Iliamna Lake.

More abundant than 

elsewhere in even years

rainbow trout O. mykiss Nonanadromous8 Frequent/common; closely 

associated during summer with 

spawning salmon

More abundant/larger body 

size than much of Bristol 

Bay

Arctic char Salvelinus alpinus Nonanadromous Locally common in upland lakes Unknown, presumably 

similar

Dolly Varden S. malma Nonanadromous 

and Anadromous

Abundant in upland headwaters 

and selected lakes

Unknown, presumably 

similar

lake trout S. namaycush Nonanadromous Common in larger upland lakes 

and seasonally present in lake 

outlets; absent from the Wood 

River lakes

Unknown, presumably 

similar

Arctic grayling Thymallus 

arcticus

Nonanadromous Abundant/widespread Unknown, presumably 

similar

Gadidae/cods burbot Lota lota Nonanadromous Infrequent to common in deep, 

sluggish or still waters

Unknown, presumably 

similar

Gasterosteidae/ 

sticklebacks

threespine 

stickleback

Gasterosteus 

aculeatus

Nonanadromous 

and Anadromous

Locally abundant in still or 

sluggish waters; abundant in 

Iliamna Lake

Unknown, presumably 

similar

ninespine 

stickleback

Pungitius 

pungitius

Nonanadromous Abundant/widespread in still or 

sluggish waters

Unknown, presumably 

similar

Cottidae/sculpins coastrange sculpin Cottus aleuticus Nonanadromous

Abundant/widespread9 Unknown, presumably 

slimy sculpin C. cognatus Nonanadromous similar

8 In Bristol Bay, anadromous individuals (steelhead) are known to spawn and rear only in the North Alaska Peninsula basin (Figure 2-3). 9 These two sculpin species are not reliably or frequently distinguished in field collections; slimy sculpin is thought to be the more abundant and 

widely distributed species (Bond and Becker 1963).

- 3 -

 
survive to spawn more than once (they are iteroparous, Stearns 1992, p. 180) and, compared to

salmon, have longer potential life spans (see the following species descriptions). 

Northern pike Esox lucius 

Freshwater distribution and habitats 

The Northern pike has a circumpolar distribution across the northern hemisphere and is the only 

species in the family Esocidae that has colonized arctic waters (Crossman 1978). In North 

America northern pike inhabit lakes and low gradient rivers from the Arctic Ocean south to the 

Missouri and Mississippi river drainages, and from the North Atlantic Ocean west to the Rocky 

Mountains (Scott and Crossman 1998, p. 357). In Alaska, northern pike are native primarily 

north of the Alaska Range, including waters of the Nushagak and Kvichak river drainages 

(Mecklenburg et al. 2002, p. 144; Morrow 1980b, p. 168), but were illegally introduced and are 

now established in several regions south of the Alaska Range, particularly in the Susitna River 

drainage (Rutz 1999, p. 1). In Bristol Bay, northern pike occur in coastal plain lakes (Hildreth 

2008, p. 9), inland lakes (Burgner et al. 1965, p. 4; Dye et al. 2002, p. 1; Russell 1980, p. 87), 

and river systems (ADF&G 2012) providing suitable habitat. The Nushagak and Nuyakuk river 

mainstems, Lake Aleknagik, and the Lake Clark drainage (Figure 2-4 in main assessment report) 

support the largest sport fisheries within the Nushagak and Kvichak river drainages (Jennings et 

al. 2011, p. 126, 128). 

Northern pike primarily spawn in sections of lakes, wetlands, or very low gradient streams 

providing shallow (less than 1 m), slow or still waters with soft substrates and aquatic vegetation 

(Cheney 1971d, p. 13; Chihuly 1979, p. 48, 57; Dye et al. 2002, p. 5, 6-7; Russell 1974. p. 42; 

Rutz 1999, p. 15). Summer habitat is in slightly deeper, but still warm water with dense aquatic 

vegetation (Chihuly 1979, p. 46, 58; Dye et al. 2002, p. 5; Joy and Burr 2004, p. 22; Roach 1998, 

p. 3; Rutz 1999, p. 9). In southcentral Alaska’s Susitna River drainage, river-dwelling northern 

pike are often found in side sloughs where water temperatures are several degrees warmer than 

the adjacent main channel (Rutz 1999, p. 19). Among the large, deep, cold, glacially-formed 

lakes of the Nushagak and Kvichak river drainages, shallow, vegetated habitats are scarce, 

making those found in Lake Clark’s Chulitna Bay and the shallow bays of Lake Aleknagik 

particularly important northern pike concentration areas (Chihuly 1979, p. 48; Dye et al. 2002, p. 

6-7; Russell 1980, p. 91). 

Northern pike overwinter in lakes, spring-fed rivers, or larger deep rivers where there is likely to 

be sufficient water and oxygen to survive until spring (Dye et al. 2002, p. 5; Roach 1998, p. 18-

21; Scanlon 2009, p. 17; Taube and Lubinski 1996, p. 5-8). Water depth beneath winter ice may 

be 0.8 m or less (Taube and Lubinski 1996, p. 8). In winter, local residents ice fish for northern 

pike along the large rivers of the Nushagak and Kvichak river drainages (Krieg et al. 2009, p. 

135, 220, 215, 344). 

Life cycle

At spring ice-out in Lake Aleknagik, in the Nushagak River drainage, large fish are in water 1 to 

1.5 m deep and within 10 m of shore. In late May to mid-June, as water temperatures rise to 

about 6 °C, mature fish move inshore to spawn in brush and aquatic vegetation (Dye et al. 2002. 

p. 5). Female northern pike can produce over 100,000 adhesive 3-mm diameter ova, which they 

scatter in small batches among aquatic vegetation or rocks, while an attending male fertilizes 

- 4 - 
them. Neither females nor males construct redds (Morrow 1980b, p. 166-167; Scott and 

Crossman 1998, p. 359). After spawning, as Lake Aleknagik water temperatures rise above 8 °C, 

fish move slightly offshore, to 1 to 3 m of water, but remain in the bays where they spawned, 

moving little for the remainder of the summer (Dye et al. 2002, p. 5). As water levels and 

temperatures drop in mid-September through October, fish move out of shallow bays to depths

of 3 to 5 m in the main lake and then move little until the following spring (Dye et al. 2002, p. 5).

Mature northern pike living in Alaska river systems and river-lake complexes ascend tributaries 

in spring, beneath the ice. Spawning occurs from mid-May to early July as ice melts in sidechannel slack waters or lake margins. After spawning, mature pike move to deeper water to feed,

where they remain until moving in September and October to lakes, spring-fed streams, and 

larger, deeper rivers where they overwinter (Cheney 1971d, p. 13-14; Cheney 1972, p. 5; 

Chythlook and Burr 2002, p. 13; Kepler 1973, p. 75; Russell 1980, p. 91; Taube and Lubinski 

1996, p. 6-8).

Northern pike eggs hatch in less than a month. At hatching, fry are 6 to 9 mm long, and have a 

yolk sac, but no mouth. Before they start actively feeding, fry cling to the substrate, debris, or 

vegetation for around 10 days, absorbing their yolk sacs while their mouths develop (Morrow 

1980b, p. 167; Scott and Crossman 1998, p. 359). In Nushagak and Kvichak river drainage lakes, 

young-of-the-year northern pike are actively swimming by at least late June to early July and 

grow rapidly through the summer (Chihuly 1979, p. 32, 34; Russell 1980, p. 91, 93). In river 

systems, fry remain near or downstream of spawning areas (Cheney 1971d, p. 13). In interior 

Alaska, age-0 fish reach a mean length of 140 mm by September (Cheney 1972, p. 15). In Lake 

Aleknagik, northern pike grow rapidly to about age 4 and a total length of around 419 mm, then 

growth slows to about an average of 25 mm per year (Chihuly 1979, p. 27-28, 33). Some male 

northern pike in Lake Aleknagik mature at age 3, and by around age 5 and lengths of 

approximately 438 to 469 mm, all fish are mature (Chihuly 1979, p. 34).

Many mature northern pike do not travel far (Chihuly 1979, p. 64; Dye et al. 2002, p. 5; Joy and 

Burr 2004, p. 25; Rutz 1999, p. 8), but some river-system individuals make extensive seasonal 

migrations between spawning, feeding, and overwintering areas (Scanlon 2009, p. 11), 

sometimes moving at least 290 km per year (180 mi per year, Cheney 1971a, p. 7). Mature 

northern pike may disperse through the summer and then aggregate prior to moving to 

overwintering locations and while overwintering (Roach 1998, p. 14). Mature northern pike 

show high fidelity to spawning (Joy and Burr 2004, p. 29; Roach 1998, p. 13) and winter areas 

(Scanlon 2009, p. 20; Taube and Lubinski 1996, p. 8) and moderate fidelity to summer feeding 

areas (Taube and Lubinski 1996, p. 8). Because fish must exceed a minimum size before they 

can be successfully tracked with standard telemetry methods, most movement studies are limited 

to bigger individuals and seasonal movements of immature Alaska northern pike are largely 

unknown.

Mature females often tend to be larger than males of the same age (Clark et al. 1988, p. 22, 25;

Pearse 1991, p. 36; Rutz 1999, p. 9), but males appear to have a greater mortality rate (Cheney 

1971c, p. 17; Chihuly 1979, p. 26; Pearse 1991, p. 36). In the Nushagak and Kvichak river 

drainages, northern pike can reach total lengths of at least 1.04 m, weights in excess of 7 kg, and 

ages of 18 years (Chihuly 1979, p. 33, 37; Dye et al. 2002, p. 6; Russell 1980, p. 92, 93). In the 

- 5 -
Yukon River drainage, fish can reach 1.2 m in length (Scanlon 2009, p. 20), and 26 years in age 

(Cheney 1971c, p. 15). 

Predator–prey relationships

Northern pike are highly adaptable predators able to consume a wide range of invertebrates and 

vertebrates, but they are particularly efficient consumers of fish (Craig 2008). Where they are 

available, a wide variety of fish dominate the diet of larger Nushagak and Kvichak river 

drainages northern pike, including Alaska blackfish, round whitefish, least cisco, smaller 

northern pike, ninespine and threespine stickleback, juvenile sockeye salmon, Arctic char, 

pygmy whitefish, sculpins, longnose suckers, and lake trout (Chihuly 1979, p. 79-86; Russell 

1980, p. 95-97). The diet of larger northern pike illegally introduced into southcentral Alaska’s 

Susitna River drainage was dominated by coho and sockeye salmon, whitefish species, 

stickleback species, and rainbow trout (Rutz 1999, p. 17). Immediately after hatching, young-ofthe-year fry eat zooplankton and immature aquatic insects, but quickly transition to small 

sticklebacks and other small fish (Chihuly 1979, p. 85-88; Morrow 1980b, p. 167). Northern pike 

smaller than 200 mm feed substantially on invertebrates; fish over 400 mm eat invertebrates 

(e.g., crustaceans, leeches, beetle larvae, and mollusks, Russell 1980, p. 95-97) only incidentally 

(Cheney 1972, p. 29; Chihuly 1979, p. 79-88). Northern pike diets are adaptable and can include 

a wide variety of foods in the absence of fish prey, although growth rates are then lower (Cheney 

1971b, p. 23). Northern pike are keystone predators and often the greatest predator of northern 

pike are larger northern pike (Cheney 1972, p. 27; Chihuly 1979, p. 82; Craig 2008). 

Abundance and harvest

Total abundance of northern pike in the Nushagak and Kvichak river drainages is unknown. Dye 

et al. (2002, p. 6) estimated that in 1998 and 1999, the abundance of northern pike longer than 

299 mm in Lake Aleknagik was more than 11,580. Chulitna Bay on Lake Clark has supported a 

large subsistence fishery; in June 1978 an estimated 350 to 500 large northern pike were 

harvested from Turner Bay at the head of Chulitna Bay (Russell 1980, p. 91). In the mid-2000s, 

residents in ten of the Nushagak and Kvichak river drainage villages annually harvested an 

estimated 4,385 northern pike (Fall et al. 2006, p. 45, 80, 113, 150, 194; Krieg et al. 2009, p. 40, 

78, 118, 162, 202), and they were the most important non-salmon fish in four of those villages 

(Fall et al. 2006, p. 152; Krieg et al. 2009, p. 46, 124, 171). From the mid-1970s to the mid2000s, northern pike were estimated to represent between 9.9 and 14.1% of the total weight of 

the Kvichak River drainage non-salmon freshwater fish subsistence harvest (Krieg et al. 2005, p. 

214). In 2009, sport anglers caught an estimated 8,217 northern pike in the Nushagak and 

Kvichak river drainages and the adjacent Togiak River (Figure 2-3 in main assessment report) 

drainage (10% of the statewide total) and harvested (kept) an estimated 1,177 (6% of the 

statewide total; Jennings et al. 2011, p. 75). Annual sport harvests have declined, due at least in 

part to both lower bag limits and the increasing popularity of catch-and-release fishing (Dye and 

Schwanke 2009, p. 6). In 1966 and 1967, an experimental freshwater commercial fishery on 

Tikchik Lake harvested 316 northern pike, the third-most commonly harvested fish (6% of total 

number of fish harvested; Yanagawa 1967, p. 10). 

Stressors

Because northern pike are long-lived, have a piscivorous diet, and prefer relatively warm water, 

they bioaccumulate and biomagnify atmospherically deposited mercury, and tissue mercury 

- 6 - 
concentrations correlate strongly with length and age (Headlee 1996; Mueller et al. 1996, p. 36). 

Lindesjöö and Thulin (1992) reported that wild northern pike exposed to pulp mill effluents 

developed severe jaw deformities. They did not determine if the deformities were directly caused 

by constituents of the effluents, if the deformities resulted from a secondary reduction of 

dissolved oxygen (DO) levels, or through some other mechanism. Northern pike are highly 

tolerant of low DO levels. In laboratory experiments, juvenile northern pike survived DO levels 

down to at least 0.25 mg∙l-1 (Petrosky and Magnuson 1973). 

Casselman (1978) found that, for a Canadian stock of northern pike, maximum summer growth 

occurred at 19 °C, growth stopped at 28 °C, and 29.4 °C was the upper incipient lethal 

temperature. For an Ohio stock, Bevelhimer et al. (1985) reported maximum summer growth 

occurred at 25 °C and that northern pike continued to grow at 30 °C. Combined, these results 

suggest a possible latitudinal cline in temperature tolerances and optimal and lethal temperatures 

for Nushagak and Kvichak river drainages northern pike may be lower than those reported by 

Casselman (1978). 

Humpback whitefish Coregonus pidschian

The taxonomic status of humpback whitefish remains unsettled. Some sources (e.g., 

Mecklenburg et al. 2002, p. 180; Morrow 1980b, p. 24) distinguish three separate Alaska 

whitefish species (lake C. clupeaformis, Alaska C. nelsonii, and humpback C. pidschian) based 

on gill raker counts; other authors (e.g., Alt 1979; Brown 2006, p. 2; McDermid et al. 2007)

consider them a single variable species (the C. clupeaformis complex). This appendix treats the 

three forms synonymously. In addition, Bernatchez and Dodson (1994) suggest that this species 

should be considered synonymous with the European whitefish C. lavaretus. 

Freshwater distribution and habitats

In combination with the European whitefish, the humpback whitefish has a circumpolar 

distribution across the northern hemisphere (Bernatchez and Dodson 1994). In North America, 

the humpback whitefish freshwater range extends from the Arctic Ocean coastal plain south to 

near Canada’s southern border, and from the Atlantic seaboard to the Bering Strait (Scott and 

Crossman 1998, p. 271). Humpback whitefish are found in lakes, streams, and brackish water 

across much of Alaska, primarily north of the Alaska Range (Alt 1979; Mecklenburg et al. 2002, 

p. 186-188). In the Nushagak and Kvichak river drainages, humpback whitefish are reported in 

deeper lakes, mainstem rivers, and slow-flowing tributaries (ADF&G 2012; Burgner et al. 1965, 

p. 4, 5; Fall et al. 2006, p. 321, 337, 354, 381; Krieg et al. 2009, p. 301, 318, 339, 365, 370; 

Metsker 1967, p. 6; Russell 1980, p. 72-76; Woody and Young 2007, p. 8; Yanagawa 1967, p. 

12). 

In northwest Ontario, lake spawning sites were found in nearshore areas at average depths of 2.7 

to 3.5 m; primarily over boulders, cobbles, and detritus (Anras et al. 1999). In western and 

interior Alaska, stream spawning sites are in spatially discrete reaches, often glacially-fed, with 

moderate to high gradients, moderate to swift currents, and gravel substrates (Alt 1979; Brown 

2006, p. 25-26; Harper et al. 2009, p. 17; Kepler 1973, p. 71). In interior Alaska’s Chatanika 

River, fish spawn in water 1.3 to 2.6 m deep, flowing at approximately 0.5 m∙s-1 (Kepler 1973, p. 

71). 

- 7 - 
After spawning, adults migrate downstream to more slowly flowing waters with fine substrates 

(Brown 2006, p. 26). In Canada’s Mackenzie River system, overwintering locations are in deep 

mainstem channels or delta areas (Reist and Bond 1988). Lakes and sloughs supporting summer 

feeding aggregations in southcentral and interior Alaska are well connected to mainstem 

channels, ensuring that feeding fish can reliably enter in spring and exit in late summer during 

migrations from and to spawning and overwintering areas (ADF&G 1983b, p. G-15; ADF&G 

2006, p. 31). 

In early August, apparently mature fish were collected in the lower Swan River), about 2 km 

upstream of the confluence with the Koktuli River (ADF&G 2012, sites FSN0604A02, 

FSN0604A04), and mature fish were collected at the mouth of Koggiling Creek, at its confluence 

with the lower Nushagak River (ADF&G 2012, sites FSN0607C08, FSN0607C10). The 

stomachs of most of the Koggiling Creek fish were empty (Wiedmer unpublished). These fish 

may have recently left summer feeding lakes in the Swan River and Koggiling Creek drainages 

and were staging before beginning their upstream spawning migration (see Life cycle and 

Predator-prey discussions below). 

In late August, apparently mature and perhaps larger immature fish were collected in small

upland lakes draining to the upper North Fork Koktuli River (ADF&G 2012, sites 

PEB91NK011, PEB91NK019). Whether humpback whitefish overwinter in these lakes is not 

known. In fall, residents of the Nushagak and Kvichak river drainages harvest humpback 

whitefish in mainstem rivers, as the whitefish move upstream to spawn. In winter, residents also 

harvest humpback whitefish in Sixmile and Iliamna lakes, Lake Clark (Figure 2-4 in main 

assessment report), and mainstem rivers (Fall et al. 2006, p. 39, 200, 289, 321, 337, 354, 381; 

Krieg et al. 2009, p. 55, 135, 159, 178, 220, 301, 339, 365). 

In Alaska, the habitat preferences of juvenile humpback whitefish have been particularly difficult 

to define (Brown 2004, p. 19; Brown 2006, p. 25, 30; Brown et al. 2002, p. 18). In the lower 

Mackenzie River, nursery habitats and foraging areas for young-of-the-year are in delta lakes and 

main delta channels (Chang-Kue and Jessop 1992, p. 27). No young-of-the-year were found in 

main-channel rivers and streams in the Nushagak River drainage in August 2006 (ADF&G 

2012), suggesting either a year-class failure (Bogdanov et al. 1992) or that they were occupying 

off-channel habitats. In Lake Clark and adjacent lakes, juveniles were captured mostly in shallow 

(less than 3 m) nearshore areas, while larger fish were more broadly distributed (Woody and 

Young 2007, p. 8). 

Life cycle

North of the Nushagak and Kvichak river drainages, some humpback whitefish populations 

include anadromous individuals, but the proportion of anadromous individuals within 

populations appears to decrease with increasing distance from marine waters (Brown 2004, p. 

17; Brown 2006, p. 14; Harper et al. 2007, p. 11; Sundet and Pechek 1985, p. 34). Within the 

Nushagak and Kvichak river drainages, limited otolith isotope analyses have yet to reveal 

evidence for anadromy in fish collected in Lake Clark or the lower Nushagak River (Randy 

Brown, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fairbanks, personal communication; Woody and Young 

2007, p. 12). 

- 8 - 
In interior Alaska, large fish feed in lakes until late summer. They then move into mainstem 

rivers and stay near lake outlets for up to 3 weeks before beginning to migrate upstream to 

spawning areas in late August to early September. Most adults arrive in the spawning areas by 

mid-September, and spawning extends from late September to mid-October (Brown 2006, p. 26). 

Russell (1980, p. 72) reported spawning in late September in Nushagak and Kvichak river 

drainage lakes. Lake spawning in northwest Ontario occurs at temperatures between 2 and 6 °C, 

shortly before lake surfaces begin to freeze (Anras et al. 1999). Kepler (1973, p. 71) reported 

spawning in an interior Alaska stream from mid-September to early October, at temperatures 

ranging from 0 to 3 °C.

In interior Alaska, males mature at ages 4 to 6; females at ages 5 to 7 (Alt 1979; Brown 2006, p. 

28). Fish are reported to mature at lengths of about 310 to 380 mm (FL; Alt 1979; Brown 2004, 

p. 19; Brown 2006, p. 23; Chang-Kue and Jessop 1992, p. 17; Kepler 1973, p. 71), and age and 

length at maturity may vary among locations (Alt 1979; Brown 2004, p. 19; Chang-Kue and 

Jessop 1992, p. 17). Three females from the lower Nushagak River (ADF&G 2012, sites 

FSN0607C08, FSN0607C10) with fork lengths ranging from 435 to 460 mm were mature, while 

one 370-mm female was not (Wiedmer unpublished). In interior Alaska, females apparently 

spawn every year (Brown 2006, p. 29). Farther north, at least some females do not spawn every 

year, although males may (Brown 2004, p. 16, 17).

Humpback whitefish broadcast spawn instead of digging redds; after fertilization their 2- to 3-

mm diameter eggs sink and lodge in the interstitial spaces of the substrate (Anras et al. 1999; 

Morrow 1980b, p. 36, 38; Scott and Crossman 1998, p. 271). Fecundity of interior Alaska 

humpback whitefish ranges from 8,400 to 65,400 ova for females ranging in length from 320 to 

520 mm (Clark and Bernard 1992). The estimated fecundity of three mature females collected in 

August in the mouth of Koggiling Creek in the Nushagak River drainage (ADF&G 2012, Site 

FSN0607C10) fell within this range (Wiedmer unpublished).

In Siberian rivers, the time from spawning to hatching is about 185 to 190 days and survival 

from egg to fry appears to vary greatly from year to year (Bogdanov et al. 1992). Larval fish, 

weighing 4.9 to 6.3 mg, with lengths of 9 to 13 mm, drift downstream immediately after hatching 

(Bogdanov et al. 1992; Shestakov 1991). Studies in both Norway and Siberia found that these fry 

still have yolk sacs and do not begin feeding for the first several days of their downstream drift 

(Næsje et al. 1986; Shestakov 1991). In Siberia’s Anadyr River, larvae drift downstream for two 

to three weeks, from late May to early June (Shestakov 1991; Shestakov 1992). The scale and 

speed of downstream migrations correlate with increases in river discharge (Bogdanov et al. 

1992; Næsje et al. 1986; Shestakov 1991). Russell (1980, p. 72) observed fry in the shallows of 

Kvichak River drainage lakes by mid-June.

In interior Alaska and northern Canada, immature fish, from age 0 to about age 4, appear to rear 

far downstream of spawning areas in off-channel sites such as deltas, lakes, and sloughs, or in 

mainstem eddies (Brown 2006, p. 31; Reist and Bond 1988). Age-0 juveniles in the Anadyr 

River primarily inhabit lakes that connect to the mainstem during spring high flows (Shestakov 

1992). By mid-July, age-0 fish reach 43 mm, with growth faster in floodplain lakes than in 

streams (Shestakov 1992).

- 9 -
In the Nushagak and Kvichak river drainages, humpback whitefish reach at least age 27 and 

lengths to 584 mm (Woody and Young 2007, p. 8). Elsewhere, maximum age can be up to 57 

years (Power 1978). In interior Alaska, maturing and mature fish show fidelity to both summer 

feeding (Brown 2006, p. 21; Brown et al. 2002, p. 16; Harper et al. 2007, p. 14; Harper et al. 

2009, p. 11, 17), and fall spawning areas, which can be more than 600 km apart (Harper et al. 

2007, p. 15; Harper et al. 2009, p, 30). 

Predator–prey relationships

Large humpback whitefish from Nushagak and Kvichak river drainage lakes feed predominantly 

on benthic invertebrates, particularly mollusks, chironomids (non-biting midges), planktonic 

crustaceans, and caddis fly larvae (Metsker 1967, p. 29; Russell 1980, p. 76), but will apparently

feed on salmon eggs and small fry when available (Van Whye and Peck 1968, p. 37; Woody and 

Young 2007, p. 13). Adults preparing to spawn stop eating earlier than mature non-spawners, 

and large humpback whitefish feed little during the spawning migration and while overwintering 

(Brown 2004, p. 21; Brown et al. 2002, p. 16). In lakes, young-of-the-year fry initially feed 

primarily on planktonic crustaceans (Claramunt et al. 2010; Hoyle et al. 2011). After they reach 

lengths greater than 40 mm, their diet transitions to benthic macroinvertebrates, particularly 

chironomids (Claramunt et al. 2010). 

Round whitefish and Arctic grayling feed on humpback whitefish eggs (Brown 2006, p. 23; 

Kepler 1973, p. 71), and other species likely do as well. Humpback whitefish are vulnerable to 

predation by piscivorous fish, such as lake trout (Van Whye and Peck 1968, p. 37) and in the 

Nushagak and Kvichak river drainages, northern pike may be important predators (Russell 1980, 

p. 95).

Abundance and harvest

The total abundance of humpback whitefish in the Nushagak and Kvichak river drainages is not 

known. The estimated mid-2000s annual subsistence harvests in nine of the villages within the 

Nushagak and Kvichak river drainages totaled over 4,000 fish (Fall et al. 2006, p. 45, 80, 113, 

150, 194; Krieg et al. 2009, p. 40, 78, 118, 162, 202). From the mid-1970s to the mid-2000s, 

whitefish, the majority of which were humpback whitefish, were estimated to represent between 

8.3 to 26.8% of the total weight of the Kvichak River drainage non-salmon freshwater fish 

subsistence harvest (Krieg et al. 2005, p. 214). 

The 2009 estimated sport catch of all whitefish species in the Nushagak and Kvichak river 

drainages plus the Togiak River drainage was 1,118 fish (11% of the total statewide catch of all 

whitefish species excluding sheefish Stenodus leucichthys), and the estimated harvest was 520 

(18% of the total statewide harvest of all whitefish species, excluding sheefish; Jennings et al. 

2011, p. 76). In the mid-1960s, Iliamna Lake and Lake Clark supported a commercial humpback 

whitefish fishery (Metsker 1967, p. 8, 10). In 1966 and 1967, humpback whitefish comprised 

62% of the total number of fish harvested in a freshwater commercial fishery on Tikchik Lake

(Yanagawa 1967, p. 12). 

Stressors

Mature humpback whitefish aggregate in discrete spawning habitats, leaving them at risk to both 

acute events during fall spawning and chronic changes to spawning habitat (Brown 2006, p. 32). 

- 10 - 
Extreme high water events shortly before fall spawning may cause adult whitefish to leave 

spawning areas and delay spawning to another year (Underwood et al. 1998, p. 13). The 

spawning success of lake-dwelling whitefish is vulnerable to lake level manipulation during the 

winter incubating period (Anras et al. 1999) and to elevated substrate sedimentation (Fudge and 

Bodaly 1984). Age-0 fish are vulnerable to low flows in spring, which can prevent access to 

preferred floodplain lake habitats (Shestakov 1992). 

Mature humpback whitefish appear not to feed during spawning migrations or during the winter 

(Brown 2004, p. 21; Brown et al. 2002, p. 16). Almost all annual feeding occurs in summer, 

often in off-channel lakes and sloughs. Mature whitefish must have access to and from these offchannel habitats, both in spring to immigrate and in late summer to emigrate (Brown 2006, p. 26; 

Harper et al. 2007, p. 16). 

Fertilized eggs need cold water (optimally around 0.5 °C; Morrow 1980b) during development; 

eggs incubating in 10 °C waters suffer 99% mortality rates (Scott and Crossman 1998, p. 272). In 

an experiment mimicking Great Lakes summer conditions, Edsall (1999) found juvenile survival 

peaked at water temperatures of 10 to 15 °C and declined at lower and warmer temperatures and 

that juvenile growth peaked at 18.5 °C. For Great Lakes young-of-the-year acclimated to warmer 

waters, the upper lethal temperature was 26.6 °C (Edsall and Rottiers 1976). Metabolically, 

whitefish do not swim as efficiently as other salmonids (Bernatchez and Dodson 1985). 

Swimming performance peaks at around 12 °C and declines at lower temperatures. Bernatchez 

and Dodson (1985) speculate that the timing of seasonal migrations may be a function of the 

combined influence of seasonal stream velocities and temperatures. Optimal and lethal 

temperatures may be lower for Alaska populations. 

Rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss

Rainbow trout and steelhead are two forms of one species and belong to the same genus 

(Oncorhynchus) as the Pacific salmon. Rainbow trout is the common name for individuals with 

nonanadromous life histories and steelhead is the common name for individuals with 

anadromous life histories. Unlike the region’s Pacific salmon, southwest Alaska rainbow 

trout/steelhead are mostly nonanadromous. In Bristol Bay, the Alaska Department of Fish and 

Game (ADF&G) documents steelhead only in a few spawning streams near Port Moller, in the 

southwestern portion of the basin, outside the Nushagak and Kvichak river drainages (Johnson 

and Blanche 2012, Chignik and Port Moller 1:250,000 quadrangles). As no steelhead are known 

to occur in the fresh waters of the Nushagak and Kvichak river drainages (e.g., Russell 1977, p. 

44), they are not discussed further here. 

Freshwater distribution and habitats 

The native freshwater range of rainbow trout is largely restricted to Pacific Ocean drainages: in 

North America from Alaska’s Kuskokwim River system south to mountain drainages of central 

Mexico (MacCrimmon 1971, p. 664), and in Asia in the Kamchatka region (Froese and Pauly 

2012). Native rainbow trout in Alaska fresh waters are restricted to southwest, southcentral, and 

southeast Alaska, from the Holitna River region south to Dixon Entrance (Morrow 1980b, p. 78). 

Rainbow trout have been extensively and successfully transplanted outside their native range, 

including sites in interior Alaska (MacCrimmon 1971; Morrow 1980b, p. 51). While rainbow 

trout of the Nushagak and Kvichak river drainages are near the northern limit of their global 

native range, they are broadly distributed across the Nushagak and Kvichak river drainages,

- 11 - 
except in Lake Clark and its tributaries (Minard and Dunaway 1991, p. 2; Minard et al. 1998, p. 

32), and the Tikchik Lakes system, except for Tikchik Lake itself (Burgner et al. 1965, p. 11; 

Yanagawa 1967, p. 16-17). They are found in small streams to mainstem rivers and in lakes 

(ADF&G 2012; Meka et al. 2003).

Rainbow trout typically spawn in flowing water, but can spawn along lake shores, near 

groundwater upwellings (Northcote and Bull 2007). Rainbow trout in the Naknek River (Figure 

2-3 in main assessment report), downstream of several large lakes, spawn in fast water of the 

mainstem, with much of the spawning occurring in the transition between the upstream confined 

reach and the downstream unconfined reach (Gwartney 1982, p. 9; Gwartney 1985, p. 47). 

Females deposit eggs, which are immediately fertilized by males, into excavated redds (Morrow 

1980b, p. 51). In Lower Talarik Creek, Russell (1977, p. 9) reported that redds were dug in the 

gravel of side channels, near the upstream ends of islands, and in pool tails above riffles. Typical 

water depths at Lower Talarik Creek redd locations were less than 0.6 m and current velocities 

were 0.3 to 0.6 m∙s

-1

. The most suitable sites for rainbow trout spawning in southcentral Alaska’s 

Copper River system had water temperatures ranging from 2 to 9 °C, average depths ranging 

from 0.3 to 0.4 m, average current velocities of 0.5 to 0.7 m∙s

-1

, and substrate diameters ranging 

from 20 to 60 mm (Brink 1995, p.71-75). In northern Idaho, rainbow trout spawned after the 

peak of spring snowmelt, and redds had a mean area of 1.19 m2 (standard deviation (SD) = 0.62; 

range = 0.27 to 2.40 m2), a mean water depth at the pit head of 0.18 m (SD = 0.08; range = 0.05

to 0.38 m), and a mean water velocity at the pit head of 0.39 m∙s

-1 (SD = 0.15; range = 0.08 to 

0.67 m∙s

-1

) (Holecek and Walters 2007). Steelhead in Alaska’s Copper River, the size of large 

Nushagak and Kvichak river drainages rainbow trout, dug redds averaging 3.4 m2 in area (Brink 

1995, p. 125).

As the only spring-spawning member of its genus in the Nushagak and Kvichak river drainages, 

with eggs hatching later in the summer than other Bristol Bay freshwater fish, young-of-the-year 

rainbow trout have a very short time to complete incubation and initial growth before the onset 

of winter. Therefore, spawning and early rearing habitats may be limited to locations with 

warmer summer temperatures and abundant food, as fry size in late fall is positively related to 

winter survival (Smith and Griffith 1994). Spawning areas in southcentral Alaska’s Susitna and 

Copper river tributaries are often near lake outlets, presumably because of warmer water there 

(Brink 1995, p. 16-18, 99; Sundet and Pechek 1985, p. 37). Spawning begins in spring when 

Lower Talarik Creek water temperatures reach 2 to 3 °C, peaks at 4 to 7 °C, and stops at 

temperatures greater than 16 °C (Russell 1977, p. 12).

In streams, rainbow trout summer rearing density increases with pool depth and overhead cover 

(Bryant and Woodsmith 2009; Nakano and Kaeiryama 1995). Winter rearing density increases 

with increasing availability of multiple cover types (Bjornn and Reiser 1991, p. 135). In summer 

in southeast Alaska, rearing juveniles leave small tributaries and are relatively more abundant in 

larger streams (≥3rd order; sensu Strahler 1952, p. 1120). In spring and fall, juveniles are equally 

distributed in both headwater tributaries and larger streams (Bramblett et al. 2002). However, 

beginning in September, juvenile rainbow in Idaho move downstream from summer rearing to 

winter overwintering areas (Chapman and Bjornn 1968, p. 165). Given the very low winter flows 

and water temperatures in southwest Alaska low-order streams (e.g., USGS 2012), Nushagak and 

Kvichak river drainages juvenile rainbow trout may follow the movement pattern of Idaho fish. 

- 12 -
In southeast Alaska, juvenile rainbow trout rear in streams with gradients up to at least 16% 

(Bryant et al. 2004), but there are no reports of trout in such steep streams within the Nushagak 

and Kvichak river drainages (ADF&G 2012). In streams of southwestern Alaska, in spring and 

early summer before the arrival of adult salmon, large rainbow trout are lower in drainages, in 

slower velocity currents, often in sloughs (Alt 1986). Later in the summer the distribution of 

age-1 and older Alaska rainbow trout is closely tied to the distribution of spawning salmon (Alt 

1986; Brink 1995, p. 102, 104; Meka et al. 2003; Sundet and Pechek 1985, p. 39-40). In fall, 

after salmon spawning (except for coho) is complete, large southwestern Alaska rainbow trout 

occupy stream reaches with moderate currents and gravel substrates, often near grassy banks (Alt 

1986). Stream fish may congregate in discrete overwintering habitats with moderate currents, 

often in areas of groundwater upwelling (Sundet and Pechek 1985, p. 40), and in late winter 

rainbow trout appear to select areas with ice cover (Sundet 1986, p. 39). In general, groundwater 

influence may be an important habitat characteristic because in regions where they are nonnative, rainbow trout invasions can be limited to only groundwater-fed streams with stable flows 

(Inoue et al. 2009). 

Radio telemetry, tagging, and genetic studies indicate the presence of multiple rainbow trout 

populations, including resident and adfluvial forms, within Bristol Bay watersheds (Burger and 

Gwartney 1986, p. 22, 26; Gwartney 1985, p. 70-71; Krueger et al. 1999; Meka et al. 2003; 

Minard et al. 1992, p. 34; PLP 2011, p. 15.1-85). 

Life cycle

Rainbow trout spawning in the Bristol Bay region is associated with spring ice-out and occurs 

from late March through mid-June (Burger and Gwartney 1986, p. 22; Dye 2008, p. 21; 

Gwartney 1985, p. 45-46, 51; Minard et al. 1992, p. 2; PLP 2011, p. 15.1-85; Russell 1977, p. 

41). Pre-spawner movements to spawning tributaries begins prior to ice-out, in early March (Dye 

2008, p. 13). Within a given drainage, the timing of spawning can vary by several weeks 

depending on spatial and interannual stream temperature patterns (Burger and Gwartney 1986, p. 

22; Hartman et al. 1962, p. 195; Russell 1977, p. 12). While post-spawners are often in poor 

physical condition (Russell 1977, p. 15), rainbow trout in the Nushagak and Kvichak river 

drainages can spawn in consecutive years and some spawn at least three years in a row (Minard 

et al. 1992, p. 17, 22; Russell 1977, p. 15). 

In small lakes in southcentral Alaska, males matured at a smaller size than females and 

approximately one-third of males smaller than 178 mm (SL, standard length; 7 in) were mature. 

In this population most females did not mature until about 300 mm (SL; 12 in), while all males 

matured at about 250 mm (SL; 10 in) (Allin 1954, p. 36). In Moose Creek, in the Wood River 

lake system (Figure 2-4 in main assessment report), half of the fish over 376 mm (FL) were 

sexually mature (Dye 2008, p. 22). In Lower Talarik Creek, most spawners were ages 7 to 9

(Russell 1977, p. 17); in the upper Kvichak River, from 1989 to 1991, spawners were primarily 

ages 5 to 7 (Minard et al. 1992, p. 15). Fecundity of Lower Talarik Creek females (lengths 

ranging from 533 to 692 mm FL) averaged 3,431 (n = 16, SD = 1,053) and ova diameter 

averaged 5.5 mm (n = 25, SD = 0.6, Russell 1977, p. 18). In the Nushagak and Kvichak river 

drainages rainbow trout can reach at least age 14 (Minard and Dunaway 1991, p. 111, 189; 

determined by scale pattern analysis, a conservative measure; e.g., Sharp and Bernard 1988), 

with lengths to at least 814 mm (FL; Russell 1977, p. 30). 

- 13 - 
Post-spawning adults exhibit multiple movement patterns (Gwartney 1985, p. 68, 70; Meka et al. 

2003). In Bristol Bay watersheds, many adults migrate shortly after spawning in the inlet or 

outlet streams of large lakes to feeding areas in large lakes (Burger and Gwartney 1986, p. 20; 

Meka et al. 2003; Minard et al. 1992, p. 2; Russell 1977, p. 44). After a summer of feeding in 

lakes, from September through November these mature rainbow trout move back to, or near, lake 

inlets and outlets to overwinter (Burger and Gwartney 1986, p. 20; Meka et al. 2003; Minard et 

al. 1992, p. 2; Russell 1977, p. 32). In late summer, some large adults move from Iliamna Lake 

into tributaries to forage amongst the spawning sockeye salmon, and then return to Iliamna Lake 

(PLP 2011, p. 15.1-85). In the Wood River lakes system, mature rainbow trout from many 

spawning streams aggregate to feed in the inter-lake rivers and remain there, or nearby in the 

adjacent lakes, through the following winter (Dye 2008, p. 13). After spawning in tributaries to 

southcentral Alaska’s Susitna River, some mature rainbow trout remained near spawning areas, 

some moved downstream, some moved into other tributaries, and some moved upstream (Sundet 

and Pechek 1985, p. 39). Even in watersheds with large lakes, some fish may remain in outlet 

rivers year-round (Meka et al. 2003). Fish grow little in winter (Russell 1977, p. 32). 

While some mature fish may not undergo large seasonal migrations, others move considerable 

distances (Dye 2008, p. 15; Meka et al. 2003; Minard et al. 1992, p. 33; Russell 1977, p. 23), to 

at least 200 km (122 mi) or more (Burger and Gwartney 1986, p. 16). Meka et al. (2003) 

speculated that seasonal migrations may be longer in watersheds with large lakes than in 

watersheds without large lakes. In southwest Alaska’s Goodnews River, most adult fish moved 

less than 10 km throughout the year, and the movement that does occur is primarily upstream to 

spring spawning locations, and downstream to overwintering locations (Faustini 1996. p. 19-20). 

Incubating rainbow trout eggs develop much more rapidly than do those of salmon, and juveniles 

emerge from spawning gravels between mid-July and mid-August at about 28 mm long 

(ADF&G 2012, e.g., site FSN0616E01; Johnson et al. 1994; Russell 1977, p. 30). Juveniles grow 

quickly during late summer and early fall, nearly doubling their length by late September 

(Russell 1977, p. 30). Immature fish may remain in their natal stream for several years before 

moving to other habitats (Russell 1977, p.18, 22). 

In the Alagnak River (Figure 2-4 in main assessment report), within the Kvichak River drainage, 

Meka et al. (2003) distinguished three unique adult migratory patterns: lake-resident, lake-river, 

and river-resident. Each of these populations migrates seasonally, and Meka et al. (2003) 

suggested that Alagnak rainbow trout evolved these movements to take advantage of seasonal 

food sources (salmon eggs and carcasses) and warmer winter water temperatures. A similar 

pattern was observed in Upper Talarik Creek (PLP 2011, p. 15.1-85). Russell (1977, p. 37) noted 

that Lower Talarik Creek trout were in better condition following large Kvichak drainage 

sockeye salmon escapements than after small escapements.

Predator–prey relationships

The diet of rearing rainbow trout includes a broad range of aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates 

(Nakano and Kaeiryama 1995). When available, sockeye salmon eggs dominate rainbow trout 

diet in Lower Talarik Creek. While their diet is highly varied, other important Lower Talarik 

Creek rainbow trout food items includes aquatic dipterans (chironomids) and caddis fly larvae 

(Russell 1977, p. 36). Many larger Lower Talarik Creek rainbow trout appear to feed primarily in 

Iliamna Lake and not in the stream (Russell 1977, p. 35). In streams of the Nushagak and 

- 14 - 
Kvichak river drainages, Russell (1980, p. 103) reported that aquatic insects, salmon eggs, 

shrews and voles, unidentified fish and Chinook salmon fry, and salmon carcasses made up the 

bulk of the summer and fall diet of rainbow trout. 

In studies within the Nushagak and Kvichak river drainages, Scheuerell et al. (2007) reported 

that before the seasonal arrival of adult salmon, rainbow trout primarily feed on dipterans (39%), 

stoneflies (18%), mayflies (12%), and caddis flies (11%). When spawning sockeye salmon 

arrive, rainbow trout diet shifts to salmon eggs (64%), larval blowflies (which feed on salmon 

carcasses; (11%)), and salmon carcasses (9%). This diet shift in conjunction with seasonal 

salmon spawning activity increases rainbow trout energy intake more than five-fold (Scheuerell 

et al. 2007). 

In the laboratory, slimy sculpin, a ubiquitous species throughout the lakes and streams of the 

Nushagak and Kvichak river drainages, consume rainbow trout eggs (Fitzsimons et al. 2006). 

While Nushagak and Kvichak river drainages rainbow trout are certainly consumed by predators, 

they are not specifically identified in the diet of regional predatory fish (Metsker 1967, p. 26, 29; 

Russell 1980, p. 55-56, 62-63, 67, 73, 76, 81-83, 95-97, 103, 108), perhaps due in part to their 

comparatively low abundance relative to other available prey species. 

Abundance and harvest

In the Nushagak and Kvichak river drainages total rainbow trout abundance is unknown, but 

there have been population estimates of larger (those targeted by anglers) fish in selected 

streams. From 2,000 to 4,500 fish available to hook and line angling gather in the upper Kvichak 

River in spring (Minard et al. 1992, p. 30); an average of 950 fish spawn in Lower Talarik Creek 

(Russell 1977, p. 9); and 950 fish larger than 199 mm occur in the Tazimina River, north of 

Iliamna Lake (Schwanke and Evans 2005, p. 9). In the Wood River lakes system, counts have 

been as high as 13,700 rainbow trout larger than 250 mm in the Agulowak River and 2,400 

larger than 340 mm in the Agulukpak River (Dunaway 1993, p. 10, 24). 

In the Nushagak and Kvichak river drainages and the adjacent Togiak River drainage, sport 

anglers caught more rainbow trout in 2009 (an estimated 159,685, or 22% of the statewide total) 

than all other non-salmon fish species combined (Jennings et al. 2011, p. 69). In 2009 sport 

anglers harvested 225 rainbow trout within the Nushagak and Kvichak river drainages and 

adjacent Togiak River drainage (Jennings et al. 2011, p. 69). Annual sport harvests have 

declined, due at least in part to the increasing popularity of catch-and-release fishing (Dye and 

Schwanke 2009, p. 6). The State of Alaska’s Southwest Alaska Rainbow Trout Management 

Plan includes policies to manage Nushagak and Kvichak river drainages rainbow trout 

populations to maintain historic size and age composition without relying on hatcheries, to 

provide a range of harvest opportunities, and to economically develop the sport fishing industry 

while acknowledging the intrinsic value of the resource to Alaskans (Dye and Schwanke 2009, p. 

32). 

From the mid-1970s to the mid-2000s, rainbow trout were estimated to represent between 19 and 

30.9% of the total weight of the Kvichak River drainage non-salmon freshwater fish subsistence 

harvest (Krieg et al. 2005, p. 214). In the mid-2000s, villagers from nine of the Nushagak and 

Kvichak river drainage communities annually harvested, as part of their subsistence activities, an 

- 15 - 
estimated 3,740 rainbow trout (Fall et al. 2006, p. 45, 80, 113, 150, 194; Krieg et al. 2009, p. 40, 

78, 118, 162, 202). 

Stressors

Low pH (less than or equal to pH 5.5) impairs adult egg and sperm development and reduces 

early embryonic survival (Weiner et al. 1986). Pre-emergent embryo survival depends strongly 

on elevated DO concentrations and movement of groundwater through redds. Embryo survival is

minimal where mean DO is less than 5.2 mg∙l

-1

; at higher DO levels, embryo survival increases 

in relation to the velocity of intergravel flows greater than 5 cm∙h-1 (Sowden and Power 1985). 

Bjornn and Reiser (1991, p. 84, 85) concluded that upstream migrating large trout need stream 

depths no less than 0.18 m, velocities no more than 2.44 m∙s-1, and DO levels at least 80% of 

saturation and never less than 5.0 mg∙l

-1. For spawning rainbow trout in the central part of their 

North American range, Bell (1986, p. 96) recommended water temperatures between 2.2 and 20 

°C (36 to 68 °F), and optimally 10 °C (49.5 °F). Russell (1977, p. 12) observed that Lower 

Talarik Creek rainbows stopped spawning at stream temperatures above 16 °C. In the laboratory, 

at temperatures below 2.8 °C, age-0 fry become inactive and seek refuge within the stream 

substrate. At temperatures below 5.5 °C, fry stop feeding (Chapman and Bjornn 1968, p. 168). 

The survival of incubating embryos rapidly declines as the proportion of fines (sediments less 

than 6.35 mm in diameter) increases in spawning gravels, probably because the fines reduce 

intragravel flow (Bjornn and Reiser 1991, p. 99, 100). The success rate of fry emergence from 

spawning gravels and juvenile rearing density also declines with increasing proportion of fines in 

the substrate (Bjornn and Reiser 1991, p. 103, 132). Rainbow trout populations are particularly 

vulnerable when adult fish aggregate in spring spawning grounds and overwintering locations. 

Ten steelhead population segments in California, Oregon, and Washington are currently listed as 

threatened or endangered primarily due to the lack of access to their historic range that has 

resulted from constructed barriers to migration and to stream dewatering. Nonanadromous 

rainbow trout populations are not listed (NMFS 2006). 

Char

The Nushagak and Kvichak river drainages are home to three species of char: Arctic char, Dolly 

Varden, and lake trout. These char all spawn in fall. Bristol Bay Dolly Varden are often 

anadromous; Arctic char and lake trout are typically nonanadromous. The habitats of Dolly 

Varden and Arctic char occasionally overlap within the Nushagak and Kvichak river drainages, 

and when they do these species may hybridize (Taylor et al. 2008). 

Taxonomic distinctions between Arctic char and Dolly Varden historically have been 

inconsistent. Some earlier authors (e.g., Craig 1978; Craig and Poulin 1975; Yoshihara 1973)

called riverine and anadromous Alaska char “Arctic char” Salvelinus alpinus. More recent 

assessments suggest these fish are Dolly Varden (Behnke 1980, p. 454; Cavender 1980, p. 319-

320; Taylor et al. 2008). In general, researchers currently believe that the North American char 

west of Canada’s Mackenzie River living primarily in flowing water are Dolly Varden, and 

Arctic char (and lake trout) are largely limited to lakes and adjacent reaches of their inlet and 

outlet streams (Reist et al. 1996). 

- 16 - 
The State of Alaska’s 2012 edition of the Catalog of Waters Important for the Spawning, 

Rearing or Migration of Anadromous Fishes, or “Anadromous Waters Catalog” (AWC; e.g., 

Johnson and Blanche 2012) identifies Dolly Varden as the anadromous char across most of the 

state. However, in Bristol Bay the AWC identifies some streams as anadromous Dolly Varden 

habitat and some as anadromous Arctic char habitat. The AWC lists both anadromous Dolly 

Varden and anadromous Arctic char in the Kvichak River drainage, but only anadromous Arctic 

char in the Nushagak River drainage. These distinctions result from the history of regional 

variations in species naming and do not accurately reflect the ranges of different species and life 

histories. Current terminology labels the river-dwelling char of the Nushagak and Kvichak river 

drainages Dolly Varden. That is, the rivers and streams in the AWC currently designated as 

Arctic char habitat should, in almost all cases, be interpreted as Dolly Varden habitat. As a result 

of recent field work, ADF&G concluded that the Nushagak River, and the Koktuli River in 

particular, likely supported anadromous Dolly Varden (Schwanke 2007, p. 14). 

Arctic char Salvelinus alpinus

Freshwater distribution and habitats 

The Arctic char is a circumpolar species, distributed at high latitudes across the northern 

hemisphere (Brunner et al. 2001). In fresh water, Arctic char range closer to the North Pole than 

any other fish species (Johnson 1980, p. 16). In the fresh waters of North America, Arctic char 

are not typically far from the ocean. They range from Maine and New Hampshire north to the 

Canadian mainland Arctic Coast and through the Canadian Arctic archipelago (Scott and 

Crossman 1998, p. 203). The Alaska Arctic char distribution is disjunct. They occur in the 

Brooks Range, on the North Slope and the Seward Peninsula, in Bristol Bay, and a few other 

isolated locations in southcentral and interior Alaska (Mecklenburg et al. 2002, p. 199). Multiple 

distinct Arctic char races, differing in growth rate and migratory strategies, can occupy a single 

lake (Baroudy and Elliott 1994; Sandlund et al. 1992). 

Alaska Arctic char appear primarily restricted to lakes and adjacent reaches of their inlet and 

outlet streams in well-drained areas (Morrow 1980b, p. 58; Scanlon 2000, p. 56, 58; Taylor et al. 

2008, Wiedmer unpublished) and do not appear to undertake extensive seasonal migrations

outside their home lakes (McBride 1980, p. 17). However, some Alaska Arctic char are known to 

move 15 to 20 km upstream and downstream between connected lakes (Troyer and Johnson 

1994, p. 49) and Scanlon (2000, p. 43-48) suggested some move seasonally to estuarine or 

marine areas. Within the Nushagak and Kvichak river drainages, they are reported in the Tikchik 

and Wood River lakes, Iliamna Lake, and other upland lakes (Bond and Becker 1963; Burgner et 

al. 1965; Russell 1980, p. 49; Taylor et al. 2008), but they are apparently absent from Bristol 

Bay’s coastal tundra lakes (Hildreth 2008, p. 9). Metsker (1967, p. 23) believed that Intricate Bay 

in Iliamna Lake is a particularly important spawning area. Adults and juveniles are common in 

the east end of Iliamna Lake, but not in tributaries (Bond and Becker 1963). 

The depth of Arctic char lake spawning habitat can vary from 1 to 100 m (reviewed in Johnson 

1980, p. 44), but is often in gravel shoals less than 5 m deep (Klemetsen et al. 2003, p. 31). 

McBride (1980, p. 6) found Wood River lakes spawners concentrated in the mouths of small 

tributary streams. DeLacy and Morton (1943) concluded that Kodiak Island’s Karluk Lake 

Arctic char spawn in the lake and not in the tributary streams.

- 17 - 
During the spring and early summer, McBride (1980, p. 20) estimated that approximately 40% 

(approximately 65,000) of the Wood River lakes Arctic char population greater than 300 mm 

long congregated in the inlets and outlets of the inter-lake rivers to feed on the sockeye salmon 

smolt outmigration. In Bristol Bay’s Ugashik lakes (Figure 2-3 in main assessment report), 

Plumb (2006, p. 14-15) found Arctic char at depths greater than 75 m; but 90% of her catch was 

in waters less than 10 m deep. Fish sizes were not segregated by depth (Plumb 2006, p. 19-20). 

Similar to Dolly Varden (discussed below), Arctic char often occupy different habitats 

depending on the presence or absence of competitors (reviewed in Klemetsen et al. 2003, p. 29-

30).

Life cycle

Arctic char in Bristol Bay are thought to be primarily nonanadromous (e.g., Reynolds 2000, p. 

16), but Scanlon (2000, p. 43-48) suggested that some Becharof Lake Arctic char were 

anadromous. In Nushagak and Kvichak river drainage lakes, maturity is reached at around ages 3 

to 6, at a length of approximately 330 mm (FL; 13 in.) (Metsker 1967, p. 23; Russell 1980, p. 48, 

54). Metsker (1967, p. 23, 26) concluded that individual Iliamna Lake Arctic char spawned in 

alternating years, but McBride (1980, p. 16) provided evidence that at least some Lake 

Aleknagik Arctic char return annually to spawning locations. Wood River lakes Arctic char 

demonstrated high level of interannual fidelity to both spawning and feeding sites (McBride 

1980, p. 6, 8, 19). Lake Aleknagik Arctic char periodically provide eggs for Alaska’s sport fish 

hatcheries (Dunaway and Sonnichsen 2001, p. 138).

In the Nushagak and Kvichak river drainages Russell (1980, p. 48) found individuals ready to 

spawn in mid-September and McBride (1980, p. 6) collected Wood River lakes spawning fish

between mid-September and mid-October. Ripening females in Brooks Range lakes have ova 

diameters ranging from 1.6 to 4.7 mm and fecundity ranges from 3,200 to 4,000 ova (Troyer and 

Johnson 1994, p. 41). If the substrate is not too coarse (approximately 10 cm or more, 

Sigurjónsdóttir and Gunnarsson 1989) females excavate redds into which they deposit their ova, 

which males immediately fertilize (Johnson 1980, p. 45). The incubating eggs and alevins remain 

in spawning gravels until the following spring (summarized in Johnson 1980, p. 47-48). Bristol 

Bay Arctic char live at least 15 years (Plumb 2006, p. 19), are particularly slow growing (Russell 

1980, p. 48), reach fork lengths to at least 684 mm, and weights to at least 3.8 kg (Scanlon 2000, 

Appendix Table A). As with Dolly Varden, multiple migratory patterns and morphologies 

(Klemetsen et al. 2003, p. 36) occur with the basin (Russell 1980, p. 48; Scanlon 2000, p. 63-64). 

Tagging studies indicated that the Wood River lakes supported at least 20 discrete stocks 

(McBride 1980, p. 20).

Predator–prey relationships

The diet of young-of-the-year is poorly understood, but is thought in general to be dominated by 

small benthic and planktonic invertebrates (reviewed in Klemetsen et al. 2003, p. 32). In larger 

Brooks Range fish, planktonic crustaceans, insects, and snails were the most frequently 

occurring food items and fish were not an important part of the diet (Troyer and Johnson 1994, p. 

44). In Iliamna Lake, summer diet was dominated by snails (Bond and Becker 1963) and winter 

diet was dominated by threespine stickleback (Metsker 1967, p. 26, 28). In other Nushagak and 

Kvichak river drainage lakes, mollusks and caddis fly larvae were the dominant benthic 

organisms consumed (Russell 1980, p. 55-56). In summer, freshwater crustaceans dominated the 

- 18 -
diet of Ugashik Lakes Arctic char (Plumb 2006, p. 27) and crustaceans, sticklebacks, insects, 

pygmy whitefish, sculpins, and juvenile sockeye salmon dominated the diet of Becharof Lake 

Arctic char (Scanlon 2000, p. 51, 53-54).

In the Nushagak and Kvichak river drainages, larger Arctic char eat outmigrating sockeye 

salmon smolt, often in spring and early summer at lake outlets (McBride 1980, p. 1; Metsker 

1967, p. 29). Karluk Lake Arctic char eat mostly insects until the arrival of spawning sockeye, 

when their diet shifts to drifting salmon eggs, benthic invertebrates dislodged by salmon redd 

excavation, and adult salmon carcasses (DeLacy and Morton 1943).

Arctic char are eaten by other predatory fish, including lake trout (Troyer and Johnson 1994, p. 

42) and larger Arctic char (Klemetsen et al. 2003, p. 33). Mink Mustela vison eat mature Wood 

River lakes Arctic char when they have the opportunity (Dunaway and Sonnichsen 2001, p. 138).

Abundance and harvest

In the Nushagak and Kvichak river drainages total Arctic char abundance is unknown. Meacham 

(reported in McBride 1980, p. 20) estimated that in the 1970s the Wood River lakes supported 

between 135,000 and 210,000 (presumably larger) Arctic char. Russell (1980, p. 48, 49)

considered them common in some lakes in the Lake Clark area, but absent or rare in lakes of the 

upper Mulchatna River watershed and Lake Clark itself. In the mid-1960s, Iliamna Lake 

supported a commercial fishery and char made up 84% (2,979 kg, 6,553 lb) of the total dressed 

weight harvest (Metsker 1967, p. 9). These fish are thought to be mostly Arctic char (Bond and 

Becker 1963; Taylor et al. 2008).

Between 1971 and 1980, the annual estimated abundance of Arctic char larger than 249 mm 

ranged from 8,000 to 12,000 fish at the mouth of the Agulowak River and 4,300 to 7,800 fish at 

the mouth of the Agulukpak River (Minard et al. 1998, p. 131). By 1993 the estimated 

abundance of the Agulowak River population declined to only 5,400 fish, prompting a 

substantial reduction in bag limits and harvest means (Minard and Hasbrouck 1994, p. 13, 22).

While excessive sport harvests were thought to be responsible for the decline (Minard et al. 

1998, p. 16), anecdotal reports suggested that the more conservative sport harvest regulations 

were leading to the recovery of the stock (Dunaway and Sonnichsen 2001, p. 131). Minard et al. 

(1998, p. 16) also reported a similar apparently significant decline in Iliamna River stocks, both 

in overall abundance and in larger, older age classes. These observations prompted adoption of a 

catch-and-release fishing regulation.

The State of Alaska’s sport and subsistence fisheries statistics do not distinguish between Arctic 

char and Dolly Varden. Sport anglers caught an estimated 48,438 Arctic char/Dolly Varden in 

the Nushagak and Kvichak river drainages and the adjacent Togiak River system in 2009 (8% of 

the statewide total) and harvested (kept) an estimated 2,159 (5% of the statewide total; Jennings 

et al. 2011, p. 73). Arctic char/Dolly Varden consistently support the greatest sport harvest of 

any non-salmon freshwater fish in Bristol Bay (Dye and Schwanke 2009, p. 8). Sport harvests 

have declined, due at least in part to both lower bag limits and the increasing popularity of catchand-release fishing (Dye and Schwanke 2009, p. 6).

In the mid-2000s, villagers from ten of the Nushagak and Kvichak river drainage communities 

annually harvested, as part of their subsistence activities, an estimated 3,450 Arctic char and 

- 19 -
Dolly Varden combined (Fall et al. 2006, p. 45, 80, 113, 150, 194; Krieg et al. 2009, p. 40, 78, 

118, 162, 202). Arctic char and Dolly Varden combined were the most important non-salmon 

fish harvested in the villages of Iliamna, Newhalen, and Pedro Bay (Fall et al. 2006, p. 49, 84, 

117). From the mid-1970s to the mid-2000s, Arctic char/Dolly Varden were estimated to 

represent between 16.2 and 26.9% of the total weight of the Kvichak River drainage non-salmon 

freshwater fish subsistence harvest (Krieg et al. 2005, p. 214).

Stressors

Arctic char are not tolerant of warm water. In tests of European Arctic char, egg mortality was 

100% at temperatures at or above 12 to 13 °C (Jungwirth and Winkler 1984). Even when 

acclimated to water temperatures between 15 and 20 °C, pre-emergent fry could not survive 

exposures to temperatures above 26.6 °C for more than 10 minutes and could not survive 

temperatures over 21° C for more than a week (Elliott and Klemetsen 2002). Apparent overharvests have been implicated for historic population declines within the Nushagak and Kvichak 

river drainages (Minard et al. 1998, p. 16).

Dolly Varden Salvelinus malma

Dolly Varden is a highly plastic species: multiple genetically, morphologically, and ecologically 

distinct morphs (e.g., benthic specialist, riverine specialist, lacustrine generalist, specialized 

piscivore) can exist in the same water body (Ostberg et al. 2009). Researchers currently 

recognize two geographically distinct forms of Dolly Varden: northern and southern, based on 

differences in life history (Armstrong and Morrow 1980, p. 107-130), phenotype (Behnke 1980, 

465-466; Cavender 1980, p. 299-318), and genotype (Taylor et al. 2008). Dolly Varden in the 

Nushagak and Kvichak river drainages are of the northern form (Behnke 1980, p. 465).

Freshwater distribution and habitats

The global native freshwater range of Dolly Varden is restricted to waters draining to the 

Beaufort, Chukchi, and Bering seas and the North Pacific. The North American range extends 

from the Arctic coast of Alaska and Canada west of the Mackenzie River south to northern 

Washington. The Asian range stretches from the Chukotka Peninsula south to Japan and Korea 

(Mecklenburg et al. 2002, p. 200). In Alaska, Dolly Varden are found in waters draining to all 

coasts (Mecklenburg et al. 2002, p. 200) and the Alaska Peninsula (Figure 2-3 in main 

assessment report) divides the northern and southern forms (Behnke 1980, p. 453). Dolly Varden 

are known to occur widely in Bristol Bay, but their true distribution across the waters of the 

Nushagak and Kvichak river drainages is underreported. Within the Nushagak and Kvichak river 

drainages, popular sport fishing areas include the Alagnak, Newhalen, Nushagak, Mulchatna, 

and the Wood River–Tikchik Lakes systems (Minard et al. 1998, p. 188). 

As in southeast Alaska (Bryant et al. 2004), Nushagak and Kvichak river drainage Dolly Varden 

occur farther upstream in high-gradient headwater streams than other fish species (ADF&G 

2012, e.g., Site FSN0604E01). In both southeast Alaska (Bramblett et al. 2002; Wissmar et al. 

2010) and the Nushagak and Kvichak river drainages (ADF&G 2012, e.g., Site FSN0616E01; 

e.g., Tazimina Lakes, Russell 1980, p. 31-32, 73), nonanadromous Dolly Varden occur above 

migratory barriers that currently prevent access to anadromous salmon populations.

- 20 -
Spawning occurs well upstream from areas used for overwintering (DeCicco 1992). Northernform anadromous Dolly Varden overwinter primarily in lakes and in lower mainstem rivers 

where sufficient groundwater provides suitable volumes of free-flowing water (DeCicco 1997; 

Lisac 2009, p. 13, 15-16). In stream systems, spawning occurs in fast-flowing channels, 

primarily in upper reaches (Bramblett et al. 2002; Fausch et al. 1994; Hagen and Taylor 2001; 

Kishi and Maekawa 2009; Koizumi et al. 2006) and small, spring-fed tributaries (Hagen and 

Taylor 2001). Stream-resident Dolly Varden are reported to spawn in channels that are 1 to 3 m 

wide and 10 to 35 cm deep (Hino et al. 1990; Maekawa et al. 1993), with a mean depth of 9 cm, 

mean velocity of 21 cm∙s-1

, and median substrate diameter of 1.6 cm (Hagen and Taylor 2001). 

Stream-resident females select spawning sites where gravel is prevalent (Kitano and Shimazaki 

1995). Spawning site substrate and current velocity do not correlate significantly with female 

size, but redd depth does (Kitano and Shimazaki 1995). Anadromous individuals spawn in 

deeper water than nonanadromous fish, ranging from 20 to 60 cm (Blackett 1968). They 

construct redds approximately 30 cm long, 15 to 25 cm wide, and 15 cm deep (Blackett 1968); 

composite redds, potentially containing several individual nests can be up to 3.5 m long and 1.2 

m wide (Yoshihara 1973, p. 47).

In Kamchatka, Eberle and Stanford (2010) found rearing Dolly Varden in floodplain 

springbrooks and 7th-order mainstem channels. Within the Nushagak and Kvichak river 

drainages, juveniles appear to be limited primarily to low-order headwaters (ADF&G 2012), and 

infrequently to side channels and the main channel of larger rivers downstream to the confluence 

of 5th-order streams (ADF&G 2012, e.g., Site FSN0609A02). In southeast Alaska Dolly Varden 

rear in channels with gradients steeper than 20% (Wissmar et al. 2010), but in the Nushagak and 

Kvichak river drainages, Dolly Varden have been reported only in gradients of 12% or less 

(ADF&G 2012, e.g., Site FSM0503A07). Rearing Dolly Varden normally stay close to the 

stream bottom over gravels and cobbles (Dolloff and Reeves 1990; Hagen and Taylor 2001; 

Nakano and Kaeiryama 1995). Fry density is inversely related to stream depth (Bryant et al. 

2004) and use of shallows increases if cover is available (Bugert et al. 1991). Different juvenile 

age classes can segregate in different micro- (Bugert et al. 1991; Dolloff and Reeves 1990) and 

macro- (ADF&G 2012; Denton et al. 2009) habitats. Affinity for cover, including cobbles and 

boulders, increases with age and tolerance for other Dolly Varden declines (Dolloff and Reeves 

1990). Gregory (1988, p. 49-53) found stream-resident juvenile Dolly Varden in beaver ponds, 

where they grow faster than fish in adjacent streams, because of relatively warmer water 

temperatures and increased productivity.

Dolly Varden occur in upland Bristol Bay lakes, often in large numbers, feeding both at the 

surface and on the lake bottom, but they are uncommon or absent in lakes supporting Arctic char 

populations (Russell 1980, p. 49, 69-72; Scanlon 2000, p. 56). Dolly Varden will use all lake 

habitats in the absence of competitors (other salmonids), but concentrate in offshore and nearbottom habitats where competitors occupy nearshore and near-surface habitats (Andrew et al. 

1992; Jonsson et al. 2008; Schutz and Northcote 1972). In the absence of competitors, lakedwelling Dolly Varden move from deeper offshore waters, where they spend the day, perhaps in 

loose aggregations, to spend the night in onshore waters, near the surface (Andrusak and 

Northcote 1971). Dolly Varden vision is more sensitive to low light than competing salmonids

(Henderson and Northcote 1985; Henderson and Northcote 1988; Schutz and Northcote 1972), 

allowing them to feed in deeper water and at night.

- 21 -
Life cycle

Northern-form Dolly Varden express several migratory patterns, including anadromous,

nonanadromous stream-resident, nonanadromous spring-resident, nonanadromous lake-resident, 

nonanadromous lake-river-resident, and nonanadromous residuals (nonanadromous male 

offspring of anadromous parents; (Armstrong and Morrow 1980, p. 107-130; Behnke 1980, p. 

466). Bristol Bay supports Dolly Varden with both anadromous (Reynolds 2000, p. 16-17; 

Scanlon 2000, p. 48-51) and nonanadromous (Denton et al. 2009; Scanlon 2000, p. 48-51) life 

histories. 

Anadromous Dolly Varden exhibit very complex migratory patterns (Armstrong and Morrow 

1980, p. 108-109), frequently leaving one drainage, traveling through marine waters, and 

reentering distant drainages, including those on separate continents (DeCicco 1992; DeCicco 

1997; Lisac 2009, p. 14; Morrow 1980a). Even apparently nonanadromous fish can seasonally 

move more than 200 km within complex Bristol Bay watersheds (Scanlon 2000, p. 60). 

Anadromous Dolly Varden of the Togiak River system, just west of the Nushagak and Kvichak 

river drainages, spawn from approximately mid-September to mid-October, overwinter 

downstream from spawning locations, and migrate annually to sea, where they spend 

approximately six weeks feeding (Lisac and Nelle 2000, p. 31-34). The timing of adult seaward 

migration generally corresponds with spring ice-out and high water, with adults migrating to sea 

in May and June. Their return to fresh water appears to relate to decreased stream discharge 

(Lisac and Nelle 2000, p. 33-34, 35). Anadromous Dolly Varden migrate upstream from the 

ocean to spawning areas in July and August (Lisac 2011). Russell (1980, p. 72) observed Dolly 

Varden spawning in the upper Mulchatna River system in mid-September.

Anadromous Dolly Varden home to spawn (Crane et al. 2003; Lisac and Nelle 2000, p. 31), but 

stocks can mix at sea and in overwintering areas (DeCicco 1992). In northwest Alaska 

anadromous Dolly Varden usually undertake three to five ocean migrations before reaching 

sexual maturity (DeCicco 1992). In the Togiak River, some anadromous fish mature at age 2 and

most mature at age 4 (Lisac and Nelle 2000, p. 31; Reynolds 2000). Bristol Bay Dolly Varden 

can live at least 14 years (Plumb 2006, p. 19; Scanlon 2000, Appendix Table B) and reach 

lengths of 740 mm or more (Faustini 1996, p. 16). The minimum length of anadromous spawners 

in southwest Alaska’s Goodnews River is about 330 to 360 mm (Lisac 2010, p. 4). 

Stream-residents mature from age 2 to 5 (Blackett 1973; Craig and Poulin 1975; Maekawa and 

Hino 1986; Russell 1980, p. 72) and live at least to age 7 (Blackett 1973). They are smaller than 

their anadromous counterparts, ranging at maturity from 113 mm (Hagen and Taylor 2001) to 

520 mm (Gregory 1988, p. 29) in length, with most less than 200 mm (Gregory 1988, p. 21-25). 

Like anadromous individuals, after spawning stream-resident adults move quickly to 

downstream overwinter areas (Maekawa and Hino 1986).

Although anadromous Dolly Varden in northern Alaska tend to spawn only every second year 

(DeCicco 1997), Lisac and Nelle (2000, p. 31) speculated that most anadromous Dolly Varden in 

the Togiak River near the Nushagak and Kvichak river drainages can spawn in consecutive 

years. Female fecundity is a function of size (Jonsson et al. 1984), and anadromous females can 

produce up to 7,000 ova (Armstrong and Morrow 1980, p. 102), a productivity more than 50 

times that of nonanadromous females (Blackett 1973). Ripe ova of anadromous females are 3.5

- 22 -
to 6 mm in diameter; ripe ova of nonanadromous females can be as small as 2.8 mm (Armstrong 

and Morrow 1980, p. 101, 102).

In most cases, a spawning group consists of one female and several males, one of which is a 

dominant male that actively courts the female (Hino et al. 1990; Maekawa et al. 1993). Females 

excavate redds in stream gravels, and then deposit their eggs while a male fertilizes them. Chars 

show little evidence of nest-guarding behavior (Kitano and Shimazaki 1995). Males appear to 

suffer a much higher post-spawning mortality than do females (Armstrong 1974).

In streams on both sides of the Bering Strait, egg hatching peaks from the end of April to midMay (Radtke et al. 1996). Embryos are 15 to 20 mm long at hatching and remain in the spawning 

substrate while they absorb their yolk sac. Alevins emerge from the nest around the time of ice 

break-up (April to June), at a length of about 25 mm (Armstrong and Morrow 1980, p. 108). 

Radtke et al. (1996) found that fry begin actively feeding in June to early July, 42 to 52 days 

after hatching. Newly emerged alevins tend to stay on the bottom of pools and are relatively 

inactive except when feeding (Armstrong and Morrow 1980, p. 108). Growth greatly increases 

through the summer as water becomes warmer; by September, age-0 fish average about 60 mm 

long (Armstrong and Morrow 1980, p. 108). Young anadromous Togiak River Dolly Varden 

make their first seaward migration between their first summer and age 3 (Reynolds 2000, p. 15). 

Size, rather than age, appears to govern the timing of initial smolt out-migration (Armstrong 

1970). 

Predator–prey relationships

Dolly Varden primarily target benthic invertebrates in streams (Eberle and Stanford 2010; 

Russell 1980, p. 73; Stevens and Deschermeier 1986) and lakes (Scanlon 2000, p. 53-55; Schutz 

and Northcote 1972). During the day, foraging from stream drift (food drifting in the current) is 

more important than benthic foraging, but the relative importance of benthic foraging increases 

at night; surface feeding is not important (Hagen and Taylor 2001). Dolly Varden also switch to 

benthic feeding when drift availability is limited (Fausch et al. 1997; Nakano et al. 1999; Nakano 

and Kaeiryama 1995).

Dolly Varden eat juvenile salmon (Armstrong 1970; Bond and Becker 1963), but they have been 

largely exonerated (Armstrong and Morrow 1980, p. 133; DeLacy and Morton 1943; Morton 

1982) from earlier accusations that they were salmon run destroyers. From 1921 to 1939, Alaska 

Dolly Varden were the target of a bounty program designed to increase salmon abundance. Now 

it is believed that Dolly Varden were not responsible for the declines in salmon abundance 

(Harding and Coyle 2011, p. 19). When spawning salmon are present, salmon eggs–probably 

those flushed by high flows and superposed redd construction–can be important food (Armstrong 

1970, p. 53-54; Scanlon 2000). Denton et al. (2009) reported that nonanadromous age-1 and 

older Dolly Varden in certain ponds near Iliamna Lake feed on sockeye salmon fry for a brief 

time in late June to mid-July, then migrate to sockeye spawning areas and feed almost 

exclusively on eggs from late July to mid-September. From late August through September they 

also eat blowfly larvae that had fed on adult sockeye salmon carcasses. Salmon eggs are too big 

for age-0 fry to consume, but blowfly maggots, when available, dominate their diet. Some 

nonanadromous Dolly Varden actively follow adult sockeye salmon to spawning areas and grow 

significantly faster after the arrival of spawning salmon (Denton et al. 2009; Wipfli et al. 2003). 

In May in Iliamna Lake tributaries such as the Copper River, Dolly Varden feed heavily on the 

- 23 -
spawning run of mature pond smelt (Richard Russell, Alaska Department of Fish and Game 

(retired), King Salmon, AK, personal communication).

The summer diet of stream-resident Dolly Varden in northcentral British Columbia is primarily 

adult dipterans (true flies; 33.6%) and hymenopterans (wasps, bees, and ants; 7.5%), with other 

aquatic insects comprising the remainder (Hagen and Taylor 2001). In southeast Alaska Dolly 

Varden also feed on terrestrial insects, but do so less than other salmonids occupying the same 

habitat (Wipfli 1997). Juvenile stream-rearing Dolly Varden consume a wide variety of 

predominantly aquatic invertebrates (Eberle and Stanford 2010), preferentially selecting

immature blackflies, non-biting midges (chironomids), and mayflies (Milner 1994; Nakano and 

Kaeiryama 1995), but also feed on terrestrial invertebrates (Baxter et al. 2007; Nakano et al. 

1999), particularly in the absence of competing salmonids (Baxter et al. 2004; Baxter et al. 

2007). Some juvenile Dolly Varden eat age-0 Arctic grayling (Stevens and Deschermeier 1986).

In the absence of competitors, lake-dwelling Dolly Varden feed heavily in summer on terrestrial 

insects and during fall on zooplankton. In the presence of competition, they feed heavily on 

chironomids (both pupae and larvae) and trichopterans (caddis flies; Andrusak and Northcote 

1971; Hindar et al. 1988).

River otters Lutra canadensis can extensively prey on rearing Dolly Varden (Dolloff 1993). 

Armstrong and Morrow (1980, p. 110) noted that bears and wolves take some mature fish from 

spawning areas (also observed by Wiedmer; ADF&G 2012, Site FSS0424A07) and speculated 

that fish-eating birds also take a few. Fish-eating birds such as harlequin ducks Histrionicus 

histrionicus, common Mergus merganser and red-breasted M. serrator mergansers, and bald 

eagles Haliaeetus leucocephalus are common in southwest Alaska throughout the year and 

ospreys (Pandion haliaetus, a fish-eating raptor) are more abundant along the waters of Bristol 

Bay than elsewhere in Alaska (Armstrong 1980, p. 69, 80, 81, 89, 92). Russell (1980, p. 81)

reported that Lake Clark National Park and Preserve (Figure 2-3 in main assessment report) lake 

trout feed on Dolly Varden. Perhaps the greatest predators on smaller Dolly Varden are larger 

Dolly Varden (Armstrong and Morrow 1980, p. 110; Russell 1980, p. 73). Wiedmer (ADF&G 

2012, Site FSS0406A01) collected a 195-mm (FL) northern-form Dolly Varden that had partially 

swallowed a 98-mm Dolly Varden.

Abundance and harvest

In the Nushagak and Kvichak river drainages total Dolly Varden abundance is unknown.

Between 2002 and 2010 (excluding 2006), annual runs of anadromous Dolly Varden to 

southwest Alaska’s Kanektok River averaged 13,115 (range: 8,140 to 43,292, Lisac 2011). The 

State of Alaska’s sport and subsistence fisheries statistics do not distinguish between Arctic char 

and Dolly Varden. Sport anglers caught an estimated 48,438 Arctic char/Dolly Varden in the 

Nushagak and Kvichak river drainages and the adjacent Togiak River system in 2009 (8% of the 

statewide total) and harvested (kept) an estimated 2,159 (5% of the statewide total; Jennings et 

al. 2011, p. 73). In combination, Arctic char and Dolly Varden consistently support the greatest 

harvest of any non-salmon freshwater fish in Bristol Bay (Dye and Schwanke 2009, p. 8). Sport 

harvests have declined, due at least in part to both lower bag limits and the increasing popularity 

of catch-and-release fishing (Dye and Schwanke 2009, p. 6).

- 24 -
In the mid-2000s, villagers from ten of the Nushagak and Kvichak river drainage communities 

annually harvested, as part of their subsistence activities, an estimated 3,450 Dolly Varden and 

Arctic char combined (Fall et al. 2006, p. 45, 80, 113, 150, 194; Krieg et al. 2009, p. 40, 78, 118, 

162, 202). Dolly Varden and Arctic char combined were the most important non-salmon fish 

harvested in the villages of Iliamna, Newhalen, and Pedro Bay (Fall et al. 2006, p. 49, 84, 117). 

From the mid-1970s to the mid-2000s, Dolly Varden/Arctic char were estimated to represent 

between 16.2 and 26.9% of the total weight of the Kvichak River drainage non-salmon 

freshwater fish subsistence harvest (Krieg et al. 2005, p. 214).

Stressors

Dolly Varden are not tolerant of warm water (Fausch et al. 1994; Kishi et al. 2004; Nakano et al. 

1996). Feeding activity declines to low levels at water temperatures above 16 °C and their upper 

lethal limit is 24 °C (Takami et al. 1997). As a result, activities that increase water temperatures 

beyond tolerance levels will reduce available habitat (Kishi et al. 2004; Nakano et al. 1996), 

including the refuge from potential competitors that cold stream temperatures provide (Fausch et 

al. 2010).

Total dissolved solids (TDS) do not have a significant impact on Dolly Varden fertilization, up to 

the highest concentrations evaluated (1,817 mg∙l

−1); however, elevated TDS did significantly 

affect embryo water absorption at concentrations as low as 964 mg∙l

−1 (Brix et al. 2010). Brix et 

al. (2010) concluded that the water-hardening phase immediately following fertilization was the 

most sensitive life stage to elevated TDS.

McDonald et al. (2010) reported that Dolly Varden are relatively insensitive to selenium 

exposure (perhaps due to low rearing temperatures) and estimated that concentrations of 44 and 

49 mg∙kg-1, dry weight affected 10 and 20% of the study population, respectively. Dolly Varden 

in fresh water metabolize naphthalene much more rapidly than seawater, which may explain the 

greater toxicity of naphthalene to fish when in seawater (Thomas and Rice 1980). Whether in 

fresh water or sea water, toluene is more readily metabolized by Dolly Varden than is 

naphthalene (Thomas and Rice 1986b), and toluene is more rapidly metabolized in warmer water 

(Thomas and Rice 1986a). 

In southeast Alaska Dolly Varden are typically the first salmonid colonizers of new streams 

formed by glacial retreat, suggesting they have lower requirements for microhabitat features 

(e.g., pools) that are a function of stream age (Milner 1994). Because they often use small 

isolated stream habitats and spawning populations can be small, both anadromous and

nonanadromous Dolly Varden are particularly vulnerable to barriers to migration (Dunham et al. 

2008; Fausch et al. 2010; Kishi and Maekawa 2009; Koizumi 2011; Koizumi and Maekawa 

2004) and to alterations of the small headwater streams in which they spawn and rear 

(Armstrong and Morrow 1980, p. 133). The closely related bull trout S. confluentus is listed as 

threatened in the contiguous United States (USFWS 1999), due in large part to habitat 

fragmentation and warming stream temperatures.

- 25 -
Lake trout Salvelinus namaycush

Freshwater distribution and habitats

The global native distribution of lake trout is limited almost entirely to Canada and Alaska, from 

the just south of Canada’s southern border north to the Canadian Arctic archipelago and from 

Canada’s eastern maritime provinces west to near the Bering Sea coast (Martin and Olver 1980, 

p. 209-210). This native range is almost entirely restricted to the limits of North American latePleistocene glaciations (Lindsey 1964). In Alaska lake trout occur in suitable habitats across 

most of the state except for southern southeast Alaska, much of western Alaska, and maritime 

islands (Mecklenburg et al. 2002, p. 198), but within that broad range, there are great 

discontinuities between occupied habitats (Lindsey 1964). Bristol Bay marks the westernmost 

limit of the lake trout’s native range (Mecklenburg et al. 2002, p. 198). Bristol Bay lake trout 

appear to be restricted to upland lakes and their inlet and outlet streams (ADF&G 2012, Site 

FSN0616C03; Burgner et al. 1965; Metsker 1967, p. 9, 11; Russell 1980, p. 47, 78, 79; 

Yanagawa 1967, p. 10). They are common in the Tikchik Lake system but absent from the main 

Wood River lakes (Burgner et al. 1965). Russell (1980, p. 77) considered them widely 

distributed in the Lake Clark area and their diet indicated they fed at lake surfaces and bottoms, 

and throughout water columns. Anglers target lake trout in many Nushagak and Kvichak river 

drainage upland lakes, particularly Lake Clark, Iliamna Lake, and the Tikchik Lakes (Minard et 

al. 1998, p. 152-155).

Almost all spawning occurs along lake shorelines or shoals, above coarse, often angular substrate 

(Martin and Olver 1980, p. 218; Scott and Crossman 1998, p. 222; Viavant 1997, p. 6-7). Lake 

trout typically spawn along exposed shorelines off points or islands or in mid-lake shoals (Martin 

and Olver 1980, p. 218). Russell (1980, p. 77) reported apparent spawning habitats on shoals 

around islands in Lake Clark. Spawning can occur in very spatially discrete locations (Viavant 

1997, p. 6-7). Spawning areas appear to be kept clean of fine sediments by wind-driven or deepwater currents and not by springs or seeps. The maximum depth of spawning may be positively 

related to lake size, particularly fetch length, but is often less than 6 m (Martin and Olver 1980, 

p. 218; Royce 1951). In lakes that thermally stratify, lake trout may migrate seasonally from 

warming surface waters to cool deep waters (Martin and Olver 1980, p. 228-230).

Life cycle

Compared to many other salmonids, lake trout exhibit little tendency toward anadromy 

(Rounsefell 1958), but some individuals in far northern areas do migrate seasonally to marine 

waters (Swanson et al. 2010). Like other char, lake trout is a highly variable species and multiple 

forms, differing in diet, growth, and life span can occupy a single lake (Martin 1966). Adults can 

live to at least 51 years (Keyse et al. 2007); in the Nushagak and Kvichak river drainages, lake 

trout are known to live at least 29 years, begin to reach maturity at about 6 years (Russell 1980, 

p. 77), reach lengths of at least 910 mm (FL; Wiedmer unpublished), and weights of at least 14.5 

kg (Richard Russell, Alaska Department of Fish and Game (retired), King Salmon, AK, personal 

communication). In some southcentral Alaska lakes, lake trout mature at ages 7 to 10 at lengths 

of 450 to 550 mm (FL; Van Whye and Peck 1968, p. 35). In the Nushagak and Kvichak river 

drainages and lakes in southcentral and interior Alaska, lake trout spawn in mid- to late 

September and perhaps later (Russell 1980, p. 77; Van Whye and Peck 1968, p. 35; Viavant 

1997, p. 6). Mature lake trout, particularly those in more northern habitats, may not spawn 

- 26 -
annually, but will skip one or two years between spawning events (Martin and Olver 1980, p. 

215). Most lake trout appear to home each year to specific spawning sites, but not all do (Martin 

and Olver 1980, p. 218). 

The number of ova produced by mature females is a function of size and perhaps stock; reported 

average fecundities range from 996 to 15,842, and the diameter of ripe ova range from 3.7 to 6.8 

mm (Martin and Olver 1980, p. 211, 213, 214). Lake trout may clean fine debris from the general 

area of spawning locations, but they do not construct redds, nor cover or guard their fertilized 

eggs (Royce 1951). Eggs and alevins incubate in spawning substrates until the following spring 

(Martin and Olver 1980, p. 224). The movements of young-of-the-year fry are poorly 

understood, but they are suspected to move to deeper water, often using the cover of coarse 

substrates (Martin 1966, p. 224, 226; Royce 1951). Larger fish can be nomadic within their home 

lake (Martin and Olver 1980, p. 226-227), and may move short distances between lakes (Scanlon 

2010, p. 22). A probably mature, and apparently healthy 565 mm (FL) lake trout was captured in 

mid-August in the Tikchik River approximately 14 km from the nearest large lake (ADF&G 

2012, site FSN0616C03), and sub-adult and adult lake trout are regularly encountered by 

summer anglers in the Alagnak River, downstream of Kukaklek and Nonvianuk lakes (Charles 

Summerville, Alaska Trophy Adventures, King Salmon, AK, personal communication). As a 

result of spawning stress, some adults move from lakes downstream into outlet rivers, and many 

likely do not survive to return to their natal waters (Richard Russell, Alaska Department of Fish 

and Game (retired), King Salmon, AK, personal communication).

Predator–prey relationships

In Lake Clark, growth remains fairly constant up to lengths of about 560 mm (FL), after which 

the relationship between weight and length significantly increases. Metsker (1967) attributed this 

to a transition, occurring at a length of about 480 mm (FL), from a diet of invertebrates to a diet

of fish, primarily least cisco. A similar diet transition from insects and mollusks to fish, coupled 

with a potential influence on growth rate, was observed in lake trout from lakes in southcentral 

Alaska (Van Whye and Peck 1968, p. 30, 37). 

Aquatic and terrestrial insects and small crustaceans are important foods for young-of-the-year 

fry (Martin and Olver 1980, p. 234). In Alaska, Arctic grayling, sculpins, humpback, round, and 

pygmy whitefish, least cisco, sockeye salmon fry, salmon eggs, ninespine stickleback, longnose 

suckers, Dolly Varden, Arctic char, rodents, shrews, and smaller lake trout are all prey items for 

large lake trout (Plumb 2006, p. 29; Russell 1980, p. 81-83; Troyer and Johnson 1994, p. 42; Van 

Whye and Peck 1968, p. 37). Lake trout observed in August in the Tikchik and Alagnak rivers 

likely were attracted to high densities of spawning salmon. In the absence of fish prey, large lake 

trout in arctic Alaska lakes are generalist feeders and feed primarily on benthic invertebrates 

(Keyse et al. 2007). In the presence of large lake trout, small lake trout limit their use of 

available habitats to avoid predation (Hanson et al. 1992; Keyse et al. 2007; McDonald and 

Hershey 1992). 

In the laboratory, slimy sculpin consume lake trout eggs (Fitzsimons et al. 2006). In the wild,

small lake trout (Royce 1951) are known to feed on lake trout eggs, as are round whitefish 

(Loftus 1958), which are found throughout the Nushagak and Kvichak river drainages (ADF&G 

2012). Royce (1951) suspected that humpback whitefish, which are found in many of the same 

Nushagak and Kvichak river drainage lakes as lake trout, also feed on lake trout eggs. Burbot 

- 27 -
and large lake trout in the Nushagak and Kvichak river drainages feed on small lake trout 

(Russell 1980, p. 67, 82-83). Power and Gregoire (1978) concluded that, of the all the members 

of the fish community in Lower Seal Lake, Quebec, lake trout were the species most affected by 

freshwater seal Phoca vitulina predation. In 1998, Small (2001) reported that Iliamna Lake in the 

Kvichak River drainage supported a minimum harbor seal population of 321.

Abundance and harvest

In Bristol Bay total lake trout abundance is unknown, but in 2009 the Nushagak and Kvichak 

river drainages and the adjacent Togiak River system supported an estimated sport catch of 3,651 

(12% of the statewide total) and harvest of 588 (11% of the statewide total; Jennings et al. 2011, 

p. 72). Dye and Schwanke (2009, p. 6) speculated that the trend of decreasing sport harvests are 

due in part to increasing catch-and-release practices. 

In the mid-1960s, Iliamna Lake and Lake Clark supported a commercial winter lake trout fishery 

(Metsker 1967, p. 8, 10). In 1966 and 1967 Tikchik Lake also supported an experimental 

commercial freshwater fishery (Yanagawa 1967). Lake trout were the second-most commonly 

harvested species in that fishery, representing 30% of the overall harvest. The Tikchik Lake 

fishery harvested 1,502 lake trout, which averaged 2.2 kg in weight, and ranged in length from 

500 to 575 mm and in age to more than 15 years (Yanagawa 1967).

In the mid-2000s, villagers from ten of the Nushagak and Kvichak river drainage communities 

annually harvested, as part of their subsistence activities, about an estimated 1,030 lake trout

(Fall et al. 2006, p. 45, 80, 113, 150, 194; Krieg et al. 2009, p. 40, 78, 118, 162, 202). From the 

mid-1970s to the mid-2000s, lake trout were estimated to represent between 4.6 and 11.8% of the 

total weight of the Kvichak River drainage non-salmon freshwater fish subsistence harvest 

(Krieg et al. 2005, p. 214).

Stressors

As with lake-spawning humpback whitefish, excessive variation in lake level is suspected to 

reduce egg and alevin survival (Martin and Olver 1980, p. 223). Sedimentation of lake spawning 

areas has resulted in declines or elimination of successful reproduction (reviewed in Martin and 

Olver 1980, p. 223-224). In nature, lake trout are reported in water temperatures ranging from 

-0.8 to 18 °C, appear to prefer summer temperatures around 6 to 13 °C (Martin and Olver 1980. 

p. 230-231), and to have an upper lethal temperature of approximately 23.5 °C (Gibson and Fry 

1954). Martin and Olver (1980, p. 231) concluded that a DO level of approximately 4 mg∙l-1 is 

the minimum tolerated by lake trout. Late maturity, long life, and slow growth make lake trout 

particularly vulnerable to over-harvest (Martin and Olver 1980, p. 259). Like the similarly longlived piscivore, northern pike, lake trout bioaccumulate and biomagnify atmospherically 

deposited mercury (Swanson et al. 2011). Lake acidification has extirpated lake trout from some 

Canadian lakes (Matuszek et al. 1992).

Arctic grayling Thymallus arcticus

Freshwater distribution and habitats

Arctic grayling are found in fresh waters at higher latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere, from 

Hudson Bay west across the Bering Strait to the Ob and Kara river drainages east of Asia’s Ural 

Mountains. In North America, the current native distribution of Arctic grayling is almost entirely 

- 28 -
restricted to northwestern Canada and Alaska (Scott and Crossman 1998, p. 301, 302). Arctic 

grayling native to northern Michigan were extirpated by around 1936 (Scott and Crossman 1998, 

p. 301), and by the 1990s their former broad distribution in streams of the Upper Missouri River 

were limited to the Big Hole River in southwestern Montana (Lohr et al. 1996). In Alaska, the 

Arctic grayling native range stretches across the entire mainland, but they are absent from most 

islands, except those formerly part of the Bering land bridge (Morrow 1980b, p. 145-146). 

Throughout their range, Arctic grayling are primarily restricted to fresh waters. Along the Arctic 

Ocean coast, they will descend downstream to feed in nearshore marine waters, but they appear 

to remain in the low salinity plume at the mouths of rivers or in lagoons (Furniss 1975; Tack 

1980, p. 26).

Arctic grayling are widely distributed in Bristol Bay lakes (Burgner et al. 1965; Russell 1980, p. 

49, 57; Yanagawa 1967, p. 12) and streams (Coggins 1992). They can occur in slow-flowing 

lowland streams where salmon, rainbow trout, and Dolly Varden are absent (ADF&G 2012), but 

they do not occur in many of the small shallow ponds on the coastal plain (Hildreth 2008, p. 9). 

In the absence of headwater lakes, their range often does not extend quite as far up the higher 

gradient headwater streams of the Nushagak and Kvichak river drainages as do Dolly Varden 

and rearing coho salmon, but they are found, at some time of the year, in most tributaries and 

downstream to the lower Nushagak and Kvichak rivers (ADF&G 2012; Krieg et al. 2009, p.365, 

383). Sport anglers catch Arctic grayling across most of the Nushagak and Kvichak river 

drainages, with a particular focus on the Kvichak, Alagnak, Newhalen, Tazimina, Nushagak, 

Mulchatna, and Koktuli rivers, Lake Clark, and the Wood River and Tikchik lake systems

(Minard et al. 1998, p. 189).

Nushagak and Kvichak river drainages stream spawning locations may represent sites that 

provide both warm spring and summer temperatures and suitable hydrology (Tack 1980, p. 3-4, 

14-16, 27; Warner 1957). Some spawning may occur in lakes, at stream outlets (Warner 1957). 

Arctic grayling and rainbow trout are the only spring-spawning salmonids in the Nushagak and 

Kvichak river drainages, and both likely seek spawning sites that enhance incubation rates and 

early fry growth. Tack (1980, p. 14) reported that most interior Alaska spawning occurred in 

riffles with sand and gravel substrates and minimal silt, in currents ranging from 0.25 to 1 m∙s-1

. 

Reed (1964, p. 14) concluded that Alaska Arctic grayling did not target specific spawning 

substrates.

Best egg survival in the closely-related European grayling T. thymallus was 6 to 13.5 °C 

(Jungwirth and Winkler 1984). For much of the summer, age-0 fish tend to remain near the sites 

where they emerged from the spawning substrate (Craig and Poulin 1975; MacPhee and Watt 

1973, p. 14, 15; Tack 1980, p. 27; Tripp and McCart 1974, p. 56). Given the August distribution 

of age-0 fry in the Nushagak–Mulchatna drainage (ADF&G 2012), it appears that most Arctic 

grayling spawning in this system occurs in tributaries. 

When food is not limiting, optimal growth for age-0 juveniles in interior Alaska is at about 17 °C 

(Dion and Hughes 2004; Mallet et al. 1999). Older age classes may segregate to different 

habitats (Craig and Poulin 1975; Tack 1980, p. 29; Vincent-Lang and Alexandersdottir 1990, p. 

50), but the details of that segregation may depend on the drainage-specific patterns of water 

temperature and food availability (Hughes 1998).

- 29 -
After spawning, adults may migrate further upstream (Hughes and Reynolds 1994; Vascotto

1970, p. 77; Wojcik 1954), or descend back to the mainstem (Craig and Poulin 1975; MacPhee 

and Watt 1973, p. 14; Tripp and McCart 1974, p. 49-51; Warner 1957), often using the same 

summer feeding areas annually (Ridder 1998, p. 17; Tack 1980, p. 21). Juveniles age 1 and older 

often follow adults, perhaps to imprint the complex migratory routes (Tack 1980, p. 20). In 

interior and southcentral Alaska, adult Arctic grayling overwinter in deep lakes and large rivers 

(Reed 1964, p. 13; Ridder 1998, p. 10-15; Sundet and Pechek 1985, p. 44; Tack 1980, p. 8, 28). 

Available evidence suggests the same pattern applies in the Nushagak River drainage. In August,

Arctic grayling are absent or uncommon in the lower mainstem of the Nushagak River (ADF&G 

2012). However, in this same area, local residents harvest large numbers of Arctic grayling

through the ice during winter (Krieg et al. 2009, p. 220, 383).

Life cycle

Arctic grayling are nonanadromous, but often do undertake extensive seasonal migrations. Prior 

to spring breakup, large fish concentrate in mainstem rivers, at the mouths of tributaries. During 

and immediately after breakup, fish begin entering tributaries, even below ice cover and through 

channels on the ice surface (Reed 1964, p. 12-13; Warner 1957). In at least parts of Alaska, the 

upstream migration correlates with the peak of the spring freshet (Tack 1980, p. 13) and adults 

appear to show some fidelity to spawning areas (Craig and Poulin 1975; Tack 1980, p. 27). 

Nushagak and Kvichak river drainages Arctic grayling spawn in May through early June, shortly 

after breakup (Dye 2008, p. 26; Russell 1980, p. 57).

Mature female fecundity probably averages between about 4,000 and 7,000 ova, with some large 

fish producing much more (Scott and Crossman 1998, p. 303). Water-hardened eggs have an 

average diameter of around 3 mm and are non-adhesive (Reed 1964, p 14). Spawning adults do 

not actively construct redds (Craig and Poulin 1975), but their actions may create slight 

depressions in the stream substrate (Reed 1964, p. 13-14). Fertilized eggs fall into interstitial 

spaces, hatch in 2 to 3 weeks at lengths of about 8 mm (Scott and Crossman 1998, p. 303), and 

fry start feeding a few days later (Morrow 1980b, p. 146). Some age-0 fish in the Nushagak and 

Kvichak river drainages are free-swimming in early June, and perhaps even earlier in certain 

locations (Russell 1980, p. 57). Early growth rates appear related to temperature and benthic 

invertebrate densities (Tripp and McCart 1974, p. 21); on Alaska’s North Slope, growth rates of 

age-0 Arctic grayling correlate positively to stream temperature (Luecke and MacKinnon 2008).

In the Nushagak and Kvichak river drainages, age-0 fish reach a mean fork length of about 69 

mm (n = 700, SD = 13.6 mm) by August (calculated from data provided by ADF&G 2012). 

After age 0, Arctic grayling in the Nushagak and Kvichak river drainages grow about 47 mm∙y-1

until age 5 when growth begins to slow (Russell 1980, p. 60). Fish begin maturing at lengths of 

about 300 mm (FL), and once mature, grayling appear to spawn every year (Craig and Poulin 

1975; Engel 1973, p. 8; Tripp and McCart 1974, p. 34). Bristol Bay Arctic grayling mature 

around age 5 (Russell 1980, p. 57), can live at least 13 years (Plumb 2006, p. 56), reach lengths 

of at least 650 mm (FL; MacDonald 1995, Table 7) and weights at least 0.9 kg (Russell 1980, p. 

57). Alaska Arctic grayling may travel over 320 km between spawning, summer feeding, and 

overwintering locations (Reed 1964, p. 13; Ridder 1998, p. 10; Tripp and McCart 1974, p. 53).

- 30 -
Predator–prey relationships

Arctic grayling appear to feed on whatever is available to them, primarily aquatic and terrestrial 

insects, sequentially taking advantage of temporary peaks of abundance of different invertebrate 

populations (Plumb 2006, p. 62; Reed 1964, p. 20; Scheuerell et al. 2007; Tripp and McCart 

1974, p. 60-61). Arctic grayling typically feed at the surface and mid-depth in the water column 

(Vascotto 1970), but food items include benthic slimy sculpin and slimy sculpin eggs (Bond and 

Becker 1963) and humpback whitefish eggs (Kepler 1973, p. 71). Scheuerell et al. (2007)

discovered that in the Nushagak River drainage, after the arrival of spawning sockeye salmon, 

the energy intake of Arctic grayling increases more than five-fold, due primarily to the increased 

availability of benthic invertebrates. As spawning salmon construct redds and bury fertilized 

eggs, they disturb the substrate, displacing benthic macroinvertebrates, thus making them more 

available to Arctic grayling predation. In addition, Arctic grayling feed on salmon eggs and the 

larval blowflies that colonize salmon carcasses. These salmon-derived resources contribute a 

large majority of the energy necessary for the annual growth of nonanadromous Arctic grayling 

(Scheuerell et al. 2007). In lakes, Arctic grayling can be the most important prey species of lake 

trout (Troyer and Johnson 1994, p. 42). In Alaska Arctic streams, Stevens and Deschermeier 

(1986) found that some juvenile Dolly Varden eat age-0 Arctic grayling fry .

Abundance and harvest

In Bristol Bay total Arctic grayling abundance is unknown, but in 2009 the Nushagak and 

Kvichak river drainages and the adjacent Togiak River drainage supported an estimated sport 

fish catch of 44,762 fish (11% of the statewide total) and a harvest of 1,094 (4% of the statewide 

total; Jennings et al. 2011, p. 74). Dye and Schwanke (2009, p. 6) speculated that the ongoing 

trend of decreasing sport harvests are due in part to increasing catch-and-release practices. 

In the mid-2000s, villagers from nine of the Nushagak and Kvichak river drainage communities 

annually harvested, as part of their subsistence activities, about an estimated 7,790 Arctic 

grayling (Fall et al. 2006, p. 45, 80, 113, 150, 194; Krieg et al. 2009, p. 40, 78, 118, 162, 202). 

From the mid-1970s to the mid-2000s, Arctic grayling were estimated to represent between 6.9 

and 9.7% of the total weight of the Kvichak River drainage non-salmon freshwater fish 

subsistence harvest (Krieg et al. 2005, p. 214).

Stressors

Total dissolved solids up to 2,782 mg∙l

−1 do not have a significant impact on Arctic grayling egg 

fertilization; however, concentrations as low as 1,402 mg∙l

−1 do significantly affect water 

absorption during the water-hardening phase immediately following fertilization, when embryos 

gain resistance to mechanical damage (Brix et al. 2010). As a result, Brix et al. (2010) identified 

that period as the most sensitive early developmental stage.

Egg mortality in the closely-related European grayling T. thymallus was 100% at temperatures 

over 16 °C or under 4 °C (Jungwirth and Winkler 1984). In interior Alaska, the minimum and 

maximum temperatures at which growth occurs are 4.5 °C and 21 °C (Dion and Hughes 2004; 

Mallet et al. 1999). In interior Alaska, age-0 fish are more tolerant of high water temperatures 

than alevins and older juveniles, with a median tolerance limit in excess of 24.5 °C, compared to 

20 to 24.5 °C for the other life stages (LaPerrier and Carlson 1973, p. 29).

- 31 -
In North Slope streams, the growth of age-0 fry is positively correlated with temperature, while 

adult growth has no temperature correlation (Deegan et al. 1999; Luecke and MacKinnon 2008). 

Adult and age-0 juveniles may also respond differently to stream discharge. Adult growth in 

North Slope streams is positively correlated with discharge, while age-0 growth is negatively 

correlated with it (Deegan et al. 1999; Luecke and MacKinnon 2008). Wojick (1954, p. 67)

speculated that elevated stream discharges during the incubation and early fry rearing stage 

would harm Arctic grayling stocks. 

Although reasons for the dramatic contraction in the native range of stream-resident Upper 

Missouri River Arctic grayling is not well understood, constructed barriers to fish migration and 

stream dewatering appear to be major contributing factors (Barndt and Kaya 2000). 

OTHER SPECIES

Lampreys (Family Petromyzontidae)

Lamprey taxonomy is unsettled (e.g., Renaud et al. 2009), with particular confusion regarding 

the relationship between, and the taxonomic status of, nonparasitic nonanadromous forms and 

parasitic anadromous forms. Currently, the Nushagak and Kvichak river drainages are thought by 

some (ADF&G 2012; Docker 2009; Lang et al. 2009; Mecklenburg et al. 2002; Renaud et al. 

2009) to be home to three lamprey species: Arctic lamprey Lethenteron camtschaticum, Alaskan

brook lamprey L. alaskense, and Pacific lamprey Entosphenus tridentatus (nomenclature follows 

Brown et al. 2009). Arctic and Alaskan brook lamprey are closely allied, but are thought, at least 

by some, to be distinct, valid species (Vladykov and Kott 1978). The Arctic lamprey is believed 

to be the ancestral form, from which the species Alaskan brook lamprey is derived (a satellite 

species) (Renaud et al. 2009; Vladykov and Kott 1979). Summer field surveys typically capture 

juvenile lampreys (called ammocoetes) and there is no simple morphological method to 

distinguish juvenile Arctic lamprey from juvenile Alaskan brook lamprey, so some sources (e.g., 

ADF&G 2012) record the observations of juveniles that may represent either of the species 

collectively as “Arctic-Alaskan brook lamprey paired species”. The spawning run of Arctic 

lamprey is targeted by subsistence fishers in the Yukon River (Brown et al. 2005; Osgood 1958, 

p. 48), but lamprey in the Nushagak and Kvichak river drainage are not targeted by subsistence 

(Fall et al. 2006; Krieg et al. 2009) or sport (Jennings et al. 2011) fisheries.

Freshwater distribution and habitats 

The distribution of Arctic lamprey is almost circumpolar; in Alaska it is found in fresh waters in 

coastal drainages from the Kenai Peninsula west along the Alaska Peninsula and Aleutian 

Islands, and north to the Arctic coastal plain, as well as in the Yukon River system upstream to 

Canada (Mecklenburg et al. 2002, p. 62). The reported distribution of Alaskan brook lamprey is 

much more limited and disjunct, with isolated observations in Bristol Bay, the Kuskokwim, the 

lower and central Yukon River drainage (but see Sutton et al. 2011), and the Mackenzie River 

system (ADF&G 2012; Vladykov and Kott 1978). This reported limited and disjunct distribution 

is likely due in large part to limited appropriate field sampling efforts and ongoing taxonomic 

uncertainty. The same, or a very closely related species is reported in fresh waters of eastern 

Russia (Shmidt 1965, p. 16). Juveniles of the species combination “Arctic-Alaskan brook 

lamprey paired species”, as well as individuals recorded as metamorphosed Alaskan brook 

lamprey have been observed widely across the Nushagak River drainage (there has been less 

basin-scale survey work conducted in the Kvichak River drainage) from mainstem habitats to 

- 32 - 
smaller streams, but they appear absent from high gradient headwaters, as was reported for 

central Yukon River tributaries (Sutton et al. 2011). Most observations of adult Arctic lamprey in 

Bristol Bay are from near the coast (Heard 1966). Heard (1966) found that Alaskan brook 

lamprey were more common than Arctic lamprey in the Naknek River system.

Pacific lamprey are known to range in North American fresh waters from the Nushagak River 

drainage south to northern Baja California and in Asia from Bering Sea drainages south to 

Hokkaido, northern Japan (Froese and Pauly 2012). Pacific lamprey are rarely reported in Bristol 

Bay drainages (Heard 1966; Russell 2010). 

Adults of all three Bristol Bay-area lamprey species spawn in gravel-bedded streams (Heard 

1966; Russell 2010). Alaskan brook lamprey excavate small redds and spawn in streams ranging 

in width from 1.5 to more than 30 m wide, out of the main current in water depths ranging from 

0.08 to 0.20 m deep, with velocities of 0.14 to 0.3 m∙s

-1 (Heard 1966). Juvenile lamprey select 

low velocity sites with fine sediments, into which they burrow (Sutton et al. 2011). While these 

sites have slow local currents, they are well oxygenated (Potter 1980). In Bristol Bay, juvenile 

Arctic-Alaskan brook lamprey are found in lakes as well as streams (ADF&G 2012; Heard 

1966). Both Arctic and Alaskan brook lamprey were reported spawning in tributaries (Lower 

Talarik Creek and Copper River) to Iliamna Lake (Richard Russell, Alaska Department of Fish 

and Game (retired), King Salmon, AK, personal communication). 

Life cycle

In the Naknek River system, adult Arctic lamprey range in length from 219 to 311 mm (Heard 

1966), while adult Alaskan brook lamprey reach lengths of only 150 and 168 mm and females 

produce 2,200 to 3,500 ova, each averaging 0.9 mm in diameter (Vladykov and Kott 1978). 

Mature Pacific lamprey have a mean total length of around 537 mm (Docker 2009). Russell 

(2010) estimated the lengths of three Pacific lamprey spawning in a Naknek River tributary at 

between 406 and 574 mm. 

In Alaska, including the Nushagak and Kvichak river drainages, anadromous adult Arctic 

lamprey migrate upstream from marine waters during fall and winter and overwinter in fresh 

water before spawning in tributary streams in May to early July (Richard Russell, Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game (retired), King Salmon, AK, personal communication; Bradford 

et al. 2008; Brown et al. 2005). Heard (1966) reported that Alaskan brook lamprey in Bristol 

Bay’s Naknek River system also spawned from late May through early July and Russell (1974, 

p. 42) observed spawning in mid-May in Lower Talarik Creek. Pacific lamprey in the Naknek 

River system were observed spawning in late June (Russell 2010). All three Bristol Bay-area 

species excavate redds, often communally, in gravel and cobble substrates, into which they 

deposit their eggs (Heard 1966; Russell 2010). Lamprey are semelparous; all spawners die soon 

after breeding once. 

Lamprey eggs hatch after incubating ~2 weeks and following an additional 1 to 3 weeks of 

development, larval fish emerge from redds and move downstream to slow-velocity sites where 

they burrow into fine sediments (Potter 1980). Larval Arctic lamprey leave the spawning redd at 

lengths of ~8 mm (Kucheryavyi et al. 2007). Juvenile movements tend to be downstream, but 

they may move short distances upstream or remain in one location for multiple years (Potter 

1980). Lampreys have an extended larval stage lasting several years followed by a relatively 

- 33 - 
brief adult stage. The larval form is referred to as an ammocoete, and its appearance and 

behavior contrasts markedly from the adult form. During a transformative period 

(metamorphosis) of a few months, ammocoetes develop eyes, fins, and a tooth-bearing oral disk 

and then usually live less than a year for nonanadromous forms to one or two years for 

anadromous forms before spawning once, then dying (Docker 2009; Hardisty 2006, p. 181; Lang 

et al. 2009). 

Arctic and Alaskan brook lamprey transform at lengths of around 125 to 210 mm (ADF&G 

2012; Docker 2009; Vladykov and Kott 1978). In the Naknek River system this transformation 

begins in early summer and is completed by August (Heard 1966). 

Age at metamorphosis depends on growth rates, which are positively related to stream size and 

water temperature, and may take as long as 18 years (Potter 1980). Alaska Arctic lamprey can 

remain in their larval form for at least 8 years (Sutton et al. 2011). After metamorphosis, 

anadromous species migrate to marine waters to feed on the body fluids of fish and marine 

mammals (Scott and Crossman 1998, p. 44-45). Nonanadromous Alaskan brook lamprey feed 

little or not at all after transformation, and their lengths often shrink prior to spawning (ADF&G 

2012; Vladykov and Kott 1978). Larval lamprey appear to produce pheromones which migrating 

adults use as cues to find spawning streams and other larval lamprey may use to find suitable 

rearing habitats (Fine and Sorensen 2010; Fine et al. 2004; Wagner et al. 2009). 

Predator–prey relationships

Juvenile lamprey typically filter feed on organic detritus (Sutton et al. 2011), but will seasonally 

consume decaying carcasses of adult Pacific salmon (Kucheryavyi et al. 2007). Kucheryavyi et 

al. (2007) speculate that those larval lamprey with access to salmon carcasses grow more rapidly 

and accumulate enough energy stores so that they forego the parasitic, anadromous life stage, 

and transform to adults directly. 

Whether Alaskan brook lamprey parasitize freshwater fish remains unsettled; but if they do, they 

do not seem detrimental to Bristol Bay fish populations (Greenbank 1954; Heard 1966; 

Vladykov and Kott 1978). Heard (1966) reported that adult Alaskan brook lamprey have been 

seen attached to, or are suspected of attaching to, Bristol Bay adult and juvenile sockeye salmon, 

rainbow trout, pygmy whitefish, and threespine sticklebacks. 

Rainbow trout, among other fish, are known to eat lamprey eggs and larvae (Manion 1968). In 

Bristol Bay, a wide variety of birds and mammals feed on lamprey ammoecoetes, including 

Arctic terns Sterna paradisaea, mew, Bonaparte’s, and herring gulls Larus canus, L. 

philadelphia, and L. argentatus, common goldeneye Bucephala clangula, greater yellowlegs 

Tringa melanoleuca, black-bellied plovers Pluvialis squatarola, American golden-plovers P.

dominica, Hudonian godwits Limosa haemastica, common and red-breasted mergansers Mergus 

merganser and M. serrator, common loons Gavia immer, black-billed magpies Pica hudsonia, 

and river otters Lutra canadensis (Russell 2010; Richard Russell, Alaska Department of Fish and 

Game (retired), King Salmon, AK, personal communication). 

Suckers (Family Catostomidae)

Alaska is home to one member of the sucker family, the longnose sucker Catostomus 

catostomus. In recent years, an estimated 2,800 longnose suckers were harvested annually in 

- 34 - 
Nushagak and Kvichak river drainage subsistence fisheries (Fall et al. 2006, p. 45, 80, 113, 150, 

194; Krieg et al. 2009, p. 40, 78, 118, 126, 162, 202, 231), both for human consumption and for 

sled-dog food. Often longnose suckers were harvested incidentally in subsistence fisheries 

targeting other species (Krieg et al. 2009, p. 206). They are not a target of sport fisheries 

(Jennings et al. 2011). 

Freshwater distribution and habitats 

Longnose suckers range across Canada and northern United States from the Atlantic to the 

Pacific and north to Arctic Ocean drainages and west to far northeastern Asia (Scott and 

Crossman 1998). In Alaska, longnose suckers are widely distributed throughout the mainland 

(Morrow 1980b). Sundet and Pechek (1985) considered longnose suckers to be the most 

abundant large nonanadromous species in the lower mainstem of southcentral Alaska’s Susitna 

River and they are common in the mainstem of the Yukon River and its major tributaries 

(Andersen 1983; Bradford et al. 2008). Longnose suckers are widely distributed and often 

abundant in the lakes, rivers, and larger streams of Bristol Bay, but they are largely absent from 

headwater areas (ADF&G 2012; Greenbank 1954; Russell 1980). 

During summer in the Susitna River system, longnose suckers are found in a variety of habitats, 

including tributaries, side and upland sloughs, and the mainstem and do not appear to be very 

particular about water velocities or hydraulic conditions. They are found most frequently in the 

mainstem during spring and fall (and likely winter), and seem to move into off-channel and 

tributary habitats in mid-summer (ADF&G 1983b). Spawning has been observed in water depths 

of 15–30 cm deep, velocities of 0.3–0.45 m∙s

-1, over gravels and small cobbles (Geen et al. 

1966). 

Longnose suckers often are relatively sedentary or move randomly in summer, but may 

seasonally migrate hundreds of kilometers per year, and can move at least 60 km per day (Geen 

et al. 1966; Pierce 1977; Sundet and Pechek 1985; Tripp and McCart 1974). 

Life cycle

Mature longnose suckers likely home to spawn in natal streams. In northern Canada, southcentral 

Alaska, and the Nushagak and Kvichak river drainages, they migrate upstream shortly after iceout in the second half of May to spawn in mainstems and tributaries in late May to early June 

(Pierce 1977; Russell 1974, p. 42; Sundet and Pechek 1985; Tripp and McCart 1974). Spawning 

appears to occur in specific areas (Tripp and McCart 1974). 

In Canada’s Mackenzie River system, mean female fecundity (mean length 471 mm, range 425 

to 525 mm) was 49,278 ova (range 23,935 to 107,988; Tripp and McCart 1974). In a small 

southcentral Alaska stream, mean fecundity was 26,248, with a range of 8,325 to 55,500 ova 

(Pierce 1977). Mature ova are 1.5–2 mm in diameter (Pierce 1977; Tripp and McCart 1974). 

Longnose suckers do not excavate redds and fertilized eggs fall into the interstitial spaces of the 

stream substrate (Geen et al. 1966). 

In central British Columbia, eggs incubate for about 2 weeks at a temperature of 10° C before 

hatching. Larval fish emerge from the spawning gravel another 1 to 2 weeks later (Tripp and 

McCart 1974). Around one month after spawning, fry emerge from spawning gravels at a length 

of approximately 22 mm and begin migrating downstream to rearing areas, primarily at night, 

- 35 - 
when stream levels are high and turbid, or on dark nights (Geen et al. 1966; Tripp and McCart 

1974). Russell (1980) reported age-0 fry in Lake Clark’s Chulitna Bay as early as June 20. Age-0 

fish emigrate from southcentral Alaska spawning streams gradually from mid-July through midOctober (Pierce 1977). 

Growth can be slow and fish can live at least 22 years; in some northern populations males may 

not begin to mature until age 9 and females until age 12 (Tripp and McCart 1974). In 

southcentral Alaska, males begin to mature at age 5 at lengths of around 208 mm, and most are 

mature at age 6; females mature begin to mature at age 7 at lengths of around 250 mm and most 

are mature at age 8 (Pierce 1977). Once longnose suckers mature, they probably spawn every 

year and can reach lengths of 575 mm (Tripp and McCart 1974). 

Predator–prey relationships

Longnose suckers consume a wide range of benthic invertebrates and plants (Beamish et al. 

1998; Scott and Crossman 1998). Longnose suckers are a favorite food of river otters (Crait and 

Ben-David 2006; Wengeler et al. 2010) and are known to be eaten by lake trout, northern pike, 

and burbot (Beamish et al. 1998; Russell 1980, p. 81, 96). 

Mudminnows (Family Umbridae)

The taxonomy of the genus Dallia remains unsettled (Crossman and Ráb 1996), but currently 

most authors report a single species of mudminnow in Alaska—the Alaska blackfish Dallia 

pectoralis. Alaska blackfish were once harvested in large quantities in western Alaska 

subsistence fisheries (Brown et al. 2005; Osgood 1958, p. 241-242). In recent years, however, 

only an estimated 100 Alaska blackfish are harvested annually in Nushagak and Kvichak river 

drainage subsistence fisheries. (Fall et al. 2006, p. 45, 80, 113, 150, 194; Krieg et al. 2009, p. 39, 

77, 117, 161, 201). They are not a target of Nushagak and Kvichak river drainage sport fisheries 

(Jennings et al. 2011). 

Freshwater distribution and habitats 

Alaska blackfish are native only to the western half of Alaska and the tip of Chukotka Peninsula 

at the extreme northeastern limit of Asia. This species is found only in and near the limits of 

Pleistocene Beringian refugia, and with the exception of Chukotkan populations, is endemic to 

Alaska (Scott and Crossman 1998, p. 339). In Alaska they range from the central North Slope 

west and south along the Bering Sea coast to Bristol Bay and up the Yukon drainage to the 

Fairbanks area. They also have been accidentally introduced to the Anchorage area (Morrow 

1980b, p. 162). In Bristol Bay, Alaska blackfish are locally common or abundant in ponds, large 

lakes, and slow-moving or stagnant, small- to large-sized streams draining large flat expanses, 

particularly on the coastal plain. While they are present in the Wood River lakes near the coast, 

they seem absent or rare in the Tikchik lakes and Lake Clark and adjacent lakes further from the 

coast, and in higher gradient headwater streams (ADF&G 2012; Burgner et al. 1965; Hildreth 

2008, p. 9; Payne and Moore 2006; Rogers et al. 1963; Russell 1980). 

On Alaska’s North Slope, Alaska blackfish were found among aquatic vegetation in slowflowing channels and adjacent shallow lakes (Ostdiek 1956). Alaska blackfish typically occur on 

substrates composed of silt, mud, or decaying vegetation (Blackett 1962). 

- 36 - 
Life cycle

In the Nushagak River drainage’s Lake Aleknagik, spawning occurs in the second half of July 

(Aspinwall 1965). Water-hardened eggs are about 2 mm in diameter, are very adhesive, and sink 

to the bottom or adhere to vegetation. About 10 days after spawning, fry hatch at a length of 

about 6 mm and reach 20 mm six weeks later (Aspinwall 1965). 

In Bristol Bay, most females reach maturity at age 3 at lengths ≥49 mm and individuals reach at 

least age 8 and lengths of 220 mm (Aspinwall 1965; Hildreth 2008, p. 9). Most females appear to 

spawn annually, but some may spawn in alternate years (Aspinwall 1965). Individual lakedwelling Alaska blackfish are not thought to make broad-scale movements, but remain relatively 

sedentary (Payne and Moore 2006); however Blackett (1962), in an interior Alaska stream, 

identified an apparent upstream migration after the mid-May ice break-up. 

The esophagus is modified as an accessory respiratory organ, and Alaska blackfish can tolerated 

summer dissolved oxygen levels down to 2.30 ppm (Crawford 1974; Ostdiek 1956). 

Predator–prey relationships

Alaska blackfish diet is dominated by benthic invertebrates including cladocerans, copepods, 

ostracods, larval dipterans, larval caddisflies, snails, and algae (Ostdiek 1956; Ostdiek and 

Nardone 1959; Payne and Moore 2006). In the Nushagak River drainage, northern pike are 

known to feed on Alaska blackfish (Chihuly 1979, p. 79-86), but because they are often the only 

fish species present in their preferred habitats (Scott and Crossman 1998, p. 340), perhaps the 

most important predators on small Alaska blackfish are larger Alaska blackfish.

Smelts (Family Osmeridae)

The smelt family has a circumpolar distribution across the northern hemisphere and is comprised 

of approximately 10 marine, anadromous, and freshwater species. As with many fish families, 

smelt taxonomy is unsettled (Scott and Crossman 1998, p. 311-312). Three smelt species have 

been reported in Bristol Bay fresh waters: rainbow smelt Osmerus mordax, pond smelt

Hypomesus olidus, and eulachon Thaleichthys pacificus (Mecklenburg et al. 2002; Morrow 

1980b; Nelle 2003). 

In recent years, an estimated 3,200 pounds of smelt (likely a mix of rainbow and pond smelt; 

Richard Russell, Alaska Department of Fish and Game (retired), King Salmon, AK, personal 

communication) were harvested annually in Nushagak and Kvichak river drainage subsistence 

fisheries (Fall et al. 2006, p. 44, 79, 112, 149, 193; Krieg et al. 2009, p. 38, 76, 116, 160, 200). In 

2009 an estimated 10,000 smelt (likely rainbow smelt) were harvested in the Kvichak, Nushagak, 

and Togiak drainage sport fisheries (Jennings et al. 2011, p. 79). 

Freshwater distribution and habitats 

rainbow smelt

In North America, the native freshwater range of rainbow smelt extends along the east coast 

from New Jersey to Labrador; and along the west coast from Vancouver Island through the Gulf 

of Alaska, and along the Bering Sea and Arctic Ocean coasts to the Mackenzie River delta area. 

In Asia, rainbow smelt range from Hokkaido to Arctic Ocean drainages west to the North 

- 37 - 
Atlantic. They have been introduced to the Great Lakes, where they are now abundant (Scott and 

Crossman 1998, p. 312-313). 

Russell (2010) reported that rainbow smelt were abundant in winter, often under ice, in the lower 

and intertidal reaches of Bristol Bay mainstems and tributaries. They apparently begin moving 

from marine waters into the lower reaches of mainstem rivers in mid- to late September, where 

they remain until spawning in coarse substrates of mainstems and tributaries the following spring 

(Nelle 2003; Richard Russell, Alaska Department of Fish and Game (retired), King Salmon, AK, 

personal communication). They do not appear to range far inland from the Bristol Bay coast 

(Burgner et al. 1965; Greenbank 1954; Nelle 2003; Russell 1980). 

pond smelt

Pond smelt have a very disjunct global distribution. In Asia they range from Korea to the 

Alazeya River, and after a gap of over 2700 km, occur again near the Kara Sea in the westcentral Russian arctic. In North America they are restricted to Alaska and northwestern Canada, 

where they range from southcentral Alaska’s Copper River delta westward to the Bering Sea 

coast and northward to the Kobuk River drainage, and after a gap of over 1000 km, in the lower 

Mackenzie River system (Scott and Crossman 1998, p. 308-309). 

In Bristol Bay, pond smelt are reported only in low-elevation ponds and lakes near the coast, 

their tributaries and outlets, and mainstem estuaries (Burgner 1962; Froese and Pauly 2012; 

Hartman and Burgner 1972; Heard and Hartman 1966; Hildreth 2008, p. 9). They are known in 

Iliamna Lake, some of its tributaries, and the Kvichak River (Hartman and Burgner 1972; 

Siedelman et al. 1973, p. 22; Wiedmer unpublished), but they have not been reported in the lakes 

or streams of the upper Nushagak or Kvichak river drainages (ADF&G 2012; Burgner et al. 

1965; Russell 1980). Age-1 and older pond smelt in lakes and ponds primarily feed in off-shore, 

open water habitats, except when mature adults move inshore to spawn in shallow, nearshore 

areas (Narver 1966). 

eulachon

The global freshwater range of eulachon is limited to North America’s Pacific coast from 

northern California to southwestern Alaska, and Bristol Bay is at the northwest limit of this 

distribution (Willson et al. 2006, p. 3). Eulachon appear to occur in Bristol Bay fresh waters in 

very low numbers (Nelle 2003) and because of the lack of specific observations within the 

Nushagak and Kvichak river drainages, eulachon are not examined further here. 

Life cycle

rainbow smelt

Most or all Bristol Bay rainbow smelt populations appear to be anadromous (Mecklenburg et al. 

2002, p. 174), and mature individuals have fork lengths from around 163 mm to 298 mm (Dion 

and Bromaghin 2008; Nelle 2003; Russell 2010). Across various river systems in Bristol Bay, 

rainbow smelt migrate upstream to spawning areas and spawn from mid-April to the second half 

of June (Dion and Bromaghin 2008; Nelle 2003; Russell 2010; Wiedmer unpublished). 

Estimated fecundity of Bristol Bay’s Togiak River females range from 17,000 to 90,000 and 

average 52,000 (Dion and Bromaghin 2008). By late June, some rainbow smelt fry are free 

swimming, schooling, and migrating downstream to marine waters (Russell 2010). 

- 38 - 
In the Togiak River, both males and females begin to mature at age 2, and males live to at least 

age 8; females to at least age 6 (Dion and Bromaghin 2008). More northerly Alaska populations 

mature later and live to at least age 15 (Haldorson and Craig 1984). 

pond smelt

Alaska pond smelt appear to be nonanadromous (Harvey et al. 1997). Pond smelt are capable of 

repeat spawning (Degraaf 1986), but in southwest Alaska, most pond smelt spawn only once, 

then die (Narver 1966). Adult pond smelt in southwest Alaska, including the Nushagak and 

Kvichak river drainages, migrate upstream in May and spawn from late May to late June in both 

shallow open nearshore lake habitats with organic sediments and in lake tributaries (Harvey et al. 

1997; Narver 1966; Russell 1974, p. 42). Eggs are adhesive and 6-mm-long fry hatch in about 18 

days (Scott and Crossman 1998, p. 309) and are free swimming by the end of July (Narver 

1966). In late August and September, young-of-the-year fry, 20–30 mm long, migrate

downstream to overwintering areas (Harvey et al. 1997). 

By August of the following year, pond smelt reach ~58 mm, and the year after they are ~82 mm 

long (Narver 1966). In southwest Alaska, most pond smelt live until age 2, or at most age 3 

(Narver 1966), but in more slowly growing arctic populations age of maturity is 3 and fish may 

live to at least age 9 (Degraaf 1986). In southwest Alaska lakes where population estimates were 

made across multiple years, pond smelt abundance varies widely from year to year (Narver 

1966). 

Predator–prey relationships

rainbow smelt

Rainbow smelt are known to prey on both invertebrates and fish, including young-of-the-year 

slimy sculpin (Brandt and Madon 1986; Dion and Bromaghin 2008; Haldorson and Craig 1984), 

but the feeding of anadromous individuals may be largely limited to marine and estuarine areas 

(Dion and Bromaghin 2008; Haldorson and Craig 1984). In Bristol Bay, during their spawning 

migrations, high densities of rainbow smelt attract an abundant and diverse assemblage of 

predators, including mergansers, osprey, bald eagles, mew and glaucous-winged gulls, rainbow 

trout, and river otters (Russell 2010; Wiedmer unpublished). 

pond smelt

Pond smelt feed primarily on zooplankton (Degraaf 1986; Hartman and Burgner 1972). While 

pond smelt may compete with young sockeye salmon for food, no population-level impacts have 

been demonstrated in Bristol Bay. Pond smelt may provide sockeye salmon fry a buffer from the 

predations of Arctic char and lake trout (Burgner et al. 1969; Hartman and Burgner 1972). 

Salmonids (Family Salmonidae)

In abundance, diversity, ecosystem function, and human use and interest, the 15 extant salmonid 

species dominate most Nushagak and Kvichak river drainage freshwater fish communities. The 

Nushagak and Kvichak river drainages annually produce many hundreds of millions of juvenile 

salmonids, yielding tens of millions of adults (Eggers and Yuen 1984; West et al. 2012). The 

salmonid family is comprised of three subfamilies, each with representatives in Bristol Bay: 

salmon, trout, and char (Subfamily Salmoninae); grayling (Subfamily Thymallinae); and 

whitefish (Subfamily Coregoninae) (Mecklenburg et al. 2002, p. 178-209). The Nushagak and 

- 39 - 
Kvichak river drainages are home to five species of Pacific salmon, one trout, and three char. 

The five salmon species: coho salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch, Chinook salmon O. tshawytscha, 

sockeye salmon O. nerka, chum salmon O. keta, and pink salmon O. gorbuscha are grouped 

taxonomically in the same genus with rainbow trout/steelhead O. mykiss. Appendix A of this 

report details the life history traits of the five native Pacific salmon species and rainbow trout are 

covered in the Harvested Fish section of Appendix B. The three char species are members of the 

genus Salvelinus: Dolly Varden S. malma, Arctic char S. alpinus, and lake trout S. namaycush

and each are discussed earlier in this appendix, as is Arctic grayling Thymallus arcticus. Five 

species in two whitefish genera are also reported in the Nushagak and Kvichak river drainages: 

Bering cisco Coregonus laurettae, least cisco C. sardinella, humpback whitefish C. pidschian, 

pygmy whitefish Prosopium coulterii, and round whitefish P. cylindraceum. The taxonomic 

status of members of the genus Coregonus is particularly unsettled (e.g., Scott and Crossman 

1998, p. 230). Humpback whitefish are described earlier in this appendix. Specific observations 

of Bering cisco in the Nushagak and Kvichak river drainages are absent or rare, and this species 

may be largely limited to the area’s estuaries (Froese and Pauly 2012), so they will not be 

discussed further in this report. The remaining three species are outlined below.

In recent years, an estimated 600 round whitefish and less than 50 least cisco were harvested 

annually in Nushagak and Kvichak river drainage subsistence fisheries (Fall et al. 2006, p. 45, 

80, 113, 150, 194; Krieg et al. 2009, p. 40, 78, 118, 162, 202), and neither species is targeted by 

sport fisheries (Jennings et al. 2011). Pygmy whitefish are not targeted by subsistence or sport 

fisheries in the Nushagak and Kvichak river drainages (Fall et al. 2006; Jennings et al. 2011; 

Krieg et al. 2009). 

Freshwater distribution and habitats 

least cisco

The least cisco is nearly circumpolar in its range, which extends in Arctic Ocean drainages from 

the central Canadian arctic to northern Europe, and in Bering Sea drainages in both Asia and 

North America (Scott and Crossman 1998, p. 263-264). In Alaska it is widely distributed in lakes 

and rivers across the mainland north of the Alaska Range (Mecklenburg et al. 2002, p. 182). In 

the Nushagak and Kvichak river drainages, the reported distribution of least cisco is centered in 

and around Lake Clark, including Hoknede and Lower Pickeral lakes and the Chulitna River 

(Russell 1980, p. 77). While abundant in Lake Clark’s offshore, open-water zone (Schlenger 

1996, p. 78, 88), it is appears to be less so in Iliamna Lake (Kerns 1968) and low velocity sites in 

the Kvichak and Alagnak rivers (Wiedmer unpublished). Least cisco occur in the Nushagak 

River’s Tikchik lakes, but not in the Wood River lakes (Burgner et al. 1965, p. 4), nor in Bristol 

Bay tundra ponds near the coast (Hildreth 2008, p. 9). Haas (2004; identification corroborated by 

Dan Young NPS, Port Alsworth, AK, personal communication) tentatively identified least cisco 

in morainal lakes west of Iliamna Lake. In Lake Clark, least ciscos are much more abundant in 

the northern, glacially turbid waters, perhaps in response to predation risk (Schlenger 1996, p. 

78, 88). 

The Chulitna River system may provide spawning and/or juvenile rearing habitat for Lake Clark 

least cisco, as local residents reported that in late June juvenile least ciscos migrate out of the 

Chulitna River to Lake Clark (Russell 1980, p. 77). 

- 40 - 
pygmy whitefish

The pygmy whitefish is a nonanadromous species with a strikingly disjunct global distribution in 

north-central and northwestern North America and far northeastern Asia (Eschmeyer and Bailey 

1955; Wiedmer et al. 2010). Pygmy whitefish typically inhabit cold, deep lakes and glacially fed 

rivers, most within the footprint of the Laurentide and Cordilleran ice sheets (Weisel et al. 1973). 

Even where they occur regionally, researchers have noted the apparent absence of pygmy 

whitefish from seemingly suitable habitats, perhaps because they are particularly vulnerable to 

predation or competition (Bird and Roberson 1979; Chereshnev and Skopets 1992). Their 

extirpation from an estimated 40% of their historic habitats in Washington State, at the southern 

limit of their range, was attributed to piscicides, introduction of exotic fish species, and/or 

declining water quality (Hallock and Mongillo 1998, p. 9). 

In the Nushagak and Kvichak river drainages, pygmy whitefish have been reported in Iliamna, 

Kontrashibuna, Tikchik, Nuyakuk, and Little Togiak lakes; Twin Lakes; lakes Clark, Beverley, 

Nerka, and Aleknagik; southern tributaries to the Chulitna River near Nikabuna Lakes (mapped 

by Wiedmer et al. 2010); Caribou Lakes (local name for lakes in the headwaters of the Koksetna 

River, Woods and Young 2010), and Summit Lakes (Dan Young, NPS, Port Alsworth, AK, 

personal communication). They are not known to occur in Bristol Bay tundra ponds (Haas 2004; 

Hildreth 2008, p. 9), and their distribution in rivers and streams appears to be very limited 

(ADF&G 2012). 

Where they do occur, pygmy whitefish occupy a wide variety of ecological habitats in Bristol 

Bay lake systems; from shallow nearshore areas less than 1 m deep to offshore zones at depths of 

at least 168 m, and from near the bottom to the surface over deep water and in some adjacent 

streams. (ADF&G 2012, sites PEB91CH001 and PEB91CH007; Heard and Hartman 1966; 

Russell 1980, p. 98). In the absence of competitors or predators, pygmy whitefish will feed 

during the day in shallow, nearshore areas (Zemlak and McPhail 2006). However, in low

turbidity lakes with competitors and/or predators, pygmy whitefish are often found only at depth, 

particularly during the day (Eschmeyer and Bailey 1955; McCart 1965; Plumb 2006; Rankin 

2004, p. 95). Pygmy whitefish may segregate by age, with younger fish in shallower nearshore 

areas, and older fish in offshore benthic habitats (Eschmeyer and Bailey 1955, p. 179; Heard and 

Hartman 1966). Pygmy whitefish often spawn in lake inlet or outlet streams (Heard and Hartman 

1966; Weisel et al. 1973), but will spawn in lakes (Hallock and Mongillo 1998, p. 4). 

Pygmy whitefish are typically found in water temperatures below 10° C (Hallock and Mongillo 

1998, p. 6), but they can tolerate dissolved oxygen levels less than 1.0 mg∙l-1 (Zemlak and 

McPhail 2006). Because they tend to aggregate in large, mobile schools (Zemlak and McPhail 

2006), the abundance of pygmy whitefish in particular locations may appear to vary 

dramatically. 

round whitefish

In North America, round whitefish range from Connecticut north along the North Atlantic coast, 

including the St. Lawrence River/Great Lakes system, and west across Canada’s and Alaska’s 

Arctic Ocean and Bering Sea drainages, and south to the Gulf of Alaska. In Asia it is distributed 

from the Kamachatka Peninsula north and west to the Yenisei River in the central Russian arctic 

(Scott and Crossman 1998, p. 287-289). Round whitefish are distributed across all of mainland 

Alaska except for southern Southeast (Mecklenburg et al. 2002, p. 189; Morrow 1980b, p. 41). 

- 41 - 
Round whitefish are broadly distributed and abundant in many of the streams and lakes of the 

Nushagak and Kvichak river drainages, but they are absent or uncommon in headwater streams 

or coastal tundra streams or lakes (ADF&G 2012; Burgner et al. 1965; Hildreth 2008, p. 9; 

Russell 1980, p. 104). 

In southcentral Alaska’s Susitna River, round whitefish are more likely to be found feeding in 

tributaries and off-channel habitats in summer, and migrating in the mainstem in spring and fall 

from and to mainstem overwintering habitats (ADF&G 1983b, p. G-20 - G-21; Sundet and 

Pechek 1985, p. 44-45). During summer, they do not demonstrate a preference for water velocity 

(ADF&G 1983b, p. F-28). While they prefer Susitna River tributaries, they are commonly 

encountered during the summer in the mainstem Yukon (Andersen 1983, p. 15, 18, 21; Bradford 

et al. 2008) and Nushagak and Kvichak rivers (ADF&G 2012). 

Spawning areas include mainstem rivers, tributary mouths, and inshore areas of lakes (Morrow 

1980b, p. 33; Sundet and Pechek 1985, p. 45). Juvenile round whitefish in the Susitna River 

system were found more often in the turbid mainstem and in off-channel sites than in tributaries, 

presumably using higher turbidity water as cover from predation (Sundet and Pechek 1985, p. 

44-45). 

Life cycle

least cisco

The life history patterns of least cisco are broadly similar to those of the humpback whitefish 

discussed earlier in this appendix. Both species have populations that migrate seasonally between 

lakes and rivers and populations that are nonmigratory lake residents (Morrow 1980b, p. 29). 

The least cisco of the Nushagak and Kvichak river drainages may not undertake large 

migrations, and some may spend their entire lives in single lakes. At least some of the putative 

least cisco found by Haas (2004) live in lakes with no apparent inlets or outlets, suggesting that 

these fish remain in their natal lake for life. 

Unlike least ciscos in the lower Kuskokwim River drainage (Harper et al. 2007, p. 13) to the 

north, populations in the Nushagak and Kvichak river drainages appear to be nonanadromous 

(Mecklenburg et al. 2002, p. 182). While anadromous lower Kuskokwim River drainage 

individuals do not mature until they reach lengths of 300 mm and age 3, and can grow to at least 

450 mm and live to at least age 14 (Harper et al. 2007, p. 13); Lake Clark area least cisco also 

mature at age 3, but at lengths of only ~145–180 mm, and reach a maximum length of ~276 mm 

and a reported maximum age of 9 (Russell 1980, p. 77, 85; Schlenger 1996, p. 42). 

Mature least cisco in the Kuskokwim River drainage may not spawn every year (Harper et al. 

2007, p. 13, 21), but the frequency of spawning in Bristol Bay waters is unknown. The fecundity 

of sampled large (280 to 420 mm FL) migratory female least cisco in interior Alaska ranges from 

11,500 to 111,600 ≤1-mm diameter ova, but the fecundity of the much smaller Nushagak and 

Kvichak river drainage fish is not reported, and presumably averages less than 11,000 (Clark and 

Bernard 1992; Morrow 1980b, p. 28). 

- 42 - 
pygmy whitefish

Pygmy whitefish grow slowly, have low fecundity, and most live short lives (Eschmeyer and 

Bailey 1955; Heard and Hartman 1966), although some individuals can live to at least age 16 

(Rankin 2004, p. 90-92). Maximum total length for individuals in many populations is around 

120–140 mm (Chereshnev and Skopets 1992; Eschmeyer and Bailey 1955; Plumb 2006, p. 14; 

Russell 1980, p. 91). In Bristol Bay, the longest reported length was 163 mm for an age-5 female 

(Heard and Hartman 1966), and the greatest age was 7 years (Plumb 2006, p. 19). In some 

Bristol Bay lakes, the maximum age of sampled fish was only 3, and the maximum length was 

only 83 mm (Heard and Hartman 1966). Across their global range, males and females mature at 

ages 1 to 4 and lengths as small as 53 to 56 mm (Bird and Roberson 1979; Chereshnev and 

Skopets 1992; Eschmeyer and Bailey 1955; Heard and Hartman 1966; McCart 1965; Weisel et 

al. 1973). Heard and Hartman (1966) reported that mature female pygmy whitefish in the lakes 

of Bristol Bay’s Naknek River system produced from 103 to 1,153 ova per year, each measuring 

an average of 2.4 mm in diameter. Once mature, pygmy whitefish appear to spawn annually 

(Chereshnev and Skopets 1992; Weisel et al. 1973). Heard and Hartman (1966) concluded that 

pygmy whitefish in the Naknek River system spawn at night from mid-November to midDecember. 

round whitefish

Round whitefish are nonanadromous freshwater residents (Mecklenburg et al. 2002, p. 189) and 

many do not appear to undertake lengthy migrations (Morrow 1980b, p. 33). In interior Alaska 

lakes and in the Nushagak and Kvichak river drainages, round whitefish mature at lengths 

between 220 mm and 290 mm (TL), at ages between 4 and 8 years, and once mature, most 

spawn annually (Russell 1980, p. 104; Van Whye and Peck 1968, p. 36). In southwest Alaska 

round whitefish live to at least age 14 and reach lengths of around 420 mm (Russell 1980, p. 

104). Furniss (1974, p. 11) reported that the fecundity of northern Alaska round whitefish (mean 

length = 409 mm) was around 5,300 ova. 

Sundet and Pechek (1985, p. 45) concluded that the peak of spawning in the Susitna River 

system was from mid- to late October. Round whitefish deposit their eggs on the substrate, but 

do not excavate redds (Morrow 1980b, p. 33). Eggs incubate through the winter and after the 

young hatch, they remain in the redd absorbing their yolk sac for several more weeks before 

emerging in late winter to early spring (Scott and Crossman 1998, p. 288). 

Predator–prey relationships

least cisco

The diet of Lake Clark-area least cisco includes a wide range of invertebrates including 

plecoptera nymphs, chironomid nymphs and adults, trichoptera adults, and copepods (Russell 

1980, p. 87, 88; Schlenger 1996, p. 57). Because of their diet overlap, Kerns (1968) considered 

least cisco the most important competitor of juvenile Lake Clark sockeye salmon. Lake Clark 

lake trout and northern pike are known to feed on least cisco (Metsker 1967, p. 29; Russell 1980, 

p. 83, 96), and burbot and predatory birds are reported to feed on them in other parts of Alaska 

(Morrow 1980b, p. 29). 

- 43 - 
pygmy whitefish

Multiple morphological and ecological pygmy whitefish morphs can occur in individual Bristol 

Bay lakes (McCart 1970), but invertebrates dominate the diet of all morphs. Pelagic morphs feed 

primarily on plankton while benthic morphs feed primarily on larval insects (particularly 

chironomids) and mollusks (Chereshnev and Skopets 1992; Heard and Hartman 1966; McCart 

1970). Pygmy whitefish are flexible in their diet (Heard and Hartman 1966; Plumb 2006, p. 46, 

51-52; Weisel et al. 1973), and will eat the eggs of whitefish when they are available (Eschmeyer 

and Bailey 1955). Terns, Dolly Varden, lake trout, and Arctic char are all known to feed on 

pygmy whitefish (Hallock and Mongillo 1998; Russell 1980, p. 98; Scanlon 2000, p. 51, 53-54; 

Snyder 1917). 

round whitefish

In the Nushagak and Kvichak river drainages, adjacent areas, and elsewhere in Alaska, round 

whitefish eat primarily benthic invertebrates, including trichopteran and chironomid larvae and 

snails (Furniss 1974, p. 11, 22, 36; Russell 1980, p. 108; Van Whye and Peck 1968, p. 37). 

Round whitefish will feed on salmon and other whitefish eggs when they are available (Brown 

2006, p. 23; Van Whye and Peck 1968, p. 37). In the Nushagak and Kvichak river drainages and 

adjacent areas, burbot, lake trout, and northern pike are known to prey on round whitefish 

(Russell 1980, p. 67, 81-82, 95-96). 

Cods (Family Gadidae)

Almost all of the approximately 30 to 60 cod species worldwide are found in cool marine waters, 

mostly in the northern hemisphere. Like many orders of fish, taxonomy, in this case at the family 

level, remains unsettled (Froese and Pauly 2012; Mecklenburg et al. 2002, p. 269; Scott and 

Crossman 1998, p. 640), explaining in part the broad range of species reported in the cod family. 

Two of the primarily marine cods, Pacific cod Gadus macrocephalus, and saffron cod Eleginus 

gracilis, may periodically enter the lower reaches of the Nushagak and Kvichak rivers, but their 

freshwater distribution appears very limited (Mecklenburg et al. 2002, p. 293, 296; Morrow 

1980b, p. 185-188), and they are not discussed further here. Only one of the cods, the burbot 

Lota lota, is exclusively a freshwater resident everywhere it occurs and it is discussed below.

Less than an estimated ~400 burbot are harvested annually in Nushagak and Kvichak river 

drainage subsistence fisheries (Fall et al. 2006, p. 45, 80, 113, 150, 194; Krieg et al. 2009, p. 39, 

76, 117, 161, 201) and they are not a target of the regional sport fishery (Jennings et al. 2011, p. 

77). 

Freshwater distribution and habitats 

Burbot range broadly across the mainland fresh waters of both North America and Eurasia, north 

of about 40° N (Scott and Crossman 1998, p. 642). Burbot are found throughout mainland 

Alaska, except for southern Southeast (Mecklenburg et al. 2002, p. 289; Morrow 1980b, p. 187). 

Burbot are reported in many lakes and streams across the Nushagak and Kvichak river drainages, 

but they are uncommon or absent in small headwater streams or the lakes and streams of the 

coastal tundra plain (ADF&G 2012; Burgner et al. 1965, p. 4; Hildreth 2008, p. 9; Russell 1980, 

p. 64-65; Yanagawa 1967, p. 10). 

- 44 - 
Burbot live in Alaska lakes (e.g., Schwanke and McCormick 2010), and in large river systems 

like the Yukon River drainage (Andersen 1983, p. 18, 21; Evenson 1998). In southcentral 

Alaska’s Susitna River, burbot reside mostly in highly turbid waters, both in the mainstem and in 

off-channel habitats (ADF&G 1983a, p. F-26; ADF&G 1983b, p. F-21, G-20; Sundet 1986, p. 

33; Sundet and Pechek 1985, p. 32). In the Susitna River system they spawn both in the 

mainstem and in low-gradient tributaries at sites with water velocities of 0–0.6 m∙s

-1 (0.0-2.1 

ft∙s

-1), depths of 0.6–2.7 m (0.2–9.0 ft), over sand to cobble substrates, possibly in conjunction 

with upwelling and in areas where anchor ice does not form (Sundet 1986, p. 36-37) (Sundet 

1986; Sundet and Pechek 1985, p. 33, 42). In Lake Michigan, their preferred summer water 

temperature range is 8–13° C (Edsall et al. 1993). Large Alaska river systems may support 

multiple discrete burbot stocks (Evenson 1988). 

Life cycle

Burbot are nonanadromous, freshwater residents, although they may venture into brackish or 

marine waters (Chen 1969, p. 1). Size at maturity appears to vary across Alaska, and burbot may 

mature at lengths from 310 to 500 mm, at ages of around 4 to 7 (Chen 1969, p. 36; Evenson 

1990; Sundet and Pechek 1985, p. 33). After they mature, most, but not all, individuals spawn 

each year (Chen 1969, p. 35; Clark et al. 1991, p. 5; Evenson 1990; Sundet and Pechek 1985, p. 

33). 

In the Susitna River system, mature burbot begin migrating from mainstem summer feeding 

areas to spawning areas in mid-September to mid-October. While most individuals may move 

little, some fish will seasonally migrate several hundred kilometers (Evenson 1988, p. 14, 30; 

Sundet 1986, p. 37; Sundet and Pechek 1985, p. 33). In southcentral and interior Alaska, burbot 

spawn from mid-January to early February (Chen 1969, p. 20; Sundet 1986. p. 37; Sundet and 

Pechek 1985. p. 33). 

Interior Alaska female burbot (lengths ranging from 504 to 1,040 mm) have estimated 

fecundities ranging from 184,000 to 2,910,000 ova (Clark et al. 1991, p. 6-8). Eggs are demersal, 

nonadhesive, and 0.4 to 0.7 mm in diameter (Clark et al. 1991, p. 5). Because it occurs under the 

ice, details are limited, but Alaska burbot are thought to communally spawn and scatter their 

eggs near the substrate, where they fall into interstitial spaces. In the Tanana River drainage, 

eggs are thought to hatch in late April, young-of-the-year fry reach 20 mm long in June, and 

grow rapidly to lengths of at least 108 mm by early October (Chen 1969, p. 20, 29). 

In Alaska, burbot can reach an age of at least 24 years, but most do not appear to live longer than 

15 years (Chen 1969, p. 27, 28). In interior Alaska, burbot can reach lengths of at least 1,135 mm 

(TL; Hallberg 1986), but the largest reported by Russell (1980, p. 64) in the lakes and rivers of 

the Nushagak and Kvichak river drainages was only 597 mm TL and the oldest was only 11. 

Burbot of the Nushagak and Kvichak river drainages may mature at a smaller size and younger 

age and be less fecund than those of the Yukon and Tanana river drainages. 

Predator–prey relationships

The diet of young-of-the-year burbot is primarily aquatic insects (Plecoptera, Ephemeroptera, 

Diptera, and Trichoptera), but as they grow, fish become an increasingly important part of their 

diet (Chen 1969, p. 42, 43). In the Nushagak and Kvichak river drainages, burbot feed primarily 

on least cisco, lake trout, round whitefish, sculpin, and larval and adult insects (Russell 1980, p. 

- 45 - 
67). In other areas, burbot are also known to eat large quantities of whitefish eggs (Bailey 1972), 

which are available late in the year in the Nushagak and Kvichak river drainages, and lamprey, 

longnose suckers, and northern pike. Large burbot also prey on small burbot (Chen 1969, p. 42). 

Sticklebacks (Family Gasterosteidae)

Members of the stickleback family occur in fresh and nearshore marine waters throughout much 

of the northern hemisphere north of about 30° N (Scott and Crossman 1998, p. 656). Two, the 

threespine stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus, and the ninespine stickleback Pungitius pungitius

are found in the waters of the Nushagak and Kvichak river drainages (Scott and Crossman 1998, 

p. 656). Across their global ranges, both threespine and ninespine sticklebacks exhibit extensive 

morphological variations, and some authors (e.g., Nelson 1971) refer to them as species 

complexes. Here we refer collectively to all members of each species complex by their common 

names. While sticklebacks may once have been the target of directed harvests by Nushagak and 

Kvichak river drainage residents (e.g., Krieg et al. 2009, p. 190), they are currently caught only 

in small numbers in a few locations, principally through the ice in subsistence fisheries (Fall et 

al. 2006, p. 69, 80, 335), and are not harvested in sport fisheries (Jennings et al. 2011).

Freshwater distribution and habitats 

threespine stickleback

This species is nearly circumpolar in distribution, although that distribution has considerable 

discontinuities (Scott and Crossman 1998, p. 666). In Alaska, where up to four distinct 

phenotypes have been reported (Narver 1969; Willacker et al. 2010), threespine sticklebacks are 

reported near the coast from southern Southeast to the Bering Strait, but records west and north 

of Bristol Bay are uncommon (ADF&G 2012; Mecklenburg et al. 2002, p. 333; Morrow 1980b, 

p. 333). In and near the Nushagak and Kvichak river drainages, threespine stickleback are 

reported both in lowland and upland lakes and in river systems from estuaries to medium-sized 

streams, where they are primarily associated with sites with low current velocity (ADF&G 2012; 

Burgner et al. 1965; Haas 2004; Hildreth 2008, p. 9; Kerns 1968; Russell 1980, p. 111). They are 

common in the Kvichak River and in the lower reaches of some Iliamna Lake tributaries. Many 

of the large individuals encountered during the late summer in the Kvichak River appear to be 

moribund post-spawners (Wiedmer unpublished), a pattern observed elsewhere in southwest 

Alaska (Harvey et al. 1997). They can occur in swifter streams (Bond and Becker 1963), but 

appear largely absent from headwaters (ADF&G 2012). 

In streams, they have a significant preference for low velocity, deeper (>0.2 m) habitats with 

extensive aquatic vegetation and high oxygen concentrations. They prefer to be away from 

stream banks and riparian cover, perhaps to avoid the fish predators that dwell there (Copp and 

Kováč 2003). In some Nushagak and Kvichak river drainage lakes, such as Iliamna Lake, they 

are abundant in offshore open waters (Hartman and Burgner 1972; Kerns 1968). Stickleback 

have an affinity for their native habitat type (lake or stream), and that affinity parallels 

morphological and genetic divergence (Bolnick et al. 2009), leading to genetically distinct 

populations, even in a given drainage (Reusch et al. 2001). In lakes of southwest Alaska, 

spawning and early development is in shallow, nearshore areas; as fish mature they may remain 

nearshore or move to open, offshore waters (Hartman and Burgner 1972; Narver 1966). 

- 46 - 
ninespine stickleback

The ninespine stickleback has a circumpolar distribution across the northern hemisphere (Scott 

and Crossman 1998, p. 672, 673). In Alaska it is found from the Kenai Peninsula west and north 

to waters draining to the Arctic Ocean. While Mecklenburg et al. (2002, p. 334) map its range 

across most of mainland Alaska, it appears to be absent or infrequent away from coastal areas 

(ADF&G 2012; Morrow 1980b, p. 194). In the Nushagak and Kvichak river drainages, ninespine 

stickleback are more widespread than threespine stickleback. Ninespine sticklebacks can tolerate 

low dissolved oxygen concentrations and are reported both in lowland and upland ponds and 

lakes (Burgner et al. 1965; Hartman and Burgner 1972; Hildreth 2008, p. 9; Morrow 1980b, p. 

192; Russell 1980, p. 87). They occur from the lower mainstem rivers to headwaters (ADF&G 

2012), but are primarily associated with shallow, low velocity sites with emergent vegetation 

(Russell 1980, p. 87). In southwest Alaska lakes, spawning occurs in shallow, nearshore areas 

with organic substrates and rooted aquatic plants (Narver 1966). In Iliamna Lake and Lake Clark, 

they are largely absent from offshore areas (Kerns 1968). 

Life cycle

threespine stickleback

Threespine sticklebacks can have either anadromous or nonanadromous life histories, and 

anadromous individuals migrate in May (Harvey et al. 1997; Sundet and Pechek 1985) from the 

sea to spawning areas at least 60 km up major North American Pacific coast river systems (Virgl 

and McPhail 1994). The distribution of anadromous individuals in the Nushagak and Kvichak 

river drainages is unknown. In southwest Alaska, including the Nushagak and Kvichak river 

drainages, most spawners are age 2 or 3, most spawning occurs in June and early July, and often 

occurs in beds of aquatic plants (Bond and Becker 1963; Narver 1966; Russell 1974, p. 42). 

Males establish and defend territories, and construct, with vegetation and sand, barrel-shaped 

nests into which females deposit eggs (Morrow 1980b, p. 190). Total fecundity varies 

considerably depending on food availability during the mating season (Wootton and Evans 1976)

and can range from 80 to 1,300 ova (Morrow 1980b, p. 190). Young-of-the-year fry emerge from 

their nests at lengths of around 7 mm in late July to early August, and by the end of August reach 

lengths of around 27 mm (Dunn 1962; Harvey et al. 1997; Morrow 1980b, p. 190; Narver 1966). 

In southwest Alaska, most individuals do not live beyond two or three years, reach lengths to 

around 80 mm, and probably only spawn once (Dunn 1962; Narver 1966; Russell 1980, p. 111). 

ninespine stickleback

Alaska ninespine sticklebacks are primarily nonanadromous (Morrow 1980b, p. 192-193). In 

some southwest Alaska lakes, ninespine sticklebacks mature at ages 1 to 2 and migrate upstream 

in May to spawn (Harvey et al. 1997; Narver 1966). Spawning occurs from late June through at 

least mid-July and, like threespine sticklebacks, males construct nests in which multiple females 

lay batches of eggs, perhaps 50 to 80 at a time. Total female fecundity reportedly ranges up to 

1,000 ova (Froese and Pauly 2012). Eggs hatch in about a week to ten days and the male parent 

guards and fans the nest while the eggs incubate and the larval fish develop (Morrow 1980b, p. 

193; Narver 1966). By late July young-of-the-year fry are free-swimming and some may migrate 

to downstream feeding and overwintering habitats (Harvey et al. 1997). Egg development and 

early growth is very rapid; by the end of August fry reach lengths of around 36 mm (Narver 

- 47 - 
1966). In southwest Alaska, ninespine stickleback reach lengths of around 60 mm and most 

spawn only once (ADF&G 2012, e.g., Site FSB0318A06; Harvey et al. 1997; Narver 1966). 

Predator–prey relationships

threespine stickleback

Copp and Kováč (2003) reported that the diet of threespine sticklebacks was dominated by 

cladocerans, copepods, amphipods, chrinomids, and ostracods. Considerable competition 

between age-0 sockeye and similarly sized age-1 threespine stickleback may occur in lakes of the 

Nushagak and Kvichak river drainages, and dense populations of sockeye fry may displace 

threespine sticklebacks from open water habitats (Hartman and Burgner 1972; Kerns 1968). 

A wide variety of birds and fish in the Nushagak and Kvichak river drainages feed on threespine 

sticklebacks, including adult Arctic char, northern pike, and rainbow trout (Bond and Becker 

1963; Hartman and Burgner 1972; Metsker 1967). Threespine sticklebacks are also preyed on by 

large aquatic macroinvertebrates such as immature dragonflies (Lescak et al. 2012) and are 

particularly vulnerable to a host of parasites (Scott and Crossman 1998, p. 667-668; Wiedmer 

unpublished). 

ninespine stickleback

The diet of ninespine sticklebacks is dominated by small aquatic invertebrates, similar to the diet 

of threespine sticklebacks (Morrow 1980b, p. 194). In the Nushagak and Kvichak river 

drainages, ninespine sticklebacks are preyed on by a wide variety of birds and fish, including 

lake trout, northern pike, and rainbow trout (Bond and Becker 1963; Russell 1980, p. 67, 96). 

Sculpins (Family Cottidae)

Most of the approximately 70 genera and 300 species of sculpins making up the Family Cottidae 

live near the bottom of northern marine waters. While only a few species are primarily 

freshwater residents (Mecklenburg et al. 2002, p. 398), they can be important parts of salmonid 

stream ecosystems (Petrosky and Waters 1975). Two nonanadromous freshwater sculpin species 

occur in the Nushagak and Kvichak river drainages: coastrange sculpin Cottus aleuticus, and 

slimy sculpin C. cognatus. Because of their very similar appearance, many field surveys do not 

distinguish between these two species, so the relative distribution of each species within the 

Nushagak and Kvichak river drainages is uncertain. Sculpins are not a target of Nushagak and 

Kvichak river drainage subsistence (Fall et al. 2006; Krieg et al. 2009) or sport fisheries

(Jennings et al. 2011). 

Freshwater distribution and habitats 

coastrange sculpin

Coastrange sculpin occupy a narrow (≤200 km wide) fringe along North America’s Pacific 

Ocean coast from southern California to the Aleutian Islands (Scott and Crossman 1998, p. 820-

821). Morrow (1980b) reported an isolated population in the Kobuk River draining to Kotzebue 

Sound. Because this species is readily confused with slimy sculpin, its distribution in the 

Nushagak and Kvichak river drainages is uncertain, but appears more restricted than slimy 

sculpin (Bond and Becker 1963). In Bristol Bay they are found in both lakes and in streams; in 

streams they seem to prefer swift open riffles with coarse substrates (Heard 1965). 

- 48 - 
Coastrange sculpin often spawn in steep gradients with coarse substrates (McLarney 1968). In 

July and August, during the first weeks after hatching, coastrange sculpin fry are planktonic near 

the water surface as they drift downstream to lakes or quiet stream backwaters (Heard 1965; 

McLarney 1968). In stream-dwelling populations, after the post-hatching fry drift downstream, 

they migrate back upstream later in the summer after adopting a benthic life-style (McLarney 

1968). At least in some lakes, larger coastrange sculpin have a pronounced daily vertical 

migration: from the bottom during the day to near the surface at night (Ikusemiju 1975). 

slimy sculpin

Slimy sculpin range across northern North America from Virginia on the Atlantic Ocean coast, 

north into Canada’s arctic mainland, and west to Alaska and across the Bering Sea to Asia’s 

Chukotka Peninsula. In North America, slimy sculpin is the most widespread member of its 

genus (Scott and Crossman 1998, p. 832). In Alaska, they range across all of the mainland and 

the island remnants of the currently submerged Beringia, from headwaters to lower mainstems 

(Craig and Wells 1976; Morrow 1980b, p. 210). 

In southcentral Alaska’s Susitna River, slimy sculpin are found in diverse habitats and do not 

exhibit strong preferences for particular hydraulic conditions, water sources, or velocities 

(ADF&G 1983b, p. F-28). Because of their tolerance for a wide range of stream conditions, both 

Bond (1963) and Russell (1980, p. 104) considered them the most widespread of the 

nonanadromous fishes in the lakes and streams of the Nushagak and Kvichak river drainages. 

They occur throughout these two drainages, in upland lakes (Burgner et al. 1965) and from small 

headwater streams to the intertidal zone, but they are uncommon in very low gradient streams 

with fine sediments (ADF&G 2012) or in shallow coastal tundra ponds (Hildreth 2008, p. 9). 

Across their global range, slimy sculpin are found in cool streams and lakes (Craig and Wells 

1976; DiLauro and Bennett 2001; Halliwell et al. 2001). They are thought to exhibit site fidelity 

and do not appear to undertake long-distance seasonal spawning migrations (Cunjak et al. 2005; 

Galloway et al. 2003; Gray et al. 2004; Morgan and Ringler 1992), but will migrate in lakes in 

response to seasonal food availability (e.g., sockeye salmon eggs, Foote and Brown 1998). 

In streams, slimy sculpins, particularly age-0 juveniles, tend to use shallower habitats with faster 

velocities, often under the cover of coarse substrates (van Snik Gray and Stauffer 1999). In 

Bristol Bay they occur at all depths in lakes (Heard 1965). In Lake Ontario, slimy sculpins were

found to more than 150 m deep, with younger, smaller individuals typically in shallower waters 

(Brandt 1986). However, they may not occur in isolated shallow lakes subject to extensive winter 

freezing (Hershey et al. 2006). Slimy sculpin spawn in streams in areas with shallow water 

(~0.16 m) and coarse substrates (Keeler and Cunjak 2007) and in lakes (Bond and Becker 1963). 

In streams, they prefer cool, stable riffles and are strongly affected by flood, drought, and 

elevated turbidity (Danehy et al. 1998; Edwards and Cunjak 2007; Keeler et al. 2007; Langdon 

2001; Petrosky and Waters 1975). Their preferred temperature is reported to be 11.5-13.5° C 

(Symons et al. 1976). Young-of-the-year juveniles appear to have the greatest intolerance for 

warmer water and completely avoid water ≥25° C (Gray et al. 2005). 

- 49 - 
Life cycle

coastrange sculpin

Coastrange sculpins appear to be nonanadromous freshwater residents (Scott and Crossman 

1998, p. 821-822). Individuals mature at lengths of around 40 to 50 mm (Ikusemiju 1975), at 

ages of 2 or 3, and female fecundity ranges from 100-1764 ova (Patten 1971). In coastal streams 

in southcentral and southeast Alaska, in May to early June females deposit adhesive eggs (<1.5 

mm diameter; Scott and Crossman 1998) on the underside of large, stable rocks. Males fertilize, 

then guard the eggs, which hatch from late May to early July (McLarney 1968). Newly hatched 

larvae are ~7 mm (Ikusemiju 1975) and by late July to mid-August fry reach lengths of 20 to 30 

mm (Brown et al. 1995; Ikusemiju 1975; McLarney 1968). In the central part of their range, 

coastrange sculpin reach lengths of at least 101 mm and may not live much beyond age 4 (Patten 

1971). 

slimy sculpin

Slimy sculpin are nonanadromous freshwater residents (Mecklenburg et al. 2002, p. 468). In 

arctic Alaska, fish mature between the ages of 3 and 5, at lengths of around 70 mm, and spawn in 

late May, a week or so after breakup (Craig and Wells 1976). About a week before the onset of 

spawning, males select and defend nest sites (the undersides of stable rocks or submerged debris) 

in areas with shallow water (~0.16 m deep) and coarse substrates (Keeler and Cunjak 2007). 

Males can court multiple females and will guard nests with multiple egg clutches (Majeski and 

Cochran 2009). Females deposit adhesive eggs 2.5 to 3 mm in diameter (Morrow 1980b) and 

interior Alaska females have a mean fecundity of around 200 ova (Craig and Wells 1976). 

Young-of-the-year fry are 11 to 13 mm long at the beginning of August and reach 19 to 24 mm 

by late September (Craig and Wells 1976). Once mature, they spawn annually (Craig and Wells 

1976), can reach age 8 in arctic waters (Hanson et al. 1992; McDonald et al. 1982), and lengths 

of at least 117 mm in waters of the Nushagak and Kvichak river drainages (Russell 1980, p. 

104). 

Predator–prey relationships

coastrange sculpin

In California, the diet for coastrange sculpin stream populations is dominated by immature 

aquatic insects and other aquatic arthropods (Brown et al. 1995). In the Nushagak and Kvichak 

river drainages, coastrange sculpin prey on sockeye salmon eggs, alevins, and emerging fry 

(Bond and Becker 1963), particularly on the eggs of Iliamna Lake island beach sockeye salmon 

spawners (Foote and Brown 1998). In turn, during the summer, age-0 planktonic coastrange 

sculpin are preyed on by age-1 sockeye salmon fry (Heard 1965) and Nushagak and Kvichak 

river drainage area sculpin of all sizes (both species combined) are eaten by burbot, humpback 

whitefish, lake trout, northern pike, rainbow trout, and round whitefish (Russell 1980, p. 67, 76, 

81, 82, 83, 96, 97, 103, 108). 

slimy sculpin

The diet of slimy sculpins typically is dominated by aquatic invertebrates such as benthic 

arthropods and small mollusks (Craig and Wells 1976; Hershey and McDonald 1985; Hudson et 

al. 1995; Petrosky and Waters 1975), but where and when available, they will feed on sockeye 

salmon eggs, alevins, and emerging fry (Bond and Becker 1963; Foote and Brown 1998), and 

- 50 - 
lake trout eggs and alevins (Fitzsimons et al. 2006; Fitzsimons et al. 2007; Fitzsimons et al. 

2002; Savino and Henry 1991). They are more successful feeding on salmonid eggs deposited in 

coarser substrates, such as those selected by lake trout and island beach-spawning sockeye 

salmon (Biga et al. 1998). Slimy sculpin predation of successfully buried salmonid eggs and 

alevins in typical stream substrates may be limited (Moyle 1977).

A wide variety of larger fish eat slimy sculpin; including Arctic grayling, burbot, rainbow smelt, 

humpback whitefish, lake trout, Arctic char, northern pike, rainbow trout, and round whitefish 

(Bond and Becker 1963; Brandt and Madon 1986; Elrod and Ogorman 1991; Hudson et al. 1995; 

Owens and Bergstedt 1994; Russell 1980, p. 67, 76, 81, 82, 83, 96, 97, 103, 108; Scanlon 2000, 

p. 51, 53-54).

- 51 -
LITERATURE CITED

ADF&G (Alaska Department of Fish and Game). 1983a. Susitna Hydro aquatic studies Phase II 

report, synopsis of the 1982 aquatic studies and analysis of fish and habitat relationships. 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies, Anchorage, AK.

ADF&G (Alaska Department of Fish and Game). 1983b. Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies; Phase 

II report: synopsis of the 1982 aquatic studies and analysis of fish and habitat 

relationships-Appendices. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Susitna Hyrdro Aquatic 

Studies, Anchorage, AK.

ADF&G (Alaska Department of Fish and Game). 2012. Alaska Freshwater Fish Inventory; 

Available URL "http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=ffinventory.main" 

[Accessed 10/23/2012]. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish.

Allin, R. W. 1954. Determination of the characteristics of sport fisheries-Anchorage area, Work 

Plan No. C, Job No. 1. Pages 32-45 in Quarterly progress report, Project F-1-R-4. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service and Alaska Game Commission.

Alt, K. T. 1979. Contributions to the life history of the humpback whitefish in Alaska. 

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 108(2):156-160.

Alt, K. T. 1986. Western Alaska rainbow trout studies, Annual Performance Report, 1985-1986, 

Project F-10-1,27(T-6-1). Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish, 

Juneau, AK.

Andersen, F. M. 1983. Upper Yukon River test fishing studies, 1982; AYK Region Yukon Test 

Fish Report #17. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Commercial 

Fisheries, Fairbanks, AK.

Andrew, J. H., N. Jonsson, B. Jonsson, K. Hindar, and T. G. Northcote. 1992. Changes in use of 

lake habitat by experimentally segregated populations of cutthroat trout and Dolly 

Varden char. Ecography 15(2):245-252.

Andrusak, H., and T. G. Northcote. 1971. Segregation between adult cutthroat trout (Salmo 

clarki) and Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma) in small coastal British Columbia lakes. 

Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 28(9):1259-1268.

Anras, M. L. B., P. M. Cooley, R. A. Bodaly, L. Anras, and R. J. P. Fudge. 1999. Movement and 

habitat use by lake whitefish during spawning in a boreal lake: Integrating acoustic 

telemetry and geographic information systems. Transactions of the American Fisheries 

Society 128(5):939-952.

Armstrong, R. H. 1970. Age, food, and migration of Dolly Varden smolts in southeastern 

Alaska. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 27(6):991-1004.

Armstrong, R. H. 1974. Migration of anadromous Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma) in 

southeastern Alaska. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 31(4):435-444.

Armstrong, R. H. 1980. A guide to the birds of Alaska. Alaska Northwest Pub. Co., Anchorage, 

AK.

Armstrong, R. H., and J. E. Morrow. 1980. The dolly varden charr, Salvelinus malma. Pages 99-

140 in E. K. Balon, editor. Charrs: Salmonid fishes of the genus Salvelinus. Dr. W. Junk 

bv.

Aspinwall, N. 1965. Spawning characteristics and early life history of the Alaskan blackfish, 

Dallia pectoralis Bean. University of Washington, Seattle, WA.

- 52 -
Bailey, M. M. 1972. Age, growth, reproduction, and food of burbot, Lota lota (Linnaeus), in 

southwestern Lake Superior. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 101(4):667-

674.

Barndt, S. A., and C. M. Kaya. 2000. Reproduction, growth, and winter habitat of Arctic 

grayling in an intermittent canal. Northwest Science 74(4):294-305.

Baroudy, E., and J. M. Elliott. 1994. Racial differences in eggs and juveniles of Windermere 

charr, Salvelinus alpinus. Journal of Fish Biology 45(3):407-415.

Baxter, C. V., K. D. Fausch, M. Murakami, and P. L. Chapman. 2004. Fish invasion restructures 

stream and forest food webs by interrupting reciprocal prey subsidies. Ecology 

85(10):2656-2663.

Baxter, C. V., K. D. Fausch, M. Murakami, and P. L. Chapman. 2007. Invading rainbow trout 

usurp a terrestrial prey subsidy from native charr and reduce their growth and abundance. 

Oecologia 153(2):461-470.

Beamish, F. W. H., D. L. G. Noakes, and A. Rossiter. 1998. Feeding ecology of juvenile Lake 

Sturgeon, Acipenser fulvescens, in Northern Ontario. Canadian Field-Naturalist 

112(3):459-468.

Behnke, R. J. 1980. A systematic review of the genus Salvelinus. Pages 441-480 in E. K. Balon, 

editor. Charrs: Salmonid fishes of the genus Salvelinus. Dr. W. Junk bv.

Bell, M. C. 1986. Fisheries handbook of engineering requirements and biological criteria. U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, Office of the Chief of Engineers, Fish Passage Development 

and Evaluation Program, Portland, OR.

Bernatchez, L., and J. J. Dodson. 1985. Influence of temperature and current speed on the 

swimming capacity of lake whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis) and cisco (C. artedii). 

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 42(9):1522-1529.

Bernatchez, L., and J. J. Dodson. 1994. Phylogenetic relationships among Palearctic and 

Nearctic whitefish (Coregonus sp.) populations as revealed by mitochondrial DNA 

variation. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 51:240-251.

Bevelhimer, M. S., R. A. Stein, and R. F. Carline. 1985. Assessing significance of physiological 

differences among three esocids with a bioenergetics model. Canadian Journal of 

Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 42(1):57-69.

Biga, H., J. Janssen, and J. E. Marsden. 1998. Effect of substrate size on lake trout egg predation 

by mottled sculpin. Journal of Great Lakes Research 24(2):464-473.

Bird, F. H., and K. Roberson. 1979. Pygmy whitefish, Prosopium coulteri, in three lakes of the 

Copper River system in Alaska. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 

36(4):468-470.

Bjornn, T. C., and D. W. Reiser. 1991. Habitat requirements of salmonids in streams. Pages 83-

138 in W. R. Meehan, editor. Influences of forest and rangeland management on 

salmonid fishes and their habitats, Special Publication 19. American Fisheries Society, 

Bethesda, MD.

Blackett, R. F. 1962. Some phases in the life history of the Alaskan blackfish, Dallia pectoralis. Copeia 1962(1):124-130.

Blackett, R. F. 1968. Spawning behavior, fecundity, and early life history of anadromous Dolly 

Varden, Salvelinus malma (Walbaum) in southeastern Alaska; Research Report 6. Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, AK.

Blackett, R. F. 1973. Fecundity of resident and anadromous Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma) in 

southeastern Alaska Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 30(4):543-548.

- 53 -
Bogdanov, V. D., S. M. Mel'nichenko, and I. P. Mel'nichenko. 1992. Descent of larval whitefish 

from the spawning region in the Man'ya River (lower Ob basin). Journal of Ichthyology 

32(2):1-9.

Bolnick, D. I., and coauthors. 2009. Phenotype-dependent native habitat preference facilitates 

divergence between parapatric lake and stream stickleback. Evolution 63(8):2004-2016.

Bond, C. E., and C. D. Becker. 1963. Key to the fishes of the Kvichak River system, Circular 

No. 189. Fisheries Research Institute, College of Fisheries, University of Washington, 

Seattle, WA.

Bradford, M. J., J. Duncan, and J. W. Jang. 2008. Downstream migrations of juvenile salmon 

and other fishes in the upper Yukon River. Arctic 61(3):255-264.

Bramblett, R. G., M. D. Bryant, B. E. Wright, and R. G. White. 2002. Seasonal use of small 

tributary and main-stem habitats by juvenile steelhead, coho salmon, and Dolly Varden in 

a southeastern Alaska drainage basin. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 

131(3):498-506.

Brandt, S. B. 1986. Ontogenetic shifts in habitat, diet, and diel-feeding periodicity of slimy 

sculpin in Lake Ontario. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 115(5):711-715.

Brandt, S. B., and S. P. Madon. 1986. Rainbow smelt (Osmerus mordax) predation on slimy 

sculpin (Cottus cognatus) in Lake Ontario. Journal of Great Lakes Research 12(4):322- 325.

Brink, S. R. 1995. Summer habitat ecology of rainbow trout in the Middle Fork of the Gulkana 

River, Alaska. University of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK.

Brix, K. V., R. Gerdes, N. Curry, A. Kasper, and M. Grosell. 2010. The effects of total dissolved 

solids on egg fertilization and water hardening in two salmonids-Arctic Grayling 

(Thymallus arcticus) and Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma). Aquatic Toxicology 

97(2):109-115.

Brown, C., J. Burr, K. Elkin, and R. J. Walker. 2005. Contemporary subsistence uses and 

population distribution of non-salmon fish in Grayling, Anvik, Shageluk, and Holy Cross; 

Technical Paper No. 289. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Subsistence 

Management, Fisheries Resource Monitoring Program, Fishery Information Service, 

Anchorage, AK.

Brown, L. R., S. D. Chase, M. G. Mesa, R. J. Beamish, and P. B. Moyle, editors. 2009. Biology, 

management, and conservation of lampreys in North America, American Fisheries 

Society Symposium 72. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.

Brown, L. R., S. A. Matern, and P. B. Moyle. 1995. Comparative ecology of prickly sculpin, 

Cottus asper, and coastrange sculpin, C. aleuticus, in the Eel River, California. 

Environmental Biology of Fishes 42:329-343.

Brown, R. J. 2004. A biological assessment of whitefish species harvested during the spring and 

fall in the Selawik River Delta, Selawik National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska; Alaska 

Fisheries Technical Report Number 77. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fairbanks Fish 

and Wildlife Field Office, Fairbanks, AK.

Brown, R. J. 2006. Humpback whitefish Coregonus pidschian of the Upper Tanana River 

drainage; Alaska Fisheries Technical Report Number 90. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Fairbanks Fish and Wildlife Field Office, Fairbanks, AK.

Brown, R. J., C. Lunderstadt, and B. Schulz. 2002. Movement patterns of radio-tagged adult 

humpback whitefish in the Upper Tanana River drainage; Alaska Fisheries Data Series 

Number 2002-1. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 7, Fishery Resources, 

Fairbanks, AK.

- 54 -
Brunner, P. C., M. R. Douglas, A. Osinov, C. C. Wilson, and L. Bernatchez. 2001. Holarctic 

phylogeography of Arctic charr (Salvelinus alpinus L.) inferred from mitochondrial DNA 

sequences. Evolution 55(3):573-586.

Bryant, M. D., and R. D. Woodsmith. 2009. The response of salmon populations to geomorphic 

measurements at three scales. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 

29(3):549-559.

Bryant, M. D., N. D. Zymonas, and B. E. Wright. 2004. Salmonids on the fringe: abundance, 

species composition, and habitat use of salmonids in high-gradient headwater streams, 

southeast Alaska. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 133(6):1529-1538.

Bugert, R. M., T. C. Bjornn, and W. R. Meehan. 1991. Summer habitat use by young salmonids 

and their responses to cover and predators in a small southeast Alaska stream. 

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 120(4):474-485.

Burger, C. V., and L. A. Gwartney. 1986. A radio tagging study of Naknek Drainage rainbow 

trout. U. S. National Park Service, Alaska Regional Office, Anchorage, AK.

Burgner, R. L. 1962. Studies of red salmon smolts from the Wood River Lakes, Alaska. Pages 

251-348 in Studies of Alaska red salmon, University of Washington Publications in 

Fisheries New Series, Volume I. University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA.

Burgner, R. L., and coauthors. 1969. Biological studies and estimates of optimum escapements 

of sockeye salmon in the major river systems in southwestern Alaska. Fishery Bulletin 

67(2):405-459.

Burgner, R. L., D. E. Rogers, and J. E. Reeves. 1965. Observations on resident fishes in the 

Tikchik and Wood River Lake systems, University of Washington, Fisheries Research 

Institute Circular 229, Seattle, WA.

Casselman, J. M. 1978. Effects of environmental factors on growth, survival, activity, and 

exploitation of northern pike. Pages 114-128 in R. L. Kendall, editor. Selected coolwater 

fishes of North America; Special Publication No. 11. American Fisheries Society, 

Washington, DC.

Cavender, T. M. 1980. Systematics of Salvelinus from the North Pacific Basin. Pages 295-322 in

E. K. Balon, editor. Charrs: Salmonid fishes of the genus Salvelinus. Dr. W. Junk bv.

Chang-Kue, K. T. J., and E. F. Jessop. 1992. Coregonid migration studies at Kukjuktuk Creek, a 

coastal drainage on the Tuktoyaktuk Peninsula, Northwest Territories. Canadian 

Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 1811.

Chapman, D. W., and T. C. Bjornn. 1968. Distribution of salmonids in streams, with special 

reference to food and feeding. Pages 153-176 in Symposium on salmon and trout in 

streams; H. R. MacMillan lectures in fisheries, The University of British Columbia.

Chen, L.-C. 1969. The biology and taxonomy of the burbot, Lota lota leptura, in interior Alaska; 

Biological Papers of the University of Alaska Number 11. University of Alaska, 

Fairbanks, AK.

Cheney, W. L. 1971a. Distribution, movement, and population indices; Alaska Department of 

Fish and Game, Federal Aid in Fish Restoration, Annual Progress Report, 1970-1971, 

Project No. F-9-3, Job R-III-A. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Sport 

Fish, Juneau, AK.

Cheney, W. L. 1971b. Limnological, productivity, and food habits study of Minto Flats pike; 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Federal Aid in Fish Restoration, Annual 

Performance Report, 1970-1971, Project F-9-3(12)R-III-E. Alaska Department of Fish 

and Game, Division of Sport Fish, Juneau, AK.

- 55 -
Cheney, W. L. 1971c. Pike age and growth; Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Federal Aid 

in Fish Restoration, Annual Performance Report, 1970-1971, Project F-9-3(12)R-III-D. 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish, Juneau, AK.

Cheney, W. L. 1971d. Pike spawning habits; Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Federal Aid 

in Fish Restoration, Annual Performance Report, 1970-1971, Project F-9-3(12)R-III-C. 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish, Juneau, AK.

Cheney, W. L. 1972. Life history investigations of northern pike in the Tanana River drainage; 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Federal Aid in Fish Restoration, Annual 

Performance Report, 1971-72, Project F-9-4(13)R-III. Alaska Department of Fish and 

Game, Division of Sport Fish, Juneau, AK.

Chereshnev, I. A., and M. B. Skopets. 1992. A new record of the pygmy whitefish, Prosopium 

coulteri, from the Amguem River Basin, (Chukotski Peninsula). Journal of Ichthyology 

32(4):46-55.

Chihuly, M. B. 1979. Biology of the northern pike, Esox lucius Linnaeus, in the Wood River 

Lakes system of Alaska, with emphasis on Lake Aleknagik. University of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK.

Chythlook, J., and J. M. Burr. 2002. Seasonal movements and length composition of northern 

pike in the Dall River, 1999-2001; Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fishery Data 

Series No. 02-07. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish, 

Anchorage, AK.

Claramunt, R. M., A. M. Muir, J. Johnson, and T. M. Sutton. 2010. Spatio-temporal trends in the 

food habits of age-0 lake whitefish. Journal of Great Lakes Research 36(sp1):66-72.

Clark, J. H., and D. R. Bernard. 1992. Fecundity of humpback whitefish and least cisco in the 

Chatanika River, Alaska. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 121(2):268- 273.

Clark, J. H., D. R. Bernard, and G. A. Pearse. 1988. Abundance of the George Lake northern 

pike population in 1987 and various life history features of the population since 1972; 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fishery Data Series No. 58. Alaska Department of 

Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish, Anchorage, AK.

Clark, J. H., M. J. Evenson, and R. R. Riffe. 1991. Ovary size, mean egg diameters, and 

fecundity of Tanana River burbot; Fishery Data Series No. 91-64. Alaska Department of 

Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish, Anchorage, AK.

Coggins, L. G. 1992. Compilation of age, weight, and length statistics for Arctic grayling 

samples collected in Southwest Alaska, 1964 through 1989, Fishery Data Series No. 92- 52. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish, Anchorage, AK.

Copp, G. H., and V. Kováč. 2003. Sympatry between threespine Gasterosteus aculeatus and 

ninespine Pungitius pungitius sticklebacks in English lowland streams. Annales 

Zoologici Fennici 40(4):341-355.

Craig, J. 2008. A short review of pike ecology. Hydrobiologia 601(1):5-16.

Craig, P. C. 1978. Movements of stream-resident and anadromous Arctic char (Salvelinus 

alpinus) in a perennial spring on Canning River, Alaska. Journal of the Fisheries 

Research Board of Canada 35(1):48-52.

Craig, P. C., and V. A. Poulin. 1975. Movements and growth of Arctic grayling (Thymallus 

arcticus) and juvenile Arctic char (Salvelinus alpinus) in a small Arctic stream, Alaska. 

Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 32(5):689-697.

- 56 -
Craig, P. C., and J. Wells. 1976. Life-history notes for a population of slimy sculpin (Cottus 

cognatus) in an Alaskan arctic stream. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 

33(7):1639-1642.

Crait, J. R., and M. Ben-David. 2006. River otters in Yellowstone Lake depend on a declining 

cutthroat trout population. Journal of Mammalogy 87(3):485-494.

Crane, P., and coauthors. 2003. Development and application of microsatellites to population 

structure and mixed-stock analyses of Dolly Varden from the Togiak River drainage; 

Final Report for Study 00-011. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Subsistence 

Management, Fisheries Resource Monitoring Program, Anchorage, AK.

Crawford, R. H. 1974. Structure of an air-breathing organ and swim bladder in Alaska blackfish, 

Dallia pectoralis Bean. Canadian Journal of Zoology-Revue Canadienne De Zoologie 

52(10):1221-&.

Crossman, E. J. 1978. Taxonomy and distribution of North American Esocids. Pages 13-26 in R. 

L. Kendall, editor. Selected coolwater fishes of North America; Special Publication No. 

11. American Fisheries Society, Washington, D.C.

Crossman, E. J., and P. Ráb. 1996. Chromosome-banding study of the Alaska blackfish, Dallia 

pectoralis (Euteleostei: Esocae), with implications for karyotype evolution and 

relationship of esocoid fishes. Canadian Journal of Zoology-Revue Canadienne De 

Zoologie 74(1):147-156.

Cunjak, R. A., and coauthors. 2005. Using stable isotope analysis with telemetry or mark- recapture data to identify fish movement and foraging. Oecologia 144(4):636-646.

Danehy, R. J., N. H. Ringler, S. V. Stehman, and J. M. Hassett. 1998. Variability of fish densities 

in a small catchment. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 7(1):36-48.

DeCicco, A. L. 1992. Long-distance movements of anadromous Dolly Varden between Alaska 

and the USSR. Arctic 45(2):120-123.

DeCicco, A. L. 1997. Movements of postsmolt anadromous Dolly Varden in northwestern 

Alaska. American Fisheries Society Symposium 19:175-183.

Deegan, L. A., H. E. Golden, C. J. Harvey, and B. J. Peterson. 1999. Influence of environmental 

variability on the growth of age-0 and adult Arctic grayling. Transactions of the 

American Fisheries Society 128(6):1163-1175.

Degraaf, D. A. 1986. Aspects of the life-history of the pond smelt (Hypomesus olidus) in the 

Yukon and Northwest Territories. Arctic 39(3):260-263.

DeLacy, A. C., and W. M. Morton. 1943. Taxonomy and habits of the charrs, Salvelinus malma

and Salvelinus alpinus, of the Karluk drainage system. Transactions of the American 

Fisheries Society 72(1):79-91.

Denton, K. P., H. B. Rich, and T. P. Quinn. 2009. Diet, movement, and growth of Dolly Varden 

in response to sockeye salmon subsidies. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 

138(6):1207-1219.

DiLauro, M. N., and R. M. Bennett. 2001. Fish species composition in two second-order 

headwater streams in the North Central Appalachians ecoregion. Journal of Freshwater 

Ecology 16(1):35-43.

Dion, C. A., and J. F. Bromaghin. 2008. Stock assessment of rainbow smelt in Togiak River, 

Togiak, Alaska, 2007; Alaska Fisheries Data Series Number 2008-16. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Anchorage Fish and Wildlife Field Office, Anchorage, AK.

- 57 -
Dion, C. A., and N. F. Hughes. 2004. Testing the ability of a temperature-based model to predict 

the growth of age-0 arctic grayling. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 

133(4):1047-1050.

Docker, M. F. 2009. A review of the evolution of nonparasitism in lampreys and an update of the 

paired species concept. Pages 71-114 in L. R. Brown, S. D. Chase, M. G. Mesa, R. J. 

Beamish, and P. B. Moyle, editors. Biology, management, and conservation of lampreys 

in North America, American Fisheries Society Symposium 72. American Fisheries 

Society, Bethesda, MD.

Dolloff, C. A. 1993. Predation by river otters (Lutra canadensis) on juvenile coho salmon 

(Oncorhynchus kisutch) and Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma) in southeast Alaska. 

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 50(2):312-315.

Dolloff, C. A., and G. H. Reeves. 1990. Microhabitat partitioning among stream-dwelling 

juvenile coho salmon, Oncorhynchus kisutch, and Dolly Varden, Salvelinus malma. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 47(12):2297-2306.

Dunaway, D. O. 1993. Status of rainbow trout stocks in the Agulowak and Agulukpak rivers of 

Alaska during 1992, Fishery Data Series No. 93-41. Alaska Department of Fish and 

Game, Division of Sport Fish, Anchorage, AK.

Dunaway, D. O., and S. Sonnichsen. 2001. Area management report for the recreational fisheries 

of the Southwest Alaska Sport Fish Management Area, 1999; Fishery Management 

Report No. 01-6. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish, 

Anchorage, AK.

Dunham, J., and coauthors. 2008. Evolution, ecology, and conservation of Dolly Varden, white- spotted char, and bull trout. Fisheries 33(11):537-550.

Dunn, J. R. 1962. Abundance, distribution, age and growth of juvenile red salmon and threespine 

stickleback in Iliamna Lake, 1961. Fisheries Research Institute, College of Fisheries, 

University of Washington, Seattle, Wash.

Dye, J., M. Wallendorf, G. P. Naughton, and A. D. Gryska. 2002. Stock assessment of northern 

pike in Lake Aleknagik, 1998-1999; Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fishery Data 

Series No. 02-14. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish, 

Anchorage, AK.

Dye, J. E. 2008. Stock assessment of rainbow trout in the Wood River Lakes system, 2003-2005; 

Fishery Data Series No. 08-50. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Sport 

Fish, Anchorage, AK.

Dye, J. E., and C. J. Schwanke. 2009. Report to the Alaska Board of Fisheries for the 

recreational fisheries of Bristol Bay, 2007, 2008, and 2009; Special Publication No, 09-

14. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish, Anchorage, AK.

Eberle, L. C., and J. A. Stanford. 2010. Importance and seasonal availability of terrestrial 

invertebrates as prey for juvenile salmonids in floodplain spring brooks of the Kol River 

(Kamchatka, Russian Federation). River Research and Applications 26(6):682-694.

Edsall, T. A. 1999. The growth-temperature relation of juvenile lake whitefish. Transactions of 

the American Fisheries Society 128(5):962-964.

Edsall, T. A., G. W. Kennedy, and W. H. Horns. 1993. Distribution, abundance, and resting 

microhabitat of burbot on Julians Reef, southwestern Lake Michigan. Transactions of the 

American Fisheries Society 122(4):560-574.

Edsall, T. A., and D. V. Rottiers. 1976. Temperature tolerance of young-of-year lake whitefish, 

Coregonus clupeaformis. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 33(1):177-

180.

- 58 -
Edwards, P., and R. Cunjak. 2007. Influence of water temperature and streambed stability on the 

abundance and distribution of slimy sculpin (Cottus cognatus). Environmental Biology of 

Fishes 80(1):9-22.

Eggers, D. M., and H. J. Yuen, editors. 1984. 1982 Bristol Bay sockeye salmon smolt studies; 

Technical Data Report No. 103. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of 

Commercial Fisheries, Juneau, AK.

Elliott, J. M., and A. Klemetsen. 2002. The upper critical thermal limits for alevins of Arctic 

charr from a Norwegian lake north of the Arctic circle. Journal of Fish Biology 

60(5):1338-1341.

Elrod, J. H., and R. Ogorman. 1991. Diet of juvenile lake trout in southern Lake Ontario in 

relation to abundance and size of prey fishes, 1979-1987. Transactions of the American 

Fisheries Society 120(3):290-302.

Engel, L. J. 1973. Inventory and cataloging of Kenai Peninsula, Cook Inlet, and Prince William 

Sound drainages and fish stocks; Annual Progress Report, 1971-1972, Project No. F-9-5, 

Study No. G-I. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish, Juneau, 

AK.

Eschmeyer, P. H., and R. M. Bailey. 1955. The pygmy whitefish, Coregonus coulteri, in Lake 

Superior. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 84:161-199.

Evenson, M. J. 1988. Movement, abundance and length composition of Tanana River burbot 

stocks during 1987. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish, 

Juneau, AK.

Evenson, M. J. 1990. Age and length at sexual maturity of burbot in the Tanana River, Alaska; 

Fishery Manuscript No. 90-2. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Sport 

Fish, Anchorage, AK.

Evenson, M. J. 1998. Burbot research in rives of the Tanana River drainage, 1997; Fishery Data 

Series No. 98-38. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish, 

Fairbanks, AK.

Fall, J. A., D. L. Holen, B. Davis, T. Krieg, and D. Koster. 2006. Subsistence harvests and uses 

of wild resources in Iliamna, Newhalen, Nondalton, Pedro Bay, and Port Alsworth, 

Alaska, 2004; Technical Paper No. 302. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division 

of Subsistence, Anchorage, AK.

Fausch, K. D., C. V. Baxter, and M. Murakami. 2010. Multiple stressors in north temperate 

streams: lessons from linked forest-stream ecosystems in northern Japan. Freshwater 

Biology 55:120-134.

Fausch, K. D., S. Nakano, and K. Ishigaki. 1994. Distribution of two congeneric charrs in 

streams of Hokkaido Island, Japan: considering multiple factors across scales. Oecologia 

100(1-2):1-12.

Fausch, K. D., S. Nakano, and S. Kitano. 1997. Experimentally induced foraging mode shift by 

sympatric charrs in a Japanese mountain stream. Behavioral Ecology 8(4):414-420.

Faustini, M. A. 1996. Status of rainbow trout in the Goodnews River, Togiak National Wildlife 

Refuge, Alaska, 1993-1994, Technical Report Number 36. U. S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, King Salmon Fishery Resource Office, King Salmon, AK.

Fine, J. M., and P. W. Sorensen. 2010. Production and fate of the sea lamprey migratory 

pheromone. Fish Physiology and Biochemistry 36(4):1013-1020.

- 59 -
Fine, J. M., L. A. Vrieze, and P. W. Sorensen. 2004. Evidence that petromyzontid lampreys 

employ a common migratory pheromone that is partially comprised of bile acids. Journal 

of Chemical Ecology 30(11):2091-2110.

Fitzsimons, J., and coauthors. 2006. Laboratory estimates of salmonine egg predation by round 

gobies (Neogobius melanostomus), sculpins (Cottus cognatus and C. bairdi), and crayfish 

(Orconectes propinquus). Journal of Great Lakes Research 32(2):227-241.

Fitzsimons, J. D., and coauthors. 2007. Influence of egg predation and physical disturbance on 

lake trout Salvelinus namaycush egg mortality and implications for life-history theory. 

Journal of Fish Biology 71(1):1-16.

Fitzsimons, J. D., D. L. Perkins, and C. C. Krueger. 2002. Sculpins and crayfish in lake trout 

spawning areas in Lake Ontario: Estimates of abundance and egg predation on lake trout 

eggs. Journal of Great Lakes Research 28(3):421-436.

Foote, C., and G. Brown. 1998. Ecological relationship between freshwater sculpins (genus 

Cottus) and beach-spawning sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) in Iliamna Lake, 

Alaska. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 55(6):1524-1533.

Froese, R., and D. Pauly, editors. 2012. FishBase, World Wide Web electronic publication 

www.fishbase.org (accessed 11/01/2012).

Fudge, R. J. P., and R. A. Bodaly. 1984. Postimpoundment winter sedimentation and survival of 

lake whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis) eggs in southern Indian Lake, Manitoba. 

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 41(4):701-705.

Furniss, R. A. 1974. Inventory and cataloging of Arctic area waters; Federal Aid in Fish 

Restoration, Annual performance report, 1973-1974, Project F-9-6(15)G-I-I. Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish, Juneau, AK.

Furniss, R. A. 1975. Inventory and cataloging of Arctic area waters. Federal Aid in Restoration, 

Annual Performance Report, Project F-9-7, Job G-I-I.16. Alaska Department of Fish and 

Game, Sport Fish Division, Juneau, AK.

Galloway, B. J., and coauthors. 2003. Examination of the responses of slimy sculpin (Cottus 

cognatus) and white sucker (Catostomus commersoni) collected on the Saint John River 

(Canada) downstream of pulp mill, paper mill, and sewage discharges. Environmental 

Toxicology and Chemistry 22(12):2898-2907.

Geen, G. H., T. G. Northcote, G. F. Hartman, and C. C. Lindsey. 1966. Life histories of two 

species of catostomid fishes in Sixteenmile Lake, British Columbia, with particular 

reference to inlet stream spawning. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 

23(11):1761-1788.

Gibson, E. S., and F. E. J. Fry. 1954. The performance of the lake trout, Salvelinus namaycush, at 

various levels of temperature and oxygen pressure. Canadian Journal of Zoology 32:252- 260.

Gray, M. A., R. A. Cunjak, and K. R. Munkittrick. 2004. Site fidelity of slimy sculpin (Cottus 

cognatus): insights from stable carbon and nitrogen analysis. Canadian Journal of 

Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 61(9):1717-1722.

Gray, M. A., R. A. Curry, and K. R. Munkittrick. 2005. Impacts of nonpoint inputs from potato 

farming on populations of slimy sculpin (Cottus cognatus). Environmental Toxicology 

and Chemistry 24(9):2291-2298.

Greenbank, J. T. 1954. Sport fish survey, Katmai National Monument, Alaska. Pages 1-31 in

Quarterly progress report, Project F-1-R-4. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Alaska 

Game Commission.

- 60 -
Gregory, L. S. 1988. Population characteristics of Dolly Varden in the Tiekel River, Alaska. 

University of Alaska, Fairbanks.

Gwartney, L. A. 1982. Inventory and cataloging of sport fish and sport fish waters of the Bristol 

Bay area. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Federal Aid in Fish Restoration, Annual 

Performance Report, 1981-1982, Project F-9-14, 23 (G-I-E), Juneau, AK.

Gwartney, L. A. 1985. Naknek drainage rainbow trout study in the Katmai National Park and 

Preserve. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish and the U. S. 

Department of Interior, National Park Service, King Salmon, AK.

Haas, G. 2004. Fish inventory report (2004) - BLM sampling--Iliamna, Alaska (June 11--16, 

2003). University of Alaska Museum of the North, Fairbanks, AK.

Hagen, J., and E. B. Taylor. 2001. Resource partitioning as a factor limiting gene flow in 

hybridizing populations of Dolly Varden char (Salvelinus malma) and bull trout 

(Salvelinus confluentus). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 

58(10):2037-2047.

Haldorson, L., and P. Craig. 1984. Life history and ecology of a Pacific-Arctic population of 

rainbow smelt in coastal waters of the Beaufort sea. Transactions of the American 

Fisheries Society 113(1):33-38.

Hallberg, J. E. 1986. Interior burbot study part a: Tanana River burbot study; Project F-10-1, 27 

(N-8-1)Part A. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish, Juneau, 

AK.

Halliwell, D. B., T. R. Whittier, and N. H. Ringler. 2001. Distributions of lake fishes of the 

northeast USA - III. Salmonidae and associated coldwater species. Northeastern 

Naturalist 8(2):189-206.

Hallock, M., and P. E. Mongillo. 1998. Washington State status report for the pygmy whitefish, 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA.

Hanson, K. L., A. E. Hershey, and M. E. McDonald. 1992. A comparison of slimy sculpin 

(Cottus cognatus) populations in arctic lakes with and without piscivorous predators. 

Hydrobiologia 240(1-3):189-201.

Harding, R. D., and C. L. Coyle. 2011. Southeast Alaska steelhead, trout, and Dolly Varden 

management; Special Publication No. 11-17. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 

Division of Sport Fish, Anchorage, AK.

Hardisty, M. W. 2006. Lampreys: life without jaws. Forrest Text, Tresaith, UK.

Harper, K. C., F. Harris, R. J. Brown, T. Wyatt, and D. Cannon. 2007. Stock assessment of broad 

whitefish, humpback whitefish and least cisco in Whitefish Lake, Yukon Delta National 

Wildlife Refuge, Alaska, 2001-2003; Alaska Fisheries Technical Report Number 88. U. 

S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Kenai Fish and Wildlife Field Office, Kenai, AK.

Harper, K. C., F. Harris, S. J. Miller, and D. Orabutt. 2009. Migration timing and seasonal 

distribution of broad whitefish, humpback whitefish, and least cisco from Whitefish Lake 

and the Kuskokwim River, Alaska, 2004 and 2005; Alaska Fisheries Technical Report 

Number 105. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Kenai Fish and Wildlife Field Office, 

Kenai, AK.

Hartman, G. F., T. G. Northcote, and C. C. Lindsey. 1962. Comparison of inlet and outlet 

spawning runs of rainbow trout in Loon Lake, British Columbia. Journal of the Fisheries 

Research Board of Canada 19(2):173-200.

- 61 -
Hartman, W. L., and R. L. Burgner. 1972. Limnology and fish ecology of sockeye salmon 

nursery lakes of the world. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 29(6):699-

715.

Harvey, C. J., G. T. Ruggerone, and D. E. Rogers. 1997. Migrations of three-spined stickleback, 

nine-spined stickleback, and pond smelt in the Chignik catchment, Alaska. Journal of 

Fish Biology 50(5):1133-1137.

Headlee, P. G. 1996. Mercury and selenium concentrations in fish tissue and surface waters of 

the Northern Unit of the Innoko National Wildlife Refuge (Kaiyuh Flats), west central 

Alaska, 1993. Tanana Chiefs Conference, Inc., Fairbanks, AK.

Heard, W. R. 1965. Limnetic cottid larvae and their utilization as food by juvenile sockeye 

salmon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 94(2):191-193.

Heard, W. R. 1966. Observations on lampreys in the Naknek River System of Southwest Alaska. 

Copeia 1966(2):332-339.

Heard, W. R., and W. L. Hartman. 1966. Pygmy whitefish Prosopium coulteri in the Naknek 

River system of southwest Alaska. Fishery bulletin of the Fish and Wildlife Service 

65:555-579.

Henderson, M. A., and T. G. Northcote. 1985. Visual prey detection and foraging in sympatric 

cutthroat trout (Salmo clarki clarki) and Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma). Canadian 

Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 42(4):785-790.

Henderson, M. A., and T. G. Northcote. 1988. Retinal structure of sympatric and allopatric 

populations of cutthroat trout (Salmo clarki clarki) and Dolly Varden char (Salvelinus 

malma) in relation to their spatial distribution. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic 

Sciences 45(7):1321-1326.

Hershey, A. E., and coauthors. 2006. Effect of landscape factors on fish distribution in arctic 

Alaskan lakes. Freshwater Biology 51(1):39-55.

Hershey, A. E., and M. E. McDonald. 1985. Diet and digestion rates of slimy sculpin, Cottus 

cognatus, in an Alaskan arctic lake. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 

42(3):483-487.

Hildreth, D. R. 2008. A pilot study to conduct a freshwater fish inventory of tundra ponds on the 

Bristol Bay coastal plain, King Salmon, Alaska, 2006, Alaska Fisheries Data Series 

Number 2008-10. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage Fish and Wildlife Field 

Office, Anchorage, AK.

Hindar, K., B. Jonsson, J. H. Andrew, and T. G. Northcote. 1988. Resource utilization of 

sympatric and experimentally allopatric cutthroat trout and Dolly Varden charr. 

Oecologia 74(4):481-491.

Hino, T., K. Maekawa, and J. B. Reynolds. 1990. Alternative male mating behaviors in 

landlocked Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma) in south-central Alaska. Journal of 

Ethology 8(1):13-20.

Holecek, D. E., and J. P. Walters. 2007. Spawning characteristics of adfluvial rainbow trout in a 

North Idaho stream: Implications for error in redd counts. North American Journal of 

Fisheries Management 27(3):1010-1017.

Hoyle, J. A., O. E. Johannsson, and K. L. Bowen. 2011. Larval lake Whitefish abundance, diet 

and growth and their zooplankton prey abundance during a period of ecosystem change 

on the Bay of Quinte, Lake Ontario. Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Management 14(1):66- 74.

- 62 -
Hudson, P. L., J. F. Savino, and C. R. Bronte. 1995. Predator-prey relations and competition for 

food between age-0 lake trout and slimy sculpins in the Apostle Island region of Lake 

Superior. Journal of Great Lakes Research 21:445-457.

Hughes, N. F. 1998. A model of habitat selection by drift-feeding stream salmonids at different 

scales. Ecology 79(1):281-294.

Hughes, N. F., and J. B. Reynolds. 1994. Why do Arctic grayling (Thymallus arcticus) get bigger 

as you go upstream? Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 51(10):2154- 2163.

Ikusemiju, K. 1975. Aspects of the ecology and life history of the sculpin, Cottus aleuticus

(Gilbert), in Lake Washington. Journal of Fish Biology 7:235-245.

Inoue, M., H. Miyata, Y. Tange, and Y. Taniguchi. 2009. Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) 

invasion in Hokkaido streams, northern Japan, in relation to flow variability and biotic 

interactions. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 66(9):1423-1434.

Jennings, G. B., K. Sundet, and A. E. Bingham. 2011. Estimates of participation, catch, and 

harvest in Alaska sport fisheries during 2009, Fishery Data Series No. 11-45. Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish, Anchorage, AK.

Johnson, J., and P. Blanche. 2012. Catalog of waters important for spawning, rearing, or 

migration of anadromous fishes – Southwestern Region, Effective June 1, 2012, Special 

Publication No. 12-08 Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Divisions of Sport Fish and 

Habitat, Anchorage, AK.

Johnson, L. 1980. The arctic charr, Salvelinus alpinus. Pages 15-98 in E. K. Balon, editor. 

Charrs: Salmonid fishes of the genus Salvelinus. Dr. W. Junk bv.

Johnson, S. W., J. F. Thedinga, and A. S. Feldhausen. 1994. Juvenile salmonid densities and 

habitat use in the main-stem Situk River, Alaska, and potential effects of glacial flooding. 

Northwest Science 68(4):284-293.

Jonsson, B., K. Hindar, and T. G. Northcote. 1984. Optimal age at sexual maturity of sympatric 

and experimentally allopatric cutthroat trout and Dolly Varden charr. Oecologia 

61(3):319-325.

Jonsson, B., N. Jonsson, K. Hindar, T. G. Northcote, and S. Engen. 2008. Asymmetric 

competition drives lake use of coexisting salmonids. Oecologia 157(4):553-560.

Joy, P., and J. M. Burr. 2004. Seasonal movements and length composition of northern pike in 

Old Lost Creek, 2001-2003; Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fishery Data Series 

No. 04-17. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish, Anchorage, 

AK.

Jungwirth, M., and H. Winkler. 1984. The temperature dependence of embryonic development of 

grayling (Thymallus thymallus), Danube salmon (Hucho hucho), Arctic char (Salvelinus 

alpinus) and brown trout (Salmo trutta fario). Aquaculture 38(4):315-327.

Keeler, R. A., A. R. Breton, D. P. Peterson, and R. A. Cunjak. 2007. Apparent survival and 

detection estimates for PIT-tagged slimy sculpin in five small new Brunswick streams. 

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 136(1):281-292.

Keeler, R. A., and R. A. Cunjak. 2007. Reproductive ecology of slimy sculpin in small New 

Brunswick streams. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 136(6):1762-1768.

Kepler, P. 1973. Population studies of northern pike and whitefish in the Minto Flats complex 

with emphasis on the Chatanika River. Federal Aid in Fish Restoration, Annual 

Performance Report, 1972-1973, Project F-9-5, 14 (G-II-J). Alaska Department of Fish 

and Game, Division of Sport Fish, Juneau, AK.

- 63 -
Kerns, O. E. 1968. Abundance, distribution and size of juvenile sockeye salmon and major 

competitor species in Iliamna Lake and Lake Clark, 1966 and 1967. Fisheries Research 

Institute, University of Washington, Seattle.

Keyse, M. D., and coauthors. 2007. Effects of large lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush) on the 

dietary habits of small lake trout: a comparison of stable isotopes (delta N-15 and delta 

C-13) and stomach content analyses. Hydrobiologia 579:175-185.

Kishi, D., and K. Maekawa. 2009. Stream-dwelling Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma) density 

and habitat characteristics in stream sections installed with low-head dams in the 

Shiretoko Peninsula, Hokkaido, Japan. Ecological Research 24(4):873-880.

Kishi, D., M. Murakami, S. Nakano, and Y. Taniguchi. 2004. Effects of forestry on the thermal 

habitat of Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma). Ecological Research 19(3):283-290.

Kitano, S., and K. Shimazaki. 1995. Spawning habitat and nest depth of female Dolly Varden 

Salvelinus malma of different body size. Fisheries Science 61(5):776-779.

Klemetsen, A., and coauthors. 2003. Atlantic salmon Salmo salar L., brown trout Salmo trutta L. 

and Arctic charr Salvelinus alpinus (L.): a review of aspects of their life histories. 

Ecology of Freshwater Fish 12(1):1-59.

Koizumi, I. 2011. Integration of ecology, demography and genetics to reveal population structure 

and persistence: a mini review and case study of stream-dwelling Dolly Varden. Ecology 

of Freshwater Fish 20(3):352-363.

Koizumi, I., and K. Maekawa. 2004. Metapopulation structure of stream-dwelling Dolly Varden 

charr inferred from patterns of occurrence in the Sorachi River basin, Hokkaido, Japan. 

Freshwater Biology 49(8):973-981.

Koizumi, I., S. Yamamoto, and K. Maekawa. 2006. Female-biased migration of stream-dwelling 

Dolly Varden in the Shiisorapuchi River, Hokkaido, Japan. Journal of Fish Biology 

68(5):1513-1529.

Krieg, T., and coauthors. 2005. Freshwater fish harvest and use in communities of the Kvichak 

watershed, 2003; Technical Paper No. 297. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 

Division of Subsistence, Juneau, AK.

Krieg, T. M., D. L. Holen, and D. Koster. 2009. Subsistence harvests and uses of wild resources 

in Igiugig, Kokhanok, Koliganek, Levelock, and New Stuyahok, Alaska, 2005; Technical 

Paper No. 322. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, 

Anchorage, AK.

Krueger, C. C., M. J. Lisac, S. J. Miller, and W. H. Spearman. 1999. Genetic differentiation of 

rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in the Togiak National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska; 

Alaska Fisheries Technical Report Number 55. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fish 

Genetics Laboratory, Anchorage, AK.

Kucheryavyi, A., and coauthors. 2007. Variations of life history strategy of the Arctic lamprey 

Lethenteron camtschaticum from the Utkholok River (Western Kamchatka). Journal of 

Ichthyology 47(1):37-52.

Lang, N. J., and coauthors. 2009. Novel relationships among lampreys (Petromyzontiformes) 

revealed by a taxonomically comprehensive molecular data set. Pages 41-56 in Biology, 

management, and conservation of lampreys in North America, American Fisheries 

Society Symposium 72. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.

Langdon, R. W. 2001. A preliminary index of biological integrity for fish assemblages of small 

coldwater streams in Vermont. Northeastern Naturalist 8(2):219-232.

- 64 -
LaPerrier, J., D., and R. F. Carlson. 1973. Thermal tolerances of interior Alaskan Arctic grayling 

(Thymallus arcticus), Institute of Water Resources, Report No. IWR-46. University of 

Alaska, Fairbanks, AK.

Lescak, E. A., F. A. von Hippel, B. K. Lohman, and M. L. Sherbick. 2012. Predation of 

threespine stickleback by dragonfly naiads. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 21(4):581-587.

Lindesjöö, E., and J. Thulin. 1992. A skeletal deformity of northern pike (Esox lucius) related to 

pulp-mill effluents. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 49(1):166-172.

Lindsey, C. C. 1964. Problems in zoogeography of the lake trout, Salvelinus namaycush. Journal 

of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 21(5):977-994.

Lisac, M. J. 2009. Seasonal distribution and biological characteristics of Dolly Varden in the 

Goodnews River, Togiak National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska, 2005-2006, Alaska Fisheries 

Technical Report Number 103. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Togiak National Wildlife 

Refuge, Dillingham, AK.

Lisac, M. J. 2010. Abundance and run timing of Dolly Varden in the Middle Fork Goodnews 

River, 2008 and 2009, Alaska Fisheries Data Series Report Number 2010-13. U. S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Togiak National Wildlife Refuge, Dillingham, AK.

Lisac, M. J. 2011. Abundance and run timing of Dolly Varden in the Kanektok River, Togiak 

National Wildlife Refuge, 2008–2010, Alaska Fisheries Data Series Report Number 

2011-7. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Togiak National Wildlife Refuge, Dillingham, 

AK.

Lisac, M. J., and R. D. Nelle. 2000. Migratory behavior and seasonal distribution of Dolly 

Varden Salvelinus malma in the Togiak River watershed, Togiak National Wildlife 

Refuge. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Togiak National Wildlife Refuge, Dillingham, 

AK.

Loftus, K. H. 1958. Studies on river-spawning populations of lake trout in eastern Lake Superior. 

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 87(1):259-277.

Lohr, S. C., P. A. Byorth, C. M. Kaya, and W. P. Dwyer. 1996. High-temperature tolerances of 

fluvial Arctic Grayling and comparisons with summer river temperatures of the Big Hole 

River, Montana. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 125(6):933-939.

Luecke, C., and P. MacKinnon. 2008. Landscape effects on growth of age-0 Arctic grayling in 

tundra streams. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 137(1):236-243.

MacCrimmon, H. R. 1971. World distribution of rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri). Journal of the 

Fisheries Research Board of Canada 28(5):663-704.

MacDonald, R. 1995. Length frequency and age distribution tables for rainbow trout and Arctic 

grayling samples from the Togiak National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska, 1994. U. S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Togiak National Wildlife Refuge, Dillingham, AK.

MacPhee, C., and F. J. Watt. 1973. Swimming performance and migratory behavior of Arctic 

grayling (Thymallus arcticus), Alaska; Progress Report to Bureau of Sport Fisheries and 

Wildlife on Contract No. 14-16-001-5207, Moscow, ID.

Maekawa, K., and T. Hino. 1986. Spawning behavior of Dolly Varden in southeastern Alaska, 

with special reference to the mature male parr. Japanese Journal of Ichthyology 

32(4):454-458.

Maekawa, K., T. Hino, S. Nakano, and W. W. Smoker. 1993. Mate preference in anadromous 

and landlocked Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma) females in two Alaskan streams. 

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 50(11):2375-2379.

- 65 -
Majeski, M. J., and P. A. Cochran. 2009. Spawning season and habitat use of slimy sculpin 

(Cottus cognatus) in southeastern Minnesota. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 24(2):301-

307.

Mallet, J. P., S. Charles, H. Persat, and P. Auger. 1999. Growth modelling in accordance with 

daily water temperature in European grayling (Thymallus thymallus L.). Canadian Journal 

of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 56(6):994-1000.

Manion, P. J. 1968. Production of sea lamprey larvae from nests in two Lake Superior streams. 

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 97(4):484-486.

Martin, N. V. 1966. Significance of food habits in biology, exploitation, and management of 

Algonquin Park, Ontario, lake trout. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 

95(4):415-422.

Martin, N. V., and C. H. Olver. 1980. The lake charr, Salvelinus namaycush. Pages 205-277 in E. 

K. Balon, editor. Charrs: Salmonid fishes of the genus Salvelinus. Dr. W. Junk bv.

Matuszek, J. E., D. L. Wales, and J. M. Gunn. 1992. Estimated impacts of SO2 emissions from 

Sudbury smelters on Ontario’s sportfish populations Canadian Journal of Fisheries and 

Aquatic Sciences 49(S1):87-94.

McBride, D. N. 1980. Homing of Arctic char, Salvelinus alpinus (Linnaeus) to feeding and 

spawning sites in the Wood River lake system, Alaska; Informational Leaflet No. 184. 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Commercial Fisheries, Juneau, AK.

McCart, P. 1965. Growth and morphometry of four British Columbia populations of pygmy 

whitefish (Prosopium coulteri). Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 

22(5):1229-1259.

McCart, P. 1970. Evidence for the existence of sibling species of pygmy whitefish (Prosopium 

coulteri) in three Alaskan lakes. Pages 81-98 in C. C. Lindsey, and C. S. Woods, editors. 

Biology of coregonid fishes. University of Manitoba Press, Winnipeg.

McDermid, J. L., J. D. Reist, and R. A. Bodaly. 2007. Phylogeography and postglacial dispersal 

of whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis complex) in northwestern North America. 

Advances in Limnology 60:91-109.

McDonald, B. G., and coauthors. 2010. Developmental toxicity of selenium to Dolly Varden 

char (Salvelinus malma). Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 29(12):2800-2805.

McDonald, M. E., B. E. Cuker, and S. C. Mozley. 1982. Distribution, production, and age 

structure of slimy sculpin in an arctic lake. Environmental Biology of Fishes 7(2):171- 176.

McDonald, M. E., and A. E. Hershey. 1992. Shifts in abundance and growth of slimy sculpin in 

response to changes in the predator population in an arctic Alaskan lake. Hydrobiologia 

240(1-3):219-223.

McLarney, W. O. 1968. Spawning habits and morphological variation in coastrange sculpin 

Cottus aleuticus and prickly sculpin Cottus asper. Transactions of the American Fisheries 

Society 97(1):46-48.

Mecklenburg, C. W., T. A. Mecklenburg, and L. K. Thorsteinson. 2002. Fishes of Alaska. 

American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.

Meka, J. M., E. E. Knudsen, D. C. Douglas, and R. B. Benter. 2003. Variable migratory patterns 

of different adult rainbow trout life history types in a Southwest Alaska watershed. 

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 132:717-732.

- 66 -
Metsker, H. 1967. Iliamna Lake watershed freshwater commercial fisheries investigation of 

1964, Informational Leaflet 95. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of 

Commercial Fisheries, Dillingham, AK.

Milner, A. M. 1994. Colonization and succession of invertebrate communities in a new stream in 

Glacier Bay National Park, Alaska. Freshwater Biology 32(2):387-400.

Minard, R. E., M. Alexandersdottir, and S. Sonnichsen. 1992. Estimation of abundance, seasonal 

distribution, and size and age composition of rainbow trout in the Kvichak River, Alaska, 

1986 to 1991, Fishery Data Series No. 92-51. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 

Division of Sport Fish, Anchorage, AK.

Minard, R. E., and D. O. Dunaway. 1991. Compilation of age, weight, and length statistics for 

rainbow trout samples collected in southwest Alaska, 1954 through 1989; Fishery Data 

Series No. 91-62. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish, 

Anchorage, AK.

Minard, R. E., D. O. Dunaway, and M. J. Jaenicke. 1998. Area management report for the 

recreational fisheries of the Southwest Alaska Sport Fish Management Area, 1997, 

Fishery Management Report No. 98-03. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division 

of Sport Fish, Anchorage, AK.

Minard, R. E., and J. J. Hasbrouck. 1994. Stock assessment of Arctic char in the Agulowak and 

Agulukpak rivers of the Wood River lake system, 1993; Fishery Data Series No. 94-42. 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish, Anchorage, AK.

Morgan, C. R., and N. H. Ringler. 1992. Experimental manipulation of sculpin (Cottus cognatus) 

populations in a small stream. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 7(2):227-232.

Morrow, J. E. 1980a. Analysis of the dolly varden charr, Salvelinus malma, of northwestern 

North America and northeastern Siberia. Pages 323-338 in E. K. Balon, editor. Charrs: 

Salmonid fishes of the genus Salvelinus. Dr. W. Junk bv.

Morrow, J. E. 1980b. The freshwater fishes of Alaska. Alaska Northwest Publishing Company, 

Anchorage, AK.

Morton, W. M. 1982. Comparative catches and food-habits of Dolly Varden and Arctic charrs, 

Salvelinus malma and Salvelinus alpinus, at Karluk, Alaska, in 1939-1941. 

Environmental Biology of Fishes 7(1):7-28.

Moyle, P. B. 1977. In defense of sculpins. Fisheries 2(1):20-23.

Mueller, K. A., E. Snyder-Conn, and M. Bertram. 1996. Water quality and metal and metaloid 

contaminants in sediments and fish of Koyukuk, Nowitna, and the northern unit of 

Innoko National Wildlfe Refuges, Alaska, 1991; Technical Report NAES-TR-96-03. U. 

S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, Fairbanks, AK.

Myers, G. S. 1949. Usage of anadromous, catadromous and allied terms for migratory fishes. 

Copeia 1949(2):89-97.

Næsje, T. F., B. Jonsson, and O. T. Sandlund. 1986. Drift of cisco and whitefish larvae in a 

Norwegian River. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 115(1):89-93.

Nakano, S., K. D. Fausch, and S. Kitano. 1999. Flexible niche partitioning via a foraging mode 

shift: a proposed mechanism for coexistence in stream-dwelling charrs. Journal of 

Animal Ecology 68(6):1079-1092.

Nakano, S., and M. Kaeiryama. 1995. Summer microhabitat use and diet of four sympatric 

stream-dwelling salmonids in a Kamchatkan stream. Fisheries Science 61(6):926-930.

- 67 -
Nakano, S., F. Kitano, and K. Maekawa. 1996. Potential fragmentation and loss of thermal 

habitats for charrs in the Japanese archipelago due to climatic warming. Freshwater 

Biology 36(3):711-722.

Narver, D. W. 1966. Pelagial ecology and carrying capacity of sockeye salmon in the Chignik 

Lakes, Alaska. University of Washington, Seattle, WA.

Narver, D. W. 1969. Phenotypic variation in threespine sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus) of 

Chignik River system, Alaska. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 

26(2):405-412.

Nelle, R. D. 2003. Life history attributes of rainbow smelt Osmerus mordax dentex in the Togiak 

River, Togiak National Wildlife Refuge, 2002; Annual Report 2003. U. S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Togiak National Wildlife Refuge, Dillingham, AK.

Nelson, J. S. 1971. Comparison of the pectoral and pelvic skeletons and of some other bones and 

their phylogenetic implications in the Aulorhynchidae and Gasterosteidae (Pisces). 

Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 28(3):427-442.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2006. Endangered and threatened species: Final 

listing determinations for 10 distinct population segments of West Coast steelhead. 

Federal Register 71(3):834-862.

Northcote, T. G., and C. J. Bull. 2007. Successful shoreline spawning of rainbow trout in two 

Canadian alpine lakes. Journal of Fish Biology 71(3):938-941.

Osgood, C. 1958. Ingalik social culture; Yale University Publications in Anthropology Number 

53. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.

Ostberg, C. O., S. D. Pavlov, and L. Hauser. 2009. Evolutionary relationships among sympatric 

life history forms of Dolly Varden inhabiting the landlocked Kronotsky Lake, 

Kamchatka, and a neighboring anadromous population. Transactions of the American 

Fisheries Society 138(1):1-14.

Ostdiek, J. L. 1956. Ecological studies on the Alaskan blackfish (Dallia pectoralis Bean), in the 

Barrow, Alaska region. Catholic University of America, Washington D. C.

Ostdiek, J. L., and R. M. Nardone. 1959. Studies on the Alaskan blackfish Dallia pectoralis; I. 

habitat, size and stomach analyses. American Midland Naturalist 61(1):218-229.

Owens, R. W., and R. A. Bergstedt. 1994. Response of slimy sculpins to predation by juvenile 

lake trout in southern Lake Ontario. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 

123(1):28-36.

Patten, B. G. 1971. Spawning and fecundity of seven species of Northwest American Cottus. American Midland Naturalist 85(2):493-506.

Payne, L. X., and J. W. Moore. 2006. Mobile scavengers create hotspots of freshwater 

productivity. Oikos 115(1):69-80.

Pearse, G. A. 1991. Stock assessment of the northern pike populations in Volkmar, George, and 

T lakes, 1990 and 1991, and a historical review of research conducted since 1985; Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game, Fishery Data Series No. 91-63. Alaska Department of 

Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish, Anchorage, AK.

Petrosky, B. R., and J. J. Magnuson. 1973. Behavioral responses of northern pike, yellow perch 

and bluegill to oxygen concentrations under simulated winterkill conditions. Copeia 

1973(1):124-133.

Petrosky, C. E., and T. F. Waters. 1975. Annual production by the slimy sculpin population in a 

small Minnesota trout stream. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 

104(2):237-244.

- 68 -
Pierce, G. S. 1977. Spawning migration and population structure of longnose sucker (Catastomus 

catastomus) in Alaska. University of Idaho, Moscow, ID.

PLP (Pebble Limited Partnership). 2011. Environmental Baseline Document. Unpublished 

report, available online at: http://www.pebbleresearch.com/ebd/.

Plumb, M. P. 2006. Ecological factors influencing fish distribution in a large subarctic lake 

system. M.S. University of Alaska, Fairbanks.

Potter, I. C. 1980. Ecology of larval and metamorphosing lampreys. Canadian Journal of 

Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 37(11):1641-1657.

Power, G. 1978. Fish population structure in arctic lakes. Journal of the Fisheries Research 

Board of Canada 35(1):53-59.

Power, G., and J. Gregoire. 1978. Predation by freshwater seals on the fish community of Lower 

Seal Lake, Quebec. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 35(6):844-850.

Radtke, R. L., D. P. Fey, A. F. DeCicco, and A. Montgomery. 1996. Otolith microstructure in 

young-of-the-year Dolly Varden, Salvelinus malma, from American and Asian 

populations: resolution of comparative life history characteristics. Arctic 49(2):162-169.

Rankin, L. 2004. Phylogenetic and ecological relationship between giant pygmy whitefish 

(Prosopium spp.) and pygmy whitefish (Prosopium coulteri) in north-central British 

Columbia. M.S. The University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George.

Reed, R. J. 1964. Life history and migration patterns of Arctic grayling, Thymallus arcticus, (Pallas), in the Tanana River drainage of Alaska, Research Report No. 2. Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, AK.

Reist, J. D., and W. A. Bond. 1988. Life history characteristics of migratory coregonids of the 

lower Mackenzie River, Northwest Territories, Canada. Finnish Fisheries Research 

9:133-144.

Reist, J. D., J. D. Johnson, and T. J. Carmicheal. 1996. Variation and specific identity of char 

from northwestern Arctic Canada and Alaska. American Fisheries Society Symposium 

19:250-261.

Renaud, C. B., M. F. Docker, and N. E. Mandrak. 2009. Taxonomy, distribution, and 

conservation of lampreys in Canada. Pages 293-309 in L. R. Brown, S. D. Chase, M. G. 

Mesa, R. J. Beamish, and P. B. Moyle, editors. Biology, management, and conservation 

of lampreys in North America, American Fisheries Society Symposium 72. American 

Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.

Reusch, T. B. H., K. M. Wegner, and M. Kalbe. 2001. Rapid genetic divergence in postglacial 

populations of threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus): the role of habitat type, 

drainage and geographical proximity. Molecular Ecology 10(10):2435-2445.

Reynolds, J. B. 2000. Life history analysis of Togiak River char through otolith microchemistry. 

Alaska Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Univeristy of Alaska, Fairbanks, 

AK.

Ridder, W. P. 1998. Radio telemetry of Arctic grayling in the Delta Clearwater River 1995 to 

1997, Fishery Data Series No. 98-37. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of 

Sport Fish, Anchorage, AK.

Roach, S. 1998. Site fidelity, dispersal, and movements of radio-implanted northern pike in 

Minto Lakes, 1995-1997; Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fishery Manuscript No. 

98-1. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish, Anchorage, AK.

Rogers, D. E., M. O. Nelson, J. J. Pella, and R. L. Burgner. 1963. Relative abundance and 

distribution of fish species in Lake Aleknagik. Pages 14-15 in Research in 

- 69 -
Fisheries....1962; Contribution No. 147. Fisheries Research Institute, College of 

Fisheries, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.

Rounsefell, G. A. 1958. Anadromy in North American Salmonidae. Fishery Bulletin 58:171-185.

Royce, W. F. 1951. Breeding habits of lake trout in New York. Fishery Bulletin 592:59-76.

Russell, R. 1977. Rainbow trout life history studies in Lower Talarik Creek - Kvichak Drainage. 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Sport Fish Division, King Salmon, AK.

Russell, R. 1980. A fisheries inventory of waters in the Lake Clark National Monument Area. 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish, King Salmon, AK.

Russell, R. B. 1974. Rainbow trout life history studies in Lower Talarik Creek-Kvichak 

drainage; Federal Aid in Fish Restoration, Annual Performance Report, 1973-1974, 

Project F-9-6(15)G-II-E, Juneau, AK.

Russell, R. B. 2010. Alaska Freshwater Fish Inventory report: Retrieved 11/02/2012 from 

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/FDDDOCS/DOCUMENTS/NOM_PDFs/SWT/10-643.PDF. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish.

Rutz, D. S. 1999. Movements, food availability and stomach contents of northern pike in 

selected Susitna River drainages, 1996-1997; Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 

Fishery Data Series No. 99-5. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Sport 

Fish, Anchorage, AK.

Sandlund, O. T., and coauthors. 1992. The Arctic charr Salvelinus alpinus in Thingvallavatn. 

Oikos 64(1/2):305-351.

Savino, J. F., and M. G. Henry. 1991. Feeding rate of slimy sculpin and burbot on young lake 

charr in laboratory reefs. Environmental Biology of Fishes 31(3):275-282.

Scanlon, B. 2000. The ecology of the Arctic char and the Dolly Varden in the Becharof Lake 

drainage, Alaska. University of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK.

Scanlon, B. 2009. Movements and fidelity of northern pike in the Lower Innoko River drainage, 

2002-2004; Fishery Data Series No. 09-45. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 

Division of Sport Fish, Anchorage, AK.

Scanlon, B. 2010. Movements and spawning locations of lake trout in the Tangle Lakes system, 

Fishery Data Series No. 10-85. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Sport 

Fish, Anchorage, AK.

Scheuerell, M. D., J. W. Moore, D. E. Schindler, and C. J. Harvey. 2007. Varying effects of 

anadromous sockeye salmon on the trophic ecology of two species of resident salmonids 

in southwest Alaska. Freshwater Biology 52(10):1944-1956.

Schlenger, P. T. 1996. Distributions and potential for competition between juvenile sockeye 

salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) and least cisco (Coregonus sardinella) in Lake Clark, 

Alaska. M.S. thesis. University of Washington, Seattle.

Schutz, D. C., and T. G. Northcote. 1972. Experimental study of feeding behavior and interaction 

of coastal cutthroat trout (Salmo clarki clarki) and Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma). 

Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 29(5):555-565.

Schwanke, C. J. 2007. Koktuli River fish distribution assessment, Fishery Data Series No. 07-08. 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish, Anchorage, AK.

Schwanke, C. J., and D. G. Evans. 2005. Stock assessment of the rainbow trout in the Tazimina 

River, Fishery Data Series No. 05-73. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Divisions of 

Sport Fish and Commercial Fisheries, Anchorage, AK.

- 70 -
Schwanke, C. J., and M. B. McCormick. 2010. Stock assessment and biological characteristics of 

burbot in Tanada Lake, 2007 and Copper Lake, 2008; Fishery Data Series No. 10-62. 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish, Anchorage, AK.

Scott, W. B., and E. J. Crossman. 1998. Freshwater fishes of Canada. Galt House Publications 

Ltd., Oakville, Ontario.

Sharp, D., and D. R. Bernard. 1988. Precision of estimated ages of lake trout from five calcified 

structures. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 8(3):367-372.

Shestakov, A. V. 1991. Preliminary data on the dynamics of the downstream migration of 

coregonid larvae in the Anadyr River. Journal of Ichthyology 31(3):65-74.

Shestakov, A. V. 1992. Spatial distribution of juvenile coregonids in the floodplain zone fo the 

middle Anadyr River. Journal of Ichthyology 32(3):75-85.

Shmidt, P. Y. 1965. Fishes of the Sea of Okhotsk (Translated from Russian). Israel Program for 

Scientific Translations, Jerusalem, Israel.

Siedelman, D. L., P. B. Cunningham, and R. B. Russell. 1973. Life history studies of rainbow 

trout in the Kvichak drainage of Bristol Bay. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 

Federal Aid in Fish Restoration, Annual Performance Report, 1972-1973, Project F-9- 5(14)G-II-E Juneau, AK.

Sigurjónsdóttir, H., and K. Gunnarsson. 1989. Alternative mating tactics of Arctic charr, 

Salvelinus alpinus, in Thingvallavatn, Iceland. Environmental Biology of Fishes 

26(3):159-176.

Small, R. J. 2001. Aerial surveys of harbor seals in southern Bristol Bay, Alaska, 1998-1999. 

Pages 71-75 in Harbor seal investigations in Alaska. Annual report for NOAA Award 

NA87FX0300. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Wildlife Conservation, 

Anchorage, AK.

Smith, R. W., and J. S. Griffith. 1994. Survival of rainbow trout during their first winter in the 

Henrys Fork of the Snake River, Idaho. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 

123(5):747-756.

Snyder, J. O. 1917. Coulter's Whitefish. Copeia (50):93-94.

Sowden, T. K., and G. Power. 1985. Prediction of rainbow trout embryo survival in relation to 

groundwater seepage and particle size of spawning substrates. Transactions of the 

American Fisheries Society 114(6):804-812.

Stearns, S. C. 1992. The evolution of life histories. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Stevens, T. M., and S. J. Deschermeier. 1986. The freshwater food habits of juvenile Arctic char 

in streams in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska; Fairbanks Fishery Resources 

Progress Report Number FY86-6. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fairbanks Fishery 

Resource Station, Fairbanks, AK.

Strahler, A. N. 1952. Hypsometric (area-altitude) analysis of erosional topography. Geological 

Society of America Bulletin 63(11):1117-1141.

Sundet, R. L. 1986. Winter resident fish distribution and habitat studies conducted in the Susitna 

River below Devil Canyon, 1984-85. Winter studies of resident and juvenile anadromous 

fish (October 1984 - May 1985), Report No. 11, Part 1. Alaska Department of Fish and 

Game, Susitna River Aquatic Studies Program, Anchorage, AK.

Sundet, R. L., and S. D. Pechek. 1985. Resident fish distribution and life history in the Susitna 

River below Devil Canyon, Report No. 7, Part 3. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 

Susitna River Aquatic Studies Program, Anchorage, AK.

- 71 -
Sutton, T. M., J. A. Lopez, and M. J. Evenson. 2011. Life history and genetic variability of larval 

lampreys in interior Alaska rivers. American Fisheries Society Annual Meeting, Seattle, 

WA.

Swanson, H., N. Gantner, K. A. Kidd, D. C. G. Muir, and J. D. Reist. 2011. Comparison of 

mercury concentrations in landlocked, resident, and sea-run fish (Salvelinus spp.) from 

Nunavut, Canada. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 30(6):1459-1467.

Swanson, H. K., and coauthors. 2010. Anadromy in Arctic populations of lake trout (Salvelinus 

namaycush): otolith microchemistry, stable isotopes, and comparisons with Arctic char 

(Salvelinus alpinus). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 67:842-853.

Symons, P. E. K., J. L. Metcalfe, and G. D. Harding. 1976. Upper lethal and preferred 

temperatures of slimy sculpin, Cottus cognatus. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board 

of Canada 33(1):180-183.

Tack, S. L. 1980. Migrations and distributions of Arctic grayling, Thymallus arcticus (Pallas), in 

Interior and Arctic Alaska, Federal Aid in Fish Restoration, Annual Performance Report, 

1980-1981, Project F-9-12(21)R-I. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Sport Fish 

Division, Juneau, AK.

Takami, T., F. Kitano, and S. Nakano. 1997. High water temperature influences on foraging 

responses and thermal deaths of Dolly Varden Salvelinus malma and white-spotted charr 

S. leucomaenis in a laboratory. Fisheries Science 63(1):6-8.

Taube, T. T., and B. R. Lubinski. 1996. Seasonal migrations of northern pike in the Kaiyuh Flats, 

Innoko National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska; Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fishery 

Manuscript No. 96-4. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish, 

Anchorage, AK.

Taylor, E. B., E. Lowery, A. Lilliestråle, A. Elz, and T. P. Quinn. 2008. Genetic analysis of 

sympatric char populations in western Alaska: Arctic char (Salvelinus alpinus) and Dolly 

Varden (Salvelinus malma) are not two sides of the same coin. Journal of Evolutionary 

Biology 21(6):1609-1625.

Thomas, R. E., and S. D. Rice. 1980. Effect of temperature and salinity on the metabolism of 14C 

naphthalene by Dolly Varden char. American Zoologist 20(4):731.

Thomas, R. E., and S. D. Rice. 1986a. Effect of temperature on uptake and metabolism of 

toluene and naphthalene by Dolly Varden char, Salvelinus malma. Comparative 

Biochemistry and Physiology C-Pharmacology Toxicology & Endocrinology 84(1):83- 86.

Thomas, R. E., and S. D. Rice. 1986b. The effects of salinity on uptake and metabolism of 

toluene and naphthalene by Dolly Varden, Salvelinus malma. Marine Environmental 

Research 18(3):203-214.

Tripp, D. B., and P. J. McCart. 1974. Life histories of grayling (Thymallus arcticus) and 

longnose suckers (Catostomus catostomus) in the Donnelly River system, Northwest 

Territories. Pages 1-91 in P. J. McCart, editor. Life histories of anadromous and 

freshwater fish in the western Arctic; Arctic Gas Biological Report Series, volume 20. 

Aquatic Environments Limited.

Troyer, K. D., and R. R. Johnson. 1994. Survey of lake trout and Arctic char in the Chandler 

Lake system, Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve, 1987 and 1989, Alaska 

Fisheries Technical Report Number 26. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fairbanks 

Fishery Resource Office, Fairbanks, AK.

Underwood, T., K. Whitten, and K. Secor. 1998. Population characteristics of spawning inconnu 

(sheefish) in the Selawik River, Alaska, 1993-1996, Final Report; Alaska Fisheries 

- 72 -
Technical Report Number 49. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fairbanks Fishery 

Resource Office, Fairbanks, AK.

USFWS (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1999. Determination of threatened status for bull trout 

in the coterminous United States. Federal Register 64:58910–58933.

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2012. National Water Information System data available on the 

World Wide Web (Water Data for the Nation) 

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ak/nwis/uv?site_no=15302250.

van Snik Gray, E., and J. R. Stauffer. 1999. Comparative microhabitat use of ecologically similar 

benthic fishes. Environmental Biology of Fishes 56(4):443-453.

Van Whye, G. L., and J. W. Peck. 1968. A limnological survey of Paxson and Summit lakes in 

interior Alaska, Informational Leaflet 124. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 

Division of Sport Fish, Juneau, AK.

Vascotto, G. L. 1970. Summer ecology and behavior of the grayling of McManus Creek Alaska. 

University of Alaska, College, AK.

Viavant, T. 1997. Location of lake trout spawning areas in Harding Lake, Alaska, Fishery Data 

Series No. 97-21. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish, 

Anchorage, AK.

Vincent-Lang, D., and M. Alexandersdottir. 1990. Assessment of the migrational habits, growth, 

and abundance of the Arctic grayling stocks of the Gulkana River during 1989, Fishery 

Data Series No. 90-10. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Sport Fish Division, 

Anchorage, AK.

Virgl, J. A., and J. D. McPhail. 1994. Spatiotemporal distribution of anadromous (trachurus) and 

fresh-water (leiurus) threespine sticklebacks, Gasterosteous aculeatus. Canadian Field- Naturalist 108(3):355-360.

Vladykov, V. D., and E. Kott. 1978. A new nonparasitic species of the holarctic lamprey genus 

Lethenteron Creaser and Hubbs, 1922 (Petromyzontidae) from northwestern North 

America with notes on other species of the same genus. University of Alaska, Fairbanks, 

AK.

Vladykov, V. D., and E. Kott. 1979. Satellite species among the holarctic lampreys 

(Petromyzontidae). Canadian Journal of Zoology 57(4):860-867.

Wagner, C. M., M. B. Twohey, and J. M. Fine. 2009. Conspecific cueing in the sea lamprey: do 

reproductive migrations consistently follow the most intense larval odour? Animal 

Behaviour 78(3):593-599.

Warner, G. W. 1957. Spawning habits of grayling in Interior Alaska; U. S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Quarterly Review. Work Plan E. Job No. 1, Fairbanks, AK.

Weiner, G. S., C. B. Schreck, and H. W. Li. 1986. Effects of low pH on reproduction of rainbow 

trout. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 115(1):75-82.

Weisel, G. F., D. A. Hanzel, and R. L. Newell. 1973. Pygmy whitefish, Prosopium coulteri, in 

western Montana. Fishery Bulletin 71(2):587-596.

Wengeler, W. R., D. A. Kelt, and M. L. Johnson. 2010. Ecological consequences of invasive lake 

trout on river otters in Yellowstone National Park. Biological Conservation 143(5):1144- 1153.

West, F., and coauthors. 2012. Abundance, age, sex, and size statistics for Pacific salmon in 

Bristol Bay, 2005; Fishery Data Series No. 12-02. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 

Division of Commercial Fisheries, Anchorage, AK.

- 73 -
Wiedmer, M., D. R. Montgomery, A. R. Gillespie, and H. Greenberg. 2010. Late Quaternary 

megafloods from Glacial Lake Atna, Southcentral Alaska, U.S.A. Quaternary Research 

73(3):413-424. 

Willacker, J. J., F. A. Von Hippel, P. R. Wilton, and K. M. Walton. 2010. Classification of 

threespine stickleback along the benthic-limnetic axis. Biological Journal of the Linnean 

Society 101(3):595-608. 

Willson, M. F., R. H. Armstrong, M. C. Hermans, and K. Koski. 2006. Eulachon: a review of 

biology and an annotated bibliography. Auke Bay Laboratory, Alaska Fisheries Science 

Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, Juneau, AK.

Wipfli, M. S. 1997. Terrestrial invertebrates as salmonid prey and nitrogen sources in streams: 

contrasting old-growth and young-growth riparian forests in southeastern Alaska, USA. 

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 54(6):1259-1269. 

Wipfli, M. S., J. P. Hudson, J. P. Caouette, and D. T. Chaloner. 2003. Marine subsidies in 

freshwater ecosystems: salmon carcasses increase the growth rates of stream-resident 

salmonids. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 132(2):371-381. 

Wissmar, R. C., R. K. Timm, and M. D. Bryant. 2010. Radar-derived digital elevation models 

and field-surveyed variables to predict distributions of juvenile coho salmon and Dolly 

Varden in remote streams of Alaska. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 

139(1):288-302. 

Wojcik, F. J. 1954. Biological survey of the Chatanika River, Work Plan C, Job No. 5. Pages 67- 70 in Quarterly progress report, Project F-1-R-4. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 

Alaska Game Commission.

Woods, P., and D. Young. 2010. Investigator's annual report 57437, Study LACL-00018. U. S. 

Department of the Interior, National Park Service.

Woody, C. A., and D. B. Young. 2007. Life history and essential habitats of humpback whitefish 

in Lake Clark National Park, Kvichak River watershed, Alaska; Annual Report FIS05-

0403. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Federal Office of Subsistence Management, 

Anchorage, AK.

Wootton, R. J., and G. W. Evans. 1976. Cost of egg production in the three-spined stickleback 

(Gasterosteus aculeatus L.). Journal of Fish Biology 8(5):385-395. 

Yanagawa, C. 1967. Tikchik Lake system commercial freshwater fishery. Alaska Department of 

Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish, Juneau, AK.

Yoshihara, H. T. 1973. Monitoring and evaluation of Arctic waters with emphasis on the North 

Slope drainages. A. Some life history aspects of Arctic char. Federal Aid in Fish 

Restoration, Annual Progress Report, Project No. F-9-5, Job No. G-III-A. Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish, Juneau, AK. 

Zemlak, R. J., and J. D. McPhail. 2006. The biology of pygmy whitefish, Prosopium coulterii, in 

a closed sub-boreal lake: spatial distribution and diel movements. Environmental Biology 

of Fishes 76(2-4):317-327. 

- 74 - 
AN ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL MINING IMPACTS ON 

SALMON ECOSYSTEMS OF BRISTOL BAY, ALASKA 

VOLUME 2—APPENDICES A-D

Appendix C: Wildlife Resources of the Nushagak and 

Kvichak River Watersheds, Alaska 

Since the release of the May 2012 draft of this assessment, Appendix C has been published as a 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service report: 

Brna, P. J. and L. A. Verbrugge (eds). 2013. Wildlife resources of the Nushagak and Kvichak River 

watersheds, Alaska. Final Report. Anchorage Fish and Wildlife Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Anchorage, AK. 177 pp. 

Available: http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/fieldoffice/anchorage/environmental.htm 
AN ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL MINING IMPACTS ON 

SALMON ECOSYSTEMS OF BRISTOL BAY, ALASKA 

VOLUME 2—APPENDICES A-D

Appendix D: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and 

Characterization of the Indigenous Cultures of the Nushagak 

and Kvichak Watersheds, Alaska 
 TRADITIONAL ECOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE 

AND CHARACTERIZATION OF THE INDIGENOUS

CULTURES OF THE NUSHAGAK AND KVICHAK 

WATERSHEDS, ALASKA

Submitted to the Bristol Bay Assessment: Environmental 

Protection Agency

Nushagak River at Koliganek, September 19, 2011

Alan S. Boraas, Ph.D. 

Professor of Anthropology 

Kenai Peninsula College

asboraas@kpc.alaska.edu

and

Catherine H. Knott, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor of Anthropology

Kenai Peninsula College

chknott@kpc.alaska.edu

October 13, 2013 
Page 1 

Boraas and Knott 

Cultural Characterization

Figure 1. Salmon Art, Wall of Sam Fox Museum, Dillingham. September 11, 2011. Photo by Alan 

Boraas

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. Voices of the People 

...Salmon more or less defines this area. It defines who we are. When you look at our art, you 

will see salmon....It is who we are. When you listen to the stories and take a steam, even in the 

middle of winter, people talk about salmon. It is in our stories; it is in our art. It is who we are; it 

defines us. M-61, 9/16/11

...we are relying on EPA to give us a fair shake out here. If EPA is going to crap all over our 

people, then take out the checkbook, federal government, and start writing million dollar checks 

for these people to move to Anchorage because you are going to kill us culturally, economically 

and every other way. M-60, 9/16/11 

But I wouldn’t trade this place for anything. This is home; this is where I find clean water to 

drink. M-51, 8/20/11 

We love the place; its home. Moving is not an option to me. M-29, 8/17/11 

...basically one of the main purposes of the Blessing of the Water is to make that Holy water.... 

When the Father blesses that particular river, that particular river becomes Holy. M-61, 9/16/11

I think with us, during potlatch times, during hard times, or Russian Christmas, or if we gather 

together, everybody brings out their dry fish or their jarred fish or their salt fish. Nobody goes 

hungry, there’s always sharing. F-32, 8/18/11 
Page 2

Boraas and Knott

Cultural Characterization

We share with our families, or if anybody does not have fish, we give them fish also. F-27, 

8/17/11

2. The Condition of the Indigenous Cultures of the Bristol Bay Region

This section of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Bristol Bay characterization 

studies is based on 53 interviews in seven villages and an overview of previous research in the 

study area. The condition of the ecosystems, both riverine and lacustrine, on which the Yup’ik 

and Dena’ina depend for wild fish, mammals, and plants including the keystone species salmon, 

is nearly pristine. The cultures have proved to be sustainable in this region for thousands of 

years. Alaska Department of Fish and Game statistics indicate wild subsistence resources 

including salmon provide the Yup’ik and Dena’ina of the study area with the bulk of their food 

resources. Wild foods provide critical nutritional elements in both quantity and quality in the 

diet, but subsistence also forms the core of the culture itself, including knowledge, attitudes, 

identity, and beliefs important to the Yup’ik and Dena’ina people in their daily lives.

The villages of the study area are predominantly Alaska Native and the population 

remains stable (United States Census, Alaska). The culture has a very high degree of 

homogeneity in relation to salmon and water quality as represented by interviewees’ responses to 

questions about the importance of salmon and streams in their lives. Interviews conducted in this 

project relating to the importance and significance of salmon and clean water resulted in 97% 

concurrence among Elders and culture bearers—individuals who have an honored place in the 

culture of the villages. The Yup’ik people of the region retain their language, and more than 40% 

of the population continues to speak it. The Dena’ina are undergoing a cultural renaissance 

through language revitalization programs and the emergence of culture camps. Both languages 

have a large number of words related to salmon and stream resources reflecting nuanced 

understanding developed over time and represent frames reflecting basic cultural schema.

Elders and culture bearers continue to instruct young people particularly at fish camps 

where not only fishing and processing techniques are taught, but also cultural values. The social 

system which forms the backbone of the culture, nurturing the young, supporting the producers, 

and caring for the Elders, is based upon the virtue of sharing the wild foods harvested from the 

land and waters. Sharing networks of wild foods, particularly wild salmon, define community 

membership. Sharing networks also extend to family members living far from home. 

The Yup’ik and Dena’ina consider the land and waters to be their sacred homeland. They 

have traditionally considered the salmon as kin in the sacred web of life. The populations of both 

Yup’ik and Dena’ina have shown themselves to be spiritually tenacious, combining elements of 

traditional practices with those of Russian Orthodox and other Christian churches to create a rich 

syncretic religious heritage for their families providing mechanisms to contextualize modern 

subsistence life. They continue to practice a first salmon ceremony paying homage to the first 

salmon caught in the spring and the renewal of their cycle of life. The rivers are blessed by 

priests annually in the Great Blessing of the Water at Theophany, celebrating the baptism of 

Christ and symbolically purifying the water of contamination preparing it for the return of the 

salmon. This ceremony, for Orthodox Yup’ik and Dena’ina, is the pure element of God 
Page 3

Boraas and Knott

Cultural Characterization

expressed as sanctified nature. The holy water of the rivers derived from this ceremony is used to 

bless the homes, churches, and people and is believed to have curative powers.

3. The Status of the Resource Relative to other Salmon Culture Ecosystems Internationally

The Human Relations Area Files on-line cultural database (Human Relations Area Files, 

World Cultures Data Base. http://www.yale.edu/hraf/collections.htm) identifies 23 world 

cultures in which anadromous salmon are, or were, a chief component of subsistence. However, 

today only in Alaska are wild, non-farmed, non-hatchery spawned, non-bioengineered salmon 

both abundant and reliably accessible to indigenous people. The Yup’ik and Dena’ina of the 

study area are among the few remaining cultures to still rely on wild salmon as a chief source of 

nutrients and have an intact relationship with the landscape that supports them and the food that 

has shaped their cultural traditions. 

4. The Causes of the Unique Status of the Resource and the Vulnerability of the Resource

This area is among the last remaining truly viable cultural and ecologically interdependent 

human/salmon ecosystem in the world because it is an intact ecosystem largely due to the fact 

that it is remote, roadless, and until recently in the 1980s, not thought to contain sizeable 

extractive natural resources of value other than fish and game. In addition the unique Alaska 

State and United States Federal subsistence laws including the Alaska Native Claims Settlement 

Act (ANCSA, Public Law 92-203 with amendments), Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act (Public Law 96-487 with amendments), and the State of Alaska Subsistence 

Act 1978 (with amendments; encoded within AS 16-05) protect rural and indigenous people’s 

right to harvest wild resources and in some cases provide a priority to those resources over 

commercial and sport interests.

5. Vulnerabilities

The existing culture of the indigenous people of the study area is vulnerable to Negative 

changes in the quantity or quality of wild salmon resources or the quantity or quality of water in 

the Nushagak or Kvichak watersheds. Negative impacts to salmon would leave the existing 

culture susceptible to destabilization and affect its present sustainability, ability to cope with 

natural disasters, and promote assimilation and relocation to urban cultural centers. If significant 

negative impacts to salmon or streams occur, the cultural stability will be vulnerable to change in 

the following ways:

• Since the diet is heavily dependent on wild foods, particularly salmon, the diet would be 

changed from a highly nutritious diet to one based on store-bought processed foods. 

• Since the social networks are highly dependent on procuring salmon (fish camps) but also 

sharing salmon and wild food resources, the current social support system would be 

appreciably degraded

• Since meaningful family-based multi-generational work takes place in fish camp or 

similar subsistence settings, transmission of cultural values and language learning would 

be impacted and family cohesion impacted.

• Since values and the belief system are represented by interaction with the natural world 

through salmon practices, clean water practices, and symbolic rituals, core beliefs would 
Page 4 

Boraas and Knott 

Cultural Characterization

be challenged potentially resulting in a breakdown of cultural values, mental health 

degradation and behavioral disorders. 

• Since a yearly subsistence round rests on having time to harvest and process wild foods, a 

shift from part-time wage employment supporting subsistence to full-time wage 

employment would impact subsistence-gathering capabilities by restricting the time 

necessary to harvest subsistence resources.

• Since the area exhibits a high degree of cultural uniformity tied to shared subsistence 

practices, substantial change could provoke increased tension and discord both between 

villages and among village residents. 

 
Page 5 

Boraas and Knott 

Cultural Characterization

 

Table of Contents

I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 11

A. Overview and Question .................................................................................................. 11

B. Methodology .................................................................................................................. 12

C. Villages, Population, and Ethnicity ................................................................................ 16

II. CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND.......................................................... 21

A. Pre-Contact Bristol Bay ................................................................................................. 21

1. Voices of the People ................................................................................................... 21

2. Introduction ................................................................................................................ 21

3. Pre-Contact Salmon Fishing Cultures ........................................................................ 23

B. History and Culture of the Yup’ik Area ......................................................................... 31

1. Voices of the People ................................................................................................... 31

2. Introduction ................................................................................................................ 32

3. Pre-Contact Culture .................................................................................................... 32

4. Post-Contact Yup’ik History and Culture (A.D. 1791 to 1935) ................................. 33

C. History and Culture of the Dena’ina .............................................................................. 37

1. Voices of the People ................................................................................................... 37

2. Pre-Contact Culture .................................................................................................... 38

3. Post-contact History and Culture ................................................................................ 39

D. Traditional Yup’ik and Dena’ina Spirituality and Cosmology ...................................... 42

1. Traditional Yup’ik Spirituality ................................................................................... 42

2. Traditional Dena’ina Spirituality ................................................................................ 46

E. The Yup’ik and Dena’ina Languages: Salmon and Streams .......................................... 49

1. Voices of the People ................................................................................................... 49

2. Introduction ................................................................................................................ 49

3. The Central Yup’ik Language .................................................................................... 49

4. The Dena’ina Language .............................................................................................. 56

III. MODERN CULTURE ....................................................................................................... 65

A. Interview Synopsis ......................................................................................................... 65

B. Subsistence ..................................................................................................................... 70
Page 6

Boraas and Knott

Cultural Characterization

1. Voices of the People................................................................................................... 70

2. Introduction ................................................................................................................ 72

3. Subsistence in Alaska ................................................................................................. 73

4. Scope of Subsistence .................................................................................................. 76

5. The Seasonal Subsistence Round ............................................................................... 81

6. The Interplay of Subsistence and Wage Income ........................................................ 82

7. Subsistence as an Economic Sector............................................................................ 85

8. Subsistence and “Wealth” .......................................................................................... 88

C. Physical Well-being: the Role of Subsistence................................................................ 90

1. Voices of the People................................................................................................... 90

2. Introduction ................................................................................................................ 92

3. Nutrition...................................................................................................................... 94

4. Fitness......................................................................................................................... 96

5. Disease Prevention ..................................................................................................... 96

6. Local Wild Fish .......................................................................................................... 98

D. Traditional Ecological Knowledge............................................................................... 100

1. Voices of the People................................................................................................. 100

2. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 101

3. Summaries of Important TEK Studies...................................................................... 102

E. Social Relations............................................................................................................ 108

1. Voices of the People................................................................................................. 108

2. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 111

3. Sharing and Generalized Reciprocity....................................................................... 111

4. Fish Camp................................................................................................................. 113

5. Gender and Age Equity ............................................................................................ 116

6. Wealth....................................................................................................................... 116

7. Behavioral and Mental Health.................................................................................. 117

8. Steam Baths.............................................................................................................. 120

9. Suicide in the Study Area ......................................................................................... 121

F. Spirituality and Beliefs Concerning Water and Salmon.................................................. 124

1. Voices of the People................................................................................................. 124

2. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 127

3. Great Blessing of the Water...................................................................................... 128
Page 7 

Boraas and Knott 

Cultural Characterization

4. Respect and Thankfulness ........................................................................................ 131

5. First Salmon Ceremony ............................................................................................ 131

G. Messages From the People ........................................................................................... 133

1. Voices of the People ................................................................................................. 133

IV. CONCLUSIONS.............................................................................................................. 136

V. APPENDIX 1. METHODOLOGY, CONSENT FORM and TRIBAL LETTER OF 

INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 138

VI. REFERENCES CITED .................................................................................................... 144
Page 8 

Boraas and Knott 

Cultural Characterization

List of Figures 

Figure 1. Salmon Art, Wall of Sam Fox Museum, Dillingham. September 11, 2011. Photo by 

Alan Boraas .................................................................................................................... 1

Figure 2. Nondalton, August 17, 2011. Photo by Alan Boraas .................................................... 14

Figure 3. Population Change for the Study Area: 1980 to 2010. Data from U.S. Census. ........... 17

Figure 4. Curyung Tribal Offices, Dillingham, September 16, 2011. Photo by Alan Boraas ...... 18

Figure 5. New Stuyahok, January 17, 2012. Photo by Alan Boraas ............................................. 20

Figure 6. Cultural Chronology of Nushagak and Kvichak River Drainage Salmon-Based 

Cultures. Compiled from the Alaska Heritage Resource Survey database by Alan 

Boraas ........................................................................................................................... 22

Figure 7. Lake Iliamna. Photo by Alan Boraas ............................................................................. 26

Figure 8. Koliganek Tribal Offices. September 19, 2011. Photo by Alan Boraas ........................ 36

Figure 9. Kijik River, called, Ch'ak'dłatnu ‘Animals Walk Out Stream’ in the foreground; Yuyan 

Ach’edełt ‘Where We Walk into the Sky’ is the snow-covered pass in the distance. 

Photo by Alan Boraas .................................................................................................. 38

Figure 10. Pedro Bay, General Location of the 18th Century Lebedev Company Post. August 19, 

2011. Photo by Alan Boraas ........................................................................................ 40

Figure 11. Nushagak River, January 18, 2012. Photo by Alan Boraas ......................................... 42

Figure 12. Iliamna Village. August 20, 2011. Photo by Alan Boraas .......................................... 46

Figure 13. Evil Creek Qil’ihtnu near Lake Clark. Photo by Alan Boraas .................................... 48

Figure 14. Newhalen. August 20, 2011. Photo by Alan Boraas ................................................... 72

Figure 15. Per Capita Wild food harvest in pounds and selected meat sources. From Table 13 

compared to U.S. Average Per Capita Meat Consumption. Data from Holen et al. 

2012, Fall et al. 2009, Krieg et al. 2009, Fall et al. 2005, U.S.D.A Factbook. ........... 78

Figure 16. Significant Aspects of the Subsistence Seasonal Round. ............................................ 82

Figure 17. Subsistence Skiffs, Nushagak River, New Stuyahok. May, 2011. Photo by Alan 

Boraas ........................................................................................................................... 84

Figure 18. Salmon Drying. Koliganek. September 17, 2011. Photo by Alan Boraas ................... 88

Figure 19. Talarik Creek, Newhalen River, and Lake Iliamna. January 17, 2012. Photo by Alan 

Boraas ........................................................................................................................... 89

Figure 20. Ekwok. September 11, 2011. Photo by Alan Boraas .................................................. 94

Figure 21. Nushagak and Wood Rivers. September 11, 2011. Photo by Alan Boraas ................. 98

Figure 22. Pedro Bay. August 18, 2011. Photo by Alan Boraas ................................................. 111

Figure 23. Jarred Salmon Being Prepared at Fish Camp. July, 2012. Photo courtesy of Karina 

Chambers. .................................................................................................................. 112

Figure 24 Young Boy Helping at a Nondalton Area Fish Camp. Photo courtesy of Karina 

Chambers ................................................................................................................... 114

Figure 25. Smoking Salmon at a Nondalton Area Fish Camp, July, 2012. Photo courtesy of 

Karina Chambers ........................................................................................................ 115

Figure 26. Hot Room of a Maqi or Steambath. New Stuyahok. January 16, 2012. Photo by Alan 

Boraas ......................................................................................................................... 119

Figure 27. Firewood sled (foreground) and Maqi or Steam Bath (background). New Stuyahok, 

January, 18, 2012. Photo by Alan Boraas .................................................................. 121
Page 9 

Boraas and Knott 

Cultural Characterization

Figure 28. St. Michael the Archangel Russian Orthodox Church, Koliganek. September 15, 2011. 

Photo by Alan Boraas ................................................................................................ 125

Figure 29. The Eve of Theophany, St. Sergis Orthodox Church, New Stuyahok, January 18, 

2012. Photo by Alan Boraas ...................................................................................... 127

Figure 30. Procession going onto the Nushagak River at New Stuyahok for the Great Blessing of 

the Water. January 19, 2011. Photo by Alan Boraas ................................................. 128

Figure 31. Great Blessing of the Water, Father Alexi Askoak, St. Sergis Church, New Stuyahok. 

January 19, 2012. Photo by Alan Boraas ................................................................... 130

Figure 32. Kvichak River and Lake Iliamna at Igiugig. May 16, 2011. Photo by Alan Boraas . 132
Page 10 

Boraas and Knott 

Cultural Characterization

List of Tables

Table 1. Number of Interviews per Village .................................................................................. 13

Table 2. Census of the Towns and Villages of the Nushagak and Kvichak River Drainages, 1980 

to 2010. Data from U.S. Census, Alaska; Alaska Community Database; Native Names 

from Indigenous Peoples and Languages of Alaska, Gary Holton Alaska Native 

Language Center, 2011. ............................................................................................... 16

Table 3 Village Water Sources. Data from the Alaska Division of Community and Regional 

Affairs. http://www.commerce.state.ak.us/dca/commdb/CF_COMDB.htm ............... 20

Table 4. Arctic Small Tool Tradition Sites in the Study Area. Compiled From Alaska Historic 

Resources Survey. ........................................................................................................ 24

Table 5. Norton tradition sites in the study area. Compiled from Alaska Heritage Resources 

Survey. ......................................................................................................................... 27

Table 6. Pre-Contact and Early Contact Period Yup'ik Sites, A.D. 1000 to A.D. 1800. Compiled 

from Alaska Heritage Resources Survey. .................................................................... 28

Table 7. Pre-Contact or Early Contact Period Dena'ina Sites in the Study Area. Compiled from 

Alaska Heritage Resources Survey. ............................................................................. 29

Table 8 Estimated Number of Central Yup'ik and Dena'ina Speakers. Data from Krauss 

(2007:408) .................................................................................................................... 50

Table 9. Yup'ik Words for Salmon and Other Fish and Related Fishing Terms. From Jacobson 

(1984) ........................................................................................................................... 51

Table 10. Dena’ina Words for Fish and Streams. Data from Kari (2007). ................................... 58

Table 11. Nominal Evaluation of Responses to Semi-Structured Interview Questions. .............. 66

Table 12. Use and Reciprocity of Subsistence Resources. Data from Holen et al. 2012, Fall et al. 

2009, Krieg et al. 2009, Fall et al. 2005 ....................................................................... 76

Table 13. Per-Capita Harvest of Subsistence Resources. Data from Holen et al. 2012, Fall et al. 

2009, Krieg et al. 2009, Fall et al. 2005. ...................................................................... 77

Table 14. Per-Capita Harvest of Salmon Resources. Data from Data from Holen et al. 2012, Fall 

et al. 2009, Krieg et al. 2009, Fall et al. 2005 .............................................................. 80

Table 15. Commercial Fishing Permit Holders and Crew Licenses ............................................. 84

Table 16. Percent Not in the Labor Force, 2010. .......................................................................... 86

Table 17 Scholarly Articles on the Health Benefits of Omega-3 Fatty Acids, 2012 .................... 93

Table 18 Subsistence Fish, Terrestrial Mammals, Birds and Plants (Nushagak-Mulchatna 

Traditional Use Conservation Plan, 2007). ................................................................ 103

Table 19. Traditional Yup'ik and Cup'ik Cultural Practices Correlated with Medicaid Billing 

Categories. Modified from Mills (2003:87). .............................................................. 120

Table 20. Suicide Rates in the Study Area (in gray) compared to Alaska and Other Selected 

Areas. ......................................................................................................................... 122
Page 11 

Boraas and Knott 

Cultural Characterization

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Overview and Question 

 The purpose of this Bristol Bay Cultural Assessment is to provide information to the 

Environmental Protection Agency on the status of the indigenous cultures of the Nushagak and 

Kvichak River watersheds and their dependence on and relationship to salmon and other streambased natural resources of the region. The focus of the Bristol Bay Assessment is salmon and 

water and this part of the overall assessment portrays the human dimension of modern 

indigenous “salmon-cultures” of the region. The Human Relations Area Files on-line cultural 

database (http://www.yale.edu/hraf/collections.htm) identifies 23 cultures in which anadromous 

salmon are or were a chief component of subsistence. Wild Atlantic salmon populations have 

been decimated by high-seas fishing and habitat degradation such as dam building (Montgomery 

2003:111-118). Consequently indigenous cultures such as the Sami of Fennoscandia, Micmac 

and Abenaki of northeastern North America and other cultures once dependent on Atlantic 

salmon have been forced to choose non-traditional options (cf. Lehtola 2004: 72-84). In the 

Asian Far East wild salmon have likewise been decimated in Japan and Russia through 

overfishing and habitat destruction and legal restrictions to indigenous fishing, and cultures like 

the Ainu of Hokkaido and Nvkh of Sakhalin Island can no longer depend on wild salmon and 

diet and cultural institutions based on salmon have been severely affected (cf. Iwasaki-Goodman 

and Nomoto 1998: 27-46). In the Pacific Northwest of North America hydroelectric dam 

building, overfishing, and habitat degradation have decimated wild salmon runs and the 

Northwest Coast cultures from California to British Columbia can no longer subsist on wild 

salmon as they once did (cf. Johnsen 2009). 

The Yup’ik of the Nushagak, Kvichak and Wood River watersheds and the Dena’ina of 

the Lake Iliamna, Newhalen River and Lake Clark (also the Kvichak River watershed) are

among the few remaining cultures still relying on wild salmon as a chief source of nutrients. This 

reliance on salmon has lasted unbroken for at least 4000 years and salmon subsistence has 

shaped cultural patterning in multiple ways. Today modern technology is used but many beliefs, 

social practices and components of spirituality are part of this long history and form both Yup’ik 

and Dena’ina essential identity and provide the cultural basis for sustainability. To say they are 

the last wild salmon cultures is an overstatement, but they are certainly among the last. Part of 

the reason they remain is that Alaska in general, and Bristol Bay in particular, has become the 

world’s last bastion of wild, non-farmed, non-hatchery raised, non-bioengineered wild salmon. 

 This document is not an exhaustive study of all aspect of all cultural research in the study 

area; rather, it is a characterization of the village cultures of the Nushagak, Kvichak and Wood 

River drainages focusing on the relationships of the people to salmon. This document contains 

five parts. First, this introduction contains information about the project and its methodology. 

Second, it consists of contextualization of relevant prehistoric, historic, linguistic, and cultural 

information obtained from anthropological, historical, and other publications and data bases. 

Third, this document describes the modern culture of the drainages and includes the product of 

interviews in villages of the Nushagak and Kvichak River watersheds conducted in 2011, which
Page 12

Boraas and Knott

Cultural Characterization

constitutes original research on the peoples of the area as well as drawing from relevant recent 

anthropological research. Fourth, this document contains conclusions about the vulnerability of 

the culture to loss of clean water and salmon resources in the Bristol Bay area. Between us 

(Boraas and Knott) we have 48 years of research, teaching, and collaboration with Alaskan 

tribes, and that experience is reflected in this study.

B. Methodology

Section 3, Modern Culture, of this study represents original qualitative, interview-based 

research which asks the question, “How are salmon and other stream-based resources and water 

important in your lives?” The interview questions involved the topics (domains) of nutrition, 

subsistence, social relations, spirituality and beliefs. In addition a final question was asked: “is 

there anything you would like to add, or is there anything you would like the Environmental 

Protection Agency to know about the situation in your villages.” The interview questions are 

listed in Section III.A.

We recognize and respect that some cultural information may constitute intellectual 

property rights and is not to be shared with the broader public. As a guide we followed the 

principles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, particularly 

Article 31, Section 1 (UNDRIP 2007):

Article 31

Section 1. Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop 

their cultural heritage, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions, as well 

as the manifestations of their sciences, technologies and cultures, including human and 

genetic resources, seeds, medicines, knowledge of the properties of fauna and flora, oral 

traditions, literatures, designs, sports and traditional games and visual and performing 

arts. They also have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their intellectual 

property over such cultural heritage, traditional knowledge, and traditional cultural 

expressions.

The study area was defined by the Environmental Protection Agency’s assessment team 

to include the villages of Aleknagik, Port Alsworth, Igiugig, Levelock, Ekwok, Kokhanok, New 

Stuyahok, Koliganek, Curyung (Dillingham), Nondalton, Pedro Bay, Newhalen, and Iliamna. All 

are within the Nushagak or Kvichak watersheds except Aleknagik which is in the Wood River 

watershed near the Nushagak River. As a foundation for this research, all of the federally 

recognized tribes in the watersheds were contacted through the Environmental Protection 

Agency’s Tribal Trust and Assistance Unit in Anchorage following government to government 

protocols requesting permission to conduct interviews. Since one of us, Alan Boraas, is an 

Honorary Member of the Kenaitze Indian Tribe, a letter of introduction from the Kenaitze Tribe 

to village councils was included in the government to government packet following village 

conventions (See Appendix 1 which also includes the initial statement of methodology). We 

selected seven villages in which to conduct interviews: New Stuyahok, Koliganek, Curyung 

(Dillingham), Nondalton, Pedro Bay, Newhalen, and Iliamna. Four are primarily Yup’ik villages 

and three are primarily Dena’ina villages.
Page 13

Boraas and Knott

Cultural Characterization

Table 1. Number of Interviews per Village

Village Males Females Total

Curyung (Dillingham) 7 0 7

Iliamna 1 3 4

Koliganek 5 5 10

Newhalen 5 6 11

New Stuyahok 5 2 7

Nondalton 4 6 10

Pedro Bay 2 2 4

Total 29 24 53

We interviewed 53 Elders and culture bearers, people whom the various village councils

or their designates (often the village environmental officer) identified as authoritative sources of 

information about subsistence, traditional ecological knowledge, nutrition, social relations and 

spiritual aspects of their culture. The village-selected interviewees consisted of 24 females and 

29 males (see Table 1) and ranged in age from mid-twenties to a man reportedly in his nineties. 

Most, however, were in their forties or older due to the intentional weighting toward villageselected Elders and culture bearers. We were not consulted in the selection of specific 

interviewees and were assisted by a tribal employee or a village council member who arranged 

the time and place of the interview. The interviews took place in the villages at a tribal or 

community center or at private homes because, from the standpoint of the interviewees, they are 

safe, non-threatening places in which to discuss important cultural matters. The consent form is 

in Appendix 1 and signed forms are currently under the authors’ control. We normally 

interviewed two to four individuals at any one time but some sessions included as many as six 

and one was a single interviewee. The interview sessions lasted about two hours with a short 

break. Interviews followed a standard semi-structured interview process in which a set of 

questions guided the interview but interviewees were free to add additional information or 

perspective, in some cases delving into topics not covered by the original question. The questions 

were specifically designed not to be answered briefly but to probe the subject and allow 

interviewees to describe cultural structures which for the most part were familiar and obvious to 

local villagers, but not commonly understood to others, particularly those outside the region. If a 

response was brief we would respectfully clarify or amplify upon the question to generate a more 

complete narrative. Interviewees were told they did not have to respond to a question if they 

chose not to, although none did so verbally. If an interview session exceeded two hours we 

occasionally eliminated some questions to shorten the time commitment; nevertheless, some 

interviews exceeded two hours. If the topic of a question had already been covered in a previous 

discussion during a session we eliminated the question. Consequently, not all interviewees 

responded to every question. Regularly one person would respond and others would nod 

agreement or disagreement and we did not request them to repeat the response already given by a 

speaker out of respect for cultural protocols. Since the questions dealt with a cultural standard

(domains), there were few alternative or divergent points of view. We encouraged respondents to 

use their Native language and some of the interviewees chose to speak in Yup’ik, in which case 

an interpreter was present to translate the question into Yup’ik and the response into English. 
Page 14 

Boraas and Knott 

Cultural Characterization

None chose to speak in Dena’ina. Many Elders think and respond in their Native language which 

generated more accurate, empowered, and nuanced responses to questions about culture.

Figure 2. Nondalton, August 17, 2011. Photo by Alan Boraas

We digitally recorded the interviews and, in the Kenai Peninsula College Anthropology 

Lab, transcribed the recordings including both responses to our questions and additional 

perspective provided by the Elders or culture bearers. 

The transcribed interviews were lumped into a single Microsoft Word document and the 

lumped document was searched for key words related to the sub-headings of this report using the 

powerful search feature of Microsoft Word 2010. In this way we were able to capture responses 

both to the theme of the question we asked and to that theme that might have been discussed by 

interviewees in the context of a question related to a different topic. 

In this document responses of Elders and culture bearers appear in italics titled “Voices 

of the People” preceding the anthropological discussion of each section. These direct quotations 

reflect both the consensus among those interviewed and the rare deviations from consensus. By 

the standards of highly pluralistic modern America, the Yup’ik and Dena’ina villages of 

Southwest Alaska are culturally much more homogenous; consequently, the narratives reflect 

that homogeneity as indicated by the summary of responses described in Section III, A. These 

responses represent an emic view1 and are intentionally placed at the beginning of each section 

as the core of the section or sub-section. They are meant to be read and not to serve as mere 

illustration. “Voices of the people” statements were selected through the search process 

1 An “emic” perspective is that of a participant in the culture whereas an “etic” perspective is that 

of a non-member describing or analyzing a culture such as an anthropologist or journalist. 

 
Page 15

Boraas and Knott

Cultural Characterization

described above because they were concise, clear, and reflected the intent of the speaker in the 

context of their broader narrative. Not all responses are included in this document. The entirety 

of the transcribed interviews are over 500 pages in length; all were carefully read and helped 

shape the writers’ understanding of modern village culture. The English response or translation is 

transcribed “as is” with little grammatical modification; readers must understand that for some, 

English is a second language and imperfect English grammar is not to be construed as imperfect 

or naive thinking. Following University of Alaska Institutional Review Board Standards to 

protect individual identity of the interviewees, each Elder or culture bearer has been designated 

by a code, using an “M” or “F” for “male” or “female” and a number, along with the date of the 

interview.2 Only we, the interviewers, know the names of the interviewees.

All deviations from consensus have been included in the qualitative “Voices of the 

people” responses. In addition, the entire 500 page typed narrative was assessed from a 

favorable/unfavorable or agree/disagree standpoint to give a sense of the degree of conformity to 

a response. These results, along with the interview questions, are portrayed in Section III.A. and 

referenced throughout this document to give a more numerical sense of the culture standards of 

the Nushagak and Kvichak drainages.

2 Funding for this project was administered as a contract through the University of Alaska 

Anchorage/Kenai Peninsula College and came under Institutional Review Board (I.R.B.) 

auspices since it involved human subjects. See 

(http://www.uaa.alaska.edu/research/ric/irb/training.cfm), The UAA I.R.B. reviewed and 

approved the methodology and consent forms of this project (see Appendix 1). I.R.B. stipulates 

protection of the identity of human subjects, consequently the names of the participants of this 

study and not revealed (see http://www.uaa.alaska.edu/research/ric/irb/policies.cfm, click on 

UAA Faculty Handbook). Signed consent forms are held by the researchers.

 
Page 16

Boraas and Knott

Cultural Characterization

C. Villages, Population, and Ethnicity 

In the 2010 United States Census, the 13 communities of the study area had a total 

population of 4337. Table 2 describes the population characteristics of the 13 villages and towns 

located in the Nushagak, Wood, and Kvichak River drainages. 

Table 2. Census of the Towns and Villages of the Nushagak and Kvichak River Drainages, 1980 to 

2010. Data from U.S. Census, Alaska; Alaska Community Database; Native Names from 

Indigenous Peoples and Languages of Alaska, Gary Holton Alaska Native Language Center, 2011.

Watershed Community Native 

Name

1980

Pop.

1990

Pop.

2000

Pop.

2010

Pop.

% Alaska

Native,

2010

Ethnic

Majority

Nushagak

River

Dillingham Curyung 1563 2017 2466 2378 55.9 Yup’ik

Ekwok Iquaq 77 77 130 115 90.4 Yup’ik

Koliganek Qalirneq 117 181 182 209 95.7 Yup’ik

New 

Stuyahok

Cetuyaraq 331 391 471 510 93.5 Yup’ik

Portage 

Creek

N/A 48 5 36 2 50.0 Yup’ik

Kvichak

River

Igiugig Igyaraq 33 33 53 50 40.0 Yup’ik, Alutiiq/

Caucasian

Iliamna Iliamna 94 94 102 109 54.1 Dena’ina, 

Caucasian

Kokhanok Qarr’unaq 83 152 174 170 80.0 Yup’ik/Dena’ina/

Alutiiq

Levelock Liivlek 79 105 122 69 84.1 Yup’ik

Newhalen Nuuriileng 87 160 160 190 80.0 Yup’ik

Nondalton Nundaltin 173 178 221 164 63.4 Dena’ina

Pedro Bay N/A 33 42 50 42 66.7 Dena’ina

Port 

Alsworth

N/A 22 55 104 159 21.4 Caucasian

Wood

River

Aleknagik Alaqnaqiq 154 185 221 219 81.9 Yup’ik

4337 Total 

2010 Population

Since no borough or other census area is specifically limited to the watersheds in 

question, this village by village enumeration is the most accurate reflection of population 

characteristics and dynamics.
Page 17 

Boraas and Knott 

Cultural Characterization

0 

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

1980 1990 2000 2010

Aleknagik

Port Alsworth

Pedro Bay

Nondalton

Newhalen

Levelock

Kokhanok

Iliamna

Igiugig

Portage Creek

New Stuyahok

Koliganek

Ekwok

Dillingham

Figure 3. Population Change for the Study Area: 1980 to 2010. Data from U.S. Census.

Table 2 indicates the population of the study area grew substantially from 1980 to 2000 

and remained stable between 2000 and 2010. The 1980 to 2000 village population growth is 

probably due to post-ANCSA changes in land-ownership and is related to a similar phenomenon 

throughout Southwest Alaska (Fienup-Riordan 1994:39). The population of individual 

communities can vary considerably; in small populations only a few large families moving in or 

out can change the overall population considerably. Of the 14 communities identified in Tables 1 

& 2, five are anomalous for different reasons: Dillingham, Port Alsworth, Igiugig, Iliamna, and 

Aleknagik. Dillingham has, by far, the largest population in the area (2,378 in 2010) and is a 

regional center with an economy based on the Bristol Bay commercial fishing industry, as well 

as government services, transportation, and professional and business services (Alaska 

Community Database). Dillingham has a small branch of the University of Alaska, a museum, 

and Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) offices, as well as several stores, churches, 

hotels, and other institutions typical of mid-sized Alaskan towns. Dillingham, however, is 55.9% 

Alaska Native—mainly Yup’ik—and the Curyung Tribe and Bristol Bay Native Association and 

associated agencies are a significant presence (Alaska Community Database). 
Page 18 

Boraas and Knott 

Cultural Characterization

Figure 4. Curyung Tribal Offices, Dillingham, September 16, 2011. Photo by Alan Boraas

 Aleknagik is anomalous because it is the only village not in the Nushagak or Kvichak 

drainages and it is connected by 25 miles of road to Dillingham where institutional services, 

grocery stores and so on are located. Other than that it shares the characteristics of the Yup’ik 

and Dena’ina villages in the Nushagak and Kvichak drainages. It is located on Lake Aleknagik 

where the Wood River drains south to Bristol Bay and is It is primarily Yup’ik (81.9%). Unlike 

most other villages, Aleknagik has been influenced by Seventh-Day Adventists and Moravian as 

well as Russian Orthodox churches. The people of Aleknagik can access resources to the lake 

system to the north as well as the Nushagak and Kvichak Rivers and coastal areas via large skiffs 

and maintain close cultural ties to those areas. 

Port Alsworth is only 21.4% Alaska Native and thus does not have the majority or nearmajority Alaska Native population that other villages in the study area have. The population is 

primarily associated with two institutions. First, Lake Clark National Park and Preserve, which 

surrounds Lake Clark, has its regional headquarters in Port Alsworth. Because of the park, a

number of eco-tourism guides unaffiliated with the park but using its resources are headquartered 

at Port Alsworth. Second, The Tanalian Bible Camp and associated ministries, loosely connected 

to Samaritan’s Purse, a national fundamentalist Christian ministry directed by Rev. Franklin 

Graham, is also located at Port Alsworth. Yup’iks who relocated to the area in 1944 (Gaul, 

2007:60-61) account for most of the town’s Alaska Native population (Port Alsworth is well 

within traditional Dena’ina territory). Port Alsworth is not a federally recognized tribal entity but 

is included in this report because it is within the Kvichak watershed. 
Page 19

Boraas and Knott

Cultural Characterization

Igiugig, located where the Kvichak River drains Lake Iliamna, has a substantial number 

of guided sport fishing and sport hunting operations that have recently moved into or near the 

village which accounts for the relatively large non-Alaska Native percentage of the population. 

The same is true for Iliamna, a traditional Dena’ina village located on Iliamna Lake. It has also 

become a staging area for exploration and other activities associated with proposed copper/gold 

porphyry mines in the area. Consequently, Iliamna has a proportionately larger non-Alaska 

Native population than most other villages in the area, although the Alaska Native population 

(54.1%; Alaska Community Database) outnumbers other ethnic groups, and is still the dominant 

ethnic group. 

The remaining study area communities are Yup’ik or Dena’ina villages with close 

connections to traditional practices. They are relatively small, with populations ranging from 510 

(New Stuyahok) to 42 (Pedro Bay) (Portage Creek, population 2, is seasonally occupied as of 

2011, according to interviewee M-26), and from 93.5% Alaska Native (New Stuyahok) to 67% 

Alaska Native (Pedro Bay). Most have a single church (Russian Orthodox), a public school, a 

health clinic, an airstrip, a small general merchandise store, a post office, a tribal center, city 

and/or village corporation offices, a landfill, cemetery, and fuel storage tanks (Alaska 

Community Database and observations). There are community health aides in the villages of 

Koliganek, New Stuyahok, Ekwok, Igiugig, Levelock, Kokhanok, Nondalton, and Pedro Bay 

(Bristol Bay Area Health Consortium, BAHC 2006) and some also have dental aides. The clinics 

are connected via internet to consulting physicians and the Alaska Native Hospital in Anchorage. 

Many of the villages are being connected to high-speed fiber-optic internet. Drinking water in 

the study area villages is derived from multiple sources depending on the village including

municipal treated water, piped but untreated water, individual wells, or hauled directly from 

rivers or lakes3 (from the Alaska Division of Community and Regional Affairs. 

http://www.commerce.state.ak.us/dca/commdb/CF_COMDB.htm). Table 3 summarizes the 

sources of drinking water by village.

3 According to the State of Alaska definition of a “served” community, there must be at least 

60% of the households served with a municipal water system, and therefore some households 

will have a different water source, whether it be an individual well or they haul water.

 
Page 20 

Boraas and Knott 

Cultural Characterization

Table 3 Village Water Sources. Data from the Alaska Division of Community and Regional Affairs. 

http://www.commerce.state.ak.us/dca/commdb/CF_COMDB.htm

Community Municipal/Piped 

Water

Individual 

Wells

Haul 

Water

Dillingham x

Ekwok x x

Koliganek x x x

New 

Stuyahok

x x x

Igiugig x x

Iliamna x

Kokhanok x x

Levelock x

Newhalen x x

Nondalton x

Pedro Bay x x

Port 

Alsworth

x x

Aleknagik x x

Figure 5. New Stuyahok, January 17, 2012. Photo by Alan Boraas
Page 21 

Boraas and Knott 

Cultural Characterization

II. CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

A. Pre-Contact Bristol Bay

1. Voices of the People

Salmon and fresh water has been the lifeline of the people here for thousands of years. If you 

look at the water, that is why fish and game has survived so well here, because we have such 

clean water. M-62, 9/16/11 

[If the salmon were to be impacted], it would stop 10,000 years’ plus tradition, culturally and 

spiritually for my people; not only my people, all the other communities and villages in this 

region will go away. We would cease to exist. We can’t go anywhere. Where are we going to go? 

M-33, 8/18/11 

Freeze drying is not a new thing. That’s been going on with my people for over 10,000 years, 

eating freeze dried food. M-33, 8/18/11 

There’s 10,000 cache pits [at the Kijik archaeological site on Lake Clark] and they are still 

counting; over 200 houses, which are huge. So it was pretty big. M-29, 8/17/11 

My father, he usually keeps fresh salmon. He would dig a pit and take the topsoil off; dig it out 

lay some grass on the bottom and on the side. Then take the salmon, lay them in the pit until he 

filled it up. Then he would put grass on top of it. Then he would lay gravel right on top of it, and 

he would mark each corner for winter time. Put poles on each corner so he could find where he 

buried his salmon. And in the winter time, if he wanted salmon, he would take his axe and cut out 

a piece of the soil and dig from there. That was his freezer. That is how my dad would keep 

salmon. M-54, 8/20/11 

2. Introduction

 The pre-contact history (prehistory) of the Bristol Bay drainage is not as well 

documented as in other parts of Alaska but sufficient data exists to provide a preliminary outline 

of the study area prehistory. Within the study area there are a total of 228 historic and prehistoric 

sites listed on the Alaska Heritage Resources Survey (A.H.R.S.), the state’s database for 

officially designated sites kept by the State of Alaska, Office of History and Archaeology. To 

better understand the patterns of culture change and establish the time-depth of salmon use in the 

Nushagak and Kvichak River drainages one of us (Alan Boraas) generated a database of the 228 

sites and from that developed a preliminary prehistoric cultural chronology depicted in Figure 4. 
Page 22 

Boraas and Knott 

Cultural Characterization

Figure 6. Cultural Chronology of Nushagak and Kvichak River Drainage Salmon-Based Cultures. 

Compiled from the Alaska Heritage Resource Survey database by Alan Boraas
Page 23

Boraas and Knott

Cultural Characterization

The “BP” (Before Present) of the y-axis of Figure 4 is in uncalibrated radiocarbon years and an 

approximate B.C./A.D. date is indicated.4 AHRS site data was assembled for five regions (Figure 

3) within the Nushagak and Kvichak River drainages, including:

• The Nushagak River from its mouth to headwaters.

• The Kvichak River, including nearby archaeological sites in the Alagnak River drainage.

• Iliamna Lake and the lower Newhalen River

• The Mulchatna River.

• Lake Clark, Sixmile Lake, and the Upper Newhalen River

3. Pre-Contact Salmon Fishing Cultures

The study area was occupied as early as 10,000 BP by core and microblade makers of the 

Paleoarctic tradition. Included in the AHRS database is a single site with two Putu-like points 

(XHP-00430) normally found only on Alaska’s North Slope but found here with Paleoarctic

microblades. Subsequently, archaeological cultures of the Northern Archaic and Ocean Bay 

traditions occupied the area. None involved intensive salmon fishing as indicated by AHRS 

records. The Paleoarctic and Northern Archaic sites are associated with Athabascans (Boraas 

2007: 34-7) and establish a time-depth for the Dena’ina or proto-Dena’ina in the study area.

As described below, archaeological records indicate Yup’ik or proto-Yup’ik people have 

been fishing for salmon for at least 4,000 years (Figure 4) and may be genetically related to 

earlier Siberian salmon fishers. Salmon fishing first appears with the Arctic Small Tool tradition 

(ASTt) (see Figure 4) and Table 4 is a list of ASTt sites in the study area. ASTt cultures are 

widespread in western and northern Alaska where the site data indicates the existence of interior 

nomadic hunters (primarily caribou) or coastal sea mammal hunters. In the Bristol Bay drainage,

however, three village sites evidenced by ASTt-style houses and artifacts are found on the 

Kvichak River and five alpine sites (artifacts only) indicate hunting above tree line (see Table 4). 

The houses are permanent structures, generally measuring four meters on a side, indicative of 

sedentary or semi-sedentary people and are located adjacent to salmon spawning streams. The

ASTt site at Igiugig (ILI-00002), where the Kvichak River flows out of Iliamna Lake, is an 

example of such a site (Holmes and McMahan, 1996).

4 The deviation between calibrated calendar years and uncalibrated radiocarbon years becomes 

significant before 1500 B.C. By 2000 B.C. uncalibrated radiocarbon years are ~ 400 hundred 

years old (http://www.radiocarbon.com/calendar-calibration-carbon-dating.htm).

 
Page 24 

Boraas and Knott 

Cultural Characterization

Table 4. Arctic Small Tool Tradition Sites in the Study Area. Compiled From Alaska Historic 

Resources Survey.

ARCTIC SMALL TOOL TRADITION AD 200 to 1800 BC

Area AHRS Site Characteristics Houses

Nushagak R. NAK-00018, B cores and microblades

Iliamna Lake ILI=00035 Lithic tools

Iliamna Lake ILI-00201 Microblade core

Iliamna Lake ILI-00205 Microblade core

Iliamna Lake ILI-00193 Lithic camp: microblades, side blades, end 

scrapers, knives.

Iliamna Lake ILI-00219 Microblade core

Iliamna Lake ILI-00218 Microblade core

Kvichak DIL-00088 Village, sedentary houses; C14 Date, 

3580+/-150; 19

Kvichak DIL-00170 Village; Brooks River Gravel Phase 2

Kvichak ILI-00002

Cores, microblades, burins, notched 

stones, 4000 artifacts; Brooks River 

Gravel phase, ca. 1800 BC to 1100 BC

 3350+/-60 BP radiocarbon date, 

possible Norton component

Kvichak ILI-00072 Microblades and other lithics

Kvichak ILI-00206 Village site 1

Anadromous salmon remains, while not common, occur in ASTt sites (Dumond, 1984), 

suggesting salmon were a significant subsistence human resource in riverine and lacustrine areas 

of southwest Alaska. The lack of abundant salmon bones in ASTt sites may be due to small 

populations of salmon, decomposition of the relatively delicate bones, or the practice of 

returning salmon bones to the water—similar to ethnohistoric Yup’ik and Dena’ina—thereby 

contributing to marine-derived nutrients important in salmon habitats. Further research is 

necessary to clarify this point. The fact that one site (DIL-00088) contains 19 sedentary houses 

and is located along a salmon stream indicates salmon were likely a primary resource (Holmes 

and McMahan, 1996). 

 Analysis of human hair from a 4,000-year old ASTt site in Greenland places the 

mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) in the D2c haplogroup5 reflecting Siberian origins (Gilbert et al., 

2008). Today, haplogroup D2c is present, but haplogroup A is dominant among Yup’iks; 

haplogroup A also has Siberian origins where researchers place its origin as early as 7,000 years 

before present (Rubicz et al., 2003). Both haplogroups indicate that the time-depth of Yup’ik 

people in southwest Alaska is at least 4,000 years and that they derive from Siberian origins, 

where their ancestors were also potentially salmon fishers. As described in the section on 

5

 For a discussion on haplogroups see the National Geographic Human Genographic Project, 

https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/

 
Page 25

Boraas and Knott

Cultural Characterization

nutrition (III.C.3.), evidence is building that Yup’iks are biologically adapted to salmon and 

4000 years is the temporal context in which that evolution took place.

In all but the Mulchatna River where evidence has yet to be found, the Arctic Small Tool 

tradition is followed by a well-developed salmon culture, the Norton tradition, dating from ~300 

B.C. to A.D. 1000 (see Figure 4; Table 5). Like ethnographic Yup’ik, the Norton tradition has 

both a coastal and interior subsistence orientation. The coastal Norton tradition is found in sites 

as far north as Cape Denbeigh and relied primarily on marine mammals (Dumond 1984: 99-101). 

The interior Norton tradition sites, such as those in the study area on the Nushagak and Kvichak 

Rivers and Lakes Iliamna and Clark, had a salmon-oriented subsistence culture based on the 

following evidence: archaeological features, (mainly house styles similar to those at 

ethnographic Yup’ik salmon fishing sites) large sedentary villages (villages located adjacent to 

salmon fishing locations) and net fishing artifacts. Riverine Norton tradition sites are similar to 

ASTt sites in that they consist of large, permanent houses located on salmon streams. One large 

Norton tradition site on the Kvichak River (DIL-00161) consists of 34 to 45 houses representing 

a population sustainable only through the availability of abundant resources such as anadromous 

salmon. In addition, the artifact inventory for the eight Norton village sites in the study area (see 

Table 5) contains notched stones that were used as net weights (Dumond, 1987:11), similar to 

the lead line of a modern net. In addition to dwelling houses, Norton sites in southwest Alaska 

contain large structures indicating a qasgiq (kashgee, kasheem, kazigi,; local pronunciations and 

Euroamerican spellings vary), a men’s house also found among pre-contact and early historic 

Yup’ik villages. These finds indicate that the Bristol Bay drainage Norton culture were Yup’ik or 

proto-Yup’ik speakers and relied on salmon as their primary subsistence food. 
Page 26 

Boraas and Knott 

Cultural Characterization

Figure 7. Lake Iliamna. Photo by Alan Boraas
Page 27 

Boraas and Knott 

Cultural Characterization

Table 5. Norton tradition sites in the study area. Compiled from Alaska Heritage Resources Survey. 

NORTON TRADITION AD 1000 TO 300 BC

Area AHRS Site Characteristics Houses

Kvichak DIL-00161 Prehistoric village (6100 artifacts) 1760+/-40 

BP 34-45

Kvichak DIL-00174

Two large house depressions; Smelt Creek 

Phase 

1920+/-40

2 

Kvichak DIL-00175

Village site, artifacts, pottery; Norton Brooks 

River Weir and Brooks River Falls phases, 

1830+/-40 BP

8 

Kvichak DIL-00229 Prehistoric Village 1

Kvichak ILI-00073 Village site, Pottery, 4

Kvichak DIL-00207 Village, 43 house depressions; lithics and 

ceramics 43

Iliamna Lake ILI-00056 Village, C14 date 860+/-60 12-15

Iliamna Lake ILI-00127 Pottery and stone beads

Iliamna Lake ILI-00128 Weir, Early Norton

Iliamna Lake ILI-00098 Village, cache pits no houses apparent on 

surface, fiber pottery

Lake Clark ILI-00012 Village 12

Lake Clark XLC-00086 Bifaces, scrapers, sideblades, fiber pottery.

The Norton tradition in the study area is succeeded in Yup’ik territory by a number of 

pre-contact Yup’ik sites listed in Table 6. Almost all of the sites include semi-subterranean house 

pits indicating sedentary or semi-sedentary occupation.
Page 28 

Boraas and Knott 

Cultural Characterization

Table 6. Pre-Contact and Early Contact Period Yup'ik Sites, A.D. 1000 to A.D. 1800. Compiled 

from Alaska Heritage Resources Survey. 

PRE-CONTACT YUP’IK AD 1000 TO AD 1800

Area AHRS Site Characteristics Houses

Kvichak DIL-00168 Prehistoric Village 3

Iliamna Lake ILI-00034 Village 10

Iliamna Lake ILI-00032 Village 5

Kvichak DIL-00033 Lithic remains, ceramics; surface 

finds in Levelock

Kvichak DIL-00226 Village Prehistoric and/or Early 

Historic Village

7

Kvichak DIL-00227 Prehistoric and/or Early Historic 

Village

1

Kvichak ILI-00053 Village (10 houses with 2 Kashgee)

Possible historic component

10

Kvichak ILI-00074 Village N/A

Nushagak R. 

Mouth

DIl-00057 Village, slate blades, pottery 6

Nushagak River Dil-00047 Yup’ik Village 4

Nushagak River DIL-00155 Village, House 3

Nushagak River DIL-00052 Yup’ik Village, Nautauagavik 4

Nushagak River DIl-00040 Yup’ik Village, Old Kokwok 6

Nushagak River DIL-00002 A Yup’ik village, Akulivikchuk 8-88

Nushagak River DIL-00048 A Yup’ik village, Agivavik 11

Nushagak River DIL-00196 House pits, New Stuyahok airport 

road

N/A

Nushagak River XNB-00029 Yup’ik Village 3

Nushagak River NAK-00143 Yup’ik Village 9

Nushagak River NAK-00001 Yup’ik Village 8

Nushagak River DIL-00148 Yup’ik Village; C14 dates:

BP 60+/-90

BP 50+/-70

BP 1330+/-90

8

Nushagak River NAK-00144 Yup’ik Village 3

Nushagak River TAY-00003 Yup’ik Village 2

Mulchatna River DIL-00177 House, prehistoric

Iliamna Lake ILI-00123 Village 2

Mulchatna River DIL-00194 Prehistoric Village 3

It is not clear how long the Dena’ina have been salmon fishers, but about A.D. 1000, the 

Dena’ina of the Mulchatna River and Lake Clark areas developed a method to catch salmon 

using weirs and began storing salmon in underground cold storage pits called ełnen tugh (Kenai 

dialect) that appear in the archaeological record (Boraas 2007). Salmon storage technology 

spread to Iliamna Lake, Cook Inlet, and the Susitna and middle Copper River areas (Boraas, 

2007). A proliferation of Dena’ina sites—65 have been found to date, far more than any other 

pre-contact period—occurs in the study area, dating to just after A.D. 1000 (Table 7 and Lynch, 

1982). Forty-one sites are village sites (not necessarily occupied simultaneously) and the Kijik 
Page 29

Boraas and Knott

Cultural Characterization

Site, XLC-00084 and associated sites, are among the largest in Alaska for the prehistoric period.

We can conclude that weir fishing and the underground cold storage technology described in the

pre-contact culture section (II.C.2.) below was an extremely successful adaptation and shaped 

the Dena’ina as “salmon people.”

Table 7. Pre-Contact or Early Contact Period Dena'ina Sites in the Study Area. Compiled from 

Alaska Heritage Resources Survey.

SEDENTARY DENA’INA AD 1000 TO AD 1800

Area AHRS Site Characteristics Houses

Mulchatna River XLC-00072 Village 1

Mulchatna River XLC-00076 Village 2

Mulchatna River XLC-00078 Cache pits

Mulchatna River XLC-00074 Village, Dena’ina 1

Mulchatna River XLC-00075 Village, Dena’ina 1

Mulchatna River TAY-00046 Cache pits

Mulchatna River TAY-00026 Cache pits

Mulchatna River TAY-00030 Cache pits

Mulchatna River TAY-00027 Cache pits

Mulchatna River TAY-00031 Cache pits

Mulchatna River DIL-00200 Cache pit

Mulchatna River DIL-00201 Cache pit

Iliamna Lake ILI-00029 Fish camp

Iliamna Lake ILI-00046 B Village Complex

Iliamna Lake ILI-00019 Village site 3

Iliamna Lake ILI-00135 Cache pit

Iliamna Lake ILI-00021 Village nd

Iliamna Lake ILI-00020 Village, houses undetermined nd

Iliamna Lake ILI-00001 A Village 5

Iliamna Lake ILI-00047 Cache pits

Iliamna Lake ILI-00049 Village 4

Iliamna Lake ILI-00018 B Village 560+/-60 BP nd

Lake Clark XLC-00048 Cache pits

Lake Clark XLC-00057 A Prehistoric Village 30

Lake Clark XLC-00102 Village 10

Lake Clark XLC-00167 Village 5

Lake Clark XLC-00166 Village 2

Lake Clark XLC-00094 Village 19

Lake Clark XLC-00165 Village 2

Lake Clark XLC-00164 Village 2

Lake Clark XLC-00155 Village 5

Lake Clark XLC-00163 Village 1

Lake Clark XLC-00162 Village 2

Lake Clark XLC-00101 Village 11

Lake Clark XLC-00100 Village 14

Lake Clark XLC-00099 Village 2

Lake Clark XLC-00084 Village (possibly two sites) 95

Lake Clark XLC-00092 Village 13

Lake Clark XLC-00090 Village; C14 BP 300+/-60 10

Lake Clark XLC-00091 Village 4

Lake Clark XLC-00093 Village 1
Page 30 

Boraas and Knott 

Cultural Characterization

Lake Clark XLC-00021 Cache pits

Lake Clark XLC-00020 Village 2

Lake Clark XLC-00012 Village 2

Lake Clark XLC-00013 Trapper cabin

Lake Clark XLC-00159 Village 3

Lake Clark XLC-00158 Village 2

Lake Clark XLC-00104 Village 1

Lake Clark XLC-00157 Village 3

Lake Clark XLC-00156 Village 12

Lake Clark XLC-00105 Village 10

Lake Clark XLC-00088 Cache pits

Lake Clark XLC-00083 Village 6

Lake Clark XLC-00097 Village, 1 house

Lake Clark XLC-00098 Village 5

Lake Clark XLC-00003 Cache pits

Lake Clark XLC-00004 Cache pits

Lake Clark XLC-00008 Village 4

Lake Clark XLC-00250 Cache pit

Lake Clark XLC-00133 Village 3

Lake Clark XLC-00134 Village 1

Lake Clark ILI-00087 Cache pits

Lake Clark XLC-00096 Village 1

Lake Clark XLC-00249 Cache pits

Lake Clark XLC-00107 Village 1

Mulchatna River DIL-00150 Cache pits

Iliamna Lake ILI-00031 Village 5
Page 31 

Boraas and Knott 

Cultural Characterization

B. History and Culture of the Yup’ik Area

1. Voices of the People

We want to give to our children the fish, and we want to keep the water clean for them....It was a 

gift to us from our ancestors, which will then be given to our children. F-69, 9/18/11 

When I was a little girl they had no Snowgo’s [snowmachines], they had no Hondas [Four-wheel

all-terrain vehicles]. We live up river and they fished all the time. In wintertime they fished 

under the ice. They travel with dog teams. My Dad would take me out ice fishing. I used to be 

scared of those pikes. I don’t know how old I was. That’s the only thing they do is try to catch 

fish, summer time nets, and winter time they do ice fishing. That’s how they pass it on down. 

They subsistence fish, usually they travel with dog teams, that’s what they did, and that’s how 

come those people were healthy. They walked, and walked, they worked from morning until they 

go to bed. That’s how come they were healthy. They eat their fish, they go get wood with the 

dog team, they hunt with their dog teams, and they travel to village with their dog team. People 

walk and they eat that fish. That’s what makes them live long and healthy, I noticed that. F-23, 

5/18/11

All we have is use the salmon, salmon all the time. The old people tell us you guys have only one 

salmon season you guys got to catch it. If you don’t catch it you won’t have much in the winter, 

long winter. F-41, 8/19/11 

When you look at the map and where the old villages were they were there because of the 

salmon. You go to Igiugig and ?, and Port (?), Levelock, South Levelock and Dillingham... all 

those villages. Site selection of those communities was very important and it was because of the 

production of subsistence foods at each of those sites processed. Most of those produced salmon 

in addition to [other foods], for example you go to the village of Manokotuk, and it is rich in 

berries. If you go to the upriver villages they are rich in caribou and moose and other resources. 

Each village was selected by the folks...because of their subsistence resources. M-61, 9/16/11 

My father along with other people was very active in fisheries politics. Bristol Bay used to be 

controlled by Brindle which was a big cannery superintendent and what he said was law of the 

land. Fish and game used to listen to those big processors. One time my dad was talking to a 

group Truman Amberg, Joe McGill, Joe Clark from Clark’s Point, saying we got to go on strike 

this year. I think it was Joe McGill said we’re not going to get any more money [father’s name]. 

Why are we going on strike? You know we are just going to end up sitting on the beach. Dad 

says we got to let the fish pass. What that meant was we needed more fish up the river spawning 

so we would have better seasons later. Then a group of locals said okay we’re going to strike but 

know they’re not going to give it but we will get more fish up the river because the Japanese 

decimated our runs in Bristol Bay in the ‘60’s and 70’s. We had to build our runs back up, M-60, 

9/16/11 
Page 32

Boraas and Knott

Cultural Characterization

Like before, you know a lot of people used to put up a lot of fish 3000, 4000, 5000 fish. They used 

to have a lot of dogs while they were living that is how they try the tradition they have. They used 

to hook up their dogs and go wherever they wanted to go. They used to put up a lot of fish to eat. 

When they get moldy they just wipe it off and eat them. That is the way it was in my living days. 

Nowadays people when it is moldy they throw them away, that is the way of life now. You can’t 

do that anymore. M-49, 8/20/11

2. Introduction

Perhaps as a result of the relatively recent occurrence of contact with non-Natives, the 

Yup’ik of the Nushagak and Kvichak watersheds have retained their traditional culture and 

language, ecological knowledge and practices, social systems, and spirituality, to as great or a 

greater degree than any other Alaska Native populations. Where they have adopted non-Yup’ik 

traditions, such as Russian Orthodoxy, they have blended their own practices and beliefs with the 

introduced practices to create a new belief system that retains the Yup’ik culture as a whole.

3. Pre-Contact Culture

An Eskimo-speaking people have been living in the region for at least 4,000 years as a 

recognizable salmon culture, at least as far back as the Norton tradition and Arctic Small Tool 

tradition.

The Yup’ik of the Nushagak, Kvichak and lower Mulchatna Rivers historically were 

organized in bilateral extended families of up to about thirty people settled in permanent and 

semi-permanent villages. Many of the villages contain a qasgiq (kashgee and other dialect 

variations) or men’s house, and are relatively small, averaging five to six houses per village in 

the 12 pre-contact villages for which there is house data (see Table 6). Historic Yup’ik village 

sites, of which 21 are currently documented, average between 8- 9 houses per village. Today 

there are only four modern Yup’ik villages along the Nushagak River (Dillingham, Ekwok, 

Koliganek, New Stuyahok, (and possibly Portage Creek); see also Table 1) and, except for 

seasonally occupied Portage Creek, they are larger in population than their historic or pre-contact 

counterparts.

The wetland landscape is not easy to traverse, except by river, or in the depths of winter 

when all is frozen. The abundance of fish and game in the Bristol Bay region allowed the Yup’ik 

to stay within a relatively fixed range, although they moved throughout their range seasonally

from a base village, to hunt, gather, and participate in summer fish camps. The extended families 

practiced food sharing and generalized reciprocity, both within and between families. Most

larger villages functioned as independent and self-sufficient social units, and people married 

within the village or nearby villages. Sometimes fluctuations in game or fish availability caused 

groups or individuals to travel from one region to another. Large disruptions to the population 

occurred when epidemic diseases arrived with European explorers. These diseases devastated 

whole populations, decimated villages, undercut social distinctions (Fienup-Riordan, 1994).

Historically, including after contact, in the winter villages the men and boys older than 

seven or eight lived in the qasgiq, the large communal men’s houses, while women and girls 

lived in a smaller house called an ena, both built from sod and wood. During the winter, the 
Page 33

Boraas and Knott

Cultural Characterization

community came together for dances and storytelling, but otherwise, men and women kept in 

their separate groups and worked to do gender-specific chores. Men, for example, repaired the 

tools for hunting, while women sewed clothes as well as waterproof raingear to protect everyone 

from harsh weather.

In the summer, everyone participated in harvesting salmon, whether net fishing, or 

processing the fish in fish camps. Women dominated the work of processing in the fish camps. 

Family groups might put up as much as 5,000 fish (personal communication to Catherine Knott, 

Lena Andree, Yup’ik Elder, Dillingham; July, 2011), including fish for their dogs.

The Yup’ik traveled to different subsistence sites either overland, by foot or dogsled, or 

on the water, in vessels that ranged from small kayaks to larger wooden boats. Traditional 

festivals during the year included the Bladder Festival, nakaciuryaraq, the Messenger Feast, 

kevgiryaraq, and the Seal Party, uqiquryaraq. Food exchanges played an important part in these 

festivals described below.

4. Post-Contact Yup’ik History and Culture (A.D. 1791 to 1935)

At the turn of the 19th century, the bilateral extended family, stretching over several 

generations, still formed the basis of Yup’ik villages (Fienup-Riordan 1994). Winter villages 

could be just one family, but ranged up to 150 to 300 people in some places. Families did not all 

live together in one house; the winter villages had one or more qasgiq, where men and boys over 

age 6 or 7 lived and worked together, telling stories, making tools, and preparing for subsistence 

activities. In the ena, women, girls, and the youngest boys lived in groups of up to a dozen, and 

the women taught the girls how to sew and cook. They cooked the meals there, either in the 

entryway, or in a central fireplace. Each winter, for three to six weeks, boys and girls would 

switch homes, and the men would teach girls survival and hunting skills, while the women would 

teach the boys how to sew and cook (Fienup-Riordan, 1990).

The qasgiq also functioned as the communal sweat bath for the men. They would open 

the central smoke hole, feed the fire until the heat was intense (possibly up to 300 degrees), then 

bathe. Men sat in the sweat house in the order of their social status. The nukalpiaq, or good 

provider, held a high social position and contributed wood for the communal sweat bath, as well 

as oil to keep the lamps lit; he also played an important role in midwinter ceremonial 

distributions of food (Fienup-Riordan, 1994). There was competition between families to be the 

best providers. 

Contact between the Yup’ik of the Bristol Bay area and Russians or Americans was later 

and more limited than in most of the rest of Alaska. The region was perceived to have few 

resources worth exploiting, and the marshlands were difficult to traverse. While some Russian 

explorers, traders, and missionaries persisted and made repeated contact with the Yup’ik 

throughout the nineteenth century, they did not settle in the area in any numbers until the 

twentieth century (VanStone 1967). As a result, the Yup’ik of this region, perhaps more than any 

other indigenous peoples in Alaska, have retained much of their language and cultural traditions 

to the present time.

When the Europeans came, they brought diseases, to which the Yup’ik and other Alaska 

Native populations had no immunity. The first epidemic known to have occurred in the 

Nushagak River region was before 1832, but there are no records of the number of dead. The 

1838-1839 smallpox epidemic caused several hundred deaths in the Nushagak region and also 
Page 34

Boraas and Knott

Cultural Characterization

occurred in the Dena’ina territory. Vaccines were introduced in 1838, and some Yup’ik received 

them, probably reducing the scope of the epidemic and subsequent outbreaks of smallpox. But 

each year, while not necessarily counted as an epidemic period, brought more death and illness 

to the region. Survivors were often weakened and succumbed later to other illnesses. VanStone 

states that during this period “The specter of ill health and death was continually present among 

the Eskimo population of all southwestern Alaska” (VanStone, 1967:100). VanStone (1967:100) 

goes on to state that the loss of population (especially Elders), the disruption of families, the 

plethora of orphans, and subsequent rearrangements of the social order created a social and 

cultural upheaval that the Yup’ik struggled to overcome. The European visitors and settlers may 

not have understood that what they observed was not the way the Yup’ik had lived even a few 

short years before.

It is not certain when the first Russian visit to the Nushagak and Kvichak region 

occurred, but in the early 1790s Aleksey Ivanov of the Lebedev-Lastochkin Company made an 

overland journey to Iliamna Lake from Cook Inlet and then west into the Mulchatna and 

Nushagak drainage. His guide was apparently Dena’ina because the place names, including 

Dudna (spelled Tutna) the Dena’ina name for Yup’ik’s (Downriver People), are Dena’ina, 

(Chernenko 1967:9-10). The Russian-American company sent an expedition in 1818 to explore 

the territory north of Bristol Bay. In the same year, the company established a post at the mouth 

of the Nushagak River, the Alexandrovski Redoubt. Feodor Kolmakov, of mixed Russian and 

Native American ancestry, was in charge; he established trade relations with the Yup’ik and 

baptized some of them, spreading the influence of the Russian-American Company (VanStone, 

1967:9). 

In the summer of 1829, two minor Russian visits had major consequences for the Yup’ik. 

Ivan Filippovich Vasiliev led an overland expedition to ascend the Nushagak River, and the 

priest, Ivan Veniaminov, visited the redoubt. Veniaminov took away a permanent interest in the 

Bristol Bay region and in the Nushagak station which carried over even into his later position as 

Bishop. Vasiliev’s exploration, in turn, established travel routes that were used by subsequent fur 

traders (VanStone, 1967:11). 

Christianity was introduced in 1818, at the time that Alexandrovski Redoubt was built, 

but it was not until Veniaminov’s arrival in 1829 that extensive missionary activity took off. 

Veniaminov was flexible in his approach to the Yup’ik and their traditional religion and 

numerous conversions were registered in church documents. Veniaminov noted that “the 

Nushagak River was for them [Yup’ik] the River Jordan” (cited in Barsukov, 1887-1888, vol. 

2:37). In 1832 Veniaminov visited again and had a small chapel built. By 1842 there were about 

200 converts at Nushagak, and in 1844 Bishop Veniaminov had a new church built. The church, 

by 1879, was close to 2,400 members. Its success among the Yup’ik may have had much to do 

with the flexibility of Veniaminov’s approach toward them. Yup’ik people were not required to 

fast and many indigenous customs were tolerated (VanStone, 1967:31).

Fur trading accompanied exploration, and sometimes incited it. By the 1840’s contacts 

between the Kolmakovski Redoubt, on the Kuskokwim, and Alexandrovski at Bristol Bay were 

frequent. The company managers of the fur trade created toyons, designated local community 

leaders, and rewarded them with silver “United Russia” medals and incentive gifts. These toyons, 

motivated by their new prestige and the material rewards offered, then encouraged the members 

of their social networks to trap more furs for the Russians (Van Stone, 1967:56). The process of 

using village providers to convert the population into loyal company men and women to recruit 
Page 35

Boraas and Knott

Cultural Characterization

fellow villagers into exploiting and extracting the resources of their own region for external 

benefit in a colonialist economic system has not changed in over a hundred years. 

Trade items included wool blankets, tobacco, beads, tent cloth, cast iron kettles, knives, 

iron spears, steel for striking a fire, needles, combs, pipes, etc. (VanStone, 1967:56). While these 

items did not immediately alter the deeper structures of the culture, the desire for them acted as a 

change agent among the population. Where before, access to status had been open to all, through 

skills and responsible sharing with others, access to the time and materials for trapping, open to 

fewer individuals, had the potential to change the social dynamics of the Yup’ik. The companies 

allowed the Alaska Natives to purchase some items on credit; as debt mounted, some would be 

unable to repay for years. After the Alaska purchase, the powerful Alaska Commercial Company 

post at Nushagak maintained a trading post through the remainder of the nineteenth century 

engaging in about $10,000 in fur trades annually (VanStone, 1967:56),

In the nineteenth century gold mining occurred but was economically unimportant 

compared to other activities. In 1887-1888 the prospectors Percy Walker, Henry Melish, and Al 

King placer-mined for gold in the Koktuli and Nushagak Rivers, and there was also placer 

mining along the Mulchatna. In 1909 a group organized the Mulchatna mining district and 

formed the Mulchatna Development Company in Seattle (VanStone, 1967:83). Their activities 

were confined to the upper Mulchatna River in Dena’ina territory, and there was only a very 

temporary influence of miners on the local Alaska Native population. One Elder (New Stuyahok 

Interviewee in a non-recorded interview situation) told the story of his grandfather, who showed 

him gold and told him that if he found rocks with gold in them to throw them away, because they 

were bad. The grandson thought it was because it would cause social disruption by bringing 

strangers to the area who would disrupt the land and the culture of the people. The Elder said he 

had thrown a big chunk of gold away once, but he thinks he still knows where it is. The 

experience of the Yup’ik people with larger mining corporations has been minimal. Fish have 

been far more important both to subsistence and cash-based economies.

By the end of the nineteenth century, Bristol Bay had become an important commercial 

salmon fishing zone. The first salmon cannery, The Arctic Packing Company, began operation in 

1884 at the village of Kanulik at the mouth of the Nushagak River (Troll, 2011:3). The fourth 

cannery, built at Clark’s Point in 1888, is now the oldest surviving cannery in the region (Troll, 

2011:4). The commercial fishermen in Bristol Bay used wooden sailboats for drift gillnet fishing 

for sockeye salmon and were mostly Italians, Scandinavians, and Finns, hired at Seattle and San 

Francisco (Troll, 2011:10), although some Yup’ik also fished commercially including Lena 

Andree, now an Elder from Dillingham who fished on one of the wooden sailboats with her 

father in the mid-1930s. When World War II began and kept many of the European fishermen

from coming to Alaska to fish, the canneries “discovered that the Native Aleuts and Eskimos 

were marvelous boatmen and seemed to have been born to sail,” according to Al Andree (cited in 

Troll, 2011:35).

The U.S. Bureau of Fisheries visited the Wood River lakes and Nushagak and Nuyakuk 

Rivers, and, in 1935, the U.S. Geological Survey conducted the first survey of the region and 

produced what would become, for decades, the standard reference for people not from the 

region. For the Yup’ik, the Elders continued to convey their traditional knowledge of their 

homeland, as they had for thousands of years (Van Stone, 1967). A crevasse of deepening 

proportions opened between two contrasting interpretations of the landscape, that of the 

outsiders, who saw the region as a land of resources to be exploited, and that of the indigenous 
Page 36 

Boraas and Knott 

Cultural Characterization

peoples, who saw the region as the sacred landscape of home, and whose culture and way of life 

depended upon it. 

Figure 8. Koliganek Tribal Offices. September 19, 2011. Photo by Alan Boraas
Page 37 

Boraas and Knott 

Cultural Characterization

C. History and Culture of the Dena’ina 

1. Voices of the People

We harvest [subsistence foods] three times for that one person: day of the burial, forty days 

later, and then one year later. It is really significant, just for that one person who passed away; 

we harvest from the land three times to honor and to pay our respects to ones who lost their 

family member. That has been going on for over 10,000 years. M-33, 8-18-11 

...from our ancestors, that is how we get all of our information to have fish. The way we put it; 

the way we store it for us to eat. That is where we learned it. It is passed on from generation to 

generation to have fresh fish. F-48, 8/20/11

I always think that we are very, very, very lucky people. I know where I came from. I know who I 

am. I know where I belong in this world. I know where my ancestors come from. I know the trips; 

the walking, the hiking, I know the history of where they were. Every time I come into this part of 

the country or fly over it, when I first see the Lake Clark area or coming from the south and see 

Sixmile Lake, I know I’m home! F-32, 8/18/11 

So the importance of this resource, specifically salmon, has a major impact on my people here. 

That’s the reason why we live here. We have sockeye salmon until March, when everyplace else 

has no more. That’s why my ancestors fought over this region... The reason why they’ve been 

here for so long is it’s a healthy environment, and we have been kind of watching over it all these 

years. My ancestors fought over it, and they won every battle. We beat the Russians two times. It 

was musket against bow and arrow. So, you see, the importance of it has a really long history of 

why it is like it is now. We took care of it. Not only that, we have shared with everybody in the 

whole world.[in reference to commercially caught salmon] M-33, 8/18/11

My Auntie [name] would say, “Don’t forget how to live off the land” and I’d think, “Oh, we 

could just go to the store and have microwave stuff.” She said, “One day in this world 

something’s going to happen where you guys are going to rely on living off the land, trapping off 

the land.” Like we take things for granted now; we can go on an airplane and shoot a moose or 

trap beaver or trap squirrels up on the mountain. We have to. We can’t just forget our ways; how 

to live off the land, because one day there’s going to be something that happens in the world, 

where we are going to have to learn to survive out here. F-32, 8/18/11 

But what the spiritual aspect of what they believed was strong...they had energy. Energy from 

what they worshipped; everything living. M-33, 8/18/11 

That is spring water [at Kijik]. It does not freeze. That is why you can go over there and get a 

sockeye salmon in March; it might have a green head, and it’s red, but it’s still a sockeye 

salmon. You can go over there on New Year’s Day and get a fresh sockeye salmon. F-33, 8/18/11 
Page 38 

Boraas and Knott 

Cultural Characterization

Figure 9. Kijik River, called, Ch'ak'dłatnu ‘Animals Walk Out Stream’ in the foreground; Yuyan 

Ach’edełt ‘Where We Walk into the Sky’ is the snow-covered pass in the distance. Photo by Alan 

Boraas

2. Pre-Contact Culture

Dena’ina origins are described in the section on Prehistory (II.C.2) and indicate the 

Dena’ina have been operating as a culture for whom salmon is the primary resource since A.D. 

1000. Much can be inferred about the pre-contact Dena’ina culture because of Cornelius 

Osgood’s (1976, originally published in 1937) comprehensive Ethnography of the Tanaina [sic]. 

Like the pre-contact Yup’ik culture, the Dena’ina pre-contact culture was sustainable and 

egalitarian in terms of equitable access to resources. The fundamental food source was salmon, 

but also included caribou, moose, bear, beaver, and other mammals and birds (Osgood, 1976:26) 

and about 150 edible plants (P. Kari, 1987:60-188). For the pre-contact Dena’ina salmon were 

caught in a number of ways, but primarily in weirs made of poles sunk into the bottom of a 

stream and strung with a lattice-like thatch, allowing water to pass through, but trapping 

migrating fish (Osgood, 1976:28). When they weren't fishing they simply opened a gate, and the 

fish swam through to spawn upstream. To solve the problem of storing this food resource for 

later use, the Dena’ina devised a simple but effective underground cold storage pit (Osgood, 

1976:42). Two layers of birch bark, with moss in between, lined the pit, which was filled with 

dried fish, layered with grass, during fall freeze-up. The frozen fish were eaten throughout the 
Page 39

Boraas and Knott

Cultural Characterization

winter and spring, until the next summer’s salmon run. Like modern fish camps, traditional 

Dena’ina fishing was an extended family operation. Everyone worked for, and received the 

benefits of, the clan-based family group. 

Because of the stable salmon food resource and a means to preserve it, the Dena'ina lived 

in sedentary or semi-sedentary villages of substantial log houses, usually spread out along a ridge 

above a lake, a river side channel or a tributary to one of the major rivers (Osgood, 1976:55-62). 

The married men of a village were members of the same matrilineal clan and their wives and 

children were members of a different clan (Osgood, 1976:128-131). Within this family group, 

connected by blood and marriage, and allied for economic purposes, various individuals 

performed different assigned tasks. The Dena'ina called this group the nakilaqa (ukilqa in 

Osgood) (Osgood, 1976:134) or clan helpers. The clan helpers recognized a chief, called a 

qeshqa; in the Iliamna area the position was related to being a family head (Osgood, 1976:131-3; 

Fall 1987:6-8). The qeshqa had numerous characteristics, among them wisdom, experience, and 

generosity. He or she had three primary duties: first, to arbitrate and resolve disputes; second, to 

care for the elderly and orphaned; and third, to assure the survival of the clan helpers through the 

equitable distribution of food. Regarding the latter, the qeshqa controlled the foods gathered, 

processed, and stored by the clan helpers and had authority to redistribute the food (mainly 

salmon) back to people throughout the winter on an as-needed basis. 

This system provided a safety net. Each qeshqa had a partner in a distant village, called a 

slocin. If one village ran low of food, the qeshqa could request aid from his partner, who would 

divert some of his village's food resources to the needy village. The second qeshqa would be 

willing to do this because, at some point, his village might be short of food, and the partner he 

helped would return the favor. 

3. Post-contact History and Culture

In the study area Dena’ina territory includes the Kvichak drainage of Lake Clark, the 

Newhalen River and the west half of Lake Iliamna. Today, the Dena’ina villages in the 

Kvichak/Iliamna drainage are Nondalton, Iliamna, and Pedro Bay; Kokhanok is mixed Dena’ina 

Alutiiq, and Yup’ik. This brief history is germane to the project because it establishes: 1) the 

Dena’ina repelled Russian colonization maintaining population superiority in their homeland to 

this day: 2) they adopted Russian Orthodoxy which ritually incorporated traditional viewpoints 

of a symbolic relationship of people to the land, and, 3) they began to have economic ties to the 

Bristol Bay salmon canning industry. Through it all the people retained a strong subsistence 

lifestyle. 

During the late eighteenth century, two Russian trading companies, the Shelikhov 

Company and the Lebedev Company, occupied Dena'ina territory, focusing primarily on the 

Cook Inlet region but extending into Iliamna Lake. The Lebedev established a post at Pedro Bay, 

on Iliamna Lake, in the 1790s (Ellana and Balluta, 1992:61). About 200 Russians occupied Cook 

Inlet and the Iliamna Lake area during the late eighteenth century; by the turn of the century, 

their presence had shrunk to a small handful through a complex series of events involving attacks 

and counter-attacks as outlined by Boraas and Leggett (in press, 2013). As a result of hostilities 

the Russian Lebedev Company left Alaska in the spring of 1798, and subsequent Russian 

presence in Dena’ina territory was minimal.
Page 40 

Boraas and Knott 

Cultural Characterization

Figure 10. Pedro Bay, General Location of the 18th Century Lebedev Company Post. August 19, 

2011. Photo by Alan Boraas

In 1838 a terrible smallpox epidemic decimated the Dena'ina (and most other Pacific 

coastal Alaska Natives). Where there are statistics, such as for the Kenai River drainage, about 

half the overall population died in two years (Fedorova 1973:164) and, although there are no 

specific statistics for the Lake Clark and Iliamna, it is likely the situation was tragically similar in 

the study area. Traditional shamanic practices were ineffective against smallpox and, after 1840, 

many Dena'ina were baptized as Russian Orthodox, (Townsend 1981:634-6), accepting the 

church's explanation for the epidemic as "God's will" (Boraas and Leggett in press, 2013). In 

1853 the Orthodox Church undertook an inoculation program, vaccinating baptized Dena'ina 

against smallpox, and an Orthodox Church was built at Kijik in 1884 (Ellana and Balluta, 

1992:63). It is probable that by the early twentieth century, most Dena’ina in the Iliamna/Lake 

Clark area were baptized as Orthodox.

Well into the twentieth century Dena’ina practiced a ritual that involved sending the spirit 

of the animal to the “reincarnation place.” Land animal bones were burned in the fire and water 

animal bones, like salmon, were returned to the water. These practices ritualized ecology and 

were said to bring the animal back to be hunted or fished again (Boraas and Peter 1996:188-190). 
Page 41

Boraas and Knott

Cultural Characterization

Archaeological evidence indicates the Dena’ina were burning bones in their fire hearths (Boraas 

and Peter 2008:220-222)

 As summarized by Karen Gaul (2007:48) salmon canning in Bristol Bay emerged as a 

major industry in the late 1800s. Unregulated Bristol Bay canneries regularly blocked the mouth 

of the Kvichak and Nushagak Rivers to harvest salmon; consequently, there were years when 

there was little escapement into the rivers, creating extreme hardship for the upriver Dena’ina 

and Yup’ik subsistence communities. Starting in the early 1900s, men from the inland villages 

traveled to the coast to work seasonally in the commercial fishery, as many still do today. The 

fur trade was a second non-subsistence occupation, providing cash for food, guns and 

ammunition, traps, cloth, and other items, but commercial salmon fishing remained the primary 

source of money for most indigenous families and supplemented subsistence activities (Gaul 

2007:48). 

Small scale gold mining in the upper Mulchatna was mentioned in the previous section. 

In 1902 a copper mine in Dena’ina territory was staked about nine and a half miles from 

Cottonwood Bay on Cook Inlet toward Lake Iliamna (DeArmond nd:30). Development, 

including 14 miles of trail, was carried out by the Dutton Mining & Development Company 

headed by George W. Dutton. Dutton was established as a small settlement on Cottonwood Bay 

where a post office was started in 1905. The deposit proved unprofitable and by 1909 the post 

office was closed and the mine abandoned.
Page 42 

Boraas and Knott 

Cultural Characterization

D. Traditional Yup’ik and Dena’ina Spirituality and Cosmology

Many modern practices of Yup’ik and Dena’ina have their basis in traditional spiritual 

and cosmological beliefs, though they are sometimes re-contextualized in Christianity. This 

section discusses the traditional spiritual and cosmologic beliefs and practices of both peoples. 

Figure 11. Nushagak River, January 18, 2012. Photo by Alan Boraas

1. Traditional Yup’ik Spirituality

Traditional Yup’ik values revolved around not only their extended families, but also their 

relationships with the wild animals and other components of the natural landscape. Within this 

belief system, the Ellam yua, or creative force, was a universal cosmic presence who coordinated 

existence and established a basic ordering framework; tunghit were powerful spiritual beings 

who controlled the recycling of different animals, fish, and bird forms (Langdon, 2002). 

The Yup’ik have traditionally regarded animals as other peoples, or categories of 

kinsmen, with whom they have fluid relations that often cross species and interpersonal 

boundaries. There are numerous stories of half-animal, half-human beings who live in the 

villages or of people turning into seals, birds, fish, or other animals, and then turning back into 

humans, as well as stories of people who seem to be human, but turn out to be seals or other 

animals in a temporary human form. Several major traditional festivals and ceremonies, 

described below, honored this relationship. The spiritual values associated with each of these 

festivals emphasized sharing between humans and respect and care for animals. Traditional 

stories and advice speak of the animals giving themselves to the humans when the humans need 

them for food. The good practices of sharing, care, and respect (e.g., being careful with the 

animal’s body and soul, and not wasting the food) ensured the animals’ continued willingness to 

give themselves to the hunters and fishermen in the future. Sharing of the products of subsistence 
Page 43

Boraas and Knott

Cultural Characterization

with their human kin and other relations also strengthened the bonds of family and community. 

A version of The First Salmon celebration in the river communities is still celebrated today, 

when those who have caught the first king salmon in the spring share them with Elders and all 

those in need, as well as with friends and family, emphasizes these values.

The Yup’ik relations with the wild animals and fish of their landscape were primary, and 

in many ways still are. The Yup’ik related to the fish, the bear, the caribou, the moose, the ravens 

as relations, others equally inhabiting the landscape with them as interrelated peoples. During 

spring, summer, and fall the Yup’ik hunt and fish the animals as food, but when processing the 

animals as food they treat them with respect and care, and enable their return through rituals and 

ceremonies. In winter, a period of rest and renewal for the human population, in the past the 

Yup’ik attended to the renewal of life through the rebirth of the animals they had hunted, and 

fished, in, according to Fienup-Riordan five ceremonies, “three of which focused on the creative 

reformation of the relationship between the human community and the spirit world on which 

they relied.” (Fienup-Riordan 1994:267). Today, many of the Russian Orthodox ceremonies 

continue to be based on this ancient calendar of propitiation of the world of the spirit, in all 

seasons. During the winter ceremonial season, the men beat the circular drum—traditionally 

made from stretching seal gut on a wooden frame—for songs and dances. The drum beats 

represented the heartbeat of Ellam yua. Thus, the celebrations were spiritual in the deepest sense. 

They were also material, involving the exchange and sharing of wild subsistence foods from both 

animals who had given themselves willingly to the hunters and plants gathered from the 

landscape, considered to be spiritually alive.

During the Bladder Festival, at or around the Winter Solstice, the women brought out the 

bladders of seals, which they had been saving since their husbands brought the seals to them to 

prepare, because the Yup’ik believed that the souls or essence of animals are located or retreat to 

their bladders when they are killed. By saving the seal bladders and returning them to the sea, the 

Yup’ik enable the seals to be reborn, and present themselves again as food for the Yup’ik when 

needed. The women take the seal bladders to the qasgiq where the men inflate them and keep 

them for about ten days, while they go through a series of rituals to honor the seals and share 

food in the community, before returning the bladders under the ice, to the sea, enabling the seals 

to be reborn and to present themselves to the Yup’ik when needed again as food. The men would 

compose new songs for the Bladder Festival, including songs about salmon, and sing 

continuously in the qasgiq; people believed that light from the lamp and the songs drew the 

attention of animal spirits (Fienup-Riordan, 1994:284).

At Qaariitaaq, at the beginning of the Bladder Festival, the young boys were painted to 

represent the spirits of the dead, and went visiting, going around to the different houses to collect 

special food treats. Every house was brightly lit, and the hostesses wore their best clothes. The 

boys held out their hand-carved bowls, and the women handed out the special snacks. On the 

fifth night of these celebrations, the boys, and men, came to fully embody the spirits of the dead, 

and the fifth night was considered the arrival of the spirits. (Fienup-Riordan 1994:271). At 

Aaniq, held directly after Qaariitaaq, two men dressed in gut skin parkas, are referred to as 

mothers, the “aanak,” and they are taken around to collect newly made bowls filled with 

akuutaq, traditionally a mixture of fat and berries. Small girls and boys referred to as their 

“dogs” would accompany them.
Page 44

Boraas and Knott

Cultural Characterization

The way that people do things

And the way of helping others

And the way of creating friendship

The Bladder Festival is like an opening for these things to occur

And through those events

The people being scattered

Through that too they are gathered 

(Toksook Bay Eders, November 3, 1983 NI57 in Fienup-Riordan, 1994: 267).

Today, starting during the Russian Christmas season the modern ritual of “Starring”

follows this familiar pattern – groups go visiting from house to house, and receive special foods. 

Other important ceremonies include the Great Feast for the Dead, Elriq, held every ten 

years, as well as the annual feast for the dead, and Kelek, a festival that included both serious and 

comic masked dances, when “animal spirits and shamanic spirit helpers made themselves visible 

in the human world in dramatic form” (Fienup Riordan, 1994:316). Kelek was performed to 

influence the animal spirits and elicit successful hunting and fishing through the return of the 

animals the following year.

Two other winter festivals underscored the redistribution of goods, including subsistence 

foods. The first, Kevgiq, the Messenger Feast, was a celebration and display of the bounty of the 

harvest, in which villages challenged each other to exchanges of wealth, with demands for 

specific items that were difficult to provide, such as certain game meat in a year when that game 

animal was scarce. Kevgiq served to reduce tensions between villages through sharing and 

friendly competition. It also provided food security by strengthening ties between villages and 

encouraging exchange relationships that could help people in times of food shortages. Sharing 

was considered to be a behavior that would be rewarded by the return of the animals to those 

hunters and fishers the following year. Petugtaq, the Asking Festival, was a challenge to 

exchange gifts of value between cross-cousins and others, where the person whose gifts were the 

most valuable gained the highest prestige. Cross-cousins were in “joking cousin” relations with 

each other, and were able to call each other out on bad behavior, embarrassing each other 

without repercussions, since they were not permitted to get angry with each other (FienupRiordan, 1994:330). The behaviors were thus made public and frequently resolved through this 

tension-reducing mechanism. Both festivals involved teasing, dancing and singing as part of the 

ritual celebration of the exchanges. All of the traditional festivals required subsistence foods, not 

only for sustenance, but also for the meaningful symbolic and material exchanges.

During their ceremonies, the Yup’ik wore masks they had carved, often representing 

animals or those in transition between the animal world and the human world, the half–animal, 

half-human. These masks symbolized both the high regard of the Yup’ik for the animals and the 

importance of their roles Yup’ik culture. For the Yup’ik, the masks were agayuliyararput, or 

“our way of making prayer” (Fienup-Riordan, 1996:xviii).

Dances, including ingulag—the women’s loon courtship dance—and other bird dances, 

filled the evenings and contributed to the festivities. Each dance told a story and many featured 

the animals with whom the Yup’ik partnered in their negotiation for existence in the challenging 

landscape. Dances were traditionally an essential part of the culture and celebrations and have 

returned in force as part of cultural revitalization along the Nushagak and elsewhere. FienupRiordan (1994:288) quotes Billy Lincoln: 
Page 45

Boraas and Knott

Cultural Characterization

And at night, every night, they have what is called nayangaq. They dance. These 

young people who are sitting against the far wall go down in front of them and 

dance, sitting down pretending to be some animal, so thus, the nayangaq. They 

imitate a certain animal. When the time came whatever animal he is pretending to 

be he imitates its noise. They imitate all kinds of animals – loon, hawk, raven, 

arctic fox. They make noise accordingly. They dance pretending to be some 

animal (July 10, 1985).

Then as now the dancers represent the many ways the stories and lives of the animals are woven 

into their own, in the richness of shared existence in the watersheds of southwest Alaska. Lincoln 

continues:

These dance motions were more than the mere imitation of the motions of the 

animals. When the performers danced during Kelek, they actually performed the

animals’ dances. Just as married women danced the loon’s mating dance during 

Ingulaq, so the performers during Kelek danced the dances of the animals whose 

presence they hoped to elicit in the year to come. . . 

In 1913 Hawkes quoted a Unalakleet chief in an eloquent estimation of the value of these dances 

within Yup’ik culture: “To stop the Eskimo singing and dancing,” he said, “was like cutting the 

tongue out of a bird” (Hawkes cited in Fienup-Riordan, 1994:320-321).

Fienup-Riordan (1994:355; see also Fienup-Riordan 2010) summarizes how the Yup’ik 

traditionally saw themselves in relation to the universe: “Yup’ik cosmology is a perpetual 

cycling between birth and rebirth, humans and animals, and the living and the dead. Their 

relationship between humans and animals reflects a cycle of reciprocity in which animals give 

their bodies in exchange for careful treatment and respect.”
Page 46 

Boraas and Knott 

Cultural Characterization

Figure 12. Iliamna Village. August 20, 2011. Photo by Alan Boraas

2. Traditional Dena’ina Spirituality

The traditional Dena'ina spiritual world revolved around a quest for k'ech eltani, or “true 

belief,” as a way to understand and interact with the natural world (Boraas and Peter, 1996:183-

4). The Dena'ina believed that social and ecological harmony was affected by an individual's 

attitudes, actions, and even thoughts toward other Dena'ina and toward nature. To maintain 

harmony, the Dena'ina sought true belief, a kind of mind-set expressed through hunting 

practices, cooking rituals, communication with animals and plants (prayer), and other practices 

that demonstrated having a "good attitude" toward the forces of nature. Kalifornsky (1991:13) 

writes that, “Whatever is on earth is a person [has a spirit] they used to say. And they said they 

prayed to everything. That is the way they lived.” Achieving k’ech eltani involved a spiritually 

torturous and mentally rigorous quest for understanding (Boraas and Peter, 1996:187). 

Many of the Dena'ina traditional stories (sukdu) describe the dire consequences of having 

a bad attitude by not practicing the prescribed rituals such as burning the bones of consumed 

animals or distributing fish bones in the water as means to symbolically assure the animals 

would come back (Boraas and Peter, 2008:222-223). In these stories, a bad attitude would have 

the consequence of the animals, believed to be both sensate and willful, withdrawing and not 

offering themselves to be taken for food. The result would be starvation. A bad attitude could 

result in social turmoil or mental illness. There was immense pressure to behave and think 

respectfully toward the natural world including salmon.

In a forthcoming chapter on Dena’ina world view, Boraas (in press 2013) writes the 

following about traditional attitudes toward animals: 
Page 47

Boraas and Knott

Cultural Characterization

Attitudes toward bears typify attitudes toward animals. In “Three People in 

Search of Truth,” (Kalifornsky 1991:164-167) three brothers hunt a brown bear, 

the most feared and respected animal. The first fails because he is poorly skilled; 

the second fails because he is impetuous, and the third succeeds because he is 

skilled, controlled and speaks the correct words to the bear, which then respects 

him and does not resist being killed. In Kenai a successful hunter used the phrase 

Chadaka, k'usht'a nhu'izdeyeshdle, which translates as “Great Old Man, I am not 

equal to you,” to communicate humility toward the bear he was hunting 

(Kalifornsky 1991:167). In 1966 Mrs. Mike Delkettie, a Nondalton Dena’ina, 

reported that a similar saying was used in that area; moreover, the eyes of the bear 

were buried near the spot where it was killed as an offering showing proper 

respect (Rooth 1971:62). Francis Wilson, also from Nondalton, told Rooth 

(1971:50) that, after a bear was killed, they had to follow prescribed procedures, 

particularly in the treatment of the head, lest they never kill another bear, because 

“the bear still knows what is happening, so they have to be very careful with what 

they are doing.” Hunting rituals and prayers were meant to thank an animal for 

allowing itself to be killed and sometimes it also involved giving an offering as a 

measure of the importance of proper attitude (Rooth 1971:50). 

The First Salmon Ceremony (Osgood, 1976:148; Kari and Fall 2003:184-190) expresses 

the intimate relationship of Dena’ina and salmon. The First Salmon Ceremony was based on a 

traditional story. As the Osgood’s retelling goes, a qeshqa’s (chief’s) daughter was admonished 

not to go near the fish weir. The determined girl went anyway to find out what was in the trap, 

promising to return later. At the fish trap she saw a king salmon, began talking to him, and 

gradually transformed into a salmon and disappeared with him. The desperate qeshqa looked for 

his daughter to no avail. Years later, the qeshqa was collecting fish from the weir. He put them 

on the grass and took them to be cleaned, but forgot one little one. He returned to find a little boy 

sitting there. He walked around the boy three times and realized it was his grandson. The boy 

then told his grandfather the things that should be done to ensure the salmon return each year, 

and those things became the First Salmon Ceremony, a world renewal ceremony6 which ritually 

recognized the salmon’s return and the Dena’ina as salmon people whose spirit is merged with 

the fish.

In 1862 Hegumen Nikolai, the first missionary priest stationed in Dena’ina territory 

wrote in his travel journal, “In the middle of May the king salmon reached our area [writing 

from Kenai]. This is the best red fish we have here, and the Kenaitze celebrated the fish run with 

some sort of festivities, during which they treated each other with food” (Znamenski 2003: 91). 

Fr. Nikolai was clearly referring to the First Salmon Ceremony.

Water was particularly important in Dena’ina spirituality in the act of moving into a 

spiritually liminal state. One kneeled beside a river or lake and took three sips of water (Boraas 

in press 2013). This was practiced well into historic times and also occurs in mythological stories 

(sukdu). For example in “The Woman Who Was Fasting” (Kalifornsky 1991:168-9) a young 

6 World renewal ceremonies are important identity-building ceremonies that recognize the 

beginning or end of a year’s subsistence activity and social cohesion. In American culture 

Thanksgiving is a world renewal ceremony.

 
Page 48 

Boraas and Knott 

Cultural Characterization

woman was ritually fasting and spoke these words “People will learn something from our 

beliefs” as she took three sips of water. She was then able to perform a spiritually power act 

upon which she said, “When we pray and we fast there is another dimension.” 

Some places took on special importance. The Giants Rock, Dzełggezh, was along an old 

Dena’ina trail that became the Pile Bay Road between Old Iliamna and Kamishak Bay on Cook 

Inlet, one of the major trails connecting eastern and western Dena’ina territory. The rock was the 

site of a mythological story and was a spiritual place (Johnson, 2004:49-54). The rock was 

dynamited in 1955 as part of road building activities by the Territory of Alaska; Dena’ina still 

regularly leave votive gifts at the site in homage to the place and the mythological event that 

happened there. Other sacred rocks and sacred locations exist in Dena’ina territory, but for most 

their locations are privileged cultural information (Boraas 2009:10-20). 

Not only are there sacred sites but the Dena’ina believed the landscape retained a sense of 

events that happened there: events which could be good or bad. For example, Qil’ihtnu is located 

near the historic village of Kijik on Lake Clark and the place name means “Evil Creek” (Kari et 

al. 1986:7-42) or “bad creek” (Kari and Balluta 1985:A-36). According to Albert Wassilie 

(Lynch 1982), in the 19th century an Orthodox priest violated taboos concerning the creek (which 

he later rectified) but to traditional Dena’ina the place retains a sense of its bad history. 

Spiritually powerful people and animals could detect information about these events and, thus, to 

travel was to encounter morally good and morally bad events encoded into the landscape (Boraas 

2009:8-10).

Figure 13. Evil Creek Qil’ihtnu near Lake Clark. Photo by Alan Boraas
Page 49 

Boraas and Knott 

Cultural Characterization

E. The Yup’ik and Dena’ina Languages: Salmon and Streams

1. Voices of the People

Talk Native, no English....They talk Native [Yup’ik] better [than English]. [in reference to Elder

interviews in Yup’ik] M-25, 5/18/11 

That’s why we quit using our Native tongue [Dena’ina] because we get our...ears pulled. I don’t 

know how many times I sit in the corner because I use my Native tongue. We couldn’t speak our 

own language in school because we get abused. F-46, 8/20/11 

When we first went to school they took our dialect away from us and told us to speak English 

only. If we spoke our Native tongue we would get hit by the teacher which isn’t right. Now they 

call it abuse. Anyways none of us speak our Native tongue [Dena’ina] because of that. My mom 

didn’t speak English.... F-48, 8/20/11 

2. Introduction

 Language is intimately tied to cultural identity and Yup’ik and Dena’ina have 

evolved as languages of place for their respective areas over thousands of years. Landscape, 

subsistence, social relations, and spirituality are reflected in both languages. The variety of words 

a language has for a given topic generally reflects the importance of that topic, or cultural 

domain, to the people who speak it. Given their cultural importance, it is not surprising that both 

Dena’ina and Yup’ik have numerous, highly detailed terms involving salmon, other fish, and 

fishing. Streams are also intimately tied to Dena’ina and Yup’ik psyche and their languages 

reflect that fact. 

One Yup’ik interviewee (M-25; 5-18-11) spoke about helping set up a 2011 Elders 

Conference which occurred a few days before our interviews in New Stuyahok in which the 

entire discussion was in Yup’ik. He said, “I set up that meeting [Elders Conference], I try to do it 

for a long time...yes, talk Native [Yup’ik], no English. Get somebody else to translate...they talk 

Native better [than English].”The speaker was expressing a version of linguistic relativity, the 

idea that the structure of language predisposed certain thought patterns that are not easily 

translated into another language and that, in turn, express deeply held cultural ideas (Mihalicek 

and Wilson 2011:461-467). In a similar way Boraas (2007) has described the way Dena’ina 

grammar influences Dena’ina thought processes. 

3. The Central Yup’ik Language

The Yup’ik people of the Nushagak and Kvichak River watersheds are part of the Central 

Yup’ik group, of whom there is a population of about 25,000 in an area that also includes coastal 

communities and the lower and middle Kuskokwim River drainage (Krauss, 2007:408) (See 

Table 8). Ten thousand four hundred of this population, or 42%, speak Central Yup’ik of which 
Page 50

Boraas and Knott

Cultural Characterization

the 7,000 mostly Yup’ik of the Nushagak and Kvichak River drainages are a part. Central Yup’ik 

has one of the highest percentages of speakers among indigenous languages in the U.S and is an 

indicator of strong cultural heritage. Yup’ik is the first language for many residents in the study 

area and the language in which many feel most comfortable expressing complex or heartfelt 

ideas, which is why, for this project, we encouraged interviewees to respond in Yup’ik if they so 

chose. Eight of fifty-five interviewees spoke in Yup’ik. 

Table 8 Estimated Number of Central Yup'ik and Dena'ina Speakers. Data from Krauss (2007:408)

Language Family Language Population 

Estimate Speakers Percent Speakers

Eskimo-Aleut Central Yup’ik 25,000 10,400 42%

Athabascan-EyakTlingit Dena’ina 1,000 50 5%

Table 9 presents Yup’ik terms for salmon, related fish, and fishing activities. In many 

cases there are multiple words and/or dialect differences. As indicated the sheer number of words 

are indicative of a long history with salmon and fishing activities. Moreover, the nuanced 

meaning of some words is indicative of a deep knowledge of salmon and related activities. For 

example the word kiarneq‘ means “unsalted strip or fillet of fish flesh without skin, cut from

along the backbone and hung to dry”
Page 51

Boraas and Knott

Cultural Characterization

Table 9. Yup'ik Words for Salmon and Other Fish and Related Fishing Terms. From Jacobson 

(1984)

English Term Yup’ik Word Literal Translation

X indicated the literal translation 

is the same as the English term

salmon (generic) (Oncorhynchus spp.) neqaraq any species of salmon

dog salmon, chum salmon aluyak

iqalluk

kangitneq

mac’utaq

teggmaarrluk

x

‘fish’

‘old dog salmon after spawning’

x

boiled half-dried salmon

humpback salmon, pink salmon amaqaayak

amaqsus

cuqpeq

terteq

amaqatak

sayalleraam amaqatii 

neqnirquq

x

x

x

x

‘back of fish, hump on back’

‘back of spawning red salmon is 

tasty’

silver salmon, coho salmon caayuryaq

qakiiyaq

qavlunaq

uqurliq

x

x

‘streak or wake made on surface 

by fish’

red salmon, sockeye salmon cayak

sayak

sayalleq

sayagcurtuq 

imarnikaralegmun

x

x

‘he is fishing for red salmon at a 

deep calm place’

spawning salmon masseq

masruuq una neqa

nalayaq

nalayarrsuun

talayaq

talmag (NUN)

talmagtut

‘old salmon near spawning’

‘this fish is a spawning salmon’

x

‘fish spear to catch spawning 

salmon’

‘calico salmon’

‘to spawn (of fish)’

‘they are spawning’

king running under smelt aciirturtet ‘the first group of king salmon 

running under the smelt’

salmon egg cilluvak ‘salmon egg, especially aged 

salmon egg’

salmon strip culunallraq

taryitaq

‘salted and dried salmon strip’

salted fish or meat culunaq

culunanek ajurciuq

‘salted fish or meat that is eaten 

after it is cut up and soaked to 

remove excess salt’

‘she is soaking some salted fish’

see culunaq

‘my wife cut up the salted fish’
Page 52

Boraas and Knott

Cultural Characterization

sulunaq

sulunanek ingqillruuq

taryitaq, taryiraq

taryirki sulunarkat

‘salted salmon strip’

‘put salt on the pieces of fish to 

be preserved’

scale (fish) kapciq

qelta

akakiik qeltairru suu 

pirniaraqa

x

‘fish scale’, 

‘take the scales off the whitefish 

so that I can make soup with it!’

rolled oats qeltengalnguut ‘things like fish scales’

smelt cemerliq

cimigliq

x

x

stick(n) fish-spreading ayagta

ayagtekartellruunga

‘prop, support, especially a small 

stick used to keep a cut fish open 

as it dries’

‘I gathered material to use as 

spreaders for drying fish’

stickleback cukilek

angun cukilegnek qaluuq

ilaqcungaq

quarruuk

‘one with quills’

‘the man is dipnetting for 

sticklebacks’

x

‘needlefish’

supper atakutaq ‘supper, evening meal’

tail, fish papsalqitaq

papsalquq

‘dried fish tail’

‘tail or caudal fin of fish’

preopercle ulluvalqin ‘gill cover of a fish, preopercle’ 

fish cheek ulluvalquq ‘cut from the fish’

trap, fish taluyaq ‘fish tray’

whitefish with pointed head cingikeggliq x

young whitefish esevsiar(aq)

iituliar(aq)

x

‘whitefish fry’

frozen raw whitefish qassayaaq

akakiigem meluanek 

qassallruunga

‘frozen whitefish aged before 

freezing and served frozen’

‘I ate the whitefish eggs raw’

To fish (v) neqsur ?

Fish iqalluk

ilaqcuugaq

neqa

neqet amllertut maani

qimugtet neqait 

nangyarpiartut 

neqtulnguunga

neqa unguvangraan uklia

neqngurtuq

nereneqaiq, neqiaq

‘dog, chum salmon, fish’

‘small fish found in lakes’

‘food;fish’

‘the fish are plentiful here’

‘the dogs’ food is almost gone’

‘i’m tired of eating fish’

‘even though the fish is still alive 

he is cutting it up’ 

‘there was food everywhere’,lit. 

‘it became food’

‘food-stealing bird’

Boiled fish egaaq ‘any cooked fish or other food’
Page 53

Boraas and Knott

Cultural Characterization

Bundled fish inartaq x

Canned fish paankaraq

qakiiyak paankarak uksuqu 

nernalukek

x

‘he is canning two silver salmon 

so that he can eat them in winter’ 

Cut fish cegessegcegtuq

cegaa, ceggaa

ceg’aq, cegg’aq

segulligteulligtuq

ulligtaaa

ulligciuq

ulligtaq

ingqiiinguqin, inguqitaq

neq’liurneq’liurtuq

‘to cut fish for drying’

‘she is cutting fish’

‘she is cutting it’

‘a fish cut for drying’

(see ceg-)

‘to cut fish for drying, in the 

traditional manner, making cuts 

so that air can reach all parts of 

the flesh; (NUN) to turn over’

‘it is cut for drying’

‘she cut it for drying’

‘she is cutting it for drying’

‘fish cut for drying’

‘to make the horizontal cuts in 

fish flesh while preparing it for 

drying’

‘board on which one prepares 

meat or fish’

‘to work on fish (cleaning it, 

etc.)’

‘he is working on fish’

Fish cut in half qup’ayagaq(NUN) ‘fish cut in half to hang and dry’

Dried fish neqaluk (NUN)

neqerrluk

palircima

x

x

‘to be burnt by the sun (of dried 

fish)

Dried small fish nevkuq

ulligtaruaq

x

‘split and dried small fish, such as 

whitefish, pike or trout’

Dried fish heads nasqurrluk 

qamiqurrluk

irniani nerevkaraa tepnek

‘cut and dried fish-head’

(see above)

‘she let her child eat some aged 

fish heads’

Dried frozen fish yay’ussaq ‘dried tomcod or whitefish that 

has been frozen all winter’

Air dried fish tamuaneq x

Fish dried in a basket tut’at (plural) ‘fish packed down and dried in a 

basket’

Fish partially dried and boiled egamaarrluk teggmaarrluk x

‘boiled, half-dried salmon; dog 

salmon, chum salmon’ 

Frozen fish cetegtaq

kumlaneq 

nutaqaq 

qercuqaq

Poke fish uqumaarrluk ‘fish slightly aged and stored in 

seal oil’
Page 54

Boraas and Knott

Cultural Characterization

Fish partly smoked and stored in seal 

oil

arumaarluk x

Fish in strips kiarneq

palak’aaq (BB)

‘unsalted strip or fillet of fish 

flesh without skin, cut from along 

the backbone and hung to dry’

‘strip of dried flesh’

Dried Fish tails parmesqatak papsalqitaq x

?

Fish strung to dry piirrarrluk (Y, HBC) ‘small fish, such as tomcod strung 

up for drying’

Fish hung to dry kanartaq x

Raw fish qassaq, qassaulria

qassarqassartuq

qassaraa

‘raw fish or meat’

‘to eat raw fish or meat’

‘he is eating raw fish’

‘he is eating it raw’

Raw frozen fish quaq ‘fish to be eaten raw and frozen’

Cooked piece of fish ukliaq x

Fish bin qikutaq ‘bin used for temporary storage 

of fish before they are cut up for 

drying’

Fish trap taluyaq x

Fish rack initaq

ker’aq 

qer’aq

‘part of a fish rack on which the 

fish is directly hung’

Fish wheel akalria x

Fish fence capon

angutet capcirtut uqvianek 

manignarrnaluteng 

taluyakun

kalgun

‘weir, fish fence; wall’

‘the men set a weir of willows to 

catch loche with a fishtrap’

‘weir, fish fence extending from 

the bottom of the river and 

leading fish to a place where one 

can catch them with a dipnet’

Fish spear aggsuun

ag’ssuun

x

x

Fishing line ipiutaq (NSU) x

Fish camp kiagvik

neqlilleq

‘summer fish camp’

(see above)

Fish Village neqlercurvik ‘fish village, site on the lower

Yukon’

Fisherman neqsurta

neqsurtuq

neqsurvik

neqsurtuq tuniarkaminek

aataka neqsurtenģuuq

x

‘he is fishing’

‘fishing place’

‘he is fishing commercially’

‘my father is a fisherman’

Fish hook iqsak x
Page 55

Boraas and Knott

Cultural Characterization

iqsag/manaqutaq

iqsagtuq/manartuq

iqsagaa/manaraa

manaq

manar

manaryartuq

qerrlurcaq

‘to fish with a hook and line, to 

jig for fish’

‘he is hooking for fish’

‘he hooked it’

‘fishing lure with hook’

‘to fish with a hook, lure, and 

line, usually (though not 

necessarily) through a hole in the 

ice in winter’

‘he went to fish with a hook and 

line’

‘fishhook which is baited and set 

below the ice, held in place with a 

stick across the hole, and left 

unattended to be checked 

periodically’

Fish net kuvyaq, kuvya, kuvsaq

kuvya

kuvyauq

kuvyaq cangliqellruuq 

nutaranek

qemiraa kuvyaq 

qilagcuutmek aturluni

kuvyaq civtaa

kuvyaq takuua

kuvyarkaq

qelcaq (Y)

x

‘to fish by drift-netting or purse-

seining’

‘he is drift-netting’

‘the net caught lots of fresh fish’

‘ he is stringing the net using a 

net shuttle’

‘he set the net’

‘he checked the nets’

‘twine for making nets’

‘net into which fish are driven by 

peopoole who walk in and thrash 

the water’

Set net petugaq

x

Fine mesh net caqutaugaq(NUN) ‘fine mesh net for dog salmon, 

worked by hand by men standing 

in the water, not left unattended’

Net shuttle imgutaq

qilagcuun

xx

Net setting line amun

atlirneq

nuvun

qemiq

qemirtuq

qemiraa

‘line used to set and reset a net 

under the ice’

‘lead line of fish net’

‘threading device (such as the 

line used to set a net under the 

ice, or a needle threader)’

‘lead line or float line of a net’

‘he is stringing (a net)’

‘he is stringing it’

Net sinker kic’aqutaq

x

Fishing rod manaq

piqrutaq

‘fishing lure with hook’
Page 56 

Boraas and Knott 

Cultural Characterization

Roe cin’aq

cilluvak

imlauk

meluk

melug

‘salmon egg, especially aged 

salmon egg’

‘fish egg,roe’

‘fish eggs, roe; fish eggs prepared 

by allowing them to age and 

become a sticky mass’

‘to suck; to eat roe directly from 

the fish’

aged roe cuak x

herring roe imlauk (NUN)

qaarsaq

qiaryaq (NUN)

‘dried herring egg’

x

‘herring eggs, so called because 

they crackle when eaten’

fish rack ker’aq (NSU)

qer’aq

x

x

trout anerrluaq (BB)

anyuk (BB)

‘type of fish, salt-water trout’

x 

lake trout cikignaq x

steelhead trout irunaq x

rainbow trout talaariq x

dolly varden (char) iqallugpik x

herring iqalluarpak, iqallugpak x

Arctic cod iqalluaq ‘boreal smelt’

Pike uksumi-llu iqsagnaurtut 

cuukvagnek

‘and in the winter they would 

hook for pike’

Wolf Fish qugautnaq (NI, NUN) x

Smokehouse elagyaq

puyurcivik

talicivik

neqnek aruvarqiyartua 

talicivigmi

‘partially underground cache; pit 

for cleaning fish; smokehouse’

x 

‘shelter for smoking fish, 

smokehouse’

‘go smoke the fish in the 

smokehouse’

Smoked Fish aruvarqiaruvirpuyurqe

puyurte-

‘to smoke fish’

‘to be smoky; to smoke (fish)’

‘to be smoked; to feed the fire 

when smoking fish’

‘to smoke (fish)’

Subsistence angussaagyuungnaqe-‘to hunt, to try to catch game’

?

4. The Dena’ina Language

There is a dramatic difference in language retention between the Yup’ik of the Nushagak 

and Kvichak River watersheds and the Dena’ina of the Iliamna Lake and Lake Clark area. In 
Page 57

Boraas and Knott

Cultural Characterization

contrast to the Yup’ik, the Dena’ina population is much smaller, estimated by Krauss (2007:408) 

at 1,000 for the Iliamna/Lake Clark and Cook Inlet Basin areas. Krauss estimates that within this 

population there are only 50 Dena’ina speakers remaining (see Table 8), most of whom live in 

the vicinity of Nondalton or Lime Village (the latter outside the study area in the Kuskokwim 

River drainage). The youngest active Dena’ina speaker is 64 years old. Dena’ina is, thus, one of 

the world’s most endangered indigenous languages (Boraas 2010:2). The reason for the disparity 

between Dena’ina and Yup’ik language usage is complex but a significant reason for Dena’ina 

language extinction was the Alaska Territorial School’s federally mandated policy of punishment 

for children speaking their indigenous language in school. This forced assimilation policy 

occurred to various degrees throughout Alaska but its application seems to have been particularly 

harsh in Dena’ina territory (Boraas 2010:2). 

Given the importance of language to cultural identity, the Dena’ina have begun to 

revitalize their language and significant efforts are underway to avoid its extinction both in 

spoken and written form (cf. Boraas and Christian 2010). There is a history of Dena’ina Elders 

working with linguists dating back to Anna Brigitta Rooth’s (1971) work in 1966 in Nondalton 

followed by dozens of bilingual publications by James Kari working in collaboration with 

Dena’ina speakers starting in the 1970s and the bilingual publication of Joan Tenenbaum (1984). 

More recently a number of speakers from Nondalton and Lime Village have participated in 

Dena’ina Language Institutes, sponsored by a consortium of institutions including the Alaska 

Native Language Center, Alaska Native Heritage Center, the Sovereign Nation of the Kenaitze, 

and Kenai Peninsula College. The one to three-week institutes have been held at various 

locations including Nondalton and include workshops on Dena’ina language learning and 

teaching. Recently, two speakers from the study area, Andrew Balluta of Nondalton/Newhalen 

and Walter Johnson of Pedro Bay, now of Homer, have collaborated with linguist James Kari on 

important bilingual publications: Shtutda’ina Da’a Sheł Qudeł: My Forefathers are Still Walking 

with Me (Balluta 2008) and Sukdu Neł Nuhtghelnek: I’ll Tell You a Story: Stories I Recall from 

Growing Up on Iliamna Lake (Johnson 2004). Finally, numerous speakers living and deceased 

(through archived recordings) contributed to Dena’ina Ełnena [Dena’ina Territory]: A 

Celebration edited by Karen Evanoff (2010). This book is summarized in the Traditional 

Ecological Knowledge section (Section D).

The language is indicative of the importance of water and salmon and other fish to the 

Dena’ina. Streams are intimately tied to the Dena’ina psyche through language. The Dena’ina 

words for directions are not based on the cardinal directions, but on the concept of upstream or 

downstream. A Dena’ina description of direction results from combining one of five stems, 

indicating upstream, downstream, and related terms; one of six prefixes, indicating proximity;

and a suffix indicating general direction or location (Kari, 2007:336). For example, the word 

“yunit” combines the stem “ni” (upstream) with the prefix “yu” (distant) and the suffix “t” (at a 

specific place) and means “at a specific place a long way up upstream.” If one were using that 

phrase at Iliamna, yunit would mean the direction toward Nondalton, which is a specific place far 

upstream; in this case, the direction would be north, because from Iliamna the Newhalen River 

flows south.

Because streams, to Athabascans, are a fundamental cultural construct implicated in a 

wide range of cultural activities (subsistence, diet, travel, directions, spirituality etc.), Kari 

(1996) has used stream stem morpheme variations to understand pre-contact movements among

Northern Athabascans.
Page 58

Boraas and Knott

Cultural Characterization

The spirituality of water is also embedded in the language. The Dena’ina have 36 terms 

for streams (Kari 2007:123-4), among those the primary word for ‘water’ is of special note. The 

Dena’ina word for “water” viniłni (in the Inland dialect, miłni in the Outer dialect) is unique 

among other Athabascan/Dene languages and Dena’ina linguist James Kari considers it to be 

esoterogenic meaning a special word reflecting special importance or sacredness (personal 

communication, Dr. James Kari, UAF Professor Emeritus, December 6, 2011). Dena’ina Elders 

Clare Swan and Alexandra Lindgren (2011) state “the Dena’ina word for water was held sacred” 

and by implication the water was sacred. The word viniłni and its sacred connotations is reflected 

today in the Orthodox Great Blessing of the Water ceremony described in section III.F.3 in 

which river water is annually baptized and made holy.

The Dena’ina named a general category of animal or plant by the name of its most 

important representative. For example, the name for animal is ggagga, for brown bear, and the 

name for tree is ch’wala, for white spruce. Not surprisingly, the name for fish is the name for 

salmon, łiq’a. Table 10 is a compilation of Dena’ina terms for salmon, freshwater fish, and 

fishing technology which, like the Yup’ik counterparts, shows an intimate connection with 

salmon, fish, and fishing. 

Table 10. Dena’ina Words for Fish and Streams. Data from Kari (2007).

Dialect notations: I = Inland, U=Upper Inlet, O=Outer Inlet, L=Lime Village, Il=Iliamna, 

S=Seldovia, Lk-i=Kuskokwim Deg H’tan, Su=Susitna Station, E=Eklutna, Ty Tyonek, 

T=Talkeetna, Kn=Knik

English Term Dena’ina Word Literal Meaning

x means literal translation same 

as English term.

salmon (generic) (Oncorhynchus spp.) łiq’a (IU)

łuq’a (OSl)

x

x

Male fish Hest’a, qest’a (IO)

Tl’ech’I (U)

Female fish Q’in’i

Q’inch’eya (IO)

Q’inch’ey (U)

‘roe one’

Small fish Chagela gga (U)

Shagela gguya (I)

Shagela ggwa (O)

Fry, baby fish Lch’eli, dghelch’eli ‘shiny one’

Bottom fish Tahliq’a (IU)

Tahluq’a (O)

‘underwater fish’

Spring fish run Łitl’eni (UI) x

Spring fish caught under ice Ten t’uhdi (U) x

king salmon, Chinook salmon (O. 

tschawytscha)

łiq’aka’a (IU)

łuq’aka’a (O)

chavicha, tsavija (O)

“big salmon’

<Rus.

king; salmon sizes: smallest łiq’agga (U)

ggas ten’a (L)

‘small salmon’

‘king salmon’s handle’

 two-foot king salmon q’inagheltin (U) ‘?’

 largest king salmon łiq’aka (U)

vigit’in (L)

‘big salmon’

x
Page 59

Boraas and Knott

Cultural Characterization

 middle-sized king salmon tl’istqeyi (U) x

humpback salmon, pink

salmon (O, gorbuscha)

qughuna (OUSl) ‘humped’

red salmon, sockeye salmon

(O. nerka) 

łiq’a (I)

t’q’uya (LNOSl)

k’q’uya ON)

q’uya (U) 

x

‘ridged’

 nickname veghutna qilin (I) ‘it exists for people’

 old fall sockeye bendashtggeya (U)

dghelbek’i (UO)

‘partially white’

a rare verb stem

dog salmon, chum salmon

(O. keta), (I) early summer 

chum salmon

alima (OIl)

seyi (U)

nulay (NL)

< Esk..

x

‘runs again’

 August run dog salmon shighat’iy (Lk-i) “?”

silver salmon, coho salmon

(O. kisutch)

nusdlaghi (I)

nudlaghi (O)

nudlegha, nudleghi (U)

‘one that swims back’

steelhead trout (Salmo 

gairdneri)

usdlaghi (O)

telaghi (Il)

tuni, tuni denłkughi (N)

shagela (U)

? ‘one that swims past’

‘one that runs’

‘water one’

‘fish’

running salmon tuzdlaghi (OI)

tuydlaghi (U)

‘one swimming in water’

fish laying eggs taq’innelyaxi (I)

taq’innelyashi (UO)

x

spawned-out salmon nudujuzhi, dujuzhi (I)

dujuyi (U)

itak’i (O)

x

x

x

dead salmon tiłani X

fall salmon, esp. sockeye hey łuq’a (O)

hey łiq’a (IU)

‘winter salmon’

fingerling, baby salmon, alevin tuyiga (OI)

łiq’agga (U)

łiq’a gguya

‘water spirit’

‘little salmon’

first fish run qtsa ghelehi x

last fish run q’ech’en ghelehi (I)

unhtl’uh ghelehi (UO)

unhtl’uyeh (I)

x

old female salmon q’in ch’ezhi (I)

q’in ch’eya (U)

‘infested roe’

red-colored salmon nuditq’azhi (I)

nishtudghiłtani (U)

‘one that is red’

‘that which floats in midstream’

spring (early) salmon run ts’iluq’a (O)

łitl’eni (UI)

‘straight salmon’

‘spring one’

summer salmon run, sockeye

season

chiluq’a (O)

hchiliq’a (UI)

shanlaghi (UI)

x

‘summer run’

fall-winter running salmon tuleha (OU)

tulehi (I)

‘one running in water’

dead salmon that drift ashore niqatayilaxi (I) x

salmon captured in weir q’anughedełi ‘those swimming back’

Non-salmon fish Shagela (IO)

Chagela (UIl)

‘fish’
Page 60

Boraas and Knott

Cultural Characterization

Chebay (U)

Alaska blackfish Huzheghi, huzhehi (L,N) ‘gaping thing pointing up’

Freshwater sculpin Ch’qenłt’emich’a

Ch’qenłt’emch’a (NL)

Ch’qełdemich’a (Il)

Ts’est’ugh’I, ts’est’uhdi (U)

?

‘the one beneath rocks’

Burbot, lingcod Ch’unya (I)

Ch’anya (U)

K’ezex (Lk-i)

 Burbot’s chin barbell Veyada k’ich’aynanik’et’i ‘one that hands out from chin’

Arctic char Vat (NL)

Eel, lamprey Suy łiq’a

Łiq’a q’ints’a

Łiził (O)

Tl’eghesh (I)

‘sand fish’

? ‘salmon roe female’

‘dog windpipe’

 Large lamprey Ts’iłten hutsesa (U) ‘arrow nock’

grayling Ch’dat’an (I)

Ch’dat’ana (U)

‘one with a blanket’

 Grayling’s dorsal fin Vech’eda ‘It’s blanket’

Freshwater herring, least cisco Ghelguts’I k’una (N) ‘pike’s food’

Three-spined stickleback Dghezhi, dghezha (O)

Dgheyay (U)

Dghezhay (I)

Vek’eha qilani (NL)

Tuyiga (Il)

‘thorny one’

‘one with quills’

‘water spirit’

 Spawning stickleback Bente qiyuya (U) ‘one going in lakes’

Northern pike Ghelguts’I (I) ‘swift swimmer’

 Small pike Tl’egh tuzhizha ‘grass water beak’

sheefish Shish (L)

Zdlaghi (L) ‘one that runs’

sucker Duch’ehdi (IU)

Dehch’udya €

Łih (O)

‘open mouth one’

Brook trout, Landlocked Dolly Varden 

char

Dghili juna (NL)

Dghili chuna (Il)

Dghelay tsebaya (T)

‘mountain dark one’

‘mountain fish’

Lake trout Zhuk’udghuzha (I)

Bat (Su)

‘spiny mouth’

Rainbow trout Tuni (I)

Telaghi (U)

Shagela (Il)

‘water one’

‘one that swims, runs’

‘fish’

Dolly Varden trout Qak’elay (I)

Qak’elvaya (Il)

Telch’eli (O)

Chebay (U)

Łiq’a k’qen (I)

?

?

‘shiny one’

‘fish’

‘salmon’s husband’

Whitefish (any) Łih (UI)

Alaska whitefish Hulehga (I)

Q’untuq’ (Lk-i)

‘runs up’

‘ridge on top’

Broad whitefish Telay (L) ‘swimmer’

 Broad whitefish stomach K’jida (I)

K’eghezh (Lk-i)

‘oval’
Page 61

Boraas and Knott

Cultural Characterization

Round whitefish, pin-nose whitefish Hasten (IT) ‘pus handle’

Fish guts (all) K’inazdliy, vinazdliy ‘inner objects’

Fish bones K’iztin (IO)

K’iytin (U)

‘inner long object’

Fish backbone K’eyena x

Fish belly K’eveda x

Dark fish blood along backbone K’tl’ech’ (I)

K’kuhchashga (I)

K’kukelashch’a (L)

K’chashga (U)

K’kuhchash’a (O)

x

Dark salmon meat near skin Beyes tut’ tsen (UO)

Fins (any) K’ts’elghuk’a (I)

K’ch’elna (OU)

K’tay’a (U)

x

‘wings’

‘paddle’

 Pectoral fin K’ch’enla (U)

K’ts’elghuk’a (I)

‘wing’

 Dorsal fin K’iniq’ ts’elghuk’a

Ghuk’a (I)

Biniq’ ch’elna (U)

K’inhdegga (O)

‘back fin’

‘back swimmer’

‘back wing’

‘back collarbone’

 Pelvic fin K’t’egha (U)

niłk’degga (O)

k’eveda degga (I)

nich’ k’eltin’a (O)

‘paddle’

‘paddles together’

‘belly fin’

‘one in the middle’

 Anal fin and cartilage K’tselts’ena (U)

K’tseldegga (IO)

‘anal bone’

‘anal collarbone’

 Adipose fin K’tagh’a (IO)

K’tach’ełvasha (N)

Tak’ełbasha, k’tach’ebasha 

(OU)

‘paddle’

‘submerger’

 Tail fin K’kalt’a degga (O)

K’kalt’a ts’elghuk’a (I)

x

Fresh air sack K’kuhlet’ x

Fish collarbone, pectoral girdle K’degga x

Fish head gristle K’enchigija ‘head cartilage’

Fish meat K’enut’

Duni (Il)

x

‘food’

Fish tail K’kalt’a x

Meat next to fish tail K’kalt’a veghun ‘body of fish tail’

gills K’q’eshch’a x

Gut with stringy end (pyloric caecum) K’delchezha (OIl)

K’delcheya (U)

K’jida 

‘rattle’

Fish heart K’ggałggama (I)

K’ggałggamam’a (IlOL)

K’ghałggamama (U)

K’qałdema (T)

x

Hump on salmon’s back K’eyenghezha (OI) x

Male sperm sac Hest’a vekuhlashga (I) x

Sperm, milt K’tl’ech’ x

Nose cartilage K’ingija, k’engija (IOU)

K’ingeja (Il)

x
Page 62

Boraas and Knott

Cultural Characterization

Oily strip of meat in front of dorsal fin 

of salmon

K’ints’isq’a (U)

K’yin tseq’a (I)

K’intsiq’a (OI)

‘back strip’

Roe, fish eggs Q’in x

 Roe sac K’q’in yes x

scales K’gguts’a (O)

K’ggisga (IU)

x

Fish slime K’eshtl’a (OIl)

K’tl’eshch’a (IU)

x

net-making tool, net stringer tahvił veł k’etl’iyi,

tahvił qeyłtl’ixi

tahvił dugula (I)

‘with it he weaves net’

net rack veq’ k’etl’iyi

veq’ nuk’detggeni

‘on it he weaves something.’

‘on it, it is dried’

net mesh measure ve» k’ettl’iyi ‘with it, it is woven’

fishing clothes va łiq’a ch’el’ihi x

awl for stabbing salmon ts’entseł (U)

bale of fish vava hał ‘dry fish pack’

cutting board veq’ huts’k’det’esi x

dipnet, long-handled dipnet tach’enił’iyi (UO)

nch’equyi (LN)

x

 short-handled dipnet tach’enił’i (I) x

 salmon dipnet (longer handle) shanlaghi tach’nił’iy (I) ‘summer run dipnet’

 trout dipnet taztin (I) x

 dipnet frame taztin duves (I) x

fish bait (on hook) k’enełneha (O)

k’inłneha (I)

k’indneha (U)

k’egh dghichedi

beł ch’k’nułneq’i (O)

x

rabbit or ptarmigan guts used

for tomcod bait

k’entleh, k’entleq’ (U) x

natural rock hole fish bin tsaq’a (I) x

rock fish bin, fish cutting hole k’usq’a (NL)

k’esq’a (OIl)

k’t’usq’a (U) ‘cutting cavity’

fish box shagela yashiga x

fish club, seal club tsik’nigheli (IO) x

angled fish fence, dipnetting dock tanatl’ini ‘woven into water’

fish fermenting hole chuqilin q’a (O)

chaqilin q’a (IU)

x

gaff hook, branch hook, leister qishehi (IU)

k’isheq’i (Il)

sheh (L)

shehi (O)

‘hooker’

fish hook ihshak, iqshak (OI)

k’inaq’i, k’eninaq’i (U)

Eskimo origin

Note: eleven separate types of named 

fish hooks

fishing hole, fish trap location k’enq’a (OU)

k’inq’a, -k’inq’a’a (I)

x
Page 63

Boraas and Knott

Cultural Characterization

fish trap location tach’k’eł’unt ‘where we set object’

fish jigging hole in ice tasaq’a

tatsiq’a (Il)

ges aq’a (L)

‘water head hole’

fishing line shehi tl’ila (O)

k’inaq’i tl’ila (U)

iqshak tl’ila (I)

‘hook line’

fishing pole iqshak ten (IO)

shehi ten (O)

k’inaq’i ten, k’inaq’i nikena, 

k’niten, k’neten (U)

x

fishing reel shehi tl’ila telcheshi (UO)

fishnet tahvił ‘underwater snare’

net-like fish drag nich’ nuk’tasdun (SlTy ‘in back is hole’

Russian-era fishnet sétga (O)

satga (U)

Russian origin

drift net te»edi (I) ‘one that floats’

gunny sack net chida yiztl’ini tahvi» (I)

seine net veł niqak’idzehi

nébod (O)

‘with it one scrapes in circle’

Russian origin

sinew net ts’ah tahvił x

twisted willow bark fiber net ch’eq’ tahvił (IU) x

small hole, net mesh, k’eniq’ (IO)

k’eneq’ (OU)

x

net drying rack tahvił denluh x

lead line duyeh vetsik’teh’i

duyeh vetsittehi (I)

x

corks, floats tahvił ts’esa (IO)

tahbił jija (U)

x

cork line vetsik’teh’i x

fish pew, pike łiq’a eł dalyashi (OU)

łiq’a veł telyayi (I)

x

fish scaler, ulu knife vashla

beł k’elggits’i (U)

‘little stone’

fish spreader stick k’enun’i

nuk’ilqeyi

x

 hoop fish spreader dnalch’ehi (I) x

 small fish spreader t’utseyŷi (O) x

hand-held fish snare with handle k’entsa quggił (I) x

spruce root fish snare qunqelashi quggił (OU) x

fish stringer k’e’esh tl’ił (OU) x

 willow fish stringer q’eyk’eda (IU) ‘tough willow’

 fishtrap, woven basket style trap taz’in (IO)

tay’in (U)

‘object that is in water’

Note: Seventeen types of fishtraps for 

different species and conditions

fishtrap funnel k’eshjaya (I) x

inner basket k’jaya (OU) ‘heart’

angled leads to trap taztin (I) ‘long object that is set’

long stick ribbing on fishtrap talyagi (IO)

talyashi (U)

x

spiral sticks on fishtrap k’etnalvesi (L) x
Page 64 

Boraas and Knott 

Cultural Characterization

branch drag material put in weir k’t’un dighali (U)

k’t’un dalghali (I)

x

inner spruce bark reflectors pinned

to bottom of weir

tah’iggeyi (U)

vejink’ehi (I)

‘under water turns white’

‘stg. swims over it’

vertical stakes for weir dik’ali x

fish wheel niqak’uqułi (I)

niqaghetesi (U)

naqak’ułqu»i taz’in (O)

‘scoop that turns’

lead line duyeh vetsik’teh’i

duyeh vetsittehi (I)

x

net-making tool tahvił veł k’etl’iyi

tahvił dugula (IL)

x

net rack veq’ k’etl’iyi

veq’ nuk’detggeni

x
Page 65 

Boraas and Knott 

Cultural Characterization

III. MODERN CULTURE

A. Interview Synopsis

Table 11 is a synopsis of respondents to the semi-structured interviews. The interview 

process is described in the Introduction and readers should refer to that section (I.B) and note the 

questions were not designed to elicit a simple yes/no-type response (nominal data) but rather to 

elicit a narrative of how the interviewee felt about or understood the topic in order to give a 

richer and more nuanced understanding of cultural patterns and values. The “Voices of the 

People” in the following sections are a reflection of those deeper understandings. However, 

Table 11 has been derived from the interviews in order to give the reader a sense of the overall

consensus or variation from consensus of the respondents. To accurately depict cultural 

practices, we read the interviews and characterized the response as Agree, or Disagree/Neutral 

for each interview question, generating nominal data. This data includes 53 interviews. 

Sometimes respondents in a group took up a topic at a later time during the interview in which 

case we included that response as it applied to a previous question. As discussed in Section I.B. 

Methodology, not everyone responded to every question. In a small-group setting often one 

person would respond and others would nod or otherwise express agreement with the speaker. 

We only recorded the verbal response, not non-verbal indications of concurrence in formulating 

the data in Table 11. A second reason not every responded to every question concerned the wellbeing of Elders. If Elders were tiring in the course of the two-hour sessions, or if the session 

went long, we often skipped questions to shorten the interview time. 

The responses represent consensus or near consensus: 694 responses were positive and 18 

were negative or neutral. The data indicate Elders and culture bearers reflect indigenous cultural 

standards that have a very high degree of homogeneity as represented by this set of questions 

revolving around the importance of salmon and streams in their lives. Responses to interview 

questions are used in the Modern Culture sections (III) that follow with statements like: 

“interviewees universally felt...,” “interviewees predominantly stated...,” or “interviewees 

indicated....” 

While everyone who responded indicated that salmon were important in their lives 

(Question 1), four individuals out of 53 interviewees indicated they thought a subsistence 

lifestyle was no longer possible (see Section III.B.1 and 2).
Page 66 

Boraas and Knott 

Cultural Characterization

Table 11. Nominal Evaluation of Responses to Semi-Structured Interview Questions.

Question Agree Disagree or 

Neutral

1. Are salmon critically important in your lives?

Note: often asked: “If the salmon were to disappear for whatever 

reason, how would it affect your lives?” 

Agree means people perceive salmon to be critically important in 

their lives. Disagree means salmon are not perceived to be 

critically important.

40 0

2. How many times in a week or a month do you eat salmon or 

other fish? Is it different during different seasons?

Agree means three or more times a week or “all the time.” 

Disagree is less than three times a week or “seldom.”

35 0

3. Do people in your village need to eat salmon to be healthy? 

How does salmon maintain or improve physical or emotional 

health?

Agree means people perceive they need salmon and other wild 

foods to be healthy. Disagree means they do not perceive salmon 

to be necessary for health and wellbeing.

37 0

4. Which foods are important to give to a child so that he or she 

will grow up to be smart or strong?

Agree means salmon and other wild foods are perceived to be 

necessary for children’s health. Disagree means salmon and wild 

foods are not necessary and children can eat commercially 

purchased food and be healthy.

30 2

5. Does it matter to you if the salmon you eat is wild salmon? Does 

it matter to you if the salmon comes from the streams and rivers in 

your area? 

Agree means people perceive that the salmon they harvest and 

consume must be wild salmon from local streams. Disagree means 

it doesn’t matter where the salmon comes from.

40 1

6. Does it matter to you that the salmon are connected to the 

salmon your ancestors ate?

Agree means salmon genetically connected to fish their ancestor’s 

ate is perceived to be important. Disagree means there it is not 

important that the salmon are genetically connected to ancestral 

harvests. 

27 0

7. If the fishing practices and care for the streams and rivers are 

good (what the ancestors call, ‘without’ impurity, Dena’ina 

beggesh quistlagh), does it result in salmon coming back?

Agree means proper practices are perceived to result in the 

salmon’s return. Disagree means practices have no effect on the 

salmon’s return.

37 0

8. Have you observed changes in the numbers of salmon that come 

back each year? Is there a big difference some years? If there is, 

what do you think causes these differences?

31 0
Page 67

Boraas and Knott

Cultural Characterization

Agree means people have observed changes in the number of 

returning salmon. Disagree means people have not observed 

changes in number of returning salmon.

9. Are salmon important for the lives of other animals or birds that 

are important to the Yup’ik or Dena’ina ? What would happen to 

these animals or birds it they can’t eat the salmon?

Agree means salmon are important to other animals. Disagree

means salmon are unimportant to other animals.

35 0

10. Who do you share food with? Perhaps relatives in Anchorage 

or Dillingham? Elders? Who decides how to share the salmon, and 

who to give salmon to?

Agree means wild food is shared with family and/or friends living 

outside of the area. Disagree means wild food is not shared 

outside the area. 

31 1

11. Do you share salmon with people who don’t do subsistence 

and what type of things to you get in return?

Agree means salmon are shared with people who don’t do 

subsistence. Disagree means salmon are not shared with people 

who don’t do subsistence.

14 0

12. What does it mean for families to go fishing together? Do 

young people learn a lot at fish camp? How do you teach the 

young people to catch salmon? Do you teach young people to 

respect the salmon?

Agree means it is important for families to fish together. Disagree

means it is not important for families to fish together.

41 0

13. How do you feel when you give salmon? How do you feel 

when you are given salmon?

Agree means people feel good when they give or receive salmon. 

Disagree means people have no particular emotion when they give 

or receive salmon.

33 0

14. Do you feel an obligation to return the favor when someone 

gives you salmon?

Agree means people feel no obligation to return the favor of a 

salmon gift. Disagree means people feel an obligation to return the 

favor of a salmon gift.

5 0

15. Are salmon and other wild foods eaten in community 

celebrations? Is this important?

Agree means it is important to include salmon and wild foods in 

community celebrations. Disagree means it is not important that 

salmon and wild foods are included in community celebrations.

27 1

16. It has been said that most Yup’ik/Dena’ina believe that a 

wealthy person is one with a large family. Do you think that family 

is more important that material wealth? 

Agree means the person believes family is more important than 

material wealth. Disagree means material wealth is more 

important than family.

36 1

17. Do you do anything to make sure the salmon will return?

Agree means people do specific practices or rituals to assure the 

37 2
Page 68

Boraas and Knott

Cultural Characterization

salmon return. Disagree means people do not do any specific 

practices or rituals to assure the salmon return.

18. What would it mean to treat salmon badly? Why is this bad? 

Agree means there are specific things that are identified as bad 

practices with disagree consequences. Disagree means there are 

no specific things identified as bad practices with disagree

consequences.

9 3

19. Did the old people tell of a time when there would be a disaster 

and the fish would disappear?

Agree means people heard elders tell prophetic stories of the 

disappearance of salmon. Disagree means people never heard 

Elders tell prophetic stories of the disappearance of salmon.

15 2

20. Do you ever thank the salmon for offering itself to you? Do 

you ever pray when you catch salmon? Do you make an offering 

when you catch the first salmon?

Agree means individuals give thanks through a prayer and give an 

offering when the first salmon is caught. Disagree means no 

prayer, offering or other recognition is given with the first salmon 

catch.

37 0

21. Do you ever hear the Elders talk about the salmon having a 

spirit?

Agree means people perceive salmon to have a willful spirit. 

Disagree means people do not perceive salmon to have a willful 

spirit.

19 3

22. Did you ever hear Elders talk about a stream having a spirit or 

being like it was alive? Do some people still think that way?

Agree means people perceive of a stream as having a spirit and 

being alive. Disagree means people do not perceive of a stream as 

having a spirit and being alive.

7 0

23. Do rivers or streams have events – or stories - associated with 

them that are good or bad? Is it appropriate to tell any of them 

now?

Agree means there are stories associated with streams that have a 

moral implication. Disagree means there are no stories associated 

with streams that have a moral implication.

8 0

24. How do people get money to buy boats and motors for 

subsistence fishing? 

Agree means people commercially fish in Bristol Bay or engage in 

other part time employment. Disagree means people do not engage 

in Bristol Bay commercial fishery or other part-time employment.

16 0

25. Do you feel a connection between the way you fish today and 

the ancestors’ way of fishing? 

Agree means people feel an emotional connection between 

subsistence fishing today and the subsistence fishing of their 

ancestors. Disagree means people feel no such connection.

8 0

26. Why do you live in your village?

Agree means people desired to live in their village and felt an 

emotional attachment to their lifestyle. Disagree means people 

39 2
Page 69 

Boraas and Knott 

Cultural Characterization

were ambivalent or disliked living in their village or felt they had 

no future there.

27. Is there anything else you’d like to say? Is there any message 

you’d like to convey to Washington D.C./EPA (Environmental 

Protection Agency)

N.A. N.A.

Total 694 18

 
Page 70 

Boraas and Knott 

Cultural Characterization

B. Subsistence

1. Voices of the People

It’s free, it’s free and peaceful here, and we can get fish... F-27, 8/17/11 

It may be different, the way we gather it nowadays, but it’s the same end product. It’s the same.

F-69, 9/18/11 

If you get out in these outlying villages, about 80-90% of what they eat is what they gather from 

their front yards. I was in Igiugig this spring. A can of SPAM... Do you know how much a can of 

SPAM is in Igiugig? Eight dollars for a can of SPAM! ...There are fewer jobs, so subsistence is 

one of the main cultures and the driving force of the economy within a community. M-60, 

9/16/11 

Our fish is more important for them. I tell my kids and grandkids with fish they are very rich; 

without fish you are hungry. This is the important thing all over in Alaska for us. It is very hard 

out here in the bush. We have to pay double for every food we get, double to get our heating fuel, 

double for gas, and without gas, we cannot travel. It is very hard in a rural area. In a big city it 

is easy; you just grab everything from the store, department store. Out here we don’t have 

grocery stores; our grocery store is very expensive. They give us prices that, if you buy one item, 

you pay for four. So it is very hard for us, but we grow our kids, and you ask us if it is important 

for us to have fish. We have to have fish every day because the fish is most important. F-48, 

8/20/11 

For two families we put up in jars 32 cases [of salmon]....that doesn’t include frozen stuff. M-60, 

9/16/11 

We get them [smelt] until freeze-up here. Then, when the river freezes up, people go up and fish 

through the ice for them with hooks. They seine them up in the lake, too, but you have to catch 

them at the right time. M-62, 9/16/11 

When that first salmon is caught, it is in the news. KDLG [Dillingham radio station]. Everybody 

knows about it. M-61, 9/16/11

And he still, to this day, goes to fish camp. He gets all excited about fish camp. He’s down there 

getting his net ready, and he still, at 89 years old, still go out and sets his own net, picks his own 

net, and work on his own fish, because he knows, and he always tells us how important it is to 

save our fish and salmon for the winter months. F-32, 8/18/11 

We would starve if we don’t have fish or salmon. In this area we have lived with fish all our 

lives, from generation to generation. The people that stayed before us and kids that are behind us 
Page 71

Boraas and Knott

Cultural Characterization

will be living on fish. Salmon is very important; all kind of.... Without fish we are very poor; we 

have no food to eat. With fish we are very rich; our stomach is full. That’s the way I look at it. F48, 8/20/11

Salmon is one thing. They make you feel rich because you have something to eat all winter. 

Smoked salmon, sun-dried spawned-out fish; all of those make you feel good, because you grew 

up with it, it is in your body. Any subsistence food; what you eat, like him and I [gestures]; we ate 

it for a long time. M-53, 8/20/11

Salmon is very important to us. I don’t think we could live without fish.... I’m seventy-six years 

old, and I have never been without fish, since I was small. I don’t know how I would feel without 

it. I think I used fish more than meat when I was growing up, because my Grandma raised me, 

and that’s all she could get, was fish, because it’s easier to get. She used to help people put up 

fish for us to have her share in the wintertime. Then she would put up salt fish for us to have in 

the winter, so we use it year round. F-27, 8/17/11

Minority View Subsistence

We couldn’t live like our parents lived, because it doesn’t exist anymore. I mean, we could fish 

and catch fish and stuff like that. You know, nowadays, you can’t live on fish like you used to. 

You can’t even get meat like you used to; you can’t even go out hunting for moose or caribou. 

Nothing is here anymore; everything is disappearing. I know, you know [name] could verify too. 

There used to be so much caribou, we would see them all over the road, all over the lake, 

everything. F-44, 8/19/11

Like she was saying right now, even with subsistence, we can’t live on that. We have to have 

money to pay for our bills, telephone, our lights, our heat and trash, our toys, water, and sewer. 

You have to pay so much a month for that. I myself will support any kind of entity that comes and 

bills for jobs. I don’t think subsistence; we love subsistence, but I don’t think it is going to last 

forever....We need money to pay our bills. That is why a lot of people are moving to Anchorage. 

M-44, 8/19/11

We can’t just go out there and get money from nowhere. You know, subsistence is gone in this 

village [Newhalen] and in Iliamna. Subsistence, we can’t live on subsistence anymore. We have 

car payments to pay, we have Honda payments to pay, and we have our snowmobile payments to 

pay. How on subsistence; how are you going to pay all of those bills? Some pay $500 a month 

for car payments. How are you going to pay $500 a month on subsistence? You can’t do that 

anymore; you have to live to make money nowadays for those young kids. M-49, 8/20/11
Page 72 

Boraas and Knott 

Cultural Characterization

Figure 14. Newhalen. August 20, 2011. Photo by Alan Boraas

2. Introduction

In 1983 the Inuit circumpolar Conference and the World Council of Indigenous Peoples 

sponsored the Alaska Native Review Commission to conduct hearings in rural Alaska aimed, in 

part, to help the non-Native community understand the importance of subsistence to Alaskan 

Natives. In the commission’s final report, Thomas Berger (1983:51) summarized rural 

subsistence as follows:

The traditional economy is based on subsistence activities that require special skills and a 

complex understanding of the local environment that enables the people to live directly 

from the land. It also involves cultural values and attitudes: mutual respect, sharing, 

resourcefulness, and an understanding that is both conscious and mystical of the intricate 

interrelationships that link humans, animals, and the environment. To this array of 

activities and deeply embedded values, we attach the word “subsistence,” recognizing 

that no one word can adequately encompass all these related concepts.

 

In southwest Alaska subsistence is a fundamental non-monetized economic activity of the 

region and forms the basis of cultural life. Though the economy involves both cash and 

subsistence sectors, most of the protein comes from subsistence activity as indicated in the 

ADF&G Division of Subsistence data reproduced below. Moreover, cultural and personal 

identity largely revolves around subsistence. Echoing Berger’s description cited above, this 

concept is expressed in a 1988 film by Brink and Brink where Dena’ina leader Fred Bismark 

highlighted the importance of subsistence when he said, “If they take subsistence away from us, 

they’re taking our life away from us.” Two decades later that remains true; Fall et al.(2009:2) 

wrote of the Nushagak and Kvichak drainages, “At the beginning of the 21st century, subsistence 

activities and values remain a cornerstone of area residents’ way of life, a link to the traditions of 
Page 73

Boraas and Knott

Cultural Characterization

the past, and one of their bases for survival and prosperity.” Berger’s summary, Bismark’s 

statement and Fall’s analysis as well as interview generated “Voices of the People” at the 

beginning of this section illustrate the idea that subsistence is “life” and the foundation of culture 

for the Nushagak and Kvichak watershed villages. Everyone who responded to Question 1, Table 

11 felt the loss of salmon would impact them negatively and subsistence based on salmon and 

other wild foods is the cultural foundation for the region. Four of the 53 interviewees felt 

subsistence was no longer tenable. 

Subsistence is not a return to practices of earlier centuries but employs modern 

technology. Nylon nets have replaced spruce-root or sinew nets; aluminum skiffs and four-stroke 

motors have replaced kayaks or canoes; metal pots have replaced birch-bark or willow baskets; 

modern clothing has replaced sewn hides and skins; and freezers have replaced underground cold 

storage pits. Moreover, subsistence activities follow management practices formulated by the 

ADF&G, dictating bag limits and seasons. However, the results of these interviews and ADF&G 

research cited below confirm that the diet is still largely based on wild foods caught and 

processed by the people who live in the area. Values, such as respecting the salmon and not 

taking more than you need, among others, are still honored; and the identity of the people is 

shaped by the subsistence process, just as it was in the past.

As described in the Pre-Contact and History sections (II A & B).), indigenous people in 

the study area have been harvesting wild resources for at least 12,000 years and have intensively 

caught salmon for at least 4,000 years. This immense time depth has shaped all aspects of the 

culture, including social structure, political structure, and religion. Because Dena’ina and Yup’ik 

are the dominant populations in the study area, and because healthy wild salmon stocks and 

many other components of their traditional way of life still persist such as language, sharing wild 

foods and sharing beliefs related to nature, the area has a cultural continuum with the past that is 

rare in North America. In few places in the world do the same wild foods as their ancestors ate 

dominate the diet and shape the culture as they do today in the Nushagak and Kvichak 

watersheds 

3. Subsistence in Alaska 

The importance of salmon and other wild food resources in the study area is tied to 

federal and state subsistence legislation. No other state in the United States so broadly grants a

subsistence priority to wild foods to indigenous people’s as does Alaska. Both federal and state 

subsistence legislation apply to Alaska but they differ, and have resulted in two sets of 

regulations because of an inherent conflict between federal and state legislation over indigenous 

rights vs. inherent rights.

Federal subsistence legislation began with the 1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act 

(ANCSA, Public Law 92-203 with amendments), which extinguished aboriginal hunting and 

fishing rights and, in return, charged the Secretary of Interior and State of Alaska to “take any 

action necessary to protect the subsistence needs of Natives” (La Vine 2010:30-34). The federal 

subsistence intent of the 1971 ANCSA legislation was clarified in Title VIII of the 1980 Alaska 

National Interest Lands Conservation Act, (ANILCA, Public Law 96-487 with amendments). 

ANILCA recognized the cultural aspect of indigenous subsistence stating: "the opportunity for 

subsistence uses by rural residents of Alaska...is essential to Native physical, economic, 
Page 74

Boraas and Knott

Cultural Characterization

traditional, and cultural existence and to non-Native physical, economic, traditional, and social 

existence (emphasis added)" (La Vine 2010:32). The language describing the importance of 

subsistence to Alaska Native and non-Native rural communities is the same with the only 

difference that “cultural” importance is included in Alaska Native subsistence users’ list of 

essential rights while that term is not included in the non-Native list of essential rights. That 

language became the basis for federally recognized indigenous subsistence rights. 

Federal ANCSA and ANILCA legislation set up a legal conflict between indigenous 

rights and state law. The “Inherent Rights” clause in Article 1, Section 1 of the Alaska 

Constitution specifies equal treatment under the law for all Alaskans and makes no provision for 

indigenous rights. Consequently, subsistence became an important political issue in the early 

1970s and remains so today (cf. AFN Federal Priorities, 2011, pp. 1-9).

The State has developed subsistence legislation within the context of the “Inherent 

Rights” clause cited above. As depicted in the 1988 documentary Tubughna: The Beach People

by Brink and Brink, in 1973 Governor William Eagan made a promise to Alaska Native people. 

Speaking at a meeting in Anchorage, Governor Eagan said: 

Let me assure you that the state’s commitment to preserving subsistence 

capability in our fish and game resources is of the first priority and will continue 

to be. Continuing attention to the Native for maintaining subsistence capability is 

an integral part of the state’s overall fish and game management program. It 

always has been, is now, and will be so in the future (Brink and Brink 1988).

That promise was partially realized as law in the 1978 State of Alaska Subsistence Act, 

(with amendments; encoded within AS 16-05) which provided for a Division of Subsistence 

within the ADF&G and defined subsistence as “customary and traditional use.” The act also 

specified a subsistence priority in wild resource allocation over commercial or sport caught 

resources. The act did not limit subsistence to rural (largely Alaska Native) residents and did not 

recognize indigenous rights; to do so would have been unconstitutional in state law. The act also 

directed establishment of a Division of Subsistence within the Alaska Department of Fish and 

Game to “quantify the amount, nutritional value, and extent of dependence on food acquired 

through subsistence hunting and fishing” (AS 16-05.094) and has resulted in three decades of the 

most detailed subsistence data collected anywhere in the world, some of which is used in this 

report.

As a result of over forty years of legislation and adjudication revolving around the 

“Inherent Rights” issue among stakeholders, a dual management system has emerged. As 

summarized by La Vine (2010:34) the state now manages fish and game for subsistence purposes 

on state and private land including regional and village corporation land, while the federal 

government, through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or cooperative agencies, manages fish 

and game in federally designated subsistence areas as determined by criteria applied and 

regularly reviewed by the Federal Subsistence Board. On state lands all citizens are eligible to 

harvest fish and game for subsistence purposes but are bound by the customary and traditional 

use criteria. On rural federal lands only rural residents are eligible to practice subsistence. On 

non-rural lands subsistence is prohibited. Alaska Natives and non-Natives of the communities of 

the Kvichak and Nushagak drainage fit both the “customary and traditional” and “rural’ criteria 

and have engaged in subsistence fishing and hunting throughout this time period and will 
Page 75

Boraas and Knott

Cultural Characterization

continue to do so as long as they remain rural. Significant population increases constituting a 

shift from rural to urban would potentially change subsistence access as has happened, for 

example, on the Kenai Peninsula where the Dena’ina do not have full subsistence rights because 

the area is largely determined to be urban. 
Page 76 

Boraas and Knott 

Cultural Characterization

4. Scope of Subsistence 

Table 12 is an indication of the importance of subsistence activities and salmon to the 

people of the Nushagak and Kvichak River systems7. Essentially everyone in every village and 

town (98% or more of the households) uses wild food subsistence resources, and most (88% to 

100% of households) use salmon. 

Table 12. Use and Reciprocity of Subsistence Resources. Data from Holen et al. 2012, Fall et al. 

2009, Krieg et al. 2009, Fall et al. 2005

Community Year All Wild Resources;

% Households that:

Salmon

% Households that:

Used Gave Received Used Gave Received

Aleknagik 2008 100 84.4 96.9 100 59.4 59.4

Dillingham 1984 98 62.7 88.2 88.2 34.6 43.8

Ekwok 1987 100 86.2 82.8 89.7 48.3 51.7

Igiugig 2005 100 100 100 100 83.3 83.3

Iliamna 2004 100 53.8 76.9 100 30.8 38.5

 Kokhanok 2005 100 82.9 94.3 97.1 62.9 60

Koliganek 2005 100 92.9 89.3 100 60.7 53.6

Levelock 2005 100 85.7 92.9 92.9 35.7 78.6

Newhalen 2004 100 80 96 100 64 32

New Stuyahok 2005 100 73.5 98 89.8 55.1 63.3

Nondalton 2004 100 92.1 97.4 92.1 55.3 63.2

Pedro Bay 2004 100 88.9 100 100 72.2 77.8

Port Alsworth 2004 100 72.7 90.9 100 45.5 54.5

7 ADF&G subsistence data in Section III.B. was assembled by Dave Athons, ADF&G (retired). 

 
Page 77

Boraas and Knott

Cultural Characterization

The data of Table 12 also indicates reciprocal sharing of wild foods is a fundamental 

aspect of subsistence culture in the study area. In most villages almost 100% use wild food 

resources and more than 80% of households receive shared subsistence food resources of some 

kind. Sharing of salmon is lower than for all resources probably because, typically, extended 

family units work together at subsistence fish camps (Fall et al. 2010) and the fish they 

collectively harvest is not considered to be “shared” as much as “earned” among contributing 

extended family members. Further research by ADF&G or a similar entity could clarify the 

matter. Sharing is further discussed in Social Relations section (III. E.3). 

Table 13. Per-Capita Harvest of Subsistence Resources. Data from Holen et al. 2012, Fall et al. 

2009, Krieg et al. 2009, Fall et al. 2005.

Community Year

Total 

Harvest 

Pounds

Estimated Per-Capita Harvest in Pounds

All Resources

Salmon

Nonsalmon FishLand MammalsMarine Mammals

Freshwater Seals

Beluga

Aleknagik 2008 51,738 296 143.4 25.6 66.1 9.5 0 4.8

Dillingham 1984 494,486 242 141.4 17.5 65.9 2.97 1.7 0

Ekwok 1987 85,260 797 456.2 68.6 249.2 0 0 0

Igiugig 2005 22,310 542 205.2 59.4 207.8 29.2 7.4 21.9

Iliamna 2004 34,160 469 370.1 34.1 32.7 6.5 6.5 0

Kokhanok 2005 107,645 680 512.8 36.3 95.9 1.7 1.7 0

Koliganek 2005 134,779 899 564.7 90.4 186.2 0 0 0

Levelock 2005 17,871 527 151.8 39.9 257.4 37.7 4.5 33.2

Newhalen 2004 86,607 692 502.2 31.8 104.5 4.4 4.4 0

New Stuyahok 2005 163,927 389 188.3 28.0 143.4 0 0 0

Nondalton 2004 58,686 358 219.4 33.9 81.8 0 0 0

Pedro Bay 2004 21,026 306 250.3 15.3 30 0 0 0

Port Alsworth 2004 14,489 133 89.0 12.0 24.7 0 0 0

Table 13 presents the range of some of the important subsistence resources used in the 

region and their relative importance to each village on a per-capita basis. This data does not 

include vegetation foods, birds/eggs, and marine invertebrates which are seasonally important,
Page 78 

Boraas and Knott 

Cultural Characterization

nor does it include salmon retained from commercial fishing. While all subsistence foods are 

important— particularly for the physical and emotional benefits derived from a varied diet—

salmon is, by far, the most important subsistence food ranging up to 82% of the subsistence diet. 

Land mammals, including moose and caribou among other species, are the second most 

important form of subsistence food for most villages. Many villagers but particularly Iliamna, 

Newhalen and Nondalton interviewees indicated that in recent years they are experiencing 

reduced subsistence returns of caribou. They feel the Mulchatna herd is declining or moving out, 

possibly due to overhunting from guided trips, fly-in hunters from Anchorage or Kenai, or 

seismic blasting and helicopter traffic from mining exploration. 

0 

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

All Wild Resources

Salmon

Non-salmon Fish

Land Mammals

Marine Mammals

Freshwater Seals

Beluga

U.S. average pounds of meat 

consumption per-capita

Figure 15. Per Capita Wild food harvest in pounds and selected meat sources. From Table 13

compared to U.S. Average Per Capita Meat Consumption. Data from Holen et al. 2012, Fall et al. 

2009, Krieg et al. 2009, Fall et al. 2005, U.S.D.A Factbook.

Non-salmon fish (northern pike, Dolly Varden/char, various whitefish, trout, etc.) 

constitute a third important type of subsistence resource. Subsistence use of marine mammals 

includes beluga whales, which regularly move up the Kvichak River, and freshwater harbor 
Page 79

Boraas and Knott

Cultural Characterization

seals, a unique freshwater population that lives year-round in Iliamna Lake. These are significant 

subsistence resources for the Kvichak River villages of Igiugig and Levelock.

The data indicates as much as 899 pounds of dressed meat is harvested per-capita 

(Koliganek) and an average of 503 pounds of meat per-capita is harvested per village. According 

to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s “Agriculture Factbook,” in 2000 Americans consumed 

an average of 277 pounds of meat per year per-capita (USDA Factbook). The difference, of 

course, is the subsistence data presented here is pounds per-capita harvested, not pounds percapita consumed. A substantial amount of subsistence-harvested food is shared which partially 

accounts for such high numbers of per-capita harvest. The numbers are high, however, because 

the people eat a lot of wild food and subsistence foods are the staple of the culture.
Page 80

Boraas and Knott

Cultural Characterization

Table 14. Per-Capita Harvest of Salmon Resources. Data from Data from Holen et al. 2012, Fall et 

al. 2009, Krieg et al. 2009, Fall et al. 2005

Community Year

Total 

Harvest, 

Pounds

Per-Capita Subsistence Harvest in Pounds

All Wild 

Resources

All 

Salmon

King

(Chinook)

Red

(Sockeye)

NonSalmon

Aleknagik 2008 51,738 296.0 143.4 72.3 40.3 25.6

Dillingham 1984 494,486 242.2 141.4 52.8 38.5 17.5

Ekwok 1987 85,260 796.6 456.2 178.2 160.3 68.6

Igiugig 2005 22,310 542 205.2 5.4 168.0 59.4

Iliamna 2004 34,160 469.4 370.1 0 369.8 34.1

Kokhanok 2005 107,645 679.6 512.8 3.2 480.4 36.3

Koliganek 2005 134,779 898.5 564.7 193.9 192.5 90.4

Levelock 2005 17,871 526.7 151.8 43.1 85.9 39.9

Newhalen 2004 86,607 691.5 502.2 10.1 487.6 31.8

New 

Stuyahok

2005 163,927 389.2 188.3 112.6 36.3 28.0

Nondalton 2004 58,686 357.7 219.4 0.4 218.9 33.9

Pedro Bay 2004 21,026

305.5 250.3 0 250.2 15.3

Port 

Alsworth

2004 14,489 132.8 89.0 0.7 87.6 12.0

Table 14 breaks down the subsistence harvest of salmon by species. King or Chinook 

salmon spawn in the Nushagak River but not normally in the Kvichak River and consequently 

are not harvested in the Newhalen River system. Today, interviewees report most king salmon

are fished in camps on the Nushagak River located at Lewis Point (Nunaurluq) near the mouth of 

the river. Salmon are also taken near the villages (see Section II.B.3). Sockeye, or red, salmon 

constitute the most important subsistence salmon species in the villages of the Kvichak and 
Page 81

Boraas and Knott

Cultural Characterization

Newhalen River drainages and are also taken in significant numbers in the Nushagak River 

drainage. 

5. The Seasonal Subsistence Round 

As illustrated in Figure 5, the villages in the Nushagak and Kvichak River drainages have a 

seasonal subsistence round that involves harvesting wild resources at an optimal time throughout 

the year. Evanoff (2010:66) and Fall et al. (2010) have described the seasonal round for the 

Kvichak drainage Dena’ina and it is summarized as follows. In the spring, with the return of 

ducks, geese, and other waterfowl, small groups travel to hunting or egg gathering areas. In 

addition, villagers also gather early spring plants, such as fiddlehead ferns. In late May and early 

June, villagers begin harvesting salmon returning to spawn. Some families net salmon near their 

villages while others travel to fish camp. Subsistence salmon activities occur throughout the 

summer although many also engage in commercial fishing in Bristol Bay, depleting the fish 

camp personnel but providing cash to support subsistence activities. Late summer and fall 

subsistence activities involve berry and plant gathering. In late fall or early winter villagers 

engage in caribou and/or moose hunting depending on the ADF&G-determined hunting seasons 

for the specific area. Winter subsistence activities revolve around ice fishing for whitefish and 

other freshwater species, ptarmigan hunting, wood harvesting to supplement home heating and 

for steam baths, and trapping of furbearers.
Page 82 

Boraas and Knott 

Cultural Characterization

 Figure 16. Significant Aspects of the Subsistence Seasonal Round. 

Modified from Evanoff (2010:66). 

6. The Interplay of Subsistence and Wage Income

 Berger noted that subsistence is an interplay of the time, effort, and skill needed to catch, 

process, and store subsistence foods and part-time wage employment necessary to support the 

means of subsistence: boats, motors, fuel etc. (Berger 1985: 58) Moreover, Berger (1985:58) 

notes, “Most villagers do not distinguish conceptually between subsistence and cash elements of 

the same activity.” Today, interviewees reiterate this finding and indicate that, for those fully 

engaged in it, subsistence is a full-time job, but it is necessary to supplement subsistence with 

cash from part-time wage labor or commercial fishing, to defray the costs of subsistence 

activities. With gasoline costs presently in the $6 per gallon range (summer 2011), trips to fish 

camps and other subsistence areas are expensive. Guns, ammunition, fishing gear, and modern 
Page 83

Boraas and Knott

Cultural Characterization

winter clothing, among other expenses, also add to the subsistence investment. While conducting 

village interviews, researchers observed that besides having a skiff and motor powerful enough 

to navigate rivers like the Nushagak, Mulchatna, Newhalen, and Kvichak, most families must 

also rely on one or more all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) and snowmachines for subsistence, all of 

which require considerable initial investment and maintenance costs. Rather than being 

recreational vehicles, these means of transport have become necessary for the longer travel 

distances required for modern subsistence. During the nineteenth century, dog teams, canoes, 

kayaks, and foot power via snowshoes or hiking were the primary means of transportation, and 

people, by necessity, lived in small villages located close to subsistence resources. In contrast, 

the twentieth-century establishment of trading posts/stores, schools, churches, and health 

services led to residents consolidating in fewer, larger villages. For example, today, there are 

only three interior villages on the Nushagak River whereas, in the mid- to late nineteenth 

century, there were eight (VanStone, 1967:114-115). The result of the consolidation is that 

village residents must now travel farther to obtain subsistence resources, requiring mechanized 

transportation to do so, and there is overlap among the range of village subsistence activities. 

Interviewees indicate that to deal with these costs, many families report holding 

commercial fishing permits and fish the sockeye run in Bristol Bay during late June and into 

mid-July or engage in other forms of part time employment. Besides providing needed cash, 

these forms of employment, with their short duration and/or seasonal nature, are ideally suited to 

provide another ingredient critical to a subsistence lifestyle, time to engage in subsistence 

activities. Thomas Lonner indicates that in Bristol Bay villages cash is obtained from wage 

employment such as working in the commercial fishery (also corporate dividends from 

membership in Alaska Native Corporations and social welfare payments) and states “wage 

employment is intended to underwrite subsistence equipment; the time, energy, and opportunity 

cost in wage employment may be seen as an investment in subsistence” (Lonner cited in Lowe 

2007:40). Table 15 is the number of 2010 Bristol Bay Fishing permit holders and crew member 

licenses for the study area villages reflecting the major source of cash to support subsistence 

activity. 
Page 84 

Boraas and Knott 

Cultural Characterization

Table 15. Commercial Fishing Permit Holders and Crew Licenses

Commercial 

Permit 

Holders, 2010

Commercial 

Crew 

Member

Licenses, 2010

Subsistence 

Permits, 2007 

Aleknagik n.d. n.d. n.d.

Dillingham 227 272 n.d

Ekwok 3 5 n.d

Igiugig 4 4 6

Iliamna 15 26 54*

Kokhanok 9 19 29

Koliganek 18 25 n.d

Levelock 6 10 1

Newhalen 11 1 n.d

New Stuyahok 24 43 n.d

Nondalton 6 6 29

Pedro Bay 3 0 19

Port Alsworth 2 4 30

2010 Data from ADF&G Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission. 

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=fishingcommercial.main

2007 Data from Fall et al. , 2009, page 19 

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/specialpubs/SP2_SP2009-007.pdf

* Combined data for Iliamna and Newhalen

Figure 17. Subsistence Skiffs, Nushagak River, New Stuyahok. May, 2011. Photo by Alan Boraas
Page 85 

Boraas and Knott 

Cultural Characterization

7. Subsistence as an Economic Sector

Labor statistics do not identify subsistence as an employment category because it is not 

based on wage-labor or a salary and, hence, people engaged in subsistence are considered 

“unemployed.” However, those who choose the subsistence lifestyle work long hours, utilizing 

considerable skill to provide food for themselves and their families and in interviews described 

subsistence as a full-time occupation. 

The unemployment rate in the study area for 2012 ranges from 14% in Igiugig to 37% in 

Newhalen (computed from Alaska Division of Regional Affairs Community Database of actual 

number unemployed per village http://www.dced.state.ak.us/cra/DCRAExternal/community). 

This compares to the 2012 Alaska unemployment rate of 6.9% (computed from Alaska State 

Department of Labor and Workforce Development 

(http://live.laborstats.alaska.gov/labforce/labdata.cfm?s=2&a=1 ) and the United States 2012 

unemployment rate of 8.1% (United States Bureau of Labor Statistics 

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNU04000000).

The unemployment rate includes only people actively seeking wage-based employment 

and does not include villagers for whom subsistence is their non-wage employment. The 

percentage of working-age population “not in labor force” 

(http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#nilf) are high for the villages in the study area and may 

reflect that fact that subsistence is not a recognized category of employment. Table 16 presents 

data for the 2010 census of those “not in the labor force” for study area villages compared to 

Anchorage (28.4 percent is the Alaskan average). Most villages, with the exception of 

Dillingham and Pedro Bay, had substantially higher percentages of individuals “not in the labor 

force.” It is extremely likely, given the high amount of wild foods that are harvested, that many 

are not individuals who have given up looking for work, but who work at subsistence and 

consider themselves “employed” in the sense of providing for themselves and their families. In 

Alaska commercial fishing is an employment category though for many it is part-time so those 

who engage in the Bristol Bay commercial fishery do not show up as “not in labor force.” 
Page 86 

Boraas and Knott 

Cultural Characterization

Table 16. Percent Not in the Labor Force, 2010.

2010 U.S. 

Census 

Percent Not in 

Labor Force 

Anchorage 216,404 26.5

Aleknagik 221 38.5

Dillingham 2378 27.6

Ekwok 115 44.4

Igiugig 50 nd

Iliamna 109 48.5

Kokhanok 170 nd

Koliganek 209 nd

Levelock 163 53.4

Newhalen 190 nd

New Stuyahok 510 46.1

Nondalton 164 50.0

Pedro Bay 42 20.6

Port Alsworth 159 35.4

From http://zipatlas.com/us/ak/citycomparison/percentage-not-in-labor-force.htm

Based on 2010 U.S. Census Data, 4.0% (Port Alsworth) to 44.5% (Nondalton) of the 

residents in the study area communities have wage incomes below the poverty level. The 

weighted average for all communities (excluding Pedro Bay) is 17.1%. These rates compare to a 

9.1% rate for Alaska and a 15.1% for the U.S. (DeNavas-Walt et al. 2011:14). These numbers 

are high but do not reflect the role of wages in a subsistence economy: wage income which for 

many is not considered the primary source of sustenance but functions to support non-wage 

subsistence activities. Neither do the statistics consider the non-monetized value of subsistence 

foods to the economies of the villages. 

Subsistence is dictated by the seasons, is time-consuming and must be understood 

differently from recreational fishing or hunting. It is not critical if a recreational fisher or hunter 

misses a season due to work obligations or other demands, but, for many Bristol Bay village 

residents, subsistence is one’s work obligation and employment in the cash economy impinges 

on the time that is necessary to obtain and process food for a family for a year.

 Thornton (1998) writing in the on-line edition of Cultural Survival Quarterly, considered 

Alaska subsistence to be the leading employment sector of rural Alaska because of the number 

of people engaged in subsistence and the economic benefits derived from harvesting one’s own 

food Several attempts have been made to measure subsistence economically by monetizing 

wild food resources. Fall et al. (2009:3) measured the economic importance of subsistence by 

calculating the cost of replacing wild foods obtained from hunting, fishing, and gathering with 
Page 87 

Boraas and Knott 

Cultural Characterization

similar foods obtained in a market. Their published data indicates the average annual per-capita 

harvest of wild foods in the villages of the Nushagak and Kvichak River drainages is 304 

pounds of salmon, 123 pounds of land mammals (mostly moose and caribou), 39 pounds of 

other fish, 23 pounds of plants and fungi (mostly berries), 9 pounds of marine mammals 

(freshwater seals and beluga whales), 8 pounds of birds and eggs, and one pound of marine 

invertebrates (mostly clams). To supplement their subsistence harvest, households in the 

Nushagak and Kvichak River drainages spend 15 to 26% of their annual cash income on storebought food (Fall et al., 2009:3). In the ten villages for which there is recent data (i.e., excluding 

Dillingham and Ekwok), the annual per-capita cost of purchasing food ranged from $1,467 to 

$2,622. At 2004 prices (when the initial analysis was done), the annual replacement cost for the 

average subsistence harvest described above would be an additional $7,000 per capita, which 

would increase the demands on the annual cash income an average of nearly 80% ranging from 

23% for Port Alsworth to 157% for Koliganek. As high as they are, the estimate may be an 

under-representation of the estimated worth of subsistence resources. With rising food prices, 

the replacement value would be significantly higher today. King salmon fillets, for example 

were $17/pound on December 30, 2010 at 10th and M Seafood’s, Anchorage, Alaska. The 

replacement value of 193 pounds of king salmon alone for Koliganek, for example, would be 

$3281 per-capita. This value does not reflect the intricate, time consuming care and skill given 

to smoking and processing salmon that Dena’ina and Yup’ik give to their food (cf. Felton 2005) 

While monetizing subsistence gives a measure of its importance to the economy, these 

values do not reflect the fact that the people of the region unanimously reject replacing their 

traditional subsistence foods with farmed fish or other imported products, should deterioration 

of wild salmon runs occur (Interviews). This is based on the belief that such products are of 

inferior quality and that doing so would result in cultural degradation. See Section III.C.6 for a 

discussion of the importance of wild salmon from one’s home river.

 
Page 88 

Boraas and Knott 

Cultural Characterization

Figure 18. Salmon Drying. Koliganek. September 17, 2011. Photo by Alan Boraas

8. Subsistence and “Wealth”

In Alaska many non-Native people perceive subsistence as an activity for impoverished, 

unemployed rural people who live in employment-poor communities and cannot afford to buy 

food so they have to hunt and fish for it. Thornton (1998) asserts that this perception relates to 

the “minimum food and shelter necessary to support life” dictionary definition of subsistence and 

has given rise to the “subsistence-as-welfare” concept and associated negative implications. The 

Yup’ik and Dena’ina perceive subsistence quite differently. Interviewees spoke of the cultural 

value of subsistence as a chosen lifestyle. (See also the comments by Berger in Section B.2. at 

the beginning of this section.) As indicated in the 2011 interviews, subsistence is a lifestyle 

chosen by both old and young. Subsistence is a job, in which the wages are healthy wild foods 

and the benefits include not only vigorous outdoor activity shared with friends and family, but 

also a large measure of self-determination supported by a community of like-minded people. 

Subsistence is coterminous with culture, and the entire range of social and spiritual activities that 

“culture” implies. Consistently, the Yup’ik and Dena’ina communities of the Nushagak and 

Kvichak River drainages define a “wealthy person” as one with food in the freezer, a large 

extended family, and the freedom to pursue a subsistence way of life in the manner of their 

ancestors (see Social Relations, Section E). Their ability to continue their reliance on subsistence 
Page 89 

Boraas and Knott 

Cultural Characterization

and their concept of wealth has contributed to the maintenance of vital and viable cultures for the 

last 4000 years. 

Interviewees did not talk about materialism either as actual or a symbol indicator of 

wealth. Typical signs of wealth in urban Alaska such as a large bank account, investment, an 

elegant home in a high status neighborhood, an expensive automobile, nice clothes or other 

indicators of wealth were never mentioned in the interviews. Fish, family, and freedom are the 

indicators of wealth in the Yup’ik and Dena’ina communities of the Nushagak and Kvichak 

watersheds. In expressing these concepts the interviewees were expressing a local interpretation 

of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, particularly Articles 3 

and 26 (UNDRIP 2007) :

Article 3

Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue

of that right they freely determine their political status and freely

pursue their economic, social and cultural development. 

Article 26

1. Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and 

resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise

used or acquired. 

Figure 19. Talarik Creek, Newhalen River, and Lake Iliamna. January 17, 2012. Photo by Alan 

Boraas
Page 90 

Boraas and Knott 

Cultural Characterization

C. Physical Well-being: the Role of Subsistence

1. Voices of the People

We crave it [salmon] when we don’t have it. We just need it. F-30, 8/17/11 

You know, it’s got that one oil in it that is a cancer-fighting oil, and it’s really good. F-38, 

8/18/11 

I think it [salmon] is healthier than probably beef or pork or something like that. M-68, 9/18/11 

Yes, to be healthy, like I say, if we don’t eat fish we won’t have anything to eat. That is our 

health. F-48, 8/20/11 

When you are eating fish...you get a drink of water to flush yourself out. If you don’t eat fish, you 

will starve. You got to flush yourself out with water every day; that is what your health is about. 

God put us on this earth to eat fish every day. That’s what it is. Without fish, like I said, we are 

hungry; with fish we are full. F-48, 8/20/11

We have...to live healthy to be free from diseases if we eat healthy food. Not breathe air that’s 

no good or drink water that is no good; it will affect your whole body. So, on the subsistence, I 

say let’s protect Mother Earth; I demand it. If we don’t protect Mother Earth, we are gone. M51, 8/20/11 

We don’t buy meat very much. Salmon is our most important dish. F-27, 8/17/11 

Salmon is a really an important part of our diet. I think it has things that meat [domestic beef for 

example] does not have. You are always hearing things about fish oils and how healthy [they 

are], but we already have that, so we must be healthy. F-34, 8/18/11 

We can’t live without salmon. We’ll be missing something. F-27, 8/17/11 

Well, we grew up with it. We need it. If we don’t have it, we miss it. I can’t see anybody that lives 

around here without it. F-30, 8/17/11c. 

I’ve seen kids teethe on smoked salmon strips. They’re hard. They get all fishy and smelly, but 

man, they just chew. It’s better than the rubber toy. F-38, 8/18/11 

...[salmon] is one of our healthiest foods we can give to our child.... It is really healthy. F-69, 

9/18/11 

To me, I think eating salmon has sustained our ways of life. I think by eating a lot of salmon, we 

are a healthy, healthy Dena’ina. I always tell children there at potlaches or wherever; I say that, 

“If you eat this piece of fish you’re going to be a smart Dena’ina woman, you might be able to 
Page 91

Boraas and Knott

Cultural Characterization

be a lawyer or a doctor.” It’s surprising that, just by telling them that, they...eat it, and they will 

say, “Oh, taste good.” F-32, 8/18/11

When my kids grew up, I mostly gave them fish and moose meat. F-44, 8/19/11

I definitely limit my child; you know, the fast foods, we eat it once a week, sometimes more... 

[They eat] moose meat, the fish...berries, and wild plants as well... We want to give to our 

children the fish and we want to keep the water clean for them. It was a gift to us from our 

ancestors, which will then be given to our children. F-69, 9/18/11

The school system here does get volunteers who donate fish to the schools. Prior to that they 

used to order cod fish and other fish from out of the area. The kids didn’t like it. Not from here. 

They finally started the donation program, and the fishermen stepped up to the plate and said, 

“Yes, definitely.” The crew members didn’t balk. There were no qualms whatsoever about 

donating fish to the schools. M-61-9/16/11 

It is the best hot lunch program we have; the kids just love it when they have salmon day. M-60, 

9/16/11

Yes, and that it is healthy [wild salmon]...and something they [Yup’ik] wouldn’t have without .... 

But if we ever lose it, then we won’t have anything at all. M-68, 9/18/11

I think it would matter [that the salmon be wild]; that would be our concern. We like to take our 

wild natural renewable resource salmon rather than farmed salmon because you never know 

what they’ve [farmed salmon] been eating. M-26, 5/19/11

Wild salmon is more important for us, or wild fish. I don’t believe in farmed fish, because wild 

fish is better for all our health. It has all natural oil, and we don’t paint it with artificial paint 

like the farmed fish you get. You can sell your farmed fish all you want, but wild salmon is more 

important to us. F-48, 8/20/11

...people from Kenai or Anchorage, they can go to Kenai and get their salmon, but they always 

say there’s nothing like the lake salmon. There’s nothing like salmon that comes from Sixmile 

Lake. We hear that all over.... I always try other people’s fish, but there’s nothing like salmon 

from our own stream, salmon from the lake that comes up. Well, I guess we’re spoiled having 

our own. F-32, 8/18/11

There is nothing better than wild salmon...I have talked to many people all over the state, and 

the best salmon comes from this area, Bristol Bay. M-29, 8/17/11

One year we got a farmed salmon.... What a difference! It came in with the usual run, and it was 

salmon that was raised in the University of Washington [salmon farm]. They have a big place out 

there in Seattle. We went in there, and they had a lot of fish. The meat was soft, and the skin was 

not firm and scaly. I remember, my daughter was cleaning salmon that year, and she said, 
Page 92 

Boraas and Knott 

Cultural Characterization

“Where’d this fish come from? It looks like a salmon, but it’s terrible.” It was soft. It wasn’t 

like a wild salmon. F-38, 8/18/11 

Matter of fact...I had [salmon] for breakfast this morning before I come over. They stay inside 

all day. M-53-8/20/11 

In the summertime it is every day [we eat fish], as long as the fish are running. We eat fish every 

way we could: boiled, baked, fried. Every way we could, we eat fish. In the wintertime, what we 

preserve in the summertime is what we eat in the wintertime, like the dried fish, the canned fish. 

The fresh canned is something we eat a lot, because you can do so many different things with it. 

F-35, 8/18/2011

2. Introduction

As described in Section II.A.3., archaeological evidence indicates that salmon were an 

important component of the diet of the genetic ancestors of the Yup’ik and Dena’ina, as early as 

4,000 years ago (see Section II.B.3). The Dena’ina track back to the Paleo-Arctic tradition, as old 

as 10,000 years ago, although evidence for intensive salmon utilization in Dena’ina territory does 

not occur until A.D. 1000. 

Based on studies of other Yup’ik populations in the nearby Kuskokwim River villages, 

there is a strong possibility that, within their long history, the Yup’ik may have become 

genetically adapted to eating salmon. Several recent studies have shown that physical adaptation 

and evolution based on dietary factors (e.g., lactose intolerance) can occur in 3,000 years or less 

(Tishkoff, et al., 2007; Bersaglieri et al., 2004: Hollox et al., 2001). Other studies are 

demonstrating genetic changes at the population level in humans in a similarly short time frame 

based on adaptation to environmental stressors such as living at high altitudes in Tibet (Peng et 

al., 2010 :1075-1081; Xin et al., 2010: 75; Simonsen et al., 2010: 72-74). 

Research is being done on the health benefits of omega-3 fatty acids, a significant 

component of wild salmon. One source, the DHA-EPA Omega-3 institute tracks the number of 

research reports on omega-3 fatty acids and provides this summary reproduced in 

Table 17 for 2012 alone (DHA-EPA Omega 3 Institute, nd, accessed January 7, 2013).

.
Page 93 

Boraas and Knott 

Cultural Characterization

Table 17 Scholarly Articles on the Health Benefits of Omega-3 Fatty Acids, 2012

Subject

Number of 

Articles

Cancer Prevention and 

Management

10

Cardiovascular Health 49

Cognitive Performance 29

Eye and Visual Health 8

Fitness and Body 4

Inflammatory Diseases 4

Mental Health 19

5 Nervous System

Other Health conditions 29

Significant research is being done on Yup’ik and other populations vulnerability to 

coronary disease, stroke and diabetes particularly in relation to high consumption of salmon. The 

National Science Foundation recently funded a University of Alaska study to assess the 

differences between Yup’ik and other populations in drug metabolism, as well as in vulnerability 

to metabolic syndrome (development of risk factors for coronary disease, stroke, and diabetes). 

This study will consider the relevance of dietary differences and resulting long-term physical 

adaptation, including genetic adaptation (O’Brien et al., 2011). In a separate study researchers

from the Center for Alaska Native Health Research (CANHR) are assessing how a subsistence 

diet affects the vulnerability of Yup’ik people to disease (O’Brien et al., 2011). In a 2009 study 

whose results strongly support the validity of red blood cell deltaN as a biomarker of 

eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA); the researchers state, “the 

omega-3 (n-3) fatty acids derived from fish, eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA; 20:5n-3) and 

docosahexaenoic acid (DHA; 22:6n-3) are associated with a reduced risk of cardiovascular 

disease and other chronic diseases (O’Brien et al, 2009:913).

 While the amounts of salmon and other fish consumed varies from village to village, and 

from one season to the next, the demonstrated importance of these foods in the diet is consistent 

with the traditional knowledge shared by Yup’ik Elders and culture bearers, as presented above

(Section C.1.) that salmon is critical to their diet. As discussed below, the salmon-dependent diet 

of the Yup’ik and Dena’ina benefits their physical and mental well-being in multiple ways, as 

well as encouraging high levels of fitness based on practices involved in subsistence activities.
Page 94 

Boraas and Knott 

Cultural Characterization

Figure 20. Ekwok. September 11, 2011. Photo by Alan Boraas

3. Nutrition

The dietary habits of Yup’ik and Dena’ina living in the villages of the Bristol Bay region 

show regular dependence on several species of wild salmon which they sometimes consume 

several times a day as the interviews attest. Yup’ik and Dena’ina primarily prepare and eat two

species of Pacific wild salmon, Coho (red) and Chinook (king) in different ways, including fresh, 

salted, pickled, canned, dried, and smoked. Salmon and other traditional wild foods comprise a 

large part of the villagers’ daily diet throughout their lives, beginning as soon as they are old 

enough to eat solid food (Interviews, 2011). 

In addition to salmon, villagers also regularly consume other wild fish species, such as 

humpback whitefish, Arctic char/Dolly Varden, Arctic grayling, rainbow trout, and northern 

pike, the wild ungulates caribou and moose, and, to a smaller extent other mammals, birds, and 

bird eggs. Wild plants, including blueberries, crowberries, salmonberries, ferns, and other 

species, add fiber, vitamins, and minerals (Interviews).The Yup’ik and Dena’ina continue to 

harvest certain plants with medicinal values (cf. P. Kari 1995). It is important to recognize that in 

addition to providing a wide range of valuable nutrients and protein sources, the subsistence diet 

provides a year round workable harvest schedule with adequate time for preparation and storage. 

While subsistence technologies have changed and are now supported in part by the cash 

economy that commercial fishing provides, enabling purchases of snow machines, rifles and 

other equipment, the basic subsistence seasonal schedule has been approximately the same for 
Page 95

Boraas and Knott

Cultural Characterization

hundreds and probably thousands of years. The implications for population sustainability within 

the environment, and co-evolution of the human population with environmental food availability 

mean that hypotheses about the risks of significant changes to the salmon population are 

important, and change in dependence on local wild salmon could have far-reaching impacts on 

Yup’ik and Dena’ina physical and psychological health, including at the genetic level. 

Interviewees in the study area also eat store-bought foods, but do not prefer them

(Interviews 2011). Like other northern subsistence cultures, the Yup’ik and Dena’ina consider 

their traditional foods to be healthful and satisfying in addition to providing strength, warmth, 

and energy in ways that processed store-bought food does not (Hopkins, 2007:42-50). Hopkins’

study on health and aging also provides an insight into women’s views of the importance of the 

subsistence diet. Eating subsistence foods was an overwhelming theme among all participants.. 

They generally viewed market or kass’aq (white person) food as unhealthful (Hopkins, 2007:46). 

Hopkins quotes one of the participants, describing the importance of the subsistence diet for 

Elders: “In years back, before I was born, I know there were elders that were very healthy and 

strong because they have their food, their native food, not mixed up with the kass’aq food. 

Although they have a hard life, they were healthy, strong, because of their native food. Seal oil, 

dried fish” (Hopkins 2007:46-50). This statement is consistent with the interviews.

In some parts of Yup’ik territory outside the study area traditional food consumption has

decreased as described in a study done in three villages in the Yukon-Kuskokwim delta to the 

north of the study area (Bersamin et al. 2006). The reason for decreased traditional food 

consumption is not clear but is partly due to the drastic decline of king (Chinook) salmon, a 

decline that has not been as drastic for the Nushagak River. The number of Chinook salmon 

entering the Yukon-Kuskokwim systems, for example, has gone from 45,829 in 2006 to 9719 in 

2011 according to Alaska Governor Sean Parnell’s (2012) federal disaster request to the U.S. 

Department of Commerce. Chinook returns to the Nushagak River, however, were 101,572 down 

from the 15 year average of 170,186 (Fair et al. 2012:35) but not as drastic a decline as the 

Yukon-Kuskokwim decline. Fluctuating Chinook returns are, nevertheless, a significant concern 

to Villagers whose primary subsistence fish on the Nushagak are Chinook salmon and any 

substantial decrease would impact health and nutrition (interviews) as has happened in parts of 

the Yukon-Kuskokwim Yup’ik area. Bersamin et al. (2006) found that a decline in traditional 

food consumption in three Yukon-Kuskokwim communities resulted in diets where 63% of the 

population had diets classified as “poor” and the remaining 37% were classified as “needing 

improvement” according to Healthy Eating Index (HEI) indicators (Bersamin et al. 2006:1060). 

These HEI indices are far below United States averages. Moreover, the authors acknowledge that 

HEI may underestimate dietary health concerning traditional foods which are generally 

considerably higher in nutrient value than processed “store-bought” foods (Bersamin et al. 

2006:1061). In the case of the Yukon-Kuskokwim delta villages the authors conclude: 

“Traditional foods are excellent sources of numerous essential nutrients but may not be 

consumed in quantities sufficient to meet recommendations. An even higher intake of traditional 

foods should be encouraged” (Berasmin et al. 2006:1062). Subsistence data presented in Section 

III.B. indicate wild traditional foods, particularly salmon, are consumed in sufficient quantities in 

the study area.

 
Page 96 

Boraas and Knott 

Cultural Characterization

4. Fitness

Yup’ik and Dena’ina dependence on subsistence foods has the additional health benefit 

of providing opportunities and incentive for physical fitness, since engaging in subsistence 

harvesting improves fitness and fitness, in turn, enhances the efficiency of subsistence 

harvesting. Subsistence hunting, fishing, and gathering demands stamina to endure long periods 

of physical activity and strength to handle meat, large quantities of fish and heavy fishing gear. 

Hopkins (2007:45-46) quotes from the response of one study participant, over sixty years of age: 

“I think today most of the women are healthy for activity, physical activities. When they go berry 

picking, they’re working using their bodies everything. When we are cutting fish, we are using 

everything, our muscles, lifting things.”

The fitness needed for, and resulting from, subsistence is part of other aspects of village 

life, as well. Throughout the winter the Yup’ik villagers, from youth to middle-aged, play 

basketball and other sports regularly competing in vigorous games. Researchers watched in New 

Stuyahok as a team of middle-aged men defeated a younger team in an intense, hour-and-a-half 

game, then went to church services for an hour and returned to play another game of equal 

length. In several Yup’ik villages, including New Stuyahok, the physical activity of traditional 

dancing, is making a comeback. As described in Section III.E., this cultural activity is based on 

dance as story-telling, which both values and elaborates on traditional cultural practices, such as 

fishing. 

While in New Stuyahok, researchers observed that Elders, including the oldest present, at 

around age 86, frequently walked to locations within the village. According to Hopkins, walking 

was the primary physical exercise identified in that study’s interviews. “The participants referred 

to walking as an important component of health, both physical health and mental well-being. 

Walking is believed to keep the body strong, promote energy, and is a basic physical activity in 

gathering subsistence foods” (Hopkins 2007:46). 

The apparent overall fitness of the village population in New Stuyahok gave researchers 

present at the Elders’ Conference the impression of frequent exercise, and led to the hypothesis 

that the practices of subsistence food gathering, in addition to the food itself, create higher levels 

of fitness, and act to prevent and reduce health risks from more sedentary lifestyles. For Alaska 

Natives, as for other Native Americans, the high risk of diabetes and subsequent health 

consequences is serious enough to make the hypothesis an important one to test. 

5. Disease Prevention

 Beyond the Yup’iks’ own personal conceptions and cultural knowledge about the 

importance of wild foods in their diets, many studies also confirm the remarkable health benefits 

of omega-3 fatty acids and the other nutrients found in high percentages in subsistence foods 

such as wild salmon, and the combination of salmon, wild greens, blueberries and other berries 

for preventive health among the Yup’ik. These studies particularly underscore the importance of 

salmon-rich diets for the prevention of maladies, including cardiovascular diseases and type 2 

diabetes. O’Brian et al. (2009:913; see also O’Brian et al 2011; O’Harra 2011), for example, 

concluded that “the omega-3... fatty acids derived from fish...are associated with a reduced risk 

of cardiovascular disease and other chronic diseases.” 

 
Page 97

Boraas and Knott

Cultural Characterization

In a cohort study of Yup’ik from the Yukon-Kuskokwim area (Boyer et al., 2007:2535-

2540), the Center for Alaska Native Health Research (CANHR) found that metabolic syndrome 

is uncommon in salmon-consuming populations relative to others, occurring at a prevalence of 

14.7% in the study population, compared to 23.9% in the general U.S. adult population. The 

study population also had significantly higher high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol levels 

and lower triglyceride levels than the general U.S. adult population.

In a related study, the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, in collaboration with the 

CANHR, found that Yup’ik Eskimos consume 20 times more omega-3 fatty acids from fish than 

the average American and display a much lower risk of obesity-related disease despite having 

similar rates of being overweight and obesity (Makhoul et al., 2010; Fred Hutchinson Cancer 

Research Center, 2011). Lead author, Zeina Makhoul, said:

Because Yup’ik Eskimos have a traditional diet that includes large amounts of 

fatty fish and have a prevalence of overweight or obesity that is similar to that of 

the general U.S. population, this offered a unique opportunity to study whether 

omega-3 fats change the association between obesity and chronic disease risk.... 

It appeared that high intakes of omega-3-rich seafood protected Yup’ik Eskimos 

from some of the harmful effects of obesity.... While genetic, lifestyle, and 

dietary factors may account for this difference, it is reasonable to ask, based on 

our findings, whether the lower prevalence of diabetes in this population might be 

attributed, at least in part, to their high consumption of omega 3-rich fish

(Makhoul quoted in Woodward 2011).

Compounds derived from their subsistence diet, including omega-3 fats from wild salmon 

consumption, may also benefit mental health in Yup’ik populations. Lesperance et al. (2010), for 

instance, report that omega-3 fats can help prevent depression. Another study showed greater 

improvement in symptoms for patients with chronic depression who consumed omega-3 fats 

with their medication compared to those receiving only a placebo with their medication. After 

four weeks significantly reduced symptoms of depression occurred in six of ten patients 

receiving E-EPA while reduced symptoms only occurred in one of ten receiving a placebo 

(Nemets et al. 2006). See Section E.7., Behavioral and Mental Health for additional discussion of 

the behavioral and mental aspects of a subsistence lifestyle.

Other subsistence foods, such as wild greens have nutritional elements associated with 

better mental health, including folic acid and Vitamins A and C. Other factors associated with a 

subsistence lifestyle, including time spent outdoors and the physical fitness resulting from 

subsistence activities, may also benefit mental health. It is interesting to note that several Elder

interviewees (Interviews 2011) said that, 20 years ago, no one in their villages knew anything 

about Alzheimer’s disease; it was not an illness they had seen before, but it is appearing now and 

she attributed it to not eating enough Native foods.
Page 98 

Boraas and Knott 

Cultural Characterization

Figure 21. Nushagak and Wood Rivers. September 11, 2011. Photo by Alan Boraas

6. Local Wild Fish 

The Yup’ik and Dena’ina populations of the Nushagak and Kvichak watersheds have an 

interdependent relationship ecologically, nutritionally, socially, spiritually, and possibly 

evolutionarily, with the local wild salmon populations. It is clear that the benefits, and 

particularly the long term fit between the human and fish populations, depends upon maintaining 

the local wild salmon for subsistence fishing. While it would be easy to assume that any salmon 

would provide a similar quantity and quality of omega-3 fats, a Norwegian study showed that 

farmed salmon, fed a typical farmed salmon diet, did not have the omega-3 fats in beneficial 

quantities, in contrast to the wild salmon which did (Sincan, 2011). 

It is important to underline that if a human population has adapted to particular 

environmental dietary elements with a genetic modification in their population, that modification 

is based on a relationship to the genetics of specific regional species, and subspecies. The fit 

between environment and population may not be transferable to other places. 

 Thus the elements of the subsistence diet, in particular wild salmon, provide several 

substantial health and fitness benefits to the Yup’ik and Dena’ina of the Bristol Bay region. 

According to recent studies at CANHR led by Andrea Bersamin, “Diets emphasizing traditional 

Alaskan Native foods were associated with a fatty acid profile promoting greater cardiovascular 

health than diets emphasizing Western foods” (Bersamin et al., 2007: 266; see also Bersamin et 

al. 2008). A study by Adler et al. (1994) regarding the benefit of salmon and seal oil 

consumption concluded these wild foods played a significant role in combating diabetes among 

Yup’ik and Athabascan Native Alaskans. Adler et al. (1994:1499) state, “Age-, sex-, BMI, and 

ethnicity adjusted analysis of daily salmon consumption also suggested protection against 

glucose intolerance....Compared with daily salmon consumers, those participants who ate 
Page 99

Boraas and Knott

Cultural Characterization

salmon on a less than daily, but more than weekly, basis were twice as likely to have developed 

glucose intolerance.” In the present interviews, when asked how many times you eat salmon 

respondents frequently said “all the time” (see question 2, p. 79) and when asked if you need 

salmon to be healthy all who responded said “yes” (see question 3, p. 80).

The loss of the local wild salmon as a large component of the Yup’ik and Dena’ina diet 

would result in risks to the physical and psychological health of the population, including greater 

risks of cardiovascular disease, type II diabetes, and depression.
Page 100 

Boraas and Knott 

Cultural Characterization

D. Traditional Ecological Knowledge

1. Voices of the People

But, I think, when they’re spawning, that’s where they hit the spring waters, where it doesn’t 

freeze. It’s always open, even in the dead of the winter. It’s always open; you got to be careful 

there. Especially up in Lake Clark, around Kijik. It’s, man, 30 below zero, and it’s still open 

water. M-29, 8/17/11 

Our societies are not different than other societies we have special people that know fishing 

inside and out, we have people in our society that know weather inside out, that know plants 

inside out, and that know animals inside out. M-61, 9/16/11

...they drop last year’s fish in the middle of the river and we do the same thing here. We put king 

salmon remains on a string tied to a rock and go out with a boat to the middle of the river and let 

it sink. That makes king salmon go on both sides [near the banks where they can be netted with 

set nets.] M-26, 5/19/11

When the fish first come up here we don’t put our nets out here before a bunch of them go by for 

the people who live at the end of the river up in Nondalton and all those guys. They start calling 

up then maybe middle of July [to tell us they have fish, and then] we start putting our nets out. 

We just kind of watch the salmon go by for the people who live upstream from us. M-54, 8/20/11 

They [the fish] are like us, when we want to know something we ask. The fish are the same way. 

As we were talking about earlier he mentioned that the fish have souls. Every living creature has 

a soul. All the animals have souls. They are sensitive, very sensitive. If you put something bad in 

the water the fish will sense it. They will probably not go up the river, they will go somewhere 

else. If they spawn here and they notice something different they will move to another spot. The 

fish are very sensitive. M-20, 5/18/11 

What they used to say, was the first time, when they first moved down to fish camps, then this 

wild celery, I don’t know if you know what that is, but we eat those. They go up on the 

mountainside and pick lots of that, and then they peel it, they peel the peelings off and we eat the 

inside part. So we have big parties with that. We just really enjoyed the fresh salads that we just 

had. it was already tall enough to eat. So when we get done with that, then the Elders would tell 

us, take all the leaves and the skin and everything off of this plant, take it out in the river and 

throw it in, and they would do that. Then we started asking why we were doing this. This fresh 

salad plant and the skin will meet with the salmon, and let the salmon know that they are already 

good to eat, and they need to hurry up and come up because we are hungry. F-28, 8/17/2011 

In the winter not only salmon, we do a lot of ice fishing, and my uncle you met this morning [a 

man in his 90s], he has a trout net he puts out. F-35, 8/18/2011 
Page 101

Boraas and Knott

Cultural Characterization

2. Introduction

Anthropologists and other scientists have used different terms to describe the knowledge 

of indigenous peoples, including “cultural knowledge,” “indigenous knowledge,” “traditional 

knowledge,” and “local knowledge” (Berkes 1999:8). Fikret Berkes and others working in this 

area of ethnoscience use the term, “traditional ecological knowledge” or TEK. Berkes defines 

TEK as “a cumulative body of knowledge, practice and belief evolving by adaptive processes 

and handed down through generations by cultural transmission, about the relationship of living 

beings (including humans) with one another and with their environment” (Berkes 1999:8). TEK, 

as Berkes describes it, includes spirituality and social relations, as well as a wide range of 

cultural beliefs and behaviors related to surviving in a particular landscape, because of the 

holistic nature of culture itself. Berkes’ broad approach to TEK is the one used in this study.

Early studies of TEK depended on comparisons between taxonomies and species lists 

drawn up by Western scientists and those created by indigenous peoples (Knott, 1998). More 

recently, however, it has become clear to anthropologists, geographers, biologists, and others 

working with indigenous peoples that their knowledge is far more ecological in scope and 

requires more than species lists to document. Therefore, a number of scientists working with 

indigenous peoples have come up with a diverse range of tools to collect and document 

indigenous knowledge. These research tools include, but are not limited to:

• Maps of local hunting, fishing, and gathering areas

• Maps of sacred sites and other special use areas

• Traditional Place Names mapping

• Species lists

• Collection of stories, songs, and dances of interactions between animals, humans and 

other species, humans and the natural environment, or allegorical animal stories

• Studies of subsistence technologies

• Animal life histories and their interactions with other plant and animal species including 

humans, told as information by locals

• Plant life histories and their interactions with other plant and animal species, including 

humans, told as information 

• Stories of human mistakes made, and lessons learned, about interactions with nature and 

the environment, including storms, earthquakes, floods, ice, glaciers, changes in nature

• Advice in the form of rules, proscriptions against certain behaviors, prescriptions for 

other behaviors, and guidelines for management of animal and plant harvests

• Uses for animal and plant species, including recipes for foods and medicines

• Observations shared, often about the complex interactions and ecological relationships in 

the landscape where the people live, hunt, fish, and gather.

• Local descriptions of long term trends for species numbers and migration patterns, 

weather patterns, climate, and other natural events

• Linguistic, biological, and archaeological evidence.

• And finally, at a broader level, the values, beliefs, social systems and spiritual practices 

that have developed over thousands of years through the cumulative application of TEK.

A number of important TEK studies have been done in both in the Nushagak and 

Kvichak River watersheds, and in the Lake Clark and Iliamna Lake area, that cover TEK in
Page 102

Boraas and Knott

Cultural Characterization

detail. Among the Nushagak studies is one by the Nushagak-Mulchatna Watershed Council

(NMWC) (2007) and among the Kvichak studies are those by Stickman et al. (2003) Evanoff 

(2010) P. Kari (1995) and Fall et al. (2010). In addition the Alaska Department of Fish and 

Game, Subsistence Division has a searchable database titled “From Neqa to Tepa, Łuq’a to 

Chuqilin” which includes maps, place names, interviews, ADF&G technical papers and related 

TEK information from the Bristol Bay and Alaska Peninsula including extensive information 

from communities in the study area (ADF&G 2005). These long-term studies have focused on 

the Yup’ik and Dena’ina TEK in the Bristol Bay region and have provided a wealth of 

information some of which we summarize in Sections a through c below. 

To supplement those long-term studies, we focused interview sessions on the broader 

levels of TEK, including the values, beliefs, social systems, and spiritual practices of the Yup’ik 

and Dena’ina that have developed over thousands of years through their cumulative application 

of TEK. During those sessions we learned much from the Elders and culture bearers about TEK 

and the cultures as a whole. We also heard some specific examples of ecological insights, 

prescriptions and proscriptions, and management guidelines for several species.

3. Summaries of Important TEK Studies

Nushagak-Mulchatna Watershed Conservation Plan

Over a two-year period [dates unspecified], the Nushagak-Mulchatna Watershed Council 

(NMWC) conducted interviews with Elders, residents, and others who use the watershed to 

create a database of the TEK of the Nushagak and Mulchatna drainages (NMWC 2007:3). 

The NMWC used the data to create an overall plan for protecting the waters and natural 

resources of the watershed. The interviews helped with the development of maps to identify 

areas critical to protection of subsistence resources and habitat. The plan identified 12 fish, 6 

mammal, and 12 bird species important for subsistence and mapped 125 traditional use areas 

and 153 traditional area names. The flora and fauna considered most integral to traditional 

subsistence use were all five species of Pacific salmon, whitefish, winter freshwater fish, 

moose, caribou, waterfowl, and edible and medicinal plants (NMWC, 2007:19).

The study also identified probable threats to the watershed in the next fifty years, and, based 

on the TEK information collected, developed four strategic actions (Nushagak-Mulchatna 

Watershed Council, 2007:3):

1. Reserve adequate water flow for the Nushagak River and tributaries under existing laws 

for in-stream flow reservation.

2. Maintain the vegetative complex that supports moose, fish and other species within and 

adjacent to the floodplain.

3. Maintain water quality standards that protect wild salmon and other fish.

4. Prevent habitat damage that could result from mining. 

What is at stake includes habitat, and wildlife including terrestrial mammals, birds, fish, 

and the subsistence way of life, along with the unique cultures it supports. The report states:

The Nushagak River system is the fifth largest river in Alaska by volume of water 

discharged. The drainage supports at least 13 anadromous species, 16 resident 

species, and four species of fish restricted to estuaries. The Nushagak River and 

its tributaries host five species of Pacific salmon and provide significant habitat 
Page 103 

Boraas and Knott 

Cultural Characterization

for Bristol Bay sockeye salmon – the largest runs in the world. The Nushagak 

River hosts the largest sport fishery for Chinook salmon in the United States, with 

the third-largest Chinook run in the country. In addition there are significant 

numbers of rainbow trout, grayling, Arctic char, Dolly Varden, northern pike, lake 

trout, and non-game species (NMWC, 2007:8).

The flora and fauna considered most integral to traditional subsistence use includes the 

following. Fish: 1. Sockeye, Chinook, and Coho salmon; 2. Pink and Chum Salmon; 3. 

Whitefish; 4. Winter Freshwater Fish. Mammals: 5. Moose; 6. Caribou. Other: 7. Waterfowl; and 

8. Edible and Medicinal plants. The Elders and other knowledgeable individuals also identified 

critical habitat for the species of concern and their harvest locations. The conservation plan used 

this information to delineate the watershed into conservation target areas, in terms of habitat 

types important for traditional use species (NMWC, 2007:20). Salmon are the keystone species 

in the region, and provide enormous amounts of marine derived nutrients to the ecosystems 

described above. 

 In the present study interviewees identified potential threats to the area including 

recreation, recreational subdivisions, commercial lodge development, community development, 

mining, roads, high seas salmon fishing, ocean acidification, oil and gas development, and 

habitat shifting and alteration. Interviewees in Pedro Bay during the fall of 2011, for example, 

confirmed the high earthquake activity and expressed concerns about new road construction and 

its potential impacts on their streams and community, based on their long-term ecological 

knowledge. 

The following tables list the primary and secondary subsistence species identified by the 

Nushagak River Watershed Traditional Use Area Conservation Plan (2007) and represents the 

breadth of wild food use and, indirectly, the knowledge of how to harvest, process, and prepare 

those foods. 

Table 18 Subsistence Fish, Terrestrial Mammals, Birds and Plants (Nushagak-Mulchatna 

Traditional Use Conservation Plan, 2007).

Subsistence Fish Species

Yup’ik English Scientific

Taryaqvak Chinook (King) salmon Onchorhynchus tshawytscha

Sayak Sockeye salmon (Red) Onchorhynchus nerka

Caayuryaq Coho salmon (Silver) Onchorhynchus kisutch

Amaqaayak Pink salmon (Humpy) Onchorhynchus gorbuscha

Kangitneq Chum salmon (Dog) Onchorhynchus keta

Talaariq Rainbow trout Onchorhynchus mykiss

Iqalluaq Rainbow smelt Osmerus mordax

Yugyak Arctic char, Salvelinus alpinus

Iqallugpik Dolly Varden, Salvelinus malma

Culugpauk/Nakrullug

pak 

Arctic grayling Thymallus arcticus

Cuukvak Northern pike, Esox lucius

Can’giiq Alaska blackfish, Dallia pectoralis

 
Page 104 

Boraas and Knott 

Cultural Characterization

Additional fish sometimes used

White fish, Coregonus spp.

Halibut, Hippoglossus stenolupsis

Flounder, Plutichthys stellatus

Sheefish, Stenodus leuichthys

Burbot, Lota lota

Sticklebacks, Pungitius pungitius

Tomcod Eleginus gracilis

Sculpin, Cottus spp.

Herring, Clupea pallasii

Subsistence Terrestrial Mammals

Yup’ik English Scientific

Tuntuvak Moose Alces alces

Paluqtaq American Beaver Castor Canadensis

Cuignilnguq River Otter Luntra Canadensis

Issaluuq Porcupine Erethizon dorsatum

Tuntu Caribou Rangifer tarandus

Taqukaq/Carayak Brown Bear Ursus arctos

Additional mammals sometimes trapped for furs

Mink Mustela vision

Muskrat Ondata zibethica

Red Fox Vulpes vulpes

Arctic Fox Alopex lagopus

Snowshoe hare Lepus americanus

Subsistence Bird Species

Yup’ik English Scientific

Lagilugpiaq Canadian goose Branta Canadensis

Kep’alek Greater scaup Aythya marila

Nacaullek Emperor goose Caidris alpine

Uqsuqaq Pintail duck Clangula hyemalis

Cetuskar Harlequin duck Histrionicus histrionicus

Qucillgaq Sandhill crane Grus Canadensis

Qugyuk White swan Olor columbianus

Tungunqeggiq Black scoter Melanitta nigra

Qengallek King eider Somateria spectabilis

Curcurliq Mallard Anas platyrhynchos

Aqesgiq/Kangqiiq Willow Ptarmigan Lagopus lagopus

Additional Birds

Godwits

Dunlins

Golden Plover

Western sandpiper

Black turnstone

Red-throated loons

Arctic tern

Jager, 

Marsh hawk
Page 105 

Boraas and Knott 

Cultural Characterization

Kingfisher

Rock Ptarmigan, Lagopus muticus

Plants

Salmonberries, Rubus chamaemorus

Crowberries, Empretum nigrum

Blueberries, vaccinium uliginosum

Marsh marigold, Caltha palustris

Wild celery, Angelica lucida

Willow leaves, Salix glauca

Pond greens, sourdock, Rumex artica

Caiggluk, Artemisia tilesii

K’ezghlegh: Nondalton Traditional Ecological Knowledge of Freshwater Fish

K’ezghlegh: Nondalton Traditional Ecological Knowledge of Freshwater Fish is based on 

interviews with 18 Nondalton residents in 2001 and focused on their current and past subsistence 

use of sockeye salmon and other fish in the Lake Clark/Newhalen River drainage (Stickman et 

al. 2003: 8). Interview questions related to fishing practices, geographic locations, and Dena’ina 

place names. The questions were presented in semi-directed interviews, with USGS quadrangle 

maps of the Lake Clark Newhalen River area used to plot information. Answers revealed that the 

summer months, from mid-June through August, are traditionally devoted to harvesting sockeye 

salmon that are returning to Sixmile Lake and Lake Clark. Fish camps used to be set up around 

the outlet of Kijik Lake, but now are primarily at the outlet of Sixmile Lake but also along the 

shores of the Newhalen River, Sixmile Lake and Lake Clark (Stickman et al., 2003:11). 

The interviewees listed nearly a dozen places as the most important locations for sockeye 

fishing and eighteen as primary locations for harvesting spawned-out sockeye or “redfish.” 

Residents described in detail how and where they get salmon, listed 36 separate places where 

sockeye spawn, and gave descriptions of several areas where they have noticed reduced 

spawning activity, particularly Kijik Lake, which is well known as a very productive area. This 

area in particular has recently had reduced spawning activity due to beaver dams that seem to be 

blocking the entry of the salmon into the Kijik River, and preventing fish from moving upstream 

to spawning grounds in and around Kijik Lake. The study also asked about harvest methods and 

detailed the use of seines, spears, and fish traps. Seining is no longer allowed under State of 

Alaska fishing regulations and fish traps were banned in 1959. People do use commercially 

manufactured gill nets.

It was important to the residents that they were respectful of the fish and cared for them. 

“Everyone interviewed reported that they generally stop fishing once they have caught the 

number of fish they need” (Stickman et al., 2003:23). Residents also disapproved of people 

leaving their nets out too long unattended. Andrew Balluta, one of the residents interviewed, 

said, “They used to say if you don’t use what you are catching in your net, don’t leave your net 

out there” (Stickman et al., 2003:24). The study also elicited descriptions of putting up fish. 

The remaining sections of this report document residents’ comments about change: observed 

change in salmon over time, observed environment changes, human-induced change; and finally 

the importance of salmon to the population as documented in the observance of the fish camps 

and the First Salmon Ceremony. A separate section documents the use of other freshwater fish, 

including rainbow trout, Dolly Varden, whitefish, grayling, northern pike, burbot, candlefish, 
Page 106

Boraas and Knott

Cultural Characterization

sucker, and lake trout, and their relative abundance. Residents also noted significant changes in 

the number of fish returning in the five to ten years prior to the 2003 report. “Each person 

interviewed reported fewer fish than in the past, and all indicated that they first noticed the 

change in abundance between five and ten years ago.” (Stickman, 2003:26). While Stickman et 

al. describe numerous possible reasons for the reductions in numbers, as well as changes in 

timing of the runs, the report also noted that flows in the Newhalen River in 2001 exceeded the 

level observed to prevent or delay sockeye migration into the lower river (Stickman et al., 

2003:27-28 citing C. Woody). 

Dena’ina Ełnena: A Celebration

Lake Clark National Park in a project organized by Karen Evanoff produced Dena’ina 

Ełnena (Dena’ina Land) ( Evanoff 2010) as a compilation of place name maps and traditional 

knowledge stories told by Dena’ina Elders for the Inland Dena’ina. The elegant maps describe 

the scope of knowledge of the landscape as reflected in language, and the eleven maps and data 

include many of the 1400 place names known in the study area (Evanoff 2010:91). Before 

“paper” maps and GPS, the place names became a “cognitive” map through which people were 

able to discuss subsistence events or to know where they were when traveling. Kari (2003:157) 

describes the complexity of The Dena’ina place name system:

This is a memorized, verbally transmitted geographic system that is congruent across 

language and dialect boundaries. We can marvel at the strict purity, orderliness, symmetry, 

functionality, and the memorizability of the geography. This system is elegantly simple and 

flexible and has facilitated Athabascan travel and land use since antiquity.

Most (75%) of the Dena’ina place names are for hydrology, landforms, specific rocks, or 

flora and fauna. About 15% are for human activities such as subsistence places. There are very 

few personal names, Yup’ik loan word place names, or mythic names although notable 

exceptions to the latter are Ch’iduchuq’a: ‘Game Enters Mountain’ by Ruth Koktelash, an

important Dena’ina origin story (Evanoff 2010:18-19), and Kuzhaghaten Qatnik’a: ‘The Giant’s 

Rock’ told by Walter Johnson (Evanoff 2010:37-8) also described in section D-2, Traditional 

Dena’ina Culture.

The maps of traditional trails (Evanoff 2010:44-45) document an extensive system to access 

subsistence territories, travel between villages, or meet with Yup’ik coming up the Nushagak and 

Mulchatna to trade such as Yusdi Ghuyiq’: Long Point, Dena’ina and Yupik at Yusdi Ghuyiq, by 

Albert Wassilie, (Evanoff 2010:16). Thirteen stories describe traveling including “Qeghnilen 

Area: Traveling to Fish and Hunt” by Pete Bobby (Evanoff 2010:43) about subsistence activities.

The Dena’ina seasonal round is described in a set of 15 stories about activities at different 

times of year and is the core of traditional ecological knowledge. For example one of the stories 

by Ruth and Pete Koktelash describes the underground cold storage pit for storing salmon for 

winter (Evanoff 2010: 77-78).

Many of the stories are about subsistence practices such as “Eseni Dghitnu: Cottonwood 

Extends: Respecting Trapping and Hunting Grounds” by Nicholai Balluta (Evanoff 2010:35, 41-

42). Balluta describes the area west of Six Mile Lake and the Newhalen River and north of Lake 

Iliamna, the area of the proposed Pebble Mine development, as a traditional trapping ground 

divided between the people of Nondalton, Iliamna, and Newhalen. The trapping territories were 
Page 107

Boraas and Knott

Cultural Characterization

divided by village and Balluta states, “They used to respect one another’s trapping 

ground...Yeah, that’s our way, that’s our history” (Evanoff 2010:42).

Nature Conservancy Place Name Project

Place name mapping research is not nearly as far along in the Yup’ik areas of the Nushagak, 

and Kvichak watersheds. In 2005 The Nature Conservancy conducted research with the 

assistance of Yup’ik culture bearers on Nushagak River Yup’ik place names (Tim Troll, personal 

communication, November 15, 2011). Thirty-two traditional place names have been identified 

in the Ekwok area, eighty in the New Stuyahok area, and eighty-nine in the Koliganek area. 

Research is on-going but indicates, like the Dena’ina place name data, that the people have an 

intimate knowledge of their areas through traditional names.

Plant Lore and Bird Traditions

Priscilla Russell Kari conducted two important TEK studies in Dena’ina territory. The first, a 

study of Dena’ina (Tanaina) plant lore, describes the seasonal cycle in the Dena’ina use of 

plants, as well as detailing the gathering, processing, and preserving of the most important plants 

(P. Kari, 1987 (1995)). She also covers Dena’ina beliefs concerning plants and the Dena’ina 

plant classification system. Her study, based on long-term work in several Dena’ina 

communities, with a wide range of Dena’ina women, documents more than 150 plants that the 

Dena’ina depend on for foods, medicines, and other uses (P. Kari, 1987 (1995)). The second was 

done by Priscilla Russell with George West (Russell and West 2003) and details Dena’ina use of 

birds. Like the plant lore book, the bird book identifies each species, the native name, and use,

often including how it was prepared. The ethno-botanical and ethno-ornithological knowledge 

portrayed in both of these books is highly detailed and an invaluable contribution preserving 

Dena’ina ecological knowledge.
Page 108 

Boraas and Knott 

Cultural Characterization

E. Social Relations

1. Voices of the People

I feel good, proud [to share]. And when our friends give us back, way proud. M-60, 9/16/11

We share with the Elders first, then with family. Usually how I do it, if someone goes with me we 

go 50-50 and he can decide who to share his fish with, and we do the same. It’s not decided by 

one person, usually me and my wife decide. M-26, 5/19/11 

It makes me feel good when I give salmon to somebody. F-47, 8/20/11

It makes you feel good inside because you are sharing. M-53, 8/20/11

It’s a good feeling, because we know other people want it. It’s a good thing to give away, it’s 

healthy. F-30, 8/17/11 

Oh, it makes you really feel good [to give salmon], because I know we enjoy it, and people that 

can’t get it that were almost raised on it.... That’s just the way the whole village is; they share.

F-38, 8/18/11 

In our culture here you share with everybody. When I got my first moose, I had to give it to 

people; when my grandson got his first moose, you give it to people. You share it. That is one 

thing good about the community of Bristol Bay; we still hold on to our cultural values really 

strong. Sharing is a very important component to our culture. If somebody is handicapped and 

unable to provide for themselves, you find some Young Turk or young family to go help them out. 

You don’t expect pay. M-60, 9/16/11 

You know, I was having a hard time, and her husband [gestures] brought me a whole truckload 

of food, and I damn near cried.... Now, when somebody needs help, we do the same thing. If 

someone needs help, I try to help as much as I can; we always share. When we give something, it 

feels good, and when we are having hard times and get something, it feels good. M-43,8/19/11 

[Reference to a woman’s] mom was blind, and she couldn’t do certain things, so my mom always 

made sure she shared with her. That is one of the things she told me about sharing. She thought 

it was good to share with people who couldn’t do things for themselves. But, she was always 

doing nice things for us, too. She [the blind woman] made us string to hang fish and things like 

that. She was really a nice person, her mom. F-44, 8/19/11 

Yeah, we always share. Holidays, we share, and if somebody passes away, after burial we have a 

potlatch; we share. We share with people; that is the way we are brought up. F-41, 8/19/11 
Page 109

Boraas and Knott

Cultural Characterization

We share with people here and in Anchorage.... I like to go fishing, so if we run out of freezer 

space, I will ask people [who can’t fish in the village, e.g. Elders] if they want fish, then I’ll go 

out and catch some fish if they want. M-70, 9/18/11

Me, I share it with my younger sisters who never do subsistence. Like, some can’t work anymore. 

They [gesture] share it with their parents. Me, I share it with my younger sisters or my son, my 

kin. F-23, 5/18/11

Me and my daughter always share after we fish for all summer, but she always tries to give me 

lots more, but I say, “No, you’ve got more kids.” Sometimes we give [fish to] our daughter-inlaw. F-22, 5/18/11

I think, with us, during potlatch times, during hard times or Russian Christmas, or, if we gather 

together, everybody brings out their dry fish or their jarred fish or their salt fish. Nobody goes 

hungry; there’s always sharing. We would be greedy if we kept it all to ourselves, but there’s 

always a sense of sharing with the community or sharing with relatives. F-32, 8/18/11

The people up there [Kvichak River villages in the 1990s] were not meeting their subsistence 

needs [allegedly due to ADF&G management decisions]. They weren’t screaming about the cost 

of gas or the price of lights. They were screaming that they didn’t have fish. There were people 

from over here that were shipping fish over there for people to meet their subsistence needs. M60, 9/16/11

You are a very rich person if you share. If you don’t share, you are nobody.... I have to go share 

food with my grandkids, great grandkids; it doesn’t matter. I don’t care if someone comes in and 

eats with us; I like to share. That’s the way we were brought up. Anybody that is in the house, 

come and eat with us; you are welcome. F-46, 8/20/11

You know, when I was working down in Seattle, my mom used to send me pieces of dried fish all 

the time. You know, that mail was slow back then. When I would get it, man, it was just like 

candy. No, but one time she sent me mixed berries. You make it with lard; we call it “agutak.” 

She sent me those, and by the time it got there, it wasn’t good. Salmon doesn’t spoil when it is 

dried. M-53, 8/20/11

We catch moose and caribou and give it away; it ensures good luck back. Even beaver, you give 

the whole beaver away after you skin it. After you skin the beaver, you give it away; give the 

whole beaver away. That animal that you give away...give[s] you back in return good luck. M54, 8/20/11

[My wife] and I have been doing it for thirty some years, doing the fish camp, and putting up 

fish for the winter. When the kids were small, we were down there for them too, and hopefully, 

they will have a family, too, and carry on the tradition. M-33, 8/18/11
Page 110

Boraas and Knott

Cultural Characterization

Some of the salmon we put up at my fish camp even goes all the way down [to] the states. My 

friend [name] comes in here, and she puts up fish, and she cans salmon.... [My daughter] and 

her friend...they also can fish and dry fish.... [My grandson] was here all summer. F-27, 8/17/11

The parents, their sisters, their aunties, their grandparents, their great grandparents. Everybody 

is there [at fish camp], you know, telling them [the children] how to do this....Everybody does it 

at their own camps, fish camps.... Everybody is living in different fish camps, so all these 

families that are together, that’s how they taught the younger kids. F-28, 8/17/11

He [five-year-old grandson] went fishing with us once; now, he went and seined with us. That’s 

...how we learn, that’s how we teach our kids [fish camp]. I mean, it’s togetherness. F-30, 

8/17/11

One of the things we were taught and we are teaching our kids and grandkids are that you do not 

waste. Boy if they let the fish get rotten boy they would be disappointed in us really bad. So we 

teach and pass that on, don’t waste nothing. M-29, 8/17/11

We usually get our subsistence foods, salmon, and a wealthy person, years ago, was when he had 

a lot of dry fish for his dogs, salt fish, smoke fish. The women had their wooden kegs full of 

berries for their Eskimo ice cream. Maybe the father was fishing commercially and made enough 

to buy a few groceries form the store, enough [rifle] shells. That was a wealthy person. I think 

today a lot of people still think the same way. M-62, 9/16/11

Yeah, I think growing up in a small village wealth was defined by what you provided for your 

family. If you were a highline fisher, you were very wealthy, both physically, as well as mentally. 

If you were a good hunter, that in itself was very wealthy. Or a good trapper, good provider. M61, 9/16/11

Salmon is one thing. They make you feel rich, because you have something to eat all winter. 

Smoked salmon, sun-dried spawned-out fish, all of those make you feel good, because you grew 

up with it; it is in your body. M-53, 8/20/11

As long as we have a lot of fish and meat and stuff, they are wealthy. We don’t believe in... 

having lots of money. The wealth to us is having more fish put away for the winter, and meat; 

that’s our wealth. F-27, 8/17/11

In this Western society of living in the city, everybody is for themselves. Everybody is worried 

about “Joe Blow” next door, who has a bigger TV or a bigger car; they are worrying about 

money, money, money! It just brings on the sickness of worrying. Here, we run a healthy life, 

because we have everything we need here; everything we could possibly want is right here. F-32, 

8/18/11

They don’t learn that at school [proper attitudes toward salmon]. [Laughter]. Elders teach them, 

Elders are teachers and pass it down to younger generations. They learn it and pass it down to 

their children. Right down to grandchildren, great grandchildren. M-53, 8/20/11
Page 111 

Boraas and Knott 

Cultural Characterization

Figure 22. Pedro Bay. August 18, 2011. Photo by Alan Boraas

2. Introduction

Though each has a different cultural social organization going back to pre-contact times, 

today there are many similarities between the Dena’ina and Yup’ik of the Nushagak and Kvichak 

River watersheds. Among them are the importance of sharing subsistence foods, fish camp as a 

social and educational as well as economic institution, gender and age equity, and the concept of 

wealth.

3. Sharing and Generalized Reciprocity

 The Yup’ik and Dena’ina cultures center on belonging to community and on sharing food 

as a means of creating and maintaining the living bonds of relationship. The focus on sharing 

functions as the elemental ordering factor in sustaining the culture and the long-term health of 

the communities. The practice of sharing is elemental in both indigenous and other cultures both 

from a material and a social standpoint (Counihan 1999:13). Interviewees indicated that the 

sharing, preparation, and consumption of food together has created opportunities for efficient and 

sometimes ritualized teamwork, as well as social bonding and building of networks. The Yup’ik 

and Dena’ina of the Nushagak and Kvichak River watershed villages, as traditional cultures, 
Page 112 

Boraas and Knott 

Cultural Characterization

continue these practices through harvesting, preserving, and preparing food together and sharing 

food through traditional practices and ritual celebrations. They continue to experience the social, 

spiritual, and nutritional benefits from sharing food, especially salmon, the staple food, up to the 

present. 

 Sharing remains a fundamental institution within Yup’ik and Dena’ina cultures today, 

according to interviewees, and the importance of sharing food, especially salmon, cannot be 

overemphasized. Among the Yup’ik, for example, elaqyaq means “those of the same stomach” 

and refers both to sharing food and being biologically related. Oscar Kawagley noted a similar 

linguistic reference: “The Yupiaq [Yup’ik] term for relatives is associated with the word for 

viscera, with connotations of deeply interconnected feelings” (Kawagley 2006:11). As Langdon 

indicates, the time people spent together in subsistence activities is extensive: “The Yupiit 

[Yup’ik] enjoyed the bounty of some of the world’s richest salmon fisheries. Large quantities of 

fish were harvested and processed through relentless hours of work in order to sustain families 

and their dogs throughout the long winters” (Langdon, 2002:41). 

Figure 23. Jarred Salmon Being Prepared at Fish Camp. July, 2012. Photo courtesy of Karina 

Chambers.

Yup’ik and Dena’ina sharing is “generalized reciprocity,” because the time and place of a 

return gift is not specified. In general, interviewees indicated that people do not expect a return 

gift when they share salmon or other subsistence foods with someone else, particularly an Elder, 

but a return gift of food always seems to appear, whether that month, that year or sometime in 
Page 113

Boraas and Knott

Cultural Characterization

the future. The altruism is part of social solidarity. Villagers do not consider sharing to be an 

obligation, but a way of life, as the Voices of the People at the beginning of this section indicate. 

Interviewees universally indicated that giving or receiving salmon or other subsistence foods 

makes them feel good. The altruism of sharing food expresses social solidarity between the 

participants. Almost universally, Dena’ina and Yup’ik seem to have small jars of salmon 

available for favored visitors to take with them.

Villagers particularly recognize some Elders who cannot participate in the rigors of 

subsistence harvesting as people with whom to share salmon and other subsistence foods. The 

informal first salmon sharing, for instance, always includes Elders (see Section III.F.5). 

Sharing salmon and other subsistence foods with family living in Anchorage or even farther 

away is an important bond to home, family, and place. Interviewees consistently talked about 

how much they appreciated a gift of canned or jarred salmon from home when they were away 

from the village. They also talked about how important it is for them to send a part of the place 

to family and friends living away from Bristol Bay.

The Dena’ina believe that tangible items can take on aspects of the owner. This 

personification is called beggesha if the aspects are positive and beggesh if negative (Boraas and 

Peter 2008: 215-9). Artifacts or places can have beggesha or beggesh depending on events 

associated with them. A place, something someone made, such as a birch bark basket, or salmon 

someone prepared take on beggesha. The term does not easily translate into English, so today 

people talk about giving “love” when giving a gift of something they made or prepared. 

Conversely, one receives “love” when receiving a similar gift. This perspective is one of the 

reasons that Alaska Native foods, especially salmon, are served at all gatherings such as potlucks 

and potlatches. Preparing and giving food is a tangible act of love. Recipients appreciate nonNative foods, but they are not from the place, were not made by the giver and, consequently, are 

not an expression of love when gifted.

Athabascan Elder, the late Reverend Peter John 1996:60) expresses love this way, “True 

love is something that you never see....By gathering to share food, songs, and speeches, love 

grows among the people.”

4. Fish Camp

Writing of subsistence in general, including fish camp, Yup’ik Elder and scholar Mary C. 

Pete (1993:10) wrote: 

For many Yup’iks, subsistence activities teach children much more than hunting and 

fishing: they convey respect and proper conduct toward the land and water and animals 

and other humans; they promote satisfaction from hard work and contribution to the kin 

group. For many Yup’iks, subsistence goes beyond mere economy—it is a vital way of 

live and a source of pride and identity.

Both the Dena’ina and Yup’ik have a long tradition of going to fish camp to harvest 

salmon. As interviewees indicate, the villages of the Nushagak and Kvichak River drainages 

harvest salmon either at or very near town, and fish camp may be only a short boat ride or fourwheeler trip to a traditional fishing locality where they may or may not camp out (cf. Fall et al. 
Page 114 

Boraas and Knott 

Cultural Characterization

2010). Many villagers, however, still travel to a traditional place, set up camp, and live for 

several weeks catching and putting up salmon. Villagers from Kokhanok, for example, travel to 

fish camp on Gibraltar Lake, while residents of New Stuyahok, Ekwok, and Koliganek stay at 

various camps on the Nushagak River, downstream of the villages primarily at Lewis Point

(Nunaurluq), and villagers from Nondalton go to camps on Sixmile Lake and Lake Clark. 

Generally, the interviewees indicate the fish camp consists of an extended family, with three or 

more generations, but close friends may also participate (Fall et al. 2010). 

Figure 24 Young Boy Helping at a Nondalton 

Area Fish Camp. Photo courtesy of Karina 

Chambers
Page 115 

Boraas and Knott 

Cultural Characterization

Families typically view fish camp as a good time when they can renew bonds of 

togetherness by engaging in the physical work of catching and processing salmon. Family 

members who don’t live in the villages often schedule vacation time to return home to fish camp, 

not just for the salmon, but for family. The importance of sharing in vigorous, meaningful work 

cannot be overestimated. It creates cross-generational bonds between children, their parents, 

aunts, uncles, and/or grandparents that, today, are rare in Western culture because there are so 

few instances in which meaningful, multi-generational work occurs (Interviews, 2011). 

Figure 25. Smoking Salmon at a Nondalton Area Fish Camp, July, 2012. Photo 

courtesy of Karina Chambers
Page 116

Boraas and Knott

Cultural Characterization

Fish camp is a time when children and teens learn not only the practice of how to 

properly catch, clean, and process fish, but the values that are an integral part of harvesting 

salmon and interacting with nature. As such, it is a primary educational institution (Fall et al. 

2010). Young people learn from their parental generation and, particularly, from their 

grandparents, their Elders, about the Yup’ik or Dena’ina way (cf. Ellana and Balluta 1992:208). 

Interviewees stressed that the primary value passed on at fish camp is respect for nature and, 

particularly, respect for salmon. As discussed in Section III.F.4., showing this respect involves 

using everything and disposing of what little is left over in a respectful manner. Fish are not 

disparaged, bragged about or made fun of. Catching salmon with a good attitude is the first step 

in imbuing it with the beggesha or love discussed in the previous section. 

Fishing and fish camp also play a significant role in maintaining emotional and spiritual 

health because the meaningful group activity has a significant therapeutic affect (Capers

2003:1,8-10; Mills 2003:85-88). See Section 7, Behavioral and Mental Health Treatment below 

for further discussion on this matter.

5. Gender and Age Equity

Gender equity among subsistence families is balanced and has many of the characteristics 

of a traditional family farm or family-run business. Both men’s roles and women’s roles are 

equally valued, and it is common that men can do most “women’s” activities (cook, clean fish, 

etc.), while women can do most “men’s” activities (shoot a moose, run a boat, etc.) (Interviews 

2011).

Traditionally, Elders are important members of village society, seen both as sources of 

values and storehouses of traditional knowledge, and they are valued in child-rearing, village 

decision-making, and life guidance. A common saying in the villages is: “When an Elder dies, 

we lose an encyclopedia.”

6. Wealth

When asked their perception of wealth, only 3 of 53 interviewees, all from the same 

village, indicated that they measure at least part of their wealth in terms of money, material 

items, and potentially high-paying jobs (see Section III.B.8.). The remaining interviewees who 

commented responded that wealth is measured in terms of one, or more, of three themes: food in 

the freezer, family, and/or freedom.

To the majority of interviewees, stored subsistence food means a family is wealthy or 

rich as noted in Section III, B. Various entities attempt to monetize this value, but to the people, 

subsistence is priceless. It means you won’t starve; it means you will have among the healthiest 

diets in the world; it means you will be able to actively engage in the sharing networks described

above; and it means shared, activity that enhances family and/or village togetherness. A full 

freezer (or freezers, as is often the case), a well-stocked pantry and a full wood bin are primary 

symbols of wealth in the Nushagak and Kvichak River villages. Most villagers, of course, 

recognize that money is a necessity, but money is not the singular measure of wealth. Money is 

necessary for the tools for subsistence, gas and oil for boat and house, and occasional travel, and 

locals generally acquire it through part-time jobs or commercial fishing that still allows time for 
Page 117

Boraas and Knott

Cultural Characterization

subsistence activities. By Western materialist standards most of the villages are poor; by their 

own standards Nushagak and Kvichak River villagers are rich, and it is the people who live a

non-subsistence lifestyle who are poor (summarized from interviews, 2011).

Interviewees indicate that wealth also derives from having a large, extended family, 

particularly one that is closely knit by subsistence activities. Nuclear families are not necessarily 

large, but having an extended family means having people you can count on if need be, and it 

means having people to whom you can give your love and assistance. This tradition of alliance 

through marriage has its origin in pre-contact Yup’ik and Dena’ina culture (see Sections II.B.3 

and II.C.2).

Few interviewees spoke with fondness of living in Anchorage or other urban places they 

have lived or visited. Though hunting and fishing require abiding with ADF&G regulations, 

most villagers see those activities as involving a degree of freedom that does not often occur in 

non-subsistence work settings. As described in many interviews, with subsistence as your job, 

you don’t have to punch a clock, you only follow nature’s clock; you don’t have a boss, you are 

your own boss, and you either suffer the consequences if you do not perform well or reap the 

benefits if you do. During our May visit to one village on the Nushagak River, two young men in 

their early twenties left on a 17-day subsistence trip upriver into the Mulchatna area, one of the 

most remote places in North America at any time of year, but virtually deserted in spring, when 

snow was still present. They were on their own, and apparently all who were connected to the 

endeavor embraced that freedom. As they left, for example, the mother of one of the boys simply 

said, “Be careful,” just as a parent living on Alaska’s road system might say to a son embarking 

on a trip to Anchorage. This view comes from villagers having knowledge of and ranging over a 

vast territory, almost all of which is in a natural state. Consistently, people are thankful to live in 

a place where they can live off the land in the manner of their ancestors, and don’t want to live 

anywhere else (Interviews, 2011).

7. Behavioral and Mental Health

There is increasing recognition by Western behavioral and mental health practitioners of 

the role of traditional cultural practices in maintaining and treating behavioral and emotional 

health. In subsistence cultures, such as the Yup’ik and Dena’ina villages of the study area,

Capers (2003:1) states that culturally-based behavioral assessments have a higher probability of 

providing useful information than Western based assessments. Capers (2003:1) points out that an 

assessment of healthy homes in Yup’ik territory can be measured of the size of the woodpile and 

the amount of fish put up for winter. Capers cites Kenneth Robertson of the Substance Abuse 

and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) as stating, “substance abuse renders 

individuals incapable of taking care of themselves or their families—which in turn affects the 

well-being of the entire community” (Capers 2003:1). From a behavioral health perspective, if 

one is abusing drugs or alcohol that individual will not be able to adequately engage in the 

demanding tasks of subsistence.

In a study done in Yup’ik territory (the Yukon-Kuskokwim delta) Hazel and Mohatt 

(2001) point out the importance of Native-based spirituality in substance abuse treatment rather 

than zealous application of Western-based treatment programs which may or may not work well. 

Hazel and Mohatt (2001:544) state: 
Page 118

Boraas and Knott

Cultural Characterization

Spirituality is central to the worldviews of Native people...a paradigmatic shift is 

necessary, one which moves away from a deficit and disease theory to an examination of 

the problem of alcohol addiction from an indigenous perspective. The new paradigm 

would focus on the revitalization of cultural pride, work within communities rather than 

just on individuals, see both abstinence and temperance as worthy goals, and 

acknowledge Natives’ search for personal competence and spiritual power.

Hazel and Mohatt conducted focus group sessions with Yup’ik leaders in which they identified 

the therapeutic value of traditional activities in dealing with substance abuse including: use of 

Native healers; eating traditional foods; cleansing and purifying rituals; participating in Native 

dancing; singing and drumming; subsistence activities such as berry picking, hunting, and 

fishing; involvement in traditional art and crafts; attending spirit camps, and other worthwhile 

and meaningful activities that challenge the individual to remain connected to Ellam-iinga8

(Hazel and Mohatt 2001:547). It follows that such activities are important if not critical to the 

maintenance of emotional stability for healthy individuals.

Mills (2003:85-88) describes a behavioral treatment program that successfully utilized 

traditional practices in the Yukon-Kuskokwim part of Yup’ik territory. Table 20 describes the 

“categories” of traditional culture that were recognized as having therapeutic value not just in 

treating individuals with problems, but in maintaining day-to-day emotional balance. While 

Western culture usually does not recognize activities like fishing, berry picking, gathering and 

chopping firewood, walks, and steambaths as having treatment value, they proved to be of such

significance in Southwest Alaska that they were recognized by Medicaid for the purpose of 

billing and reimbursement (See Table 20).

8 Ellam-iinga is a dialect variation of Ellam Yua a universal creative, cosmic force described in Section D-1 

“Traditional Yup’ik and Dena’ina Spirituality and Cosmology.”

 
Page 119 

Boraas and Knott 

Cultural Characterization

Figure 26. Hot Room of a Maqi or Steambath. New Stuyahok. January 16, 2012. Photo by Alan 

Boraas
Page 120 

Boraas and Knott 

Cultural Characterization

 

Table 19. Traditional Yup'ik and Cup'ik Cultural Practices Correlated with Medicaid Billing 

Categories. Modified from Mills (2003:87).

Traditional 

Practice

Medicaid Billing Category

Rehabilitation 

Treatment 

Services

Intensive 

Outpatient 

Services

Care 

Coordination

Individual 

Counseling

Family 

Counseling

Group 

Counseling

Pissuryaq 

(hunting) X X X 

Aqevylguq/Ar’sasuq 

(berry picking) X X 

Neeqsq-Kuvyiliuuni 

(fishing) X X X 

Kaluukaq (to hold a 

feast, potlatch, 

ceremony

X X 

Quqtaq 

(gathering wood) X X X 

Eqiurtauq 

(chopping wood) X X X 

Cuilqeriuni 

(tundra walk)

Makiiraq (gathering 

edible and medicinal 

plants)

X X 

Maqi 

(steam bath) X X X X 

Caliinguaq 

(traditional arts and 

crafts)

X X X 

8. Steam Baths

In many villages, informal gender-specific groups meet several times a week for steam 

baths in small wooden buildings heated with wood-fired barrel stoves and share stories, the 

advice and wisdom of the Elders, and cultural connections. In some ways, these steam baths, or 

maqi as the Yup’ik call them, have taken the place of the men’s traditional house, qasgiq, and the 

women’s house, ena, where the transmission of cultural values and knowledge traditionally 

occurred, as well as much entertaining talk. As described in Section 7 they are a significant 

integrative factor in individual emotional stability. Among Dena’ina the traditional word for 

steambath is neli which traditionally was a spiritually powerful place as well as a place for 

healing (Kalifornsky 1991:48-50; 218). Today the Dena’ina neli has many of the social aspects 

of the Yup’ik maqi. 

Modern maqi consist of three rooms, an outer changing room, a warm room and an inner 

hot room where the wood stove surrounded by rocks burns heats the inner room to over 200 
Page 121 

Boraas and Knott 

Cultural Characterization

degrees F. and as hot as 300 degree F (see Figure 25 and 26). Men generally take a “steam” 

earlier in the evening, and women later. The age range is from children about four to the eldest in 

the village. Bathers move in and out between the hot and warm room and finish by soaping and 

rinsing with buckets of fresh water. Young men sometimes engage in competitions to determine 

who can stand the hottest temperature. Steambaths are taken several times a week, for some each 

evening, and collecting firewood for the steambath is a regular activity. Kizzia (1991:129) 

describes the Nushagak River village maqi experience as a chance to “slow down and put the 

world in perspective.” The steambath is an institution of sharing community news and obtaining 

advice from Elders as well as a vehicle to maintain emotional and community stability.

Figure 27. Firewood sled (foreground) and Maqi or Steam Bath (background). New Stuyahok, 

January, 18, 2012. Photo by Alan Boraas

9. Suicide in the Study Area

Tragically, suicide is one of the primary indicators of individual loss of identity and 

breakdown of society (anomie). Alaska has one of the highest suicide rates in the nation and that, 

sadly, is due in part to very high rates in rural Alaska. However, as indicated by data from the 

Alaska Bureau of Vital Statistics (see Table 21), those high rates are not spread equally 

throughout rural Alaska. In the Northwest Arctic census area the age adjusted suicide rates per 
Page 122

Boraas and Knott

Cultural Characterization

100,000 are four times the Alaska rate (22.7 in 2009) and six times the national rate (11.5 in 

2011). Suicide rates for the Bethel area north of the study area indicate a similarly grim picture. 

The suicide rates for the study area including the Dillingham census area which includes 

the Nushagak drainage villages of Dillingham, Ekwok, Koliganek, and New Stuyahok as well as 

five other villages outside the study area are comparatively much lower. In only one two-year 

period was the age-adjusted rate per 100,000 even calculable at the 95% confidence level 

because the number of suicides was so low (see Table 21). Suicides were even lower for the 

Lake and Peninsula Census area which includes the study area villages of Igiugig, Iliamna, 

Kokhanok, Levelock, Newhalen, Nondalton, and Pedro Bay in the Kvichak drainage and 10 

other villages outside the study area. While any suicide is a horrible loss for family and 

community, especially in small rural villages, statistics indicate suicide is not of the epidemic 

proportions in the study area that it is in other parts of Alaska.

Table 20. Suicide Rates in the Study Area (in gray) compared to Alaska and Other Selected Areas.

Alaska Dillingham 

Census Area

Lake and 

Peninsula 

Census Area

Bethel Census 

Area

Northwest 

Arctic Census 

Area

2010

Population

698,473 4,933 1,488 17,236 7,208

*per 

100,000

*per 

100,

000

Actual

Number

*per 

100,

000

Actual 

Number

*per 

100,000

Actual

Number

* per 

100,0

00

Actual 

Number

2007-2009

22.7 42.4 6 -- 0 61.6 30 67.5 15

2006-2008

22.6 -- 2 -- 0 50.1 25 93.0 21

2005-2007

20.9 -- 2 -- 0 38.3 19 81.9 18

2004-2006

21.0 -- 2 -- 0 48.1 24 79.4 18

2003-2005

21.0 -- 4 -- 0 56.9 29 66.1 15

2002-2004

21.5 -- 4 -- 1 50.8 26 74.8 17

2001-2003

19.4 -- 3 -- 1 32.7 17 78.4 17

2000-2002

19.6 -- 1 -- 3 27.6 13 74.5 16

1999-2001

18.3 -- 2 -- 2 23.8 11 62.2 13

* Rate is Age-Adjusted per 100,000 calculated at the 95% confidence interval

-- Rate per 100,000 not calculated because the incidence is too low to be within the 95% confidence interval

Data from "Alaska Bureau of Vital Statistics, Detailed causes of Death in Alaska. 

http://www.hss.state.ak.us/dph/bvs/death_statistics/Detailed_Causes_Census/frame.htm
Page 123

Boraas and Knott

Cultural Characterization

While suicide is complex, one of the chief reasons is a debilitating feeling of hopelessness. 

The 2011 Alaska Federation of Natives panel on suicide identified specific causal factors 

including historical trauma, substance abuse, sexual abuse, and family violence (DeMarban

2011). It is also not easy to determine why suicide rates are much lower in some parts of rural 

Alaska such as the Nushagak and Kvichak drainage. One reason is that Orthodoxy is generally 

strong in these villages and Orthodoxy considers suicide to be a sin and a violation of the fifth 

commandment “Thou shall not kill” (Morelli n.d.). Resident indigenous priests with close ties to 

the village no doubt provide preventative spiritual counseling to those in despair who might be 

contemplating suicide. Second, the cultural strength of a subsistence lifestyle cannot be 

discounted as a second effective defensive measure against suicide in places like the Nushagak 

and Kvichak villages where subsistence is very strong. Eating a healthy, natural diet; engaged in 

vigorous, meaningful outdoor activity with family and friends and the village support of those 

friends and family; and having a significant degree of independence and therefore feelings of 

control of one’s destiny; and living in a cultural continuum that goes back thousands of years on 

the landscape of one’s ancestors in all probability remediates the despair that can lead to suicide 

before it ever gets to a critical state.
Page 124 

Boraas and Knott 

Cultural Characterization

F. Spirituality and Beliefs Concerning Water and Salmon

1. Voices of the People

Respect and Thanks

Yes, they do [streams have a spirit], like everything else, all living things. Before Russian 

Orthodox came here, that is what we worshipped. We worshipped all the living things, even the 

air, the sky, the moon, the sun, snow, rain. It is in every aspect of our lives, how we are made up, 

what we believe in, why are we still here? M-33, 8/18/11 

They say everything on Earth has a spirit, like we have a spirit. So everything has spirits, the 

streams, the waters, the lakes, the mountains, trees, birds; everything has a spirit. To me, I think, 

that’s why we have to pray, and you have to keep the streams clean, not pollute it. F-27, 8/17/11

I think that, if you treat animals disrespectful, that they are not going to show up again. F-32, 

8/18/11 

That is why we are so clean around here...they [outsiders] don’t know if we camped around here 

or not, because we clean up our garbage, and we hardly leave any evidence that we were there.

M-36, 8-18-2011 

Yes, like all other things you are granted [by God], you give thanks for [salmon]. F-69, 9/18/11b. 

First Salmon Ceremony

The first salmon, it’s still tradition to share with everybody. You do say a prayer. F-47, 8/20/11 

When we catch the first king salmon, about this month [May], maybe next week, we share that 

king salmon, cut in little pieces, to give to them to cook, especially to the Elders, because they 

always want fresh fish. F-22, 5/18/11 

First catch is shared with all of the Elders. Elders first, always the priority, Elder, because they 

cut it in pieces, you know, if you catch a king, you share, instead of eating the whole fish by 

yourself. The first catch. M-20, 5/18/11 

Tradition--first salmon, the very first salmon you catch you boil everything, everything. You 

don’t waste anything then you eat it too. I mean, even the liver, if it’s a male the sperm sac, 

everything. M-29, 8/17/11 

Every year, when I first catch a king salmon, I usually pray to God and thank Him for it. A lot of 

people do the same thing, because he is the one giving us these wild foods. M-63, 9-18-11 
Page 125 

Boraas and Knott 

Cultural Characterization

Figure 28. St. Michael the Archangel Russian Orthodox Church, Koliganek. September 15, 2011.

Photo by Alan Boraas
Page 126 

Boraas and Knott 

Cultural Characterization

Great Blessing of the Water

There are a lot of folks along the Nushagak, down to Dillingham, and along the chain that are 

Orthodox because of the Russian influence. They actually have three ceremonies in the church 

that deal with the salmon. The first one is the Blessing of the Water in the winter time. You have 

probably seen the newspaper articles about the priest that goes out there and blesses the water. 

It can be minus 40 or minus 50 [degrees Fahrenheit], and you seem them running that cross in 

the water, and they never freeze. That in itself is a miracle, I think. The other thing that happens 

is that, just prior to fishing, the church has a special service of the blessing of all the resources. 

The third thing is the blessing of the fishing boats. The individual fishermen, when they get done 

with all their nets and all their gear, they can ask the priest to come and bless their boats. M-81, 

9/16/11 

They do it every year at Theophany.... It’s very important to us; it’s a blessing of the water, 

blessing the river so the fish come in. It’s an Orthodox religion ceremony.M-20, 5/18/11 

The Holy water is so pure. We believe it is healing, has healing powers. When you are sick or 

have a cold, have just a little tiny bit. F-69, 9/18/11 

And over on the Iliamna side, they will do the same thing that Father will do over here with the 

water, make holy water. People will come down there too with either buckets or jugs and fill 

them up. M-65, 9/18/11 

I used to live in Portage where there is no clinic. That is the only thing I could give my kids [holy 

water, when they were sick]. You know pray upon them and let them make the sign of the cross 

and let them have a taste of the holy water. F-72, 9/19/11 

That holy water is strong. To be honest with you people, I would not be talking with you right 

now [if not for holy water]. A long, long time ago, before I become a lady, we were upriver with 

my mom and dad. My mom was sick too, my grandparents and dad, too, and uncle [name]. In 

night time, I guess I almost go [die] you know. But my dad, he prayed for me. If you’re really 

true, praying really hard, I guess he’ll answer you. My dad tell me I have no more breathing, no 

more pulse. And when I come to, my dad was holding me like this, up you know, feeling my 

heartbeat. As soon as I opened my eyes my dad said ‘you get up’. I said yeah, I told him I was 

going to sleep, how come you woke me up? I was going to go to Big Church [heaven], and my 

dad said ‘you can’t go to Big Church’ When he tell me that, I told him holy water—I call Native 

way, malishok, holy water, malishok [Yup’ik]--‘give me holy water to drink’. He did, my dad, he 

did. A little bit you know. I opened my mouth, I swallowed, the water was going down into my 

stomach... I closed my eyes, pretty soon I come through. My dad was up, my momma was 

sleeping, she was sick too upriver [Yup’ik placename]. I go but I came back. Almost going to 

that Big Church. My dad he tell me not to go into the church, come back, that’s why I become a 

lady. It’s true, I tell you guys the truth, better not forget that. Holy water is strong, that is what 

made me come back. F-66, 9/18/11 
Page 127 

Boraas and Knott 

Cultural Characterization

Figure 29. The Eve of Theophany, St. Sergis Orthodox Church, New Stuyahok, January 18, 2012.

Photo by Alan Boraas

2. Introduction

 Most of the residents of the interior villages of the Bristol Bay drainage are Russian 

Orthodox Christians or were brought up as Russian Orthodox, and the Orthodox Church, along 

with the public school and the tribal structure, is among the dominant institutions in the villages. 

Many of the villages have a resident indigenous priest or priests; for others, clergy visit 

periodically on a scheduled basis. In some villages Protestant churches have formed: Port 

Alsworth, and Dillingham have Protestant church buildings, the latter in addition to an Orthodox 

church. 

Beliefs concerning streams and salmon, in those villages where Orthodoxy is the 

dominant religion, involve a syncretism merging traditional beliefs with Russian Orthodox 

practice. Dena’ina writer Peter Kalifornsky (1991:249) described syncretism when writing about 

his great-great-grandfather’s nineteenth century message to the Dena’ina people after his 

conversion to Orthodoxy: “Keep on respecting the old beliefs, but there is God to be believed in; 

that is first of all things on earth.” Russian Orthodoxy itself has a syncretic tradition of melding 

Middle Eastern-derived Christianity with spirituality influenced by the northern environment. 

Billington (1970:18-19, and 403) points out that, though Orthodoxy moved north from Greece and 

Asia Minor into Russia in the ninth century A.D., its long history in the northern forest has shaped 

the belief system to interpret and interact with aspects of the subarctic taiga. Billington writes, “God 
Page 128 

Boraas and Knott 

Cultural Characterization

came to man not just through the icons and holy men of the Church but also through the spirit-hosts 

of mountains, rivers, and above all, the forests” (Billington 1970: 403). Consequently, many 

Russian Orthodox rituals involve interaction with nature. The mystical aspects of Orthodoxy fit 

well with traditional Dena’ina and Yup’ik beliefs, many of which related to interacting with the 

landscape on which their survival depended (Boraas, 2013 in press). For the Dena’ina and 

Yup’ik living in the Nushagak and Kvichak River drainages, beliefs regarding pure water and the 

return of the salmon, discussed below, ritually and spiritually express the meaning of life as 

people of the salmon. 

Figure 30. Procession going onto the Nushagak River at New Stuyahok for the Great Blessing of the 

Water. January 19, 2011. Photo by Alan Boraas

3. Great Blessing of the Water

The “Great Blessing of Waters” takes place during the Feast of Theophany, a major event in 

the Orthodox Church calendar and is celebrated on January 6th of the Julian calendar, the calendar of 

Orthodoxy (January 19th in the Gregorian calendar). While all church rituals are important, 

Theophany can be considered to be the third most important church ritual after Christmas and 

Easter to the Orthodox of the Nushagak and Kvichak watersheds (personal communication, Fr. 

Alexi Askoak, St. Sergis Russian Orthodox Church, New Stuyahok, January 19th, 2012). A 

theophany is an event in which God reveals himself to humans and the Great Blessing of the Water 

marks the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist. After Jesus’ baptism God appears saying, “this is 
Page 129

Boraas and Knott

Cultural Characterization

my son whom I love, with him I am well pleased,” (Matthew 3: 17, New International Bible). As 

explained by Fr. Alexi Askoak (personal communication, January 19, 2012), in the Orthodox view, 

baptism both redeems sin and brings the Holy Spirit to the recipient. Orthodoxy believes in the 

triune God, consequently Jesus is God and without sin. So Orthodoxy transfers the baptismal 

ceremony to one of God’s most important creations, water, and one of the creations most important 

to the people of the Nushagak and Kvichak since salmon and related wild foods are dependent on 

clean water. 

An evening church service is held on the eve of Theophany in preparation for the blessing 

the next day. The two-day ritual is a liminal event with believers moving into a deeply spiritual 

mental state. At the service I (Alan Boraas) attended, 211 villagers of New Stuyahok were present 

filling the small church. The next morning a communion service was held involving the personal 

forgiveness of sins, and, as the sun rose, the people led by the priests went out onto the frozen 

Nushagak River where an Orthodox cross had been cut into the ice and a small hole had been made 

to withdraw holy water (Figure 28). There a baptism service was held purifying and sanctifying the 

water of the Nushagak River. At the moment in the service when the priest dips the cross through 

the hole in the ice into the water for the third time, God is believed to sanctify the water making it 

holy. According to Father Michael Oleksa the Great Blessing of the Water is done to “reaffirm the 

Church’s belief that the natural world is sacred and needs to be treated with care and reverence” 

(Orthodox Church in America, n.d.). The Orthodox Saint John Maximovitch (n.d.) wrote:

...when we bless waters of lakes, rivers and streams, we ask God to send His blessings 

upon the waters of His creation so that even though humanity has spoiled the world 

through sin and abused the environment over many generations, God has not forsaken the 

world. He sends His spirit to cleanse and sanctify His creation.

“Sin” in the form of human-caused pollution and other contaminants are ritually removed from the 

water and it is now considered pure and holy (personal communication, Fr. Alexi Askoak, January 

19, 2012). In New Stuyahok, and other villages where the ceremony is performed, the now blessed 

water is dipped from the hole in the ice and saved in containers for personal spiritual use and a large 

container is taken back to the church for use as holy water. And, interviewees indicate, the water is 

now pure and clean in preparation for the return of the salmon.
Page 130 

Boraas and Knott 

Cultural Characterization

Figure 31. Great Blessing of the Water, Father Alexi Askoak, St. Sergis Church, New Stuyahok. 

January 19, 2012. Photo by Alan Boraas

Holy water from the sanctified rivers is believed to have curative powers for both physical 

and mental illness and is drunk or put on the affected part for healing purposes (Fr. Alexi Askoak, 

personal communication, January 19, 2012). Several interviewees shared very personal incidents of 

the power of holy water to cure. Fr. Alexi told the story of one bitterly cold Theophany when he 

frosted his face during the ceremony. When they returned to the church one of the parishioners 

rubbed holy water on his face and he subsequently did not blister or suffer any ill effects other than 

one little spot the water had missed which left a mark for several years. Fr. Alexi believes God 

healed him through the holy water. A young 20-something interviewee in Koliganek movingly told 

of a time when her children were gravely ill and there was no doctor, health worker, or suitable 

medicine available. She said, “all I had was holy water.” She had the children drink the holy water 

and in a few days they recovered. She attributes their recovery to the power of the blessed water. An 

elderly woman movingly told the story of being brought back from near death when she was a child 

by holy water. Both stories are recounted in the “Voices of the People” at the beginning of this 

section.

The antiquity of the Great Blessing of the Water in Alaska is apparently as old as 

Orthodoxy. Hegumen Nikolai was an Orthodox missionary priest stationed in the Nushagak area in 

1846 and then transferred to be the first permanent priest in Kenai where he served from 1846 to 

1867 (Znamenski 2003:15-18). In his travel journals Hegumen Nikolai describes conducting the 

Great Blessing of the Water in Kenai in 1862 and 1863 on January 6th, Julian calendar. (Znamenski 

2003: 94, 108) (Travel journals, official church documents missionary priests were required to 
Page 131

Boraas and Knott

Cultural Characterization

submit to the diocese yearly, have not been translated for earlier years for missionary priests 

operating in the Dena’ina or Yup’ik areas of the Nushagak and Kvichak watersheds.)

From a secular standpoint, the question is not whether or not holy water has healing efficacy

or whether the water is actually purified, but how the Great Blessing of the Water ceremony and 

holy water reflect values of the people. By elevating water to sacred status, the people of the 

villages define core values. As described in section II. E. 4 the Dena’ina word for water, vinłni, has 

sacred overtones and water, itself, is sacred. Since the word predates Christianity in southwest

Alaska, we can assume sacred water has long been a part of the salmon cultures of the Nushagak 

and Kvichak watersheds because the people recognize that clean water and salmon are fundamental 

to life itself. The Great Blessing of the Water ceremony is an extension of that very old concept, 

rendering in Christianity the belief that water is sacred to life and culture. Through the liturgy of 

baptism the ceremony becomes a form of world renewal ceremony reestablishing God’s intended 

order

4. Respect and Thankfulness

Water and salmon play additional roles in modern Orthodoxy in the study area as derived, in 

part, from traditional subarctic spiritual practices. Describing traditional Dena’ina beliefs, 

Kalifornsky (who was also a devout Orthodox Christian) writes (1991:362-363) that, after 

putting out his net, “uq'a shegh dighelagh” or “a fish swam to me,” indicating that the spirit of 

the salmon had a will and would allow itself to be taken for food if the net-tender had the correct 

attitude. Today, all interviewees that commented on it believe that salmon have a spirit or soul 

and that soul is a creation of God. Further, all interviewees who responded report offering a 

prayer of thanks when they catch salmon, particularly the first salmon as noted in the “Voices of 

the People” at the beginning of this section. That prayer may be a humble “in one’s mind” 

statement or it may be spoken thanking God for the salmon.

Interviewees also still believe in treating all animals, including salmon, with respect. 

Several modern practices reflect this belief, for example, using the entirety of a fish for food, 

except the entrails, which villagers return to the water along with the bones that remain after 

consumption. To not use all of the edible parts of a salmon is considered to be abuse 

(interviewees). Another example, interviewees report, is never allowing fish or meat to spoil. 

Interviewees repeatedly stressed the importance of giving salmon and all subsistence animals 

respect. This attitude echoes the pre-contact beliefs that animals had a will and, if not treated 

properly, would not allow themselves to be taken for food, leading to dire consequences for the 

people (Boraas and Peter 1996:190-192).

5. First Salmon Ceremony

The First Salmon Ceremony is a world renewal ceremony which, like other world 

renewal ceremonies, recognizes the cyclical onset of the most important yearly event in the 

culture. As mentioned in Section II.C.2, the First Salmon Ceremony was described by 

ethnographer Cornelius Osgood (1976:148-9) and was practiced in pre-contact times and is 

based on a mythical story that merges people and salmon. Because of the importance of salmon 

in the lives of the Bristol Bay villagers, interviewees report they continue to mark the return of 
Page 132 

Boraas and Knott 

Cultural Characterization

salmon in the spring by a special observance. The actual practice varies, but involves a prayer of 

thanks to God for the return of the salmon and sharing the first salmon caught in the spring with 

Elders and others in the community. Typically, according to interviews, each receives a small 

piece, and there is a general feeling of happiness that the salmon have returned and the cycle of 

the seasons has begun again and nature will provide the people with sustenance. In some places 

the First Salmon Ceremony takes place at fish camp, where extended families and others present 

share the first salmon they catch with one another, including the Elders. In at least one village, 

New Stuyahok, the ceremony includes sharing the first salmon with “the underground,” by 

placing a small piece of it under the forest mat at the cemetery, symbolically sharing salmon with 

the deceased ancestors buried there. 

Figure 32. Kvichak River and Lake Iliamna at Igiugig. May 16, 2011. Photo by Alan Boraas
Page 133 

Boraas and Knott 

Cultural Characterization

 

G. Messages From the People

At the conclusion of the interviews we asked interviewees if there was anything else they 

wanted to say, anything we had not covered, and/or any message they wanted the Environmental 

Protections Agency to hear. The following reflect those comments:

1. Voices of the People

I, myself, get very emotional when the topic of the Pebble Mine comes up. I don’t even want to 

think about it. In the future I don’t want to think about total ruin of our way of life. It really 

saddens me. F-69, 9/18/11 

For quite a few years there when we were building up the king salmon run we didn’t even fish in 

June. It was just to build up those runs. It is kind of ironic that the kings we built up are on the 

Koktuli River where that mine is going to go. It is almost a whole decade that we sacrificed to 

build up that run. We built it up and now it might go away. M-61, 9/16/11 

You don’t see Bristol Bay having troubles because our ecosystem is whole and not damaged. We 

are very appreciative of what we have. In relationship to the mine the place I work up here is the 

Bristol Bay Economic Development Corporation and... one of the companies we bought is 

Ocean Beauty Seafoods which is one of the largest salmon producers in Alaska. We put up 

161million pounds of commercially caught goods in a year. So I talk to the people and if there is 

a mine that goes in like pebble and we have copper coming out and affecting our fish, are you 

interested in buying our fish? These are customers we sell 300-400 thousand pound lots to. No, 

we are not interested....We don’t want ourselves and our kids to eat contaminated foods. M-60, 

9/16/11 

It is clear, good water to drink. This is what we protect our good water to drink. F-48, 8/20/11

We can’t even fathom somebody hurting the salmon. When the pebble mine folks first came in 

they said they were going to pump the tailings right into the middle of the lake. We said you are 

going to kill the lake. They said you guys got no say so....We said no you’ll kill the lake. We 

couldn’t fathom it. We said you kill the lake and we will go to war. M-60, 9/16/11 

Since the Pebble Mine started their exploration, I speak for everyone around here that we have 

not had the big caribou herds that come through here anymore. F-69, 9/18/11 

That is our greatest fear about the mine. The size of the hole and the tailing pond they are going 

to build. You know you see our KDLG water tower up here and the size of the walls are going to 

be greater than that and if we get a spill we are done. What we say is that we can’t afford the 

risk. The mine might be safe but there might be an earthquake and pollution happens. We can’t 

afford the risk. M-60, 9/16/11 

In Easter they went up to Koliganek the next village up. He said people up there caught white 

fish and pikes. He said the water is good upriver, it’s not like down here. I think it’s the water 
Page 134

Boraas and Knott

Cultural Characterization

that is coming down from up Mulchatna. He thinks it’s from them working on that pebble up 

there [pebble mine]. F-23, 5/18/11

There’s open water all over. They got drilling rigs that are sitting on open water. You can’t walk 

up there with knee boots you got to have hip boots there is so much water this year. The ground 

is saturated. M-60, 9/16/11

[Translator of 80+ year old Yup’ik-only speaking Elder] He is only worried about the Pebble, 

right now. If the Pebble starts, the water is going to get effected before anything else. That’s 

what he is worried about.

M-21, 5/18/11We feel that EPA is very important around here to give us a fair shot at examining 

this.... [reference to specific individuals deleted] You know they [state officials] are all for this 

economic development. You know economic development up in that mine they are going to bring 

in outsiders they are going to destroy the culture up there like you wouldn’t believe. Most of the 

outsiders will, most of the jobs will go to outsiders and we will be left with the pollution. M-60, 

9/16/11

They [Salmon] would not go there [where water is contaminated] They are also very sensitive to 

temperature. They have a really keen sensory acuity, not only them, but all the critters, all the 

birds. ...They are so sensitive in every aspect of that word. ...It’s relying on the renewable 

resources for our people have been going on for a long time. The respect for it, it is still there for 

those of us who do respect it. We have been sharing it with everybody. Nobody was jumping up 

and down, hollering about one group or another, until the Pebble people came. We took all 

these resources just for granted. We did not know anything about open pit mine or mining. I 

realize as human beings we need mines. I have to buy bullets now and then. I have to buy a prop 

for my outboard motor. I have to go buy bearings for my Honda. This is not a place to have that. 

They cannot have that here. There is no balance there. They talk about coexistence, that is 

not...that’s coming from the other side. That stuff can’t coexist with salmon. Are you going to 

compare coal to copper? Copper is a thousand times more devastating that coal. [M-33, 

8/18/11

The drill wells are making all the noise. We were over there, my wife and I were over there last 

spring, and when we went over there to check out the Pebble, there [we] saw three other 

helicopters right in the same area, and that’s lots of traffic. We have not had caribou meat 

around here ever since. Haven’t had caribou meat caught here in probably the last six years. 

M-68, 9/18/11

Bristol Bay is renowned for what it has to offer. Like I was saying earlier, this region had a very 

good working agenda before the Pebble people came. M-33, 8/18/11

[Name] went with her and she is about 88 years old [mother and daughter on an Outside mine 

visit]. They went out to look at mines and [name] cried at every mine she looked at, she couldn’t 

believe that man would be that disrespectful of the earth. She said literally cried... like her 

brother, mom or dad died. She represents us all, we can’t see destroying the earth like that. 

We’re not greenies you know we are far from green but we can you know. Without EPA we are 
Page 135 

Boraas and Knott 

Cultural Characterization

sunk. ...We know it is just a matter of time. All of us have had a few cocktails and drove, one of 

these times we are going to have a few cocktails and get in a car wreck. It is just a matter of 

time. Just like that mine. We really feel helpless with the state government. It is like we are 

dispensable out here and it is better for the big boys to come in. that is what the mine people are 

telling us. Right guys? When they first started coming? You got no say, so we are coming. M-60, 

9/16/11 

And what is going to happen when this mine closes up? Our great-great-great grandchildren are 

going to end up paying for it. If they are fortunate enough to still be living in Bristol Bay if the 

salmon, the streams are not contaminated and sustained. I hate to think of the future if this mine 

goes through. The long haul it is going to be devastating. M-62, 9/16/11 

We are very rich. With this new mine coming up, I would never trade my fish for money or a 

new house, or whatever. I’d like to have all that, but I would not trade what we have every year 

for how many centuries. F-35, 8/18/2011 

 
Page 136

Boraas and Knott

Cultural Characterization

IV. CONCLUSIONS

As described in Sections II and III, the Yup’ik and Dena’ina village cultures of the 

Nushagak and Kvichak River watersheds practice a subsistence lifestyle that developed over 

several thousand years of living in the area and depends primarily on salmon. At the same time 

the people have incorporated modern technology, political participation and educational 

standards into a successful transition into the modern world. As illustrated by the Elder and 

culture-bearer interviews, this lifestyle has built strong, connected networks of extended families 

and a culture based on sharing, traditional knowledge, and respect for the environment. 

Most of the villages have schools (except Pedro Bay where children are home schooled), 

city government or tribal council, a health clinic, post office, small store, church, airstrip, and 

electricity and running water in most homes. Homes have radio and satellite TV and many are 

being connected to high-speed fiber-optic internet. Basketball games in the school gym and 

bingo at the council building, and sometimes Yup’ik and Dena’ina dancing, and communal 

sweatbaths are popular in the evenings. Four-stroke outboards on large skiffs, four wheelers, and 

snow-machines are everywhere. These changes are recent, however; up until about sixty years 

ago, traditional dog sleds and kayaks provided the transportation, and caring for dog teams took 

much time and effort. The availability of material goods from beyond the villages was limited, 

modern housing was nonexistent and formal education was mainly offered through boarding 

schools. The villages of the study area grew dramatically between 1980 and 2000, probably due 

to post-ANCSA changes in land-ownership (Fienup-Riordan 1994:39) and the population is now 

holding steady although there is local village variability.

These changes have resulted in some loss of traditional cultural practices; for instance, 

people no longer openly practice the Bladder Festival, Kelek or Petugtaq, although essential 

elements of these can be found in more informal practices, and in some cases transformed 

through corollary rituals in the churches (see Section III.F). Other changes have been more 

severe and have both made the communities more vulnerable to changes in their environment 

and placed them at higher risk for further cultural and individual losses. Examples of such 

changes include loss of control over traditional use areas, loss of community members to 

Western diseases and outmigration of young people, for either employment or education, the 

latter of which included, in the past, the involuntary placement of children in distant boarding 

schools, removed from the traditional culture (Interviews, 2011). 

Some interviewees expressed a fear of the future that a traditional prophecy of “bad 

times” told by Elders might be coming true due to economic development resulting in cultural 

loss characterized as “anomie,” the loss of meaningfulness, sense of belonging, and direction in 

life. The cultural and social impacts associated with Westernization have been described as 

anomie. Merton (1938: 682) gave a classic definition of anomie where he writes, “At the 

extreme, predictability virtually disappears and what may be properly termed cultural chaos or 

anomie intervenes.” Anomie, the loss of meaningfulness, sense of belonging, and direction in life

has occurred among all Alaskan Native cultures to one degree or another. Anomie increases 

cultural and individual risk for social ills such as depression and suicide, alcoholism and drug 

abuse, domestic violence, and aggressive behaviors. Healing practices can include those used for 

trauma and post-traumatic stress disorders, including traditional practices that reconnect the 

individual to society and the natural environment through meditative rituals. Traditional 

drumming, singing, and dancing have been shown to be effective in treating trauma and post-
Page 137

Boraas and Knott

Cultural Characterization

traumatic stress. Culture camps and other methods of cultural revitalization (see Section III.E.4, 

5) can be both preventative and healing for children and adults of indigenous cultures. It is 

critical to assess future risks and vulnerability, and take appropriate measures to reduce both. 

Despite colonial disruptions to indigenous peoples in Alaska, the underlying cultures 

have so far endured among the Yup’ik and Dena’ina people of the study area because of a strong 

subsistence base. Wholesale changes to the ecosystem that supports their subsistence resources, 

however, whether they come from large-scale development, including mine development, 

climate change, high-seas overfishing, and/or declines in the ecological integrity of the North 

Pacific Ocean such as acidification, carry with them the risk of substantially altering the 

subsistence lifestyle and the fabric of Yup’ik and Dena’ina cultures. If these risks come to 

fruition, the Dena’ina and Yup’ik of the Nushagak and Kvichak drainages will, like the salmon 

cultures described in the introduction, cease to exist. 

Among the specific potential risks associated with diminishment in either the quantity or 

quality of salmon, clean water and consequently subsistence are: 

• Cultural and social disruption due to impact on a subsistence species that integrates 

village societies.

• Degradation of nutrition and physical health due to diminishment of subsistence foods 

and lifestyle.

• Loss of political power due to becoming a minority in one’s own homeland, if there is an 

influx of outsiders to the region due to extractive resource development.

• Deterioration in mental and emotional health and increase in indicators of social distress 

(e.g. suicide) in due to the loss of traditional culture, subsistence, and meaning for life.

• Loss of language and traditional ways to express relationships to the land, one another, 

and spiritual concepts. 

• Loss of meaningful work by extended families operating together as a cohesive unit.

• Reduction of gender equity resulting from loss of important economic activities and 

social networking opportunities, due to the potential diminishment of subsistence foods 

harvest and preparation, and replacement of this work with jobs that are typically more 

accessible to men (e.g. mining) or to fewer women (such as those who do not have small 

children).

• Loss of the means to establish and maintain strong social networks though sharing of 

subsistence foods.

• Impact on belief systems that revere clean water and a clean environment.

• Increased discord within and among villages between the majority and the minority over 

subsistence access or development issues has the potential to create long term rifts.

In summary, salmon and clean water are foundational to the Yup’ik and Dena’ina 

cultures in the Nushagak and Kvichak watersheds. The people in this region not only 

rely on salmon for a large proportion of their highly nutritional food resources; but 

salmon is also integral to the language, spirituality, and social relationships of the culture. 

Because of this interconnection, the cultural viability, as well as the health and welfare of 

the local population, are extremely vulnerable to a loss either quality or quantity of 

salmon resources or to deterioration of water quality.

.
Page 138 

Boraas and Knott 

Cultural Characterization

V. APPENDIX 1. METHODOLOGY, CONSENT FORM and TRIBAL LETTER OF 

INTRODUCTION

Methodology: Cultural/TEK Study: Bristol Bay Project

Dr. Alan Boraas 

Professor of Anthropology 

Kenai Peninsula College, Kenai River Campus

Soldotna, Alaska 

Dr. Catherine Knott

Adjunct Professor of Anthropology

Kenai Peninsula College, Kachemak Bay Campus 

Homer, Alaska

April 11, 2011, 

Revised April 25, 2011, 

Revised May 24, 2011 

Purpose: 

The purpose of this qualitative study is to describe the subsistence, nutritional, social, 

linguistic, and spiritual importance of salmon to the Yup’ik and Dena’ina of the Nushagak and 

Kvichak River drainages of Bristol Bay. This information will be integrated into a larger study, 

called the Bristol Bay Assessment, coordinated by the Environmental Protection Agency to be 

used to determine to proceed with a Section 404c review of the Clean Water Act. This action was 

requested by nine tribes/villages of the Bristol Bay region. If approved, 404c designation would 

prohibit any discharge into, fill, or similar modification of a stream or river in the region or other 

actions that would impact the subsistence fishery. 

Design:

The product of this study consists of two parts. 

A. Summary of existing research: One part of this assessment consists of a literature and 

gray literature search and summary of the culture history, linguistic, subsistence and 

other aspects of cultural lives of the traditional and cultural lives of the Nushagak and 

Kvichak drainage people as it relates to streams and fishery subsistence, particularly 

salmon

B. Elder and Culture Bearer Interviews: Second, this study will incorporate elder and 

culture bearer interviews to ascertain the importance of salmon and other streamrelated resources and places in the ideal culture of the people. Ideal culture is a 
Page 139 

Boraas and Knott 

Cultural Characterization

standard to aspire to and thus is a measure of values and ideology that form the core 

of the people’s contemporary identity. We are not undertaking a statistical sample of 

attitudes reflecting everyone in the culture, but listening to culture bearers who have 

the status of expert witnesses and act as spokespeople for their respective cultures.

The remainder of this methodology will describe the elder and culture bearer interviews.

Selected Villages 

Both time and money prohibit interviews in all villages in the region. Since this is not a 

statistical study, nor a hearing, we believe that a self-selected group of elders and culture bearers 

can best represent the perspective of the region. We intend to interview elders from six villages. 

Semi-Structured Questions: 

The interview format will be semi-structured, meaning the same questions will be asked 

of each of the elder/culture bearers. The only differences are that there are some questions that

will only be asked of women, and some only asked of Yup’ik or Dena’ina respectively. If an 

elder/culture bearers wishes to provide additional information, that, of course, will be recorded. 

Interview Questions

Draft Interview questions will be formulated in the following categories:

 Subsistence 

 Nutrition

 Language and Stories 

 Place names and Special/Spiritual places

Social Factors

 Spirituality related to streams and fishery 

 The draft interview questions will be distributed for review by 

 Village councils or similar authority

 E.P.A. personnel 

 Selected anthropologists 

and reformulated and condensed as needed.

Self-Selection

Village councils, traditional councils, or similar entity will be asked to select 

elders/culture bearers to be interviewed. We anticipate this will involve about three men and 

three women in each village. 

Release

Interviewees will be asked to sign a consent form allowing the interviewers to use the 

recorded and transcribed interviews in a written document. In addition the village councils will 

be asked to sign a release form for the village to permit photographs and video both of 

individuals or the village to be taken and potentially used in the final product. Restrictions will 

be respectively adhered to. 
Page 140

Boraas and Knott

Cultural Characterization

Recording and Transcription

Interviews will be recorded either individually or in small groups. A digital recording and

transcription will be made. Elders may wish to speak in Yup’ik in which case we ask a translator 

provide a summary at the time of the interview. Elders and culture bearers will be paid according 

to current standards for village/Elder interviews. The interviews will be approximately two-hours 

and conducted at a comfortable place.

The interviews will be transcribed into MS Word documents and both the recording and 

transcription be archived either at the National Park Service Alaska or suitable repository. 

Coding

Word document interviews will be coded. Key words will be set up for use in identifying 

the subject of the paragraph of the transcribed recording. For example, through sophisticated 

searches everyone who responded to or used the term “sharing salmon” will be electronically 

listed and some or all of these responses either quoted or paraphrased in the final document.

Confidentiality

According to Institutional Review Board standards, names of interviewees will not be 

revealed in the final document. Each interviewee will be asked to sign a consent form that 

includes the voluntary nature of the interview, confidentiality, and that there is no known or 

perceived risk in granting the interview.

Peer Review

Both drafts and a final document will undergo peer review. For the purpose of this study 

anthropologists, EPA reviewers, other scholars, and Village Elders or Culture Bearers are peers.
Page 141 

Boraas and Knott 

Cultural Characterization

BRISTOL BAY TEK CULTURAL ASSESSMENT

CONSENT FORM

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS:

Dr. Alan Boraas

 Professor of Anthropology 

Kenai Peninsula College (UAA)

(907) 262-0360 ifasb@uaa.alaska.edu

Dr. Catherine Knott

 Adjunct Professor of Anthropology 

Kenai Peninsula College

 (907) 235-1674 catherinehknott@gmail.com

DESCRIPTION:

This study intends to assess the importance of salmon, other fish resources, and streams in the cultural 

lives of the villages in the Bristol Bay drainage.

YOUR ROLE:

You are asked to respond to a series of questions on the importance of salmon, streams and related 

resources to the people of your village and your area. You may add any additional information you 

wish. The questions will take one to two hours at a mutually agreed upon place such as the tribal 

center.

 

VOLUNTARY NATURE OF PARTICIPATION:

Your participation in this project is voluntary and you may withdraw at any time. Your interview 

responses will be used in an Environmental Protection Agency assessment to describe the Yup’ik or 

Dena’ina use and attitudes about salmon and other stream resources. 

CONFIDENTIALITY:

Your name will not be attached to your interview responses. Your name and any other identifiers will 

be kept in a locked file that is only accessible to me or my research associates. Any information from 

this study that is published will not identify you by name. The information will be kept for four years 

then stored at the National Park Service, Alaska. It may be used again by approved researchers or 

tribal/cultural entities for educational purposes.

BENEFITS: 

There are no direct benefits to you. You will be given an honorarium at the rate of $80 per hour for an 

approximately two hour interview. 

RISKS:

There are no known risks for participation in this study. 

CONTACT PEOPLE:

If you have any questions about this research, please contact the Alan Boraas at the phone number 

listed above. You may also contact Dr. Claudia Lampman, Compliance Officer, UAA Office of 
Page 142 

Boraas and Knott 

Cultural Characterization

Research and Graduate Studies, at 907-786-1099 for any questions concerning your rights in this 

interview

SIGNATURE:

Your signature on this consent form indicates that you fully understand the above study, what is being 

asked of you in this study, and that you are signing this voluntarily. If you have any questions about 

this study, please feel free to ask them now or at any time throughout the study.

Signature Date 

Printed Name __________________________

Mailing Address:
Page 143 

Boraas and Knott 

Cultural Characterization
Page 144

Boraas and Knott

Cultural Characterization

VI. REFERENCES CITED

Adler, Amanda I., Edward J. Boyko, Cynthia D. Schraer, and Neil J. Murphy

1994 Lower Prevalence of Impaired Glucose Intolerance and Diabetes Associated with Daily 

Seal Oil or Salmon Consumption among Alaskan Natives. Diabetes Care 17(12):1498-

1501.

Alaska Community Database

n.d. Alaska Department of Commerce, Division of Community and Regional Affairs. 

http://commerce.alaska.gov/dcra/commdb/CF_CIS.htm

ADF&G

2005 “From Neqa to Tepa, Łuq’a to Chuqilin” Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division 

of Subsistence Database with Traditional Knowledge about the Fish of Bristol Bay and 

the Northern Alaska Peninsula.

AFN Federal Priorities, 2011

2011 Alaska Federation of Natives 

http://www.nativefederation.org/documents/AFNFedPriorities-2011-APRIL.pdf

Balluta, Andrew

 2008 Shtutda’ina Da’a Shel Qudel: My Forefathers are Still Walking with Me: Verbal Essays 

on Qizhjeh and Tsaynen Dena’ina Traditions. J. Kari, ed. Anchorage: Lake Clark 

National Park and Preserve.

Barsukov, I (editor) 

1887-8 Pisma Innokentiia, Mitropolita Moskovskago i Kolomenskago. St. Petersburg. [Letters of 

Innokentiia (Veniaminov) Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomenskago]

Berger, Thomas R.

1985 Village Journey: The Report of the Alaska Native Review Commission. New York: Hill 

and Wang.

Berkes, Fikret

1999 Sacred Ecology: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Resource Management. 

Philadelphia: Taylor and Francis.

Bersaglieri T. et al.

 2004 Genetic Signatures of Strong Recent Positive Selection at the Lactase Genes. American 

Journal of Genetics 74:1111-1120.

Bersamin, Andrea, Bret R. Luck, Elizabeth Ruppert, Judith S. Stern, and Sheri Zidenberg-Cherr

2006 Diet Quality among Yup’ik Eskimos Living in Rural Communities Is Low: The Center 

for Alaska Native Health Research Pilot Study. Journal of the American Dietetic 

Association 106: 1055-1063.
Page 145

Boraas and Knott

Cultural Characterization

Bersamin, Andrea, Sheri Zidenberg-Cher, Judith S. Stern, Bret R. Luick

 2007 Nutrient Intakes are Associated with Adherence to a Traditional Diet Among Yup’ik 

Eskimos Living in Remote Alaska Native Communities: The CANHR Study. 

International Journal of Circumpolar Health 66(1):62-70.

Bersamin, Andrea, Bret R. Luick, Irena B. King, Judith S. Stern, Sheri Zidenberg-Cherr

 2008 Westernizing Diets Influence Fat Intake, Red Blood Cell Fatty Acid Composition, and 

Health in Remote Alaskan Native Communities in the Center for Alaska Native Health 

Study. Journal of American Diet Association 108:266-273.

Billington, James H.

 1970 The Icon and the Axe: An Interpretive History of Russian Culture. New York: Vintage 

Books.

.

Boraas, Alan S.

2007 Dena’ina Origins and Prehistory In Nanutset ch’u Q’udi Gu , Before Out Time and Now: 

An Ethnohistory of lake Clark National Park and Preserve. Pp. 31-40. Anchorage: Lake 

Clark National Park and Preserve.

2007 People of the Verb: Observations on Language Mediated Habitus among the Dena’ina of 

Alaska. 20 pp. Expanded version of a paper presented the Alaska Anthropology 

Association Conference, Fairbanks, Alaska, March 17, 2007. Alaska Native Language 

Archive, University of Alaska Fairbanks

https://www.uaf.edu/anla/collections/search/resultDetail.xml?resource=13379&sessionId

=&searchId=.

2009 Moral Landscape of the Alaskan Dena’ina Presentation: Cultural Landscapes, Places, 

Identities, and Representations Research Cluster, Institute for Humanities Research. 

Arizona State University.

2010 An Introduction to Dena’ina Grammar: The Kenai (Outer Inlet) Dialect. In Kahtnuht’ana: 

The Kenai Peoples Language . Boraas and Christian, eds. 

http://chinook.kpc.alaska.edu/~ifasb/documents/denaina_grammar.pdf.

 2013 In Press “What is Good, What is No Good”: Traditional Dena’ina Worldview” In

Dena’inaq’ Huch’ulyeshi: The Dena’ina Way of Living. J.F. Suzi Jones, and Aaron 

Leggett, ed. Anchorage: Anchorage Museum and the University of Alaska Press.

Boraas, Alan and Michael Christian

2010 Kahtnuht’ana Qenaga, The Kenai People’s Language. http://chinook.kpc.alaska.edu/~ifasb/

Boraas, Alan and Aaron Leggett

 2013 In Press “Dena’ina Resistance to Russian Hegemony, Late Eighteenth and Nineteenth 

Centuries: Cook Inlet, Alaska.” Accepted for publication Journal of Ethnohistory.
Page 146

Boraas and Knott

Cultural Characterization

Boraas, Alan and Donita Peter

1996 The True Believer Among the Kenai Peninsula Dena'ina. In Adventures Through Time: 

Readings in the Anthropology of Cook Inlet. N.Y. Davis, ed. Pp. 181-196. Anchorage: 

Cook Inlet Historical Society.

 2008 The Role of Beggesh and Beggesha in Precontact Dena’ina Culture. Alaska Journal of 

Anthropology 6(1 & 2):211-224.

Boyer, Bert B. Gerald V. Mohatt, Rosmarie Plaetke, Johanna Herron, et al.

 2007 Metabolic Syndrome in Yup’ik Eskimos: The Center for Alaska Native Health Research 

(CANHR) Study. Obesity 15(11):2535-2540.

Brink, Frank and Jo Brink

 1988 Tubughna: The Beach People. (video recording) Anchorage, Alaska: CIRI Foundation

BBAHC

2006 Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation. http://www.bbahc.org/

Capers, Melissa

2003 From Subsistence to Sustainability: Treating Drug Abuse in Alaska. in Substance Abuse 

and Mental Health Services Administration News 11(4);1,8-10.

Counihan, Carole. 

1999. The Anthropology of Food and Body: Gender, Meaning and Power. New York: 

Routledge.

Chernenko, M.

1967 Life and Works of L.A. Zagoskin. Pp. 3-27 in Lieutenant Zagoskin’s Travels in Russian 

America, 1842-1844. Henry Michael, ed. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

DeArmond, Robert N.

Nd Robert N. DeArmond Papers (ms.) Alaska Historical Collections. Alaska State Library, 

Juneau, Alaska.

DeMarban, Alex

2011 Seeking solutions to staggering Alaska Native suicide rates.

Alaska Dispatch http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/seeking-solutions-staggeringalaska-native-suicide-rates Oct 23, 2011 accessed November 3, 2011.

DeNavas-Walt, Carmen et al. 

2011 Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2010. United 

States Census Bureau. http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p60-239.pdf

DHA-EPA Omega 3 Institute

n.d. Updates on Omega-3 Research accessed January 7, 2013. 

http://www.dhaomega3.org/Updates-On-Omega-3-Research).
Page 147

Boraas and Knott

Cultural Characterization

Dumond , Donald

 1984 Prehistory of the Bering Sea Region In Handbook of North American Indians, Arctic. D. 

Damas, ed. Pp. 94-105. Washington: Smithsonian Institution.

 

1987 Eskimos and Aleuts. London: Thames and Hudson.

Ellana, Linda and Andrew Balluta

 1992 Nuvendalton Quht’ana: The People of Nondalton. Washington: Smithsonian.

Evanoff, Karen E, ed.

 2010 Dena’ina Ełnena: A Celebration. Anchorage: Lake Clark National Park 

Fair, Lowell F., Charles E. Brazil, Xinxian Zhang, Robert A. Clark, and Jack W. Erickson

2012 Review of Salmon Escapement Goals in Bristol Bay, Alaska, 2012. Fiwhery Manuscript 

Series No. 12-04. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Divisions of Sport Fish and 

Commercial Fisheries.

Fall, James

 1987 The Upper Tanaina: Patterns of Leadership Among an Alaskan Athabaskan People. 

Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska 21(1-2):1-80.

Fall, James A. Dave Caylor, Michael Turek et al.

2005 Alaska Subsistence Salmon Fisheries 2005 Annual Report. Alaska Department of Fish 

and Game, Division of Subsistence. Technical Paper No. 316

Fall , James A. Theodore M. Krieg and Davin Holen

 2009 An Overview of the Subsistence Fisheries of the Bristol Bay Management Area. 

Anchorage, AK: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence.

Fall, James A., Davin Holen, Theodore M. Krieg, Robbin La Vine, et al.

2010 The Kvichak Watershed Subsistence Salmon Fishery: An Ethnographic Study. Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence. Technical Paper no. 352

Fedorova , Svetlana, ed.

 1973 The Russian Population in Alaska and California: Late 18th Century—1867. Kingston, 

Ontario: Limestone Press.

Felton, Hazel J.

2005 Putting Up Fish on the Kenai: A Guide to Processing Alaska Salmon in the Cook Inlet 

Tradition. Anchorage: CIRI Foundation.
Page 148

Boraas and Knott

Cultural Characterization

Fienup-Riordan, Ann, ed.

1996 Agayuliyararput: Our Way of Making Prayer: Yup’ik Masks and the Stories They Tell. 

Seattle: Anchorage Museum of History and Art in conjunction with the University of 

Washington Press.

Fienup-Riordan, Ann

2010 A Guest on the Table: Ecology from the Yup’ik Eskimo Point of View. In Indigenous 

Traditions and Ecology. J.A. Grim, ed. Cambridge , Massachusetts: Harvard University 

Press for the Center for the Study of World Religions, Harvard Divinity School.

1994 Boundaries and Passages: Rule and Ritual in Yup’ik Eskimo Oral Tradition. Norman, 

Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press.

 1990 Eskimo Essays. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center

2011 http://www.fhcrc.org/about/ne/news/2011/03/24/omega-3-fats-study.html: Fred 

Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington. Accessed 7-21-2011

Gaul, Karen

2007 Nanutset ch’u Q’udi Gu: Before Our Time and Now: An Ethnohistory of the Lake Clark 

National Park and Preserve. Anchorage: Lake Clark National Park and Preserve. 

Gilbert, M.T., Kivisild, T., Gronnow, B., Andersen, P.K., Metspalu, E., Reidla, et al.

2008 Paleo-Eskimo mtDNA Genome Reveals Matrilineal Discontinuity in Greenland. Science 

DOI 10(1126).

Hazel, Kelly L. and Gerald V. Mohatt

2001 Cultural and Spiritual Coping in Sobriety: Informing Substance Abuse Prevention for 

Alaska Native Communities. Journal of Community Psychology 29(5)541-562.

Hollox, E.J. et al

2001 Lactase Haplotype Diversity in the Old World. American Journal of Human Genetics 

68:160-172.

Holen, Davin, Jory Stariwat, Theodore M. Krieg, and Terri Lemons

2012 Subsistence Harvests and Uses of Wild Resources in Aleknagik, Clark’s Point, and 

Manokotak, Alaska 2008

Holmes, Charles and Dave McMahan

1996 1994 Archaeological Excavations at the Igiugig Airport Site (ILI-002). Anchorage: 

Office of History and Archaeology 
Page 149

Boraas and Knott

Cultural Characterization

Hopkins, Scarlett E. Pat Kwachka, Cecile Lardon, and Gerald V. Mohatt

2007 Keeping Busy: A Yup’ik/Cup’ik Perspective on Health and Aging. International Journal 

of Circumpolar Health 66(1):42-50.

Human Relations Area Files

n.d. World Cultures Data Base. http://www.yale.edu/hraf/collections.htm

Iwasaki -Goodman and Masahiro Nomoto

1998 Revitalizing the Relationship between Ainu and Salmon: Salmon Rituals in the Present In

Parks, Property, and Power: Managing Hunting Practice and Identity within State Policy 

Regimes Senri Ethnological Studies (59):27-46.

Jacobson, Steven A

1984 The Yup’ik Eskimo Dictionary. Fairbanks: Alaska Native Language Center.

John, Peter

1996 The Gospel According to Peter John. Edited by David J. Krupa. Fairbanks: Alaska Native 

Knowledge Network.

Johnsen, D. Bruce

2009 Salmon, Science, and Reciprocity on the Northwest Coast. In Ecology and Society 14(2) 

43 (online) URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art43/

Johnson , Walter

2004 Sukdu Nel Nuhtghelnek: I’ll Tell You A Story: Stories I Recall From Growing Up on 

Iliamna Lake. Ed. James Kari. Fairbanks: Alaska Native Language Center.

Kalifornsky , Peter

1991 Dena’ina Legacy, K’tl’egh’i Sukdu: The Collected Writings of Peter Kalifornsky. Eds. 

James Kari and Alan Boraas. Fairbanks: Alaska Native Language Center.

Kari , James 

2007 Dena’ina Topical Dictionary. Fairbanks: Native Language Center.

1996 Names as Signs: The Distribution of ‘Stream’ and ‘Mountain’ in Alaskan Athabaskan. In 

Athabaskan Language Studies, Essays in Honor of Robert W. Young. Edited by E. 

Jelinek, S. Midgette, K. Rice, and L. Saxon. Pp. 443-475. Albuquerque: University of 

New Mexico Press

Kari, James and Andrew Balluta

1985 “Dena’ina Translations Project” pp. A-7 to A-157, Alaska Native Language Center. In 

Lake Clark Sociocultural Study. Phase I. Linda J. Ellanna, Editor. U.S. National Park 

Service, Lake Clark National Park and Preserve, Alaska.
Page 150

Boraas and Knott

Cultural Characterization

Kari , James and James Fall ed.

2003 Shem Pete’s Alaska: The Territory of the Upper Cook Inlet Dena’ina 2nd Edition. 

Fairbanks: University of Alaska Press.

Kari, Priscilla, James Kari, and Andrew Balluta

1986 “Dena’ina Place Names in the Lake Clark National Park and Preserve Study Area” pp 7-1 

to 7-70 in Lake Clark Sociocultural Study. Phase I. Linda J. Ellanna, Editor. U.S. 

National Park Service, Lake Clark National Park and Preserve, Alaska.

Kari, Priscilla Russell

 1987 (1995) Tanaina Plantlore: Dena’ina K’et’una 4th Edition. Fairbanks Alaska Native 

Language Center.

Kawagley , Oscar

2006 A Yupiaq Worldview: A Pathway to Ecology and Spirit. 2nd edition. Long Grove, Illinois: 

Waveland Press.

Kizzia, Tom

1991 The Wake of the Unseen Object: Among the Native Cultures of Bush Alaska. New York: 

Henry Holt and Company.

Knott, Catherine

1998 Living with the Adirondack Forest: Local Perspectives on Land Use Conflicts. Ithaca: 

Cornell University Press.

Krauss, Michael E.

2007 Native languages of Alaska. In The Vanishing Voices of the Pacific Rim. O.S. Osahito 

Miyaoko, and Michael E. Krauss, ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Krieg, Theodore, Davin Holen, and David Koster

2009 Subsistence Harvests and Uses of Wild Resources in Igiugig, Kokhanok, Koliganek, 

Levelock, and New Stuyahok, Alaska 2005. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 

Division of Subsistence. Technical Paper no. 322

Langdon , Steve J. 

2002 The Native People of Alaska: Traditional Living in a Northern Land. Anchorage, Alaska: 

Greatland Graphics.

La Vine, Robbin 

2010 Subsistence Research and Collaboration: A Southwest Alaskan Case Study in Applied 

Anthropology. University of Alaska Anchorage, MA Thesis. Department of 

Anthropology.
Page 151

Boraas and Knott

Cultural Characterization

Lesperance, Francois. 

2010 “The Efficacy of Omega-3 Supplementation for Major Depression: A Randomized 

Controlled Trial.” Rep. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry. UdeMNouvelles. Centre 

Hospitalier De L’Universite De Montreal, 22 June 2010.

Lehtola, Veli-Pekka

2004 Sámi People: Traditions in Transition. L.W. Müller-Wille, transl. Fairbanks: University 

of Alaska.

Lowe, Marie

2007 Socioeconomic Review of Alaska’s Bristol Bay Region. Ms prepared for North Star 

Group. Institute of Social and Economic Research. University of Alaska Anchorage.

Lynch , Alice J

1982 Qizhjeh: The Historic Tanaina Village of Kijik and the Kijik Archeological District. 

Fairbanks: Anthropology and History Preservation CPSU.

Makhoul, Zeina, Alan R. Kristal, Roman Gulati, et al.

2010 Associations of very high intakes of eicosapentaenoic and docosahexaenoic acids with 

biomarkers of chronic disease risk among Yup’ik Eskimos. American Journal of Clinical 

Nutrition 91:777-785.

Maximovitch, St. John

n.d. Writings of St. John Maximovitch, Vol. 2011. 

http://www.holytrinityorthodox.com/events/01-19-2006/index.htm.

Merton, Robert K.

1938 Social Structure and Anomie. American Sociological Review 3(5): 672-682.

Mihalicek, Veranda and Christin Wilson

2011 Language Files: Materials for an Introduction to Language and Linguistics. Columbus: 

The Ohio State University Press.

Mills, Phoebe A.

2003 Incorporating Yup’ik and Cup’ik Eskimo Traditions Into Behavioral Health Treatment. 

Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 35(1):85-88.

Montgomery, David R.

2003 King of Fish: The Thousand-Year Run of Salmon. Cambridge, MA: Westview Press.

Morelli, Father George

n.d. Suicide: Christ, His Church and Modern Medicine Fr. George Morelli. 

http://www.antiochian.org/node/18705.
Page 152

Boraas and Knott

Cultural Characterization

Nemets, H., et al. 

2006 “Omega-3 Treatment of Childhood Depression: A Controlled, Double-Blind Pilot 

Study.” American Journal of Psychiatry, Volume 163(6), pages 1098-1100. DOI: 

10.1176/appi.ajp.163.6.1098

Nushagak-Mulchatna Watershed Council (NMWC)

 2007 Nushagak River Watershed Traditional Use Area Conservation Plan. Dillingham and 

Anchorage: Bristol Bay Native Association, Curyung Tribal Council, and The Nature 

Conservancy.

O’Brien, Diane, Rosemarie Plaetke, Bret Luick,

2011 Developing a Novel Set of Diet Pattern Biomarkers Based on Stable Isotope Ratios.

http://canhr.uaf.edu/Research/NevelSet.html. doi 7/21/2011

O’Brien, Diane M., Alan R. Kristal, M. Alyssa Jeannet, et Al.

2009 Red blood cell delta15N: a novel biomarker of dietary eicosapentaenoic acid and 

docosahexaenoic acid intake 1-4. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 89:913-919.

O’Harra, 2011. “Study of Alaska Natives confirms salmon-rich diet prevents diabetes, heart 

disease.” Alaska Dispatch March 29.

Orthodox Church in America

n.d. Great Blessing of Water Highlights Threat to Alaska Native Way of Life. 

http://oca.org/news/archived/great-blessing-of-water-highlights-threat-to-alaska-nativeway-of-life

Osgood , Cornelius

 1976 [1937] The Ethnography of the Tanaina. New Haven, CT: Human Relations Area Files 

Press.

Parnell, Gov. Sean

2012 Letter to Rebecca Blank, Acting Secretary, United States Department of Commerce. July 

14, 2012. (http://gov.alaska.gov/parnell_media/press/federal_fisheries_disaster.pdf).

Peng, Yi et al.

 2010 Genetic Variations in Tibetan Populations and High Altitude Adaptation at the 

Himalayas. Oxford Journals, Society for Molecular Biology and Evolution 28(2):1075-

1081.

Pete, Mary C.

1993 “On Our Own Terms” forward to Always Getting Ready, Upterrlainarluta: Yup’ik 

Eskimo Subsistence in Southwest Alaska. Pp 7-10. Photographs by James H. Barker.

Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Page 153

Boraas and Knott

Cultural Characterization

Rooth , Anna Birgitta

 1971 The Alaska Expedition 1966: Myths, Customs and Beliefs Among the Athabascan Indians 

and the Eskimos of Northern Alaska. Lund, Sweden: Berlingska Boktryckeriet,.

Rubicz , Rohina, Theodore G. Schurr, and Crawford, Michael H

2003 Mitochondrial DNA Variation and the Origins of the Aleuts. Human Biology 75(6):809-

835.

Russell, Priscilla and George West

2003 Bird Traditions of the Lime Village Area Dena’ina: Upper Stony River EthnoOrnithology. Fairbanks: Alaska Native Knowledge Network.

Simonsen, Tatum S. et al.

2010 Genetic Evidence for High-Altitude Adaptation in Tibet. Science 329:72-74.

Sincan, Nicoleta-Madalina

2011 Updated: Norwegian Farmed Salmon a Swimming Vegetable. In The Foreigner: 

Norwegian News in English. Http://theforeigner.no/pages/news/updated-norwegianfarmed-salmon-a-swimming-vegetable.

Stickman , Karen, Andrew Balluta, Mary McBurney, and Dan Young

2003 K’ezghlegh: Nondalton Traditional Ecological Knowledge of Freshwater Fish. Final 

Report Fisheries Project 01-075 funded by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fisheries 

Information Services. Anchorage: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Swan, Clare and Alexandra Lindgren

2011 Kenaitze Salmon Subsistence on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. Paper presented at the 

Fishing Peoples of the North Conference, Anchorage, Alaska September 2011.

Tenenbaum, Joan M.

1984 Dena'ina Sukdu'a: Traditional Stories of the Tanaina Athabaskans. Fairbanks: Alaska 

Native Language Center.

Thornton , Thomas E. 

 1998 Alaska Native Subsistence: A Matter of Cultural Survival. Cultural Survival Quarterly at 

http://www.culturalsurvival.org/ourpublications/csq/article/alaska-native-subsistence-amatter-cultural-survival 22(3).

Tishkoff, Sarah A. et al.

 2007 Convergent Adaptation of Human Lactase Persistence in Africa and Europe. National 

Genetics 39(1):31-40.

Townsend, Joan B.

1981 Tanaina in Subarctic Volume 6, Handbook of North American Indians. June Helm 

volume editor pp. 623-640. Washington: Smithsonian.
Page 154

Boraas and Knott

Cultural Characterization

Troll , Tim

 2011 Sailing for Salmon: The Early Years of Commercial fishing in Alaska’s Bristol Bay 1884-

1951. Dillingham, Alaska: Nushagak-Mulchatna/Wood Tikchik Land Trust.

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP)

2007 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Resolution 61/295, 

September 13, 2007 http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf.

United States Census, Alaska

2010 U.S. Census Http://quickfacts.census.gov’qfd’states’02000.html

United States. Census Bureau. 

2012 Labor Force, Employment, and Earnings Table. Retrieved February 19, 2012, from 

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0629.pdf

United States Department of Labor. 

2009, Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey: How the Government 

Measures Unemployment. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. October 16, 2009. Retrieved 

February 19, 2012, from http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#nilf

USDA Factbook

n.d. United States Department of Agriculture Factbook, online. 

http://usda.gov/factbook/Chapter2.pdf.

VanStone , James W. 

 1967 Eskimos of the Nushagak River: An Ethnographic History. Volume 15. Seattle: 

University of Washington Press.

Woodward, Kristin

2011 Omega-3 fat rich diet may reduce obesity-related diseases: Fish-rich diet linked to 

reduction in markers of chronic disease risk among overweight Yup’ik Eskimos. Center 

news, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. March 28, 2011.

Znamenski, Andrei A., (Translator)

2003 Through Orthodox Eyes: Russian Missionary Narratives of Travels to the Dena’ina and 

Ahtna, 1850s-1930s. Fairbanks, Alaska: University of Alaska Press.
Region 10

1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900

Seattle, WA 98101