WILLOW PTARMIGAN STUDY

Alaska Peninsula

April - May 2012

Photo: USFWS, L. Julian

Kevin J. Payne and Susan E. Savage

December 2012

KEY WORDS: Alaska Peninsula; Alaska Peninsula NWR, Becharof NWR, Lagopus lagopus, line transect surveys, willow ptarmigan

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Alaska Peninsula / Becharof National Wildlife Refuge

PO Box 277

King Salmon, AK 99613

i

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.

Suggested Citation:

Payne, K.J. and S.E. Savage. 2012. Willow Ptarmigan Study - Alaska Peninsula, April - May 2012. USFWS, Alaska Peninsula/Becharof NWR Report, King Salmon, Alaska.

ii

CONTENTS CONTENTS ...... iii

List of Figures ...... iv

List of Tables ...... iv

List of Appendices ...... v

INTRODUCTION ...... 1

STUDY AREA ...... 2

METHODS ...... 2

Setting Up and Transect Conditions ...... 2

Conducting the Count ...... 3

Summarizing Results ...... 3

RESULTS ...... 5

Survey Summary ...... 5

Ptarmigan Abundance...... 5

Nests ...... 8

Transect Vegetation Associations ...... 8

Incidental Birds and Mammals ...... 10

Project Costs ...... 13

DISCUSSION ...... 14

Willow Ptarmigan Density Estimates ...... 14

Willow Ptarmigan Habitat ...... 18

Recommendations for This Survey ...... 18

Recommendations for Future Investigation ...... 18

Incidental Observations ...... 19

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... 19

LITERATURE CITED ...... 20

iii

List of Figures Figure 1. Survey locations, general topography, and land status for the area of the Willow Ptarmigan Study, Alaska Peninsula April - May 2012 ...... 4

Figure 2. Percent cover of shrub communities and the number of male ptarmigan clusters per 1000 meters (within 350 m of the transect line), Willow Ptarmigan Study, Alaska Peninsula April - May 2012 ...... 9

Figure 3 Detection probability versus distance for male willow ptarmigan clusters using distance sampling model with a Half-normal key function, distance truncated at 350m, 50m bins, Willow Ptarmigan Study, Alaska Peninsula April - May 2012 ...... 16

List of Tables Table 1. Information about the locations visited and transects surveyed during the Willow Ptarmigan Study, Alaska Peninsula April - May 2012 ...... 6

Table 2. Transect length and the number of male, female, and unknown sex ptarmigan detected in each transect, Willow Ptarmigan Study, Alaska Peninsula April - May 2012 .. 7

Table 3. Results of selected Distance Analysis models using observations of males (except first model*), Willow Ptarmigan Study, Alaska Peninsula April - May 2012 ...... 8

Table 4. Percent cover of major land-cover types identified within a 350 m band on either side of each transect, Willow Ptarmigan Study, Alaska Peninsula April - May 2012 ...... 9

Table 5. Willow ptarmigan habitat use determined from field data and from the intersection of bird position and land cover classification, Willow Ptarmigan Study, Alaska Peninsula April - May 2012...... 10

Table 6. Incidental bird sightings at the 2012 willow ptarmigan survey sites, Willow Ptarmigan Study, Alaska Peninsula April - May 2012...... 11 - 12

Table 7. Mammal occurrence recorded at each survey location during the Willow Ptarmigan Pilot Study, Alaska Peninsula April - May 2012...... 13

Table 8. Approximate costs of the Willow Ptarmigan Pilot Study, Alaska Peninsula April - May 2012 ...... 14

iv

List of Appendices Appendix I. Scientific names of species recorded during the Willow Ptarmigan Pilot Study, Alaska Peninsula April - May 2012...... 23

Appendix II. Logistics and transect descriptions for locations visited during the Willow Ptarmigan Pilot Study, Alaska Peninsula April - May 2012 ...... 24

Appendix III. Steps used to map willow ptarmigan detections, Alaska Peninsula 2012 Willow Ptarmigan Surveys ...... 32

Appendix IV. .Results details of Distance Analysis using observations of males only, Half-normal key function, distance truncated at 350m, 50m bins ...... 33

v

INTRODUCTION Willow ptarmigan (Lagopus lagopus; see Appendix I for scientific names of birds observed during this study) are a species of management interest because they are heavily used by both sport and subsistence harvesters; adults, chicks and eggs are important prey items for several species of raptorial birds (Hik et al. 1986, Hannon et al. 2003), foxes, wolves, and potentially lynx (Klausen et al. 2010, O’Reilly and Hannon 1989). They are a sentinel species for climate change as they are heavily dependent on subarctic, arctic, and alpine habitats (see conference abstracts: Gyrfalcons and Ptarmigan in a Changing World 2011, The Peregrine Fund). Because they are a resident species in areas with low point-source pollution they may be used as indicators of any contaminants that may be transmitted to the subarctic environment from distant sources (Pedersen et al. 2006). Although the conspecifics red grouse (L. l. scoticus) and willow grouse (L. l. lagopus) have been extensively studied in Europe (see Hannon et al. 1998) and some work has been done in North America (see review in Hannon et al. 1998), relatively little work has been done in Alaska (Weeden 1965, West and Meng 1966, West et al. 1970). Taylor (1999 and 2000) has led the only recent population studies in Alaska in Game Management Unit 13. Currently, studies focused on the impacts of ptarmigan on willows and other shrubs and the impact of climate change are underway in Northern Alaska (Tape et al. 2010, Christie et al. 2011).

Other than documenting geographic variation in body size and weight and describing subspecies (West et al. 1970), and conducting a pilot project on the Refuge (Savage and Payne 2011) no work has been done on the Alaska Peninsula with regard to willow ptarmigan natural history or biology. Although they are a “Game” bird and managed under resident species regulations, as opposed to migratory bird regulation, to date the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) had little funding to study them on the Alaska Peninsula1. Small game (including ptarmigan) hunting is authorized under four Guide Permits on the Alaska Peninsula/Becharof NWR. Unguided hunters may take ptarmigan under sport regulations (August 10 – April 30; 20/day, 40 in possession) and the same season and bag limits apply to all rural Alaska Residents hunting on Federal Land. Ptarmigan are not covered under the Alaska Subsistence Spring/Summer Migratory Bird Harvest regulations.

The following objectives were addressed in this year’s work and this report:

 Test the feasibility of conducting off road line transect surveys.

 During the surveys collect vegetation associations for ptarmigan observed. This will potentially be used to “stratify” vegetation for future survey design.

1 ADF&G hired a small game biologist in summer of 2011 who is currently exploring the possibility of trend counts around the state and in fall 2011 began soliciting wing collections from hunters (Richard Merizon pers. comm.). 1

 If nests are found, document vegetation associations and phenology.

STUDY AREA Studies from the Alaska Peninsula/Becharof Refuge (Refuge) generally focus on lands from the Naknek River to Port Moller. The rugged Aleutian Mountains provide the “backbone” of the Alaska Peninsula and separate the Gulf of Alaska from the Bering Sea. Peaks to 2,507 m (Mt. Veniaminof) extend along the southern and eastern edge of the peninsula bordering the Gulf of Alaska. To the south and east the mountains generally fall steeply to the Pacific Ocean, but on the north and west sides, the mountains fall more gently to the Bristol Bay Coastal Plain (Plain). Volcanic and glacial processes are still active in the mountains and impact the entire area (e.g., Mt. Chiginagak last erupted in 2005). Federal lands with Native inholdings dominate land ownership in the mountains and along the Gulf of Alaska coast while the State of Alaska, Native Corporations, and villages own most of the Plain. Broad, meandering rivers cross the landscape creating diverse wetland habitat in this boundary zone. The Plain is dotted with ponds and lakes of various sizes and depths. Survey locations (Figure 1) were located primarily along the Plain, which is dominated by low and dwarf shrub communities, tundra, and by a variety of wetland types.

Willow ptarmigan can be found in a variety of habitats, but our focus was in drier habitats including ericaceous dwarf shrub with patches of low or tall shrub. Logistic and transect descriptions for all locations visited during the 2012 survey year are presented in Appendix II.

METHODS Data from prior studies (shorebird surveys, ALMS surveys, and ptarmigan surveys (Savage and Payne 2011)) showing presence/absence, or relative abundance, where available, were plotted in ArcGIS© to document current distributions of willow ptarmigan. From this, and from a map of accessible fixed-wing landing areas north of Ugashik, twenty-six possible locations were examined for visitation in 2012.

Setting Up and Transect Conditions Prior to the surveys, Savage refined the selection to twenty possible fixed-wing or road accessible locations and prepared topographic and land cover maps for each site. Criteria for site selection included proximity to the Refuge office, ability to land in May (some strips are too wet at this time of year), aircraft availability, and likelihood to support ptarmigan populations. Savage drew a circle of 4 km radius from a central camp location to delineate the approximate outer bounds of the potential survey area and drew two to four suggested transect zones for each site. If different vegetation types were available, routes were selected in different vegetation types. Weather and logistics dictated the choice of eight of these sites for survey (Dunes, Becharof Outlet, Ugashik South, Big Creek, Ralph’s Road, 8 Mile Site, Jenson Strip, and

2

North Blue Mountain). Specific guidance with regard to season, time of day, random distance start from camp, lettering/numbering of transects, weather conditions, and recording terrain followed the 2011 procedure (Savage and Payne 2011).

Conducting the Count We used Garmin® GPSMap 76s global positioning system units to collect waypoints at all survey locations, averaging the waypoint until the error was less than 5 m. We used high quality 10 x 40 or 8 x 40 binoculars, Leica LRF 800 or Bushnell Elite® 1500 Rangefinders, and Silva® or Brunton® compasses corrected for declination to observe ptarmigan and record distance and bearing during the line transect count.

For each ptarmigan detection, we established a waypoint at first detection, the original location of the bird (by recording bearing and distance), and the number of birds detected. Then as time allowed, we noted vegetation class, behavior, how the bird was detected (audio or visual), molt code (winter, spring (transitional), or summer plumage), whether it was interacting with a conspecific (link), and whether it was stationary, moving away from, or toward the transect route (as a proxy for disturbance by observers). Each detection was recorded as one row (record) on the data sheet and in the database. Any potential predators of adult ptarmigan were also noted on this data sheet. We also noted other birds (including an estimate of the number and highest breeding score) observed along the transects, sign of mammals, and other information of interest.

Summarizing Results We created seven worksheets in Microsoft Excel that represent nine tables that can be imported to Microsoft Access with the addition or planning of key fields to link tables. The record data regarding the visit to each location (Tbl_Block_Visit), transect data (Tbl_Transect), transect weather data (Tbl_Tran_Weather), WIPT detection data (WIPT_Tran_Data), waypoint data (downloaded using DNR Garmin software), other bird species detected en route (Other_Birds), and mammals (Mammals) was digitized.

We used ArcGIS® 10.0.4 to map the locations of our transect start and end, the locations of all initial willow ptarmigan (ptarmigan) detections, and the initial locations of any potential ptarmigan predator detections. Actual ptarmigan locations were plotted using a point offset with the recorded distance and compass bearing (Appendix III) from the waypoint for that detection. Exact distances were used if available, or if a range was recorded we use the mean distance between the upper and lower estimates.

3

Figure 1. Survey locations and general topography for the area of the Willow Ptarmigan Study, Alaska Peninsula April - May 2012.

When possible, we used Viereck codes (Viereck et al. 1992) to summarize ptarmigan vegetation associations at the 5 m and 25 m radius levels. We then used ArcGIS10.0.4 to select associated land cover type at bird locations (using the individual bird locations) from the Alaska

4

Peninsula/Becharof NWR Earth Cover Classification (USFWS & Ducks Unlimited 2008). We summarized by location, the incidental birds and mammals that we observed during the survey.

RESULTS

Survey Summary Staffing and training allowed a start date of 26 April with the last survey conducted on 31 May (Table 1). In all, biologists conducted thirteen survey segments (the first transect at Jensen had to be broken into two segments because of impassable snow drifts). For the nearby town of Egegik, sunrise on 26 April was 0648 and on 31 May was 0536. We started thirteen morning surveys at times ranging from 0547 to 0923 with most starting within 30 minutes of sunrise. The latest survey was completed at 11352, but most surveys were completed prior to 1000.

Although we conducted two transects in light snow and part of one in light drizzle, we still noted active ptarmigan during these periods. No transects were started with wind speeds greater than 3 m/s. However, wind speed reached 4.8 m/s at the completion of one transect. During our survey window, the weather can be especially challenging for surveys and for travel to survey locations. This season, saturated landing strips proved to be the largest limiting factor.

Using King Salmon, the Refuge office location, as a base measure, Weather Underground (http://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/findweather/getForecast?query=99613) reported an average wind speed greater than 5 m/s on 7 of 36 days between 26 April and 31 May and at least a trace of rain on 23 days. The barometric pressure averaged 1006.4 mill bars with a range of 984.8 – 1025.4during this time period.

Ptarmigan Abundance We traveled to eight locations and conducted thirteen transect segments. During transect counts, we detected 298 male ptarmigan, 39 female ptarmigan, 16 ptarmigan of unknown sex (Table 2) and 10 potential ptarmigan predators (1 peregrine falcon, 2 common ravens, 1 northern goshawk, and 6 northern harriers). A total of 353 willow ptarmigan were detected. This included some ptarmigan sighted beyond the end of the transect.

2 This survey included two segments because of un-passable conditions. We had to move 500 m before beginning the second segment, and with the snowy conditions the survey took longer than most. 5

Table 1. Information about the locations visited and transects surveyed during the Willow Ptarmigan Study, Alaska Peninsula April - May 2012.

General Location/ Block Date Sunrise at Start End Time Observer¹ Sky² Wind (m/s) Transect Number Egegik Time 8 Mile Sight 18230 4/26/2012 6:48 6:53 9:40 SES Clear 1.7 - 3.1 Jensen 1 A 16075 5/2/2012 6:33 7:01 9:15 SES Snow 1.7 - 3.1 Jensen 1 B 16075 5/2/2012 6:33 9:23 11:35 SES Snow 1.7 - 3.2 Jensen 2 16075 5/3/2012 6:31 6:59 11:02 SES Snow 0.5 - 3.1 Ralphs Road 18229 5/11/2012 6:12 6:28 8:15 KJP OC 0.8 - 20 Blue Mtn 15599 5/16/2012 6:01 6:21 8:54 KJP Clear 0.5 - 4.8 Big Creek 1 17514 5/22/2012 5:50 6:00 8:33 SES OC 1 Big Creek 2 17514 5/23/2012 5:48 6:27 9:12 SES OC 1 - 1.8 Ugashik 1 15114 5/22/2012 5:50 6:05 8:34 KJP OC 0 Ugashik 2 15114 5/23/2012 5:48 6:02 7:53 KJP OC - Drizzle 0 Becharof Outlet 1 16316 5/24/2012 5:46 6:45 9:26 KJP OC 1 Becharof Outlet 2 16316 5/26/2012 5:43 7:59 10:18 KJP OC 1 - 2 Dunes 16556 5/31/2012 5:36 5:47 8:43 KJP OC 0 - 3.7

1 Observers: SES - Susan E. Savage, KJP - Kevin J. Payne 2 Sky Conditions: OC - overcast.

6

For distance analysis the number of detections or clusters is the important unit of measure (versus the number of birds). Unless otherwise indicated, all subsequent ptarmigan data will be derived from male cluster detections within 350 m of the transect line, and truncated to the length of each segment.

The number of ptarmigan clusters detected per transect varied considerably with only one cluster detected on the lowest count (Ralph’s Road) and 60 detected on the highest count (Jensen 2). This resulted in an average of 5.87 (range of 0.25 – 16.41; SD ± 5.56, n = 13) male ptarmigan clusters per 1000 meters of transect.

Table 2. Transect length and the number of birds, clusters, male clusters detected within 350m of each transect, Willow Ptarmigan Study, Alaska Peninsula April - May 2012. Survey Area Transect Length # Birds # Clusters # Male clusters # Males # Male clusters/1000m Ralph's Road 1 3985 1 1 1 1 0.25 8-mile 1 4009 5 4 3 3 0.75 Big Creek 1 4024 4 4 4 4 0.99 Ugashik South 2 4010 6 6 5 5 1.25 Ugashik South 1 4006 6 6 5 5 1.25 Big Creek 2 4017 9 9 7 7 1.74 Becharof Outlet 2 4001 18 18 17 17 4.25 Dunes 1 4010 35 34 29 29 7.23 Blue Mountain 1 3897 41 37 33 36 8.47 Becharof Outlet 1 3997 35 34 33 33 8.26 Jensen 1A 2376 42 31 26 33 10.94 Jensen 2 3499 76 60 51 60 14.58 Jensen 1B 1645 38 29 27 29 16.41 We conducted distance (Distance 6.0 Release 2) analysis on the willow ptarmigan data using different subsets of data (Thomas et al. 2010). We started analysis using all of the data; then only known males; truncating at distances of 500, 400, 350, and 300m; using bin sizes from 25 to 50m; and using various key functions and series expansions (see Table 3 for model results comparison). The model with the lowest AIC resulted from using only male ptarmigan with the Half-normal key function; model 1 was selected with no series expansion function (i.e., parameters =1; see analysis details reported in Appendix III). The data were truncated at 350m and used 50m bins. Two warnings were received when running this analysis. This analysis gave a density of 0.15 (95% CI: 0.085 – 0.264, CV = 0.267) male ptarmigan/hectare. The various analyses of male only data calculated densities ranging from 0.143 to 0.199 male ptarmigan/hectare with 95% CI bounds of 0.083 – 0.355 male ptarmigan /hectare. We also partitioned the data into two strata: accessible (4 transects near King Salmon), and wild (8 transects that are fixed-wing accessible). Running the analysis with two stratum or running the

7

analysis without the accessible stratum (models 7 and 22) did not noticeably reduce variance of the estimate, although removing the accessible transects resulted in a lower AIC.

Table 3. Results of selected Distance Analysis models using observations of males (except first model ²), Willow Ptarmigan Study, Alaska Peninsula April - May 2012.

Model #1 Description # Para AIC p of Χ 2 (n) D D LCL D UCL D CV Effect of all data vs. male only 1² Half-normal, cosine No truncation, all data 4 3529 0.10 (11) 0.175 0.103 0.296 0.247 1 Half-normal, cosine No truncation, males only 4 3157 0.17 (10) 0.143 0.085 0.242 0.246 Effect of Truncation (Males only) 1 Half-normal, cosine No truncation 4 3157 0.17 (10) 0.143 0.085 0.242 0.246 2 Half-normal, cosine, truncation @ 500m 2 2957 0.75 (15) 0.157 0.09 0.274 0.264 3 Half-normal, cosine, truncation @ 400m 4 2862 0.67 (23) 0.195 0.111 0.345 0.273 4 Half-normal, cosine, truncation @ 300m 3 2608 0.91 (22) 0.195 0.108 0.352 0.283

Effect of Bins (Males only) 3 Half-normal, cosine, truncation @ 400m 4 2862 0.67 (23) 0.195 0.111 0.345 0.273 5 Half-normal, cosine, truncation @ 400m, 40 m bin 2 1023 0.31 (10) 0.168 0.096 0.294 0.265 6 Half-normal, cosine, truncation @ 400m, 33 m bin 2 1119 0.68 (12) 0.161 0.092 0.282 0.266

Effect of Key Function (Males only) 5 Half-normal, cosine, truncation @ 400m, 40 m bin 2 1023 0.31 (10) 0.168 0.096 0.294 0.265 11 Half-normal,Hemite polynomial, truncation @ 400m, 40 m bin 1 1027 0.06 (10) 0.145 0.084 0.251 0.259 13 Hazard-rate, cosine, truncation @ 400m, 40 m bin 2 1023 0.37 (10) 0.179 0.101 0.316 0.276 15 Hazard-rate, simple polynomial, truncation @ 400m, 40 m bin 2 1023 0.37 (10) 0.179 0.101 0.316 0.276 34 Uniform, cosine, truncation @400m, 40 m bin 2 1024 0.23 (10) 0.155 0.089 0.27 0.261

Effect of Stratum: Access (Males only) 5 No Stratum:,Half-normal, cosine, truncation @ 400m, 40 m bin 2 1023 0.31 (10) 0.168 0.096 0.294 0.265

7 Stratum-Access, Half-normal, cosine, truncation @ 400m, 40 m bin 3 1023 0.41 (10)³ 0.171 0.094 0.311 0.285 Remove Accessible Transects 22 Half-normal, cosine, truncation @ 400m, 40 m bin 2 959 0.41 (10) 0.163 0.087 0.305 0.298

Final Model (Males only) 24 Half-normal, cosine, truncation @ 350m, 50 m bin 1 846 0.46 (7) 0.15 0.085 0.264 0.267 1 Model # as conducted in file WIPT 2012 Males.dst, # Para = number of parameters, AIC = Akaike's Information Criterion,p of Χ 2(n) = p value for the ² This model is from file WIPT 2012.dst ³ A GOF test is run for both strata, the p value for the wild strata is reported.

Nests No ptarmigan nests were found.

Transect Vegetation Associations The land cover, in a 350m band on each side of the transect, was extracted from the land cover layer in ArcGIS (Table 4). Within the 350m band, 32 land-cover types were identified and significant variation between transects existed. The 10 most common land cover types, accounting for greater than 94% of the land cover, are listed by plot in Table 4.

8

Table 4. Percent cover of major land-cover types identified within a 350 m band on either side of each transect, Willow Ptarmigan Study, Alaska Peninsula April - May 2012.

Road Ralph's 8 Mile Dunes Blue UgashikSouth Ugashik 2 South 1 Jensen 2 Average Big Creek 1 Big Creek 2 Becharof 2 MountainBecharof 1 Jensen 1A Jensen 1B Tall Shrub - Willow 0 0 0.2 7.6 9.5 0.9 1.2 0.4 4.5 0.7 0.4 0 0.1 1.95 Tall Shrub - Other 5.1 5.0 1.6 2.9 4.3 5.6 0.2 0.4 0.7 0.5 2.5 0.9 0.9 2.35 Low Shrub - Lichen 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0.9 0.5 0.7 0.1 12.4 3.2 0 1.42 Low Shrub - Other 8.8 4.1 33.0 17.4 10.5 30.7 6.5 12.9 11.1 14.0 36.1 45.6 30.9 20.12 Dwarf Shrub - Wet 0.3 0.1 38.3 34.0 21.2 14.2 42.9 29.6 31.5 42.4 9.8 18.6 17.3 23.07 Dwarf Shrub - Lush 3.8 2.8 2.0 4.9 10.8 2.2 0.4 17.4 2.6 0.3 8.5 2.5 33.3 7.04 Dwarf Shrub - Lichen 11.8 1.5 1.4 3.2 8.7 0.1 1.9 0.4 2.3 1.1 3.0 1.8 2.1 3.03 Dwarf Shrub - Tussock 2.2 34.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.80 Dwarf Shrub - Other 55.4 51.6 17.1 27.6 21.5 44.2 36.7 31.0 37.2 25.7 22.7 21.8 15.4 31.37 Clear Water 2.6 0 2.9 1.3 0.3 1.1 1.1 0.1 0 3.3 0.5 1.7 0 0.00 # Male clusters/1000m 0.3 0.7 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.7 4.2 7.2 8.5 8.3 10.9 14.6 16.4 The vegetation summaries (Table 4 and Figure 2) do not indicate a clear relationship between vegetation communities surrounding the transect and ptarmigan density. The vegetation analysis using individual ptarmigan location (Table 5) and land cover type indicates the use of dwarf shrub (68%), low shrub (28%), and tall shrub (2%). This closely approximates the average composition of the transect areas; dwarf shrub (67%), low shrub (22%), and tall shrub (4%). However, the field observations indicate a strong preference for low or tall shrub (Table 5) similar to last year.

Figure 2. Percent cover of shrub communities and the number of male ptarmigan clusters per 1000 meters (within 350 m of the transect line), Willow Ptarmigan Study, Alaska Peninsula April - May 2012.

9

Table 5. Willow ptarmigan habitat use determined from field data and from the intersection of bird position and land cover classification (n=273), Willow Ptarmigan Study, Alaska Peninsula April - May 2012. % calculated from % from field % from field land cover layer observations observations (5m (25m radius) radius) Tall Shrub 2.2 16.5 17.6 Low Shrub 27.1 54.9 50.5 Dwarf Shrub 68.1 18.3 22.7 Graminoid 1.4 6.6 5.5 These differences may result from errors in determining the bird locations and land cover layer scale limitations that may exclude finer habitat components selected by the birds. Our field observations confirm that willow ptarmigan were often found near patches of ericaceous dwarf shrub, but males were often found perching on, and displaying from, low to tall shrub vantage points.

Incidental Birds and Mammals We detected other avian species at two levels: birds during the transect survey and birds anywhere at the survey location. Because the first level is a subset of the last, we used the last category of data to summarize incidental birds. We detected 60 species of birds (including willow ptarmigan) during our field operations (Table 6). Five species (willow ptarmigan, sandhill crane, Pacific golden-plover, Lapland longspur, and American tree sparrow) were found at every location while an additional three species (tundra swan, greater yellowlegs, and Wilson’s snipe) were detected at seven of the eight locations. These eight species are generally known to be common especially in the vegetation types that were common in our sampling frame. Another twenty-two species were found only on one plot (gadwall, American wigeon, northern shoveler, black scoter, horned grebe, red-necked grebe, osprey, northern goshawk, rough-legged hawk, peregrine falcon, Hudsonian godwit, rock sandpiper, Bonaparte’s gull, long-tailed jaeger, short- eared owl, horned lark, bank swallow, hermit thrush, myrtle warbler, fox sparrow, Lincoln’s sparrow, and golden-crowned sparrow). Less commonly detected species may prefer habitats present on the Northern Alaska Peninsula, but different from ptarmigan (e.g., dunlin, any waterbirds or waterfowl); may be on the edge of their range (e.g., whimbrel, myrtle warbler); may be using the Refuge for wintering or migration (e.g., common goldeneye); may generally be less common (e.g., red-throated loon, short-eared owl); or may not have fully arrived from wintering grounds (e.g., hermit thrush). We found the nests of three species during our field surveys: tundra swan, dunlin, and northern pintail.

10

Table 6. Incidental bird sightings at the 2012 willow ptarmigan survey sites, Willow Ptarmigan Study, Alaska Peninsula April - May 2012. Big Creek - Refuge AK Pen Hwy-Mile 8 Becharof Outlet Boundary Jensen Strip Naknek-Ralph's Road North Blue Mountain Shosky Creek (East) Ugashik South Airstrip Relative Breeding Relative Breeding Relative Breeding Relative Breeding Relative Breeding Relative Breeding Relative Breeding Relative Breeding Abundance Status Abundance Status Abundance Status Abundance Status Abundance Status Abundance Status Abundance Status Abundance Status Greater White-fronted Goose A M U P U H U X U P U P Canada Goose U P U X Tundra Swan C P C N C P U P U P U H U X Gadwall U X American Wigeon C P Mallard U X C P U P U P U P Northern Shoveler U H Northern Pintail U N C P U P U H U X Green-winged Teal U P C P Greater Scaup C P C P U P Black Scoter U P Red-breasted Merganser U P U P U X Unidentifed Duck C M Willow Ptarmigan C P A C C P A C U C A C A C C C Common Loon U S U P U H U S Horned Grebe U P Red-necked Grebe U H Osprey U H Bald Eagle U P U X Northern Harrier U X U H U H U X U H U X Northern Goshawk U X Rough-legged Hawk U H Peregrine Falcon U X Sandhill Crane C P U P C P C H U P U X U H C X Black-bellied Plover C P U X U P Pacific Golden-Plover C C C P U C C C C S C P U H C S Semipalmated Plover C C U C U C U C Greater Yellowlegs C C U C C P C C U S U D U D Whimbrel U X U C

11

Table 6 (cont). Incidental bird sightings at the 2012 willow ptarmigan survey sites, Willow Ptarmigan Study, Alaska Peninsula April - May 2012. AK Pen Hwy-Mile 8 Becharof Outlet Big Creek - Refuge Jensen Strip Naknek-Ralph's Road North Blue Mountain Shosky Creek (East) Ugashik South Airstrip Relative Breeding Relative Breeding Relative Breeding Relative Breeding Relative Breeding Relative Breeding Relative Breeding Relative Breeding Abundance Status Abundance Status Abundance Status Abundance Status Abundance Status Abundance Status Abundance Status Abundance Status Hudsonian Godwit U P Marbled Godwit U X U X C C Godwit Sp. U X Least Sandpiper U X U H U X U P U P Rock Sandpiper U X Dunlin C N C P U C U D Short-billed Dowitcher U C U C U C U D U C Wilson's Snipe U C C C C C C C U S U D U C Red-necked Phalarope U H U H Bonaparte's Gull U X Mew Gull C X C H U X U X Glaucous-winged Gull C X C X U M C X U X U X Arctic Tern C X U P U X Parasitic Jaeger U X U X U P U X Long-tailed Jaeger U H Short-eared Owl U H Common Raven C H U X U H U H U X U N U X Horned Lark U S Tree Swallow U X U H U X U X Bank Swallow U X Hermit Thrush U S American Robin C S C S U S U S U X C S American Pipit C S U S C C U C U S Lapland Longspur U H A S C S C S C S A S C S C S Orange-crowned Warbler C S C S C S C S Myrtle Warbler U H American Tree Sparrow U S C S C S C S U S C S C S A S Savannah Sparrow U S C S U X U S C S A S Fox Sparrow U S Lincoln's Sparrow U S Gambel'sWhite-crowned Sparrow A S C S C S A S Golden-crowned Sparrow A S Common Redpoll C X U P C H U X U X ¹ Birds ordered according to the AOU 52nd supplement (Chesser et al. 2012).

12

Evidence of 10 species of mammals was noted during our field investigations (Table 7). Red fox and caribou were the most commonly detected species. None of the species were unexpected for this region, however records of muskrat are rare for the Refuge.

Table 7. Mammal occurance recorded at survey locations, Willow Ptarmigan Study, Alaska Peninsula April - May 2012.

AK Pen Becharof Big Creek Jensen Ralph's North Shosky Ugashik Hwy- Outlet Strip * Road Blue Creek South Mile 8 Mountain (East) Airstrip Snowshoe Hare S V Muskrat V Beaver V V V Arctic Ground Squirrel V S V V V Red-backed Vole S Wolf T S T Red Fox V T S V V V Brown Bear T T T S T Moose T T T Caribou V T T V T T * No data on mammal occurrence recorded. V = visual observation, T = tracks, S = sign ¹ Mammals ordered according to the Mammals of North America, 2nd edition (Kays & Wilson 2009).

Project Costs An estimate of the project costs not including permanent Wildlife Biologist salary (Table 8) is typical of avian projects on the Alaska Peninsula; the majority of the cost consists of travel to study locations and staff salary staff. Other than project specific gear, staff needs to acquire little because the Refuge equipment stores include general science equipment and camping gear. Increased funding will be needed to increase the sample size and/or to randomize transect selection.

13

Table 8. Approximate costs of willow ptarmigan study for 2012, Willow Ptarmigan Study, Alaska Peninsula April - May 2012.

Supplies Waders and misc. gear 67.00 Food (approximate, costs distributed across all 2012 field projects) 402.00 Total Equipment and Supplies $ 469.00

Travel Field per diem and TAVS fees 330.00 Costs of Refuge fixed-wing aircraft 2,912.00 Total Transportation and Travel 3,242.00

Staff Refuge Biologist, Comp-time 478.00 Refuge Seasonal Employee 4,628.00 Refuge Operations Specialist (assist with surveys) 2,163.00 Total Salary Costs $ 7,269.00

Grand Total $ 10,980.00

DISCUSSION

Willow Ptarmigan Density Estimates During this second year of ptarmigan work on the Alaska Peninsula, major changes to the methods resulted from analysis of last year’s pilot data, discussions with others about preferred survey methods, and recommendations regarding more robust data analysis. Many of these suggestions were the result of feedback on a presentation given by the second author at Boreal Partners in Flight – Annual Meeting in Anchorage on 7 December 2011. Subsequently, we modified the methods to exclude point counts and use the program Distance (Distance 6.0 Release 2; Thomas et al. 2010) to estimate density.

The weather conditions in 2012 proved challenging for transporting crews to field locations and for conducting surveys. We found many of the chosen landing sites saturated, covered in water, or too soft to land on. Colder than average winter temperatures, higher than normal snowfall amounts, and late arrival of spring caused this difficulty. These three factors influenced the amount of surface water and soil porosity and prevented the drainage of landing sites until later in the survey period. We received 4.11 cm of precipitation in May this year (National Weather Service, Western Regional Climate Center, 2012) versus a 57 year average of 3.33 cm. Despite the challenging conditions, we completed 13 survey segments at eight sites.

14

We met defined survey parameters for daylight, wind and sky (precipitation) for most of the transects. Although we agree with the general cautions of Taylor (2000) regarding weather conditions, birds did not seem to be deterred from displaying, or our ability to detect them hindered, by the light drizzle or snow that we encountered during a few transects.

Two assumptions must be met in order to derive accurate statistical inferences from distance sampling models. These assumptions (Buckland et al, 2001) are:

1. Objects must be distributed stochastically within the study area.

2. Survey points or lines must be randomly placed.

If the survey points or transects are placed randomly with respect to the distribution of the objects of interest then both assumptions can be met (Buckland et al, 2001).

Ideally all of the assumptions would be met. However, we have limited knowledge of the distribution of ptarmigan within the study area; indeed understanding factors affecting distribution is one of the goals of this project. With regard to assumption 2, our transects likely violate this assumption. We did not select transects randomly across our sample frame. Random placement would require a significant time and monetary investment. To effectively survey the sampling area (approximately 8,000 km2 from the Naknek to the Ugashik Drainage, or twice that to Port Moller) a helicopter would be required to randomize the location of transects. This spring, fixed-wing access to any location was extremely difficult because of snow and water conditions on potential landing strips. From the available landing strips, the second author selected azimuth bands where 4 km transects could be conducted and randomly selected the bearing within these available bands to provide partial randomness to the process. However, these bands were likely to be in drier areas or along ridges paralleling creeks which may have provided either preferential or avoided ptarmigan habitat types, thus biasing the results.

Additionally, three assumptions (Buckland et al, 2001) must be met to derive accurate object densities. These assumptions are:

3. Objects on the line (or at the point) are always detected.

4. Objects are detected prior to any movement in reaction to the observer.

5. Distances, angles, and group size are measured accurately.

Our ability to detect all individuals on the line (Assumption 3) can be assessed through field observations and data analysis. Because of their cryptic behavior, especially during incubation, detecting female birds on the transect may be problematic. Our data show that the mean detection distance for female only clusters was 75.8 m (n = 21; S.D. +52.7) versus 111.5 m (n =

15

222; S.D. + 85.45) for male only clusters. Because of the differences in detection probability, female detections were not used for data analysis. The detection probability graph shows that our detection rate of males on the transect, for the model selected, is actually slightly greater than one (Figure 3) and indicates observance of the assumption.

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Perpendicular distance in meters

Figure 3. Detection probability versus distance for male willow ptarmigan clusters using distance sampling model with a Half- normal key function, distance truncated at 350m, 50m bins, Willow Ptarmigan Study, Alaska Peninsula April - May 2012.

We are unable to determine if ptarmigan movement in response to the observer prior to detection affects our results significantly (Assumption 4). Field observations seemed to indicate that birds moved more in response to conspecific competitors than to observers. The model chosen indicates the data are binned so we have not violated this assumption.

Closer inspection of Figure 3 indicates a less than perfect fit. Our data appear to have calculated distance biases around 100m and 350m. These deviations may be the result of non- random transect placement, small movements prior to detection, lumping detections into the wrong distance bands, and errors in distance or angle measurements (violation of Assumption 5). Because our observations included distance and bearing, and the perpendicular distance to the transect was subsequently calculated, it is not apparent how these biases occurred. However, the analysis appears to be robust to these biases (Chi square on the selected model:

16

p = 0.46). The density estimates and confidence intervals do not markedly change when truncation, binning, or models are changed. Further discussion with distance analysis experts is warranted to explore how our sampling scheme could better meet the assumptions given the logistical constraints.

Additionally, Applegate et al. (2011) warned against using distance estimation for another gallinaceous species (Northern Bobwhite, Colinus virginianus). These warnings, primarily based on how northern bobwhite behavior affects observer estimates, are related to violations of the model assumptions. In the bobwhite study two things occurred:

1. Detection increased with increasing distance – this indicates that the objects (northern bobwhite) were not detected prior to moving in reaction to the observer and are a violation of assumption 4.

2. Difficulties in accurately judging the location of objects (northern bobwhite) occurred. These difficulties (a violation of assumption 5) are the result of frequency and amplitude modulation of vocalizations, and changes in position and calling direction of male bobwhite (Applegate et al. 2011). The sampled habitat, hardwood forest, loblolly pine (Pinus echinata) plantations, native grass barrens, and agricultural fields, may have also contributed to the difficulty of accurately judging bobwhite location.

As discussed above, our data and field observations seem to indicate little movement prior to detection so the first difficulty is probably minor in our study. The second difficulty is probably more relevant to our data but several factors decrease the effect of measurement errors in our study:

1. Difficulties estimating distance can be alleviated by using a laser range-finder.

2. Truncating the data to the 350 m band will increase accuracy of distance and angle measurements because closer distances are more accurately measured especially with the range-finder.

3. Ptarmigan produce easily detectable cues and are often seen (as opposed to only detected aurally) in the very open ericaceous dwarf shrub and tundra habitat that we surveyed.

Overall, if robust estimates of density are required, the largest concern will be the randomization of transects.

17

Willow Ptarmigan Habitat No obvious patterns have arisen from the habitat association analysis conducted to date. It may be that the land cover map with 30 m pixels is too course to tease out ptarmigan associations, or that our sampling biases have not allowed a complete examination of these data. Our field observations lead us to conclude that willow ptarmigan prefer areas that have at least some willow greater than 1 m for male perches, and that they prefer drier to wetter tundra.

Recommendations for This Survey:

 Begin surveys no later than 25 April in early springs and May 1 in late springs: to obtain an adequate sample size, make use of the behavioral window for greatest activity of willow ptarmigan.

 Explore a randomized sampling design; establish 8 - 10 locations for 16 – 20 surveys. To establish general trends of willow ptarmigan population highs and lows, these surveys should be done at least every other year. Since this was a pilot year and we have not established permanent routes, we recommend continuing this work in 2013.

 Stratification by land cover type should also be explored.

 Create routes on the GPS with points spaced ~500m apart to allow increased accuracy of navigation and decrease the mean distance from the line.

 For ptarmigan observations, use Kessel (1979) habitat categories that allow for more differentiation of shrub classes (i.e., dwarf, low, medium and tall vs. dwarf, low and tall).

Recommendations for Future Investigation  Work with other biologists in Alaska interested in ptarmigan population cycles to explore refinement of the trend surveys.

 Further solicit information from local subsistence users and guides who hunt willow ptarmigan to gain insight on population cycles, food habitats, habitat use, and predation.

 Initiate a ptarmigan crop survey and collect wings from which we can obtain age and sex of hunted birds and can be used for genetics or diet studies in future.

 Investigate the feasibility of evaluating Alaska Peninsula willow ptarmigan for contaminant levels.

18

 Explore methods to measure other prey species cycles and to determine if they are synchronized as suspected in other areas in Alaska.

Incidental Observations The ptarmigan surveys require biologists to be in the field earlier than most other on-the- ground field studies. In doing so, we are likely to make new observations of avian natural history. Of particular interest are the records for rock sandpiper and horned lark at Becharof Outlet and whimbrel at Big Creek. This is the second consecutive year rock sandpiper and horned lark have been sighted at Becharof Outlet, and this is the first year the Refuge has conducted any land based bird surveys up Big Creek. Rock sandpiper has been observed at this location before, but is rarely seen inland. While the habitat is seemingly suitable for breeding, the timing may indicate that these sightings are of late migrating birds.

The horned lark sightings this year included two males and one female in a single sighting. Observers determined sex using plumage differences (females are duller and less distinctly patterned) and behavioral observations (two bright and distinctly patterned birds aggressively interacting in the presence of the dull bird). Additional horned lark behavioral observations which indicate breeding status included singing males and obvious mate attendance of the part of one male. The Refuge has less than 20 records of horned lark at any location but the recent pattern of sightings at Becharof outlet might indicate the presence of a small breeding population.

Whimbrels have rarely been observed within the Refuge boundaries, and never performing a courtship display. The area of Big Creek where we observed them is not very distant from previous observations made within Katmai National Park (Ruthrauff et al. 2007) 3. In addition, we observed a pair of Hudsonian godwits on the Big Creek plot. Note, this plot is on the edge of the boreal spruce forest. Additional sightings of interest include a northern goshawk at Jensen Strip, a rough-legged hawk at Becharof Outlet, and a Hudsonian godwit at Big Creek.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thanks to Bill Taylor (ADF&G) for advice and support and to Travis Booms (ADF&G) for suggestions on the line transect methods for ptarmigan and reviewing the final draft report. Supervisory Biologist Britton also provided a timely draft review. Volunteer Bob Blush assisted with three surveys and Refuge Operation Specialist Julian assisted with eight surveys. We thank the pilots that safely transported us to sample locations: Refuge Wildlife Specialist\Pilot Finley, Refuge Law Enforcement Officer\Pilot Wittkop, and National Park Service Pilot Gilliland. Thanks to the Refuge staff who provided other logistical support. Funding was provided by the Alaska Peninsula/Becharof NWR.

3 Observed on plots 12 and 15 which are close to the southwest boundary of Katmai National Park near the Big Creek drainage. 19

LITERATURE CITED Applegate, R.D., R.E. Kissell, E.D. Moss, E.L. Warr, M.L. Kennedy. 2011. Problems with avian point counts for estimating density of Northern Bobwhite – a case study. J. Fish Wild. Mgmt. 2: 117 – 121.

Buckland, S.T., D.R. Anderson, K.P. Burnham, J.L. Laake, D.L. Borchers, and L. Thomas. 2001. Introduction to distance sampling: Estimating abundance of biological populations. Oxford University Press.

Chesser, R. T., R.C. Banks, F.K. Barker, C. Cicero, J.L. Dunn, A.W. Kratter, I.J. Lovette, P.C. Rasmussen, J.V. Remsen Jr., J.D. Rising, D.F. Stotz, and K. Winker. 2011. Fifty-second supplement to the American Ornithologists’ Union check-list of North American birds. The Auk. 128(3): 600 – 613.

Christie, K.S., M.S. Lindberg, R.W. Ruess.2011. Interactions between ptarmigan populations and arctic shrub communities. Alaska Bird Conference, Anchorage, Alaska.

Hannon, S.J., P.K. Eason, K. Martin 1998. Willow ptarmigan (Lagopus lagopus). In The Birds of North America, No. 369 (A. Poole and F. Gill, Eds.). The Birds of North American, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.

Hannon, S.J., R.C. Gruys, J.O. Schieck 2003. Differential seasonal mortality of the sexes in willow ptarmigan Lagopus lagopus in northern British Columbia, Canada. Wildlife Biology. 9:317-326.

Hik, D.S., S.J. Hannon, K. Martin, K. 1986. Northern Harrier Predation on willow ptarmigan. Wilson Bull. 98: 597-600.

Kays, R. W., and D. E. Wilson. 2009. Mammals of North America, Second Edition. Princeton University Press. Princeton, NJ.

Kessel, B. 1979. Avian Habitat Classification for Alaska. Murrelet. 60: 86-94.

Klausen, K.B., A.O. Pedersen, N.G. Yoccoz, R.A. Ims 2010. Prevalence of nest predators in a sub- Arctic ecosystem. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 56: 221-232.

National Weather Service. 2012. http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/Climsmak.html

O’Reilly P., S.J. Hannon. 1989. Predation of simulated willow ptarmigan nests: the influence of density and cover on spatial and temporal patterns of predation. Canadian J. Zool. 67: 1263-1267.

20

Pedersen H.C., F. Fossoy, J.A. Kalas, S. Lierhagen. 2006. Accumulation of heavy metals in circumpolar willow ptarmigan (Lagopus l. lagopus) populations. Science of the Total Environment. 371:176-189.

Ruthrauff, D.R., T.L. Tibbitts, R.E. Gill, Jr., C.M. Handel. 2007. Inventory of Montane-nesting Birds in Katmai and Lake Clark National Parks and Preserves: Final Report. USGS-Alaska Science Center, Anchorage, Alaska. Report Number: NPS/AKRSWAN/NRTR-2007/02.

Tape, K.D., R. Lord, H.P. Marshall, R.W. Ruess. 2010. Snow-Mediated Ptarmigan Browsing and shrub expansion in Arctic Alaska. Ecoscience. 17: 186-193.

Taylor, W. 1999. Game Management Unit 13 Ptarmigan Population Studies. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska.

Taylor, W. 2000. Game Management Unit 13 Ptarmigan Population Studies. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska.

The Peregrine Fund. 2011. Gyrfalcons and Ptarmigan in a Changing World. Conference Abstracts at: http://www.peregrinefund.org/gyr_conference/index.html

Thomas, L., S.T. Buckland, E.A. Rexstad, J. L. Laake, S. Strindberg, S. L. Hedley, J. R.B. Bishop, T.A. Marques, and K. P. Burnham. 2010. Distance software: design and analysis of distance sampling surveys for estimating population size. Journal of Applied Ecology 47: 5-14. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2009.01737.x

USFWS & Ducks Unlimited. 2008. Alaska Peninsula/Becharof NWR Earth Cover Classification (not sure if this is needed)

Savage, S.E., K.J. Payne. 2011. Willow Ptarmigan Pilot Study, Alaska Peninsula/Becharof NWR, Spring 2011. Unpublished protocol, USFW Alaska Peninsula/Becharof NWR, King Salmon, AK.

Viereck, L.A., C.T. Dyrness, A.R. Batten, K.J. Wenzlick. 1992. The Alaska vegetation classification. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-286. Portland, Oregon: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Weeden, R.G. 1965. Grouse and ptarmigan in Alaska: their ecology and management. Alaska Dept. Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska.

West, G.C., M.S. Meng. 1966. Nutrition of willow ptarmigan in Northern Alaska. Auk. 83: 603- 615.

21

West, G.C., R.B. Weeden, L. Irving, L.J. Peyton. 1970. Geographic Variation in Body Size and Weight of willow ptarmigan. Arctic. 23: 240-253.

22

Appendix I. Scientific names¹ of species recorded during the Willow Ptarmigan Study, Alaska Peninsula April - May 2012. Birds Birds Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name Greater White-fronted Goose Anser albifrons Bonaparte's Gull Chroicocephalus philadelphia Canada Goose Branta canadensis Mew Gull Larus canus Tundra Swan Cygnus columbianus Glaucous-winged Gull Larus glaucescens Gadwall Anas strepera Arctic Tern Sterna paradisaea American Wigeon Anas americana Parasitic Jaeger Stercorarius parasiticus Mallard Anas platyrhynchos Long-tailed Jaeger Stercorarius longicaudus Northern Shoveler Anas clypeata Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus Northern Pintail Anas acuta Common Raven Corvus corax Green-winged Teal Anas crecca Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris Greater Scaup Aythya marila Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor Black Scoter Melanitta americana Bank Swallow Riparia riparia Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator Hermit Thrush Catharus guttatus Willow Ptarmigan Lagopus lagopus American Robin Turdus migratorius Common Loon Gavia immer American Pipit Anthus rubescens Horned Grebe Podiceps auritus Lapland Longspur Calcarius lapponicus Red-necked Grebe Podiceps grisegena Orange-crowned Warbler Oreothlypis celata Osprey Pandion haliaetus Myrtle Warbler Setophaga coronata Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus American Tree Sparrow Spizella arborea Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis Fox Sparrow Passerella iliaca Rough-legged Hawk Buteo lagopus Lincoln's Sparrow Melospiza lincolnii Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus Gambel'sWhite-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis Golden-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia atricapilla Black-bellied Plover Pluvialis squatarola Common Redpoll Acanthis flammea Pacific Golden-Plover Pluvialis fulva Semipalmated Plover Charadrius semipalmatus Mammals Greater Yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca Snowshoe Hare Lepus americanus Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus Hudsonian Godwit Limosa haemastica Beaver Castor canadensis Marbled Godwit Limosa fedoa Arctic Ground Squirrel Spermophilus parryii Least Sandpiper Calidris minutilla Red-backed Vole Clethrionomys rutilus Rock Sandpiper Calidris ptilocnemis Wolf Canis lupis Dunlin Calidris alpina Red Fox vulpes vulpes Short-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus griseus Brown Bear Ursus arctos Wilson's Snipe Gallinago delicata Moose Alces alces Red-necked Phalarope Phalaropus lobatus Caribou Rangifer tarandus

¹ Birds ordered according to the AOU 52nd supplement (Chesser et al. 2012) and mammals according to the Mammals of North America, 2nd edition (2009).

23

Appendix II. Logistics and transect descriptions for locations visited during the Willow Ptarmigan Study, Alaska Peninsula April – May 2012.

Location Name: 8-Mile Site

Land Unit: Bristol Bay Borough Dates: 26 April 2012

Major Land Features: From the Alaska Peninsula Highway the land rises slowly to a low ridge east of Monument (Bench mark) Hill. Paul’s Creek drainage runs about 2 km to the east of this transect.

Camp Location: No camping. The site was visited via Refuge vehicle in a single morning.

Surveys:

Transect A: We parked at the 8-Mile Bristol Bay Telephone Cooperative communication site after obtaining permission from them to do so. We hiked to the NW crossing wet tussock meadow or ericaceous dwarf shrub. Patches of tall shrub (willow and alder) dot the open areas. Several tundra creeks cross the meadow.

Water crossings: Several tundra creeks surrounded by wet meadow must be crossed and require the use of hip waders.

Wildlife notes: Sign of voles and a visual observation of red fox were made on this transect. Because we did not camp at the site and were only in the area for the time required to conduct the transect, only 12 species of birds were observed.

Access: The site is reached via Refuge vehicle.

24

Location Name: Jenson Strip

Land Unit: Non-refuge land Dates: 1 – 3 May 2012

Major Land Features: No major natural landmarks are present. The landing strip is the most prominent feature in the area.

Camp Location: 57.8850089˚ -157.08368839˚; we camped near the pole building near the private lodge just south of the landing strip.

Surveys:

Transect 1A: The first point of this transect is located near the eastern edge of the runway. The transect runs to the northeast. Our route paralleled the old road bed (indicated by tall shrub drifted with snow. At ~ 2.3 km, the road turned west and presented a barrier to continuing this direction due to the snow drifts. The first segment’s land cover included ericaceous dwarf shrub, low shrub and tussocky meadow. 1B: We hiked ~ 500 m NW and began a new segment headed NW. This segments vegetation was to the first segment interspersed with patches of open tall shrub.

Transect 2: The first point of this transect is located on the north central side of the runway 500 m W of Transect A. The transect runs to the west. The area was dominated by ericaceous dwarf shrub, some low shrub and tussock meadow. Toward the end of the transect we bypassed a pond. The last km involved the land cover type caused by freeze-thaw action of an old pond where 0.5-1 m ridges form between 1-3 m sized depressions sometimes filled with water. This area was partially vegetated with 1- 1.5 m willow and is extremely taxing to transverse because one cannot walk a straight line.

Water crossings: Transect A was generally dry and knee boots should be sufficient. The latter portion of transect B is fairly wet and hip waders were useful.

Wildlife notes: Caribou, wolf, brown bear, and arctic ground squirrel sign was encountered during our surveys. Thirty-one bird species were detected.

Access: A large landing strip that runs east to west.

25

Location Name: Ralph’s Road

Land Unit: Non-Refuge Land Dates: 11 May 2012

Major Land Features: The Ralph’s road site is located just outside of the town of Naknek. The site is accessed by taking Ralph’s road off of the Alaska Peninsula Highway and driving to within 500m of the start location.

Camp Location: No camping. The site was visited via Refuge vehicle in a single morning.

Surveys:

Transect A: The transect crosses fairly wet and lush ericaceous dwarf shrub with nearby low willow shrub communities that border several ponds. The site is easy to access and is a popular hunting spot.

Water crossings: The area is generally wet and there were several small wetlands to cross. Hip waders are recommended.

Wildlife notes: We saw sign of red fox and caribou and detected 16 species of birds. The proximity of this site to the towns of Naknek and King Salmon probably guarantee increased hunting pressure.

Access: The site is reached via Refuge vehicle.

26

Location Name: North Blue Mountain

Land Unit: Alaska Peninsula NWR Dates: 15 – 17 May 2012

Major Land Features: North Blue Mountain is approximately 8 kilometers to the SSW.

Camp Location: 57.76783333˚ -156.7941166˚; we camped near the large devegetated area that served as a landing strip.

Surveys:

Transect A: This transect started near the landing strip, continued to the northeast, and closely follows the route of the North Blue Mountain 2011 transect B survey. The vegetation communities changed significantly along the transect, but almost always consisted of ericaceous dwarf shrub, low or tall shrub willow, and graminoid herbaceous meadows. The meadows, which varied from wet to mesic, appeared to be small ponds that had succumbed to succession.

Water crossings: Transect A can be fairly wet and hip waders may be required.

Wildlife notes: Caribou, red fox, brown bear, and arctic ground squirrel sign was encountered during our surveys. Nineteen bird species were detected.

Access: The landing strip is a moderately-sized devegetated area near camp.

27

Location Name: Big Creek

Land Unit: Becharof NWR Dates: 21-23 May 2012

Major Land Features: Big Creek drains into the Naknek River from the south and is the only area of the Refuge complex accessible from King Salmon without an aircraft or marine equipped boat. The creek is surrounded by rolling hills, some sandy outwash bluffs, and several oxbow lakes created from the meandering creek changing course. Vegetation of the area includes spruce and cottonwood forest, all shrub types, meadows and wetlands. We set up camp about 0.75 km south of the Refuge boundary.

Camp Location: approximately at 58.531˚ -156.578˚; we camped on river right next to a small copse of spruce trees on dwarf shrub tundra.

Surveys:

Transect A: We began this transect just south of camp on the east side of the creek and headed SSE. The habitat was generally dwarf or low shrub and transected several patches of fairly open tall shrub. Willow and alder shrubs were not leafed out yet. Toward the end of the transect there were several large ponds that we skirted. The transect was laid out to avoid intersecting these ponds.

Transect B: This transect was located on the west side of the creek. Our start was delayed due to motor problems. After repeated attempts at starting, we floated, rowed and polled across the river. We hiked about 300 m from the bank before beginning the transect. The transect navigated to the southwest and crossed low and dwarf shrub, skirted a pond and tall shrub thicket, a wet meadow and climbed up onto a low ridge. There was more variation in habitat types on this transect.

Water crossings: For transect A, no water bodies were crossed navigating this route. The route was doable in hiking boots or knee boots. If surveyors move the transect to the SE, more wetlands would be intersected potentially requiring hip boats or a break and turn of the transect.

Transect B began on the opposite side of the creek from camp, and the boat was required for the crossing. The pond margin and several wetter meadows required at minimum, knee boots.

Wildlife notes: We saw a muskrat and beaver during our trip, sign of Arctic ground squirrel, wolf, and tracks of brown bear, moose and caribou. We noted 36 species of birds (36 species). The high diversity can be accounted because of the creek and because the survey timing being later in May. Ptarmigan were not common in this area, however Refuge Wildlife Biologist Watts had been further upstream on the creek during the previous weekend and noted ptarmigan to be abundant.

Access: The site is reached via a flat-bottomed skiff equipped with jet motor. We used the law enforcement Lund for this trip. The boatman must be familiar with traveling shallow creeks, or with local knowledge of this creek. We experienced motor difficulties during the trip and floated for an hour on our return before we were able to restart the engine. Since it was windy on the return day, and the creek meanders quite a bit, floating was somewhat challenging. In dry springs, boat access in the spring may prove difficult.

28

Location Name: Ugashik South

Land Unit: Non-Refuge Land Dates: 21-23 May 2012

Major Land Features: The most visible feature is the landing strip. As the name implies it is located south of the Ugashik River.

Camp Location: 57.4247˚ -157.7429˚. The camp was located on the side of the landing strip.

Surveys:

Transect A: The transect heads north along the edge of an extensive patch of open/closed willow. The western side of the transect faces the more open side and fades from willow to mesic graminoid herbaceous with little ericaceous dwarf shrub. All bird detections were along this boundary between willow and graminoid herbaceous habitats.

Transect B: This transect starts near the landing strip and heads SSW along an extensive patch of open/closed willow. As with the previous transect, the north western side of the transect faces the more open side and fades from willow to mesic graminoid herbaceous with little ericaceous dwarf shrub. All bird detections were along this boundary between willow and graminoid herbaceous habitats.

Water crossings: The area is generally dry but hip waders might be helpful if the transect lines change.

Wildlife notes: Red fox, caribou, brown bear, arctic ground squirrel, moose, wolf, beaver, and snowshoe hare were noted and 31 species of birds were detected. Ptarmigan density was low. Access: The site is reachable via refuge aircraft on wheels.

29

Location Name: Becharof Outlet South

Land Unit: Becharof NWR Dates: 23 – 26 May 2012

Major Land Features: The survey area is located near the outlet of Becharof Lake. The landing strip and camp area consisted of a large natural devegetated sandy area approximately 800 meters northwest of the outlet.

Camp Location: 58.03368425˚ -156.86736060˚; we camped near the sandy area that was utilized as a landing strip.

Surveys:

Transect A: This transect starts on the west side of the landing strip and continues at approximately 290 degrees. It follows the approximate route of the 2011 willow ptarmigan Becharof Outlet B transect. The vegetation associated with the transect was primarily ericaceous dwarf shrub (Empetrum nigrum, Betula nana, and lichen) with occasional ponds, stands of willow, scattered graminoid meadows, and fewer unvegetated areas than transect B.

Transect B: This transect is located on an area of higher ground and parallels a small drainage that lies to the north. This transect is located along the same route as the 2011 Becharof Outlet transect A route. The area is comprised primarily of ericaceous dwarf shrub (Empetrum nigrum, Betula nana, and lichen) with occasional ponds, stands of willow (Salix sp.), and unvegetated areas.

Water crossings: The area was generally dry. Knee boots should be sufficient to survey this area.

Wildlife notes: Mammals observed (including tracks or sign) included: red fox, caribou, brown bear, arctic ground squirrel, moose, wolf, beaver, and snowshoe hare. Forty-four species of birds were detected.

Access: A large devegetated area served as the landing strip. Access is also possible using a floatplane and Becharof lake.

30

Location Name: Dunes

Land Unit: Becharof NWR Dates: 30 May – 1 June 2012

Major Land Features: The survey area is located 4.5 km east of the previous Shosky Creek site. The landing strip and camp area consisted of a large natural devegetated sandy area. We did not return to the previous site because it was inaccessible due to a large pond on the landing strip.

Camp Location: 58.1516˚ -156.7398˚; we camped near the sandy area that was utilized as a landing strip.

Surveys:

Transect A: This survey was conducted on 31 May. The first part of the transect is comprised of ericaceous dwarf shrub and graminoid herbaceous meadows but the elevation gradually increases so that ericaceous dwarf shrub dominates the remainder of the transect.

Water crossings: Transect A crosses some wet areas in the beginning and hip boots are required.

Wildlife notes: Caribou, red fox, brown bear, and arctic ground squirrel sign was encountered during our surveys. Thirty-three bird species were detected.

Access: A large devegetated area served as the landing strip.

31

Appendix III. Steps used to plot willow ptarmigan locations (offsetting Points) in ArcGIS 10, the Willow Ptarmigan Study, Alaska Peninsula April – May 2012.

The following steps can be used to easily offset points by a distance and direction.

1. If you have ArcGIS 10 (Arc info license), you can try the following:

1. Use Add XY Coordinates tool (Data Management toolbox - Features toolset) to have the POINT_X and POINT_Y fields added to the input table. Also use Add Field tool (Field toolset) to add an ID field and use Calculate Field tool to calculate it by OBJECTID (unique values). This ID field will be used later as a common field to join tables and transfer attributes. 2. Use the Bearing Distance To Line tool (same toolset) with the fields you have (POINT_X, POINT_Y, Distance, Direction, ID) to get lines starting at the points and ending at the locations you want to move your points to. 3. Use Feature Vertices To Points tool (same toolset) with END option to get endpoints of the lines; they are at the locations you want. 4. If you need attributes from the original points, you can use the Join Field tool (Joins toolset) through the ID field in the endpoints and the original points to transfer fields.

You can throw the lines away when you are done. Source: http://forums.arcgis.com/threads/56441-Offsetting-Points

This new point file should represent the actual location of the birds as indicated by the data collected in the field. There are a few other steps to get the required data for distance analysis:

1. Map the transect line as a straight line from the start to end point. This can be done using the drawing tool and then converting the graphic(s) to a feature(s). 2. Calculate the proximity of the points to the transect line using the Analysis Tools/Proximity/Near tool. Checking the angle option will allow you to determine if the shortest path to the line is perpendicular (inside the study area). 3. Join any appropriate tabular data to the bird location layer.

32

Appendix IV. Results details of Distance Analysis using observations of males only, Half-normal key function, distance truncated at 350m, 50m bins, the Willow Ptarmigan Study, Alaska Peninsula April – May 2012.

Log Initializing Making Data File Making Data Selection Queries Making Input File Engine started with the following command: C:\PROGRA~2\DISTAN~1\ec "C:\PROGRA~2\DISTAN~1\MCDS.exe 0, C:\Users\SUSANS~1\AppData\Local\Temp\1\dst6280.tmp \options 2>C:\Users\SUSANS~1\AppData\Local\Temp\1\dst627F.tmp" -- Start of Analyis Engine Log File -- This is mcds.exe version 6.0.4 Options; Type=Line; Length /Measure='Meter'; Distance=Perp /Measure='Meter'; Area /Units='Hectare'; Object=Cluster; SF=1; Selection=Sequential; Lookahead=1; Maxterms=5; Confidence=95; Print=Selection; End; Data /Structure=Flat; Fields=STR_LABEL, STR_AREA, SMP_LABEL, SMP_EFFORT, DISTANCE, SIZE; Infile=C:\Users\SUSANS~1\AppData\Local\Temp\1\dst6240.tmp /NoEcho; Data will be input from file - [...]PDATA\LOCAL\TEMP\1\DST6240.TMP End; Dataset has been stored. Estimate; Distance /Nclass=7 /Width=350 /Left=0; Density=All; Encounter=All; Detection=All; Size=All; Estimator /Key=HN /Adjust=CO /Criterion=AIC; Monotone=Strict; Pick=AIC; GOF; Cluster /Bias=GXLOG; VarN=Empirical; End; ** Warning: Exact distance values, rather than distance intervals, have been used in size bias regression calculations. ** ** Warning: Size bias adjustment has increased expected cluster size. **

-- End of Analyis Engine Log File -- Analysis engine status 'Warnings' Reading Results Run finished

Distance Analysis

Males Only, all Transects, Truncated 350m, Intervals 50m

Estimation Options Listing

33

Parameter Estimation Specification ------Encounter rate for all data combined Detection probability for all data combined Expected cluster size for all data combined Density for all data combined

Distances: ------Analysis based on distance intervals Width specified as: 350.0000 Left most value set at: 0.0000000

Clusters: ------Analysis based on exact sizes Expected value of cluster size computed by: regression of log(s(i)) on g(x(i))

Estimators: ------Estimator 1 Key: Half-normal Adjustments - Function : Cosines - Term selection mode : Sequential - Term selection criterion : Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) - Distances scaled by : W (right truncation distance)

Estimator selection: Choose estimator with minimum AIC Estimation functions: constrained to be nearly monotone non-increasing

Variances: ------Variance of n: Empirical estimate from sample (design-derived estimator R2/P2) Variance of f(0): MLE estimate

Goodness of fit: ------Based on grouped distance data intervals

Glossary of terms ------

Data items: n - number of observed objects (single or clusters of animals) L - total length of transect line(s) k - number of samples K - point transect effort, typically K=k T - length of time searched in cue counting ER - encounter rate (n/L or n/K or n/T) W - width of line transect or radius of point transect x(i) - distance to i-th observation s(i) - cluster size of i-th observation r-p - probability for regression test chi-p- probability for chi-square goodness-of-fit test

Parameters or functions of parameters: m - number of parameters in the model A(I) - i-th parameter in the estimated probability density function(pdf) f(0) - 1/u = value of pdf at zero for line transects u - W*p = ESW, effective detection area for line transects h(0) - 2*PI/v v - PI*W*W*p, is the effective detection area for point transects

34

p - probability of observing an object in defined area ESW - for line transects, effective strip width = W*p EDR - for point transects, effective detection radius = W*sqrt(p) rho - for cue counts, the cue rate DS - estimate of density of clusters E(S) - estimate of expected value of cluster size D - estimate of density of animals N - estimate of number of animals in specified area

Detection Fct/Global/Model Fitting

Effort : 47476.00 # samples : 13 Width : 350.0000 Left : 0.0000000 # observations: 241

Model 1 Half-normal key, k(y) = Exp(-y**2/(2*A(1)**2)) Results: Convergence was achieved with 9 function evaluations. Final Ln(likelihood) value = -421.86831 Akaike information criterion = 845.73663 Bayesian information criterion = 849.22144 AICc = 845.75336 Final parameter values: 151.12427

Model 2 Half-normal key, k(y) = Exp(-y**2/(2*A(1)**2)) Cosine adjustments of order(s) : 2 Results: Convergence was achieved with 24 function evaluations. Final Ln(likelihood) value = -421.10804 Akaike information criterion = 846.21606 Bayesian information criterion = 853.18567 AICc = 846.26648 Final parameter values: 154.76674 0.11954126

Likelihood ratio test between models 1 and 2 Likelihood ratio test value = 1.5205 Probability of a greater value = 0.217539 *** Model 1 selected over model 2 based on minimum AIC

Detection Fct/Global/Plot: Detection Probability

35

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Perpendicular distance in meters

Detection Fct/Global/Chi-sq GOF Test

Cell Cut Observed Expected Chi-square i Points Values Values Values ------1 0.000 50.0 73 63.79 1.330 2 50.0 100. 56 57.23 0.027 3 100. 150. 35 46.07 2.660 4 150. 200. 33 33.27 0.002 5 200. 250. 25 21.56 0.549 6 250. 300. 12 12.53 0.023 7 300. 350. 7 6.54 0.033 ------Total Chi-square value = 4.6230 Degrees of Freedom = 5.00

Probability of a greater chi-square value, P = 0.46359

The program has limited capability for pooling. The user should judge the necessity for pooling and if necessary, do pooling by hand.

Density Estimates/Global

Effort : 47476.00 # samples : 13 Width : 350.0000 Left : 0.0000000 # observations: 241

Model 1 Half-normal key, k(y) = Exp(-y**2/(2*A(1)**2)) 36

Point Standard Percent Coef. 95% Percent Parameter Estimate Error of Variation Confidence Interval ------DS 0.13682 0.36468E-01 26.65 0.77684E-01 0.24096 E(S) 1.0948 0.14750E-01 1.35 1.0661 1.1242 D 0.14979 0.39976E-01 26.69 0.85014E-01 0.26391 ------

Measurement Units ------Density: Numbers/hectares ESW: meters

Component Percentages of Var(D) ------Detection probability : 3.9 Encounter rate : 95.8 Cluster size : 0.3

Estimation Summary – Expected Cluster Size

Estimate %CV df 95% Confidence Interval ------Average cluster size 1.0913 1.87 240.00 1.0519 1.1321 Half-normal/Cosine r 0.40284E-01 r-p 0.73315 E(S) 1.0948 1.35 239.00 1.0661 1.1242

Estimation Summary - Density

Estimate %CV df 95% Confidence Interval ------Half-normal/Cosine DS 0.13682 26.65 13.00 0.77684E-01 0.24096 D 0.14979 26.69 13.06 0.85014E-01 0.26391

37