sign in sign up
<<
Home , Agattu, Aiktak Island, Aleutian Arc, Aleutian Islands, Amchitka, Amlia

Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE IN REPLY REFER TO: 1011 E. TUDOR RD. PSS-RS/1711P ANCHORAGE, 99503

Memorandum APR I I Q\6 7Zu:-c..:.~. .L/Ac •,f TO :tf Regional Director, 7

FROM: Environmental Spe~ialist, Resource Support Section

SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment - P~oposed Eradication of Introduced Fox on Alaskan , Alaska Maritime , Alaska

This is to inform you that in accordance with the procedures for the preparation of environmental impact documents, as they apply to the National Wildlife Refuge System (authorized by numerous congres­ sional Acts), an environmental assessment has been performed on the follow~ng proposed action:

Proposed eradication of introduced fox on Alaskan islands, Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska.

Project Description: Eradicate introduced and red foxes from 40 uninhabited islands in the Aleutians and south of the by shooting, trapping, and using M-44 and M-50 cyanide projectiles. This will enhance the survival of Aleutian Canada geese as well as- other and waterfowl.

Our assessment analysis did not indicate a significant environmental impact from the proposed project action; therefore, I recommend that you accept and sign the attached Finding of No Significant Impact statement.

An environmental impact assessment is on file in this office and will be available for public scrutiny upon request.

Attachment

., ..

·-· ._:....__....,-,-

. )

United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE . IN REPLY REFER TO: lOll E. TUDOR RD . PSS-RS/ 1710P . ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503 ..

APR I 5 1985

Finding Of No Significant Impact

Based on a review and evaluation of the information contained in the supporting references listed below, I have determined that the proposed eradication of int-roduced fox on Alaskan isl:ands.(part of the Alaska Maritime Nat'ional Wildlife Refuge) in the Aleutians and along the Alaska Peninsula is not a major Federal action which would significantly affect the qua~ity of the human environment within the meaning of Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The environmental assessment (Reference 1) supports the conclusion that no impact exceeds a threshold of significance. -~ Accordingly, the preparation of an environmental statement on the proposed action is not required.

Supporting References

1. EA - Proposed Eradication of Introduced Fox on Alaskan Islands, Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska · 2. Final EIS on the Operation of the National Wildlife Refuge System, 1976 •

...... w· ' ·. ) • I

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSl-1ENT

PROPOSED ERADICATION OF INTRODUCED FOX ON ALASKAN .. ALASKA MARITIME NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE· U~ited States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife service

/ 202 West Pioneer Avenue Homer, Alaska 99603 (907)235-6546

March 1985

Abstract . . Foxes were introduced to· over 225 .islands in Alaska beginning about 1836, resulting in the near extirpation of the Aleutian Canada goose, in . the devastation of . many colonies of fossorial and su~face-nesting seabirds, and in depressed populations of other insular avifauna. Marked recoveries of seabirds and other bird populations have been recorded after the removal or natural disappearance of foxes. on certain islands. To restore ·breeding habitat for waterfowl and seabirds, the Alaska Maritime NWR plans to eradicate arctic and red foxes on 40 islands located in the , Alaska Peninsula, and units of the refuge. Over a period of many years refuge personnel contemplate using traps, firearms, cyanide projectiles (I•l-44 & H-50), and toxic drop baits to eliminate introduced foxes. Use of compound 1080 and strychnine is planned for larger islands in the Aleutians, where no other indigenous terres~rial mammals exist; Trapping and shooting in conjunction with the use of cyanide devices would occur on islands. off the Alaska Peninsula and on some of the smaller islands in the Aleutians. A biologi~al control technique using sterile red foxes as an agent against introduced also is being e~aluated· in the Aleutians. Use of.chemical sterilants and epizootics would not be feasible. Environmental consequences from tiapping and shooting would be negligible. Use of cyanide projectiles would slightly increase the risks to river otters and other non-target species, mainly off the Alaska Peninsula. Employment· of toxic baits, the most efficient·etadica~ion means, would pose minor risks to eagles and other non-target species in the Aleutians, but the long t'erm benefits in increased bird populations .would greatly offset any sh.ort term losses in non-target species. · · .. . ' .. TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION ••• ~· •• 6 I • ......

II. ALTERNATIVES •• ~ ••••••• ...... 12

A .• Traps and firearms ••• . . . .., ...... • • .15 B. Cyanide projectiles •• ...... 16 c. Toxic baits ••••••••• ...... 16 D. Chemical sterilants •• ...... • .17 E. Epizootics ••••••••• ...... -. ..17 : F. Biological conti::ol. . . . . ~ . . . .17 G. No action ••••••••• ...... 18 III. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT...... •.•••...... •••...••...... •. .20

A. •••• . .. . . • • ...... • • !' . .. • 20 B. Climate ••••• ...... o' o • •••••• .21 c. Vegetation...... •• ...... ·- .. • • .. ..22 D. Fauna ••.• ...... 23 E. History ...... • • . ... • • ...... •• •• .25 IV ENVIRONHENTAL CqNSEQUENCES. •...... 26

- .. A. Traps and firearms ••• • • • a, • • • • • • • ...... 26 B. Cyanide projectiles ••• ...... 27 c. Toxic baits ••••••.••• ...... • 28. D. Chemical sterilants ••• ...... • .29 E. .Epiz·o·otics .... •...... •.•... ,..•...... 29 F. Biological control •••••••••• ...... 29 G. No action . ..•....•...... •••.....•...•..••.•• .... •• 30 V. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 30 t ' '

•••••••••••. ••• •IE • • lUNG ••• ••• SEA• • • • • ••UNIT •• • • •• • • •• • • • • • •••••• ••••••••••. !""'· ••• ALEUTIAN~S. ): · · SUBUNIT . . ·•• • · . · AMAK I. .• -~"---. .· ... ·' '• _;---.

•, ·~ : . ·• t ISLANDS UNIT. N

~ ;.· ~- .... ALEUTIAN ISLANDS • SUBUNIT .. .. J lt. .. •• >! ii.}~·: ·;·$ . AICUN • ! ~ .. . . 1.1 . (/11'-'117q4' LDNG I. Ji ' I: AKUTAN 1.'"\ ~ ·~$~ . . SANAK I. l.:,CATON ~: ELNA . rBOGOSlOF 'll>'-~ UGANAIC I. 1./ : .~ 1..._ SUBUNIT Dutch ... - ~1.'" ~ ~IKTAIC L . . ~~.• ~, "-.TIGALOA I, . . ( • . \ . \_AVATANAIC I. • -· ---- ~UNALGA t:\ / .• Fill[ 1.-X/._1 ' I'IOOTOIC I, • EGG t. . t::;, • ----· l.~GOSLOF I. / / \l- \.. KAGAMILl t:, / . ULIAGA L' · CHUGINADAK L"'\ • \ CAI'ILISL[ I.-. \ · I . . Hli'IIUT I •....._ ... ADUIIAK /NOTE: REFUGE ·AREA SHOWN 'IN BLACK; i- NOT ALL OF REFUGE IS SHOWN. YUNASKA ··~ ., ,_,.,... . 'L REFUGE INCLUDES OFFSHORE . r"" t).flo)'fi'1 SAIIIALU I•. 0 PUBLIC LANDS ON ISLANDS, ISLETS, oF ,ou" ~ - ISLANDS· ROCKS. REEFS, AND SPIRES. / .. . .tL CHAGULAIC I. . . / . L ALEUTIAN ISLANDS / . i SUBUNIT . ___./'

EUTIAN ISLANQ"S UNIT. ---· _....;--. .JL ·--·---·- ALASKA MARITIME NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ALEUTIAN ISLANDS UNIT 0 100 : !Illite USFWS DIVISION OF REALTY. ANCHORAGE, AK. SHEfi,.:r 7 ..._; ' , I '

NOTE: REFUGE AREA SHOWN IN BLACK·1 NOT ALL OF REFUGE IS SHOWN. REFUGE INCLUDES OFFSHORE I PUBLIC LANDS ON ISLANDS, ISLETS, ROCKS, REEFS, AND SPIRES. -.· I ·=-_.f.. "-- N ·---J~. . _..-· A ------· · . -·--. --;:::__._:8 ERIN G 5 EA /" ----· ------~------·.--· __-/

,, -: A ..~. I -: l E s L A N D s .. ·.:~ d. T A N .SENISOPOCHNOI '.':

. . · rKASATOCHI I. CHAGULAK - It TANAKLAK 1. KONIUJI I. Atka 1. ~ iAMUKTA ,; · AZIAK I :.~ tf GAII[LOI. I. ASUKSAK I ~GREAT SITKIN I. c:. . _ •\i · ULAK I r "!. .:· . . . . rBOBROF I. Adak I. r - . • . IALT I. . . • \ IGITKIN I. 7 . ..-: ~ - UNALGA· I.~GLIU~A·t [~KAGUL~.;;.IJJ~ l"r"""' 0. • ~'fa- Q"& • DlNKUM !lOCKs-·• "'" •.7 auc •• ~ Adak~·~~.... SEGUAM I. 'C. ""' HITKA I. -

. ·. .·~ --­ ALEUTIAN ISLANDS SUBUNIT ------ALEUTIAN ISLANDS UNIT----- C.EAN------·

ALASKA MARITIME

(J) I NATI_ONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE :X: I' ITI . ' ITI ALEUTIAN· ISLANDS UNIT -1 0 !50 100 ..>:•' 0> Nil .. USf:WS DIVISION OF REALTY . ANCHORAGE, AK.

SHf:ET 6 N ... ' It ,, t ' . '

~·-·~ .. . . . ---.: "/. ·~. NI

.·.·.' ·~ ; l

"'~. 4/i ~ALAID I. / Is ~ ~~NIZKI I. I l. .o4 N · ~~c ",- 1•. ~ . Ds :t, BERING .SEA "'-..

...·'· r ~··"" .··

· /IIULOift I. \ ~ .

LITTLE I. TANADAK I. .. ALEUTIAN ISLANDS SUBUNIT Kii~OI. I r rSEGULA I. ~W 1 • rKHvosroF '· • /.,.,..-DAVIOOF I. ~ _j PYRAMID 1.-"- • ...... -LITTLE SITKIN ·1. SOBAICA ROCK ' R SEMISOPOCIINOI 1.7 ALEUTIAN' . UNIT I~ANDS 4 7" 'RAT I. ~/ . ISLA '111" "'' "'"_'N 0 S NOTE: REFUGE AREA SHOWN IN BLACKi NOT ALL OF REFUGE IS SHOWN. RE-FUGE INCLUDES OFFSHORE 1. "\... PUBLIC LANDS ON ISLANDS, ISL_EJS. '---...._ ROCKS, REEFS, AND SPIRES. PACIFIC· ~AN·--- ALASKA MARITIME en NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 8 ALEUTIAN ISLANDS UNIT ---­ ·o !50 100·--. Ul USFWS DIVISiON OF REALTY ANCHORAGE, AK. Mllu ' t' • f t·

. ~· ...

~: : ··- :·: •\ ~: ~~~ . ~ ., . ' .,. ·. ~.- ' ..· .;.. ~ •. ~ 1 ~ - / N e :· . ..:.·. '.· ,. ;-!: \... J s 'f 0 e ~ I

~ ~ ·~ ...,

NOTE: IN BLACKj REFUGE AtFEA REFUGE SHOWN ~HORES SHOWN. NOT ALL INCLUDES ?:tANDS, ISLETS, REFUGE .lANDS OANND SPIRES. PUBLICROCKS, REEFS,

ALASKA PENINSULA- UNIT

0 50 100 Mllu

MARITIME ··:.. : p.· N ALASKA IFE REFUGE C E • 0 NATIONAL ~~~~~ULA UNIT. • F c • P A c ALASKA ANCHORAGE. AK • Ws • .USF ,DIVISION. OF REALTY SHEET.,. I 5

t 1 0 SoldotnCJ

TUX EON I

ALAsKA o.r ' . G tJ t. ,F

' f-wARNOT L

GUlF OF ALASKA UNIT

NOTE: REFUGE AREA SHOWN IN BLACK; NOT ALL OF REFUGE IS SHOWN. REFUGE INCLUDES OFFSHORE I. PUBLIC LANDS ON ISLANDS, ISLETS. FlOCKS •. REEFS, AND SPIRES. .

•-. INTRODUCTION I. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposes to eiadicate fox from nearly all refuge 1slands where they are. not indigenous to permit restoration of nesting seabirds and other insular avifa~na to formeL abundance and diversity. Eradication ~fforts by the staff of the Alaska Miritime m~R are planned in the Aleutian Islands, on islands south of the Alaska Peninsula, and in the Barren Islands south of the . Fox eradication is planne~ on 40 refuge islands.

When ' first reached the islands off the Alaska Peninsula and the Aleutians in 1741~ fox were absent in most of the islands off the south side of the Alaska Peninsula and in the Aleutians between and the Islands of Four Mountains. Arctic fox (Ala~ lagopus) probably are native only on Attu at the western end of the Chain, and (Vulpes vulpg£) probably are indigenous only on some laiger islands close to the Alaska Peninsula and between Unimak and in the eastern Aleutians (Spencer, et al. 1979). Records of fox introductions to the islands off the Alaska Peninsula are obscure. However, a review of historical literature plus interviews wit~ former fox farmers revealed that foxes were released on at least 133 islands in the Aleutian-Alaska Peninsula region (Tables 1 and 2). Since refuge permits were required after establishment of the Aleutian Islands Refuge in '1913, a much clearer record is available for the Aleutians (Table 1) • Ten islands in the Sanak area are shown on both tables because although these islands off the Alaska Peninsula were part of the' original Aleutian Islands Refuge, they are being managed as part of the Alaska Peninsula Unit. Foxes remain on 61 islands, of which arctics are found on 50 and reds on 11. Six of these islands are entirely owned by Natives or the state. The .Alaska Marit.ime ~mR plans to remove introduced fox from 40 refuge islands. Both arctic fox and red !ox were first introduced to Alaskan islands around 1836 for fur farming. Fox farming reached a peak in the 1920's and 1930's (Jones and Byrd 1979). Islands, particularly those in the Aleutians and off the Alaska Peninsula, were often·selected for foxes because of ·large colonies. The Great Depression, followed by World War II, brought an end to most fox farming in Alaska.

Records exist for the release of red foxes on 27 islands, and arctic foxes are known to have been introduced to over 200 islands.

The causes of the disappearance of foxes from many.

0 ' ' 7

Table 1. Fox harvest from the Aleutian and Alaska Peninsula islands. ------·------,------Island ------'stocked . Numbe,; Q.f Qelts repo.r_.t.§~ Adak---~------1328 1I:eC15-f"ormerly -p;ese.~t-, - *[!gokt (Baby) 9 (red and blue) Koscbgkt Islang~ Adugak 68 oo?ttu 1135 Aikt.sk 99 Arnatignak 102 Am&b.itka 4076 313 (reds possibly present) Amy~ 1164 Ananilli..s!k 55 .Asuksak 11 Atka . 1636 (reds formerly present) Avatanak 82 Azia~ 7 Bobrof 26 §one (Sanak) 0 Buck 0 (reds now present) Carlisle 0 Caton 293 Chuginadak 95 (red & blue) only reds survived Chugul 134 Clifford (Sanak) 53 (reds formerly present) Elma (Sanak) 156 (incl. Gunboat, Umla, Nicolai) Excel~iO£, (Baby) 38 Gareloi 521 Great Sitkin 86 (reds formerly present) Gunboat (Sanak) (see Elma) Finneys (Sanak) 0 Herbert 508 Hog 0 Igitkin 80 Ilak 65 Inikla (~anak) 0 Kagalaska 54 Kagami 273 Kali9...9gan 42 Kanaga 254 (reds formerly present) Kasatochi 68 Kavalga 1130 i{§!§!qaloo 28 'Ketn.§.ygb 0 Kiska 1689 Lid a 21 Litt.J.& Kiskg_ 0 Little Sitkin ' 198 Little Tanaga 446 (reds formerly present) Long 0 (reds formerly'present) ~1afy 8 ··(red and blue) .r. 8 .. Qiliyg.e_} 459 SkagyjJ Ogan9gn 0 Peterson(Sanak) 149 F.Q..e.(Umnak) 29 PustQi 0 Rat 328 Rootok 50 Q£9.£hydak(Atka) 38 Salt_(Atka) 161 Samalga 771 Sanak 0 (reds formerly present), Segula 237 Seguam 691 Semichi(AlaiQL NazkiL Shemya) 1289 Semisopochnoi 753 Signals(Unalaska) 0 (reds) ~i.e.t:~I§(Sanak) 105 Taaadak 44 Tagalak 276 (reds formerly present) Tanaga 649 Tanakl,e.k 24 (reds formerly present} Tangik 0 TanginsJs.(Akun) 0 ,'· Trithe(Sanak) 30 Ugamak 29 Umak 248 Umla(Sanak} (see Elma) Unalga (east) 278 Unalga (west) 188 Uliaga 185 Qnak(Kanu) 18 Ulak (w~st) 174 (reds former~y present) Ves~idof 0 Wanda (Sanak) 19 ' Yunaska 308 (reds formerly present) ------26,637 (pelts as of ·------1936) TOTALS: 87 (islands) (46 of above islands still have foxes) *Records from 1940 Aleutian NWR files U~derlined islands - foxes gone

-. 9 ... .,. Table 2. Fox introductions to islands off the Alaska Pe_ninsula (excluding Kodiak area) • Island Species Island Species

*Oshagt arctic Bird arctic' ,;"Kj.ukpalik " *Sirneonof " David n *Chernabura "' " n Onga~J.!.2hak *Wosnesenski . " unnamed " *Ukolnoi · red near Ogaiushak " *Poperechnoi n. Kurnlik n *Dolgoi · n unavikshak " *GolQi arctic Nakchamft " *Inner Iliasik red *Aghi;tY.K "... *Outer Iliasik " *Chowiet *Deer " Chirikof II· Fox II gh~ntli.ut " ~Mig!Jn arctic *fHtrgf.snia " *High " Chiachi n *Goose n II Paul " ~berni Jg& Sanak n ( 2) .n" n ~ Wanda n Roaq " _!g~.t;Qn .. *Guillemot " Finneys " *Korov.in red ( 1) *Elrna n *Onga II !.!Iml.s! n *Popof arctic (2) *Mary· re'd & arctic *And.r;Qn.i~ *Sist~.t:E arctic "n &;gg(Shurnagins) .!~~!;g.r§Qll arctic *Turn~L:.. " *Gunboat " *Bendel· n *Trithe n n *Spe.~t2£1~ " !4da ~Nfi92.i red *Inikla " *Big.Ko.niuji red Clifford n ' *Little Koniuji arctic *Long n ------·------Underlined islands - foxes gone * Islands completely or party refuge owned {1) Feral-dogs present {2) Red fox origirially introduced

..

Q, :: 10 - r . islands after abandonment of fur farming are obscure but are believed relat~d to the destruction of seabird col~nies,· waterfowl, and other birds which originally provided a source of ample' food; inbreeding on small islands; rabies introduced by river otters (Lutr_g. £Sns9.~IH~i.§.): and destruction. of dens by brown bears (Ursus· arct~s). In and Prince William Sound· foxes were largely. fed salmon, .but when salmon became more valuable to sell to canneries than to feed to foxes with declining pelt values, they starved. Fox have survived better in the Aleutians than elsewhere in the state. The widespread introduction of foxes caused · the near extinction of the Aleutian Canada goose (Jones and Byrd. 1979) and the decimation of many populations of seabirds •. Aleutian Canada geese survived only on Buldir and Chagulak is.lands (Bailey and Trapp 1984), where foxes were not released. A relict population of geese also appears to have survived · on Kaliktagik Island in the Semidi. Islands. The effects of foxes on insular avifauna diversity, abundance, and distribution are pronounced, and present -. bird populations in many areas constitute mere remnants. Large colonies of ancient murrelets and Cassin's auklets were elimin~ted from and the latter species from Keegaloo off Umnak and from islets near Amlia and Ilak in the Aleutians before 1900 (Murie 1959). Storm- petrels vanished from Salt and. Ilak islands, and whiskered auklets were eliminated from the at the western end of the Aleutians (Turner 1886). In. 1936 Murie (1959) noted that and other seabirds were numerous on Uliaga an·d Carlisle islands in the Four Hountains Group. Surveys in 1982 revealed numerous arctic foxes but few birds (Bailey & Trapp,· uncompleted report). · ' :' ,~ . ·, Besides seabirds, ptarmigan, winter wrens, song sparrows, ' ' ~ and other bird populations were extirpated or sharply reduced (Murie 1959). For example, ptarmigan were present on .Amukta Island in 1936, but they are now gone from ·.this 12,500-•cre island where 1,200 foxes were pelted by 1936. Along the Alaska Peninsula nocturnal nesting seabirds are generally absent from islands with foxes or past fox farms (Bailey 1978; Bailey and Faust 1980, 1981, and 1984). Similar patterns are· evident off the Kenai Peninsula (Bailey 1977), in the Barren Islands (Bailey 1976), and on most islets off Kodiak. Nesting arctic terns and ducks have been annihilated on Simeonof in the Shumagins and on Sanak Island. O~ergrazing by livestock • and rodents facilitated the demise of birds on Simeonof .,. and other islands • 11

' . Many recept studies illus~ra~e the heavy utilization of seabirds by foxes. For example, in the Shumaqins, 13 red foxes on Big Koniuji killed nearly 800 crested auklets and 100 horned puffins in less than 3 ~onth~ {Moe 1977) • Arctic foxes were found to prey heavily on.crested and parakeet auklets and ~ on St. Lawrence. (Stephenson 1970) and ~re a major distributional factor for nesting birds ther.e and on all islands inhabited by foxes. storm-petrels, auklets, and some other seabirds coexist on some Aleutian Islands with foxes, but only in colluvium, crevices, lava tubes, or on cliffs inaccessible to foxes. Recolonization and marked increases of seabirds, shorebirds, waterfowl, and passerines are occurring on many islands which formerly had foxes. Fox have been eradicated by poisoning or trapping from eight islands, with subsequent dramatic increases in numbers of · birds. ~ulls, cormorants, and other seabirds now nest in accessible places on Nizki-Alaid, Agattu, Amchitka, . Kavalga, an~ other islands. Terns again nest on Ogliuga and Skagul islands7 teal, eiders, and other waterfowl have .become reestablished on Kavalga. Over 124,000 burrow-nesting seabirds now nest on Vesvidof, a former fox island off Umnak {Nysewander et al. 1982) • By 1937 .. Kaligagan Island (5 m'i 2) had been subjected to foxes for 15 years, and Murie recommended it for continued fox farming because of a lack of notable bird colonies. Recent inventories revealed 130,000 burrowing seabirds. , another former fox island in the eastern Aleutians, now has 150,000 seabirds and possibly a small population of nesting Aleutian Canada geese. Anothe~ 173,000 seabirds inhabit the , which all were once stocked with foxes {Nysewander et sl" 1982). Examples of insular·recovery are documented elsewhere in the state besides in the Aleutians. Northern fulmars dwindle~ ·after foxes were placed on the Semi~i Islands in 1886 but rapidly increased after the disappearance of foxes. (Gabrielson 1940). Rhinoceros auklets and other species are increasing on Middleton Island (Rausch 1958), and seabirds have rebounded on the · Noisy Islands and others off Kodiak, Bendle in the Shumagins, and on several islands in the Sandman Reefs formerly occupied by foxes. {Bailey 1978, Bailey and Faust 1980}. I , In 1984 'Aleutian Canada geese successfully · nested on Agattu Island in the western,Aleutians for the first time since they were extirpated by foxes introduced ,in 1926. Nesting followed many years of intensive poisoning. and· trapping of foxes which then was followed by successive introductions of geese front Buldir Islanq. ·B~fore fox introductions geese nested at least from the Islands of Four Moun.tains westward throughout the Aleutians, and there are indications that. they probably hested eastward • ¥, 12

on some islands as far as the Geese Islands off Kodiak. Still nearly all Aleutian Canada geese now breed on · and, to a )esser extent, on . Viable goose populations will· need· to be reestablished on several islands before they can be removed from the list of endangered species. Moreover, since winter. habitat has diminished, it iJ unlikely that Aleutian Canada geese will ever achieve 'their former population levels, which once numbered in the tens of thousands, even if introduced fox are eventually eliminated from all islands~ Besides seabirds and waterfowl, introduced foxes also severely depressed or eliminated nesting· shorebirds, especially black oystercatchers, on islands. Populations of rock and . were also severely depressed, and they usually are restricted to the highest elevations on fox-inhabited islandsc In some cases, such as on Arnukta Island, ptarmigan were extirpated by foxes. Passerines, such as wiriter wrens, song sparrows, and rosy finches also were sharply reduced. Populations of raptors on some islands also must have declined because of .reduced populations of seabirds and other species. .. Hence, it is evident that introductions of foxes to nearly all islands previously free of terrestrial mammalian predators was devastating to insular ecosystems and resulted in relict numbers of birds remaining on many islands. I -.T ALTERNATIVES Introduced foxes should be removed from nearly all refuge-owned islands to restore habitat free of terrestrial predators. To remo~e exotic foxes from all of the 55 islands on which they remain ih the refuge is a prodigious task which probably never will. be entirely realized. In the Aleutians there are no plans to remove fox from Adak, Atka, Amlia, or Shemya because of human habitation. There are no plans to remove fox from several .Alaska Peninsula islands which are partly Native- or state-owned. The list of islands where fox removal is contemplated in the Aleutians is shown in Table 3. Priorities will depend on information on previous goose and seabird nesting populations, types and extents of habitats available, pr.oximity to nearby fox-free 'islands, proximity of nearby seabird concentrations, and island size and.physiography. Priorities for fox removal on refuge islands off the Alaska Peninsula (Table 4) also have been selected for simil~r criteria, except that no consideration was made for nesting geese.

Since restoration of predator~free islands for endangered· Aleutian Canada geese is not a justification for eliminating introduced foxes o.ff the Alaska Peninsula, 13

... )' Table 3. Planned fox eradication sites in Aleutians. ----- Islam! Name Acreg;tge r.lil~.e .eJJQ.r~ }fQ~ §I2~~j.~

------... . I Rat Islsm9.e · Kiska 69,598 89.5 arctic '-'·• . n Segula 8,192 15.9 ';,\. Little Sitkin · 15,701 21.7 " Rat 6,861 19.6 " Semisopochnoi 56,013 40.0 " .Andreano£ !§lands Amatignak 8,533 16~2 ar.ctic ·ulak (W) 7,646 18.4 " Gareloi 16,964 19.4 " .Tanaga 128' 000 130.5 " Boorof 1,980 8.2 " .Kanaga 91,716 114.6 ,, Kagalaska 29,355. 62.1 " Little Tanaga 17,852 60.3 " Umak 9,796 28.3 " Igitkin 4,710 19.4 " Chugul 4,301 16.9 * ft I' Tagalak 3,516 14.3 " . . - Kasatochi 717 5.7 . " Seguam .52,292 41.0 II !slang.e_ of Four Hrumtain.e. Yunaska 43,520 38.6 arctic .Herbert 1;3,790 19.0 " Carlisle 10,718 16.1 n .I Chug in adak 42,257 46.2 red. Ka.gamil 10,342 17.4 arctic Uliaga 2,321 7.6 Fox .i§.lgng_e Ugamak 14.1 arctic Adugak 2.0 arctic .• ' ,, ·14

L , ',.'

Table 4. Priority for fox eradication on refuge is1an~s so~th of the Alaska P~ninsula. ------..,....,------.· Bird arctic (presumably removed 1984) Big Koniuji red (scheduled removal 1985) Poperechnoi red · (1986) Outer Iliasik red (1986) Inner I1iasik red (1986) :··:. Ushagat (Gulf of Aiaska) arctic (1987) Simeonof arctic (1987) E1ma arctic (1988), Inik1a arctic (1988) Chernabura arctic (1988) Little Knoniuji arctic (1989) Ukolnoi red (1990) Korovin dogs (1991) ------·------.. *No eradication planned for Deer, Dolgoi, Wosnesenski, Popof, ·unga, or Long islands because of human habitation, presence of , or extensive Native selections~

I '. ' . 'r 15

chances of procuring- compound 1080-' (sodium monofluroacetate), strychnine, or other toxicants which can be scattered on a target island.by hand or from the air are extremely'unlikely. ·Furthermore, .unless poisons are place~ only in certain l~cales on islands there . is I the additional possibilify of poi•oning river otters off I the Alaska Peninsula. Hence~ despite diop baits being I the most efficacious and efficient form of fox eradication~ n6 request will be made to uie them outsid~ the ~leuti~ns unless all other measures fail on a given important island. Only M-44 or M-50 cyanide devices, traps, and firearms will be requested for use on islands off the Alaska Peninsula. Drop baits, however, generally remain the best alternative in ~he Aleutians, particularly on large ·islands.

~.§ smQ. firearms

Steel leg-hold traps (no. 1 3/4) are an effectiv~ way to eliminate foxes on smaller islands. Compared to ~oxicants traps , are more selective but require considerably more time and personnel. On large islands, generally o~er 20,000 acres, trapping as a means of fox " . eradication usually is not feasible. However, each island is different, · depending . on the .extent of shoreline, ·nature of its coastline, amount of usable inland habitat, presence of seabirds, and other factors. The '12 islands south of the Alaska Peninsula targeted for fox removal (Table 4) range in size from 80-acre Inikla Island to 21,000-.acre Big Koniuji. Traps and firearms also can be used on many of the .smaller is~ands in the Aleutians (Table 3) and already have been successful on a. few. Use of traps· and firearms alone entails a tremendous amount · of labor on even moderately large islands c-sooo acres), and the risk of leaving 'a few foxes on an island is much greater when o'nly traps and quns are permitted. If any foxes escape traps and become wary. of them, .no other backup means are available except· shooting and snares, which on most islands· amounts. to only incidental removal. Well trained dogs also were used to locate 'foxes on Agatfu Island in the .Aleutians. Firearms along with predator calls are most successful in killing significant numbers of foxes on. islands with large ,eabird colonies ~t which foxes congregate, such as on . On sbme i~lands, on the other hand, low density populations exist,. and foxes seem much more· wary and are mostly nocturnal, rendering firearms useless~ Since foxes have not been trapped for 50 years or more on most islands, they demonstrate no avoidance of traps, making boiling, use of gloves, and other time consuming precautions unnecessary. Trapping difficulty is chiefly a function of island size, topography, and accessibility • .. 16

Trapping·· on most islands off .the Alaska· Peninsula is also complicated by river otte~s and introduced arctic ground sq·uirrels. Ground squirrels regularly use fox trails and often achieve exceedingly high densities; hence, they frequently spring t~aps which thus must be rechecked and reset more frequently. The permitted use ',··. of only traps is particularly time consuming and frustrating on islands with ground squirrels. . ~

~ide ~roj~ctiles

M-44 or M~SO " coyote getters" are metal tubes which contain spring-loaded cartridges that release Na CN du~t into the mouth of an animal that pulls on the scented or baited cloth affixed to the top of the tube·embedded in the ground. These devices kill only one animal, as secondary poisoning is unlikely. Like traps, use .9£ cyanide· devices are very labor intensive since individual ·sets must be made and periodically rechecked. However, . cyanide devices complement .trapping and provide an alternate means of eliminating foxes, particularly any that become wary of traps. Cyanide projectiles are especially useful in rugged, difficult to reach portions of islands because they do not have to be frequently rechecked like traps. Moreover, it is in such .. .inaccessible parts of an island that a few foxes •re likely to survive. These devices also can.be left over winter to better ensure removal of all foxes after r-·... trappers leave. If left, traps are less likely to remain { operative for a long period, and a captured animal may 'I escape. Cyanide. devices should be used with traps and firearms. on all smaller islands far from human habitation. Special care will be ·required using them off the Alaska Peninsula because of the presence of river otters. However, if located in rugged terrain away from beaches and water courses, the chance of killing otters is remote. · ' . Toxic baits Although i·slands as large as Amchitka (73, 000 acres) have. been cleared of foxes with.compound 1080 and aerial dispersal of strychnine pellets prior to the ban of such materials in 1972, the .refuge does not propose to use toxic baits on all islands on which foxes are to ·be removed. Specific environmental assessments have been prepared for large islands like Kiska, where the use of traps and ·other means are virtually unfeasible. Other predacides .also could be tried on selected islands, but it is essential to first experimentally determine the efficacy of the chemical used so as not to repeat the recent problem with diphacinone, whereby baits later found ineffective against arctic foxes ne.edlessly were dispersed on Amukta Island. Unquestionably "1080" and strychnine are the most efficient .ways to rid most islands of introduced tox, but it remains doubtful that we can often use this method because of the inability to •ecbre permission from EPA. · Chemical sterilants

Since the. objective on islands is total ~limination of foxes rather than simply control, the use of chemosterrlants or reproductive depressants, such as diethyestibesterol, are . not satisfactory alternatives (Oleyar et Al· 1974, Linhart~ 21· 1968). Epizootics Since the use of rabies, distemper, encephalitis, or ·01;-her deadly diseases could be . transmitted to. marine mammals . or· raptorial birds and thus spread beyond the confines of given islands, ~he use of epizootics is believed too hazardous t9 consider. ·

Biological ~ontrol Hypothetically sterile red foxes may be able to be used as biological control agents against arctic fox. Analysis of the zoogeography of arctic and red foxes and _: ',t· of historical records on fur farming reveals that red and arctic foxes do not coeiist for any length of time on the s.ame ialand. Since fox farmers evidently knew that the two species do not coexist• on the same island, they removed (presumably with poisons) previously introduced reds from Kanaga, · Great Sitkin, Adak~ and other isles before later releasing arctic foxes, which achieved higher · densities on islands and which had more valued pelts. Natural segregation between the two foxes occurs · '• •\, in the Islands, which can be reached by sea ice by both species,· yet only reds are found in summer on these islands in Bristol Bay.which abound with marine mammals and birds. Agonistic behavior between red and arctic fox is widespread and is documented by many authorities. In Canada, red foxes reputedly kill trapped arctics (Marsh 1938), and reds have been extending their range northward an~ are displacing arctic foxes (Chesemore 1975). The di$placement of arctic · fox by reds~ particularly at denning sites, also has been reported in (Chirkova 1967) and Norway (West et 9J... 1982), and red foxes have been reported harassing arctics which reach the Alask' Peninsula.across Bristol Bay (Bailey 1981). Alaskan trappers .regard red foxes as one of the chief predators of arctics, and recent behavioral studies showed that red fox pairs, especi~lly males, intimidated ·arctics and forced them to use less preferred parts of a

11 pen and relinquish den sites (Hansen and Eberhardt 1978). 18

North American canids appear intolerant of canid $pecies smaller than themselves (Johrison and· Sargeant 1977). Coyotes, ~::mae n'umerous . on 'Isle Royale in Michigan, · vanished within 10 years after the arrival of wolves (Mech. 1970). · Wolves also are known to kill red. foxes. ':··,: Increases in small populations of carnivores have been

recorded in western states after coyote4 control, and after the poisoning of coy<;>tes in Canada,, . red foxes markedly increased in numbers. Unknown mechanisms wete involved in the suppression of small canids by larger ones, and the tolerance betwe~n canids is least between those of the most sim~lar size. In repeated cases, coyotes fared poorly in areas dominated by wolves, and· red foxes fared pQorly in areas dominated by coyotes (Johnson and Sargeant 1977). The basis for using red fox as control agents against arctic fox or coyotes against red fox relies primarily on the principle of competitive exclusion resulting from limiting similarities between the two .species. ,Competition probably occurs through: (1) exploitation - use' of the same resources but no direct contact between. individuals and (2) interference - direct interaction and reduction of,efficiency in utilizing contended resources. Similarities between both species of fox include a virtually complete food overlap, as both are opportunistic scavengers; both have the same denning needs; and both are likely to defend home ranges when (,•' food .is scarce (West ll gl. 1982). The evidence that reproducing red foxes w111 eliminate arc~ic foxes on the same islands ·is overwhelming, and the ·possibility of using this method to eradicate arctic foxes is being tested'on two small islands. Three male red foxes were.released on Adugak Island in 1983 and five sterile pairs (v~sectomiz~d male~) were put· on Uliaga Island in the eastern Aleritians iti 1984, but the eff~cts on the ·arctic foxes which originated from introductions 60 years ago are not yet known. Although it appears unequivocal that reproducing red fox will eliminate arctic fox on the same island, it is not known . whether this will occur when the dominate reds are unable ·to reproduce. Also, if it requires almost as many reds to be released on a given island as there are · arctics present, the · efforts and · cost of implementing this biological control technique would be too high to be practical. Thus, large islands with numerous arctic fox should not even be considered for this method. Small islands ·or moderate - ·sized ones with low populations might prove feasible for biological control.

Failure to eliminate foxes from key islands formerly inhabited by Aleutian Canada geese would allow . \ 19

,. ..,. - I I

reestablishment of . goose populations only on islands where fox have already been removed or where they naturally ·die off7 hence, the species is likely to remain endang~red or threatened. As goose population~ increase on Buldir, and presumably.on Chagulak Island, because of the durrent ban on hunting of Canada geese in ~interirtg areas used by Aleutian geese in Oregon and California, the chances of pioneering to new islands increases substantially, and it is imperative to remove fox from as many isl~nds formerly used for nesting by geese as . possible to encourage natural recolonization. Also, the more islands that geese reestablish themselves on, the less vulnerable they· are to a disastrous decline due to disease or other local factors. Failure to remove introduced fox from additional islands also would prevent fossorial and surface-nesting seabirds from recolonizing .. such areas. Furthermore,· crevice­ nesters may continu~ to decline on some islands because of sustained predation, and seabirds in general would remain restricted to only inaccesaible areas on islands where foxes are present. Compared ~o seabird populations before the fox farming era, mere relict nuniliers of some species probably now exist, and the only way that the refuge can attempt to partially restore such populations is by rendering more islands free of exotic predators. . . . -· If foxes remain on some ·islands, the possibility of the elimination of additional ptarmigan p9pulations also exists, and populat~ons on other islands with fox would continue to be very low and be largely restricted to the highest and most rugged areas. Perhaps different races have ·already been eliminated from Amukta, Agattu, ·.and othe·r islands. Duck populations would not recover on islands until fox are removed. Differences in duck neating populations betw~en islahds with fox and without these introduced · predators are perhaps most dramatic on certain . islands south of the Alaska Peninsula (Bailey and Faust 1980).· Islands with fox, · often further aggravated bt habitat des~ruction caused by cattle, are now virtually devoid of nesting waterfowl, whereas incredibly dense and varied nesting by ducks exists on certain ~e~rby islands. Nearly all of the prime waterfowl islands south of the Alaska Peninsula presently have fox, and failure to remove them following the termination of grazing will' prevent any notable increase in · insular waterfowl populations. On islands where introduced foxes remain, breeding P9PUlations of black oystercatchers, semipalmated plovers, red-necked phalaropes, ~nd other shorebirds would remain depressed or nonexistent. Failure to remove Q foxes on additional islands als6-would prevent recovery . 20

of winter wrens, song sparrows, rosy finches, and other resident and· breeding populations of passerine birds. Since numbers of nearly all species of insular avifauna should increase after eradication of foxes~ populations of eaqles r falcons, and other raptors also sh

. A mountainous siretches. from the· '' ~' ' Kamchatka P'eninsula in the to Attu and then~e to and continues as the on the Alaska Peninsula. The combined·shoreline of the o¥er lOOQ islands in the Aleutians and off the Alaska Peninsula exceed 3000 miles, and refuqe lands in this region comprise more than 3,000,000 acres. · In contrast to most other islands south of the Alaska Peninsula, the outer Shumaqins are qranitic with white sand beaches. A line of §7 volcanoes (27 reportedly active) progr,esses from 2000 to 9000 feet above sea level '· along th~ northern side of the Aleutian Islands. These volcanic cones are shield and composite types (Sekora 1973). . Twenty-eight volcanoes (15 active) ·continue northeastward along _the Alaska Penirisula. Extensive format-ions are also in evidence. Manv of the ancient craters and serve as perfect natural basins for su~sequent · lakes. Radial streams deeply dissect the mountainsides, with waterfalls · plunqinq into the sea over precipitous cliffs. Existing hot springs, steaming vents, and frequent eruptions spewing lava flows attest to the continuing volcanic. activity 1n this region~ Although active volcanoes continue along the Alaska Peninsula, .none are found on offshore islands. . ._· i I Both the broad gently rolling plains and the towering volcanoes apparently underwent extensi~e glaciation. Even today the hiqhest.of these mountains still bear small glaciers, and a few retain cirque glaciers. The retreating glaciers deposited moraines and outwash plains of unstratified till with melt-water filling the basins, forming numerous small lakes which now drain into the sea. Few of the Aleutian Islands were left untouched by the sculpturing of the glaciers. These t:eatures, however, are not apparent on islands south of the Alaska Peninsula. ·

Over the past centuries, the post-glacial l~kes have been dryinq up into marshes. Several of the resultinq streams '21 ..

_. , • r intermittently run underground. Due to much warmer temperatures than in. the arctic, permafrost is non­ existent. Alluvial fans have been deposited at the base of newly~formed v-shaped stream valleys. Sea stacks, caves, and arches result from the relentless attack of the surrounding OCeCj.ns. On the other hand, the oceans also act as a builder, cre~ting sand spits, bay barriers, tidal inlets, and tombolos. .. Climate The Aleutians have a maritime clifuate characterized by frequent and often intense cyclonic storms that cross the Northern Pac·ific and the Bering . Sea. Weather often varies greatly locally, with fog, low ceilings, precipitation, and clear weather all encountered in a distance: of a few miles. Larger islands exert considerable influence on winds, precipitation, and cloud cover. Severe downslope winds or williwaws occur on the leeward sides of many islands and i.n bays and · passes south of the Alaska Peninsula. Average annual temperatures are cool, but not normally : severe, du~ principally to the moderating effect of warm water transported into the area by the Japanese current. Seasonal and diurnal temperature extremes are 'generally minimal, as shown below: ----- ,,.--' Recording Average Average Annual Average ( . station· maximum . (oF) minimum ('oF) mean precip. (in) ... '

Chignik 44.2 31.3 . 39 127 Cold Bay 42.6 37.9 38 34 · 44.6 .36.2 41 58 Adak 44.8 36.5 41 68 Arnchitka 42.0 36.0 39 36 Shemya 41.1 35.7 39 27 Attu 42.5 35.6 39 56 -- Winter lasts 6 to 9 months, and frost can be· expected every month except possibly July arid August. Below-ze~o temperatures are rare and occur at sea level only in the extreme eastern Aleutians and off the Alaska Peninsula. The.waters surrounding the islands are normally free from ice, although the ice pack reaches as far south as Cape Sarichef during extreme winters.· The chill factor often is low, though the temperatures are normally above freezing. Due to relatively warm winter temperatures, the snow accumulation rarely exceeds 1 to 2 feet in depth at sea level. Strong winds

11 accompanying snowfall cofumonly produce periods of low ceilings and reduced visibility due to . blowing and .. - ' . . ' 22

..• '" 'f t l drifting snow. Cloudiness dominates the Aleutian region throughout the year. Shemya is overcast 89% of the time with an average

of 6 clear days per year. An average of 81 days of ;, .· heavy fog occurs annually. At Cold Bay, the cloudiness averages about 90% cover the year arou~. Measurable ,' . . ~ ~ precipitatiori occurs on the average more than 200 days per· year. . Because of the persistent cloud cover the actual solar radiation reaching the earth at Cold Bay is greatly restricted and averages less than that· received at Point Barrow. Seasonal periods are difficult to define. and· regions of similar latitude. Vegetative growth does not begin until late May or early June, and fall generally arrives in late September or early October. Vegetation·

The Aleutians, Alaska Peninsula, and ~ester~ part of Kodiak are covered by vegetation similar to lowland arctic tundra. The Ale~tain Islands also belong to the .. · same· floral and vegetational province as the Kamchatka -, .... ,. Peninsula . of . This relationship is most prominent in the Near Islands, while the eastern Aleutian :,·..:. Islands show floristicaLly closer relationships to the Alaska Peninsula.· The flora of the central Aleutians is generally .of lower growth than that found on either the weste~n or eastern .island groups or on the Alaska i Peninsula (Sekora 1973). The vegetative composition is of arctic alpine species, dominated· by· the heath, grass, and composite families. The islands are essentially ,tre~less except for those few spruce trees introduced by the early Russians and by .· the Americans during World War .II. Vegetation occurs mostly from. sea level to about 800 to 1000 feet.. Above 1000 · feet, winds severeiy suppress plant life. Below roughly 1000 ·feet elevation, the land surface is bHmketed with a thick mat of vegetation composed of over 500 species of vascular Plants, bryophytes, and lichens (Sekora 1973). The vegetation of the A'leutians is classed as a terrestrial-maritime tundr~ ecosystem. Isolation of islands, maritime conditions, and the low energy climate . : have predominated in the development of· a rather uniform vegetation of relatively few important species. This is probably true of all of the Aleutian Islands except for Unimak Island, where alder dominates much of the surface. Most of the larger islands off the Alaska Peninsula also have extensive alder cover. The following three general plant communities, whose classification is pr imar il.Y dependent on exposure and soil moisture~ have been identified for the Aleutian - Alaska . Peninsula region (Sekora 1973). "' . '

. \. ' " 23

: ' ' r (1) Beaches: The beach community is dominated by beach rye (El~!l!3 ~r~n~t:J.!l§ '!J19lliel, re~dgrass (C~J.9-'!JIP:9rPst,te. .§J212.L), fescues, and other grasses. Decumbent succulent herbs, such as beach pea (Lat..bYt!l§> ms;q;:J.ti'!JI!.l§>) 1 sea bluebell (Mertgne.ig maritim~), Hon~keny~ E~PJPid~e_, and senec.,ip p§§JJ.9Q::-l\.rnica also prevail on beaches. · · The blqff areas are almost entirely beach rye with · scattered cow parsnip {Hg~aclegm lanatum), beach lovage (Ligu§ticum scoticum), · gonj,oseli~YID ~hin~ne~, angelica. (g,nggli££ l,ucigga.), cinquefoil .(F..Qt~ntill.s Yil.l.Q.22J, ~~Y.ID macropbYllum, and some sedge (~_s.r~ .§PP.~J • · .' (2) towland tundra~ Lowland marshes contain mostly · sedges · with. various grasses, bog blueberry (ygaccinium uliginosgm), marsh marigold (Cal~b~ pal,pstris), ·yellow-. monkey flower · _(Z.timul,u§ guttatY..2l.L . ~laytonia sibirica.i_ Geranium erianthum, horsetail {~guisetY.m g,,rygnse}, and rushes {!IY.D£!:!.§. · ~). · The d.rier lowland sites are blanketed mainly by crowberry (§l:!met.rYDl nig.nnn), reedgrass, mosses,. . caribou lichen · (Cladonia §PJ2.1J cranberry (Oxycoccus .§.eR.), and prostrate willow (~sli~ 9PE.zJ • Bur reed (§Jia~:ganium bYJ2gt:boreum) and r1.1shes dominate . most freshwater lakes. Other ~pecies commonly found are· mare's tail (Hippuris yu;tga~:is), lupine (~n!:l.§. nookaten.ei§), butter cup (B£DY.n~ulus .§.~}, .water. milfoil (MYI_iopbyl,;tum §picatum), and. pondweed (PotamQgeton 2EP·>. (3) Alpine tundra: Alpine areas are dominated by crowberry, dwarf willow, lichens and mosses~ Other common plants include Lois~lu~:j,a p~:ocpmQens.L Anemong na.r~ie.siflQ.r.B.L ~.sassiQQ~ .2PP·, Y~ccinj,um §1212., ~ru!:!P.eDY.il ~asiocarpa~ Draba .§.EP., and Rhod9ggng.r2n ggmts9naticum. As the elevation incre·ases, 'the predominant lichen carpet thins and is increasingly i~terspersed with patches of .bare ·rock -and gravel. In-the mountainous areas of the Near Islands several Asiatic specie~ are found that do not qrow anv further east. The ~a~tern Aleutians contain certain species common on the Alaska Peninsula which occur west~ard .only as far as , these being elderberry (Samby£!:!.§. ~scemosa), salmonberry (Bubus !3}2§Ct~9ilie.), and alder (A;tng.§. £Lisp~)~ Fauna At least 250 specie_s of birds occur between and at the.western extreme of the Aleutians. In . the Near Islands alone over 180 speci~s of birds, a third of .which come from , have been recorded. Many of these Asiatic species are found nowhere else in . Most spectacular of all are the over 10,000,000 aeabirds representing 28 species nesting on:hundreds. of islands in the Aleutian-Alaska Peninsula arc. This region has the greatest numbers and species diversity .. in,North America. Eight species~of seabirds nest only in ~.

.. ' 24

,.• • f I ·' . Alaska; of these,· · the majo.rity o·f red-faced cormorants and all whiskered auklets breed in the Aleutians (Sowls et-' gl. 1978) • ·

Several other specie~ of seabirds, such as the Leach's and fork..:.tailed storm-petrel, tufted and , , ·Cassin's auklet, and northern fulmar, reach their greatest abundance on islands south· ·of the Alaska Peninsula and in the Aleutians. " .

Roughly 3500 of the state's estimated 20~000 breeding bald eagles inhabit the , and Il).OSt Peale's i . peregrine . falcons occur there. Other raptors include rough-legged hawks, gryfalcons, metlins, short-eared and · snowy owls, and ·golden eagles. . . White--tailed and Steller's sea eagles range into ~he western Aleutian~ from Asia. The Aleutian and Alaska Peninsula islands host tens of thousands of waterfowl, especially during migration and. in winter. Virtually all emperor geese winter in the region, along with large numbers .of c.ommon, Steller's and king eiders; harlequin ducks; · black and white-winged scoters; greater scaup; oldsquaws; ·and mergansers. Besides three of the aboye ducks, Aleutian Canada geese, tundra swans, mallards, pintails, and green-winged teal breed in the region. · At least 19 species of shorebirds, 4 species of loons, and 2·. species of grebes inhabit islands and . waters betwe~n Kodiak and Attu islands. Shorebird~ are locally extremely abundant during migration. In . addition ~o oystercatchei;s, semipalmated plovers ·.and rock and least·. sandpipers are common breeders. Rock · ptarmigan occur on most· of the larger islands throughout the re~ion, and willow ptarmigan inhabit principally Unimak Island and many.of the larger islands off the Alaska.Penirisula. Some 20 passerine birds occupy the region, with .common ravens, ·winter wrens, . song sparrows, snow buntings, and rosy finches being the only permanent· residents. Besides having awesome_concentrations of seabirds, the Aleutian arc hosts a •ajqrity of the state's estimated 200,000 Steller's sea lions. Four rookerie~, all on refuge islands, and 10 haulouts are.'situated south of the Alaska Peninsula. Nearly 10,000 animals use Atkins Island, the largest in this area. About the same number breed on· ·., the largest rooK.ery in the Aleutians. The bulk of Alaska's nearly · 180,000 sea otters are found· in the Aleutians and in the Shumagin lslands and Sandman Reefs. • Sea otters f~eque~tly haul. out on refuge islands and iarely venture beyond a depth of 30 fathoms around islands. Thousands ,of harbor seals 25',;

"'.. t· I I use _numerou~ beaches for haulouts and for parturition~

No , ~errestrial mammals originally inhabited islands between Agattu and probably .the Islands of Four Mountains. Since glaciers once extended ·f~om the· at least to· Umnak Island, red fox occupied all of the larger ; caribou, brown bears, wolves, wolverines, porcupines, ground squirrels; river otters,

weasels, ttindra hares, and a f~w species of smaller ': . ~ _mammals found on Alaska's mainland inhabit Un~mak Is1ahd • . Since gladiers extended from the Alaska Peninsula southward into the Shumagins and some other offshore isles, red fox may be indigenous to a .few of the largest islands, such ·as Nagai, where Steller mentioned. them in 1741 (Golder 1925) ~ Besides foxes, ground· squirrels, voles, rats, European rabbits, , and cattle have been in~roduced· to various islands, with usually very deleteriotis effects to insular ecology~ Bears readily swim to some islands ·off the Alaska Peninsula to scavenge beaches and raid seabird colonies (Bailey and Faust 1984). ·History

The · ·, ~he . people n~tive to the Al~utians and. islands off the Alaska Peninsula, are of Eskimoid origin and are believed to have crossed the land bridge late in the Pleistocene Epoch, approximately I .· 10,000 to 15,000 years ago, after the American Indian had crossed. the sam.e route. Although their cultures are basically similar · they have adapted to different environments. At least 8000 ye~rs ago coastal people from Asia drifted along the southern perimeter of the Bering Land Bridge to its southwest corner, now, known as Umnak Island, and over the next several thousand years they drifted further west to the end of the 1100 - mile chain of the Aleutian Islands (Sekora 1973) •. Some also moved eastward to the present-day Alaska Peninsula. The Chain . and~ the Alaska Peninsula had ·a total pre-Russian ·population estimated-at between 15,000 and 25,000. The Aleuts depended on the productivity of the sea. · In 1741 two Russian ships under the command of Captain­ Commander Vitus Bering touched upon several points south of the Alaska Peninsula and in the Aleutian Islands, and brought back to Russia several hundred skins . of · , fur' seal, and fox. The first encounter between . Bering's expedition and Aleuts occurred in the Shumagin Islands, and it was her~ that the first Russian (Nikita Shumagin) died and was buried (Golder 1925). When news of ·this voya·ge reached the Siberian fur hunters, there began a forty-year reign of terror and depredation that reduced the Aleuts to virtual slavery, exterminated the Stellet's se~ cow, and seriously depleted the populations of sea otters in the Aleutians and-. By

(l ,. 26

,, (- l r 1~3i th~re·~ere Aleuts piesertt on only 16 isl~nds and the. totaL population was less than 2000 (Sekora 1973) • . ',_··

Even after the acquisition of Al~ska by the United States in 1867, the plunder of. sea otters. and fur seals ' ,· ·' continued until they were near extinction. In 1909 u ,· in the eastern Aleutians bpcame the first . '·: . refuge in this region. An international convention in 1911 between the United States, Great Britian, , and Russia regulated the taking o,f fur .seals and prohibited the killing of sea otters. In 1913 President Taft established the Aleutian Islands Reservation, now the Aleutian Islands Unit .of the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Ref~~e. The Semidi Islands and . Simeonof Island, both located south'of the Alaska Peninsula, became refuges in 1932 and 1958, respectively. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

~2 snd firearms

Though removal of fox~s from islands with ~se of steel leg-hold traps and firearms would be labor intensive and slow and would be restri~ted·to smaller islands, thi~ method would minimize the possibility of affecting non­ target species, compared to using pois.ons, epizootics, or - . sterilants. It also· is the safest method for personnel ,'' / eradicating foxes, as no possibility. of accidental • • I poisoning of humans exists. Both in the Aleutians and off_ the . Alaska Peninsula the possibility of . accidental capture of eagles and other avian predators or scavengers exists. If traps are properly set and located away from eagle nests and perches, this possibility is extremely ·remote. Normally traps are set only on fox trails and on beaches. In 1983 and 1984 no eagles were trapped despite the use of nearly 200 trpps over a period of 3 months. Black-billed magpies, however, do venture into traps on isles off the Alaska Peninsula. As scavengers they evidently detect the scents used near traps along fox trails B;nd on beaches in some areas. since magpies are common in the Shumagins and on most larger islands off the Alaska Peninsula, their accidental removal would be of no biological significance. Common ravens also could get into traps, but again they are a ubiquitous bird. In rare instances gulls, jaegers, and other birds are trapped. Frequent checking of traps min,imizes risks to non-target species, as they sometimes can be released relatively unharmed. ·

Ground squirrel~ are frequently caught in traps set for foxes since they use fox 'trails. . . These· rodents are a puisance to trapping operations, and the incidental mortality of ground squirrels, which on many islands were o introduced along with fox~s,- is of no biological, 27

significance.

On islands off the Alaska Peninsul~ the risk exists of mistakenly trapping river ott~rs, despite precautions on placing traps. If special ca~e is exercised to not set traps near streams, pon<;ls, and certain ,beaches· where otter sign is present., the. probability o:f capturing an otter is minimal. Nevertheless, on some islands otters and fox~s use the same beaches and trails, particularly along creeks, and in such instances otters ha~e been . accidenta,lly caught. Number 1 3/4 ·size traps are· ·set for foxes; otters usually require· larger number 3 traps. Though otters usually escape fro:m fox sets,they may .pull up the trap stake and drag the tr•p off~ which probably results in eventual death of the animal. The chance of this occurring can be minimized by checking traps· often and by securing traps to shrubs or rocks with wire in any locale~.where titt•rs are likely to frequent. The loss of a few otters caught in fox sets in this iegion where they are plentiful would be inconsequential. · ·The proposed eradication of .foxes by trapping and shooting would have a negligible effect on non-target· spec~es. After disappearance of fox, the numbers, distribution, and diversity of insular avifaunc,:l. would significantly increase. With removal · of introduced p~edators many islands probably would regain their . ,- ""' . original status as majo·r seabird colonies, assuming that adequate food ·remains at sea. Increasing numbers of seabirds, particularly piscivorous species like puffins, could potentially· result in increased competition with human commercial fisheries in some areas. Removal of foxes· from islands infested with ground squirrels or voles may result in higher densities of these introduced rodents; consequently additional destruction of vegetation and erosion may follow. Although foxes 'do eat some ground squirrels, . voles, and other rodents, they do not control insular rodent populations, as ~o~e of the islan~s with the highest densities o.;f exotic rodents also have fox. Removal of fox would·preclude·opportunitfes·for resumed· trapping on some islands, should the demahd ever again occur. .Even if there were a resumption of insular fox trapping, ma.ny other generally less remote islands owned largely by the state and Native corporations will remain available for· future trapping. Also, fox removal is not proposed on refuge islands occupied by humans.

Cyanid§ ~r9j~ctil~ As. with the use of traps, deployment of .M-44 or M-50 devices is selective for individual ~nimals and therefore o minimizes the risks of killin9; non-target species. .. . 28

. t t I .t

However, cyanide capsules involve a greater risk for harm or mortality to other species besides foxes. · ~1oreover, even with possession of the antidote (NH N02 ) for cyanide, there always is the chance of ·an accident involving personnel handling .or setting the cyanide projectiles. On islands off the Alaska Peninsula cyanide devices would readily kill river otter~; this would· restrict the use of M-44's or M-SO's to rugged higher elevations . away from streams or ponds •. If cyanide devices. were never used along beaches or other habitats frequented by ott~r~, the chance of accidentally killing them would be highly remote. On some small, low-lying islands use of cyanide projectiles poses an unacceptable risk to otte~s, but such islands are easy to trap. The locations where M-44's or M-50's a~e needed the most are on mountainous islands, which generally pose the least tisk to otters or other non-target species. Common. :ravens and perhaps gulls would trigger · cyanide projectiles on rare occasions, ·but such mortality would be negligible for these ubiqitous birds. If placed away from eagle nests or perches, the·likelihood of killing an eagle is practically non-existent. Ground squirrels, rats, ·or voles, ~auld trig~er cyanide projectiles or chew off b

Use of toxic Qsits

Tho~gh the dispersal of drop baits in the form of compound 1080 (sodium monofluroacetate) .or strychnine is the most efficient · means of exterminating fox populations, use of suc.h toxicants would be considered only .for l~rge and remote islands in the Aleutians. Toxic baits are not suitable for islands south of the Alaska Peninsula, where river otters, mink, and bears range. Distribution of drop baits from aircraft is the only feasible way to eliminate fox populations·on very large islands, such as Kiska in the Aleutians, but the· chance of killing ravens and eagles is greater than with M-44's and M-50's. Secondary poisoning from foxes which ingested "1080" or strychnine also is more likely. Several ravens died on Nizki Island in 1969 following the· dispersal· of strychnine pellets and "1080". It was not known whether mortality was caused by primary or secondary toxicity. Incidental mortality· of ravens, gulls, and eagles in the Aleutians from toxic baits probably would be.slight. Use of toxic baits poses a smaller risk to personnel dispersing them than the use of cyanide capules. · .~ ... ., 29.

f.:- .. t J f

Chemi~sl sterilants As previously ; $tated, current drugs available do not totally prevent reproductiori in field situations, and· since extirpation of an insular . pop~lation is the de~ired effect, this method is no~ presently being considered. If new reproductive inhibitors for foxes proved effective· in the future; this method. probably would have rio adverse impacts on non-target ppecies. Epizooti££. Though the introduction of rabies, distemper, or some other · virulent microbe into fo~es on a remote island probably would elimi~ate a fox population, the risks of transferral of such epizootics to marine mammals or birds negate their consideration unless s6me highly specific infection which affects only foxes is discovered. Also, any zoonosis like rabies could not be used because 6f the possibility of humans occasionally landing on uninhabited islands.

Biological ~Q!l.t.L:.Ql The introduction of only one sex or sterile pairs of red fox to selected small islands for the purpose of ~radicating subo~dinate arctic fox should have no .. . significant impacts on insular ecology because . the islands· on which additional foxes will be ~eleased have . already been ravaged by arctic foxes for decades. Additional red foxes may, however, temporarily inflict even greater mortality on already depressed avian populations using accessible parts of an island. such. added predation probably would end during winter when the given island's fox population would again be reduced to carrying capacity. It is conceivable that even the temporary increase in predatiqn by introduced red foxes on an island could be enough to extirpate .an insular ptarmigan population or eliminate all young produced by a certain species of waterfowl or. shorebird. Even if ptarmigan were extirpatedbecause 6f temporary increased predation,. they may eventually repopulate an island from nearby ones after arctic fox val') ish·. ·'If ptarmigan were extirpated on an island where they· barely survived because of additional introduced foxesi the island co~ld be restocked with ptarmigan after all foxes were gone. Even in the remote possibility that red and arctic fox coexist on an island, the red foxes should not be able to reproduce or hybridize with the arctic foxes. Thus, .the reds will die out in a few .years. Hybridization between· these two genera of foxes has occurred in captivity, but no such records exist in the wild. In the exceedingly ir unlikely scenario that rechannelization of the vas

Q deferens occurs · in a vasectomized red fox and the · '' ,

30

fntroduced red.fox population becomes viable, then almost assuredly the reds would gradually out-compete and replace the arctic foxes on an island. In any case, the total number of foxes which eventually would persist should represent the island's carrying~capacity for one or both species combined.

In' introducing red foxes, there is always the chance that some disease would be inadvertently transported to an island, but sine~ the red foxes would be derived from long-established populations on other islands in the eastern Aleutians or off the Alaska Peninsula, where rabies and probably distemper are unknown, it is unlikely that such an event would occur.

If sterile red foxes do eliminate arctic foxes on islands, as expected~ this would be· an efficient way to eventually rid smaller islands of arctic fox with little risk of harming non-target species. After red fox eventually die out following the disappearance of arctics, all avifauna can be expected to increase, but recovery of birdlife would be slower than when using traps or poisons, which should result in ·the extirpation of foxes in 1 or 2 years on smaller islands.

I '1. No action

( ;.~· If foxes are left on the numerous islands where they were released, •. many species of seabirds and other avifauna would ~emain severely depressed or absent. Also, on some islands seabirds using talus for nesting may continue to decline by attrition due to fox predation until in some instances colonies could disappear. Geese would have no possibility of nesting on many 'islands in the Aleutians if there is no concerted effort to eradicate introduced foxes. Hence, the refuge will not fulfill its mission of restoration of habitat for endangered Aleutian Canada geese, seabirds, and other 'insular avifauna, and· remnant populations of birds will persist on many islands, making refuge status of little value. Though foxes have died out naturally from inbreeding, starvation after demise of avian populations, and other factors, it is unlikely they would disappear from any of the 55 Islands in the refuge where they still survive unless human intervention occurs. Leaving foxes would maintain opportunities for trappers on many more islands in the unlikely event that fur. prices sharply rise and again make insular trapping highly profitable. ·

Cultural Resources

Archeological and historic resources are abundant on these Alaskan islands; however, due to the nature of this project no adverse impacts are expected to occur.

Q • ~ r r '

31

V. SECTION 810 EVALUATION

Neither arctic nor red foxes are trapped or hunted to any extent on the islands proposed for fox control. Likewise, the~seabird resources are not'utilized for subsistence in this area; red salmon is the primary subsistence resource. None of the islands proposed for fox control are inhabited nor do any contain Native inholdings. This evaluation therefore concludes that the proposed action will not · result in a restriction of subsistence uses.

VI. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

This program has been coordinated with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) and has been acknowledged by the National Audubon Society. ADF&G participates on the Aleutian Canada. Goose Recovery Team, which is involved in plans to remove fox to restore geese. The Envionmental Protection Agency and Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation must approve the use of cyanide, strychnine, or "1080" before application on any island, since none of these poisons are registered for fox eradication.

•.

...... I (

~ 32 LITERATURE CITED

Bailey, E. P. 1976. Breeding ~ird distributio~ and abundance i~ tbe Barren Islands,· Alask~.. Murrelet '57:2-12.

Bailey, E. P~ 1~77. Distribution and abunqance of marine· birds and mammals along the south side of the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. Murrelet 58: 58-72. Bailey, E. P. 1978• Breeding seabird distribution and ·abundance in the Shum~gin Islands, Alaska. Murrelet 59:82-91. Bailey, E. P. and N.H. Faust. 1980. Summer distribution and abundance of marine·birds and mammals in the Sandman Reefs, Al~ska. Murrelet 61:6-1~. Bailey, E. P. 1981. Red foxes as biological control agents. for introduced·arctic foxes on Alaskan islands. Unpublished report1 u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, AK. · Bailey, E. P. and N. H. Faust. 1981. Summer distribution and' abundance of marine birds and mammals between • Mitrofania and Sutwik islands south of · the Alaska Peninsula.- Murrelet 62:34-42. Bailey, E. P. and N.H. Faust. 1984. Summer distribution •. and abundance · of· marine birds and mammals off the coast of. the . Alaska Peninsula between Amber and Kamishak bays. Western Birds 15: 161~174. Bailey,. E.P. and J. L. Trapp. 1984. Discovery of another wild · breeding population of Aleutian Canada geese. American Birds 38:284-286. Chesemore, D. L. 1975. Ecology of the .arctic'.fox (Alopex l.egQpus) in North America - a review ·in: .The wild canids, their systernatdcs, behavioral . ecology and evolution. (M.W. Fox ed.) Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York, NY.

· ~hirkova, A~ F. 1967. The relationship between arctic fox and red fox in the far north. Problems of the North 11:129-131. Gabrielson, I.N. 19.40. America's greatest bird concentra­ tions. Bird-lore 42:497-506. Golder, F. A• 1925. Bering's voyages, Volume 2. American Geophysical Society, Research Services no. 2, New York, NY •

.. . . ' 33'

. . ... " •. ,.. ~·-. Johnson, D. H. and A. B •. Sargeant. 1977. Impact of red fox predation on the sex ratio of prairie mallards. Wildlife research report no. 6, u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.

~ones and Byrd. 1979, Conservation of marine birds of northern North America. Wildlife Resea{ch Report 11, u.s. Fish and· Wild.life Servi.ce, Washington, DC. Hanson, w.c. and L. E. Eberhardt. 1978. Annual report for 1978: Ecological consequences of energy developments· in northern Alaska. Unpublished report, Lab, Richland, WA. . ' Linhart. s. B., H. H. Brusman, and D. s. Balser. 1968. Field .evaluation of antifettility agent . stilbestrol for inhibiting coyote reproduction •. Trans. Am. Wildl. and Nat. Resour. Conf. 33:316-327.

Marsh, D. B. 1938~ The influx of the red· fox and its

color phases into the Barren Lands. Canadian Field . I Naturalist 52: 47-59. Mech, L. D. 1970. The wolf. Natural History Press, Gordon City, NY.· Moe,· R. A. 1977. The summer diets of three predator . r~~~~ species on Big , Alaska. Unpublished J J report, Office of Biological Services, u. s. Fish and •, Wildlife Service, ·Anchorage, AK. f.1urie, · o. J. 1959. Fauna of the Aleutian Islands ·and Alaska Peninsula. North American Fauna 61: 1-364. Nysewander, D. R., D. L. Forsell, P. A. Baird, D. J. Shields, J. G. Waller, and J. H. Kogan. 1982. Marine bird and mammal survey of the eastern Aleutian Islands, summers 1980-1981. Unpublished report, u. s. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, AK.

Oleyar, C~M. and B.s. McGinnes. 1974. Field evaluation of diethylstilbestrol for suppressing reproduction . in · foxes. J. Wildl. Mgmt. 38:101-106. Rausch,. R. · ·1958. The occurrence and distribution of birds on Middleton Island, Alaska. Condor 60: 227-242. ·sekora, P. · 1973. Aleutian Islands National Wildlife Refuge wilderness study report. u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service, AnchOfage, AK. Sowls, A.L.,S. A. Hatch, and· c. J. Lensink. 1978.· Catalog of Alaska s~abird colonies •.P. s. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, AK. .- ,_ --· ...

.. . 34 "'

Spencer,D. L., c. M. Na~ke, and J. Carnahan. 1979. National wildlife refuges of Alaska ~ an historical perspective. Arctic Environmental· Information and Data Center, Anchorage, AK. Stephenson, R. o. 1970. A study of summer food habits of arctic fox on St. Lawrence Island, Alaska. Unpublished M.S. thesis, Univ. of Alaska, Fairbanks1 AK. Turner, L. M. 1886. Contributions to the natural . Pp. 138-14l i in Arctic series of publicat.ions issued in connection with the Signal Service, U.S. Army. No. 2, Part S.·washington, DC •. West, E. w.,K. L. West, and K. L. Rudd. 1982. Biological control of Aleutian islands arctic fox. University of California, Davis, CA.

c

'! 'J i 'I

'· - .. ..