U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Identification of Priority Resources of Concern: Methods and Results Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wildlife Refuge System, Alaska Alaska Region Inventory and Monitoring Program Arctic National Wildlife Refuge May 2021
Arctic NWR ROC Report May 2021
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Priority Resources of Concern
Prepared by: Inventory and Monitoring Branch, Anchorage Diane Granfors, Inventory and Monitoring Coordinator Kiana Howell, Inventory and Monitoring Biologist Greta Burkart, Aquatic Ecologist
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Fairbanks Steve Arthur, Mammal Ecologist, Retired Roger Kaye, Wilderness Coordinator Christopher Latty, Avian Ecologist William Leacock, Mammal Ecologist Paul Leonard, Avian Ecologist Joshua Rose, Oil and Gas Coordinator
Fisheries and Ecological Services, Fairbanks Randy Brown, Fish Biologist
Action Name, Signature, and Date
Submitted by
Steve Berendzen, Arctic NWR Manager Reviewed by
Ryan Mollnow, Natural Resources Division Chief Concur
Doug Damberg, Refuge Supervisor
Suggested Citation: U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2021. Identification of Priority Resources of Concern: Methods and Results, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. National Wildlife Refuge System, Inventory and Monitoring Program, Anchorage, Alaska. 34pp. https://ecos.fws.gov/ServCat/Reference/Profile/124874
Photo Credit: Alexis Bonogofsky for USFWS
i
Arctic NWR ROC Report May 2021
Table of Contents Abbreviations ...... iv Executive Summary ...... 1 Introduction ...... 2 Arctic Refuge Description ...... 4 Establishment and Purposes of Arctic National Wildlife Refuge ...... 4 Refuge Overview ...... 4 Methods Overview ...... 6 Species List ...... 6 Species Rating and Ranking ...... 7 Priority ROC Identification ...... 8 Priority ROC ...... 8 wilderness / wildness ...... 8 Polar Bear ...... 9 Caribou ...... 9 Gray-headed Chickadee ...... 10 Dall’s Sheep ...... 10 Waterbirds Inhabiting Coastal Lagoons and Barrier Island ...... 11 Tundra-nesting Shorebirds, Waterfowl, Loons ...... 11 Spring Systems ...... 12 Coastal Lagoons / Coastal Wetlands (Saline Marshes) ...... 12 Tundra Lakes and Ponds (Open Freshwater Habitats) ...... 13 Moist & Wet Sedge-Shrub Meadow ...... 14 Conclusion ...... 15 References ...... 16 Appendix A. Summary of the establishing legislation purposes of Arctic National Wildlife Refuge ...... 20 Public Land Order 2214 ...... 20 Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act Public Law 96-487 96th Congress ...... 20 ANILCA, Section 303(2) ARCTIC NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE: ...... 20
ii
Arctic NWR ROC Report May 2021
ANILCA Section 702 ...... 21 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act Public Law 90-542 ...... 21 Section 602(39) IVISHAK, ALASKA ...... 21 Section 602(42) SHEENJEK, ALASKA ...... 21 Section 602(43) WIND, ALASKA ...... 21 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act H.R. 1- 183 ...... 21 TITLE II. SEC. 20001. OIL AND GAS PROGRAM. (b) OIL AND GAS PROGRAM...... 22 Appendix B. Wilderness and wildness descriptions ...... 23 Appendix C. Tables ...... 24 Table C.1. Project team to identify priority Resources of Concern for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska, 2020...... 24 Table C.2. Conservation plans selected to retain species for the Resources of Concern list and for the Best Science and Professional judgment criteria scoring for priority Resources of Concern Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska, 2020...... 25 Table C.3. Descriptions, scoring, and weights of criteria used to rank species to inform priority Resources of Concern (ROC) identification for Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska, 2020...... 26 Table C.4. Top 50 ranked Resources of Concern species for Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska, 2020. Full descriptions of the criteria are provided in Table C.3...... 30 Table C.5. Draft priority Resources of Concern (ROC) identified in 2020 by Refuge staff to be the focus for future management attention on Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska. .... 33
iii
Arctic NWR ROC Report May 2021
Abbreviations ACCS Alaska Center for Conservation Science ADFG Alaska Department of Fish and Game ANILCA Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act BCR Bird Conservation Region BIDEH Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health BISON Biodiversity Information Serving Our Nation BLM Bureau of Land Management CCP Comprehensive Conservation Plan CMP Conservation Measures Partnership CP Coastal Plain I&M Inventory and Monitoring IMP Inventory and Monitoring Plan LCC Land Conservation Cooperative NWR National Wildlife Refuge NWRS, Refuge System National Wildlife Refuge System O&G Oil & Gas PCH Porcupine Caribou Herd ROC Resource of Concern ServCat U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Catalog: an online application designed to centralize and preserve information (plans, reports, etc.) about the Service SMART Specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, time-bound USFWS, FWS, Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
iv
Arctic NWR ROC Report May 2021
Executive Summary National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) planning policy requires refuges to identify their priority Resources of Concern (ROC) as the focus of objectives that step down from refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan goals. Precise resource objectives are needed to develop Inventory and Monitoring Plans (IMP) that ensure selected refuge surveys inform decisions and track success.
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) staff met May-September 2020 to identify priority ROC which are the species, habitats, and special values in highest need of conservation attention. Alaska Inventory and Monitoring staff facilitated conversations to develop criteria and a rating system based on species attributes that reflect refuge interests.
Arctic NWR staff chose 8 criteria to rate species: 1) species or species groups in Refuge purposes, 2) NWRS trust resources, 3) species in high need of attention based on conservation plans, 4) Refuge management issues and challenges, 5) cultural and subsistence importance, 6) climate vulnerability, 7) recreational importance, 8) and stewardship. Staff weighted the criteria and the weighted average score was used to rank species. They identified priority ROC based on individual species rankings, species groups of similar needs, habitats that supported highly ranked species, and special values of the Arctic NWR.
The 11 priority ROC for Arctic NWR are: • Wilderness and wildness • Polar Bear • Caribou • Gray-headed Chickadee • Dall’s Sheep • Waterbirds Inhabiting Coastal Lagoons and Barrier Island • Tundra-nesting shorebirds, waterfowl, and loons • Spring systems • Coastal lagoons and wetlands (saline marshes) • Tundra lakes and ponds (freshwater habitats) • Moist and wet sedge-shrub meadow
The priority ROCs will be the focus for developing a Refuge Natural Resource Stewardship Plan and IMP.
1
Arctic NWR ROC Report May 2021
Introduction
Identifying and documenting priority Resources of Concern (ROC) is a fundamental step in conservation planning for units of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS). Priority ROC are the conservation targets for stewardship objectives, strategies, and subsequent identification of information needs (Taylor and Paveglio 2017).
Priority ROC are identified and documented using an objective and transparent step-by-step decision-making process that reflects the purposes of the refuge and the Refuge System, species in need, and the needs of refuge stewardship. This process allows for the following:
• Optimizing long-term conservation planning when biological program resources are limited; • Clearly defining, justifying, and communicating planning efforts to partners and the public; • Ensuring continuity of the biological program through staff turnover by providing new employees an understanding of previous decisions and an opportunity to repeat the process in the future; • Enhances the ability to bring new issues and developments into the process to help ensure the biological program remains focused on the greatest needs; • Deciding whether, in what circumstances, and to what degree stewardship will focus on resisting, accepting, or directing anthropogenic change.
Various policies and legislation provide guidance for defining priority ROC for refuges:
• Habitat Management Plan policy 620 FW 1 (1.4G) defines a ROC as “all plant and/or animal species, species groups, or communities specifically identified in refuge purpose(s), System mission, or international, national, regional, state, or ecosystem conservation plans or acts.” Note that the definition does not include abiotic processes, although these may be critical for maintaining the integrity of populations or communities. • Alaska National Interest Conservation Act (ANILCA, Public Law 96-487-December 2, 1980) for establishing refuges in Alaska was to "…preserve unrivaled scenic and geological values associated with natural landscapes; to provide for the maintenance of sound populations of, and habitat for, wildlife species of inestimable value to the citizens of Alaska and the Nation, including those species dependent on vast relatively undeveloped areas; to preserve in their natural state extensive unaltered arctic tundra, boreal forest, and coastal rainforest ecosystems; to protect the resources related to subsistence needs; to protect and preserve historic and archeological sites, rivers, and lands, and to preserve wilderness resource values and related recreational opportunities,
2
Arctic NWR ROC Report May 2021
including but not limited to hiking, canoeing, fishing, and sport hunting, within large arctic and subarctic wild lands and on free-flowing rivers; and to maintain opportunities for scientific research and undisturbed ecosystems.” • ANILCA purposes for establishing individual refuges are briefly stated to: i. conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their natural diversity including but not limited to… [species and species groups specific to each refuge, usually including migratory birds, salmon species, and iconic mammals]; ii. fulfill international treaty obligations with respect to fish and wildlife and their habitats; iii. provide opportunity for subsistence; and iv. ensure water quality and quantity. • Some refuges have unique additional purposes stated in ANILCA, such as scientific research, recreation, and outreach. • Refuges in Alaska established prior to ANILCA retain their original purposes on those lands. The original Arctic Range portion of Arctic NWR retains its original purposes: “to preserve unique wildlife, wilderness, and recreation values.” • Part of the Arctic NWR was given the additional purpose of providing an oil and gas program on the Coastal Plain in the 2017 Tax Act (Tax Cuts and Jobs Act H.R. 1-183). • The National Wildlife System Improvement Act (Public Law 105-57-October 9, 1997) states that National Wildlife Refuges serve “a pivotal role in the conservation of migratory birds, anadromous and interjurisdictional fish, marine mammals, endangered and threatened species, and the habitats on which they depend”. These species and habitats are considered “trust resources.” The Improvement Act also directs the NWRS to provide “compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation,” often referred to as “the Big Six” public uses of refuge system lands. In addition, the Improvement Act directs us to “ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the System are maintained for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans,” often denoted as BIDEH.
Refuge staff do not have the resources to direct equal attention to all that is encompassed by refuge purposes, trust resources, “the Big Six”, BIDEH, and other special designations such as Wilderness, Wild and Scenic Rivers, and Marine Protected Areas. Therefore, each refuge must objectively prioritize what resources are most in need of attention. The Identifying Refuge Resources of Concern Handbook (Taylor and Paveglio 2017) was developed for this purpose and was used as a guide to help Arctic NWR identify and document its priority ROC.
3
Arctic NWR ROC Report May 2021
Arctic Refuge Description Establishment and Purposes of Arctic National Wildlife Refuge In the mid-1950’s conservationists, scientists, sportsmen, and many others petitioned the DOI to preserve the northeast Special Designations corner of Alaska, which had been referred to as the “Last Several federal land Great Wilderness” (Collins and Sumner 1953). The proposal designations may occur on requested preservation of the area’s “primeval features,” national wildlife refuges “maintenance of undisturbed ecological conditions,”, and that involve special “preservation of wilderness conditions.” As a result, the Arctic consideration and Range was established in 1960 by Public Land Order 2214 for protection, including the purpose of “…preserving unique wildlife, wilderness and Wilderness and Wild and recreational values.” Scenic Rivers. These In 1980, ANILCA re-designated the Arctic Range and added an designations add additional additional 3.7 million ha (9.2 million ac) of public lands to refuge purposes and form the Arctic NWR (see purposes in Appendix A). ANILCA management also designated Wilderness and 3 Wild and Scenic Rivers responsibilities as outlined within the Arctic NWR (see side bar). in their respective enabling Acts (i.e., the Wilderness The revised Arctic NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan Act and the Wild and (CCP, USFWS 2015a) was written to guide stewardship on the Scenic Rivers Act). As such, Arctic NWR until 2030. The CCP outlines the Refuge vision and they are already purpose and describes how Arctic NWR will contribute to the considered priority overall mission of the Refuge System. The plan introduces the resources of concern and Refuge, an overview of the CCP process, a summary of Refuge do not need to be included resources, goals and objectives, information about the in the ROC prioritization stewardship direction, and strategies for implementation and process outlined in this monitoring. Key planning issues include wildlife stewardship, report. Arctic NWR includes development on adjacent lands, coastal resource the 2.9-million-ha (7.2- stewardship, climate change, invasive species, wilderness million-ac) Molly Beatty designation and character, public use, and outreach. Wilderness Area and the Ivishak, Sheenjek, and Refuge Overview Wind Wild and Scenic The Arctic NWR spans roughly 200 miles north to south from Rivers. the Beaufort Sea Coast of the Arctic Ocean to the Porcupine and Chandalar River tributaries of the Yukon River. From east to west the Refuge spans 180 miles at its maximum width between U.S.-Canada border and the Sagavanirktok River drainage along the Dalton Highway. The Refuge encompasses 8 million ha (19.8 million ac). Roughly 99%
4
Arctic NWR ROC Report May 2021
of the area is managed by the Refuge. The remaining land has a variety of ownerships, including Alaska Native allotments and Alaska Native corporation lands. The Village of Kaktovik (Inupiat) and Arctic Village (Gwich’in) are at the north and south, respectively, of the Refuge boundary.
The Continental Divide, which arcs along the crest of the Brooks Range, partitions the Refuge ecologically and hydrologically. The four highest peaks and most of the glaciers in the Brooks Range are within Refuge borders. The coastal marine region to the north consists of salt marshes, lagoons, barrier islands, beaches, and river deltas that are important to polar bears, fish, and migratory birds. The northern coastal plain and foothills ecoregions are treeless, flat to hilly tundra regions that provide important habitat for caribou, migratory birds, and over wintering fish. The southern slope of the Refuge includes barren mountains, open tundra, and forested ecoregions. The forest-tundra transition is dominated by spruce trees with low tundra plants and supports moose and wolves year-round and caribou during winter. The boreal forest further south is a mix of spruce, birch, and aspen trees that support moose, lynx, weasels, and songbirds.
Continuous permafrost underlies most of the Arctic NWR. There are more than 13,000 lakes and over 50,000 miles of streams and rivers in the Refuge. Refuge rivers and streams are classified as mountain, spring, or tundra. Spring-fed streams provide important overwintering habitat and are associated with large fields of overflow ice (aufeis) that form during winter.
The Arctic NWR supports several species found in few other conservation units such as polar bear, muskox, and Alaska marmot. Carnivores (Order Carnivora) and hoofed mammals (Order Ungulata) are particularly well represented in Arctic Refuge with 35 percent and 33 percent of North American species, respectively. Thirty-eight percent of all mammal species in the Refuge are carnivores, compared to 12 percent throughout all of North America. Wolves, all three species of North American bears, and six of ten North American weasels occur in the Refuge.
The entire Refuge is renowned for its wilderness character, having no roads, campgrounds, marked trails, or signs pointing the way. The Refuge distinguishes between “Wilderness” (“W” capitalized) and “wilderness” (“w” not capitalized). The former refers to land designated by the Wilderness Act which requires the Refuge provide a very high level of protection to maintain “untrammeled,” “natural” and “undeveloped” conditions and the provision for “solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation.” The latter term is used as an adjective to refer to the wilderness character of the entire Refuge and wilderness qualities referenced in ANILCA. The two terms refer to the physical location while “wildness” is defined as “the state of a landscape characterized by its freedom from the human intent to alter, control, or manipulate its component and ecological and evolutionary processes” (R. Kaye, USFWS, personal communication). This term was developed in response to concern for minimizing the human intent and effect and creating a “hands-off,” non-intervention approach to most the Refuge.
5
Arctic NWR ROC Report May 2021
This non-intervention approach will enable the Refuge to serve its historic purpose as a laboratory for understanding how ecological systems function, transition, and respond to change when left alone. This “hands-off,” non-intervention, maintain wildness approach serves other functions and provides other benefits as well (see Appendix B). Methods Overview
The project team was comprised of Arctic NWR management, biological, and visitor services staff and Alaska I&M and Science Applications staff (Table C.1). I&M and Science Applications staff facilitated meetings, kept meeting notes, managed data, and guided priority ROC selection. Refuge staff provided expertise to develop the ROC species list, develop the rating criteria, and rate the species. Figure 1 provides an overview of the process.
ROC Species List
Compile filter Compile species Remove species Apply ROC and rating list using filters definition filters criteria
•FWSpecies •ROC Handbook •Invasive species •Refuge purposes •CCP •LR 8 Criteria •Peripheral species •Federal and state •Confirm presence on •Tetlin and Alaska •Marine mammals conservation status refuge with refuge Peninsula/Becharof managed by NOAA •Best science and staff criteria expert knowledge
Rate and rank species, identify priority ROC
Review & revise Group and nest Rate species Select priority ROC rating criteria ROCs
•Select criteria to use for •Compile data relevant •Consider: •Individual participant rating species to criteria (e.g., •Species rankings selections •Fine-tune criteria household surveys for •Group species with •Discussion and reach definitions for Arctic subsistence) similar ecology consensus •Develop rating scales •Apply expert •Habitats of highly •Weight criteria knowledge for data- ranked species free criteria •Other values
Figure 1. Overview of process used to identify priority resources of concern (ROC) for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, 2020.
Species List I&M staff developed a draft species list for Arctic NWR by combining the Arctic CCP species list and Arctic FWSpecies list. The list was divided into four vertebrate categories (amphibian, bird,
6
Arctic NWR ROC Report May 2021
mammal, and fish) for Refuge staff review. A plant species list is being completed separately by I&M staff and was not incorporated into the ROC selection process. Invertebrate species lists were not readily available, but were considered unlikely candidates for priority ROCs based on the rating criteria.
We filtered the species list by retaining species that met the definition of an ROC (contribution to Refuge purposes, federal or state conservation status, best science and professional judgement (USFWS 2002)) and removing peripheral species and those outside the management jurisdiction of the FWS (e.g., marine mammals managed by NOAA). Refuge staff defined peripheral species as species that were at or beyond the periphery of their normal annual range or were seldom observed on the Refuge. The status of peripheral species may change as ranges shift with climate change, but were considered unlikely to become a focal species within the next 15 years. Refuge staff classified birds that were accidental, casual, rare, or uncommon on the Refuge as peripheral species unless they were known to use the Refuge for breeding or as a migration stopover. Arctic NWR staff selected twelve conservation plans to represent best science and professional judgement (Table C.2). We used R programming to retain species identified in the selected plans.
The compiled vertebrate species list included 289 amphibian, bird, fish, and mammal species (https://ecos.fws.gov/FWSpecies/Search/SpeciesList/FF07RARC00). Eighty-six species were removed: 4 marine mammals, 20 by filters defining an ROC, and 62 peripheral species. A total of 204 ROC species were considered as potential priority ROC (Table S.1, Supplemental Materials). The species list included all known vertebrates but not all taxa.
Species Rating and Ranking The project team met for 14 2-hour sessions from May to September 2020. Our objectives were to: (1) understand how and why we identify priority ROCs and their role in Refuge conservation planning, (2) develop rating criteria for identifying priority ROC, (3) rate species based on the criteria, (4) weight the criteria by importance to priority ROC identification, and (5) use the weighted means to rank species and inform the selection of a draft priority ROC list.
I&M staff provided 10 criteria for rating ROC using guidance from the ROC Handbook (Taylor and Paveglio 2017), legacy Region 8 methods for identifying priority ROC (USFWS 2015b), criteria used for the Tetlin NWR ROC process (Damberg et al. 2017), and ROC criteria used by Alaska Peninsula-Becharof NWR complex (Smith 2020). Arctic Refuge staff reviewed the criteria
7
Arctic NWR ROC Report May 2021
for inclusion in the process and adapted them to meet Arctic NWR needs and values (Table C.3). Refuge staff were encouraged to develop their own criteria if those provided were insufficient. Once a rating system for each criterion was agreed upon, Refuge staff rated species from 0-3 on each criterion based on their professional judgement and external information where available.
After species were rated, Refuge staff members weighted each criterion from 0-100 for its relative importance to priority ROC ranking. They discussed weighting choices that fell on the extreme ends of the spectrum to understand different perspectives and potentially change their weights. I&M staff then normalized each staff member’s weights on a 0-1 scale and took the average to determine the final weights.
Refuge staff selected 8 of the 10 proposed criteria and modified 6 (Table C.3); no additional criteria were developed. They dropped two criteria (Keystone or Ecologically Important Species and Ecological Specialist) because they concluded that no new information would be contributed to the process. All ROC were rated using the eight criteria and ranked using a weighted average (Table C.4: top 50 species; Table S.1, Supplemental Materials: full list).
Priority ROC Identification In Workshop 12, the project team reviewed the species ranking and discussed potential priority ROCs. Refuge staff developed a draft list of priority ROC in Workshops 13 and 14, considering each species’ ranking, species groups with similar ecology or habitat use, sensitive areas critical to multiple species, and special values of the Refuge. The project team presented the final priority ROC list to Refuge Supervisor Doug Damberg, Natural Resources Division Chief Ryan Mollnow, and Refuge Planning and Policy Branch Chief Stephanie Brady for discussion and concurrence.
The 11 priority ROC included 4 individual species, 2 species groups, 4 ecosystems, and wilderness/wildness (Table C.5). The list is considered draft as new issues or concerns may arise during the development of stewardship objectives.
Priority ROC wilderness / wildness The Arctic Range, later incorporated into the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, was first proposed as the “Last Great Wilderness.” Wilderness became the centerpiece of its original three purposes (preserving unique wildlife, wilderness, and recreational values) and continues to be central to public perception, valuation, and renown of the Refuge. Wilderness is a composite resource, encompassing all the Refuge’s lifeforms, from the microbial community to the big charismatic species, all landforms and waters, systems and cycles, and the ecological and evolutionary processes of their origin and unfolding, their wildness. We protect wilderness to
8
Arctic NWR ROC Report May 2021
the degree we perpetuate all these. Beyond its biophysical qualities and the wilderness experience and scientific opportunities it provides, wilderness is also a symbolic landscape, embodying a set of wilderness-associated historic, heritage, cultural, vicarious, and bequest values.
The Refuge is renowned for its wildness, an essential component of wilderness and defined as “the state of a landscape characterized by its freedom from the human intent to alter, control, or manipulate its components and ecological and evolutionary processes.” Wildness is perpetuated to the degree these are free to adapt and evolve however they will, free from human intent. Wildness also has an inter-relational dimension, one of deference to these processes. The wildness of many conservation units, including Wilderness, is being lost to ecological interventions and manipulations in response to local and global scale changes. To perpetuate the Arctic Refuge as a bastion of wildness, this invisible and evocative resource needs to be recognized along with its scientific, aesthetic, experiential, and philosophical values, and functions.
Polar Bear The polar bear (Ursus maritimus) was the highest ranked ROC species with a weighted average score of 2.43. It is a vulnerable species protected by many conservation plans and treaties, therefore tribal and other federal governments are highly interested and involved in its stewardship. Much of the north side of Arctic NWR is designated critical habitat for the polar bear. The Refuge has more potential denning habitat than other parts of the Alaskan Arctic and provides critical denning habitat for the Southern Beaufort Sea population. The need for stewardship is increasing due to climate change stressors, industrial development, and public recreational viewing. Subsistence harvest of polar bears is relatively small but nevertheless it is of high cultural importance. Polar bear stewardship could indirectly affect the Arctic fox (Vulpes lagopus, #71) and other species that scavenge from polar bear kills. Additionally, the Refuge can expand relationships cultivated with external partners under polar bear stewardship to other ROC when opportunities arrive.
Caribou Caribou (Rangifer tarandus) ranked the second highest of ROC species with a weighted average score of 1.72. Caribou are a vulnerable species of ecological importance (grazer and prey) and high public interest. Arctic NWR provides important habitat for the Porcupine Caribou Herd (PCH) which is the most abundant herd available to subsistence users in northeast Alaska and Canada. Their importance as a subsistence resource in Canada makes their stewardship important for maintaining international treaties. In the United States, they are a major subsistence resource for Gwich’in communities as well as a minor resource for the Inupiat. Large declines of caribou across Canada increase concern for managing Alaska herds. The PCH
9
Arctic NWR ROC Report May 2021
has the longest distance migration of any land mammal in North America and this migration extends the importance of the Arctic Refuge habitat across international borders. Climate change effects are likely to differ by season but will likely increase the value of Arctic NWR habitats for caribou. The Arctic Refuge coastal plain is the key calving and post-calving habitat for Porcupine caribou (Griffith et al. 2002). Current oil and gas leasing plans in the 1002 Area could have large impacts on calving grounds.
Gray-headed Chickadee Gray-headed chickadee (Poecile cinctus) ranked the fourth highest of ROC species with a weighted average score of 1.57. The distribution of gray-headed chickadee is nearly circumpolar, but this enigmatic songbird appears to be experiencing population declines in North America. As one of the very few cavity-nesting obligates at or near tree line, the gray- headed chickadee was once considered locally common in the Brooks Range foothills and northward flowing river drainages of the Arctic Refuge. However, the species has only been recorded in North America 48 times in the last two decades, with 65% of those records coming from the same location. No records from that location have been documented since 2015. Based on a compilation of all known sightings from the previous two decades, it is possible that the Arctic NWR is serving as the last stronghold for this species on the continent (Booms et al. 2020). Audubon Alaska lists the species on the Red List of declining bird populations, NatureServe lists the species as vulnerable (S3) in Alaska, and the Alaska Department of Fish & Game considers the species a high-priority species of greatest conservation need. The state of Alaska has also commissioned a scoping report for captive flock and propagation of the species (McGuire 2020).
Dall’s Sheep Dall’s Sheep (Ovis dalli) ranked 26th of ROC species with a weighted average score of 1.06. The criteria for which Dall’s sheep was highly rated (management issues, recreation, and refuge purposes) received low weights in the ranking tool. Dall’s sheep received a 0 rating for refuge system purposes which was 20% of the weighted score. Arctic NWR is the northernmost extent of the Dall’s Sheep range. Their highly specific niche increases their vulnerability to climate change and disturbances. They are important for recreational and subsistence use and can become subject to overhunting. Populations experience extreme fluctuations in abundance due to severe weather, changes in predation, and other stressors, which may require stewardship response. Suspected vulnerability to novel introduced diseases and parasites, either from domestic animals or climate change, is another reason to prioritize stewardship of Dall’s Sheep (Garde et al. 2005, USFWS 2015a). Because of these concerns, Refuge biological and management staff decided to override the ranking and elevate the status of Dall’s Sheep to a priority ROC.
10
Arctic NWR ROC Report May 2021
Waterbirds Inhabiting Coastal Lagoons and Barrier Island This category includes 12 of the top 50 ROC species rankings. Most of these species are in decline and face substantial risks due to contaminant exposure, harvest, and climate-mediated and other anthropogenic habitat loss on breeding areas, migratory routes, and wintering grounds. Lagoon and near-shore surveys of post-breeding and molting waterbirds along the entire Alaska North Slope determined that up to 20% of yellow-billed loons (Gavia adamsii, #10), 28% of red-throated loons (Gavia stellata, #24), 29% of long-tailed ducks (Clangula hyemalis, #14), 33% of scaup (Aythya affinis, #41; A. marila, #66), and 41% of Pacific loons (Gavia pacifica, #25) counted in at least 1 year, occurred along the Refuge coast. Although some species could be isolated for specific consideration, there is considerable overlap in the general ecology and limiting factors while these birds occur on the Refuge; therefore, a multi- species approach is best suited to answer ecological stewardship questions. In addition, many of the threats faced by waterbirds on the Refuge coast from anthropogenic activities (e.g. oil and gas development or vessel activity) and climate change are similar. The nearshore areas on which these birds rely are some of the most at-risk from climate effects. Climate-mediated changes in sea ice cover, water temperature, acidification, and freshwater input are likely to have profound effects on the biota of the nearshore areas of the Beaufort Sea, with the benthic communities that most of these birds rely on expected to be the most severely stressed. Among species included are 3 BLM sensitive species (which require ESA-type consideration under the Oil and Gas Leasing EIS) (BLM 2019b), 10 Audubon species of special consideration, 7 FWS Alaska Region Priority Species, and 3 species hunted for subsistence in Alaska. Many species in this category are also vulnerable to novel infectious and parasitic diseases due to a warming Arctic and oil spills and contaminants exposure both on Arctic breeding areas in migratory and wintering sites.
Tundra-nesting Shorebirds, Waterfowl, Loons This category includes the majority of the avian species in the top 50 of the ROC species rankings. Many are in decline and face substantial risks due to contaminants exposure, harvest, and climate-mediated and anthropogenic habitat loss and alteration. These factors occur both on the breeding ground of Arctic Refuge and migratory routes and wintering grounds which may lead to population declines and reductions in breeding propensity and success on the Refuge. Although some species in this category could be isolated for specific consideration, there is considerable overlap and interactions in the ecology and limiting factors for tundra nesting waterbirds on the Refuge; therefore, a more holistic approach is best suited to answer complicated ecological stewardship questions. In addition, many of the threats faced by tundra nesting waterbirds from anthropogenic activities (e.g. development ) and climate change are similar. The waterbirds that use the tundra landscape of Arctic Refuge face unique challenges that do not occur on most of the Alaska coastal plain. Unlike areas to the west, the Arctic
11
Arctic NWR ROC Report May 2021
Refuge coastal plain has far fewer wetlands and waterbodies, and when they do occur, they occur in patchy distributions. This subsequently leads to significant limitations in available habitat which then may place waterbirds using Refuge tundra at higher risk if these limited habitats are deleteriously impacted by the changing climate or direct anthropogenic activities (e.g., development). Among species included are 7 BLM sensitive species (which require ESA- type consideration under the Leasing EIS) (BLM 2019b), 20 Audubon species of special consideration, 9 deemed of high conservation concern in the Alaska Shorebird Conservation Plan, 15 FWS Alaska Region Priority Species, and 6 species hunted for subsistence and recreation in Alaska, North and South America, and Asia. Many tundra nesting birds are also vulnerable to novel infectious and parasitic diseases due to a warming Arctic.
Spring Systems Perennial springs often support highly diverse communities of animals and plants, including endemic species, and provide refugia during periods of environmental change (Barquin and Scarsbrook 2008). On the North Slope of Alaska perennial springs and associated icings (aufeis) are the most conspicuously active hydrologic features during the winter season (Childers 1977). The highest density of perennial springs on Alaska’s North Slope occur in the Arctic NWR. Perennial springs in the Arctic NWR may be fed by deep groundwater sources and have survived since the last glacial maxima (Yoshikawa et al. 2007), suggesting that they will continue to flow and provide refugia for aquatic biota in a changing climate. During winter, the volume of liquid water in North Slope Rivers is only 2% of summer volume and tends to be associated with springs (Craig 1989). Spring-fed systems provide essential overwintering habitat for important subsistence fish (Ward and Craig 1974) and support ten times the densities of benthic invertebrates when compared to mountain streams that freeze to the bottom during winter (Craig 1989). Springs also support several unique and isolated populations of Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma, #8) (McCart and Craig 1973, Reist et al. 1997). Aufeis fields associated with perennial springs that occur within river channels provide a vital source of water as they melt during the summer months and in some systems can provide as much as 30% of the summer discharge (Yoshikawa et al. 2007). These aufeis fields also provide insect relief areas for caribou during the summer when the lower air temperature immediately above the ice inhibits attacking insects (ADF&G 1991). Perennial springs provide essential habitat for many different organisms throughout the year.
Coastal Lagoons / Coastal Wetlands (Saline Marshes) The Marine Protected Area that encompasses this ecosystem type of Arctic Refuge includes important habitat for USFWS Alaska Region Priority Species, Birds of Conservation Concern, and BLM Sensitive Species, including eiders, long-tailed ducks, and loons as they gain nutritional resources (fatten) and molt, preparing for fall migration. Surveys have demonstrated the lagoons and nearshore areas of Arctic Refuge host large portions of the loon and sea duck
12
Arctic NWR ROC Report May 2021
indexes that are counted during the entire Alaska North Slope survey (Lysne et al. 2004). These birds use these nearshore environments to forage on the abundant fish and benthic invertebrates in the coastal lagoons. Dolly Varden are known to migrate long distances along the coast during their summer feeding forays, east to the Mackenzie River and west to the Colville River or beyond (Kruger et al. 1999). Arctic cisco (Coregonus autumnalis, #106) have natal origins in the Mackenzie River but disperse as juveniles to coastal habitats including the Colville River delta, where many overwinter in brackish environments (Galloway et al., 1983; Fechhelm et al. 2007). Rearing Arctic cisco make annual feeding migrations along shore during summer and eventually return to the Mackenzie River to spawn. Broad whitefish (Coregonus nasus, #131), humpback whitefish (Coregonus pidschian, #163), and least cisco (Coregonus sardinella, #142) encountered in nearshore environments adjacent to the Refuge have natal origins in either the Mackenzie River to the east or the Sagavanirktok or Colville rivers to the west (Craig et al. 1984). While anadromous species tend to migrate along shore in the southern Beaufort Sea, marine species are thought to follow a very different migratory pattern: moving towards shore and into shallow water during summer and away from shore and into deeper water during winter (Craig et al. 1984). It is not uncommon to find these four common marine species in brackish environments during summer, or even in the very lower reaches of the rivers in the area.
Nearshore areas are at high risk due to climate change. Climate-mediated changes in sea ice are likely to have profound effects on the biota using the nearshore areas of the Beaufort Sea. Predicting how these changes will affect birds using the Refuge coast is challenging as there will likely be positive, negative, additive, and synergistic consequences. Climate change is expected to lead to sea level rise, changes in water temperatures and precipitation rates, and increase storminess which will impact coastal lagoons directly. Indirect impacts such as ocean acidification and changes in freshwater input are also likely to occur. Changes in the physical environment may adversely affect prey of marine birds, with benthic communities expected to be the most severely stressed.
Tundra Lakes and Ponds (Open Freshwater Habitats) Open water habitat is a limiting factor for a variety of biota on the Coastal Plain of the Arctic Refuge, with water only occurring on only 1.6% of the land surface, compared to the eastern NPR-A where open water covers 20.2% of the area (Figure 2). Lakes on the coastal plain of the Refuge vary in size from 1,500 acres to less than an acre and are patchily distributed (Lyons and Trawicki 1994). Although scarce, they provide important habitat that supports waterbirds, plant communities, fish, and other aquatic organisms (Bayha 1996). Ninespine stickleback, an important prey fish for piscivorous birds, have been documented in 57% of surveyed lakes. Other fish species have been documented in 8% of surveyed lakes. During winter, most lakes on the coastal plain of the Refuge freeze solid (Lyons and Trawicki 1994). Small pockets of
13
Arctic NWR ROC Report May 2021 unfrozen water only occur in lakes that are more than seven feet deep. Fish inhabiting lakes during winter are constrained to isolated pockets of liquid water for the next several months. Numerous lakes across the coastal plain provide overwintering habitat for ninespine stickleback. Only one lake south of the Canning river delta has documented overwintering arctic grayling (Ward and Craig 1974). During spring, snowmelt and flood waters recharge lakes and create ephemeral connections between aquatic habitats. The recharge capacity of many lakes is generally limited to snowmelt and direct precipitation in the vicinity of the lake (Lyons and Trawicki 1994) making them vulnerable to changes in winter snowpack and the timing of snowmelt. In the short time-period following snowmelt, fish take advantage of the elevated water levels to begin migrating to summer feeding habitats and migratory water birds arrive to take advantage of the abundant food sources and nesting habitats associated with lakes and ponds. Several species including broad whitefish, least cisco, arctic cisco, and Dolly Varden use river-connected lakes in the Canning river delta during the ice-free season (Ward and Craig 1974, Wiswar 1994). During summer, thaw of frozen soils and evapotranspiration lead to significant drawdown of many lakes and migratory corridors. Climate change is expected to result in thawing of permanently frozen ground, lengthening of the summer season, and increased evapotranspiration rates all of which are expected to decrease the volume of water in lakes and have a negative impact on species using these habitats. The patchy distribution of lakes may limit opportunities for species to seek similar habitats nearby, possibly leading to extirpation of some populations if connectivity to sustainable habitat is limited.
Fig. 2. Surface water extent in the coastal plain, 1002 area and north eastern NPR-A planning area.
Moist & Wet Sedge-Shrub Meadow The topography and surface hydrology that drive the formation and maintenance of habitats on the Coastal Plain of the Arctic Refuge are very different from areas to the west. As a result, wet
14
Arctic NWR ROC Report May 2021
and moist sedge-shrub meadow habitats are far less common and more patchily distributed on the Refuge’s Coastal Plain. These habitats are associated with keystone species like lemmings (Lemmus trimucronatus, #168; Synaptomys borealis, #194) and provide important forage for terrestrial herbivores such as caribou (Rangifer tarandus, #2) and muskox (Ovibos moschatus, #47) (Small and Cayouette 2016). Grazing of these habitats increases bryophytes and regulates vegetation structure, which in turn drives the cycling of nutrients, especially nitrogen (Henry 1998). In addition, these habitats support high insect diversity, which is associated with increased nesting density of migratory birds.
Conclusion The staff at Arctic NWR chose 11 priority ROC including 4 species, 2 species groups, 4 ecosystems, and wilderness and wildness. They used a suite of data-driven metrics and professional judgement to develop the list. Wilderness and wildness have been and remain priorities for the Refuge. Polar bear, Caribou, and Dall’s sheep are priority ROC because of high stewardship concern and public interest. Gray-headed Chickadee is a high conservation concern especially since Arctic NWR has high stewardship responsibility for it. Coastal lagoon and barrier island waterbirds experience many of the same threats and so a multi-species approach is the best approach. Tundra nesting shorebirds, waterfowl, and loons experience the same threats and limitations on their nesting grounds. Spring systems are concentrated on the Refuge and their support for many species highlights their need for prioritization. Coastal lagoons and coastal wetlands (saline marshes) are important habitat to many species of concern and will experience climate change impacts directly. The open freshwater habitats of tundra lakes and ponds are a limited resource for many species and are expected to shrink soon. The moist and wet sedge-shrub meadows are less common on the Refuge and are associated with keystone species and high diversity.
Arctic NWR staff was the third Alaska Refuge to undertake a rapid assessment and identification of priority ROC for the Refuge. This list is meant to capture the resources of high concern for the Refuge over the next 10-15 years and cannot account for ever-changing situations. While it is meant to be robust for the long term, Refuge staff should revisit the priority list annually to ensure that the highest needs are being met.
Priority ROC identified in this document will be used in the next step of the Refuge planning process. The I&M planning team will assist Arctic NWR with the development of SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, time-bound) objectives for priority ROC and conservation strategies to meet those objectives using the Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation process (CMP 2020). This planning process will assist in identifying stewardship actions that may be effective. The planning process and outcomes will be documented in a Natural Resource Stewardship Plan (NRSP) which will highlight potential actions the Refuge can
15
Arctic NWR ROC Report May 2021 take that may be beneficial in conserving priority ROC. The NRSP will provide the groundwork for the development of a Refuge Inventory and Monitoring Plan which will describe the surveys that will form the core of the Refuge’s biological program.
References Alaska Department of Fish and Game [ADFG]. 1991. Review of North Slope, Alaska caribou research: Report to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Wildlife Management Institute.
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act [ANILCA], 16 U.S.C. §§ 668dd-3145 (1980).
Barquín, P. and M. Scarsbrook. 2008. Management and conservation strategies for coldwater springs. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems. 18. 580 - 591. 10.1002/aqc.884.
Bayha K. 1996. Criteria for Instream Water Rights for Selected 1002 Area Lakes, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Water Resources Branch, Alaska Region.
Booms, T. L., L. H. DeCicco, C. P. Barger, and J. A. Johnson. 2020. Current knowledge and conservation status of the gray-headed chickadee in North America. Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management.
Bureau of Land Management [BLM]. 2019a. Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program Environmental Impact Statement, US Department of the Interior, Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. < https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/project/102555/570>.
Bureau of Land Management [BLM]. 2019b. BLM Alaska special status species list. 6pp. < https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/uploads/Alaska_Special-Status-Species- List_2019.pdf>.
Childers, J. M., C. E. Sloan, J. P. Meckel, and J. W. Nauman. 1977. Hydrologic reconnaissance of the Eastern North Slope, Alaska, 1975. US Geol Surv Open-File Rep 77–492.
Collins, G., and L. Sumner 1953. Northeast Alaska: The last great wilderness. Sierra Club Bulletin, October 1953.
Conservation Measures Partnership [CMP]. 2020. Open standards for the practice of conservation, version 4.0.
Craig, P. C., W. B. Griffiths, S. R. Johnson, and D. M. Schell. 1984. Trophic dynamics in an Arctic lagoon. Pages 347–380 in The Alaskan Beaufort Sea: ecosystems and environments. P. W. Barnes, D. M. Schell, and E. Reimnitz, editors. Academic Press, Orlando, Florida.
16
Arctic NWR ROC Report May 2021
Craig, P. C. 1989. An introduction to anadromous fishes in the Alaskan Arctic. Biological Papers of the University of Alaska 24: 27-54.
Damberg, C. J., K. DuBour, and M. Cunanan. 2017. Identification of priority resources of concern for Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge: Methods and results. US Fish and Wildlife Service.
Fechhelm, R. G., B. Streever, and B. J. Gallaway. 2007. The arctic cisco (Coregonus autumnalis) subsistence and commercial fisheries, Colville River Alaska: a conceptual model. Arctic 60(4): 421-429.
Galloway, B. J., W. B. Griffiths, P. C. Craig, W. J. Gazey, and J. W. Helmericks. 1983. An assessment of the Colville River delta stocks of Arctic cisco – migrants from Canada? Biological Papers of the University of Alaska 21: 4-23.
Garde, E., S. Kutz, H. Schwantje, A. Veitch, E. Jenkins, and B. Elkin. 2005. Examining the risk of disease transmission between wild Dall’s sheep and mountain goats, and introduced domestic sheep, goats, and llamas in the Northwest Territories. Zoonotics and Wildlife Disease 29.
Griffith, B., D. C. Douglas, N. E. Walsh, D. D. Young, T. R. McCabe, D. E. Russell, R. G. White, R. D. Cameron, and K. R. Whitten. 2002. The Porcupine caribou herd. Pages 8-37 in D. C. Douglas. P. E. Reynolds, and E. B. Rhode, editors. Arctic Refuge coastal plain terrestrial wildlife research summaries. U. S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, v. 37; Biological Science Report USGS/BRD/BSR-2002-0001.
Henry, G. H. 1998. Environmental influences on the structure of sedge meadows in the Canadian High Arctic. Plant Ecology 134(1)119-129.
Krueger, C. C., R. L. Wilmot, and R. J. Everett. 1999. Stock origins of dolly varden collected from Beaufort Sea coastal sites of Arctic Alaska and Canada. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 128:49-57.
Lysne, L., E. Mallek, and C. Dau. 2004. Near shore surveys of Alaska’s arctic coast, 1999-2003 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fairbanks, Alaska.
McCart, P., and P. C. Craig. 1973. Life history of two isolated populations of Arctic char (Salvelinus alpinus) in spring – fed tributaries of the canning River, Alaska. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 30:1215-1220
17
Arctic NWR ROC Report May 2021
McGuire, R. 2020. Gray-headed Chickadee captive flock and propagation: A scoping report. A report by the Wildlife Conservation Society to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, in fulfillment of cooperative agreement 19-054, Fairbanks.
Reist, J. D., J. D. Johnson, and T. J. Carmichael. 1997. Variation and specific identity of char from Northwestern Arctic Canada and Alaska. American Fisheries Society Symposium 19:250- 261.
Secretary of the Interior. 1960. Public Land Order 2214. Establishing the Arctic National Wildlife Range. Fairbanks, Alaska.
Small, E., and J. Cayouette. 2016. 50. Sedges – the key sustainable resource for Arctic biodiversity. Biodiversity 17(1-2):60-69.
Smith, W. 2020. Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWRs Resources of Concern. Alaska Peninsula and Becharof NWRs. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Tax Cuts and Jobs Act H.R. 1-183. 2017. TITLE II. SEC. 20001. OIL AND GAS PROGRAM.
Taylor, J. D., and F. L. Paveglio. 2017. Identifying refuge resources of concern and management priorities: A handbook. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USWFS]. 2002. Habitat management plan 620 FW 1.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS]. 2015a. Arctic National Wildlife Refuge revised comprehensive conservation plan, final environmental impact statement, wilderness review, and wild and scenic river review. U.S. Department of the Interior.
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS]. 2015b. Region 8 Methodology for Identifying Priority Resources of Concern to Guide Management on National Wildlife Refuges: Version 2. National Wildlife Refuge System, Inventory and Monitoring Initiative, Sacramento, CA, USA.
Ward, D., and P. Craig. 1974. Catalogue of streams, lakes, and coastal areas in Alaska along routes of the proposed gas pipeline from Prudhoe Bay, Alaska to the Alaskan/Canadian Border. Arctic Gas Biological Report Series, Vol. 19. Canadian Arctic Gas Study Ltd.
Wiswar, D.W. 1994. Summer distribution of Arctic fishes in the 1002 Area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska, 1991 with emphasis on selected lakes, tundra streams, and the
18
Arctic NWR ROC Report May 2021
Sadlerochit River drainage. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Alaska Fisheries Technical Report No. 27.
Yoshikawa, K., L. D. Hinzman, and D. L. Kane. 2007. Spring and aufeis (icing) hydrology in the Brooks Range, Alaska. J Geophys Res 112:G04S43.
19
Arctic NWR ROC Report May 2021
Appendix A. Summary of the establishing legislation purposes of Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
Public Land Order 2214 December 9, 1960 Arctic National Wildlife Range was created in 1960 by Public Land Order 2214, “[f]or the purpose of preserving unique wildlife, wilderness and recreational values.”
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act Public Law 96-487 96th Congress December 2, 1980 The Act was enacted: "To provide for the designation and conservation of certain public lands in the State of Alaska, including the designation of units of the National Park, National Wildlife Refuge, National Forest, National Wild and Scenic Rivers, and National Wilderness Preservation Systems, and for other purposes."
ANILCA, Section 303(2) ARCTIC NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE: (A) The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge shall consist of the existing Arctic National Wildlife Range including lands, waters, interests, and whatever submerged lands, if any, were retained in Federal ownership at the time of statehood and an addition of approximately nine million one hundred and sixty thousand acres of public lands, as generally depicted on a map entitled "Arctic National Wildlife Refuge," dated August 1980. (B) The purposes for which the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is established and shall be managed include- (i) to conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their natural diversity including, but not limited to, the Porcupine caribou herd (including participation in coordinated ecological studies and management of this herd and the Western Arctic caribou herd), polar bears, grizzly bears, muskox, Dall sheep, wolves, wolverines, snow geese, peregrine falcons and other migratory birds and Arctic char and grayling; (ii) to fulfill the international treaty obligations of the United States with respect to fish and wildlife and their habitats; (iii) to provide, in a manner consistent with the purposes set forth in subparagraphs (i) and (ii), the opportunity for continued subsistence uses by local residents; and (iv) to ensure, to the maximum extent practicable and in a manner consistent with the purposes set forth in paragraph (i), water quality and necessary water quantity within the refuge. 20
Arctic NWR ROC Report May 2021
ANILCA Section 702 In accordance with subsection 3(c) of the Wilderness Act (78 Stat. 892), the public lands within the boundaries depicted as "Proposed Wilderness" on the maps referred to in sections 302 and 303 of this Act or the maps specified below are hereby designated as wilderness, with the nomenclature and approximate acreage as indicated below:
Section 702(3) ARCTIC WILDLIFE REFUGE WILDERNESS of approximately eight million acres as generally depicted on a map entitled "Arctic National Wildlife Refuge" dated August 1980;
The Service will manage these areas in accordance with the provisions of the Wilderness Act of 1964 and the guidelines of the Service's policy manual, Part 610: Wilderness Stewardship, Chapter 5: Special Provisions for Alaska Wilderness. Description of boundaries published in Federal Register Notice Vol. 48, No. 38, February 24, 1983, pages 8014-15.
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act Public Law 90-542 October 2, 1968
The Act was enacted: "It is hereby declared to be the policy of the United States that certain selected rivers of the Nation which, with their immediate environments, possess outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural or other similar values, shall be preserved in free-flowing condition, and that they and their immediate environments shall be protected for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations...."
Section 602(39) IVISHAK, ALASKA That portion from its source, including all headwaters, and an unnamed tributary from Porcupine Lake within the boundary of the Arctic National Wildlife Range; to be administered by the Secretary of the Interior.
Section 602(42) SHEENJEK, ALASKA The segment within the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; to be administered by the Secretary of the Interior.
Section 602(43) WIND, ALASKA That portion from its source, including all headwaters and one unnamed tributary in township 13 south, within the boundaries of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; to be administered by the Secretary of the Interior.
Tax Cuts and Jobs Act H.R. 1- 183 December, 2017 21
Arctic NWR ROC Report May 2021
TITLE II. SEC. 20001. OIL AND GAS PROGRAM. (b) OIL AND GAS PROGRAM. (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 1003 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 3143) shall not apply to the Coastal Plain. (2) ESTABLISHMENT.— (A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall establish and administer a competitive oil and gas program for the leasing, development, production, and transportation of oil and gas in and from the Coastal Plain. (B) PURPOSES.—Section 303(2)(B) of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (Public Law 96– 487; 94 Stat. 2390) is amended— (i) in clause (iii), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end; (ii) in clause (iv), by striking the period at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and (iii) by adding at the end the following: ‘‘(v) to provide for an oil and gas program on the Coastal Plain.’’. (3) MANAGEMENT.—Except as otherwise provided in this section, the Secretary shall manage the oil and gas program on the Coastal Plain in a manner similar to the administration of lease sales under the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. 6501 et seq.) (including regulations).
22
Arctic NWR ROC Report May 2021
Appendix B. Wilderness and wildness descriptions Wilderness Wilderness is a holistic, composite resource, encompassing all the Refuge’s lifeforms, from the little-known microbial community to the popular charismatic species, all landforms and waters, systems and cycles, and the ecological and evolutionary processes of their origin and unfolding, their wildness. We protect wilderness to the degree we perpetuate all these. But beyond its biophysical qualities and recreational experience and scientific opportunities, wilderness is also a symbolic landscape, embodying a set of wilderness-associated historic, heritage, cultural, vicarious, and bequest values. The Arctic Refuge was first proposed as the “Last Great Wilderness.” Wilderness became the centerpiece of its first three purposes and continues to be central to its public perception, valuation, and renown.
Wildness The Refuge is renowned for its wildness, an essential component of wilderness and defined as “the state of a landscape characterized by its freedom from the human intent to alter, control, or manipulate its components and ecological and evolutionary processes.” Wildness is perpetuated to the degree these are free to adapt and evolve however they will, free from human will. Wildness also has an inter-relational dimension, one of respect for and deference to these processes.
Wildness is vulnerable to ecological interventions, manipulations and restoration efforts intended to maintain current or preferred conditions or species in environments becoming less suited to them. Maintaining the Arctic Refuge as the nation’s benchmark, anchor-point for wildness requires that we refrain from interfering with nature’s autonomous response to large- scale change. It requires that we be willing to let go of those current or “natural” conditions— the products of evolutionary creativity at our point in time—to perpetuate that creative evolutionary process itself, wildness.
23
Arctic NWR ROC Report May 2021
Appendix C. Tables
Table C.1. Project team to identify priority Resources of Concern for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska, 2020. Name Organization Position Role Steve Berendzen Arctic NWR Refuge Manager Refuge Expert Advisor
Nathan Hawkaluk Arctic NWR Deputy Refuge Refuge Expert Manager Advisor
William Leacock Artic NWR Wildlife Biologist – Refuge Expert Large Mammals Advisor
Christopher Latty Arctic NWR Wildlife Biologist – Refuge Expert Avian Ecology Advisor
Jennifer Reed Arctic NWR Visitor Use Refuge Expert Manager Advisor
Steve Arthur Arctic NWR - retired Former Supervisory Refuge Expert Biologist, current Advisor Volunteer Joshua Rose Arctic NWR Oil and Gas Refuge Expert Coordinator Advisor and Co-lead
Diane Granfors Alaska Inventory and Alaska I&M Lead Facilitator Monitoring Coordinator
Paul Leonard Alaska Science Science Co-lead Applications Coordinator
Kiana Howell Alaska Inventory and I&M Biologist Note taker and data Monitoring manager
24
Arctic NWR ROC Report May 2021
Table C.2. Conservation plans selected to retain species for the Resources of Concern list and for the Best Science and Professional judgment criteria scoring for priority Resources of Concern Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska, 2020. Date Source Name Source URL Taxa Scored Accessed Alaska Shorebird Conservation
25
Arctic NWR ROC Report May 2021
Table C.3. Descriptions, scoring, and weights of criteria used to rank species to inform priority Resources of Concern (ROC) identification for Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska, 2020. Criteria Description Weight Scoring Value
Contribution to Is the species identified in the Refuge purposes or 0.09 The species is specifically mentioned in the 3 Refuge Purposes enabling legislation? Legislation for the refuge purposes or enabling legislation establishment of the refuge is: “conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their natural The species is part of a taxonomic group 1.5 diversity including, but not limited to, the mentioned in the refuge purposes or enabling Porcupine caribou herd (including participation in legislation (i.e., migratory birds) coordinated ecological studies and management The species is not specifically mentioned in the of this herd and the Western Arctic caribou herd), 0 refuge purpose polar bears, grizzly bears, muskox, Dall sheep, wolves, wolverines, snow geese, peregrine falcons and other migratory birds and Arctic char and grayling.” Supplemental materials, Table S2.
Federal or State Is the resource Federally listed, State listed, a 0.20 The resource is federally listed as Threatened or 3 Conservation candidate for listing, a treaty species or USFWS Endangered or is a Federal Candidate trust resource? Currently, all State listed species Status are also federally listed. Sources for these Candidate species (none on Arctic) 2 designations are included in Supplemental materials, Table S2. State listed as Threated or Endangered, or is a 1 trust resource of the USFWS (migratory bird, marine mammal or anadromous or interjurisdictional fish)
None of the above; candidates found not 0 warranted
26
Arctic NWR ROC Report May 2021
Criteria Description Weight Scoring Value
Best science and How does the resource currently rate as a priority 0.14 Species were scored as a ratio (number of plans professional for our partners and on conservation plans? The a species was listed in/number of plans a species Refuge used 8 regional, state, national, and was considered in) and multiplied by 3 for a judgment international conservation plans for rating a potential score of 0-3. (Conservation species' need for conservation attention. Plans) Conservation plans used, scoring, and other information related to this criteria are included in supplemental materials Tables S1-S2. Sources for the plans are included in Table B2.
Management Is the resource connected to current or 0.11 Resource is currently or is expected to be 3 Issues and impending Refuge management issues? Refuge significantly impacted by Refuge management staff identified and weighted the five following issues OR species must be monitored or actions Challenges management issues and challenges: subsistence taken in the EIS OR is on the BLM sensitive management, invasive species and pathogens, species list. special use permits, law enforcement issues, and off-Refuge harvest. Species potentially effected Resource is currently or is expected to be 2 by oil and gas (O&G) development on the coastal moderately impacted by Refuge management plain were scored using the Coastal Plain O&G issues OR other species not mentioned above Leasing EIS and the BLM sensitive species list that may be affected by O&G development and (BLM 2019a, b). The final rating was a weighted species groups or species mentioned for habitat average of the scores for all issues. Supplemental only in the EIS stipulations and required materials, Table S3. operating procedures. Resource is currently or is expected to be slightly 1 impacted by Refuge management issues OR any species that occurs on the coastal plain.
Resource is not expected to be significantly 0 impacted by the top Refuge management issues.
27
Arctic NWR ROC Report May 2021
Criteria Description Weight Scoring Value
Subsistence or Is the resource utilized for subsistence by rural 0.12 Extremely critical resource (caribou) 4 Cultural and native Alaskans? The Refuge used the percent of households attempting to harvest, Major resources 3 Importance receiving harvest, and total harvest ratings from Venetie and Kaktovik subsistence harvest reports Moderate resources 2 in Appendix M of the Oil & Gas Environmental Impact Statement (Bureau of Land Management Minor resources 1 2019). Additional points were given to extremely critical subsistence resources and species with Added points for widely harvested off Refuge 2 subsistence harvest off Refuge (i.e., the actual Arctic NWR population was harvested elsewhere) Added points for harvest off Refuge or egging 1 and/or known egg harvest. Supplemental materials, Table S4. none of the above 0
Total scores were rescaled 0-3
Recreational Refuge staff rated the species based on their 0.05 Species is specifically of interest and/or the focus 3 Importance unique contributions to recreational of someone's visit to Arctic NWR opportunities of the Arctic region that occur on the Refuge. Supplemental materials, Table S5. Recreation opportunities for the species are 1.5 unique to Refuge/region, therefore adding to the visiting experience despite not being the purpose, AND/OR is a hunted species (birds)
none of the above 0
Climate Change Is the resource sensitive to anticipated climate 0.13 Species distribution and population within the 3 Vulnerability change effects and likely to be negatively Refuge is very likely to decrease by mid-century. impacted? Refuge used professional judgement and published assessments (Defenders of Species distribution or population within the 2 Wildlife, Liebezeit et al. 2012, National Audubon Refuge is likely to decrease but to a lesser extent.
28
Arctic NWR ROC Report May 2021
Criteria Description Weight Scoring Value
Society 2019) to rate potential impacts of climate Species distribution or population within the 1 change to population size or distribution. Refuge is likely to increase by mid-century. Supplemental materials, Table S6. None of the above 0 Stewardship How important is the Refuge globally, 0.15 Species is endemic to Arctic Refuge or the 3 continentally, regionally, and locally for the Refuge provides a major proportion of habitat resource? Does the Refuge host a significant for the spp. percentage of the population during some portion of its annual cycle? Does the Refuge Refuge provides habitat for a critical life cycle 2 include habitat that is essential for the health of stage. the population? Refuge staff used professional Species distribution may expand or contract on judgement to rate the importance of the Refuge 1 the Refuge. to species population survival and the potential to change distribution on the Refuge. None of the above 0 Supplemental materials, Table S7.
Citations: Defenders of Wildlife. [no date] Climate change and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: which species are most at risk. 6pp.
29
Arctic NWR ROC Report May 2021
Table C.4. Top 50 ranked Resources of Concern species for Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska, 2020. Full descriptions of the criteria are provided in Table C.3. Rank Common Name Scientific Name Ref. Trust Mgmt Subs.4 Rec.5 Cli. Stew. Cons. Average Purp.1 Res.2 Issues3 Cha.6 7 Plans8 score 1 Polar Bear Ursus maritimus 3 3 2.24 1 3 3 2 2.25 2.43 2 Caribou Rangifer tarandus 3 0 1.30 3 3 2 2 1.50 1.72 3 Spectacled eider Somateria fischeri 1.5 3 0.66 0 3 2 0 3.00 1.66 4 Gray-headed chickadee Poecile cinctus 1.5 1 0.00 0 3 3 3 1.50 1.57 5 Buff-breasted sandpiper Tryngites subruficollis 1.5 1 1.15 0 3 3 0 3.00 1.45 6 Snow goose Chen caerulescens 3 1 0.44 1 1.5 2 2 0.75 1.40 7 Dolly varden Salvelinus malma 0 1 0.59 1.5 3 1 3 0.86 1.31 8 King eider Somateria spectabilis 1.5 1 0.44 1.5 3 2 0 2.25 1.31 9 Yellow-billed loon Gavia adamsii 1.5 1 0.66 0 3 2 0 3.00 1.26 10 Stilt sandpiper Calidris himantopus 1.5 1 0.93 0 1.5 3 0 2.25 1.24 11 Snowy owl Bubo scandiacus 1.5 1 0.44 0 3 2 0 3.00 1.24 12 Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 0 1 0.44 1.5 0 2 2 1.71 1.23 13 Common eider Somateria mollissima 1.5 1 0.59 2 1.5 3 0 0.75 1.40 14 Long-tailed duck Clangula hyemalis 1.5 1 0.44 1.5 1.5 2 0 2.25 1.23 15 Gray-crowned rosy-finch Leucosticte tephrocotis 1.5 1 0.00 0 3 3 0 2.25 1.22 16 American golden-plover Pluvialis dominica 1.5 1 0.93 0 1.5 3 0 1.50 1.13 17 Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus 1.5 1 1.15 0 1.5 2 0 2.25 1.13
1 Contribution to Refuge Purposes Criteria 2 Federal or State Conservation Status Criteria 3 Management Issues and Challenges Criteria 4 Subsistence or Cultural Importance Criteria 5 Recreational Importance Criteria 6 Climate Change Vulnerability Criteria 7 Stewardship 8 Best science and professional judgement (Conservation Plans) 30
Arctic NWR ROC Report May 2021
Rank Common Name Scientific Name Ref. Trust Mgmt Subs.4 Rec.5 Cli. Stew. Cons. Average Purp.1 Res.2 Issues3 Cha.6 7 Plans8 score 18 Bar-tailed godwit Limosa lapponica 1.5 1 0.66 0 3 1 0 3.00 1.13 19 Cackling goose Branta hutchinsii 1.5 1 0.44 1.5 1.5 2 0 1.50 1.12 20 Pectoral sandpiper Calidris melanotos 1.5 1 0.77 0 1.5 3 0 1.50 1.12 20 White-rumped sandpiper Calidris fuscicollis 1.5 1 0.77 0 1.5 3 0 1.50 1.12 22 Red phalarope Phalaropus fulicarius 1.5 1 0.77 0 3 3 0 0.75 1.09 23 Red-throated loon Gavia stellata 1.5 1 0.66 0 3 3 0 0.75 1.08 24 Pacific loon Gavia pacifica 1.5 1 0.44 0 1.5 3 0 1.50 1.08 24 Wandering tattler Tringa incana 1.5 1 0.44 0 1.5 3 0 1.50 1.08 26 Dall's sheep Ovis dalli 3 0 1.87 1.5 3 1 0 0.75 1.06 27 Gyrfalcon Falco rusticolus 1.5 1 0.44 0 3 3 0 0.75 1.06 28 Black guillemot Cepphus grylle 1.5 1 0.22 0 1.5 3 0 1.50 1.06 29 Black scoter Melanitta americana 1.5 1 0.44 0 1.5 2 0 2.25 1.05 30 Black-bellied plover Pluvialis squatarola 1.5 1 0.93 0 1.5 3 0 0.75 1.03 31 Rusty blackbird Euphagus carolinus 1.5 1 0.00 0 0 2 0 3.00 1.03 32 Greater white-fronted Anser albifrons 1.5 1 0.44 1.5 1.5 2 0 0.75 1.02 goose 33 Surfbird Aphriza virgata 1.5 1 0.00 0 1.5 2 0 2.25 1.00 34 Western sandpiper Calidris mauri 1.5 1 0.93 0 1.5 2 0 1.50 1.00 35 Smith’s longspur Calcarius pictus 1.5 1 0.00 0 3 2 0 1.50 0.98 36 Baird’s sandpiper Calidris bairdii 1.5 1 0.44 0 1.5 3 0 0.75 0.98 36 Tundra swan Cygnus columbianus 1.5 1 0.44 0 1.5 3 0 0.75 0.98 36 White-winged scoter Melanitta fusca 1.5 1 0.44 0 1.5 3 0 0.75 0.98 39 Canada goose Branta canadensis 1.5 1 0.00 1.5 1.5 2 0 1.50 0.98 40 Brant Branta bernicla 1.5 1 0.44 0 1.5 2 0 1.50 0.95 40 Lesser scaup Aythya affinis 1.5 1 0.44 0 1.5 2 0 1.50 0.95 40 Surf scoter Melanitta perspicillata 1.5 1 0.44 0 1.5 2 0 1.50 0.95 43 American pipit Anthus rubescens 1.5 1 0.22 0 1.5 2 0 1.50 0.92
31
Arctic NWR ROC Report May 2021
Rank Common Name Scientific Name Ref. Trust Mgmt Subs.4 Rec.5 Cli. Stew. Cons. Average Purp.1 Res.2 Issues3 Cha.6 7 Plans8 score 42 Horned lark Eremophila alpestris 1.5 1 0.22 0 1.5 2 0 1.50 0.92 46 Dunlin Calidris alpina 1.5 1 1.15 0 1.5 2 0 2.25 0.92 47 Semipalmated sandpiper Calidris pusilla 1.5 1 0.93 0 0 2 0 1.50 0.92
48 Muskox Ovibos moschatus 3 0 0.59 1 1.5 2 0 0.75 0.92 49 Arctic char Salvelinus alpinus 3 1 0.44 1.5 0 1 0 0.43 0.90 50 Pomarine jaeger Stercorarius pomarinus 1.5 1 0.22 0 3 2 0 0.75 0.90
32
Arctic NWR ROC Report May 2021
Table C.5. Draft priority Resources of Concern (ROC) identified in 2020 by Refuge staff to be the focus for future management attention on Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska.
Priority ROC Included Species Score Rank
Polar Bear Single species 2.43 1
Caribou Single species 1.71 2 Gray-headed Single species 1.57 4 Chickadee Dall's Sheep Single species 1.06 28 Waterbirds Spectacled Eider, King Eider, Yellow- 1.66, 1.31, 1.26, 3, 8, 9, 13, 14, Inhabiting Coastal billed Loon, Common Eider, Long-tailed 1.23, 1.23, 1.08, 23, 24, 28, 29, Lagoons and Duck, Red-throated Loon, Pacific 1.08, 1.06, 1.05, 36, 40, 43, 50, Barrier Islands Loon, Black Guillemot, Black 0.98, 0.95, 0.92, 60, 63, 63, 67, Scoter, White-winged Scoter, Surf 0.90, 0.84, 0.82, 77, 103, 150 Scoter, Arctic Tern, Pomarine 0.82, 0.81, 0.77, Jaeger, Glaucous Gull, Long-tailed 0.66, 0.48 Jaeger, Parasitic Jaeger, Greater Scaup, Sabine’s Gull, Red-breasted Merganser, Common Merganser Tundra-nesting Spectacled Eider, Buff- 1.66, 1.45, 1.40, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, shorebirds, breasted Sandpiper, Snow Goose, King 1.31, 1.24, 1.23, 13, 14, 16, 17, waterfowl, loons Eider, Stilt Sandpiper, Common 1.23, 1.13, 1.13, 18, 19, 20, 20, Eider, Long-tailed 1.13, 1.12, 1.12, 22, 23, 24, 24, Duck, American Golden- 1.12, 1.09, 1.08, 30, 32, 34, 36, plover, Whimbrel, Bar-tailed 1.08, 1.08, 1.03, 36, 36, 40, 40, Godwit, Cackling Goose, Pectoral 1.02, 1.00, 0.98, 40, 46, 47, 52, Sandpiper, White- 0.98, 0.95, 0.95, 52,52, 66, 67, rumped Sandpiper, Red 0.95, 0.92, 0.92, 67, 81, 89, 101, Phalarope, Red- 0.90, 0.90, 0.90, 103, 109, 109, throated Loon, Pacific Loon, Wandering 0.82, 0.81, 0.81, 109, 175 Tattler, Black-bellied Plover, Greater 0.74, 0.71, 0.66, White-fronted 0.66, 0.61, 0.61, Goose, Western Sandpiper, Baird’s 0.61, 0.34 Sandpiper, Tundra Swan, White-winged Scoter, Brant, Lesser Scaup, Surf Scoter, Dunlin, Semipalmated Sandpiper, Long-billed Dowitcher, Ruddy Turnstone, Upland Sandpiper, Semipalmated
33
Arctic NWR ROC Report May 2021
Priority ROC Included Species Score Rank
Plover, Greater Scaup, Red-necked Phalarope, Harlequin Duck, Northern Pintail, Spotted Sandpiper, Red- breasted Merganser, Green-winged Teal, Mallard, Northern Shoveler, Wilson’s Snipe Spring systems Benthic invertebrates, Caribou, Dolly N/A, 1.71, 1.31 N/A, 2, 8 Varden Coastal Lagoons / See Waterbirds Inhabiting coastal Coastal Wetlands Lagoons and Barrier Islands (saline marshes) Dolly Varden, Arctic cisco, Broad 1.31, 0.62, 0.56, 7, 106, 134, whitefish, Least cisco, Humpback 0.50, 0.44 143, 162 whitefish Tundra lakes and See Tundra-nesting shorebirds, ponds (open waterfowl, loons freshwater habitats) Dolly Varden, Arctic grayling, Arctic 1.31, 0.72, 0.62, 8, 84, 106, 134, Cisco, Broad whitefish, Least cisco 0.56, 0.50, 0.42, 143, 164, NA, Ninespine stickleback, Round whitefish, N/A, NA N/A Fourhorn sculpin
Moist & Wet See Tundra-nesting shorebirds, Sedge-Shrub waterfowl, loons Meadow Caribou, muskox, brown lemming, 1.72, 0.92, 0.39, 2, 48, 168, 194, Northern bog lemming, insects 0.13, N/A N/A
Wilderness Encompasses all Refuge’s lifeforms N/A N/A
34