DOCSLIB.ORG

Shorebird Temporarl and Spatial Use Patterns Survey, Bristol Bay Coast

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Shorebird Temporarl and Spatial Use Patterns Survey, Bristol Bay Coast U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service SHOREBIRD TEMPORAL AND SPATIAL USE PATTERNS SURVEY, BRISTOL BAY COAST, APRIL - OCTOBER 2012 Susan E. Savage and Kevin J. Payne ______________________________________________________________________________ December 2013 Photo: Robert Blush Alaska Peninsula / Becharof National Wildlife Refuge PO Box 277 King Salmon, AK 99613 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. KEY WORDS: Aerial Surveys, Coastal Surveys, Bristol Bay, Kvichak Bay, Nushagak Bay, Shorebirds Photo: Black-bellied plovers on the Kvichak Bay beach near Naknek, Alaska, July 2008. Suggested Citation: Savage, S.E. and K.J. Payne. 2013. Shorebird Temporal and Spatial Use Patterns Survey, Bristol Bay Coast, April - October 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 ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 1 STUDY AREA .................................................................................................................................................. 4 METHODS ...................................................................................................................................................... 5 Field Methods ........................................................................................................................................... 5 Summarizing Results ................................................................................................................................. 6 RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................................ 6 Survey Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 6 Shorebird Abundance ............................................................................................................................... 7 Shorebird Distribution .............................................................................................................................. 9 Landscape-Level Events .......................................................................................................................... 16 Incidental Cranes and Marine Mammals ................................................................................................ 16 Project Costs ........................................................................................................................................... 18 DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................................................. 18 Shorebird Abundance, Composition and Habitat ................................................................................... 18 Recommendations for This Survey ......................................................................................................... 22 Recommendations for Future Investigation ........................................................................................... 22 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................................... 22 LITERATURE CITED ...................................................................................................................................... 23 iii List of Figures Figure 1. Survey locations and general geography for the Shorebird Temporal and Spatial Use Patterns Survey, Bristol Bay Coast, April - October 2012. .................................................. 5 Figure 2. Shorebird detections for all surveys by flock size, for the Shorebird Temporal and Spatial Use Patterns Survey, Bristol Bay Coast, April - October 2012 .............................. 10 Figure 3a. Shorebird detections for April and May 2012 surveys by flock size, Bristol Bay Coast ................................................................................................................................. 11 Figure 3b. Shorebird detections for July and August 2012 surveys by flock size, Bristol Bay Coast. ................................................................................................................................ 12 Figure 3c. Shorebird detections for September, October, and November surveys by flock size, Bristol Bay Coast ............................................................................................................... 13 Figure 4a. Point density (density of observations) distributions for all shorebird detections, for the Shorebird Temporal and Spatial Use Patterns Survey, Bristol Bay Coast, April - October 2012 .................................................................................................................... 14 Figure 4. Kernel density (density of observations weighted by flock size) distributions for all shorebird detections, for the Shorebird Temporal and Spatial Use Patterns Survey, Bristol Bay Coast, April - October 2012 ............................................................................ 15 Figure 5. Barometric pressure (inches Hg) as recorded at the King Salmon NWS weather station during the Shorebird Temporal and Spatial Use Patterns Survey, Bristol Bay Coast, April - October 2012. ................................................................................................................... 16 List of Tables Table 1. Shorebirds found in the Bristol Bay Watershed (From Brna and Verbrugge 2013) ......... 3 Table 2. Summary of date, time, conditions, observers and equipment used during the Shorebird Temporal and Spatial Use Patterns Survey, Bristol Bay Coast, April - October 2012. ................................................................................................................................... 7 Table 3. Summary of shorebird counts by size versus date during the Shorebird Temporal and 8patial Use Patterns Survey, Bristol Bay Coast, April - October 2012. ............................... 8 Table 4a. Summary of shorebird counts by survey section versus date during the Shorebird Temporal and Spatial Use Patterns Survey, Bristol Bay Coast, April - October 2012. ........ 8 Table 4b. Summary of shorebird counts per km of Bristol Bay survey section April - October 2012. ................................................................................................................................... 9 iv Table 5. Summary of sandhill crane counts by survey section versus date during the Shorebird Temporal and Spatial Use Patterns Survey, Bristol Bay Coast, April - October 2012. ...... 17 Table 6. Summary of beluga whale counts by survey section versus date during the Shorebird Temporal and Spatial Use Patterns Survey, Bristol Bay Coast, April - October 2012. ...... 17 Table 7. Historic aerial survey data including shorebird counts, Bristol Bay Coast ...................... 19 List of Appendices Appendix I. Constructing Point and Kernel Density Estimates with Shorebird Data. ....................... 28 v ABSTRACT In 2011 seven Alaska Native Tribes requested the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) assess the impact of metal mining in the upper Kvichak and Nushagak drainages, especially to salmon resources and to species that were heavily dependent on marine derived nutrients. EPA requested US Fish and Wildlife Service prepare background information regarding some of these species; subsequently USFWS identified shorebirds as a group of interest. To better quantify shorebird use patterns along the Bristol Bay marine coast, biologists from the Alaska Peninsula/Becharof NWR conducted twelve coastline aerial surveys during the ice-free season (27 April – 24 October) of 2012 to document shorebird temporal and spatial distribution. The survey included the Bristol Bay coast from Coffee Point (north of Egegik) to Cape Constantine (tip of Nushagak Peninsula). Small shorebirds (peeps, primarily Calidris spp.) accounted for 87% of the observations. During spring migration, shorebird counts peaked in early May (37,530 birds) while fall migration had two peaks in late September (20,536 birds) and in early October (30,373 birds). Shorebird numbers were lowest in late May (69 birds) and on the first survey (566 birds). The highest count and concentration of birds were found on the Kvichak River to Clarks
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Bristol Bay, Alaska
    EPA 910-R-14-001C | January 2014 An Assessment of Potential Mining Impacts on Salmon Ecosystems of Bristol Bay, Alaska Volume 3 – Appendices E-J Region 10, Seattle, WA www.epa.gov/bristolbay EPA 910-R-14-001C January 2014 AN ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL MINING IMPACTS ON SALMON ECOSYSTEMS OF BRISTOL BAY, ALASKA VOLUME 3—APPENDICES E-J U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10 Seattle, WA CONTENTS VOLUME 1 An Assessment of Potential Mining Impacts on Salmon Ecosystems of Bristol Bay, Alaska VOLUME 2 APPENDIX A: Fishery Resources of the Bristol Bay Region APPENDIX B: Non-Salmon Freshwater Fishes of the Nushagak and Kvichak River Drainages APPENDIX C: Wildlife Resources of the Nushagak and Kvichak River Watersheds, Alaska APPENDIX D: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Characterization of the Indigenous Cultures of the Nushagak and Kvichak Watersheds, Alaska VOLUME 3 APPENDIX E: Bristol Bay Wild Salmon Ecosystem: Baseline Levels of Economic Activity and Values APPENDIX F: Biological Characterization: Bristol Bay Marine Estuarine Processes, Fish, and Marine Mammal Assemblages APPENDIX G: Foreseeable Environmental Impact of Potential Road and Pipeline Development on Water Quality and Freshwater Fishery Resources of Bristol Bay, Alaska APPENDIX H: Geologic and Environmental Characteristics of Porphyry Copper Deposits with Emphasis on Potential Future Development in the Bristol Bay Watershed, Alaska APPENDIX I: Conventional Water Quality Mitigation Practices for Mine Design, Construction, Operation, and Closure APPENDIX J: Compensatory Mitigation and Large-Scale Hardrock Mining in the Bristol Bay Watershed AN ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL MINING IMPACTS ON SALMON ECOSYSTEMS OF BRISTOL BAY, ALASKA VOLUME 3—APPENDICES E-J Appendix E: Bristol Bay Wild Salmon Ecosystem: Baseline Levels of Economic Activity and Values Bristol Bay Wild Salmon Ecosystem Baseline Levels of Economic Activity and Values John Duffield Chris Neher David Patterson Bioeconomics, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Abstract Book
    January 21-25, 2013 Alaska Marine Science Symposium hotel captain cook & Dena’ina center • anchorage, alaska Bill Rome Glenn Aronmits Hansen Kira Ross McElwee ShowcaSing ocean reSearch in the arctic ocean, Bering Sea, and gulf of alaSka alaskamarinescience.org Glenn Aronmits Index This Index follows the chronological order of the 2013 AMSS Keynote and Plenary speakers Poster presentations follow and are in first author alphabetical order according to subtopic, within their LME category Editor: Janet Duffy-Anderson Organization: Crystal Benson-Carlough Abstract Review Committee: Carrie Eischens (Chair), George Hart, Scott Pegau, Danielle Dickson, Janet Duffy-Anderson, Thomas Van Pelt, Francis Wiese, Warren Horowitz, Marilyn Sigman, Darcy Dugan, Cynthia Suchman, Molly McCammon, Rosa Meehan, Robin Dublin, Heather McCarty Cover Design: Eric Cline Produced by: NOAA Alaska Fisheries Science Center / North Pacific Research Board Printed by: NOAA Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, Washington www.alaskamarinescience.org i ii Welcome and Keynotes Monday January 21 Keynotes Cynthia Opening Remarks & Welcome 1:30 – 2:30 Suchman 2:30 – 3:00 Jeremy Mathis Preparing for the Challenges of Ocean Acidification In Alaska 30 Testing the Invasion Process: Survival, Dispersal, Genetic Jessica Miller Characterization, and Attenuation of Marine Biota on the 2011 31 3:00 – 3:30 Japanese Tsunami Marine Debris Field 3:30 – 4:00 Edward Farley Chinook Salmon and the Marine Environment 32 4:00 – 4:30 Judith Connor Technologies for Ocean Studies 33 EVENING POSTER
    [Show full text]
  • Fisheries Rehabilitation and Enhancement in Bristol Bay-A
    FISHERIES REHABILITATION AND ENHANCEMENT IN BRISTOL BAY A COMPLETION REPORT BY Melinda L. Rowse and W. Michael Kaill Number 18 Report No./BB009 FISHERIES REHABILITATION AND ENHANCEMENT IN BRISTOL BAY A COMPLETION REPORT BY Melinda L. Rowse and W. Michael Kaill Number 18 Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Fisheries Rehabilitation, Enhancement & Development Don W. Collinsworth Commissioner Stanley A. Moberly Di rector P.O. BOX 3-2000 Juneau, Alaska 99802 November 1983 TABLE OF CQNTENTS Section Page Abstract ........................................................ 1 Introduction .................................................... 2 Area Assessment ................................................. 2 Description of the Fishery ................................. 2 Japanese High Seas Fishery ................................. 4 History of Sockeye Salmon Rehabilitation in Bristol Bay ......... 7 Lake Fertilization ......................................... 9 Hatchery Evaluation ........................................ 12 Predator/Competitor Studies ................................ 12 Beluga Whale Predation ................................ 12 Stickleback Competition ............................... 13 Arctic Char Predation ................................. 14 Goals of F.R.E.D. Division in Bristol Bay ....................... 1.8 Report on F.R.E.D. Division Projects ............................ 19 Lake Nunavaugaluk Sockeye Salmon Smolt Studies ............. 19 Methods and Materials ................................. 19 Results ..............................................
    [Show full text]
  • Petition to List the Iliamna Lake Seal, a Distinct Population Segment of Eastern North Pacific Harbor Seal (Phoca Vitulina Richardii), Under the U.S
    Before the Secretary of Commerce Petition to List the Iliamna Lake Seal, a Distinct Population Segment of Eastern North Pacific Harbor Seal (Phoca vitulina richardii), under the U.S. Endangered Species Act Photo Credit: NOAA Fisheries/Dave Withrow Center for Biological Diversity 6 February 2020 i Notice of Petition Wilbur Ross, Secretary of Commerce U.S. Department of Commerce 1401 Constitution Ave. NW Washington, D.C. 20230 Email: [email protected], [email protected] Dr. Neil Jacobs, Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere U.S. Department of Commerce 1401 Constitution Ave. NW Washington, D.C. 20230 Email: [email protected] Petitioner: Kristin Carden, Oceans Program Scientist, on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity 1212 Broadway #800 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: 510.844.7100 x327 Email: [email protected] On November 19, 2012, the Center for Biological Diversity (Center, Petitioner) submitted to the Secretary of Commerce and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) through the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) a petition to list the Iliamna Lake population of eastern North Pacific harbor seal (Phoca vitulina richardii) as threatened or endangered under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA). (See generally Center 2012.) On May 17, 2013, NMFS issued a positive 90- day finding “that the petition present[ed] substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petition action may be warranted” and initiated a status review. (78 Fed. Reg. 29,098 (May 17, 2013).). On November 17, 2016, NMFS issued a determination that listing was not warranted because “the seals in Iliamna Lake do not constitute a species, subspecies, or distinct population segment (DPS) under the ESA.” (81 Fed.
    [Show full text]
  • Refashioning Production in Bristol Bay, Alaska by Karen E. Hébert A
    Wild Dreams: Refashioning Production in Bristol Bay, Alaska by Karen E. Hébert A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Anthropology) in the University of Michigan 2008 Doctoral Committee: Professor Fernando Coronil, Chair Associate Professor Arun Agrawal Associate Professor Stuart A. Kirsch Associate Professor Barbra A. Meek © Karen E. Hébert 2008 Acknowledgments At a cocktail party after an academic conference not long ago, I found myself in conversation with another anthropologist who had attended my paper presentation earlier that day. He told me that he had been fascinated to learn that something as “mundane” as salmon could be linked to so many important sociocultural processes. Mundane? My head spun with confusion as I tried to reciprocate chatty pleasantries. How could anyone conceive of salmon as “mundane”? I was so confused by the mere suggestion that any chance of probing his comment further passed me by. As I drifted away from the conversation, it occurred to me that a great many people probably deem salmon as mundane as any other food product, even if they may consider Alaskan salmon fishing a bit more exotic. At that moment, I realized that I was the one who carried with me a particularly pronounced sense of salmon’s significance—one that I shared with, and no doubt learned from, the people with whom I conducted research. The cocktail-party exchange made clear to me how much I had thoroughly adopted some of the very assumptions I had set out simply to study. It also made me smile, because it revealed how successful those I got to know during my fieldwork had been in transforming me from an observer into something more of a participant.
    [Show full text]
  • Marine Science Symposium GULF of ALASKA MONDAY AFTERNOON, JANUARY 18, 2010 DENIS WIESENBURG, SCHOOL of FISHERIES and OCEAN SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY of ALASKA FAIRBANKS
    AlaskaMarine Science Symposium GULF OF ALASKA MONDAY AFTERNOON, JANUARY 18, 2010 DENIS WIESENBURG, SCHOOL OF FISHERIES AND OCEAN SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA FAIRBANKS Speaker Page Carl Schoch KEYNOTE: Prince William Sound Field Experiment 1 CLIMATE AND OCEANOGRAPHY Measuring the pulse of the Gulf of Alaska: oceanographic observations Russell R Hopcroft along Seward Line, 1997‐2009 2 Perspectives on a decade of change in the Alaska Gyre: a comparison Sonia Batten of three Northeast Pacific zooplankton time series 2 ECOSYSTEM PERSPECTIVES On the development of a 3‐tier nested estuarine classification for David M. Albert Southeast Alaska 3 Biodegradability of Lingering Oil 19 Years After the Exxon Valdez Oil Albert D. Venosa 3 Spill Modeling the Distribution of Lingering Subsurface Oil from the Exxon Jacqueline Michel Valdez Oil Spill 4 LOWER TROPHIC LEVELS Gulf of Alaska shelf ecosystem: model studies of the effects of Kenneth O. Coyle circulation and iron concentration on plankton production 5 Megan Murphy Oceanographic effects on larval transport of brachyuran crab in 5 Student Presentation Kachemak Bay, AK Potential for Razor Clam Restoration in Orca Inlet, Alaska ‐ Thoughts on Dennis C. Lees the Viability of Pre‐historic and Recent Fisheries, and the Nature of 6 Razor Clam Habitats and Associated Infaunal Assemblages FISH AND FISH HABITAT Jodi L Pirtle Habitat‐mediated survival and predator‐prey interactions of early 7 Student Presentation juvenile red king crab (Paralithodes camtschaticus) Ginny L Eckert King Crab Aquaculture and
    [Show full text]
  • ORPC Rivgen Wake Characterization
    ORPC RivGen Wake Characterization Maricarmen Guerra Paris* Jim Thomson University of Washington University of Washington Seattle, WA, USA Seattle, WA, USA *Corresponding author: [email protected] in turbulence due to eddies shed by turbine blades; and iii) complex interactions between natural and turbine ABSTRACT induced turbulent structures [6]. In this investigation we assess the wake formed behind Baseline and post-deployment flow conditions were mea- a horizontal cross-flow turbine installed on the Kvichak sured at the ORPC RivGen turbine site on the Kvichak river in southwest Alaska, USA, just downstream of the river in the vicinity of Igiugig village, Alaska. Mean sur- village of Igiugig. The small village is home to 70 peo- face flow and turbulence measurements were collected ple and its electricity source currently depends on an from a drifting platform equipped with a Nortek Signa- isolated power grid fed by diesel generators. The Ocean ture 1000Hz five beam AD2CP. Baseline measurements Renewable Power Company (ORPC) has set a pilot hy- indicate a maximum flow of 2.5 m/s and a 10% turbu- drokinetic energy project on the Kvichak river stream to lent intensity in the turbine vicinity. Measurements af- provide Igiugig with a renewable and locally produced ter turbine deployment and grid connection show a sig- source of energy. nificant decrease in surface velocity up to 200 m down- ORPCs RivGen turbine was successfully deployed, stream from the turbine and an increase in turbulence tested and connected to the local power grid during intensity up to 20% that extends about 75 m down- the summers of 2014 and 2015.
    [Show full text]
  • Fish Surveys in Headwater Streams of the Nushagak and Kvichak River Drainages Bristol Bay, Alaska, 2008 - 2010
    FISH SURVEYS IN HEADWATER STREAMS OF THE NUSHAGAK AND KVICHAK RIVER DRAINAGES BRISTOL BAY, ALASKA, 2008 - 2010 December, 2010 ©Bridget Besaw/TNC Prepared for by Dr. Carol Ann Woody & Sarah Louise O’Neal Fisheries Research and Consulting Anchorage, Alaska PREFACE The Nature Conservancy is an international not-for profit organization with a mission to preserve the biodiversity of the earth. Several years ago the Conservancy refocused programs to advancing local conservation efforts that contribute most to protecting globally significant strongholds of biodiversity. The Alaska Chapter determined that the loss of wild Pacific salmon productivity in Alaska would have a global impact because wild salmon have been severely compromised in other parts of the world. A focus on wild salmon in Alaska inevitably leads to Bristol Bay – home to the world’s largest remaining salmon runs. In the late 1990s the Conservancy began developing partnerships with local organizations to protect the long term viability of Bristol Bay’s salmon resource. A partnership with the Curyung Tribe of Dillingham, the Bristol Bay Native Association and the Nushagak- Mulchatna Watershed Council led to the development and the publication in 2007 of The Nushagak River Watershed Traditional Use Area Conservation Plan. During the time the Conservancy was working with this partnership, the discovery of a large copper and gold ore body on state lands in the watersheds of the Nushagak and Kvichak Rivers was announced. A flurry of new mining claims followed. The discovery, now known as the Pebble Prospect, is under active exploration and environmental assessment by a consortium of mining interests. The Anadromous Fish Act (AS 16.05.871) is the key State of Alaska statutory protection for freshwater habitats of fish in Alaska.
    [Show full text]
  • BSIERP B69 Appendix
    Technical Paper No. 371 Subsistence Harvests and Uses in Three Bering Sea Communities, 2008: Akutan, Emmonak, and Togiak by James A. Fall, Caroline L. Brown, Nicole M. Braem, Lisa Hutchinson-Scarbrough, David Koster, Theodore M. Krieg, and Andrew R. Brenner December 2012 Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Subsistence Symbols and Abbreviations The following symbols and abbreviations, and others approved for the Système International d'Unités (SI), are used without definition in the reports by the Division of Subsistence. All others, including deviations from definitions listed below, are noted in the text at first mention, as well as in the titles or footnotes of tables, and in figure or figure captions. Weights and measures (metric) General Mathematics, statistics centimeter cm Alaska Administrative Code AAC all standard mathematical signs, symbols deciliter dL all commonly-accepted and abbreviations gram g abbreviations e.g., alternate hypothesis HA hectare ha Mr., Mrs., base of natural logarithm e kilogram kg AM, PM, etc. catch per unit effort CPUE kilometer km all commonly-accepted coefficient of variation CV liter L professional titles e.g., Dr., Ph.D., common test statistics (F, t, 2, etc.) meter m R.N., etc. confidence interval CI milliliter mL at @ correlation coefficient (multiple) R millimeter mm compass directions: correlation coefficient (simple) r east E covariance cov Weights and measures (English) north N degree (angular ) ° cubic feet per second ft3/s south S degrees of freedom df foot ft west W expected value E gallon gal copyright greater than > inch in corporate suffixes: greater than or equal to mile mi Company Co.
    [Show full text]
  • Surface Water Quality in the Nushagak, Kvichak, and Chulitna Watersheds, Southwest Alaska 2009-2010
    Investigations of Surface Water Quality in the Nushagak, Kvichak, and Chulitna Watersheds, Southwest Alaska 2009-2010 Kendra L. Zamzow, Ph.D. Center for Science in Public Participation PO Box 54 Sutton, Alaska 99674 July 2011 for The Nature Conservancy 715 L Street Suite 100 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Investigations of Surface Water Quality in the Nushagak, Kvichak, and Chulitna Watersheds, Southwest Alaska 2009-2010 Prepared for: The Nature Conservancy 715 L Street Suite 100 Anchorage, AK 99501 Prepared by: Kendra L. Zamzow, Ph.D. Center for Science in Public Participation PO Box 54 Sutton, AK 99674 with editorial review by: Ann Maest, Ph.D. Stratus Consulting 1881 Ninth St., Ste. 201 Boulder, CO 80302 and Molly Welker Bristol Environmental Remediation Services, LLC 111 W. 16th Avenue, Third Floor Anchorage, AK 99501 July 2011 Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................1 1.0 Introduction .....................................................................................................................1 2.0 Study Area and Sampling Locations ...............................................................................3 3.0 Methods, Data Availability, and Relevant Standards .....................................................7 3.1 Methods .......................................................................................................................7 3.2 Available Data .............................................................................................................7
    [Show full text]
  • Population Dynamics and Trophic Ecology of Dolly Varden in The
    Population Dynamics and Trophic Ecology of Dolly Varden in the Iliamna River, Alaska: Life History of Freshwater Fish Relying on Marine Food Subsidies Troy A. Jaecks A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science University of Washington 2010 Program Authorized to Offer Degree: School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences University of Washington Graduate School This is to certify that I have examined this copy of a master’s thesis by Troy A. Jaecks and have found that it is complete and satisfactory in all respects, and that any and all revisions required by the final examining committee have been made. Committee Members: _______________________________________________ Thomas P. Quinn _______________________________________________ Andre Punt _______________________________________________ David Beauchamp _______________________________________________ James Hasbrouck Date: ___________________________________________ In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a master’s degree at the University of Washington, I agree that the Library shall make its copies freely available for inspection. I further agree that extensive copying of this thesis is allowable only for scholarly purposes, consistent with “fair use” as prescribed in the U.S. Copyright Law. Any other reproduction for any purposes or by any means shall not be allowed without my permission. Signature ________________________________ Date ____________________________________ Table of Contents List of Figures
    [Show full text]
  • Population Monitoring and Status of the Nushagak Peninsula Caribou Herd
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Population Monitoring and Status of the Nushagak Peninsula Caribou Herd, 1988-2012 Andy R. Aderman Togiak National Wildlife Refuge Dillingham, Alaska August 2013 Citation: Aderman, A. R. 2013. Population monitoring and status of the Nushagak Peninsula caribou herd, 1988-2012. Togiak National Wildlife Refuge, Dillingham, Alaska. 30 pp. Keywords: caribou, Rangifer tarandus, Togiak National Wildlife Refuge, southwestern Alaska, calf production, recruitment, survival, population estimate, subsistence harvest, management implications Disclaimer: The use of trade names of commercial products in this report does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the federal government. Population Monitoring and Status of the Nushagak Peninsula Caribou Herd, 1988-2012 Andy R. Aderman1 ABSTRACT In February 1988, 146 caribou were reintroduced to the Nushagak Peninsula. From 1988 to 2013, radio collars were deployed on female caribou and monitored monthly. High calf recruitment and adult female survival allowed the population to grow rapidly (r = 0.226), peaking at 1,399 caribou in 1997. Population density on the Nushagak Peninsula reached approximately 1.2 caribou per km2 in 1997 and 1998. During the next decade, calf recruitment and adult female survival decreased and the population declined (r = -0.105) to 546 caribou in 2006. The population remained at about 550 caribou until 2009 and then increased to 902 by 2012. Subsistence hunting removed from 0-12.3% of the population annually from 1995-2012. Decreased nutrition and other factors likely caused an unstable age distribution and subsequent population decline after the peak in 1997. Dispersal, disease, unreported harvest and predation implications for caribou populations are discussed.
    [Show full text]