INNOKO NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

McGrath, Alaska

ANNUAL NARRATIVE REPORT

Calendar Year 2002

U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM REVIEW AND APPROVALS

INNOKO NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

McGrath, Alaska

ANNUAL NARRATIVE REPORT Calendar Year 2002

~J~ '?[L~/o\ Refuge Manager Date Chief of ~~es Date

Date REVIEW AND APPROVALS

INNOKO NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

McGrath, Alaska

ANNUAL NARRATIVE REPORT Calendar Year 2002

/?]·05 ~J~~ II Date Chief of Refuges Date 7ZrJv~v -z./6/r: ------~,~~~------Date TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

INTRODUCTION 6

A. HIGHLIGHTS . 7

B. CLIMATIC CONDITIONS

1. Summary 8

C. LAND ACQUISITION

1. Fee Title . Nothing to Report 2. Easements . Nothing to Report 3. Other Nothing to Report

D. PLANNING

1. Master Plan 11 2. Management Plan Nothing to Report 3. Public Participation. Nothing to Report 4. Compliance with Environmental Mandates Nothing to Report 5. Research and Investigation 11

E. ADMINISTRATION

1. Personnel . 14 2. Youth Programs . Nothing to Report 3. Other Personnel Programs . Nothing to Report 4. Volunteers Program 17 5. Funding 18 6. Safety 18 7. Technical Assistance. 21 8. Other Items 21

F. HABITAT MANAGEMENT

1. General 22 2. Wetlands 23 3. Forests 24 4. Croplands . Nothing to Report 5. Grasslands. Nothing to Report 6. Other Habitats . Nothing to Report 7. Grazing Nothing to Report 8. Haying Nothing to Report 9. Fire Management. 25 10. Pest Control Nothing to Report 11. Water Rights 27 12. Wilderness and Special Areas Nothing to Report 13. WPA Easement Monitoring Nothing to Report

G. WILDLIFE

1. Wildlife Diversity 28 2. Endangered and/or Threatened Species Nothing to Report 3. Waterfowl . 28 4. Marsh and Water Birds Nothing to Report 5. Shorebirds, Gulls, Terns and Allied Species Nothing to Report 6. Raptors Nothing to Report 7. Other Migratory Birds 29 8. Game Mammals 31 9. Marine Mammals . Nothing to Report 10. Other Resident Wildlife 32 11. Fisheries Resources . 33 12. Wildlife Propagation and Stocking Nothing to Report 13. Surplus Animal Disposal Nothing to Report 14. Scientific Collections Nothing to Report 15. Animal Control . Nothing to Report 16. Marking and Banding . 34 17. Disease Prevention and Control. Nothing to Report

H. PUBLIC USE

1. General 38 2. Outdoor Classrooms-Students 39 3. Outdoor Classrooms-Teachers 42 4. Interpretive Foot Trails . Nothing to Report 5. Interpretive Tour Routes . Nothing to Report 6. Interpretive Exhibits/Demonstrations 42 7. Other Interpretive Programs 43 8. Hunting 44 9. Fishing 45 10. Trapping Nothing to Report 11. Wildlife Observation. Nothing to Report 12. Other Wildlife-Oriented Recreation . Nothing to Report 13. Camping Nothing to Report 14. Picnicking. Nothing to Report 15. Off-Road Vehicling Nothing to Report 16. Other Non-Wildlife Oriented Recreation 46 17. Law Enforcement. 46 18. Cooperating Associations . 47 19. Concessions Nothing to Report 20. Subsistence 47

I. EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES

1. New Construction 47 2. Rehabilitation . Nothing to Report 3. Major Maintenance 51 4. Equipment Utilization and Replacement 51 5. Communications Systems Nothing to Report 6. Computer Systems 54 7 • Other. Nothing to Report

J. OTHER ITEMS

1. Cooperative Programs. Nothing to Report 2. Other Economic Uses . Nothing to Report 3. Credits 54

K. FEEDBACK

1. Summary Nothing to Report

L. INFORMATION PACKET 6

Introduction

Innoko National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) was established December 2, 1980, with the passage of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) . The Refuge is located in west central Alaska, about 270 miles southwest of Fairbanks and 290 miles northwest of Anchorage. The Refuge headquarters is in McGrath, a community located on the south bank of the Kuskokwim River approximately 66 miles east of the Refuge boundary. The exterior boundaries encompass approximately 3.8 million acres. After the conveyance of Native allotments, village and Native regional corporation (Doyon, Inc.) lands, and state lands, the Refuge will consist of approximately 3.5 million acres.

Innoko Refuge is a relatively flat plain with the highest point reaching 1,461 feet. Water dominates the landscape with the Yukon River forming the western border of the Refuge; the Innoko, Iditarod, Dishna and Yetna Rivers flow along and through the Innoko Wilderness Area. These rivers tend to be meandering, slow-moving and silt laden. Innumerable small lakes, streams and bogs occur over the southeast quadrant. Many bogs support thick, floating mats of vegetation, which give the appearance of solid ground. Much of this rich wetland area depends on natural extreme water fluctuations as witnessed in almost yearly high spring floods and low fall water levels for nutrient input. Wildfire also plays an important role throughout the Refuge.

The vegetation of the Refuge reflects a transition zone between the boreal forest of interior Alaska, and the shrub-land and tundra types common in western and northern Alaska. White spruce dominates in large stands along the rivers where soils are well­ drained. Numerous fires have set vast areas back to earlier seral stages of aspen, birch, and willow. Black spruce muskegs and bogs develop on poorly-drained soils. Dense willow stands are common along the rivers and sloughs. The most conspicuous characteristic of the vegetation is the complex interspersion of plant species.

A primary focus of the Refuge is the protection of the extensive wetlands which serve as nesting and breeding habitat for thousands of waterfowl; primarily wigeon, pintail, scaup, white­ fronted geese, Canada geese, tundra and trumpeter swans.

Innoko Refuge is well known for its large beaver population as evidenced by the number of lodges and dams scattered throughout the Refuge. Moose are abundant and provide an important source of meat for local residents. The large moose population is attributed to flooding that enhances the growth of willows which are the major winter food of moose. In addition to these 7

species, wolf, black bear, grizzly bear, other furbearers, and caribou inhabit the Refuge. Fish, including salmon, sheefish and especially northern pike, abound in Refuge streams and lakes, supporting both subsistence and sport fisheries.

PURPOSES OF INNOKO REFUGE

Section 302.3. B of ANILCA sets forth the following major purposes for which the Innoko Refuge was established and shall be managed:

(I) to conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their natural diversity including, but not limited to, waterfowl, peregrine falcons, other migratory birds, black bear, moose, furbearers, and other mammals and salmon;

(ii) to fulfill the international treaty obligation of the United States with respect to fish and wildlife and their habitats;

(iii) to provide the opportunity for continued subsistence uses by local residents; and

(iv) to ensure water quality and necessary water quantity within the Refuge.

A. Highlights

Refuge built first airplane hanger (Section I.l).

Received new generator for field camp and started construction of new generator building (Section I.l).

Participated in eleventh annual Earth Week celebration at the McGrath School (Section H.7).

Put on tenth annual Environmental Education Science camp for rural students (Section H.2)

Received new 4x4 Dodge, 1-ton flat bed pickup, with 300 gal Av-gas fuel tank (Section 1.4).

Hired temporary pilot and first permanent full time Refuge Operations Specialist (ROS) (Section E.l).

Water Rights Filing project finished by the Regional Water Resources Division (Section F.ll). 8

Finished neotropical bird habitat analysis project (Section G. 7) •

Refuge Lead Biologist Bob Skinner moved to Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge, in Lewistown MT (Section E .1) •

General Biologist Beverly Skinner terminated her position at Innoko Refuge (Section E.1).

Several fires burned hundreds of thousands of acres (Section F. 9) •

Due to medical reasons, lead pilot, Paul Ladegard worked with Department of Natural Resources (DNR) from June-August to assist with firei (Section E.1).

Received second airplane, Piper Super Cub (669), to be shared with Koyukuk/Nowitna Refuge (Section I.4).

B. CLIMATIC CONDITIONS

1. Summary

January and December are typically the coldest and darkest months. Daylight begins to increase following the winter solstice in December, so February and March typically bring milder temperatures. In March, the typical weather pattern is full days of sunshine, and above-zero temperatures. April's weather was extremely mild and spring-like. May was an average month with temperatures ranging from low thirties to low eighties. During river break-up, ice jams caused flooding in McGrath around the 13th of May. McGrath was again hit with a near catastrophe when a fire came within 5 miles of the town at the end of May. In mid May the field camp was flooded and crews could not go out until early June. By June, the weather warmed into the 70's with the high temperature reaching 82°F on June 16 and 17. The only unfortunate aspect to all this warmth and sunshine is the unwelcome arrival of the hoards of mosquitoes. July began with little to no rain. As a result of multiple lightening strikes and dry weather, wildfire activities were very high throughout Alaska. August brought the year's highest temperature of 85°F on the 2nd. Along with the warm weather came the start of the fall season with a monthly low of 34°F on the 14th. The mosquitoes were greatly reduced due to the cool temperatures but the gnats and black flies were not affected. 9

The opening of moose season came with the milder temperatures of September. September is one of the most enjoyed months on the Refuge by the staff because of the absence of insects and fall like weather. October is typically the transition month into the long winter, bringing the first taste of below zero temperatures. October is the month that the river usually begins to freeze and the airplane gear is changed from floats to wheel-skis. November brings shorter days and usually colder temperatures. The Kuskokwim river floated ice pans mid November and took over one week to freeze.

While a weather station for recording information helpful in forecasting fire behavior is located on the Refuge, it records data only during the summer months. All precipitation and temperature summaries presented are recorded by the National Weather Service in McGrath. The coldest temperatures were again recorded in January and December; while the warmest temperatures were recorded in July and August (Table B.1). On average, temperatures were higher than "normal" (Table B.1).

Table B.l. Temperatures (°F) recorded in McGrath, Alaska (National Weather Service records). Month High Low Average Departure from Normal

January 41 -43 4.5 12.8 February 41 -28 5.8 8.4 March 42 -23 14.1 3.9 April 49 -11 25.5 -1.0 May 82 26 60.4 4.3 June 82 38 57.7 2.4 July 84 42 60.6 1.8 August 85 34 53.7 -0.6 September 65 24 46.8 2.6 October 48 15 32.1 6.8 November 46 -11 20.0 14.2 December 45 -36 5.0 8.8 On average, 2002 saw 2.3 inches less precipitation than "normal". When compared to long term averages, June, July, August, and November were the driest months while January and April were the wettest (Table B.2). The dry weather in June seemed to 10

precipitate lowered water levels in the rivers on the Refuge. Snowfall for the year totaled 94.5 inches (Table B.2). On December lOth a new daily record snowfall of 4.6 inches fell to beat the previous record of 3.7 inches set in 1991. Maximum accumulated snow depth, recorded on January 31, was 32 inches.

Table B.2. Precipitation (inches) recorded in McGrath, Alaska (National Weather Service records) . Month Precipitation Departure from Normal Snow Fall

January 2.18 1.19 35.8 February 0.24 -0.56 8.0 March 0.07 -0.75 1.9 April 1. 75 1.09 11.9 May 1. 02 0.11 0.0 June 0.76 -0.80 0.0 July 1.38 -0.89 0.0 August 2.18 -0.80 0.0 September 2.96 0. 67 0.0 October 1.51 0.05 14.5 November 0.52 -0.94 8.3 December 0.75 -0.69 14.1

Snow Markers

Since accurate precipitation information for the Innoko River basin is difficult to obtain, nine snow markers, provided by the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and were placed throughout the Refuge in the summer of 1995. Markers are checked the first of each month December and February through May. Additionally, water content of the snow is measured at the field camp when the markers are checked. The markers were first surveyed in March 1996. The information collected from the snow markers is being combined with habitat data to help us understand the relationship of animal locations and condition during winters of varying snow depths. 11

Late freeze-up on the Kuskokwim

D. Planning

1. Master Plan

The Refuge currently operates in accordance with the Innoko National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP). This document was developed pursuant to Sections 304(g), 1008, and 1317 ANILCA, Section 3(d) of the Wilderness Act of 1964, and Section 102(2) (c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The CCP, in final form, was approved October 1987 and includes an environmental impact statement and wilderness review. This document will form the foundation for future "step­ down" management plans.

5. Research and Investigations

Land Cover Mapping

This year saw the completion of a project that had its genesis back in 1991. The goal was to produce an updated land cover map for the Refuge using existing LandSat imagery. The project had various sub-objectives that occupied quite a bit of time early on. The Refuge then partnered with the Bureau of Land Management and Ducks Unlimited to create a new land cover map. The end result was a new land cover map that covered 90% of the Refuge. 12

The LandSat 7 imagery used in the overall mapping effort covered an area of 22 million acres, the eastern boundary of which fell short of covering the entire Refuge. Imagery for the Refuge portion of the project was collected on August 26, 1991 (Path 76, Rows 15-17). Using a helicopter in July 1998, Refuge field crews visited 490 preselected sites to verify habitats determined during imagery preprocessing. The classification scheme used was a modification of Viereck et al,s 1992 Alaska Vegetation Classification. Modifications included adding classes to account for problems inherent in remotely sensed data (e.g., clouds and shadows), collapsing some categories together (e.g., open and closed low shrub classes), and expanding other categories (e.g., tussock tundra classes).

Image preprocessing identified 150 different spectral classes. Following both supervised and unsupervised classification and field work, 36 habitat types were defined and mapped for the Refuge.

An accuracy assessment was conducted, but could not achieve a statistically valid number of assessment sites for the rarer habitat types. Of the 19 habitat types assessed for accuracy, the overall accuracy was 84% at the +/- 5% level of variation. The most extensive habitat classes, open needleleaf, low shrub, and high shrub, also had the highest accuracy rates; 85% by classifiers and 81% by users for needleleaf and 89% by both for the shrub classes. Open mixed needleleaf/deciduous habitat had the lowest accuracy at 54% by classifiers and 78% by users. Accuracy was affected by environmental changes that occurred during the 7 years between the imagery and field work.

In addition to the hard cover map products and final report received, the Refuge also received copies of the GIS coverages that were created by Ducks Unlimited during the data processing. Copies of the final report and GIS data are also housed with Bureau of Land Management and the Regional Office.

The evolution and ecology of avian brood parasitism A special use permit was issued to Michael Kuehn to conduct research on the Innoko Refuge concerning the adaptations of birds that have never had nest parasitism in their history. The study focused on yellow warblers, yellow-rumped warblers, American robins, varied thrush, bohemian waxwings, and rusty blackbirds. The results of this study are soon to be published. Rothstein, S.I. and S. K. Robinson. The evolution and ecology of avian brood parasitism: an overview. In: Parasitic Birds and Their Hosts (S.I. Rothstein and S.K. Robinson, eds.), Oxford Univ. Press., New York. 13

Yellow Warbler over nest of several young

Mounted Starling used in brood parasitism study.

Contaminant Concentrations and Biomarkers in Northern Pike and Longnose Suckers Collected from the Yukon River 14

During the week of July 14 staff from Ecological Services in Fairbanks were on the Refuge collecting northern pike for a contaminant study. The Innoko Refuge was one of ten sampling stations from the village of Eagle near the borde~ of Canada to the village of Kotlik, a distance of 1,135 river miles. Many of the fish closer to Fairbanks had high concentrations of selenium and mercury. These two contaminants were the only ones which exceeded criteria thresholds. Levels for the Innoko were between 0.2 and 0.3 ~g/g (mercury greater than 0.3 ~g/g causes reproductive impairment in loons and selenium greater than 0.6 ~g/g may be toxic to piscivorous wildlife).

E. ADMINISTRATION

1. Personnel

Permanent Full-Time Employees

1. William Schaff, Refuge Manager (RM), GS-13, EOD 1/16/00, PFT 2. Sandra Siekaniec, Deputy Manager (DM), GS-12, EOD 4/8/01,PFT 3. Dr. Robert Skinner, Wildlife Biologist (WB), GS-11, EOD 4/23/89, PFT; Transferred to Charles M. Russell Refuge 9/8/02 4. Beverly J. R. Skinner, General Biologist (GB), GS-9, EOD 4/5/96, Resigned 10/31/02, PFT 5. Sally Jo Collins, Information Technology Specialist (ITS), GS-9, EOD 12/22/86, PFT, Local Hire 6. Paul E. Ladegard, Airplane Pilot (AP), GS-12, EOD 1/21/96, PFT, Local Hire 7. Sidney B. Charbonnet, Refuge Operations Specialist (ROS), GS-7, EOD 7/14/02, PFT 8. Thomas Siekaniec, Maintenance Worker (MW), WG-8, EOD 4/8/01, PFT 9. Clara Demientieff, Refuge Information Technician (RIT), GS-7 EOD 12/10/01, PFT, Local Hire 15

Innoko Staff 02 ' Left-Right : Back : Clara Demientieff, Sally Collins, JoAnne Mehl , Beverly Skinner, Middle: Bill Schaff, Thomas Siekaniec, Paul Ladegard, Front: Sidney Charbonnet, Sandra Siekaniec, Bob Skinner .

The Refuge pilot position was temporari ly filled by Jim El lis in February 2002 as AP Paul Ladegard was placed on restricted duty, due to medical reasons ~ Because of his extensive knowledge of the r e g i on, AP Ladegard was a llowed to f l y with DNR to moni tor wi ldfire f rom May to Augu st .

On December 10, 2001, Cl ara Demienti eff was hired through the Local Hire Program as a permanent full t i me employee . The RIT position is designed to be a connection for the Refuge with the local v illages . This posi tion is primarily funded with i t s own specific account (subsistence funds) .

Sidney Charbonnet was a SCEP student at Innoko Refuge the summer of 2001 . After completi ng the required work hours for the program and graduating from Grambling State University in May 2002 , Si dney was hired as the Refuge Operations Specialist. He arrived at McGrath on July 19, 2002 .

After 14 years at the Innoko Refuge , Wildlife Biologist Dr. Robert Skinner decided it was time to move on . WB Skinner will continue working with habit issues at Charles M. Russell Refuge i n Lewi stown, Montana. 16

On October 31, 2002 General Biologist Beverly Skinner terminated her position at the Innoko Refuge. She will move down to Montana in hopes to find another job with the US Fish and Wildlife Service.

In 2002, the Innoko Refuge received a Piper Super Cub (N83669), to use in the summer months while the plane is equipped with floats. From October to May, Koyukuk/Nowitna Refuge will use the plane while on wheel-skis. The Koyukuk/Nowitna and Innoko Refuges pay for the OAS (Office of Aircraft Services) charges during the time they use the plane.

Seasonal Employees, Volunteers, STEP Student, SCEP Student

1. James Ellis, Airplane Pilot (AP), GS-12, EOD 2/14/02, TFT, Local Hire 2. JoAnne Mehl, Office Assistant (OA), GS-4, 4/25/02 to 9/30/02, Seasonal Temporary, Local Hire 3. Jesse Lewis, Biological Technician (BT), GS-4, 5/23/02 to 8/23/02 4. Nathan Olson, Student Career Experience Program (SCEP), GS- 4, 6/8/02 to 8/10/02 5. Agim Zeciri, Student Temporary Experience Program (STEP), GS-2, 5/20/02 to 8/10/02 6. Robert Strick, Student Temporary Experience Program (STEP), GS-1, 5/20/02 to 8/16/02 7. Amy Levendusky, Volunteer, 5/27/02-8/15/02 8. John Porter, Volunteer, 5/27/02-8/15/02 9. Alicia Hoving, Volunteer, 5/27/02-8/18/02 10. Ryan Burner,Volunteer,5/27/02-8/15/02

Agim Zicri was the only seasonal crew person to return from the 2001 season. Agim had been in the Student Temporary Experience Program since 2000. He graduated from McGrath High School in May 2002, and moved to Anchorage, Alaska, to attend the University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA) in the fall of 2002. Robert Strick was also a local hire and STEP student. Robert is in his senior year of high school. 17

Summer Crew 02' L to R: Front: Alicia Hoving, Amy Levendusky; ~ddle: Jesse Lewis , Agim Zeciri, Robert Strick; Back: John Porter, Ryan Burner

4 . Volunteer Program

Four summer volunteers Amy Levendusky, from Wisconsin; Jon Porter, from South Dakota; ·Ryan Burner, from Ohio ; and Alicia Hoving, from Minnesota were recruited . All were invaluable to the summer biological field program, with each volunteering over 12 weeks . This type of volunteer program has been an excellent screening process for us to recruit a seasonal workforce . We hope to recruit one or more of these volunteers as 2003 biologi cal science technicians . Recruiting these trained volunteers gives us continuity and dramatically increases productivity during the short Alaskan field season.

In addition to these ful l -time volunteers, numerous incidental volunteers donated their time and talents towards the Refuge's biological, maintenance, and educational programs . Thirty-four volunteers helped the Refuge this year which accumulated to 3,010 hours . The majority of the hours were for surveys and censuses (950 hours) , studies and investigations (790 hours) and public education and recreation (68 0 hours) . Refuge programs could not be conducted so successfully without the assistance of such a dedicated volunteer work force.

5 . Funding 18

The budget allocation for FY-02 (Table E.1.) was insufficient to cover increases in fixed and overhead expenses, and to maintain the Refuge's FY-01 level of base project funding. In order to make it through the year without a deficit, $30,000 was charged to Koyukuk/Nowitna Refuge and Kanuti Refuge picked up the move costs for ROS Charbonnet.

Table E.l. Budget & cost structure for Innoko Refuge for FY-02. Cost Category structure Allocation Base Budget 1261 $ 930,000 Temporary Pilot 1261 $ 20,000 Environmental Science Camp 1261(CCS) $ 16,000 McGrath School Earth Week 1261(CCS) $ 6,000 Refuge Information Technician 1261 $ 31,000 1332 $ 30,000 Annual Maintenance and Hangar 1262 $ 25,000 Replacement of Generators 1262 $ 27,000 Replacement of 1985 Jeep Fuel Truck 1262 $ 36,000 GASH Subsistence Issues Project 1332 $ 34,200 Fire Program 9251 $ 8,000 Refuge Permit Fees Returned 1971 $ 6,666

FY-2002 Total Funds Available $1,169,866

6. Safety

The remoteness, isolation, climatic conditions, and lack of access to emergency medical services require that safety be considered the number one priority while conducting operations on the Innoko Refuge.

Training is considered an important component of the overall safety program and is not limited to the minimum required by policy. Training includes such things as orienteering, outdoor survival skills, and proper use of personal protective equipment (PPE) .

Instructors WB Skinner, RM Schaff, and MW Siekaniec conducted the firearms and bear safety training that is required for carrying a firearm for bear protection. Watercraft safety and OAS aviation safety training were also completed in May. All seasonal workers and volunteers were required to have taken basic first aid and CPR prior to their arrival. 19

The Charging Bear; t wo of three slugs must be placed in the vitals. The bear "charges" at 15 miles/hour from 30 yards.

On July gch and g t h t h e Re fuge fiel d camp had a safety inspection . Dick Sti efken and Ch arity Haring came to McGrath and were f l own out to the field camp to v i ew the facil i ties and operations. A few defici e n cies were i dentified and schedul ed for correcti on .

Safety p l anni ng and numerous safety details were attended to throughout t h e year . Al l annual safety planning was completed and copies distributed prior to the field season . Other safety items addressed were organi zing and maintaining safet y equipment and continual procedural traini ng.

Training

RM Schaff- LE Inservice and Defensive Tactics Instructor LE Requal ification Annual Refresher I T Security Diversity Training ) Ethics Training CPR/First Aid Training Preventing Sexual Harassment Training 20

Taught several Boater Safety Courses

DM S.Siekaniec- Wilderness Training Database Training CPR/First Aid Training Preventing Sexual Harassment Training Fire Extinguisher Training Collateral Duty Safety Training Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANSCA)

WB R. Skinner- CPR/First Aid Training Preventing Sexual Harassment Training

AP Ladegard- Floatplane Clinic CPR/First Aid Training Preventing Sexual Harassment Training Pre-retirement Seminar Aviation Conference

AP Ellis- Aviation Dunker Training Floatplane Clinic and Training Aviation Conference & Education (ACE) Training CPR/First Aid Training Preventing Sexual Harassment Training Super Cub Aircraft Pilot Training

ROS Charbonnet- Motorboat Operator Certification Course (MOCC) GIS Introduction for Conservation Professionals Outreach & Refuge Information Technician (RIT) Workshop Emergency Trauma Technician (ETT) Pre-retirement Seminar Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) Alaska Native Summit

RIT Demientieff- Aviation Safety Training Aviation Dunker Training Alaska Native History and Law Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) Pre-retirement Seminar CPR/First Aid Training Preventing Sexual Harassment Training Alaska Native Summit

MW T.Siekaniec- Honda Outboard Motor Maintenance Training NTS Training National Steel Shot Clinic CPR/First Aid Training 21

Preventing Sexual Harassment Training

IT Collins- Computer Training Procurement Training Retirement Seminar CPR/First Aid Training Preventing Sexual Harassment Training

GB Skinner- Database Training Emergency Medical Technician II Training Preventing Sexual Harassment Training

OA Mehl- Fire Dispatch Training CPR/First Aid Training Preventing Sexual Harassment Training

7. Technical Assistance

During the McGrath flood event (May 13th), staff prepared a boat and fire pump for assistance to the city. The ice jam finally broke and waters receded so that the equipment was not required.

Refuge equipment was loaned to the State Department of Forestry in McGrath to assist in the Vinasale Fire which began around May 22. The fire started near Vinasale (south of McGrath) from an cracker shell used to scare off a cow moose during Alaska State Fish and Game collaring of moose calves. The fire came within several miles of the town of McGrath. Items loaned included ATVs and hand held radios.

8. Other Items

Members of the staff assisted in the search for a missing teenager from a local homestead in mid-May. The missing youth evaded search crews for several days. The Air National Guard came with heat detecting equipment and was able to locate her just before she doused her camp fire.

ROS Charbonnet took a trip to Grambling University in Louisiana to assist in SCEP recruitment.

F. HABITAT MANAGEMENT

1. General

The Innoko Refuge is located in a transition zone between the 22

forested taiga of Interior Alaska and the treeless tundra of the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta. Plant communities on the Refuge are strongly influenced by fire and extensive spring flooding. Fire history records from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) indicate that between 1957 and 2002, 65 fires greater than 1,000 acres prior to 1988 and greater than 100 acres after 1988 have occurred on the Refuge. A total of 3,159,217 acres has been burned. Approximately 6~% of the Refuge lies below 200 feet (61 m) in elevation.

The Kaiyuh Mountains create a physiographic division between the far western portion of the Refuge from the central and eastern portions. To the west of the Kaiyuh Mountains is the Yukon River and its extensive floodplain. The floodplain extends between approximately 2 and 20 miles in width and contains numerous sloughs, oxbow lakes, wetlands, and deciduous forests. Floodplain elevations range from 50 to 100 feet with isolated sites extending to 175 feet. Most of the Refuges' moose reside in the Yukon River floodplain.

East of the Kaiyuh Mountains the Refuge is dominated by low elevation wetland, low shrub, open black spruce forest, and deciduous riparian forest habitats. The Iditarod, Innoko and Mud Rivers, and Rather Creek are associated with most of the low lying wetland complexes found in the central and eastern portions of the Refuge. Elevations in this area generally range between 50 and 150 feet.

The Tlatl and Wapoo Hills in the northwestern portion of the Refuge and the foothills of the Beaver Mountains along the southern edge of the Refuge create both topographic variation and habitat variation. Typical habitats include white spruce forests, mixed spruce-deciduous forests, and deciduous forests; some open tundra and subalpine dwarf shrub habitats are also present. The Kaiyuh Mountains contain the highest elevations on the Refuge (1,330 ft). The Tlatl Hills at 805 feet and the Wapoo Hills at 802 feet are characterized by their rolling nature. Dissected by more streams than either the Tlatl or Wapoo Hills, the foothills of the Beaver Mountains range from 435 feet to 1,016 feet in elevation.

2. Wetlands

The Yukon River forms the western boundary of the Refuge and has greatly influenced the makeup of that part of the Refuge. The Innoko River flows through the central portion of the Refuge. The Innoko River and its four primary tributaries (Iditarod 23

River, Hather Creek, Mud River, and Dishna River) dominate the balance of the Refuge and have greatly influenced the current diversity of wetland habitats.

Nearly 50% of the Refuge contains wetland type habitats. The 1987 land cover map created from August 1981 LandSat three imagery identified eight wetland habitats (Table F.1.; Figure F.1.). The 2002 land cover map, created from August 1991 LandSat 7 imagery, covered only 90% of the Refuge. This effort classified five wetland habitats. Differences in number of wetland habitat classes are due to differences in classifications schemes rather than the lack of complete coverage of the Refuge.

Table F.1. Wetlands identified on the Innoko Refuge from 1981 satellite imagery. % of Habitat Type Refuge Dwarf Shrub-Graminoid Tussock Peatland 9.3 Dwarf Shrub-Graminoid Peatland 9.1 Dwarf Shrub-Raised Bog 8.3 Alluvial-Graminoid Marsh 1.6 Shrub-Graminoid Marsh 11.8 Graminoid Bog 5.4 Graminoid Tussock Dwarf Shrub Peatland 3.2 Scarcely Vegetated Floodplain <0.1 24

N A

0 5 10 20 30 40 5~iles ) Kilometers 0 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 ~ Dwarf Shrub- Graminoid Tussock Peatland Graminoid Bog .. Dwarf Shrub- Gramim9id Peatland .. Graminoid Tussock Dwarf Shrub Peatland c=J Dwarf Shrub - Raised Bog with Scattered Trees c=J Scarcely Vegetated Floodplain .. Alluvial - Graminoid Marsh .. Water c=J Dwarf Shrub Graminoid Marsh Fig. F.1. Wetlands identified in land cover map based on 1981 LandSat 3 imagery.

3. Forests

Approximately 28% of the Refuge is covered by one of four forest types (Figure F.2.). White spruce and black spruce dominate the needleleaf forests; some tamarack is also present. Deciduous forests are dominated by birch, aspen, and balsam popular. Riparian areas tend to be dominated by deciduous forests in many areas. 25

N

...... , .~, . . .J A ,,

0 5 10 20 30 40 50 Closed Needleleaf -=~~=~~~~~==:~~~Miles- Kilometers D Open Needleleaf 0 5 10 20 30 40 so 60 D Needleleaf Woodland - Mixed Forest Fig F.2. Forests identified in land cover map based on 1981 LandSat 3 imagery.

9 . Fire Management

Wildfire has been, and continues to be, one of the most significant environmental modifiers across both Alaska's Interior ecosystem and the Innoko Refuge landscape . The mosaic of habitats present on the Refuge today , and the wildlife they support, are a direct result of historical flooding and wildfire occurrence . Essentially all vegetation encompassed within the Refuge boundary is fire- adapted at some level, including the wetlands . Fire is a primary catalyst for nutrient recycling since decomposition is slow in this cold soil region . Most fires on the Refuge are the resul t of lightning strikes. Suppression 26 actions on wildfire in what is now the Innoko Refuge has only taken place since the 1950's. Fire suppression has been largely insignificant as a landscape factor on the Refuge. Therefore, what is observed today is essentially a natural fire mosaic.

Lightning storms typically begin in early June and can continue until the end of September, causing 95 percent of Interior Alaska wildfires. August is generally the wettest month, but drought can occur in August, creating a dramatic burning period. Lighting strikes from August on are relatively infrequent. Human-caused fires can occur in September, October, and November but are rare and usually inconsequential. Late May through mid­ July is the primary window for dramatic burning.

The fire management program for the Innoko Refuge is described in the Innoko National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan (1989), Environmental Statement and Wilderness Review Final October (1987), and the Alaska Interagency Wildland Fire Management Plan (Amended October 1998). The Innoko Fire Management Plan (1995) is to be updated in FY04.

The focus of the Refuge's fire management program has been the management of wildland fires for resource benefit. No prescribed fires were implemented on the Refuge Complex during 2002.

Statewide fire activity during 2002 was relatively high with 543 wildland fires burning 2,202,688 acres. There were five fires on the Refuge that burned 278,839 acres (Table F.2.1).

Table F.2.1. Wildfires on the Innoko Refuge in 2002. Fi.re Acres Protection Discovery Decl.ared Number Fire Name Location Burned Cause Level. Date out A168 Galatea 63°53. 06' 74,511 Lighting Limited May 22 July 25 Creek 157°08. 54' A293 Horsefly 62°58.43' 152 Lighting Limited June 11 June 15 Creek 157°43.10' A330 Galatea 2 63°51. 25' 403 Lighting Limited June 20 July 29 157°40. 49' A423 Khotol 63°54.51' 50,811 Lighting Limited July 17 October 10 River 158°39. 26' A433 Yetna 62°50. 42' 152,962 Lighting Limited July 18 October 10 River 158°20. 55'

Fire related work accomplished during the summer of 2002 included: 1) inventorying the Innoko Field Camp fire cache, 2) flying several detection flights with Alaska Fire Service (AFS); and 3) getting Fire Management Officer (FMO) Lambrecht oriented to the Refuge. 27

11. Water Rights

A network of stream discharge gauges (Fig. F . 3 . ) is operated to quantif y the occurrence and distribution of surface water on the Innoko Refuge . Under this project, str eam discharge data was collected continuously over a 5- year period. Preliminary data were anal yzed on an annual basi s , and f i nal reports will be prepared at the conclusion of the 5- yea r study. Report res ults support water rights appli cati ons to ma intain in- stream f lows . Nine s t ream gauging stations were in operation on the I nnoko Nati onal Wi l dli fe Refuge from 1 997 to 2002 . Unfortunat e l y none of t hese years s howed h igh water or f l ood events wh i ch a r e no r ma l on t he Ref uge .

0 ~><>1-~- 0510+15l07S)O....S...· ======-'lll'lllllt ...... _ Fig. F.3. Location of water gauging stations installed by division of water resources .

G. WILDLIFE 28

1. Wildlife Diversity

The Innoko Refuge plays host to 124 bird species, 31 mammal species, 21 fish species, and 1 amphibian. The extensive wetlands provide nesting for most of the bird species recorded on the Refuge as well as hosting ·the largest concentration of molting white-fronted geese in Alaska.

3. Waterfowl

An intensive aerial survey that covers four major molting areas of Interior and Northwest Alaska showed a decline in abundance of adult white-fronted geese. The survey, which has been conducted since 2000 by Migratory Birds staff, shows that 84 % of all molting birds in the Interior/Northwest Alaska Molting Survey are found on the Innoko Refuge. Other molting areas in this survey include Koyukuk/Nowitna, Kanuti, and Selawik.

Table G.l. Innoko Refuge aerial goose molting survey results. Species Year Adults Young Total White- 2000 20,684 28 2 0 ,805 fronted goose 2001 18,246 137 18,383 2002 11,273 19 11,292 Canada goose 2000 653 28 681 2001 4,777 40 4,817 2002 3,903 114 4,017

A total of 584 white-fronted geese were banded and 3 4 were rec aptured on the Innoko Refuge in 2002. Three banding sites were v i s ited (See Sec tion G. 16) . Canada geese caught ih the nets were released without banding.

Ten white-fronted geese were implanted with satellite transmitters on the Innoko Refuge. Additional transmitters were ins talled at o ther loc ations in Alaska inc luding Koyukuk Refuge, Selawik Refuge and No atak National Preserve. A webs ite was c reated at http: // mer c ur y .bi o .uaf.edu /~ eri c rex stad/ satellitegeese t o provide real-time updates on the- satellite-derived po sitions of these geese (see Section G. 1 6) . Co nv entio nal VHF transmitters were deployed on 20 brood-patch f emales at Inno ko t o obtain nesting and migration data. As i n 2 001, blood was drawn {n=1 89) to determine prevalence of a v ian c holera. · ) 7. Other Migratory Birds 29

Neotropical Migrants

Neotropical bird census and habitat investigations were continued during the 2002 field season. The two National Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) river routes set up in 1993 were run again in 2002. Each route has 50 census points; however, with the new automatic start Honda motors, the bird routes were finished in record time (6 hours). This year marks the lOth consecutive year these routes have been completed.

Table G.2. Ten most abundant species detected during 2002 breeding bird surveys. Number indicates total number detected; number in parenthesis is ranking. Species 50 Point Routes 12 Point Routes Mud Rather Tatalina Halfway Bog Lowland River Creek Road Hill Greater white-fronted goose 110 (2) American wigeon 30 (7) 80 (3) Spruce grouse 1 (6) Spotted sandpiper 50 (4) Lesser yellowlegs 9 (5) Common snipe 45 (5) 16 (3) 9 (8) Mew gull 30 (7) Olive-sided flycatcher 3 (4) 7 (7) Alder flycatcher 71 (3) 30 (10) 44 (3) 26 (1) Bank swallow 34 (7) Gray jay 16 (7) 1 (6) 6 (8) Ruby-crowned kinglet 12 (8) Arctic warbler 12 (8) Swainson's thrush 80 (2) 70 (4) 94 (1) 16 (1) 25 (3) American robin 10 (4) Varied thrush 25 (6) 4 (3) Yellow warbler 37 (5) 32 (9) 19 (5) Yellow-rumped warbler 5 (9) 11 (7) Townsend's warbler 3 (4) Myrtle warbler 32 (6) 36 (5) Blackpoll warbler 30 (7) 33 (8) 13 (6) Northern waterthrush 122 (1) 114 (1) 10 (9) 20 (4) ~fuite-crowned sparrow 23 (1) Slate-colored junco 78 (2) 9 (5) Rusty blackbird 4 (10) 9 (8) Common redpoll 39 (4) 1 (6) 4 (10) 26 (1) Savannah sparrow 9 (2) 16 (2) Fox sparrow 32 (6) 39 (6) 6 (10) Lincoln's sparrow 4 (10) Total species 36 34 27 8 23 18 The third BBS route (Tatalina, route #03440) was run for a sixth year. This route was established in conjunction with the U.S. Air Force Legacy Grant program and crosses the Tatalina Long 30

Range Radar Site. Although the route lies outside of the boundaries of the Refuge, it is easily accessible by a one-hour river trip from McGrath, and adds to the bird database for the Kuskokwim/Yukon River drainages. This is the second year of a new four year Legacy Grant.

Official starting time for all three routes is 3:33 a.m., making for long days on the river for the bird survey crews.

Refuge staff also continued bird surveys on 3 off-road 12 point counts in cooperation with the Alaska Neotropical Migratory Bird Project. Permanent routes are located in the three major habitat types: 1) spruce uplands; 2) bog; and 3) spruce lowlands. This is the tenth consecutive year for two of the routes and the ninth year for the third route. For the first time since the lowland route was established, all the sloughs along the route were full of water due to spring flooding. This meant bird personnel had to wade through water - often waist deep - in order to complete the survey. Luckily it was a relatively warm Interior Alaska June day at 53°F. The entire crew was glad to see the sun rise, although, since the route is located deep within a white spruce lowland forest, sunlight was patchy at best through the trees. The wet and cold weather did keep the mosquitoes down.

The Innoko River corridor bird survey was completed this year. This 5-year-long project utilized transects placed perpendicular to the Innoko River and was systematically placed throughout the corridor. Because of the changes in the width of the river corridor, transects differed in length. Surveys were started at 3:30a.m. each day and continued until 11:00 a.m .. Some days multiple transects were completed before the 11:00 quitting time.

Crews followed the transect heading until encountering a change of vegetation indicating the end of the river corridor or until 11:00 a.m. when birds became less active. Transects were followed slowly while looking and listening for birds. Locations of birds seen or heard within 50 meters of each transect were recorded. One crew member located the exact position of the bird and recorded the GPS location. Other data recorded included any breeding behavior, nests located, and species of tree the birds were using. Three bird species were selected (blackpoll warbler, alder flycatchers and savannah sparrows) for a resource selection modeling technique and application that utilizes unclassified Landsat TM Imagery instead of derived land cover classes for covariates. This approach directly utilizes the measured data (reflectance values) as opposed to derived land cover classes that are not necessarily related to the particular species of interest and often are subject to high unknown classification error rates. Furthermore, this technique will allow for a 31

relatively quick approach to generating maps of wildlife habitat in cases when the landcover mapping process is incomplete, and possibly out of date. Statistical work is being completed by WEST Inc. of Cheyenne, Wyoming. Preliminary results are very promising.

8. Game Mammals

A moose census was conducted on the Northern half of the Refuge in March. A total of 226 moose including 24 calves were observed in 109 groups. The density estimates for the Innoko and Yukon River strata were very similar (1.31 moose/square mile and 1.53 moose/square mile). The estimated total number of moose in the northern half of the Innoko Refuge is 1,725. Comparing 2002 data with 1998 data, the overall change was a 17% decrease in the population.

Cow and calf moose along the Innoko River.

During mid June, while conducting breeding bird surveys, several dead moose were noticed on the mud adjacent to water. Approximately 3 to 4 dead moose were seen along Bather, Mud and the Innoko River. Several of them had been dead more than a few days. Refuge staff contacted UAF Veterinary Services to determine if tissue samples could be collected. Unfortunately no one was available to come to the Refuge.

10. Other Resident Wildlife 32

A flying squirrel trapping project was initiated in 2002 to try to verify the presence or absence of flying squirrels along the Innoko River corridor. The field portion of the study was coordinated by SCEP student Nathan Olson. This secretive nocturnal mammal is commonly found in the Fairbanks area of Interior Alaska and has been found in wooded areas close to Shageluk, a village near the southwest corner of the Refuge. But there has not been a confirmed sighting of a flying squirrel on the Refuge itself. A literature search was performed as to the habits of flying squirrels and recommended design and methods for a flying squirrel search in interior Alaska. Literature reports that red squirrels and flying squirrels are commonly found sharing the same mature white spruce forest habitat. Using red squirrel location data from the five­ year river corridor bird study (other wildlife species were also recorded during this survey), an unbroken stand of mature mixed white spruce and paper birch mature forest located near the field camp was selected for trapping. Ten Tomahawk model 108 traps were set up in a square grid pattern with traps spaced 10-20 meters apart. Seven traps were wired to white spruce trees approximately 1.5 meters off the ground. Two traps were placed on the ground and one trap was placed on a horizontal dead white spruce approximately two meters off the ground. Pre-baiting began on July 13, 2002, five days after the traps were set (traps were wired open for the first 20 days of the study) . A 3-6 gram mixture of peanut butter and molasses was placed inside each trap as well as on the forest floor around ·traps.

Two four day trapping sessions were conducted from July 29 to August 11. Traps were opened from midnight until 4 a.m., the prime time when nocturnal flying squirrels are active. Red squirrels and other bait-eating wildlife, such as gray jays, red-backed and yellow-cheeked voles, are normally not active during these hours of the day. No flying squirrels were captured in the two weeks of trapping effort. When reviewing the methods of this preliminary study, it was decided that several factors may have played a part in the lack of captures. If the study is continued next year, it is recommended that pre-baiting as well as opening the traps occur during the very late night and early morning hours between 11 p.m. and 4 a.m. since gray jays raided many of the traps pre-baited during the afternoon and evening as quickly as the bait was left. Also, the number of traps should be increased next time, as well as the addition of another trapping site. It has been suggested a trap site along the Yukon River might yield flying squirrels.

11. Fisheries Resources

In 2002, a cooperative project was initiated to study long­ distance migration of radio-tagged Sheefish (Inconnu). This 33

project involved Fairbanks Fish and Wildlife Field Office (FWO), Innoko Refuge, National Marine Fisheries Service, and Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) .

From July 19 to August 8, 20 sheefish were tagged with radio transmitters in the Innoko River within the Refuge boundary. The fish were captured with rod and reel about 480 km (300 miles) upstream from the Yukon River. Following capture, each fish was placed into a water-filled tub and a transmitter was inserted through the mouth and into the stomach. No anesthesia was used, and fish were released immediately following tagging.

Movements were monitored using remote receiving stations, boat surveys, and aerial surveys. In mid-August, five sheefish migrated from the Innoko River into the Yukon River. Of these, one migrated into the Koyukuk River in mid-September, one was harvested in the Yukon River upstream from the Tanana River mouth in mid-September, two were located in a previously identified sheefish spawning area in the Yukon River upstream from the mouth of the Porcupine River, and one was not located again. In late October, following the spawning season, the Koyukuk River sheefish and the two from the Yukon River spawning area migrated downstream into the lower Yukon River. The 15 sheefish that did not migrate to the Yukon River in August were located in the Innoko River in early October, which is the spawning season for sheefish. They were in the same general area where they had been tagged, which was not considered suitable habitat for spawning.

It appears that at least four, and possibly five, of the 20 sheefish that were radio-tagged in the Innoko River were pre­ spawners (fish preparing to spawn during the next spawning season) and engaged in a migration to known spawning areas in the upper Koyukuk and Yukon Rivers. Fifteen of the radio-tagged fish were apparently non-spawners (mature fish that were not prepared to spawn during the next spawning season) and remained in the Innoko River through the fall season.

K. Alt, a retired ADF&G Fishery Biologist, suggested that sheefish found in the Innoko River were there to feed but not to spawn. He reported finding both pre-spawners and non-spawners in the river, but believed that all the pre-spawners left the Innoko River in late summer and migrated to spawn somewhere in the Yukon River, although he didn't know where. The results of this study support Alt's beliefs.

Sheefish spawning areas have been located in the upper Koyukuk River, the upper Nowitna River, the Tanana River, and in the Yukon River in the upper part of the Yukon Flats Refuge. Two of the radio-tagged fish in this study migrated to the Yukon River 34

spawning area, approximately 1,900 km (1,200 miles), from where they were tagged on the Innoko River. One fish entered the Koyukuk River and presumably migrated to one of the two known spawning areas there, approximately 1,600 km (1,000 miles) from where they were tagged. During the spawning season, the 15 sheefish that remained in the Innoko River were in very poor habitat for spawning, so they are believed to have been non­ spawners.

It is clear that at least some sheefish found in the Innoko River are members of a much larger population of fish that migrate widely within the Yukon River drainage.

16. Marking and Banding

Due to the scarcity of basic population and harvest distribution data and relative survival rates of Alaska mid-continent greater white-fronted geese (GWFG), a banding program in Interior Alaska was initiated in 1975 through the impetus of the Central Flyway Technical Committee. In 1990, the program expanded from banding in Koyukuk Refuge and the North Slope, to dividing the effort between several Interior Alaska regions. Since 1996 the goal has been to band 1000 or more GWFG annually on the Koyukuk, Innoko and Selawik Refuge. For most of these years, neck collars were also used to mark a portion of the banded population (collars were not deployed in 1999, 2001). In 2001, GWFG were randomly selected for cholera infection testing through throat swabs and blood, and satellite transmitters were surgically implanted in 12 female GWFG with brood patches.

Recent declines in the Koyukuk Refuge portion of the Interior Alaska breeding population of greater white-fronted geese has emphasized the importance to the interior refuges to this species and has been the basis for research partnerships with the University of Alaska, the University of Chihuahua, the Division of Migratory Bird Management and local high schools. Band recovery and collar resighting data, and more recently satellite tracking results, have helped discover and verify flyway corridors and wintering areas used by mid-continent Alaska GWFG that breed on the Koyukuk Refuge.

While fewer birds were banded in 2002 (988) than in 2001 (1299), it was still a good year. Additionally, much effort went into many ancillary projects: GWFG were bled, swabbed, collared (including VHF radio collars) and implanted in 2002.

Geese were banded on six sites in four general areas. More than 60% of newly banded birds were on the Innoko Refuge; another 176 were banded on Koyukuk and Selawik Refuges and Noatak National Park (NP) . Once again, surveys in Kanuti Refuge (Todatonten Lake) 35

failed to show a significant number of bandable geese.

In six days of banding, 1,029 geese were handled. Nine hundred eighty eight were newly banded geese (909 GWFG, 79 Canada Geese (CAGO)) and 41 GWFG recaptures. This compares to 43 recaptures, 1,299 GWFG and 83 CAGO banded last year. Again, Innoko Refuge provided most of the WFGO's banded (Table G.3.). Neck collars were placed on 152 Innoko birds to assist in visual migration monitoring through Canada, the US and Mexico.

Table G.3. Greater white-fronted goose banding effort on Innoko Refuge, 2002 Number Recaptured Date Site Name Location Newly Banded July 8 Innoko Site A 63° 12.1' 287 14 158° 36.4' July 9 Innoko Site B 63° 06.9' 204 0 158° 56.1' July 10 Innoko Site c 63° 06.2' 127 20 158° 19.5'

Satellite transmitters were successfully implanted into 22 geese (20 "after second-year" females with brood patches and two males). All were released back to the areas they were captured.

Geese were implanted from the following locations:

Innoko 10 satellite implants (4 from site 1, 6 from site 2)

Koyukuk 3 satellite implants

Noatak 5 satellite implants

Selawik 4 satellite implants 36

Adult female, banded 9 .July 2002 on the Lower Iditarod River (63° 07'N, 158° 56'W). Weight at banding 2015g.

Figure G.2. Migration route of white-fronted goose 36501.

All satellite transmitter implanted birds were newly banded except one. The exception was a recaptured bird banded as a local in 1995, making it seven years old at implant. As of August 29th , all were alive and moving. At Innoko Refuge, 20 brood-patch female white-fronts were fitted with conventional VHF neck-band collars. Aerial telemetry efforts in Canada in fall 2002 will 37 J augment migration stopover studies.

Of the CAGO captured, a sample was selected for morphological measurements and blood quills were taken from 14 CAGO for a Biological Research Division genetics study.

While it was another very productive banding operation this year, data entry, manipulation (in BandManager program) and reporting (especially to the Bird Banding Lab in Patuxent, Maryland) was particularly confusing and required quite a few fixes this year . One suggestion for the future, particularly if ancillary projects will be ongoing, is to put special consi deration into making sure the schedules have a ll the required information for each and every bird .

White-front and Canada geese in a banding pot. 38 )

Advanced science camp student, Nicole Cox, holds a white-fronted goose to be banded

H. PUBLIC USE

1. General

General Brochure

Staff collaborated to design the first "official" Innoko Refuge general brochure. Wilderness Graphics was contracted to get the text and photos "printer ready" for a cost of $1,860. Government Printing Office costs were $2,286 for 2,000 copies. I

j 39

Innoko National Wildlife Refuge brochure coYer

Challenge Cost Share

Two Challenge Cost Share proposals, which funded the 2002 fiscal year, were completed in the spring and summer of 2002. In April , the Refuge , in conjunction with the Iditarod Area School District (IASD) , sponsored the eleventh annual week- long Earth Week program at McGrath School . This was followed in July and August by the second Advanced Science Camp and the tent h Environmental Educati on Science Camp (EESC) . For the second year in a row students wer e i nvited to an advanced camp l ocat ed on the Refuge to help with wh i te- fronted goose bandin g . Bo t h programs are a cooperative project with I ASD and the McG r ath School .

2. Outdoor Classrooms - Students

Residential Refuge Science Camp

The second Advanced Science Camp took place on the Refuge from July 5ch through lOth . Funding for the advanced camp came out of the annual Science Camp Challenge Cost Share grant and IASD. Four IASD students, plus McGrath School science teacher Norv Dallin spent time at the Refuge field camp during the July white­ fronted goose banding program. Working cooperatively with Refuge Manager Mike Spindler of Koyukuk/Nowitna National Wildlife Refuge Complex, students were able to participate in the capture, banding and surgical implantation of satel lite transmi tters i n white- fronted geese . Students also spent time on the I nnoko River learning about wetlands and moose ecology. They made 40

plaster casts of tracks from wolves, black and grizzly bears and other small mammals from river sandbars. The students filmed their six days on the Ref uge and produced a 20 minute digital program about what they saw and learned. The video included interviews with Refuge staff and volunteers as well as visiting biologists and pilots connected with the banding project.

The tenth EESC took place from August 5th through the 12th. Partially funded by a Challenge Cost Share grant, the 2002 Science Camp included five students from the IASD·. Students from gth and 10th grades were selected by application and interview. Students were selected from the villages of Grayling, Holy Cross, and McGrath.

The IASD provided funds for travel for students to and from McGrath. McGrath School provided a Science Teacher, Jason Weber and a second teacher, Phil Graham. IASD and McGrath School continue to be our largest cost-share cooperators. The Science Camp has the complete backing of the Superintendent of the IASD, the entire school board, a nd area principals .

Innoko Refuge volunteer Amy Levendus ky teaches Science Camp student Valerie Nicholi how to light a fire.

The program this year was again based at the Outdoor Classroom located on Round Mountain. Students slept in tents and the cabin served as a combination c l assroom, eating area, and meeting room.

There are several benefits in conducting the camp at the Outdoor Classroom. Area volunteers can be utilized more readily since it ) no longer entails transporting them to the Refuge f or each 41

program. Meals are easier to prepare because fresh food is available from McGrath on a daily basis and field equipment is more accessible as forgotten "back in McGrath" now means only a 30-minute boat ride, not a two-hour flight. Transporting students, staff and supplies is efficient and cost effective.

GB Skinner spent several months prior to camp recruiting presenters, ordering materials, and planning programs and meals. ROS Charbonnet and STEP student Robert Strick made repairs to the heating stove fuel system which had been damaged by a bear. Quite a bit of damage was done inside the cabin by red squirrels even though last years holes were covered up. The solution to the squirrels getting into the food was to purchase several large metal garbage cans with lids for food storage during the winter months. Volunteers Amy Levendusky and Ryan Burner worked with the camp this year. Their team taught several excellent classes including constructing a survival shelter of tree limbs and leaves, orienteering and how to make fire bows and start a fire without matches. RIT Clara Dementieff also worked with the camp this year and put in many hours cooking. She was in charge of the student project of making blueberry jam. The jam was excellent and everyone was able to take a jar home.

Refuge staff members, other Service employees, and volunteers were a tremendous help throughout the camp. WB Skinner spent several hours discussing moose browse and the concept of carrying capacity. AT Collins provided backup support during several phases of the camp.

Feedback from the students and staff continues to be positive and plans are already in the works for next year's camp.

Activities and classes covered during the 9-day program included:

safety training - watercraft safety bear safety map and compass use fire building basic survival techniques watershed ecology soil studies berry picking and jam making bog ecology lichen ecology moose browse studies wetland ecology invertebrate sampling techniques and identification water sampling techniques kayaking 42

nature art projects

3. Outdoor Classrooms - Teachers

The IASD, with headquarters in McGrath, administers schools in eight communities. Schools within this District are located in both the Kuskokwim and Yukon River drainages. Through cooperation with the IASD, the Refuge has an opportunity to effect positive change across a vast area of Interior Alaska. GB Skinner has been able to work closely with IASD personnel and area principals and teachers to include Service curricula in the schools. The Challenge Cost Share Grants for 2002 had the McGrath School and IASD as cooperators.

National Wildlife Week and Junior Duck Stamp materials were distributed to the eight IASD communities as well as several local home-schooling families.

Materials from the Refuge environmental education library were loaned to several outlying schools during the school year. Several returning village teachers have learned that GB Skinner will put together curriculum kits on specific Alaskan subjects if notified far enough in advance. Subjects ranging from salmon to birds were packaged up for loan and mailed to schools both on the Yukon and Kuskokwim rivers. Books and materials were also on loan to several teachers from the McGrath School for science related presentations. The Bat Kit, Wolf Kit, and Owl Pellet Kit were used several times by IASD teachers.

6. Interpretive Exhibits/Demonstrations

Office Display Case

A few more skulls of local Alaskan animals were added to the display case in the McGrath office. A northern goshawk that hit an area window was donated to the Refuge. It is a beautiful male in full summer breeding plumage. The goshawk, clutching a gray jay, was mounted and put on display in the office.

Headquarters Natural Garden

The natural garden at the McGrath headquarters office continues to grow. What began as a rather small, simple project has grown over the years to include many hours of weed pulling as well as plant gathering. Plants will continue to be added to fill in the many open areas throughout all four habitat types. While summer volunteers waited their turn to go to the Refuge in May, they put down weed cover material and bark. 43

Alaska Natural History Association Bookstore

The Alaska Natural History Association (ANHA) bookstore had a successful tenth year of operation. New book titles continue to be added as well as a few gift items.

Although the Innoko Refuge store will remain a small branch due to the small number of seasonal tourists, the bookstore is filling a need for local users as well as fall hunters. The annual ANHA manager's meeting has been moved to February to coincide with the annual Anchorage book and gift fair. It was attended this year by GB Skinner.

7. Other Interpretive Programs

School Visits

GB Skinner taught a semester long Biodiversity class for McGrath School 6th through 12th grade students. It was well received by the 18 students in the class. Classroom visits during the year consisted of numerous in-class visits throughout the spring and included topics such as local birds, role of fire, predator/prey relationships, etc.

Earth Week

The eleventh annual McGrath School Earth Week Program, funded by a CCS, was again very fun and educational. Teachers submitted project ideas and lists of needed supplies to GB Skinner. Participants included the McGrath School student body, the McGrath School teachers, local volunteers, and staff members from the Refuge.

Weekly planning meetings with McGrath School teachers for the Earth Week program began in January. Each of the elementary school classes (Kindergarten through 5th grade) as well as several middle school and high school classes planned projects. Because students of all ages learn best by hands-on activities, the teachers were encouraged to select projects in which the students could participate. Area wetlands were again included in projects as the Refuge continued to stress to students and the community the importance of wetlands to wildlife as well as to themselves and their families. In all, approximately 90 students and 9 teachers participated.

A final schedule was designed so that each class could visit other classrooms and view projects. The student-generated projects were presented to each class in 30-40 minute blocks as well as an evening block for the community. The younger students 44

especially enjoyed being peer tutors to their older siblings, friends and parents during these demonstrations.

Each student was issued an Earth Week 2002 passbook which they stamped each time they participated in a project. Refuge staff assisted as needed and took pictures all week of the activities.

Although this kind of week-long program takes a considerable amount of work by both the Refuge staff and local teachers, the benefits to the students are immense; all areas of school curriculum can be used in these projects. It is also an opportunity to involve the entire community in environmental subjects of interest to the Refuge, as either participants or observers.

8. Hunting

Nearly all public use on the Innoko Refuge occurs in September during moose hunting season. Upland game bird and migratory waterfowl hunting are incidental to moose hunting, as are camping, river floating, and wildlife observation. Use of the Refuge seems divided among sport hunters concentrating along the upper reaches of the Innoko River. Sport hunters access the area via: air taxi aircraft out of Anchorage, Bethel, Galena, or McGrath; contracts with outfitters and guides; or in private aircraft. Subsistence use occurs mostly along the Yukon River, which forms the Refuge's western boundary, and on the lower Innoko River. The confluence of the Innoko and Iditarod rivers appears to be as far upriver as subsistence hunters usually travel. Subsistence use is primarily by residents of Holy Cross, Anvik, Grayling, and Shageluk, although Yukon Delta residents have traveled over 300 river miles to access the area.

Determining how many people hunt moose and obtaining accurate harvest data is difficult, and probably impossible, given current capabilities. Reports from State harvest ticket returns are at best a crude index, at least with regard to the subsistence use, as many hunters do not return their harvest tickets. Village traditional hunting methods include party hunting, with individual hunters sometimes exceeding bag and possession limits. The harvest is opportunistic and game taken is generally shared. Many traditional subsistence hunters fear that harvest ticket information will be used as a means for prosecution so compliance is low. With the help of our local hire RIT Clara Demientieff we are hoping that through time this will no longer be an issue.

Under the guide allocation process, implemented by the Regional Office in 1993, the Refuge was divided into four "sole-use" areas for commercial big-game guiding. Guides who continue to hold an original five-year Special Use Permits (SUP) for the Innoko 45

Refuge are:

Robert Magnuson, Innoko River Guides and Outfitters Reinhold Thiele, Year Round Hunting Jake Gaudet, Jake's Alaska Wilderness Outfitters

Seven SUP's were issued to the following air transporters:

Steve & Gwen White, Willow Air Steve Williams, Ptarmigan Air Jack Barber, Alaska Air Taxi Joe Schuster, Sportsman Air Colin Brown, Yukon Eagle Air Steve Hill, Inland Aviation Robert Magnuson, Magnuson Airways

Permit holders are required to provide information pertaining to their operations such as descriptions of aircraft to be used, tail numbers, number of client use days, and species and number of animals harvested. There were 75 clients with the permittees and they harvested 27 moose and 2 wolves in 2002.

9. Fishing

Waters within the boundaries of the Refuge support a trophy northern pike fishery, which is probably unsurpassed anywhere in Alaska. In addition, good numbers of sheefish are available in some areas. Both species are taken by sport users as an incidental activity while hunting. Other fish populations, primarily used by subsistence harvesters, occupy Refuge waters for migration and spawning. These include chum salmon and whitefish, both of which are significant subsistence species to the village of Shageluk, which is located on the Innoko River approximately 30 miles downstream from the Refuge boundary.

The potential for overuse of the pike fishery is a concern. Northern pike are slow growing and trophy size fish tend to be quite old and therefore easily over-harvested.

Two guided sport fishing SUP's were issued in 2002:

Leon Randermann, Midnight Sun Trophy Pike Adventures Bruce Werba, Alaska Pike Safari and Wilderness Adventures

Midnight Sun Trophy Pike Adventures operates a 65-foot houseboat. This is used by his clients as a floating hotel while fishing from bass-boats on the Refuge. Due to low water levels only four clients were taken into the Refuge waters in 2002. All fish caught were released. 46

16. Other Non-Wildlife Oriented Recreation

Refuge Manager Schaff attended a meeting of the Iditarod National Historic Trail Committee. Portions of the original trail traverse the Refuge and it is hoped that there will be some trail markers installed sometime in the future.

17. Law Enforcement

The remote, vast and isolated Innoko landscape is challenging from a law enforcement perspective. With only one Refuge officer on the staff, and access limited to airplane, snowmobile or watercraft, he is stretched pretty thin. Use of the Refuge, both for customary and traditional subsistence activities and sport, is increasing each year. In addition, both legal and illegal commercial activities such as guiding and outfitting, attempts to construct trespass cabins, and friction between subsistence and recreational users, are increasing. The entire law enforcement context is further complicated by jurisdictional questions pertaining to navigable waters, wilderness management, and the sensitive cross-cultural environment in which we operate.

Key law enforcement efforts conducted during the year were geared toward the following:

1. Late winter trapping and aerial wolf hunting 2. Yukon/Lower Innoko River, salmon subsistence fishing. 3. Summer northern pike fishing, primarily guided 4. Fall big-game hunting season: Violations of State law Air taxi operations Commercial guiding Visitor protection and services 5. Year-round Special Use Permit compliance 6. Complaints by hunters that individuals were using aircraft to spot moose.

Most law enforcement effort was concentrated during the September moose season which begins on the 5th. No violations were issued this year but several complaints were followed up.

Two Special Use Permits were issued to other agencies;

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Alaska Native Veterans Allotment Inspection

Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), Fish Towers and Radio Tracking 47

18. Cooperating Associations

The Alaska Natural History Association has a sales outlet at the Innoko Refuge Office in McGrath. Funding from some of the sales is provided for educational programs in the area. This year funds provided support for books for the Refuge library, donation of books for school programs, and an Anchorage Bird Treatment and Learning Center presentation of a barred owl.

20. Subsistence

Subsistence is a way of life for many of the Native peoples who utilize the Refuge. Since this is one of the establishing purposes of the Refuge, staff members work with the villages adjacent to the Refuge to obtain information for making management decisions.

Village meetings were held in April in Grayling, Anvik, Shageluk and Holy Cross (GASH) as part of a project to identify the subsistence concerns of the area. Discussions centered on fisheries and moose issues.

Waterfowl shooting clinics were held at the villages of Nikolai, Grayling and the town of McGrath in April. These clinics were geared to provide information on non-toxic shot and hands-on experience in using steel shot to work towards compliance during the spring waterfowl hunts. The clinics were well received by the communities and requests were made for additional clinics in other villages.

I. Equipment and Facilities

1. New Construction

Hangar

The biggest project of 2002 was the construction of the 40' x 50' temporary airplane hangar in McGrath. The metal framed building has a gravel floor and rests on a two foot deep concrete perimeter pad (Fig. I 1-4). The concrete for the floor was purchased this year but due to time and rapid change of season it was not possible to pour the floor. The roof and outer wall are made of a heavy fabric, with insulation. The building is shaped like a large Quonset hut to help support the heavy snow load. The hangar has electrical service but no heating system. This project cost the Refuge $101,975.88 (the building contract was for $97,978). This cost does not include the force account labor (1 week for three people) used in the project. 48

Several difficulties were encountered during the project. The building contractor provided staff with the required pad layout which was formed prior to the construction of the building. Upon arrival of the contractor, it was determined that corners and the front of the pad had to be modified for the building supports. The other major problem was the size of the doors. Another two inches is required to clear the airplane propeller when it is in the up position. Staff must index the propeller prior to moving the airplane in and out of the building. The tail light also just barely clears the door. For safety of the staff and aircraft, modifying the door space for more height is preferred. Unfortunately no additional funding was available to accomplish this change.

Base concrete pad and brackets for Hangar frame. 49

Hanging the first piece of metal frame for the new hangar.

Inside view of finished hangar. 50

Outside view of finished Hangar.

Generator and Shed

The remote field camp is powered by several small gas generators. Even with the long days in the summer electricity is needed for running the freezer, charging batteries, powering computers for data entry, and showering. To help reduce the amount of fuel used and lower the decibel scale, so not to disturb wildlife, it was decided that a larger diesel generator would be more efficient. This new bigger and quieter generator would also be able to handle future expansion of the Innoko field camp. This Maintenance Management System project purchased a 12KW Diesel Generator ($7,087 including barge costs to the field camp), building materials, electrical supplies and some temporary labor costs.

This project included construction of a 12 x 14 ft insulated building, with a small double insulated room inside, to house the generator. This building is essential to its proper operation and maintenance in the harsh interior Alaskan environment where temperatures typically drop to -50°F in the winter.

Included in the project was the barge transportation cost to move the generator and building material from Fa irbanks to the Refuge field camp on the Innoko River. After arrival of the barge, the generator and materials were moved across the camp lake to the field camp area and construction begun. During the summer STEP employees Agim Zeciri and Rob Strick, constructed the deck of the building. In September, after all seasonal employees were gone; 51

RM Schaff, MW Siekaniec, and ROS Charbonnet built the outer shell around the generator to protect it from the harsh winter.

Wood Shed

A new 12'x14' wood shed was constructed at the Woolard leased house. This building was built to store all wood working tools and for use as a wood working shop. The building is also to help clear room at the bunkhouse garage to allow space for working on automobiles. The wood shed was constructed on elevated skids to prevent flooding and in case the Woolard lease expired and it had to be relocated elsewhere.

3. Major Maintenance

Significant progress was made in terms of catching up on maintenance and repair of small motorized equipment. Outboard motors, emergency generators, fire fighting equipment, snowmobiles, all-terrain vehicles, plane docks, and vehicles were maintained in safe operating condition, repaired, or excessed if no longer needed. This is no small job considering the hard use this equipment gets in severe operating conditions, often in remote areas.

Annual maintenance was also performed on heating, water and septic systems at Refuge buildings in McGrath and snow was kept plowed from driveways as needed.

The annual barge delivery at the field headquarters on June 15th included 20 drums of unleaded fuel, 60 drums aviation fuel (100LL),30 drums jet fuel (Jet A), 32- 100 lb. propane cylinders, a boat (dropped at Holy Cross for the Refuge Information Technician), a generator (960 lbs) and 10,000 pounds of building materials. Everyone at the site assisted in unloading the barge and loading empty fuel drums (86 empty fuel barrels and 11 empty propane cylinders) to ship back to the fuel vendor.

4. Equipment Utilization and Replacement

Replacement of the old fuel truck and its 100 gallon fuel tank was scheduled as a replacement in the Maintenance Management System this year. The aviation fuel truck was replaced with a 1 ton, flat bed, dually, Dodge Ram pickup. A 300 gallon fuel tank, aircraft radio, truck bed and construction lights were also installed on the truck in Anchorage. Cost of the vehicle and truck bed was $28,953.93. Delivery of the truck was very expensive because the entire plane had to be chartered. Regular freight carriers into McGrath no longer have a plane large enough 52

for this size of vehicle. To help economize the $15,550 for the charter, the plane was filled with office supplies and 9-500lb pallets of cement for the new airplane hanger floor.

New Aviation Fuel Truck with 300 gallon fuel tank on back.

A new 8 0 hp. 4-stroke Yamaha outboard boat motor with cables and controls was purchased to replace an old 115 hp. 2-stoke Mercury outboard motor. This motor will be put on the "speed boat" on the Refuge. Cost of the motor including shipping was $8,357. This will provide an additional river boat for law enforcement patrols, biological surveys and research.

A new motor and boat for the RIT in Holy Cross purchased with FY 2 001 funds was delivered this year. The boat was an ATEC costing $9,616 with an 80 hp Yamaha c o sting $7,896 {not including shipping costs ) .

With challenge grant funds, one new 25 hp. 4-stroke Yamaha outboard motor was purchased for use in McGrath during science camp. This motor replaced a 25 hp. 2-stroke Mariner and was placed on one of the McGrath aluminum Lund boats. Cost of the motor was .$3,178 plus $165 freight for the 170 pound mo tor to be shipped from Washington to McGrath.

By go ing to all 4-stroke outboard motors and running a bigger diesel fuel generator, the Refuge will become more efficient in fuel consumption and emissions control. This will allow the Refuge better work towards accomplishing its mission of 53

preserving wildlife and its habitat for future generations.

A steel conex storage container was purchased to put behind the office building for the storage of gas cans which cannot be stored in the leased o ffice space due to insurance restrictions. The cost of the container was $2,100.

An airplane float dock purchased in 2000 and delivered in 2001 finally got used this year in McGrath. This float dock made loading and unloading the airplane in McGrath safer and more convenient for the staff. The only problem with the dock is that the deck was higher from the water level than the old deck. This made the motor mount plate unusable for moving the dock. The aluminum steps (with railing) that came with the dock were damaged in shipment and had not been repaired by the end of the year so wooden steps and ramp were used instead.

New float

The 7 year old copy machine was on its last legs. It had been repaired several times over the last two years including one shipment into Anchorage for repairs (a two week event). The Refuge purchased a Mita Model 2030 with fax and networking capabilities. The new copier was received on April 26 and cost $4,262 with a shipping cost of $208. Some ergonomic desks were purchased to improve staff work stations as per regional policy. 54

6. Computer Systems

Four Gateway computers where purchase at the end of the year. The new regional guidance is that computers should be replaced after 3 years of use. Two Gateway 500X ($2,580 each) and two E4000 ($2,251 each) were purchased. These computers were put to use by the Deputy Refuge Manager, General Wildlife Biologist, Temporary Pilot, and the Maintenance Worker.

J. Other Items

3. Credits

Sections D.5 and F.1, 2, 3 and G.1 were done by Steve Kovach. Our FMO, stationed in Galena, Bob Lambrecht, wrote section F.9. Section F.11 came from the water resources web site at (http://alaska.fws.gov/water/). Section G.3 came from (http://mercury.bio.uaf.edu/~eric rexstad/satellitegeese/wftrnd20 02 final2.htm). Fisheries Biologist Randy Brown wrote section G.11. Dennis Marks of Migratory Birds in Fairbanks wrote section G.16. Sections D.5, E.5, E.7, E.8, H.16, H.18, H.20, and I.6. and additions to existing sections were written by DM Siekaniec. Sections G. 7,8,10 and Section H. 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7 were written by GB Skinner. All other sections were completed by ROS Charbonnet. This Report was edited by Steve Kovach and DM Siekaniec. ROS Charbonnet compiled the entire report.