Document mpO62mO9BmzQ88LygELL0j7O

Label: " Coastal Plain" Created by:mnhayes@blm.gov Total Messages in label:776 (219 conversations) Created: 08-07-2018 at 17:02 PM Conversation Contents Info regarding communities in and near the Arctic Refuge from CCP Attachments: /101. Info /101. Info /101. Info /101. Info /101. Info /101. Info /101. Info /101. Info /101. Info /101. Info /101. Info /101. Info /101. Info /101. Info /101. Info /101. Info /101. Info /101. Info /101. Info /101. Info /101. Info /101. Info regardingcommunities in and near the Arctic Refuge from CCP/1.1 image003.jpg regardingcommunities in and near the Arctic Refuge from CCP/2.1 image003.jpg regardingcommunities in and near the Arctic Refuge from CCP/3.1 image003.jpg regardingcommunities in and near the Arctic Refuge from CCP/4.1 image002.jpg regardingcommunities in and near the Arctic Refuge from CCP/4.2 image006.jpg regardingcommunities in and near the Arctic Refuge from CCP/4.3 image007.jpg regardingcommunities in and near the Arctic Refuge from CCP/4.4 Griffithetal2002ANWRPCHstory.pdf regardingcommunities in and near the Arctic Refuge from CCP/5.1 image002.jpg regardingcommunities in and near the Arctic Refuge from CCP/5.2 image006.jpg regardingcommunities in and near the Arctic Refuge from CCP/5.3 image007.jpg regardingcommunities in and near the Arctic Refuge from CCP/6.1 image002.jpg regardingcommunities in and near the Arctic Refuge from CCP/6.2 image007.jpg regardingcommunities in and near the Arctic Refuge from CCP/6.3 image006.jpg regardingcommunities in and near the Arctic Refuge from CCP/7.1 image006.jpg regardingcommunities in and near the Arctic Refuge from CCP/7.2 image007.jpg regardingcommunities in and near the Arctic Refuge from CCP/7.3 image002.jpg regardingcommunities in and near the Arctic Refuge from CCP/8.1 image007.jpg regardingcommunities in and near the Arctic Refuge from CCP/8.2 image006.jpg regardingcommunities in and near the Arctic Refuge from CCP/8.3 image002.jpg regardingcommunities in and near the Arctic Refuge from CCP/9.1 image006.jpg regardingcommunities in and near the Arctic Refuge from CCP/9.2 image002.jpg regardingcommunities in and near the Arctic Refuge from CCP/9.3 image007.jpg Wendy Loya <Wendy_loya@fws.gov> From: Sent: To: CC: Subject: Attachments: Wendy Loya <Wendy_loya@fws.gov> Fri Mar 16 2018 13:58:49 GMT-0600 (MDT) Nicole Hayes <mnhayes@blm.gov> Stephanie Brady <stephanie_brady@fws.gov> Info regarding communities in and near the Arctic Refuge from CCP image003.jpg Hi Nicole, The information in our CCP might be the best summary of the relationship of the communities consulted in the CCP process to subsistence on the Refuge, including the Porcupine Herd. From Page 4-174: Presently, six communities (Arctic Village, Chalkyitsik, Fort Yukon, Kaktovik, Venetie, and Wiseman) are in or relatively close to Arctic Refuge and use the Refuge for subsistence purposes. Residents of Arctic Village and Kaktovik utilize the Refuge most frequently due to their close proximity in or adjacent to the Refuge. Residents of Fort Yukon, Venetie, Chalkyitsik, and Wiseman use Refuge lands to a lesser extent (Service 1988a). In addition, the following communities have geographic or cultural ties to Arctic Refuge and its subsistence resources: Beaver, Circle, Birch Creek, and Stevens Village in Alaska, and Old Crow in Canada. In general, communities harvest the subsistence resources most available to them, concentrating their efforts along rivers or coastlines or in the mountains, depending on the season and availability of resources at particularly productive sites (HDR 2011). The HDR 2011 citation is for the Pt. Thompson EIS. In looking at that document, approximately page 3-216 onward, I see they considered the North Slope Borough population in their assessment (volume 1, FEIS), but I do not know if they did consultation. In looking at harvest reporting from ADFG, I found this in the PCH 2017 newsletter: http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/home/library/pdfs/wildlife/porcupine caribou news/porcupine caribou news summer 2017.pdf Harvest reporting ensures your community gets the caribou they need! Porcupine herd harvest is thought to be between 1 to 2% ofthe herd annually. Canada's HarvestManagement Plan requires that all hunters accurately report harvest each year. In 2013-2014, about 2,920 Porcupine caribou were harvested in Canada, with more than 95% ofthe harvest by Gwich'in or Inuvialuit hunters. In Alaska, harvest is primarily by local hunters in Arctic Village, Venetie, and Kaktovik. Reported harvest by these communities is estimated to be 200 to 500 caribou each year, but harvest reporting is usually low. Reported harvest by nonlocal Alaska resident or nonresident hunters is usually less than 175 caribou. Wendy Dr. Wendy M. Loya, Arctic Program Coordinator, Office of Science Applications US Fish and Wildlife Service Anchorage, Alaska 907.786.3532 (office) 907.227.2942 (mobile) "Hayes, Miriam (Nicole)" <mnhayes@blm.gov> From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: "Hayes, Miriam (Nicole)" <mnhayes@blm.gov> Fri Mar 16 2018 14:19:20 GMT-0600 (MDT) "Murphy, Ted" <t75murph@bliri.gov> Fwd: Info regarding communities in and near the Arctic Refuge from CCP image003.jpg Nicole Hayes Project Coordinator Bureau of Land Management 222 W. 7th Avenue #13 Anchorage, Alaska 99513 Desk: (907) 271-4354 ----------Forwarded message ----------From: Wendy Loya <Wendv lova@.fws.gov> Date: Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 11:58 AM Subject: Info regarding communities in and near the Arctic Refuge from CCP To: Nicole Hayes <mnhaves@blm.gov> Cc: Stephanie Brady <stephanie brady@fws.gov> Hi Nicole, The information in our CCP might be the best summary of the relationship of the communities consulted in the CCP process to subsistence on the Refuge, including the Porcupine Herd. From Page 4-174: Presently, six communities (Arctic Village, Chalkyitsik, Fort Yukon, Kaktovik, Venetie, and Wiseman) are in or relatively close to Arctic Refuge and use the Refuge for subsistence purposes. Residents of Arctic Village and Kaktovik utilize the Refuge most frequently due to their close proximity in or adjacent to the Refuge. Residents of Fort Yukon, Venetie, Chalkyitsik, and Wiseman use Refuge lands to a lesser extent (Service 1988a). In addition, the following communities have geographic or cultural ties to Arctic Refuge and its subsistence resources: Beaver, Circle, Birch Creek, and Stevens Village in Alaska, and Old Crow in Canada. In general, communities harvest the subsistence resources most available to them, concentrating their efforts along rivers or coastlines or in the mountains, depending on the season and availability of resources at particularly productive sites (HDR 2011). The HDR 2011 citation is for the Pt. Thompson EIS. In looking at that document, approximately page 3-216 onward, I see they considered the North Slope Borough population in their assessment (volume 1, FEIS), but I do not know if they did consultation. In looking at harvest reporting from ADFG, I found this in the PCH 2017 newsletter: http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/home/library/pdfs/ wildlife/porcupine caribou news/porcupine caribou news summer 2017.pdf Harvest reporting ensures your community gets the caribou they need! Porcupine herd harvest is thought to be between 1 to 2% ofthe herd annually. Canada's HarvestManagement Plan requires that all hunters accurately report harvest each year. In 2013-2014, about 2,920 Porcupine caribou were harvested in Canada, with more than 95% ofthe harvest by Gwich'in or Inuvialuit hunters. In Alaska, harvest is primarily by local hunters in Arctic Village, Venetie, and Kaktovik. Reported harvest by these communities is estimated to be 200 to 500 caribou each year, but harvest reporting is usually low. Reported harvest by nonlocal Alaska resident or nonresident hunters is usually less than 175 caribou. Wendy Dr. Wendy M. Loya, Arctic Program Coordinator, Office of Science Applications US Fish and Wildlife Service Anchorage, Alaska 907.786.3532 (office) 907.227.2942 (mobile) "Hayes, Miriam (Nicole)" <mnhayes@blm.gov> From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: "Hayes, Miriam (Nicole)" <mnhayes@blm.gov> Thu Mar 22 2018 15:00:41 GMT-0600 (MDT) Wendy Loya <Wendy_loya@fws.gov>, John Pearce <jpearce@usgs.gov> Re: Info regarding communities in and near the Arctic Refuge from CCP image003.jpg Hi Wendy and John, I do have a question regarding this map that was provided in the ADFG PCH 2017 newsletter (http://www.adfa.alaska.aov/static/home/librarv/pdfs/ wildlife/porcupine caribou news/porcupine caribou news summer 2017.pdf) - any idea of where the data my have come from? We asked our GIS team to put together a map with some of the caribou range information in relation to the Refuge and Coastal Plain boundaries but when they contacted ADFG, ADFG was not sure where the source of the data came from for this map (?). We have some caribou herd data sets but they may be a little dated (definitely don't match this map). Would your departments have any recent data regarding the range of Porcupine and Central Herds that could be shared? Thanks! Nicole Nicole Hayes Project Coordinator Bureau of Land Management 222 W. 7th Avenue #13 Anchorage, Alaska 99513 Desk: (907) 271-4354 Wendy Loya <Wendy_loya@fws.gov> From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Wendy Loya <Wendy_loya@fws.gov> Thu Mar 22 2018 15:27:20 GMT-0600 (MDT) "Miriam (Nicole) Hayes" <irmhayes@blm.gov> John Pearce <jpearce@usgs.gov> RE: Info regarding communities in and near the Arctic Refuge from CCP image002.jpg image006.jpg image007.jpg Griffithetal2002ANWRPCHstory.pdf Hi Nicole, That is very strange. I am copying the CCP map below, from page 4-103. This would expand the communities to include Chalkyitsik, Circle, Wiseman/Coldfoot, with Ft. Yukon just outside the range, but recommended to be included. Griffiths et al. 2002 has a similar map, so I would imagine that Griffiths et al. 2002 is the source of these data, I will attempt to confirm. CCP Map: Griffiths et al. 2002map Wendy Dr. Wendy M. Loya, Coordinator Office of Science Applications -Arctic Program US Fish and Wildlife Service Anchorage, Alaska 907.786.3532 (office) 907.277.2942 (mobile) From: Hayes, Miriam (Nicole) fmailto:mnhaves@.blm.aovl Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 1:01 PM To: Wendy Loya <Wendy loya@fWs.gov>: John Pearce <ipearce@.usas.aov> Subject: Re: Info regarding communities in and near the Arctic Refuge from CCP Hi Wendy and John, I do have a question regarding this map that was provided in the ADFG PCH 2017 newsletter ( http://www.adfa.alaska.aov/static/home/library/pdfs/wildlife/porcupine_caribou_news/porcupine_caribou_news_summer_2017.pdf ) - any idea of where the data my have come from? We asked our GIS team to put together a map with some of the caribou range information in relation to the Refuge and Coastal Plain boundaries but when they contacted ADFG, ADFG was not sure where the source of the data came from for this map (?). We have some caribou herd data sets but they may be a little dated (definitely don't match this map). Would your departments have any recent data regarding the range of Porcupine and Central Herds that could be shared? Thanks! Nicole Nicole Hayes Project Coordinator Bureau of Land Management 222 W. 7th Avenue #13 Anchorage, Alaska 99513 Desk: (907) 271-4354 "Hayes, Miriam (Nicole)" <mnhayes@blm.gov> From: Sent: To: CC: Subject: Attachments: "Hayes, Miriam (Nicole)" <mnhayes@blm.gov> Thu Mar 22 2018 15:33:41 GMT-0600 (MDT) Wendy Loya <Wendy_loya@fws.gov> John Pearce <jpearce@usgs.gov> Re: Info regarding communities in and near the Arctic Refuge from CCP image002.jpg image006.jpg image007.jpg Thank you - is there a source that would be seen as the most reliable? Nicole Hayes Project Coordinator Bureau of Land Management 222 W. 7th Avenue #13 Anchorage, Alaska 99513 Desk: (907) 271-4354 On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 1:27 PM, Wendy Loya <Wendv lova@.fws.gov> wrote: Hi Nicole, That is very strange. I am copying the CCP map below, from page 4-103. This would expand the communities to include Chalkyitsik, Circle, Wiseman/Coldfoot, with Ft. Yukon just outside the range, but recommended to be included. Griffiths et al. 2002 has a similar map, so I would imagine that Griffiths et al. 2002 is the source of these data, I will attempt to confirm. CCP Map: Griffiths et al. 2002map Wendy Dr. Wendy M. Loya, Coordinator Office of Science Applications -Arctic Program US Fish and Wildlife Service Anchorage, Alaska 907.786.3532 (office) 907.277.2942 (mobile) From: Hayes, Miriam (Nicole) [mailto:mnhaves@.blm.aov1 Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 1:01 PM To: Wendy Loya <Wendy loya@.fws.aov>: John Pearce <ipearce@.usas.aov> Subject: Re: Info regarding communities in and near the Arctic Refuge from CCP Hi Wendy and John, I do have a question regarding this map that was provided in the ADFG PCH 2017 newsletter ( http://www.adfa.alaska.aov/static/home/library/pdfs/wildlife/porcupine_caribou_news/porcupine_caribou_news_ summer_2017.pdf) - any idea of where the data my have come from? We asked our GIS team to put together a map with some of the caribou range information in relation to the Refuge and Coastal Plain boundaries but when they contacted ADFG, ADFG was not sure where the source of the data came from for this map (?). We have some caribou herd data sets but they may be a little dated (definitely don't match this map). Would your departments have any recent data regarding the range of Porcupine and Central Herds that could be shared? Thanks! Nicole Nicole Hayes Project Coordinator Bureau of Land Management 222 W. 7th Avenue #13 Anchorage, Alaska 99513 Desk: (907) 271-4354 "Pearce, John" <jpearce@usgs.gov> From: Sent: To: CC: Subject: Attachments: "Pearce, John" <jpearce@usgs.gov> Thu Mar 22 2018 16:00:06 GMT-0600 (MDT) "Hayes, Miriam (Nicole)" <mnhayes@blm.gov> Wendy Loya <Wendy_loya@fws.gov> Re: Info regarding communities in and near the Arctic Refuge from CCP image002.jpg image007.jpg image006.jpg Nicole, We think the best person to contact with ADFG would be Beth Lenart (beth.lenart@alaska.aov) in Fairbanks. We think the GIS folks within ADFG are pretty regionally based, so if they contacted someone in Anchorage, they may not be aware of where the data reside. John John M. Pearce, Ph.D. Supervisory Wildlife Biologist Manager, Wetland and Terrestrial Ecosystems Office U.S.Geological Survey, Alaska Science Center 4210 University Drive Anchorage, Alaska 99508 Tel. 907.786.7094 Email: ipearce@usgs.gov http://alaska.usas.aov/staff/staffbio.php?emploveeid=173 On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 1:33 PM, Hayes, Miriam (Nicole) <mnhaves@blm.gov> wrote: Thank you - is there a source that would be seen as the most reliable? Nicole Hayes Project Coordinator Bureau of Land Management 222 W. 7th Avenue #13 Anchorage, Alaska 99513 Desk: (907) 271-4354 On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 1:27 PM, Wendy Loya <Wendv lova@.fws.aov> wrote: Hi Nicole, That is very strange. I am copying the CCP map below, from page 4-103. This would expand the communities to include Chalkyitsik, Circle, Wiseman/Coldfoot, with Ft. Yukon just outside the range, but recommended to be included. Griffiths et al. 2002 has a similar map, so I would imagine that Griffiths et al. 2002 is the source of these data, I will attempt to confirm. CCP Map: Griffiths et al. 2002map Wendy Dr. Wendy M. Loya, Coordinator Office of Science Applications -Arctic Program US Fish and Wildlife Service Anchorage, Alaska 907.786.3532 (office) 907.277.2942 (mobile) From: Hayes, Miriam (Nicole) [mailto:mnhaves@blm.gov1 Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 1:01 PM To: Wendy Loya <Wendv lova@.fws.gov>: John Pearce <ipearce@.usgs.gov> Subject: Re: Info regarding communities in and near the Arctic Refuge from CCP Hi Wendy and John, I do have a question regarding this map that was provided in the ADFG PCH 2017 newsletter ( http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/home/library/pdfs/wildlife/porcupine_caribou_news/porcupine_caribou_news_summer_ 2017.pdf) - any idea of where the data my have come from? We asked our GIS team to put together a map with some of the caribou range information in relation to the Refuge and Coastal Plain boundaries but when they contacted ADFG, ADFG was not sure where the source of the data came from for this map (?). We have some caribou herd data sets but they may be a little dated (definitely don't match this map). Would your departments have any recent data regarding the range of Porcupine and Central Herds that could be shared? Thanks! Nicole Nicole Hayes Project Coordinator Bureau of Land Management 222 W. 7th Avenue #13 Anchorage, Alaska 99513 Desk: (907) 271-4354 "Hayes, Miriam (Nicole)" <mnhayes@blm.gov> From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: John, Thank you for the lead! Nicole Nicole Hayes Project Coordinator Bureau of Land Management 222 W. 7th Avenue #13 Anchorage, Alaska 99513 Desk: (907) 271-4354 "Hayes, Miriam (Nicole)" <mnhayes@blm.gov> Thu Mar 22 2018 16:02:14 GMT-0600 (MDT) "Pearce, John" <jpearce@usgs.gov> Re: Info regarding communities in and near the Arctic Refuge from CCP image006.jpg image007.jpg image002.jpg On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 2:00 PM, Pearce, John <ipearce@usgs.gov> wrote: Nicole, We think the best person to contact with ADFG would be Beth Lenart (beth.lenart@alaska.gov) in Fairbanks. We think the GIS folks within ADFG are pretty regionally based, so if they contacted someone in Anchorage, they may not be aware of where the data reside. John John M. Pearce, Ph.D. Supervisory Wildlife Biologist Manager, Wetland and Terrestrial Ecosystems Office U.S.Geological Survey, Alaska Science Center 4210 University Drive Anchorage, Alaska 99508 Tel. 907.786.7094 Email: ipearce@usgs.gov http://alaska.usgs.gov/staff/staffbio.php?emploveeid=173 On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 1:33 PM, Hayes, Miriam (Nicole) <mnhayes@blm.gov> wrote: Thank you - is there a source that would be seen as the most reliable? Nicole Hayes Project Coordinator Bureau of Land Management 222 W. 7th Avenue #13 Anchorage, Alaska 99513 Desk: (907) 271-4354 On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 1:27 PM, Wendy Loya <Wendy loya@.fws.aov> wrote: Hi Nicole, That is very strange. I am copying the CCP map below, from page 4-103. This would expand the communities to include Chalkyitsik, Circle, Wiseman/Coldfoot, with Ft. Yukon just outside the range, but recommended to be included. Griffiths et al. 2002 has a similar map, so I would imagine that Griffiths et al. 2002 is the source of these data, I will attempt to confirm. CCP Map: Griffiths et al. 2002map Wendy Dr. Wendy M. Loya, Coordinator Office of Science Applications -Arctic Program US Fish and Wildlife Service Anchorage, Alaska 907.786.3532 (office) 907.277.2942 (mobile) From: Hayes, Miriam (Nicole) fmailto:mnhaves@.blm.aovl Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 1:01 PM To: Wendy Loya <Wendy loya@fWs.gov>: John Pearce <ipearce@.usas.aov> Subject: Re: Info regarding communities in and near the Arctic Refuge from CCP Hi Wendy and John, I do have a question regarding this map that was provided in the ADFG PCH 2017 newsletter ( http://www.adfa.alaska.aov/static/home/library/pdfs/wildlife/porcupine_caribou_news/porcup ine_caribou_news_summer_2017. pdf) - any idea of where the data my have come from? We asked our GIS team to put together a map with some of the caribou range information in relation to the Refuge and Coastal Plain boundaries but when they contacted ADFG, ADFG was not sure where the source of the data came from for this map (?). We have some caribou herd data sets but they may be a little dated (definitely don't match this map). Would your departments have any recent data regarding the range of Porcupine and Central Herds that could be shared? Thanks! Nicole Nicole Hayes Project Coordinator Bureau of Land Management 222 W. 7th Avenue #13 Anchorage, Alaska 99513 Desk: (907) 271-4354 "Hayes, Miriam (Nicole)" <mnhayes@blm.gov> From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Another POC at ADFG? Nicole Hayes Project Coordinator Bureau of Land Management 222 W. 7th Avenue #13 Anchorage, Alaska 99513 Desk: (907) 271-4354 "Hayes, Miriam (Nicole)" <mnhayes@blm.gov> Thu Mar 22 2018 16:02:43 GMT-0600 (MDT) Catherine Hillis <chNNs@blm.gov> Fwd: Info regarding communities in and near the Arctic Refuge from CCP image007.jpg image006.jpg image002.jpg ----------Forwarded message ----------From: Pearce, John <ipearce@.usgs.gov> Date: Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 2:00 PM Subject: Re: Info regarding communities in and near the Arctic Refuge from CCP To: "Hayes, Miriam (Nicole)" <mnhaves@.blm.gov> Cc: Wendy Loya <Wendv loya@fws.gov> Nicole, We think the best person to contact with ADFG would be Beth Lenart (beth.lenart@alaska.gov) in Fairbanks. We think the GIS folks within ADFG are pretty regionally based, so if they contacted someone in Anchorage, they may not be aware of where the data reside. John John M. Pearce, Ph.D. Supervisory Wildlife Biologist Manager, Wetland and Terrestrial Ecosystems Office U.S.Geological Survey, Alaska Science Center 4210 University Drive Anchorage, Alaska 99508 Tel. 907.786.7094 Email: ipearce@usgs.gov http://alaska.usgs.gov/staff/staffbio.php?employeeid=173 On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 1:33 PM, Hayes, Miriam (Nicole) <mnhayes@blm.gov> wrote: Thank you - is there a source that would be seen as the most reliable? Nicole Hayes Project Coordinator Bureau of Land Management 222 W. 7th Avenue #13 Anchorage, Alaska 99513 Desk: (907) 271-4354 On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 1:27 PM, Wendy Loya <Wendv lova@.fws.aov> wrote: Hi Nicole, That is very strange. I am copying the CCP map below, from page 4-103. This would expand the communities to include Chalkyitsik, Circle, Wiseman/Coldfoot, with Ft. Yukon just outside the range, but recommended to be included. Griffiths et al. 2002 has a similar map, so I would imagine that Griffiths et al. 2002 is the source of these data, I will attempt to confirm. CCP Map: Griffiths et al. 2002map Wendy Dr. Wendy M. Loya, Coordinator Office of Science Applications -Arctic Program US Fish and Wildlife Service Anchorage, Alaska 907.786.3532 (office) 907.277.2942 (mobile) From: Hayes, Miriam (Nicole) [mailto:mnhaves@blm.aovl Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 1:01 PM To: Wendy Loya <Wendy loya@.fws.aov>: John Pearce <ipearce@.usas.aov> Subject: Re: Info regarding communities in and near the Arctic Refuge from CCP Hi Wendy and John, I do have a question regarding this map that was provided in the ADFG PCH 2017 newsletter ( http://www.adfa.alaska.aov/static/home/library/pdfs/wildlife/porcupine_caribou_news/porcup ine_caribou_news_summer_2017.pdf) - any idea of where the data my have come from? We asked our GIS team to put together a map with some of the caribou range information in relation to the Refuge and Coastal Plain boundaries but when they contacted ADFG, ADFG was not sure where the source of the data came from for this map (?). We have some caribou herd data sets but they may be a little dated (definitely don't match this map). Would your departments have any recent data regarding the range of Porcupine and Central Herds that could be shared? Thanks! Nicole Nicole Hayes Project Coordinator Bureau of Land Management 222 W. 7th Avenue #13 Anchorage, Alaska 99513 Desk: (907) 271-4354 "Hillis, Catherine" <chillis@blm.gov> From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: "Hillis, Catherine" <chillis@blm.aov> Mon Mar 26 2018 12:52:23 GMT-0600 (MDT) "Hayes, Miriam (Nicole)" <mnhayes@blm.gov> Re: Info regarding communities in and near the Arctic Refuge from CCP image006.jpg image002.jpg image007.jpg Nicole, I still haven't received the information from Beth Lenart or Jason Caikoski. Cathy Hillis, Geospatial Manager Alaska State Office 907-271-3273 On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 2:02 PM, Hayes, Miriam (Nicole) <mnhaves@.blm.aov> wrote: Another POC at ADFG? Nicole Hayes Project Coordinator Bureau of Land Management 222 W. 7th Avenue #13 Anchorage, Alaska 99513 Desk: (907) 271-4354 ----------Forwarded message----------From: Pearce, John <ipearce@.usas.aov> Date: Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 2:00 PM Subject: Re: Info regarding communities in and near the Arctic Refuge from CCP To: "Hayes, Miriam (Nicole)" <mnhaves@.blm.gov> Cc: Wendy Loya <Wendv iova@.fWs.gov> Nicole, We think the best person to contact with ADFG would be Beth Lenart (beth.lenart@alaska.gov) in Fairbanks. We think the GIS folks within ADFG are pretty regionally based, so if they contacted someone in Anchorage, they may not be aware of where the data reside. John John M. Pearce, Ph.D. Supervisory Wildlife Biologist Manager, Wetland and Terrestrial Ecosystems Office U.S.Geological Survey, Alaska Science Center 4210 University Drive Anchorage, Alaska 99508 Tel. 907.786.7094 Email: ipearce@usgs.gov http://alaska.usas.aov/staff/staffbio.php?emploveeid=173 On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 1:33 PM, Hayes, Miriam (Nicole) <mnhayes@.blm.gov> wrote: Thank you - is there a source that would be seen as the most reliable? Nicole Hayes Project Coordinator Bureau of Land Management 222 W. 7th Avenue #13 Anchorage, Alaska 99513 Desk: (907) 271-4354 On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 1:27 PM, Wendy Loya <Wendy lova@fws.aov> wrote: Hi Nicole, That is very strange. I am copying the CCP map below, from page 4-103. This would expand the communities to include Chalkyitsik, Circle, Wiseman/Coldfoot, with Ft. Yukon just outside the range, but recommended to be included. Griffiths et al. 2002 has a similar map, so I would imagine that Griffiths et al. 2002 is the source of these data, I will attempt to confirm. CCP Map: Griffiths et al. 2002map Wendy Dr. Wendy M. Loya, Coordinator Office of Science Applications -Arctic Program US Fish and Wildlife Service Anchorage, Alaska 907.786.3532 (office) 907.277.2942 (mobile) From: Hayes, Miriam (Nicole) fmailto:mnhaves@.blm.aovl Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 1:01 PM To: Wendy Loya <Wendy lova@.fws.aov>: John Pearce <ipearce@.usas.aov> Subject: Re: Info regarding communities in and near the Arctic Refuge from CCP Hi Wendy and John, I do have a question regarding this map that was provided in the ADFG PCH 2017 newsletter ( http://www.adfa.alaska.aov/static/home/library/pdfs/wildlife/porcupine_caribou_news/porcup ine_caribou_news_summer_2017.pdf) - any idea of where the data my have come from? We asked our GIS team to put together a map with some of the caribou range information in relation to the Refuge and Coastal Plain boundaries but when they contacted ADFG, ADFG was not sure where the source of the data came from for this map (?). We have some caribou herd data sets but they may be a little dated (definitely don't match this map). Would your departments have any recent data regarding the range of Porcupine and Central Herds that could be shared? Thanks! Nicole Nicole Hayes Project Coordinator Bureau of Land Management 222 W. 7th Avenue #13 Anchorage, Alaska 99513 Desk: (907) 271-4354 Email Attachments Porcupine & Central Arctic mix during summer (July) Kaktovik Beaufort Sea 0 Central Arctic Herd Range Porcupine Herd Range TeshekpukHerd Range Old Crow Chalky itslk Fort Yukon , Arctic & Teshekpuk mix \ (during Fall Winter i--------------- ----------------- \ Porcupine & Fortymile mix during Fall/Winter :_______________________ ______________________ ________L ___________________ 1 Porcupine & Central Arctic mix during summer (July) Kaktovik Beaufort Sea 0 Central Arctic Herd Range Porcupine Herd Range TeshekpukHerd Range Old Crow Chalky itslk Fort Yukon , Arctic & Teshekpuk mix \ (during Fall Winter i--------------- ----------------- \ Porcupine & Fortymile mix during Fall/Winter :_______________________ ______________________ ________L ___________________ 1 Porcupine & Central Arctic mix during summer (July) Kaktovik Beaufort Sea 0 Central Arctic Herd Range Porcupine Herd Range TeshekpukHerd Range Old Crow Chalky itslk Fort Yukon , Arctic & Teshekpuk mix \ (during Fall Winter i--------------- ----------------- \ Porcupine & Fortymile mix during Fall/Winter :_______________________ ______________________ ________L ___________________ 1 MapM J Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Range of the Central Arctic and Porcupine Caribou Herds Caribou Ranges ] Porcupine Caribou Herd Range ^ Central Arche Caribou Held Range Other Features [J Arctic Refuge Boundary US-Canada Border ARCTIC NATIONAL A'NGE of t Kilometers Figure 3.2. For the Porcupine caribou herd: annual range (wide white solid line), calving sites (yellow points), and aggregate extent of calving (thin solid yellow line). 1983-2001. For the Central Arctic caribou herd: aggregate extent of calving (thin solid white line) and calving sites (white points). 1980-1995. (Adapted from Wolfe 2000). Porcupine & Central Arctic mix during summer (July) Kaktovik Beaufort Sea Central Arctic Herd Range Porcupine Herd Range Teshekpuk Herd Range Dalton Highway Old Crow Chalky itsik Fort Yukon Porcupine, Central Arctic & Teshekpuk mix during Fall/Winter Porcupine & Fortymile mix during Fall/Winter IB B ResearchGate See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265155770 Section 3: The Porcupine Caribou Herd Article January 2002 CITATIONS 75 9 authors, including: Brad Griffith United States Geological Survey 67 PUBLICATIONS 4,963 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE D. E. Russell Yukon College 66 PUBLICATIONS 1,009 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE READS 245 Donald D. Young Alaska Department of Fish and Game 9 PUBLICATIONS 215 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE Robert White University of Alaska Fairbanks 160 PUBLICATIONS 3,975 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: project Evaluating Endangered Species Act Recovery Plans View project project Maternal protein reserves and assessment of factors affecting lactation and calf growth View project All content following this page was uploaded by Robert White on 04 September 2014. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. 8f BIOLOGICALfSCIENCE REPORTfUSGS/BRD 002-0001 f Section 3: The Porcupine Caribou Herd collared fanimals. fCalving fdistributions /f ere festimated from 767 calving sites of adult f>3fyear old) radio-f Brad Griffith, David C. Douglas, Noreen E. Walsh,b Donald D. Young, Thomas R. McCabe, Donald E.b Russell, Roberb G White, Raymond D. Cameron, andb Kenneth R. Whittenb collared female caribou obtained during f983-2001f [average of 40 sites per year; fixed-kernel analyses usingf Least Squares Cross Validation fSilverman 1986, feamanf et fil. 1996, f998, 1999)]. Concentrated calving areasb /ere defined fis fhe finnual kernel contour fhat fncludedf Documentation of the natural fange of variation inf ecological, fife history, find physiological Characteristicsf of fiaribou fRangifer barandus- of the Porcupine fiaribouf herd is a necessary base for detecting or predicting anyf potential effects of industrial development bn fhef performance fe.g., distribution, demography, /eight-gainf of fndividuals) 5f the herd. Tofdemonstrate fin effect 5f development, post-development performance must dif er from pre-development performance /hile accounting forf any natural environmental tTends.f Wefhad 2 /orking hypotheses for our investigations : f 1) performance 5f the Porcupine Caribou herd /asf associated /ith environmental patterns and habitatf quality, find 2) ficcess fo important habitats /as fi keyf influence on demography.f Wefsought to document the range of natural variationf in habitat conditions, herd fiize, demographybfdefmedf here as survival and freproduction), sources and magnitudef of mortality, distribution, habitat use, and /eight gain andf loss; find fo develop fin Understanding df fhe fnteractionsf among these characteristics of the herd.f In addition, /e investigated /ays that /e could use thisf background Information, Combined fvith buxiliaryf information from the adjacent Central .Arctic caribou herd,f to predict the direction and magnitude fif any potential fif ectsf of industrial oil development fn the f002 .Area of the Arcticf National Wildlife Refuge fin Porcupine fiaribou herd Calf survival on the herd's calving grounds during June.f calving Cites /ith greater than fiverage density fSeaman fitf al. f998). Annual calving groundsb/ere defined fis thef 99% kernel utilization distributions fobtained from annualf calving sites. Extent of calvingb/as defined as thef aggregate extent of all annual calving grounds.f Vegetation fypes /ere mapped from Landsat-Thematicf Mapper satellite imagery (Fig. 2.1; Jorgensen et al. 1994) and reduced from f7 fo 7 classes for caribou habitatf analyses (Fig. 3.1). Wefestimated the Normalizedb Difference Vegetation IndexbNDVI) (Tucker f979,f Tucker et al. 1986) find sno/cover from .Advanced Veryf High Resolution Radiometer fAVHRR) data fromf National Oceanic find .Atmospheric Administrationf (NOAA) polar orbiting satellites. Sno/cover /asf estimated using fi finear regression drat /e derived byf correlating AVHRR fhfrared reflectance /ith estimates of sno/cover extracted from faerial photographs collected inf the 1002 .Area during fhe fino/melt periods of 1987 findf 1988 (r2 i 0.87, n = 80). Cloud contaminated fireas fn fhef AVHRR images /ere identified (Baglio and Holroydf 1989) and excluded from analyses, as /ere large /aterf bodies. AVHRR fand Thematic fMapper ifmages f/eref transformed fo fin .Albers Equal .Area projection find re-f sampled fo f-km2 pixel fiize.f NDVIbndexes fhe disproportionate reflectance of near-f infrared radiation from green vegetation (Tucker andf ellars 1986) in the canopy of fplant communities. Thus,f relationships bet/een NDVI find fotal green plant biomassbor feaf firea index (LAI) /ould be expected fo bef Data, Methods and Assumptionsy strongest for plant communities /ith reduced verticalf distribution of green biomass find feaf firea (e.g.,f This /ork focused on the calving and post-calvingf seasons 5f the Porcupine caribou herd. fThe Calvingb seasonb/as defined fis fhe S-week period fhat began /ithf the birth 5f calves fspring). fPost-calvingb/as defined fisf the 3-/eek period that follo/ed the calving season (earlyf summer-.f Porcupine caribou herd size /as estimated by thef Alaska Department of Fish find Game (ADF&G) romf aerial fphoto-censuses fduring fpost-calving faggregations.f Only censuses considered reliable by ADF&G /ere used.f Variance fn finnual censuses due fo multiple observersf counting portions of the photo sets /as relatively smallf /hen compared /ith fiach census f2%) find /as fgnoredf in the display 5f finnual censuses fo the nearest f,000f animals.f Demography find calf /eight-gain /ere estimated communities dominated by sedges, grasses, or shortf shrubs that are common in tfhe Af rctic). Due to the size of the pixels (~1 km2) AVHRR data are linked more tof landscape processes than to individual plant communitiesf (Malingreau find Bel/ard f992).f Relatively good correlations have been obtainedf bet/een above ground net primary productivity (ANPP) and seasonally integrated NDVI (r2 = 0.89; Paruelo et al.f 1997), LAI find NDVI /hen fhtegrated ficrossf physiognomic categories (r2 = 0.97; Shippert et al. 1995),f and photosynthetic biomass and NDVI fn small plots (r2 =f 0.51; Hope et fil. 1993). Because NDVI indexed fotalf green biomass and caribou are fselective feeders (Whitef 1983), /e fissumed fhat fhe biomass of forages Oaten byf caribou /as positively correlated /ith fotal green biomassf at the landscape scale.f from repeated focations find/or recaptures 5f radio-f ARCTIC REFUGE COASTALfPLAIN TERRESTRIALfWILDLIFE RESEARCH fUMMARIESf 9f Generalized Landcover Classes Wet Sedge [] Herbaceous Shrub Alpine Non-Vegetated Moist Sedge Tussock Tundra Tussock Tundra g Riparian Figure 3.I. Land-cover classes on the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska, and eastward into the Yukon Territory, Canada,z as generalized for studies of the Porcupine caribou herd. Classes are based on Jorgensen et al. (1994) as depicted in Fig. 2.1 and are expandedz to include Canada using a Canadian Wildlife Service Landsat-derived vegetation map of the Northern Yukon. Classes on this map and theirz corresponding classes in Jorgensen et al. (1994) include: Wzt Graminoid (WG, WGM, some PV), Moist Sedge (MSW, MS, MSD), Herbacezusz Tussock Tundra (TT, SP), Shrub Tussock Tundra (STT), Alpine (ST, AT, some PV), Riparian (RS, DT, some PV), and Non-vegetated (BA, 1C, WA,z SH).z Wefdirectly Estimated NDVI fit 3 fimes : f 1) NDVI_calvingb composite (Holben 1986) imagesf obtained as close as possible to median calving datef each year (mean image date of 2 June, SE = 2.0 days).f nowcover was also estimated from these images.f Negative NDVI values (areas with snowcover) weref converted fo Zero NDVI.f 2) NDVI_mid-Juneb approximately 2 weeks afterf calving (mean image date of 16 June, SE = 2.6 days).f 3) NDVI_early-Julybfduring fhe first week of Julyf (mean image date of 3 July, SE = 2.4 days).f From these images we derived 2 additional estimates : f 1) NDVI_rateb the pixel-based daily rate of increasef in NDVI from calving to mid-June.f 2) NDVI_621bfNDVI bn the fixed date fif 21 Junef each fyear (fapproximately f3 wf eeks fafter fcalving,f linearly fnterpolated from mid-June and Carly-Julyf images).f In years when snowcover was substantial (i.e., 1986,f 1988, 1989, 1992, 1997) find NDVI_calving was nearf zero, fhere may have been a fimall overestimate of NDVI_rate. In addition, cloud cover made it impossiblef to obtain a complete image on any fixed date. Thus,f NDVI_621 was fhe most fobust NDVI estimate because ftf was interpolated to a ixed date from 2 snow-free images.f Wefassumed that NDVI_calving find NDVI_621f represented relative green orage quantity whilef NDVI_rate reflected forage quality because it estimatedf the daily accumulation of new plant tissue which is highlyf digestible (Cameron and Whitten 1980).fThe qualityf implication of NDVI_rate was based bn fhe assumptionf that caribou forage selectively for the most digestible food items (White 1983). Because energy and proteinf intake from milk by caribou calves remains high duringf the first 3 weeks hf fife and then declines s balvesf increase their intake of vegetation (White and Luick 1984,f Parker et al. 1990), we assumed that NDVI_621 estimated forage availability fo factating females during fhe B-weekf period of peak lactation demand immediately afterf calving.f Predator distributions and relative densities weref estimated from annual relocations of radio-collaredf grizzly bears (Ursus arctos), 1983-1994, and from aerialf survey locations of golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) nestf structures find wolf (Canis lupus) dens (Fig. 6.1).f atellite-collared caribou provided supplementalf information on distribution throughout fhe herd's finnualf range. Estimates of minimum daily movement rates weref 10f BIOLOGICALfSCIENCE REPORTfUSGS/BRD 2002-0001f obtained from satellite-collared animals, 1985-1995, and from near-daily relocations of conventional radio-collaredf calves on the calving ground, 1992-1994.f Data /ere analyzed /ith contingency fables, finearf and step/ise logistic regression, multi-responsef permutation procedures (MRPP, Mielke find Berry H982),f and analysis of variance. Akaike's Information Criteriaf (AIC; Akaike 1973, f akamoto fit al. 1986) /ere Used for final model selection. Bonferroni procedures /ere Used fof provide overall experiment error protection asf appropriate. GIS fechnology, remotely-sensed habitatf data-layers, habitat-demography relationships, andf simulation modeling /ere used to assess potential effectsf of displacement of calving grounds on calf survival eachf June.f Not all types of data /ere available throughout thef entire primary study period of 1983-2001. Calf /eightsf near birth /ere estimated from captured 1- and 2-day-oldf animals fn 1983-1985, find figain fn 1992-1994. Calf /eight-gains on the calving ground and co/ /eights inf June find September /ere estimated fn H992-1994.f Caribou food habits /ere estimated during H973f (Thompson find McCourt 1981), 1979-1981f(Russell fit fil.f 1993), and for fhis study during 1993-94 fromf microhistological analyses of fecal pellets (Sparks andf Malechek 1968) corrected for forage digestibilityf (Duquette 1984).f Annual adult caribou survival /as estimated in 1983-f 1992 (Fancy et al. 1994,fWalsh et al. 1995). Over-/interf calf survival /as estimated fn 1983-1985 find H988f (Fancy et al. 1994,fWalsh et al. 1995). /tune calfsurvivalb (the proportion 6f parturient fadio-collared femalesf retaining live calves during the last /eek of June) /asf estimated in 1983-1992 (Fancy et al. 1994, Walsh et al.f 1995) find for fhis study fn !993-2001.f Calving distributions and vegetation fypes on thef calving grounds /ere available for all years 1983-2001,f but satellite-based estimates 6f NDVI and sno/coverf /ere only available for the years 1985-2001.f The study area covered the fannual range of thef Porcupine caribou herd (Fig. 3.2), emphasizing fhef calving ground, and /as described fin the introduction tof Figure 3.2. For the Porcupine caribou herd: annual range (wide white solid line), calving sites (yellow points), and aggregate extent of calvingz (thin solid yellow line), 1983-2001. For the Central Arctic caribou herd: aggregate extent of calving (thin solid white line) and calving sites (whitez points), 1980-1995. (Adapted from Wolfe 2000).z ARCTIC REFUGE COASTALfPLAIN ffERRESTRIALfWILDLIFE RESEARCH fUMMARIESf Ilf this report and in the 1987 Final Legislativef constitutes scale-dependent selection (cf. Wiens 1989,f Environmental fmpact ftatement (Clough et l. 1987).f O'Neil and Ming 1998). Wefpursued this fssue of scalef dependency in habitat selection by the Porcupine caribouf Nutritional Importance pf the Calving Groundy herd at the larger scales of the annual calving grounds andf concentrated calving areas.f pring arrival on the calving ground is the time of minimum body reserves for parturientfemalesZ(thosef Because fhe fnability fo meet factation flemands fnayf lower the performanceUi.e., weight-gain, survival) of about fo give birth or accompanied by Very young Calves) calves, calving ground habitats may be fmportant. Theyf (Chan-McLeod et al. 1999). Thereafter, their energyfandf may be fmportant because fhey can contributef protein requirements reach the highest level of the yearf substantially to the female and calf protein budgets duringf during peak factation fn fhe first 3 weeks bf June (Whitef the calving season, when maternal protein reserves can bef and Luick f984, Parker Ft fil. f990). The females'f low (Gerhart et al. 1996, Chan-McLeod et al. 1999).f appetites are high and forage intake rates can matchf lactation demandfonly /here primary production fs Eighf Habitat Trends During the Study Periody (White et al. 1975, 1981). Small changes in nutritionalf content and digestibility of forage, however, can havef The climate of the .Arctic has been warming in bothf substantial multiplier ef ects on digestible energy andf protein intake (White 1983), and fhus may influencef summer and winter during recent decades (Chapman andf Walsh 1993, Groisman et al. 1994, Houghton et al. 1995).f nutritional performance of Porcupine caribou herd Temperature increases have been greatest in winter.fThef females on the calving ground.f warming has been heterogeneous across the Af rcticf Recent advances in identifying fhe basis of selectionf of food by ungulates demonstrate that forage intake is a (Chapman find Walsh 1993, Serreze 2000), but wasf evident in spring (Fig. 3.3a) and winter (Fig. 3.3f) function of Ungulate morphology, plant architecture, andf temperatures within the northern part of the annual rangef biomass Uf acceptable forage (White Ut al. 1975, Trudellf of the Porcupine caribou herd.f and White 1981, Spalinger ft al. 1988, Shipley andf An earlier greening and later senescence of greenf Spalinger 1992, Gross et al. 1993, Langvatn and Hanleyf plant biomass in areas north of 40N (Myneni et al. 1997,f 1993, Wilmshurst find Fryxell 1995). Because fingulatesf 1998; hou et al. 2001) have been fletected with NDVIf select forage With high fligestible energy and highf and associated with the warming trend. The earlierf digestible protein (Langvatn and Hanley 1993,f greening was evident focally within fhe extent of calvingf Wilmshurst and Fryxell 1995), these properties are thef (Fig. 5.2) 5f fhe Porcupine caribou herd fn fhe form of finf relevant measure of forage value of habitats at any spatialf increasing relative amount of green plant biomass on 21f scale (White et al. 1975, White find Trudell 1980a,b).f Thus, the forage currency for ungulates is primarily a June (NDVI_621, f2 =fD.50,fP = 0.002) fluring 1985-1999f (Fig. 3.4).f function Uf fligestibility 5f acceptable foods find fs notf A very low value for NDVI_621 was observed inf simply plant biomass or gross energy (Fryxell 1991).f 1992, fhe year that stratospheric aerosols from fhe 1991f The source 5f protein for fetal growth comes almostf eruption of Mount Pinatubo fn the Philippines reached fhef exclusively from body protein of female caribou enteringf Arctic fn spring (Minnis et al. 1993). Both 2001 find 2000f winter (Gerhart et al. 1996). Females with high bodyf were substantial hutliers (RSfudent = -2.49, -2.86,f protein fn fate Winter produce the largest calves (Allaye-f respectively) from the relationship between NDVI_621f Chan 1991). Early weaning of calves occurs when habitatf and year, 1985-1999 (Fig. 5.4). Both 2001 find 2000 hadf conditions flo not support a protein fntake sufficient fof exceptionally fate springs with high snowcover at calving.f meet a minimal fate of body protein deposition; milkf Wefdo not yet know if these outliers indicate a change inf synthesis fhen ceases (Russell and White 1998). Thef protein: energy ratio of forage consumed during lactationf the trend observed fluring 1985-1999.f The &rctic OscillationUFig. 3.5) is centered over thef increases tfhe fmilk fprotein ifntake fby cfalves (fChan-McLeodf high .Arctic and fs flne flf afnumber of correlated fndicesf et al.1994), the most important milk nutrient af ecting calf of large-scale atmospheric pressure flifferentials (e.g.,f growth rate at all calf ages (White 1992).f North Af tlantic fOscillation, fNorthern fHemispheric Af nnularf When forage biomass is lfow at calving, Porcupinef Mode) (Thompson find Wallace 1998, 2001). The .Arcticf caribou herd females might be expected to usef Oscillation is the height of fhe level of one-half microhabitats of highest biomass of acceptable foods findf atmosphere of pressure above fhe surface of the earth andf to select the most digestible forages from within them, asf is weakly correlated with surface temperaturesf has been flocumented for caribou 5f the Central Arcticf (Thompson Und Wallace 1998). The Arctic Oscillation hasf herd (White et al. 1975) and the Western .Arctic herdf a warm positive phase when surface pressures are fowf (White find Trudell 1980f).fThis change fn fhe basis of and warm North Af tlantic water enters the Af rctic Ocean,f selection, from forage biomass to forage digestibility,f 12f BIOLOGICALfSCIENCE REPORTfUSGS/BRD 2002-0001f Figure 3.S. Standardized values of the Arctic Oscillation (AO) forz winter (January, February, March) and population size of the Porcupinez caribou herd, 1958-2001. Mean value indicated by solid horizontal line.z | PDO is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (Hare and Matuna, 2000).z Shingle Point, Yukon Territory, Canada) and 1 station within its winterz range (Old Crow, Yukon Territory) for a) June, and b) winter (January,z February, March), 1950-1995.z Figure 3.4. Median Normalized Difference Vzgetation Index (NDVI) onz 21 June within the aggregate extent of calving for the Porcupinez caribou herd, 1983-2001. Values for 2000 and 2001 were outliersz (RStudent = -2.49, -2.86, respectively) and excluded from thez displayed regression line, r 2 = 0.496, P = 0.002.z and fool fiegative phase /hen Surface pressures firef relatively high.f Initiation of increasing and decreasing trends in thef Arctic Oscillation has Been Coincident /ith phase shifts inf the Pacific Decadal Oscillation fn 1977 and 1989 pHaref and Matuna, 2000) (Fig. 8.5). Correlations Bet/een fhef closely related North .Atlantic Oscillation and a numBer of vegetative and Ungulate population characteristics havef Been feported for Northern Europe pPost ft fil. 1997, Postf and ftenseth 1999).f Median annual NDVI at calving fNDVI_calving) /ithin fhe extent of calving of fhe Porcupine cariBou herdf /as positively correlated /ith the .Arctic Oscillation fromf the /inter (January, FeBruary, March) of fhe previousf calendar year ,~15 month lag, f2 = 0.32, $ = 0.011) ,Fig.f 3.6). This suggested that early forage availaBility forf lactating females /as influenced By /eather patterns on af hemispheric scale.f Further, fthe fsuspected fphase fshift fin tfhe Af rcticf Oscillation at fhe end of the 1980s pFig. 3.5) /asf coincident /ith an increase in the frequency of dailyf temperature excursions aBove freezing fn Both the springf ,Fig. 3.7a) and fall (Fig. 3.7f) on the transitional rangesf of fhe Porcupine cariBou herd during the 1990s. There hasf Been a decrease fn fhe depth and extent of sno/cover fnf Northwestern Canada near fhe /intering grounds Bf fhef Porcupine cariBou herd during this fatter period as /ellf (Bro/n find Braaten 1998).f Thus, forage Biomass during peak lactation demandf (NDVI_621) increased during the period of study, 1985-f 1999 (Fig. 3.4), and this positive trend /as coincidentf /ith summer /arming on fhe calving ground fFig. 3.3a).f In addition, forage availaBility at calving fNDVI_calving) has Been positively correlated /ith hemispheric-scalef ARCTIC REFUGE COASTALfPLAIN FERRESTRIALfWILDLIFE RESEARCH fUMMARIESf I3f Porcupine caribou herd for the current year, and winter Arcticz Oscillation index (AO, January, February, March) for the previousz calendar year, 1985-2001.Z atmospheric conditions (Fig. 3.6). Counteracting thef positive trend in forage abundance during peak lactationf has been a tendency toward more freeze-thaw cycles onf spring and fall transitional ranges fif fhe Porcupinef caribou herd (Fig. 3.7a,f) coincident With a uspectedf phase shift fn fhe .Arctic Oscillation.f These freeze-thaw fcycles fon ftransitional fand fwinterf ranges may have influenced snow properties, reduced fccessf to forage, fncreased travel Costs, fnd/or decreased the fbilityf of fiaribou fo Escape fheir predators. These limate-f influenced conditions (fn transitional/winter fanges may havef contributed fo the decline fn size df the Porcupine caribouf Figure 3.7. Frequency of days with daytime temperatures abovez herd (Fig. 1.5) fn spite Cf favorable conditions Cn the calvingf ground. Local find large-scale climate patterns fis fwell fisf catastrophic events fin fhe Southern Hemisphere fe.g.,f eruption fif Mount Pinatubo) Apparently have had fnajorf influences fin Porcupine fiaribou herd habitats fluring fhef freezing in a) spring (21 March - 30 April) and b) fall (21 September -z 20 October) on transitional ranges of the Porcupine caribou herdz during the herd increase phase, 1970-1988, and the herd decreasez phase, 1989-1998. Brackets indicate 95% confidence intervals onz mean values.z period hf study find have set the stage for fill hbservationsf of Porcupine fiaribou herd Attribution find demographicf processes during the past 2 decades.f Herd Dynamics and Demography The growth curve fif fhe Porcupine caribou herdf suggested an approximate 30- fo 40-year cycle of increase find decrease fn abundance (Fig. 3.8). The Eerdf numbered -100,000 fn 1972, fncreased fit about 4.9% perf year from 979 through 989 when ft feached -178,000f animals, then declined at about 3.6% per year from 1989f to 998 (Fig. 3.8). The decline from 998 fo 2001 wasf only about 1.5% per year, and the herd now totalsf -123,00 animals. ff fhe current decline continues, thef herd would be expected to again reach the lowest levelsf ever recorded during 2005-2010. If the herd continues fof decline below -100,000 animals, then fhe length of af complete herd cycle may Cxceed 30 years.f Figure 3.8. Population size of the Porcupine caribou herd, 1972-2001,z estimated from aerial photo-censuses by the Alaska Department ofz Fish and Game.z 14f BIOLOGICALfSCIENCE REPORTfUSGS/BRD 002-0001 f Porcupine Caribou Eerd size fippeared Correlated witEf TEere were no Significant differences fn fneanf Arctic Oscillation altEougE tEere were foo few data tof parturition, calf survival during June, or fret calfb conduct a proper time series analysis (Fig. 3.5). Inf productionbdefined fis tEe product of parturition fate andf contrast to tEe Porcupine caribou Eerd, otEer Alaskaf June Ealf survival) (Fig. 3.10a-c) between fEe fncreasef barren-ground caribou Eerds (Western .Arctic, TesEekpukf and decrease pEases of fEe Eerd (Fig. 3.8). Parturition ratef Lake, Central .Arctic), generally continued fo fncreasef averaged 0.81 (range 0.71-0.92) during 1983-2001 (Fig.f during tEe downward trend in tEe .Arctic Oscillation tEatf was evident during tEe 1990s (Fig. 3.5).f Capacityfor growth^defined as tEe maximum realizedf long-term growtE rate) of tEe Porcupine caribou Eerdf appeared substantially fess fEan for otEer .Alaska Eerds.f Capacity for growtE among Eerds of dramaticallyf dif erent sizes is best visualized by plotting relative Eerdf sizes (Fig. 3.9). Maximum long-term growtE rate (~4.9%,f assumed finear, 1979-1989) (Fig. 3.8) of tEe Porcupinef caribou Eerd was never more fEan about Ealf tEe ratef observed for EtEer .Alaska barren-ground caribou Eerdsf [Western Arctic Eerd (1976-1996, J9.5%), TesEekpukf Lake Eerd (1978-1993, J13%), Central .Arctic Eerd (1978-f 1992, J10.3%)] (Fig. 3.9).f TEe fPorcupine fcaribou fEerd fwas ftEe first Af laskaf barren-ground caribou Eerd to begin and maintain af prolonged decline in tEe last 2 decades (Fig. 3.9). Annualf survival of Porcupine caribou Eerd adult females was onlyf about 84% (Fancy Ct al. 1994, WalsE Et fil. 1995), wEicEf was lower tEan tEat generally observed in otEer caribouf Eerds (Bergerud 1980); and adult female survival mayf Eave been responsible for tEe relatively low growtE ratef of fEe Porcupine caribou Eerd.f Annual calf survival averaged fibout 48% witE aboutf Ealf (56%) of tEe annual mortality occurring on tEef calving ground (WEitten et al. 1992, Fancy et al. 1994,f WalsE et al. 1995).f Figure 3.9. Relative post-calving herd sizes (minimum observed =z 1.0) of the 4 Alaska barren-ground caribou herds (PCH = Porcupinez caribou herd; WAH = Western Arctic herd; CAH = Central Arctic hzd;z TLH = Teshekpuk Lake herd), 1976-2001. Maximum observedz population size for each herd is noted in the legend.z 1983-2001: a) parturition rate of adult females, b) calf survival fromz birth through the last week of June, and z) zet calf production [thez product of parturition rate and calf survival].z ARCTIC REFUGE COASTALfPLAIN TERRESTRIALfWILDLIFE RESEARCH fUMMARIESf I5f 3.10a, bafid Aid fiot fliffer Between fhe increase phasef (0.80, SE I 6.04, f983-1989) fid fhe decrease phasef (0.82, SE I 0.08, f990-2001).f Calf survival durifig Jufie was quite high afid averagedf 0.75 frafige fl.57-0.94) durifig f983-2001 (Fig. 3.10f) Buff did fiot differ Betweefi fhe increase phase (0.71, SE If 0.07, 1983-1989) fifid fhe decrease phase (0.79, SE If 0.13, 1990-2001). Net fiaif productiofi averaged d.62f durifig 1983-2001 (rafige d.50-0.82) (Fig. f.10c) fifid didf fiot differ Betweefi fhe increase phase (0.58, SE If0.06,f 1983-1989) fifid fhe decrease phase (0.63, SE I d.13,f 1990-2001). For fiii these demographic fiharacteristics,f variafice tefided to Be greater durifig the decrease thafif durifig the increase phase df fhe herd.f Because average parturitiofi, caif survivai during June,f afid fiet daif productiofi did fiot differ Betweefi thef ificrease fifid decrease phases df fhe Porcupifie BariBouf herd, 1983-2001, fi feductiofi ffi fiduit, fiuB-aduit, fifid/orf caif survivai whiie afiimais were of the caivifig ground inf iate-summer through wifiter must have ficcompafiied fhef herd deciine. Emigratiofi to the adjacefit Cefitrai Arcticf herd was fifi dniikeiy fiause of fhe Porcupifie fiariBou herdf deciifie Because fiateiiite-coiiared fifiimais fhatf occasiofiaiiy (4 out of 167 coiiar-years) wifitered with thef Cefitrai Af rctic fherd, freturfied tfo fthe fPorcupifie fcariBouf herd the foiiowifig summer.f Periodic ifows iffi ffiet fcaif fproductiofi fafid fcaif fsurvivaif durifig June (1992, 1993, 1997; Figs. 3.10b, c) were fiotf suf iciefit fo maifitaifi fhe herd deciine (S. A. Arthur,f Aiaska Departmefit of Fish fifid Game, persofiaif commufiicatiofi). Ufifortufiateiy, fa compiete record of aduit, suB-aduit, afid caif survivai estimates was fiotf avaiiaBie for fate-summer fhrough wifiter durifig fhef decrease phase of the herd, 1989-20014 Seasonal Distribution and Movementsy The Porcupifie fiariBou herd fiariBou wifitered (15f NovemBer - 14 Aprii) ffi .Aiaska fiouth of the Brooksf Rafige afid ifi Cafiada ifi fthe Richardsofi afid Ogiivief Mountains ifi the fPukofi Territory (Fig. 3.11). Theirf annuai rafige eficompassed -290,000 km2 (Fig. 3.2). Thef extefit of caivifig eficompassed -36,000fkm2. Sprifigf migratiofi fo fhe finnuai fiaivifig grounds Begafi ffi mid-f Aprii fifid fiofitinued fhrough .Aprii fifid May (Fig. S.11).f Returfi to faii/wifiter rafiges Begafi with departure fromf the afifiuai caivifig groufids ifi iate-Jufie afid eariy-Juiyf (Fig. 3.11). Ifi faii (15 SeptemBer - 14 NovemBer), thef Porcupifie fiariBou herd was distriButed wideiy.f Minimum daiiy travei rates of parturiefit femaies weref variaBie throughout the year (Fig. 3.12). Nofi-parturiefit femaies had fimiiar movemefit fates. Mifiimum fnovemefitf occurred durifig wifiter. Movemefit Begafi ificreasifig ifif mid-Aprii with ifiitiatiofi of fmigratiofi to the afifiuaif caivifig groufid afid was directiofiai toward the afifiuaif caivifig ground.f After ftheir fcaives fwere fBorfi, tfhe fdirectiofi fof movemefit of fiateiiite-coiiared parturiefit femaies wasf rafidom for 20 days (Faficy fifid f hittefi 1991). Caif movemefit fate (mifiimum, straight fifie, estimated fromf cofivefitiofiai radio-coiiars) in the years 1992-1994 wasf aBout 2.5 km/day durifig the first week after Birth. Thef rate ificreased graduaiiy durifig the fiext week to aBout 5f km/day fafid tfhefi fificreased fthrough tfhe fefid fof fJufie tfof approximateiy 15-20 km/day.fAs femaies fifid fiaivesf departed the caivifig groufid ifi iate Jufie afid eariy Juiy,f some fhdividuai fiaives fraveied s much fis 90 km/day.f Reiativeiy high rate of movemefit fiofitifiued fhroughoutf Juiy. Because movemefit rates were iow durifig thef caivifig seasofi afid directiofi of movemefit was rafidom for 20 days after Birth (Faficy afid Whittefi 1991), fhef distriButiofi of caivifig sites was assumed to Bef represefitative of haBitat use By fiariBou through 21 June.f Movemefit deciified durifig Af ugust fperhaps fifif respofise to harassmefit By Oestrid flies or to iocaiized forage aBundafice. Movemefit Increased durifig the pre-rutf period ifi iate-SeptemBer afid OctoBer fafid thefi reached af mifiimum again By fhid-NovemBer.fThe average femaie of the Porcupine cariBou herd traveied approximateiy 4,355f km Unnuaiiy (Faficy ft ft. 1989).f Durifig 1985-1992, mediafi arrivai of sateiiite-coiiaredf parturiefit femaies ofi the afifiuai caivifig groufid rafiged from 17 May-4 June afid mediafi date of departure dmged from 3-26 Juiy. Nofi-parturiefit femaies tefided to iagf siightiy Behifid afid south of fhe parturiefit femaies fromf eariy-May through fiaivifig fWhittefi fit ft. 1992), Butf withifi 1 week after caivifig, parturiefit afid fiofi-parturiefit femaie distriButiofis were essefitiaiiy coificidefit.f Lefigth of stay ofi the annuai caivifig ground rafiged from 34-67 days. CariBou have tefided to depart thef annuai fiaiving grounds fiariier fiifice 1995 (F. J. Mauer,f U.S. Fish afid Wiidiife Service, persofiai fiommunicatiofi).f This trefid may have Beefi deiated to more advaficed piafitf phefioiogy withifi the extefit of caivifig ifi iate Jufie durifigf the iate 1990s (Fig. 3.4).f Mediafi fiaiving date, 1983-1996, was H^une (rafige S0f May-6 June) with 50% o annuai caivifig occurrifig withinf 2 days of the annuai mediafi caivifig date. No temporaif trefids were evidefit ifi mediafi caivifig date, afid afifiuaif caif fiurvivai was fiot feiated fo mediafi fiaiving date fP Bf 0.05).f Sizes afid focatiofis of annuai fiaivifig distriButiofisf were quite variaBie. .Annuai caiving grounds eficompassedf 3,672-16,667 km2durifig 1983-2001 (Fig. 3.13, TaBief 3.1). Simiiar distriButiofis were oBserved durifig aeriaif surveys, 1972-1982 (Figs. II-5 fobCiough et ai. 1987). Ofif average, coficefitrated caivifig areas occupied 12.3%f (rafige d.7-25%) of fhe Unnuai fiaivifig grounds (255-f 16f BIOLOGICALfSCIENCE REPORTfUSGS/BRD 002-0001 f Figure 3.1 Distribution of satellite-collared female caribou of the Porcupine caribou herd during 7 time periods,z 1985-1995. An average of 10 animals (range 4-17) were collared each year yielding 14,447 observations; 87% ofz these observations were obtained 1985-1990. Not included were the locations of 3 females that each spent onez winter with the adjacent Central Arctic herd.z ARCTIC REFUGE COASTALfPLAIN TERRESTRIALfWILDLIFE RESEARCH fUMMARIESf I7f 2,548 km2) and contained 47% (range 29-61%) of calvingf locations.f There was no concentrated calving area in 2001 whenf the spring was very late and the extent of calving wasf almost completely snow covered. Density of parturient females in the concentrated calving area rangedf approximately 13-106/km2 over the (ears and averaged 7f times (range 3.7-10.8) higher than outside thef concentrated calving area each year (Table 3.1). None of these Estimates differed between the increase findf decrease phases of fhe herd (Pb>f0.05). Since 1972, theref have been only 2 years (2000, 2001) when all calvingf occurred in Canada and 1 fadditional year (1982) when allf concentrated calving occurred in Canada.f Neither fhe areas of annual halving grounds nor areasf of concentrated calving areas were correlated (Pb 0.05) with the number of halving sites, with the estimatedf number of parturient females in the herd, with the percentf of the extent of calving that was snow free, or with anyf greenness (NDVI) estimate in either the extent of calvingf or the annual calving grounds. Thus, neither herd size norf habitat characteristics were clearly felated fo Calvingf ground size. Factors af ecting calving ground size remainf unclear.f Distribution fif calving Cites differed (MRPP, PbQf0.05) among all successive years, 1983-2001, Cxcept 1983-1984f when the number of calving sites obtained from radio-f collared females was fowest and 2000-2001 when fatef springs restricted calving to Canada (Table 3.1). Theref was no fini-directional trend fo shifts fn focation of finnualf calving grounds or concentrated calving areas fRayleigh'sf Test, Pb 0.870 and 0.740, respectively). During 1983-f 1994, parturient females displayed no mong-year fidelityf to the concentrated calving area (Pb 0.951) nor anyf habitat attribute for calving (Pb 0.135), but females thatf calved in the 1002 .Area returned there for calving in the following year more often than expected (Pb 0.024).f The percent of females calving in the 1002 .Area fn thef years 1983-2001 was quite variable, averaging 43%f (range 0-92%) but not dif ering (Pb=f0.128) between fhef decrease (50%, SE I 82%) find the increase phase (30%,f SE I 23%) of the herd (Fig. 3.14). The proportion of thef concentrated calving area that was in the 1002 .Area followed a similar trend. Af s the relative amount of greenf biomass at calving within tfhe extent of calvingf (NDVI_calving) Increased because df earlier springs, fhef percent fif females calving fn fhe 1002 .Area fncreased (r2 = 0.68, Pb 0.001) (Fig. 3.15). Thus, the averagef proportion of Porcupine caribou herd females that calvef in the 1002 .Area may increase if the climate continues tof warm.f The general location of calving in the years 1983-2001f was related to the winter .Arctic Oscillation (January,f February, March) during previous calendar year,f approximately 15 months before calving. In years whenf Figure 3.12. Minimum median daily movement rate of parturientz satellite-collared females of the Porcupine caribou herd, 1985-1995.z Values calculated from no more than one location per day. An averagez of 10 animals (range 4-17) were collared each year yielding 14,447z observations; 87% of these observations were obtained 1985-1990.z Not included are the data for 3 females that each spent one winter withz the adjacent Central Arctic herd.z the .Arctic Oscillation was positive, more fhan half of thef concentrated calving area was likely tfo be located on thef Alaska portion of the coastal plain (83.3% fif fhe years,f Fisher'sfExact Test, Pb 0.045). Similarly, there was af tendency (66.7% of years, Fisher'sfExact Test, Pb 0.057) or more than half the females to calve in the 1002 Areaf when the Af rctic Oscillation in the previous calendarf winter was positive.f The fime delay fn correlation between fhe Arcticf Oscillation and calving location and between the Af rcticf Oscillation and NDVI_calving (Fig. 3.6) may have beenf related to a 1-year delay between filler formation and flower production for Eriophorum vaginatumb (cottongrass) (Billings and Mooney 1968, Bliss 1971).f Immature cottongrass flowers fhave fbeen a dominant foodf item for Porcupine caribou herd when they have calvedf on the Af rctic Refuge coastal plain. Cottongrass tiller formation is probably related tfo the availability of resources (moisture and foil nutrients).f Positive phases of the .Arctic Oscillation may havef enhanced resource availability, increased tiller productionf in the previous year, and fesulted in increased flowerf production during fhe current spring. Wefwould expectf that the increased greenness at calving (NDVI_calving) might reflect leaf area of cottongrass tillers, rather thanf the pale green immature flowers.f During post-calving (>3 weeks after calf birth),f Porcupine herd caribou (regardless fif calving focation) tended to move westward (Fig. 3.11). Even in exceptionalf years when calving occurred far to the east in Canadaf (e.g., 2000, 2001) (Fig. 3.13) caribou reached fhe Arcticf Refuge coastal plain find portions of the 1002 .Area byf late-June or fuly (S. A. Arthur,lAlaska Department of Fishf I8f BIOLOGICALfSCIENCE REPORTfUSGS/BRD 002-0001 f .. /jff Figure 3.13. Calving distributions of the Porcupine caribou herd, 1983-2001, as estimated from fixed kernel analyses of the sites where radio-z collared females were first observed with calves during repeated aerial surveys in May and June. There are 3 zones: 1) oncentrated calving area (shown in dark gray), the contour enclosing calving sites with greater than average fixed kernel density, 2) annual calving ground (medium gray),z the 99% fixed kernel utilization distribution for a year, and 3) aggregate extent of calving (light gray), the outer perimeter of all annual calvingz grounds. No concentrated calving was detected in 2001.z ARCTIC REFUGE COASTALfPLAIN TERRESTRIALfWILDLIFE RESEARCH fUMMARIESf I9f Table 3.I. Number of calving sites, number of calving sites in the concentrated calving area (CCA), area (km2) of CCA, area (km2) of annualz calving ground (ACG), ratio of sizes of CCA to ACG, population size of the Porcupine caribou herd, percent of radio-collared female caribou thatz calved in the CCA, percent of radio-collared female caribou that calved in the 1002 Area, percent of the CCA within the 1002 Arza, and percent ofz the ACG within the 1002 Area, 1983-2001, Alaska, USA, and Yukon Territory, Canada.z Year Calving Sites Sites in CCA CCA Area 1983 18 11 2,584 1984 18 11 839 1985 34 16 1,585 1986 20 8 419 1987 36 15 479 1988 61 24 267 1989 51 15 255 1990 53 22 1,167 1991 43 21 731 1992 43 18 2,174 1993 35 18 1,401 1994 79 33 814 1995 60 31 827 1996 65 30 1,354 1997 29 15 530 1998 39 20 789 1999 20 9 601 2000 22 13 791 2001 41 a average 40 18 976 minimum 18 8 255 maximum SE 79 33 2,548 18 7 630 a No concentrated calving was detected in 2001 ACG Area 10,064 6,599 10,784 5,432 6,048 3,823 3,672 8,379 5,767 16,667 9,098 6,602 5,141 9,453 5,661 6,316 7,820 6,541 10,602 7,604 3,672 16,667 3,060 Ratio CCA/ACG 0.25 0.13 0.15 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.15 0.12 0.16 0.14 0.09 0.12 0.08 0.12 0.12 0.07 0.25 0.04 Population Size (K) 135 165 178 157 152 128 123 148 123 178 20 %females %females In CCA In 1002 55.6 61.1 61.1 33.3 47.1 55.9 40.0 10.0 44.4 13.9 39.3 1.6 29.4 33.3 39.6 69.8 48.8 88.4 41.9 41.9 51.4 57.1 41.8 64.6 51.7 91.7 46.2 53.8 51.7 31.0 51.3 84.6 45.0 20.0 59.1 0.0 0.0 47.0 42.7 29.4 0.0 61.1 91.7 7.8 30.1 %CCA In 1002 62.4 19.8 69.2 28.8 14.2 0.0 59.3 100.0 92.5 79.1 70.2 77.3 100.0 90.6 33.7 93.4 9.3 0.0 55.5 0.0 100.0 35.9 %ACG In 1002 42.8 39.2 36.8 8.4 15.7 5.9 30.1 47.2 68.6 22.5 40.3 54.8 71.2 33.9 31.8 73.1 30.4 0.0 0.0 34.3 0.0 73.1 22.5 Figure 3.14. Percent of radio-collared Porcupine caribou herd femalesz that calved in the 1002 Area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge,z Alaska, 1983-2001.z Figure 3.1S. Percent of radio-collared Porcupine caribou herd femalesz that calved within the 1002 Area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge,z Alaska, in relation to the median Normalized Difference Vzjetationz Index at calving (NDVI_calving) within the aggregate extent of calving,z 1985-2001. Point legends indicate the year of the estimates.z 20f BIOLOGICALfSCIENCE REPORTfUSGS/BRD 2002-0001f and Game, personal Communication). As fesult of fhesef westward movements, essentially the entire 1002 Areaf was eventually used by late June or early July. Most of the use of fhe Westernmost portion of fhe 1002 .Area byf satellite-collared females fif the Porcupine Caribou herdf occurred during 24 June-14 .August (Fig. 3.11).f a) 100 Foraging on the Calving Groundy The calving season diet of Porcupine herd caribouf during 1993-1994, When concentrated calving Wasf primarily in the 1002 .Area (Fig. 3.13), was dominatedf b) (76-82%) by immature flowers of cottongrass from thef time the caribou arrived on fhe calving ground until aboutf 16-18 lune (Figs. 3.16a, 3.17a). Similar diets weref observed in 1973 (Thompson and McCourt 1981), but thef location of concentrated calving in that year was notf documented (Clough et al. 1987).f Diet was relatively consistent between years, butf somewhat more variable in 1994, and not related tof average daily weight-gain of calves in 1993 and 1994.f Both cottongrass flowers and young willow (SalixZspp.) leaves are easily digestible and are common forage of upland calving caribou when fhey are available (e.g.,f JUNE1994 JULY IB Cottongrass Willow B Lichens B Herbs 4.5 0,5 -|---------- .----------1---------- .---------------------.---------- 1----------.----------1---------- .----------1---------- .----------1 03-Jun 08-Jun 13-Jun 18-Jun 23-Jun Date-1994 28-Jun 03-Jul Cottongrass --s-- Willow Figure 3.17. Porcupine caribou herd a) diet composition and b)z median phenology of major forage items, 1994. Diet compositionz stimated from microhistological analysis of fecal pellets, corrected forz digestibility. Phenology scores for cottongrass: 1 = leaves only, 2 =z flowers in boot, 3 = early flower, 4 = full flower; and, for willow: 1 =z dormant, 2 = bud swelling, 3 = leaf unfolding, 4 = full leaf.z median phenology of major forage items, 1993. Diet compositionz stimated from microhistological analysis of fecal pellets, corrected forz digestibility. Phenology scores for cottongrass: 1 = leaves only, 2 =z flowers in boot, 3 = early flower, 4 = full flower; and for willow: 1 =z dormant, 2 = bud swelling, 3 = leaf unfolding, 4 = full leaf.z Thompson and McCourt 1981, Muropat 1984, Russell Ctf al.1993). Cottongrass flowers were most common in thef vegetation type herbaceous tussock tundra, and willowf was most common in shrub fussock tundra and riparianf shrub vegetation types (Jorgensen et al. 1994).f Herbaceous plants were ubiquitous.f Dietary shifts within the 1993 and 1994 calvingf seasons apparently allowed caribou to increase nutrientf concentration in their diet as fhe season progressed. Byf mid-June, 1993-1994, s cottongrass flowers matured, fhef leaves of willows unfolded (Figs. 3.16f, 3.17f). Then,f within about 4 days (Figs. 3.16a, 3.17a), caribou dietf shifted fo in approximate 0 : 50 mix of willow andf herbaceous plants.f The diet shift resulted ifn an increase of dietaryf nitrogen concentration (from 8% fo 4%) and a decrease fnf Neutral Detergent Fiber (NDF) concentration (from 57%f to 27%) based fin nutritional analyses of cottongrass Sndf willow of appropriate phenological stages from thef calving ground. .Available biomass of willow fikelyf exceeded fhe biomass df cottongrass flowers during thef diet shift and thereafter.f ARCTIC REFUGE COASTALffLAIN TERRESTRIALfWILDLIFE RESEARCH fUMMARIESf 21f Caribou maintained the willow and herbaceous dietf until they departed the calving ground near the end of June. Because Climate Warming find fiarlier greening fhayf increase fhe Carbon:nitrogen fatios of individual foragef species and reduce their Quality on fixed dates (Walsh fitf al. 1997), rapid shifting among forage species may allowf caribou to accommodate time-specific reduction inf nutritional quality of individual plant species thatf accompanies climate Warming.f Diet 6f Porcupine herd caribou Was fubstantiallyf different When they used the Canadian portion 6f thef extent of calving than when they used the Arctic Refugef coastal plain find the f002 .Area. Regardless 6f timing of snowmelt in Canada, calving diet there was dominated byf mosses find fivergreen shrubs (58.4-73.5%, Russell fit fil.f 1993). These forage groups were much fess fligestiblef than the immature cottongrass flowers and willowsf (Russell et al. 1993) that dominated the calving diet of thef Porcupine caribou herd fn f993 find 1994. This fmpliedf that diet quality during calving was reduced when thef Porcupine caribou herd used the Canadian portion fif thef extent of calving rather than the Arctic Refuge coastalf plain find fhe 1002 Area.f Habitat Selectiony Habitat selection may be assessed at several ordersf (Johnson f980); selection fit fiach firder fmpliesf disproportionate use fif fiome component(s) fif fhe habitatsf that fare favailable. fFor mf igratory fbarren-ground fcaribou,f selection firders might be flefined fis follows from highestf to lowest order f First Order O the Species flistribution fin fiarth.f Second Order O firea use by herds within fhe speciesf range.f Third Order O finnual fange use within herd fanges.f Fourth Order O seasonal range use within finnual rangesf of herds.f Fifth Order o annual use within the aggregate extent of af seasonal range.f Sixth Order O finnual concentrated use within fin finnualf seasonal range.f Seventh Order O patch use within fi concentrated use firea.f Eighth Order o plant species use within habitat patches.f Ninth Order O plant part use within plant species.f Higher order selection may constrain the choices atf lower firders (Johnson f980). The basis 6f selection fhayf or may not be consistent among orders and, when thef basis of selection changes fimong orders, habitat selectionf is considered fo be scale-dependent (O'Neil find Mingf 1998). fn this work, we assessed habitat selection fit fifthf and sixth orders fis flefined fibove. Much fliscussion has focused on fourth order selection (cf. Bergerud find Pagef 1987; Fryxell 1991, 1995), but finalysis of selection fit fhe fourth order for fhe Porcupine caribou herd was beyondf the scope of this report.f For fhe purposes of fhe material fhat follows, wef define fifth order selectionZas fhe comparison of usef within the annual calving grounds (ACG) to availabilityf in the extent of calving (EC), written as ACG/ECf (hereafter called Calving ground selection). Wefdefinef sixth order selectionlas the comparison of use withinf annual concentrated calving areas (CCA) to habitatf availability within fhe finnual calving grounds fCCA/f ACG, hereafter called Concentrated calving selection).f Because there was spatial dependency among habitatsf (vegetation, NDVI estimates, snowcover; all inventoried from the same 1-kmP pixels) we present the results forf each habitat attribute separately. Selection was assessedf by comparing mean use/availability ratios fimong yearsf with the null use/availability ratio of 1.0.f Habitat conditions within the extent of calving havef been variable fluring 1985-2001. There was substantialf snowcover fhroughout fhe fixtent of calving fn 1986,f 2000, find 2001, but greening was fiarly fn 1990, 1994,f 1995, find 1998 (Fig. 3.18).f There was scale dependency in habitat selection by thef Porcupine caribou herd during calving. Parturient femalesf selected annual calving grounds with proportionatelyf greater area of high (>median) rate of greeningf (NDVI_rate, 1.33x, Plif0.005) (Fig. 3.19a) findf proportionately less area with high forage biomass both atf calving (NDVI_calving, 0.60x, PZQ 0.001) (Fig. 3.19f) and fluring peak factation (NDVI_621, f).70x, PZfJ0.002) (Fig. 3.19c) than available in the extent of calving.f Parturient females also selected annual calvingf grounds with proportionately more area in the 26-50%f (1.76x, PIf 0.001) and 51-75% (1.71x, PIf 0.008) snowcover classes and proportionately less area in the 0-f 25% (0.84x, PZf 0.008) snowcover class than available inf the extent of calving (Fig. 3.20).f Analysis of vegetation types in annual calving groundsf showed fhat parturient females selected wet sedge f1.42x,f PZf 0.004), herbaceous tussock tundra (1.42x, PZQ 0.001),f and riparian (1.37x, PZQ 0.001) vegetation types, avoidedf the alpine vegetation type (0.60x, PZQ 0.001), and did notf respond (PZ> 0.05) to the shrub tussock tundra or moistf sedge vegetation types (Fig. 3.21).f In contrast, at the next fower selection order (sixth),f parturient females of fhe Porcupine caribou herd selectedf concentrated calving fireas with proportionately greaterf area of high forage biomass both at calvingf (NDVI_calving, 2.35x, PZQ 0.001) (Fig. 3.19f) and duringf peak factation demand (NDVI_621, f.59x, PZqJD.001) (Fig 3.19c) than available in the annual calving grounds.f The females were non-selective (PZ> 0.05) for rate of greening (NDVI_rate) (Fig. 3.19a) find fill snowcoverf classes (Fig. 3.20), selected herbaceous tussock tundraf 22f BIOLOGICALfSCIENCE REPORTfUSGS/BRD 2002-000if Snow Early Young > Mature Cloud 0.20 0.30 0.40 NDV - VEGETATION GREENNESS Annual Concentrated Calving = Red Line; Annual Calving Extent = Black Line; Total Extent = Broken Line] Figure 3.18. Annual conditions of snowcover and vegetation phenology derived from Advanced Vzy High Resolution Radiometer (AHVRR)z satellite imagery during the calving period (30 May - 5 June), 1985-2001, for the Porcupine caribou herd. No concentrated calving was detected inz 2001 .z ARCTIC REFUGE COASTALfPLAIN TERRESTRIALfWILDLIFE RESEARCH fUMMARIESf 23f Figure 3.20. Azrage percent of area in 4 exclusive snowcoverz classes for the aggregate extent of calving, annual calving grounds,z and concentrated calving areas of the Porcupine caribou herd, 1985-z 2001. Statistically significant selection or avoidance (P < 0.05, overallz xperiment) in comparison with the category to the left is indicated byz "+" or "-" above the bars. For example, female caribou on the annualz calving ground avoided areas of 0-25% snowcover and selected areasz of 26-50% and 51-75% snowcover when compared with availability inz the aggregate extent of calving. No significant selection of anyz snowcover class was detected for the concentrated calving area whenz compared with availability in the annual calving ground.z median) classes of a) daily rate of increase in the Normalizedz Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI_rate) b) NDVI at calvingz (NDVI_calving), and z) NDVI on 21 June (NDVI_621) for the aggregatez extent of calving, annual calving grounds, and concentrated calvingz areas of the Porcupine caribou herd, Alaska, 1985-2001. Statisticallyz significant selection or avoidance (P < 0.05, overall experiment) inz comparison with the category to the left is indicated by "+" or "-" abovez the bars. For example, female caribou on the annual calving groundz avoided low NDVI_rate and selected high NDVI_rate in comparisonz with availability in the aggregate zctent of calving. No significantz selection of NDVI_rate for the concentrated calving area whenz compared with the annual calving ground was detected.z (I.68x, Pfc 0.001), avoided alpine vegetation (0.34x, PhQf 0.001), and were non-responsive (Pb> 0.18) to thef remaining Vegetation types fFig. 3.21).f Although selection of vegetation types was scale-f independent, there was scale dependency in the selectionf of forage Quantity (NDVI_calving, NDVI_621) findf quality (NDVI_rate). Parturient Porcupine caribou herd females selected annual calving grounds with a highf proportion bf easily digestible forage (NDVI_rate), fhenf selected Concentrated Calving areas With relatively highf plant biomass at calving (NDVI_calving) and on 21 funef (NDVI_621).f The basis of habitat selection shifted from foragef quality to forage quantity between fhe fifth (ACG/EC) and sixth (CCA/ACG) orders. The Work of White et al.f (1975) and White and Trudell (1980f) at fhe fevels bf microhabitats (-seventh order, selection for biomass) andf plant species within microhabitats (-eighth order,f selection for digestibility) suggests that the basis of selection continues to be dynamic across successivelyf smaller scales.f Forage quality appears to be the basis of selection atf both relatively farge ffifth order) and relatively fmallf (eighth order) scales. Forage quantity appears to be thef basis of selection at intermediate scales of analysis withinf this range. Specification of the scale of analysis is criticalf to developing an understanding of the basis ff foragef selection by ungulates, and Porcupine herd baribouf demonstrated a variable functional response fo foragef (NDVI estimates) within the extent of calving.f 24f BIOLOGICALfSCIENCE REPORTfUSGS/BRD 2002-0001f aggregate extent of calving, annual calving grounds, and concentratedz calving areas of the Porcupine caribou herd, 1985-2001. Vzgetationz types: Wsedge = wet sedge; Msedge = moist sedge; HerbTT =z herbaceous tussock tundra; ShrubTT = shrub tussock tundra, Alpine,z and Riparian. Statistically significant selection or avoidance (P < 0.05,z overall experiment) in comparison with the category to the left isz indicated by "+" or "-" above the bars. For zxample, the female caribouz on the annual calving ground avoided the Alpine vegetation type andz selected the HerbTT vegetation type when compared with availabilityz in the aggregate extent of calving, and on the concentrated calvingz area the caribou showed similar selection when compared withz availability in the annual calving ground.z Figure 3.22. Estimated total intake of dietary nitrogen (g) from thez calving ground (25 May - 14 June) for 4 North American caribou herds.z Forage composition of diet and nutritional composition of forages werez stimated from locally collected samples. Intake rates were estimatedz from White et al. (1975).z ground s flid fhe Porcupine Caribou Eerd (Fig. 8.22). Ft fsf likely that the proportion of the annual nitrogen budgetf obtained from a calving ground is positively correlatedf with the relative value of fhe calving ground to thef nutrition of a herd Within its annual range.f There Were no Clear differences fn patterns of selection of any types of habitats between the increasef and decrease phases of fhe herd. This observation fsf tempered by the fact that habitat selection was assessed for only fhe fast 8 (ears (1985-1989) of the fncreasef phase, but has been fissessed for all 12 years of fhef current decline (1990-2001).f The shifting location of annual calving grounds withinf the extent of calving was apparently a functional responsef to annually variable landscape patterns in the quantity of easily digestible forage (NDVI_rate). The location of concentrated calving areas within annual calving groundsf was fin Apparent functional response fo forage biomassf (NDVI_calving, NDVI_621).f This functional response fo habitats allowedf Porcupine fcaribou fherd females fto fattain fsubstantialf intakes of nitrogen (Fig. 3.22) based on estimated dietf composition (Figs. 3.16a, 3.17a), estimated nitrogenf content Of consumed forages, and consumption fatesf presented by White et al (1975), White and Trudellf (1980a, b), and Trudell find White (1981). Thus, fhef Porcupine caribou herd calving ground was clearlyf important to the annual nitrogen budget of lactating females and was fikely Important fo the annual fnergyf budget.f The adjacent Central .Arctic herd Obtained only aboutf one-quarter s much dietary nitrogen from fts calvingf Effects pf Insect Harassment pn Habitat Usey Mosquitoes (Cuculidae) and flies of the familyf Oestridaebre known fo harass caribou, althoughf harassment by Oestrid flies may occur primarily afterf Porcupine herd caribou leave the calving ground.f Lactating females fhat are disturbed by insects mayf experience a negative energy balance due to increasedf movement Oates when frying fo escape harassment byf insects (White et al. 1975, Russell et al. 1993). 1 henf harassment causes lactating emales to substantiallyf reduce foraging time, calf growth may be reduced (Hellef and Tarvainen 1984, Fancy and White 1987, Russell et al.f 1993).f During warm and calm days fmean femperature B13Cf and mean wind speed Q6m/sec) when conditions weref such that caribou were likely harassed by insects (Nixonf 1990), Porcupine herd caribou preferred dry prostratef shrub vegetation types on ridge tops in the foothills andf mountains of the Brooks Range, elevated sites on thef coastal plain, and areas adjacent fo fhe Beaufort feaf coast, apparently to gain relief from mosquitoes (Walsh etf al. 1992).f Porcupine herd caribou did not display s strong af tendency to move to the coastline during potential insectf harassment fis has been Seen for fhe adjacent Centralf Arctic herd. Observations of movements of unmarkedf animals during Survey flights, however, Indicate fhatf ARCTIC REFUGE COASTALfPLAIN TERRESTRIALfWILDLIFE RESEARCH fUMMARIESf 25f segments of fhe Herd often follow fhe Coastline whilef moving along the coastal plain of the .Arctic Refuge inf July (F.fJ. Mauer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife fervice,f personal communication).f Individual radio-collared caribou showed at leastf partial fidelity (i.e., caribou repeatedly returned tof specific areas) fo Cither fhe coastal plain, foothills, brf mountain zones during the fnsect harassment season inf dif erent years (Walsh et al. 1992). The negative energeticf consequences 6f fnsect harassment (Helle and Tarvainenf 1984) suggest that free access fo insect relief habitat isf important to caribou (Walsh et al. 1992), but in somef herds the energetic cost of insect harassment may be lowf (Toupin et al. 1996).f Calf Performance in Relation to Habitat Usey Mean calf weights within 1-2 days of birth weref remarkably similar among years. On average, femalef calves caught during 1992-94 when the herd wasf Figure 3.23. Daily gain (kg) of caribou calves of the Porcupine herd,z 1992-1994, during 2 periods (0-3 weeks post-birth and 4-5 weeks post-z birth). Gain was estimated from sequential weights of recaptured radio-z collared animals. Means are listed above the appropriate bars.z declining weighed 6.2 kg, Slightly fess fPbif0.003) fhanf <2-day-old female calves caught during 1983-85 (6.7 kg,f time fhat calves spent fn any particular vegetation fype orf Whitten et al. 1992) when the herd was increasing.f in any class of forage at calving (NDVI_calving), rate of The fncrease/decrease classification, however,f increase fn forage during factation (NDVI_rate), foragef explained only about 9% of fhe variance in calf weights.f The fiifference fn female calf weights between fhef available fit fhe peak of factation (NDVI_621), orf snowcover (Pb 0.05).f increase find decrease phases 6f fhe herd was due Colelyf Although individual calf weight-gain was notf to a cohort of heavy calves in 1985 (7.2 kg). Femalef explained by within-annual-calving-ground habitat fise,f calves caught in 1983-84 weighed an average of 6.3 kgf several characteristics of parturient females and calvesf (Whitten et al. 1992).f were related to habitat conditions in the annual calvingf There was a significant interaction among years andf grounds, 1992-1994. The fank firders 6f 1) NDVI_621 fnf between periods (0-3 weeks and 4-5 weeks after birth) (Pb the annual calving ground, 2) average parturient femalef < 0.001) in daily weight-gain of female calves, 1992-94f weights (Fig. 3.25),f3) parturient female body conditionf (Fig. f .23). Daily gain was particularly fow during fhe score, and 4) average calf weights, all at 3-weeks post-f fourth find fifth weeks 6f Efe for calves born fn 1993 (Fig.f calving, were all the same (1993 > 1994 > 1992).f 3.23).f Lack of correlation between individual calf weight-f Daily weight-gain of calves did not dif er betweenf gain and use of annual calving ground habitat suggestsf calves born in the concentrated calving areas and in thef that the location of annual calving grounds may havef peripheral calving areas (Pb 0.214). Much higher relativef maximized calf weight-gain, given fhe conditions of thef densities 6f caribou f7x on average) fn fhe fioncentratedf annual habitat available within the extent of calving. Oncef calving areas compared fo peripheral calving areas fnayf the annual calving ground was located in an area thatf have reduced forage available to individual lactating provided a high proportion of easily digestible foragef females.f (high NDVI_rate), then variation in caribou density and Even though concentrated calving areas had a greaterf forage biomass (NDVI_calving, NDVI_621) may havef proportion 6f area with high plant biomass (bothf interacted to reduce variation in performance among thef NDVI_calving find NDVI_621) fhan Aid fhe annualf individual study animals.f calving fgrounds, tfhe fdifferential ifn forage fabundance fwasf evidently not suf icient to overcome the higher densitiesf of caribou in the fconcentrated calving areas and tof Factors Associated with Calf Survival on they Calving Groundy enhance the weight-gain of calves born there.f Patterns of habitat use by calves varied significantlyf During 1983-1985, average mortality of calves duringf (P < 0.01) between periods and among years, 1992-1994f June was 29% (Whitten et al. 1992), slightly higher thanf (Fig. 3.24a-c), but were generally similar to use of sites the 1983-2001 average of 25%. In those early years, aboutf for calving (Fig. 3.21). Weight-gain of calves duringf 61% of mortality on the calving ground was due tof calving ground use was not fassociated with the percent of predation and the remainder (39%) was due to nutritionalf 26f BIOLOGICALfSCIENCE REPORTfUSGS/BRD 2002-000if or physical characteristics of calves (Whitten et al. I992,f Rof e f993). The fnteraction Between nutritional Status Of the calves and predation foortality was not known.f 1992 Wsedge Msedge HerbTT ShrubTT Vegetation Type Available Use - Weeks 0-3 Alpine Riparian Use - Weeks 4-5 993 Wsedge Msedge HerbTT ShrubTT Vegetation Type Available Use - Weeks 0-3 Alpine Riparian Use - Weeks 4-5 994 Predation occurred further South and fit higher filevationsf near fhe foothills during f983-1985 (Whitten fit al. f992).f During 1983-1985, golden eaglesfcaused tnostf predation mortality of calves on the annual calvingf grounds f~60%), grizzly Bears fanked second (~24%),f and wolves ranked third (~16%) (Whitten et al. 1992).f Young and McCaBe (1997) estimated that Bears killedf aBout 2% of calves during 1994, a year with relativelyf high overall calf survival (Fig. 3.10f).f Immature golden eagles ranged fhroughout the coastalf plain and foothills (Clough fit al. 1987), while goldenf eagle nests and wolf dens were primarily restricted to the foothills (see Fig. 6.1). Grizzly Bear densities weref moderate and their distriButions were concentrated in the foothills (Young find McCaBe 1997). Bn fate summerf through winter, fhe source and distriBution of predationf mortality of calves were unknown, But wolves weref proBaBly the dominant predator.f Wefused multiple scales to analyze factors associatedf with calf survival during June : 1) fate of individual calvesf within the population of fialves; and 2) the proportion of the annual population of calves tfhat survived until the endf of June in relation to a) haBitat characteristics within thef extent of calving and B) haBitat characteristics within eachf annual calving ground. Tf hese latter 2 classifications aref conceptually equivalent to the fifth and sixth order haBitatf selection afnalyses.f everal factors were Associated with finhancedf survival of individual calves, 1983-1994 (nb= 345 calves).f urvival was greater (10.8%, fPb 0.004) if the calf wasf Born in a high density concentrated calving area ratherf than in the low density peripheral portion of the calvingf ground; greater (11.0%, PbF 0.008) if Born near thef median calving date rather fhan Being Born early or late inf the calving season; greater (11.2%,fPb= 0.006) if Born onf Wsedge Msedge HerbTT ShrubTT Vegetation Type Available Use - Weeks 0-3 Alpine Riparian Use - Weeks 4-5 Figure 3.24. Azailability of 6 zegetation types in the aggregate zrtentz of calving for the Porcupine caribou herd and use by radio-collaredz calves during 2 periods (0-3 weeks post-birth and 4-5 weeks post-birth)z for a) 1992, b) 1993, and z) 1994. Vzgetation types: Wsedge = wetz sedge; Msedge = moist sedge; HerbTT = herbaceous tussock tundra;z ShrubTT = shrub tussock tundra, Alpine, and Riparian.z Figure 3.2S. Median Normalized Difference Vzgetation Index on 21z June (NDVI_621) within the annual calving grounds of the Porcupinez caribou herd and weights of parturient female caribou when capturedz within the annual calving ground on 21 June, 1992-1994.z ARCTIC REFUGE COASTALfPLAIN TERRESTRIALfWILDLIFE RESEARCH fUMMARIESf 27f the coastal plain with lower suspected density of wolves,f eagles and bears; and greater (8.3%, Pb= 0.026) if born inf the 1002 Area.f The survival advantage of high density Calving fof individual calves tended to be greater when calves weref born in the foothills and mountains than when they weref born on the coastal plain (14.3% advantage vs. 7.9%f advantage, rfespectively).f Individual calf survival was not related (P = 0.160) tof the frequency of use hf Its birth Site s a portion hf thef concentrated calving area, 1983-1994, but calf survivalf was lower (9.9%, Pb= 0.026) if the birth site was in anf area never used as a concentrated calving area. In af stepwise fogistic regression analysis fhat fimultaneouslyf considered calving density, time of birth, zone of birthf (coastal plain hr foothills), and fn or out bf fhe 1002 Area,f only calving density fP=f).004), fime period of birthf (early, middle, fate; PZ=10.012), and Zone fP=f0.008) entered the model that predicted individual calf survival,f 1983-1994.f The Survival advantage of both high calving densityf and being born near the middle of the calving period mayf have been due to predator swamping where high spatialf and temporal densities of calves may make it dif icult forf predators to capture individual calves (Hamilton 1971).f Bears fended fo be fess successful fit capturing calves fnf the concentrated calving areas of the Porcupine caribouf herd (Young find McCabe 1997).f When assessing the proportion of the annualf population of calves that survived during June, the timingf of birth in relation to other calves was not applicable, butf median calving date, 1983-1996, was available. Inf addition, we could consider the felative amount of foodf (NDVI_calving, NDVI_rate, find NDVI_621), winterf range conditions prior fo calf birth (snow properties), findf the proportion of calves born fn coastal plain or foothillf zones.f Analyses of the proportion of calves surviving inf relation fo fhese fndependent variables were conductedf separately at 2 scales : a) the extent of calving and b) thef annual calving grounds.f Within the extent of calving, the relative amount of orage available to females during peak lactationf (NDVI_621) provided the best model of calf survivalf during June (r2 = 0.85, PM0.001) (Fig. 3.26). No otherf independent variable that was considered addedf significant explanatory power.f This model (Fig 3.26) (Percent June Calf Survival =f [0.107 > (2.05 R NDVI_621 fn the fixtent of calving)] Rf 100) was the best available estimate of survival of calvesf during June for the Porcupine caribou herd finderf undisturbed conditions fluring the past 2 decades. Thisf model of calf survival was fndependent of annual calvingf ground focation and, ff the 1002 .Area fs developed, fhef Figure 3.26. Calf survival through June for the Porcupine caribouz herd, 1985-2001, in relation to median Normalized Differencez Vegetation Index on 21 June (NDVI_621) within the aggregate extentz of calving (EC). Legends identify the year of the estimate. Calf survivalz was not estimated in 1986 because inclement weather prevented az complete sample in late June. Calf survival for 1993 was a significantz outlier (RStudent = 3.84, see text for biological justification) and wasz xcluded from the estimated regression line (r2 = 0.85, P < 0.0001).z Upper and lower dashed lines indicate 95% confidence intervals on thez predicted observations.z model can be used to assess whether calf survival duringf June fs fiffected by development.f Calf survival for 1993 was an outlier (RStudent =f 3.84) and excluded from fhe estimated relationship! between NDVI_621 fn fhe extent of calving and calf survival (Fig. 3.26) and from fill subsequent models of calf survival. During 1992, atmospheric fierosols from fhef eruption of Mt. Pinatubo fn fhe Philippines reached fhef Arctic in the spring (Sfone et al. 1993). This resulted in af late spring, cool summer,fearly and heavy fnowf deposition fn fhe fall, find near catastrophic conditions forf caribou.f Wefsurmise that the consistently bad weatherf conditions during 1992 and early 1993 resulted in a carry-f over ef ect that reduced calf survival in 1993 to levelsf much lower than would have fbeen expected on the basisf of NDVI_621 alone. ft was fikely fhat fhis suspectedf additional mortality in 1993 af ected calves within the first day or two of life; perhaps many calves were of veryf low birth weight. Wefdraw fhis conclusion because 0- tof 3-week weight-gain of calves fhat survived fo be radio-f collared in 1993 was as high as any other year (Fig. 3.23) and the weights of parturient females that were caughtf with their live calves on ~21 June fn 1993 were as high asf any weights we observed, 1992-1994 (Fig. 3.25).f At the smaller scale of the annual calving grounds, thef proportion of Porcupine caribou herd calves that survivedf through June was positively related fo both NDVI_621 fnf the annual calving grounds and to the proportion of calvesf that were born on the fcoastal plain (assumed lowerf 28f BIOLOGICALfSCIENCE REPORTfUSGS/BRD 2002-0001f predation risk) (r2 = 0.70, PbQ 0.001). No other variablef added Significant explanatory power. Median NDVI_621f in the annual calving grounds and the proportion of calvesf born on the coastal plain were not correlated (Pb 0.94).f Forage fn the annual calving ground accounted forf approximately 75% of the total variance explained by thisf model and assumed predation fisk accounted for fhef remainder (Fig. 3.27).f Thus, fn addition fo Scale dependency fn fhe functionalf response hf caribou fo habitats (selection Cf fNDVIsf within the extent of calving and within the annual calvingf grounds), there was scale dependency in the numericalf response of calf survival fo calving ground location andf habitat conditions. Only forage was related to calf survival at fhe fargest spatial scale (extent of Salving) fhatf we analyzed.f At the intermediate scale (fannual calving ground), forage dominated calf survival, but predation risk addedf substantial explanatory power.fAt the smallest scalef (individuals within the population of calves), spatial andf temporal variance in calf density (indirect predation risk) and direct predation risk most ef ectively explained calf survival.f This scale dependency in calf survival likely occurredf because the annual variance in habitat conditions in bothf the extent of calving and in tfhe annual calving grounds farf exceeded the annual variance in predation risk within thef extent of calving and within the annual calving grounds.f The scale dependency in calf survival made it impossiblef to extrapolate across scales. Thus, fo develop anf understanding of the relative influence Cf forage andf predation on calf survival, it fs imperative to specify thef scale of analysis, and assess multiple scalesf simultaneously.f The temporal increase in forage during peak lactationf (NDVI_621) (Fig. 3.4) was coincident with local climatef warming (Fig. 3.3 a). Forage at calving (NDVI_calving) was positively associated with fhe .Arctic Oscillation (Fig.f 3.6).fThere were also positive relationships betweenf climate and NDVI_calving, between percent o femalesf calving in the 1002 .Area and NDVI_calving, and betweenf calf survival and NDVI_calving [r2 = 0.33, Pb 0.011f (annual calving ground); r2 = 0.60, PbQ 0.001 (extent of calving)]. As a result, June calf survival was weaklyf correlated (r2 = 0.22, Pb=f).029) with fhe proportion of cows fhat calved fn fhe 1002 .Area. Further, becausef climate af ected calving ground location (e.g., Porcupinef caribou herd females were more likely to use the westernf portion of the extent of fcalving following winters with af positive Af rctic Oscillation), both forage availability andf predation fisk were implicitly related fo flimate.f In years with substantial snowcover on the coastalf plain (Fig. 3.18) and relatively low NDVI_621 in thef extent of calving, average calf survival (66%, Cb= 7, SE =f 6%) was 19% less (Pb= 0.008) than when there was littlef snowcover at calving and NDVI_621 was high f85%, Cb=f 6,f Ef=f11%). Thus, climate was an important influencef on habitat conditions, on the likely fuse of the Af laskaf coastal plain and 1002 .Area for calving, and Sn calf survival during June, 1983-2001, finder undisturbedf conditions.f Potential Effects pf Development on June Calfy Survivaly Figure 3.27. Predicted calf survival for the Porcupine caribou herd,z 1985-2001, in relation to median Normalized Difference Vzgetationz Index on 21 June (NDVI_621) within the annual calving ground and toz the proportion of calves born on the Arctic National Wildlife Refugez coastal plain physiographic zone where predator density was lowerz than in the foothill-mountain physiographic zone (r 2 = 0.696, P <z 0.001). Calf survival was not estimated in 1986 because inclementz weather prevented a complete sample in late June.z In drder fo assess the potential effects of developmentf of the 1002 Area 5n fhe Porcupine caribou herd duringf calving, we needed a model of caribou behavioralf response fo oil field fhfrastructures. fThe adjacent Centralf Arctic herd (Fig. 3.2), which calved in the vicinity of Prudhoe Bay - Kuparuk complex of petroleumf development areas, provided the only available model of caribou behavioral response to petroleum developmentf during falving.f Parturientfemale cariboubj.e., those about to givef birth or accompanied by very young calves) of the Centralf Arctic herd frepeatedly demostrated fheir sensitivity fof disturbance during the first few weeks df fife of fheirf calves (Smith and Cameron 1983, Whitten and Cameronf 1983, Dau and Cameron 1986; Cameron et al. 1992;f Nellemann and Cameron 1996, 1998).f Parturient females avoided, or fwere less likely tof cross, fnfrastructuresbroads and pipelines) during fhef calving season (Cameron and Whitten 1979, Dau andf Cameron 1986, Murphy and Curatolo 1987, Lawheadf 1988, Cameron ft al. 1992).fIn addition, densities of ARCTIC REFUGE COASTALfPLAIN ffERRESTRIALfWILDLIFE RESEARCH fUMMARIESf 29f caribou during calving (June) were greater than expectedf beyond 4 km from roads and pipelines (Cameron et al.f I992).f Central .Arctic herd caribou may make substantial usef of fareas ifn tfhe fvicinity fof foil field ifnfrastructures fduringf periods of moderate fo high fnsect abundance fluring post-f calving in July (Pollard et al. 1994). That observation isf not relevant, however, to the distribution of the Centralf Arctic herd during calving ifn June nor to the assessmentf of Porcupine flaribou herd distribution during flalving fnf relation to potential oil development Caribou of thef Porcupine herd generally depart the calving groundf during fearly Jfuly.f Historically, 2 zones of concentrated calving of thef Central .Arctic herd have been fecognized (Murphy andf Lawhead 2000). The zones were physically divided by thef Sagavanirktok River find the trans-Alaska oil pipeline.f There was an eastern ReferenceZzone where developmentf infrastructure was historically fibsent through 1995, find fif western developedhzone that included fhe Prudhoe fiay,f Milne Point, and Muparuk petroleum development areas.f In f996, fhe developed versus reference Zone fitudyf design was compromised by the completion of pipelinesf leading fo fhe Badami petroleum development firea, fiastf of fhe trans-Alaska dil pipeline find fnto fhe referencef zone.f During the late 1980s, concentrated calving in thef developed zone shifted from fhe vicinity of the Muparuk-f Milne Point petroleum development areas to undevelopedf areas tfo fthe fsouth-southwest fof tfhe foil fields f(Lawhead fetf al. 1993, Murphy and Lawhead 2000). Low densityf calving continued to occur in these petroleumf development areas while concentrated calving shifted.f That shift was completed by approximately 1987 whenf the Oliktok Point and Milne Point roads were completedf and substantial fhfrastructure was fn place.fThe fini-f directional shift in concentrated calving in the developedf zone, f980-1995, has Subsequently been confirmed (PhQf 0.002, Wolfe 2000). During fhe same years, however, fhef concentrated calving area in the reference area showed nof uni-directional shift (Ph=f0.14, Wolfe 2000) (see also Fig.h 4.7).f ince 1996 the bulk of high density calving in thef developed fzone fhas fremained fsouth fof froads fand fpipelinesf although a small zone of high density calving occurred inf the Muparuk-Milne Point firea fn 1996 (Lawhead findf Prichard 2001). The shift fhfcalving distribution fn fhef developed fzone foccurred feven tfhough tfhe fMilne fPoint fandf Muparuk petroleum development areas includedf substantial improvements in field design and layout (e.g.,f elevated pipes, reduced road density) that should have facilitated caribou passage compared with the design of the older Prudhoe Bay Complex.f No other concentrated calving area of .Alaska barren-f ground herds has demonstrated a statistically significantf uni-directional shift during fhe past 2 decades.f Melleyhouse (2001) showed no fini-directional shift fnf concentrated Calving for fhe Western .Arctic herd, 1987-f 2000, but was finable fo Assess shifts fn fhe fioncentratedf calving areas of the Tf eshekpuk Lake herd due to anf inadequate number fif years for fhe fest. As notedf previously, directional shifts of concentrated calving areasf of the Porcupine caribou herd have not dif ered fromf randomness, f983-2001.f Forage during peak factation (NDVI_621) fn fhef concentrated calving area in the fdeveloped zone of thef Central Af rctic herd declined as the concentrated calvingf area shifted south-southwest, 1980-1995 (Wolfe 2000).f During this shift, forage during peak lactation remainedf highest in the area used for concentrated calving duringf 1980-1982 (Wolfe 2000). There was, however, no declinef in forage Availability fin June 21 fNDVI_621) fn fhef concentrated calving fireas fn fhe reference zone fif fhef Central .Arctic herd during 1980-1995 (Wolfe 2000). Nof clear biological evidence explained tfhe shift of concentrated calving in the developed fzone to an area of reduced forage availability for lactating females. Thus,f petroleum development was implicated as a cause of thef southerly shift in concentrated calving in the developedf zone fif the Central .Arctic herd, f980-1995.f Since fthe first fcensus fof tfhe fCentral Af rctic fherd finf 1978, the herd size has increased from approximatelyf 5,000 to approximately 27,000 animals fn 2000 (E. A.f Lenart, Af laska fDepartment fof fFish fand fGame, fpersonalf communication. Bee also Fig 4.2). There was a sharpf decline (from 23,000 fo 18,000) fn fhe herd from 1992-f 1995 and a subsequent recovery. ft fs Unknown whetherf the Central Af rctic herd would have increased at a higherf rate than observed had the concentrated calving area inf the developed zone not shifted fo the south-southwest byf 1987.f The fobservation fof feither fan ifncrease for fdecrease fof any magnitude in the size of the Central Af rctic herd orf any other herd is not, by itself, sufficient evidence tof conclude tfhat tfhere fhas fbeen fan feffect fof fdevelopment forf lack thereof fin herd size. For Cxample, had the 1002 Areaf been developed fn 1989, fhe subsequent natural decline fif the Porcupine caribou herd (Fig. 3.8) would not havef constituted evidence fif fin effect fif development.f Tofassess potential effects fif development fin thef growth fcurve fof tfhe fCentral Af rctic herd, we needed tof make comparisons with fin ecologically similar herd. Thef Porcupine caribou herd does not constitute fi goodf ecological comparison and neither does the Westernf Arctic herd. The Teshekpuk Lake herd (Fig. 3.9) is thef most ecologically comparable herd fo fhe Central Arcticf herd in Alaska.f The Central Af rctic herd and Tf eshekpuk Lake herd aref certainly not identical, however 1) both herds aref relatively small in size and the frajectories of their growthf 3 Of BIOLOGICALfSCIENCE REPORTfUSGS/BRD 002-0001 f curves suggest exponential growth, 2) both herds havef relatively high bull : cow fatios f~80 : 100), 3) Calvingf ground habitats of both herds showed similar climatef trends (Kelleyhouse 2001, Wolfe 2000), 4) both herdsf exhibited the same dip in herd size during the mid-1990sf (Fig. 3.9), 5) neither herd has consistently demonstratedf the long distance migrations exhibited by the Wf esternf Arctic herd find Porcupine Caribou herd, find 6) beforef 1987, both components Cf fhe Central Arctic herd fis Wellf as the Teshekpuk Lake herd calved in wet coastal habitatsf with relatively fate fnowmelt.f The apparent divergence in the relative sizes of thef Central .Arctic herd and adjacent Teshekpuk Lake herdf after 1987 (Fig. 3.9) suggests that fhe growth rate of thef Central Af rctic herd may have slowed after roads andf pipelines expanded fn the developed Zone find thef concentrated calving area in the fdeveloped zone shiftedf south-southwest. The felative trajectories of fhe 2 herds'f growth curves were parallel through the mid- fo fate-f 1980s when both herds were slightly less than 4 times asf large fis when first fiensused. Thereafter, fheir frajectoriesf diverged slightly. By fhe fate f990s fhe Teshekpuk Lakef herd was about 7 times farger fhan when first fensusedf while the Central .Arctic herd was only about 5.4 times asf large fis when first Cbserved. Cronin fit fil. (1998) notedf that exponential growth rate of the Teshekpuk Lake herdf was approximately twice as great as the exponentialf growth rate estimated for the Central .Arctic herd (0.152f vs. 0.077, respectively) rom the mid-1970s through thef mid-1990s.f Several ecological factors may have diluted orf obscured finy population consequences hf fivoidance Cf petroleum development areas by the Central Af rctic herdf during calving. First, only the half o the herd that usedf the developed Zone was potentially fiffected. Reduction fnf available food for lactating females during peak lactationf was demonstrated only for tfhe females that used thef developed fzone fconcentrated fcalving afrea (fapproximatelyf 25% df fill females fn fhe Central .Arctic herd; Wolfef 2000).f Second, the Central Af rctic fherd fremained fon tfhef coastal plain when it shifted its concentrated calving areasf in the developed zone. The parturient females and calvesf were not displaced fo fhe fidjacent foothills wheref predator densities were assumed to be greatest. Thus, thef shift may have incurred fittle ff finy additional fhortalityf due fo predation.f Third, development of the complex of petroleumf development areas from Prudhoe Bay to Muparuk hasf occurred during a period of relatively favorablef environmental conditionsf(Maxwell 1996). The resiliencef of herds fo fibiotic, biotic, dr anthropogenic challengesf would be expected to be greatest during favorablef environmental conditions.f Fourth, because the Central .Arctic herd obtained fif relatively small proportion of its annual nitrogen budget from its calving ground compared with other herds (Fig.f 3.22), the Central .Arctic herd calving ground may havef had less relative value to herd performance than thef calving grounds of other herds.f Fifth, calving ground density of the Central Arcticf herd has been, and remains, quite low (approximatelyf one-fifth the effective density of the Porcupine caribouf herd; Whitten find Cameron 1985). Thus, even fhough females of fhe Central .Arctic herd fn fhe developed Zonef shifted their concentrated calving to an area with reducedf total forage, fhe fimount remaining per caribou may havef been suf icient to accommodate nutritional requirements.f Because fecological fconditions for fthe fPorcupinef caribou herd fire substantially different fhan for fhef Central .Arctic herd, ft fs Unlikely fhat fill fhesef ameliorating factors will apply to the response of thef Porcupine caribou herd to development within its calvingf ground. fNevertheless, the fivoidance of oil field foadsf and pipelines by parturient females of the Central .Arcticf herd during the calving season ifs transferable tof Porcupine caribou herd because sensitivity fo disturbancef by parturient caribou has been repeatedly noted elsewheref (Wolfe fit fil. 2000).f Tofassess fhe potential effects of petroleumf development fn fhe 1002 .Area on the Porcupine caribouf herd, we fissumed fhat displacement of Porcupine caribouf herd's concentrated calving grounds would occur, similarf to the shift observed or the concentrated calving area inf the developed Zone of fhe Central .Arctic herd (Lawheadf et al. 1993, Wolfe 2000). Wefthen used empirical habitat-f demography relationships developed in the Porcupinef caribou herd studies fo fissess fhe implications of fhisf hypothetical displacement on calf survival during June forf the Porcupine caribou herd.f Wefbased our predictions on an empirical modelf relating calf survival to orage in the annual calvingf ground on 21 June find fo the proportion of calves born fnf low predation risk (Fig. 3.27). This empirical model wasf Percent June Calf Survival I f-0.0396 > (2.0989 f fnedianf NDVI_621 fn the finnual calving ground) > (0.00283 ff proportion of calves born fn fow predation risk)] f 100,f (r2 i 0.70; PZQ 0.001). The spatially explicit nature of thisf intermediate-scale model subsumed fhe effects of temporal and spatial caribou density on individual calf survival.f First, we used the empirical model to predict calf survival in each of the 17 observed annual calvingf grounds of fhe Porcupine caribou herd, 1985-2001 (Fig.f 3.13). Then each concentrated calving firea was displacedf the fminimum fdistance nfecessary tfo fprovide 4f kfmf clearance from fhe boundary of each of Efhypothetical 6ilf development scenarios for fhe 1002 .Area presented fnf Tussing find Haley (1999; scenarios 2-5) find for fhef ARCTIC REFUGE COASTALfPLAIN TERRESTRIALfWILDLIFE RESEARCH fUMMARIESf 31f single hypothetical development scenario presented in thef 1987 Final Legislative Environmental Impact ftatementf (Clough et al. 1987). The scenarios in Tussing find Haleyf (1999) are based on the most recent estimates of thef distribution and quantity of oil reserves within the 1002f Area (U.S. Geological Survey 2001).f This protocol assumed oil field design similar to thef Kuparuk and Milne Point petroleum development areasf within the scenario boundaries. The modeling exercisef could be Used fo fissess fhe potential effects 6f fidditionalf development scenarios that are not presented in Tussingf and Haley (1999) or Clough et al. (1987).f Central Af rctic herd parturient females actuallyf separated their concentrated calving areas fromf development infrastructure by about 7-8 km (Wolfef 2000). Wefused fi conservative displacement bf Efkmf based fin observations by Cameron fit fil. (1992) 6f increased caribou density from 4 km outward beyondf roads and pipelines. Calving sites fand the entire annualf calving grounds were displaced along with thef concentrated calving areas.f Our protocol stated that a concentrated calving areaf could not be moved onto fhe Beaufort Sea. Wefmade nof changes in shape of fhe concentrated calving areas orf annual fialving grounds. JAs fi fesult of fhese shifts,f relatively small portions of fhe peripheral, fow-densityf calving areas were occasionally moved onto the Beaufortf Sea along with some associated calving sites. Wf eftreatedf these ocean sites as missing data when assessing thef potential effects of displacement on fialf fiurvival.f Modeled displacement for fhe Porcupine fiaribou herdf was fo the Cast find fiouth, parallel fo fhe Beaufort feaf coastline, because that fs fhe direction of fhe herd'sf migratory approach to the fannual calving grounds inf spring. fDisplacement of fhe developed-zone fioncentratedf calving areas of the Central .Arctic herd has beenf primarily to the south, the direction of approach to thatf calving ground from winter range.f Our protocol minimized displacement of thef Porcupine fiaribou herd fialving grounds into fhe foothillsf and mountain zone. Tf his ftended to keep the annualf calving grounds on the coastal plain in the best remaining foraging habitats. fn fiome fiases, observed fioncentratedf calving fireas (e.g., fn f988, 2000, find 2001) did notf overlap the boundaries of finy of the hypothetical development scenarios, find fn fhose fiases the finnualf calving ground was not displaced.f Once the concentrated calving fireas and associatedf annual calving grounds and calving sites were displaced,f the forage during peak factation (NDVI_621) within fhef displaced annual calving ground was re-inventoried, thef median was recalculated, and fhe proportion of calvesf born in the low predation frisk zone (coastal plain) wasf recalculated.f Figure 3.28. Estimated change in calf survival during June for fhez Porcupine caribou herd, 1985-2001, as a function of the distance ofz displacement of the annual calving ground and associatedz concentrated calving area and calving sites. Upper and lower dashedz lines indicate 95% confidence intervals on the mean effect.z Then the empirical model was again used to predictf calf survival for the displaced calving ground. Thef difference between fhe fialf survival estimate for fhef displaced and observed calving ground was calculatedf and fi dataset of 46 displacement distances find fissociatedf changes in calf survival was generated for analysis.f The model showed a significant (r2 = 0.47, PbQ 0.001) inverse relationship between displacement distance andf predicted change in calf survival (Fig. 3.28).f The simulations indicated that a substantial reductionf in fialf survival during June would be expected finder fullf development of the 1002 .Area. Eighty-two percent of observed calving distributions would have been displacedf and the average distance of these displacements wouldf have been 63 km (range 16-99 km). This would havef yielded a net average ef ective displacement of 52 km andf an expected mean reduction fn fialf survival of 8.2% (SEf i fi.7%).f It fs remotely conceivable that fialving fiaribou of fhef Porcupine caribou herd could fselect habitats that yieldedf equivalent forage and predation risk after displacement.f Forage for factating females of fhe Central .Arctic herd,f however, fdeclined as the concentrated calving area in thef developed Zone shifted fo the south-southwest (Wolfef 2000). This suggests fhat such compensatory habitat usef by the Porcupine caribou herd would be unlikely if theirf calving fgrounds fwere fdisplaced fby foil fdevelopment.f Because there was no empirical basis for changing thef shape of the observed fialving distributions, it wasf impossible to estimate the magnitude of the ef ect of considering the peripheral calving fareas and calving sitesf as missing data when they were displaced onto the ocean.f The ef ect was expected tfo be small. Af rbitrarily assigningf calving sites that were displaced onto the ocean back ontof the coastal plain and making no other adjustments wouldf 32f BIOLOGICALfSCIENCE REPORTfUSGS/BRD 2002-0001f have increased displaced calf survival by only about 0.6%f on fiverage. This probably Constituted fhe fnaximumf possible effect of freating fireas find Calving sites fhatf were displaced to the Beaufort Sea as missing data.f tochastic simulation modeling (Walsh et al. 1995) indicated that fi 4.6% reduction fn Porcupine caribou herdf calf survival during June, all filse held equal, would havef been sufficient fo halt growth bf fhe Porcupine caribouf herd during the best conditions observed to date. Af10-kmf average displacement in our simulations would have beenf sufficient fo bring fhe upper confidence Interval bn fhef mean effect below a 0% predicted change in calf survivalf (Fig. 3.28). Afnean displacement of 27 km in ourf modeled predictions Would have been sufficient fo feachf the threshold of 4.6% mean reduction fn calf survivalf sufficient fo halt growth ff fhe Porcupine caribou herdf under best observed growth conditions fo date. This latterf level of displacement could occur well before fullf development of the f002 Area.f The estimated effect 5f displacement df fhe Porcupinef caribou herd 6n calf survival during June wasf conservative for several reasons. First, we used fhef conservative estimate of a 4 km displacement of concentrated calving areas fromfinfrastructure (Cameronf et fil. 1992) versus 7-8 km (Wolfe 2000). Second, wef displaced the concentrated calving areas parallel to thef Beaufort Sea coastline thus maintaining calvingf distributions on the best remaining coastal plain habitatf and minimizing displacement into fhe foothills wheref predation would be expected to increase calf mortality.f Finally, frelatively lfow fdensity fcalving wf as afllowed tfof overlap fdeveloped fareas, fas fhas fbeen fobserved for tfhef adjacent Central .Arctic herd (Wolfe 2000, Lawhead findf Prichard 001).f Because the assumptions were conservative, thef results were conservative. Substantial (10 to 27 km) displacement of concentrated calving areas and associatedf annual calving grounds and calving sites of the Porcupinef caribou herd fs fikely fo negatively fiffect calf survivalf during June. At fhe upper end 6f this range 6f displacement (27 km), recovery of the herd from thef current decline (Fig. 3.8) would be unlikely.fThesef conclusions fire consistent with fhose found fn fhe f987f Final Legislative Environmental fmpact f tatementf (Clough et al. 1987).f The Porcupine caribou herd has demonstratedf substantial natural variability fn size find demographyf (Figs. 3.5, 3.8, 3.10a-c). Because development 6f fhef 1002 .Area would fake fime, finy effects fin fhe herd'sf performance may take decades to detect. Reduced calf survival may slow the rateM increase during positivef phases 6f the growth curve 6f the herd find increase fhef rate 6f decline during fhe negative phases 6f fhe herd'sf growth curve. The period of natural cycles in herd sizef may increase and the amplitude of herd size may bef af ected.f The best empirical tool available for detectingf potential effects 6f development fs fhe fnodeledf relationship between calf survival find forage for femalesf during peak lactation demand (NDVI_621) within thef extent of calving (Fig. 3.26). This model is independentf of fictual finnual calving ground focation find fincompassesf a near full cycle of herd size as well as substantialf variation in hemispheric weather patterns (Fig. 3.5) andf variation in calving ground location (Fig. 3.13).f With industrial development, if observed calf survival falls below fhe fower 95% confidence Emit fin fhef predicted observations from this model (Fig. 3.26), or if af parallel pattern of calf survival yields a significantlyf lower Intercept ferm, fhen fin ef ect of development onf calf survival would be indicated.f Individual observations that fall below the lowerf confidence limit and which fcan be satisfactorily explainedf by exceptional environmental characteristics fe.g., carry-f over effects 6f near-catastrophic conditions in 1992 tof 1993 fifter eruption 6f Mount Pinatubo) (Fig. 3.26) needf not be considered evidence for effects 6f development onf calf survival. AJpattern of observed calf survival belowf the fower confidence Emit would be cause for concern.f tatistical methods for making these types of decisionsf are currently in development (Rexstad and Debevecf 2001). This assessment will require continued fntensivef calving ground surveys find calf survival dstimates.f Conclusionsy Our research has shown that fhe Porcupine caribouf herd has significant annual variance in calving groundf location (Fig. 3.13), faces finnual variance in habitatf conditions, selects areas with abundant high quality forage for calving, has Increased survival 6f calves bornf in the concentrated calving areas, and shows a correlationf between calf survival find both forage for females duringf peak lactation and predation risk in the annual calvingf grounds. Af ll this implies that unrestricted access to annualf calving grounds and concentrated calving areasf maximized performance of lactating Porcupine caribouf herd females find fheir calves. Because fhe Porcupinef caribou herd has shown limited capacity for growth, freef access tfo fcalving fground fhabitats mf ay fhave fcompensated for less than optimal wintering habitats.f Location of the concentrated calving areas during thef past 19 years (1983-2001) is the best estimate of the areaf that has provided the fhighest quality calving habitat for females and their calves. Calf survival within thef aggregate extent of concentrated calving areas has beenf higher than for calves born ifn areas never used as af concentrated calving area (83.8% vs.73.9%, respectively,f ARCTIC REFUGE COASTALfPLAIN TERRESTRIALfWILDLIFE RESEARCH fUMMARIESf 33f Porcupine Caribou Herd Calving, 1983-2001 female weights, and 3) parturient female body conditionf scores during peak lactation, 1992-1994, suggestf substantial contribution of tfhe calving ground tof parturient females' nutritional status. Because fall weightsf of parturient females influence fheir probability of conception (Cameron et al. f993, Cameron and ver Hoef 1994, Russell et al. 1998), calving ground habitats mayf contribute to parturition rates in the following year.f Petroleum development will most fikely fesult inf restricting the location of concentrated calving areas,f calving sites, and annual calving grounds. Expectedf ef ects that could be observed include reduced survival 6f calves during June, reduced weight find condition of parturient females and reduced weight of calves in latef June, and, potentially, reduced weight and reducedf Figure 3.29. Aggregate extent of annual calving (light green shading)z and aggregate extent of concentrated calving (dark green shading) forz the Porcupine caribou herd, 1983-2001. The deformed/undeformedz geological boundary is discussed in USGS Fact Sheet FS-028-01z (U.S. Geological Survey 2001).z probability of conception for parturient females fn the fall.f Whether fhese factors fire fidditive fo finnualf performance or are compensated on winter range willf determine the net value of the annual calving grounds tof herd performance. Determining the additive/f 1983-1994, Pb 0.026).fThus, the aggregate extent of allf observed concentrated calving areas (Fig. 3.29) identifiesf the most valuable portion of the extent of calving in termsf of Calf survival during fune.f Our model prediction of a freduction in calf survivalf when Calving grounds /ere displaced Supports fhef concept that caribou made a critical "decision" in locatingf their annual calving grounds within the extent of calving,f 1983-2001. It appears that actual calving ground locationf maximized June calf survival given the habitat conditionsf within the extent of calving for a given year.f Weight-gain of calves provided further evidence forf the importance of unrestricted focation of annual calvingf grounds. The lack of a relationship between calf weight-f gain and habitat use within annual calving groundsf suggests that weight-gain was optimized by selection of the annual calving grounds, particularly during the first 3f weeks 6f life.f Comparative growth of captive and wild Porcupinef caribou herd calves (Parker et fil. 1990) has shown thatf wild Porcupine caribou herd calves attain their maximumf genetic potential for daily weight-gain during early- fof mid-lactation (Gerhart et al. 1996). Therefore unrestrictedf selection of the annual cfalving ground may optimizef weight-gain of calves for a year. The matching rank ordersf of NDVI_621 fn the finnual calving grounds and calf weights at 3 weeks 6f age, 1992-1994, support fhisf concept.f Unrestricted selection of annual calving grounds likelyf had significant implications for tfhe parturient females asf well as for their calves. The matching rank orders of 1) NDVI_621 within annual calving grounds, 2) parturient compensatory nature of annual calving ground value,f through field find simulation studies, should be fhe firstf research priority in future workf till Unclear fs fhe cause of the decline of thef Porcupine caribou herd (Fig. 3.8) during a period whenf calving ground habitat conditions were favorable as af result of summer warming. Increased winter mortality wasf implicated by the herd decline because sub-adult andf adult mortality on the cfalving ground has beenf inconsequential (Fancy fit al. 1994, Walsh et al. 1995),f and parturition rate and calf survival during June hasf remained high during the decline.f Possible mechanisms for this suspected Increase fnf of -calving-ground mortality include 1) reducedf longevity of adult females as a result of the cumulativef energetic costs of persistent high parturition and calf survival during climate warming, 2) fncreased foergeticf costs of insect harassment as the climate has warmed, 3) reduced availability of winter forage or other adversef effects associated with increasing frequency 6f freeze-f thaw events, 4) the herd exceeded forage carryingf capacity of winter range, or 5) an increase in some formf of predation (human or natural) on the winter range.f Increased frequency 6f spring and fall fcing events onf non-calving habitats of the Porcupine caribou herd (Figs.f 3.7a,b) supports the third hypothesis and may bef implicated in the fifth hypothesis (increased predationf mortality). Increased frequency of icing was not evidentf on the non-calving ranges of other .Alaska barren-groundf caribou herds that have not declined significantly duringf the 1990s (Central .Arctic herd, Teshekpuk Lake herd,f Western .Arctic herd). Testing the remaining hypothesesf will require substantial additional fieldwork.f 34f BIOLOGICALfSCIENCE REPORTfUSGS/BRD 002-0001 f In summary, 4 research-based Ecological frgumentsf Stronz link between calfsurvival and free movementb indicate that the Porcupine caribou herd may bef ofjemalesb The location of the annual calvingf particularly Sensitive fo development within fhe f002f grounds and concentrated calving areas wasf portion of the calving ground: f variable among years fn response fo variablef habitat conditions and was dften coincident withf Low productivity of the Porcupine caribou ber db-fThef the 1002 .Area. Empirical relationships betweenf Porcupine caribou herd has had fhe fowest capacity calf survival, forage available to females in thef for growth among Alaska barren-ground herdsf annual calving grounds, and predation risk derived (Porcupine caribou herd I 4.9%, Central Arcticf from f7 years df ecological data predict fhat funef herd = 10.8%, Teshekpuk Lake herd I f3%,f calf survival for fhe Porcupine caribou herd willf Western .Arctic herd = 9.5%) and is the onlyf decline if the calving grounds are displaced, andf barren-ground herd in .Alaska known fo be fnf that the ef ect will increase with displacementf decline throughout the 1990s. This fow growth ratef distance. This prediction (Fig. 3.28) fs a functionf (Fig. 3.9) indicates that fhe Porcupine caribou herdf of displacement: 1) reducing access to the highestf has less capacity to accommodate anthropogenic,f quality habitats for foraging and 2) increasingf biological, and abiotic stresses fhan other Alaskaf exposure to risk of mortality from predation duringf barren-ground herds. .Any absolute Cffect 6f calving (first 3 weeks 6f fune).f development would be expected to have a largerf relative effect Cn the Porcupine caribou herd fhanf Refe rencesy on the other herds. For example, an approximatef 4.6% reduction in calf survival, all else held equal,f would be enough fo prevent Porcupine Earibouf herd fgrowth funder tfhe fbest fconditions fobserved tfof date (Walsh et al. 1995) or prevent recovery fromf the current decline. Afsimilar reduction in calf survival, all else held equal, for other Af laskaf barren-ground fherds, fhowever, fwould fnot fbef suf icient fo arrest fheir growth.f Akaike, H. 1973. Information theory, an extension of the2 maximum likelihood principle. Pages 267-281 in B. N.2 Petrov and F2Csaki, editors. Second International Symposium on Information Theory2Akademiai Kaidi,2 Budapest, Hungary Allaye-Chan, A. C. 1991. Physiological and ecological2 determinants of nutrient partitioning in caribou and reindeer2 Dissertation, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska, USA.2 Baglio, J. V, and E. W2Holroyd, III. 1989. Methods for2 operational snow cover area mapping using the advanced2 Demonstrated shift of concentrated calvinz areas ofb the Central Arctic caribou ber d away fromb petroluem development infrastructures - ft fsf assumed that the Porcupine caribou herd caribouf will avoid roads and pipelines during calving in af manner similar to the Central Af rctic herd if development 6f the f002 .Area Cccurs. Avoidancef of petroleum development infrastructure byf parturient caribou Curing fhe first few weeks 6f fhef very high resolution radiometer - San Juan Mountain test2 study2Research Technical Report, U.S. Geological Survey2 EROS Data Center, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, USA.2 Bergerud, A2T21980. A review of the population dynamics of2 caribou and wild reindeer in North America. Pages 556-5812 in E. Reimers, E. Gaare, and S. Skjenneberg, editors.2 Proceedings of the Second International Reindeer/Caribou2 Symposium, Roros, Norway, 1979. Directoratet for vilt og2 ferskvannsfisk, Trondheim, Norway2 , and R. E. Page. 1987. Displacement and dispersion of2 lives of calves is the most consistently observedf behavioral response 6f caribou fo developments parturient caribou at calving as antipredator tactics. Canadian Journal of Zoology 65:1597-1606.2 Billings, W2D., and H. A. Mooney21968. The ecology of arctic2 Lack of hizh-auality alternate calvinz habitatb-f Calving areas in Canada and away from the Af laskaf coastal plain were used only when the Af rcticf Refuge coastal plain, including fhe f002 Area,f were ufnavailable fdue tfo lfate sfnowmelt. fDiet fqualityf on the Canadian portions Cf fhe falving groundf and alpine plants. Biological Review 43:481-529.2 Bliss, L. C. 2971. Arctic and alpine life cycles. Annual Review2 of Ecology and Systematics 2:405-438.2 Brown, R. D., and R. O. Braaten. 1998. Spatial and temporal2 variability of monthly Canadian snow depths, 1946-1995.2 Atmosphere and Ocean 36:37-54.2 Cameron, R. D. 1983. Issue: caribou and petroleum2 was substantially lower than on the Af rctic Refugef coastal plain and f002 portions 6f the calvingf ground. When fnow cover feduced access by females fo fhe Arctic Refuge coastal plain andf 1002 .Area for calving, calf survival during funef was 19% lower than when they could calve on thef Arctic Refuge coastal plain and f002 Area.f development in arctic Alaska. Arctic. 36: 7- 31. , D. J. Reed, J. R. Dau, and W2T2Smith. 2992.2 Redistribution of caribou in response to oil field2 developments on the Arctic Slope of Alaska. Arctic 45:338-2 34 . , W2T2Smith, S. G2Fancy, K. L. Gerhart, and R. GWhite.2 993. Calving success of female caribou in relation to body2 weight. Canadian Journal of Zoology 71:480-486.2 ARCTIC REFUGE COASTALfPLAIN TERRESTRIALfWILDLIFE RESEARCH fUMMARIESf 35f , and J. Ver Hoef. 2994. Predicting parturition rate of2 caribou from autumn body mass. Journal of Wildlife2 Management 58:674-678.2 , and K. R. Whitten. 2979. Seasonal movements and2 sexual segregation of caribou determined by aerial survey2 Journal of Wildlife Management 43:626-633.2 , and. 2980. Nutrient dynamics of caribou forage2 on Alaska's Arctic Slope. Pages 159-166 in E. Reimers, E.2 Gaare, and S. Skjenneberg, editors. Proceedings of the2 Second International Reindeer/Caribou Symposium, Roros,2 Norway, 2979. Directoratet for vilt og ferskvannsfisk,2 Trondheim, Norway2 Chan-McLeod, A. C. A., R. G2White and D. F2Holleman. 1994.2 Effects of protein and energy intake, body condition, and season on nutrient partitioning and milk production in caribou and reindeer2Canadian Journal of Zoology 72:938-2 947.2 ,, and D. E. Russell. 2999. Comparative body2 composition strategies of breeding and non-breeding female2 caribou. Canadian Journal of Zoology 77:1901-1907.2 Chapman, W2L., and J. E. Walsh. 2993. Recent variations of sea2 ice and air temperatures in high latitudes. Bulletin of the2 American Meteorological Society 74:33-47.2 Clough, N. K., P2C. Patton, and A. C. Christensen, editors. 2987. Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska, coastal plain2 resource assessment - report and recommendation to the Congress of the United States and final legislative2 environmental impact statement. U.S. Fish and Wildlife2 Service, U.S. Geological Survey, and Bureau of Land2 Management, Washington D.C., USA.2 Cronin, M. A., S. C. Amstrup, G2M. Durner, L. E. Noel, T2L2 McDonald, and W2B. Ballard. 2998. Caribou distribution2 during the post-calving period in relation to infrastructure in the Prudhoe Bay oil field, Alaska. Arctic 52:85-93. , 2V2B. Ballard, 2. D. Bryan, B. 2. Pierson, 2nd 2. D. McKendrick. 2998. Northern Alaska oil fields and caribou: a commentary. Biological Conservation 83:295- 08. Curatolo, J. A., and S. M. Murphy2!986. The effects of2 pipelines, roads, and traffic on the movements of caribou,2 Rangifer tarandus. Canadian Field-Naturalist 200:228-224.2 Dau, J. R., and R. D. Cameron. 2986. Effects of a road system2 on caribou distribution during calving. Rangifer, Special2 Issue :95-202. Duquette, L. S. 2984. Patterns of activity and their implications to2 the energy budget of migrating caribou. Thesis, University of2 Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska, USA.2 Fancy, S2 G2 L2F2Pank, K. R. Whitten, and W2L. Regelin.2 2989. Seasonal movements of caribou in arctic Alaska as2 determined by satellite. Canadian Journal of Zoology2 67:644-650. , and R. G2White. 2987. Energy expenditures for2 locomotion by barren ground caribou. Canadian Journal of Zoology 65:222-228.2 , and K. R. Whitten. 2992 Selection of calving sites by2 the Porcupine caribou herd. Canadian Journal of Zoology2 69:!736-!743.2 ,, and D. E. Russell. 2994. Demography of the2 Porcupine caribou herd, 2983-299 . Canadian Journal of Zoology 72:840-846.2 Fryxell, J. M. 2992. Forage quality and aggregation by large herbivores. American Naturalist 38:478-498. . 2995. Aggregation and migration by grazing ungulates2 in relation to resources and predators. Pages 57- 73 in A R. E. Sinclair and P2Arcese, editors. Serengeti II: dynamics,2 management and conservation of an ecosystem. University2 of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, USA.2 Gerhart, K. L., R. G2White, R. D. Cameron, and D. E. Russell.2 2996. Body composition and nutrient reserves of arctic2 caribou. Canadian Journal of Zoology 74:!36-!46.2 Groisman, P2A., T2R. Karl, and R. W2Knight. 2994. Observed2 impact of snow cover on the heat balance and rise of continental spring temperatures. Science 63:298- 00. Gross, J. E., L. A. Shipley, N. T2Hobbs, D. E. Spalinger, and B.2 A. Wunder22993. Functional response of herbivores in2 food-concentrated patches - tests of a mechanistic model.2 Ecology 74:778-792.2 Hamilton, W2D. !972 Geometry for the selfish herd. Journal of2 Theoretical Biology 32: 95-32 Hare, S. R., and N. J. Mantua. 2000. Empirical evidence for2 North Pacific regime shifts in 2977 and 2989. Progress in Oceanography 47:!03-!45.2 Haukioja, E., and R. Salovaara. 2978. Summer weight of2 reindeer (Rangifer tarandus) calves and its importance for2 their future survival. Reports of the Kevo Subarctic2 Research Station 4:2-4. Helle, T2 and L. Tarvainen. 2984. Effects of insect harassment2 on weight gain and survival in reindeer calves. Rangifer 4: 4- 7. Holben, B. N. 2986. Characteristics of maximum-value2 composite images from temporal AVHRR data. International Journal of Remote Sensing 7:2427.2 Hope, A. S., J. S. Kimball, and D. A Stow 2993. The relationship between tussock tundra spectral reflectance properties and biomass and vegetation composition. International Journal of Remote Sensing 21:1861-1874.2 Houghton, J. T2 L. G2Meira Fihlo, B. A. Callender, N. Harri, A2 Kattenberg, and K. Maskell. 2996. Climate change 995: the science of climate change. Cambridge University Press,2 Cambridge, England, United Kingdom. Johnson, D. H. 2980. The comparison of usage and availability2 measurements for evaluating resource preference. Ecology 6 265-7 22 Jorgenson, J. C., P E. Joria, T R. McCabe, B. R. Reitz, M. K. Raynolds, M. Emers, M. A. Wilms. 2994. Users guide for2 the land-cover map of the coastal plain of the Arctic2 National Wildlife Refuge. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,2 Fairbanks, Alaska, USA.2 Kelleyhouse, R. A. 2002 Calving ground selection and fidelity:2 Western Arctic and Teshekpuk Lake herds. Thesis, University ofAlaska, Fairbanks, Alaska, USA.2 Kuropat, P2J. 2984. Foraging behavior of caribou on a calving2 ground in Northwestern Alaska. Thesis, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska, USA.2 Langvatn, R., and T2A. Hanley22993. Feeding-patch choice by2 red deer in relation to foraging efficiency - an experiment. Oecologia 95:264-270. Lawhead, B. E. 2988. Distribution and movements of Central2 Arctic herd caribou during the calving and insect seasons.2 Proceedings of the Third North American Caribou2 Workshop. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Wildlife2 Technical Bulletin 8:8-23. 36f BIOLOGICALfSCIENCE REPORTfUSGS/BRD 002-0001 f , L. C. Byrne, and C. B. Johnson. 2993. Caribou2 Synthesis: 2987-90 Endicott environmental monitoring2 program. Unpublished report sponsored by U.S. Army2 Corps of Engineers, Alaska District, Anchorage, Alaska,2 USA. , and A. K. Prichard, 2001. Surveys of caribou and2 muskoxen in the Kuparuk-Colville region, Alaska, 2000.2 Final Report for Phillips Alaska, Inc., prepared by ABR,2 Inc., Fairbanks, Alaska, USA.2 Malingreau, J. P2 and A. S. Belward. 2992. Scale considerations2 in vegetation monitoring using AVHRR data. International Journal of Remote Sensing 23:2289-2307.2 Markon, C. J., M. D. Fleming, and E. F2Binian. 2995.2 Characteristics of vegetation phenology over the Alaskan landscape using AVHRR time-series data. Polar Record 32:279-290. Maxwell, B. 1996. Recent climate patterns in the Arctic. Pages 1-46 in W2C. Oechel, T2Callaghan, T2Gilmanov, J. 1.2 Holten, B. Maxwell, U. Molau, and B. Sveinbjornsson,2 editors. Global change and arctic terrestrial ecosystems. Ecological Studies 124, Springer Verlag, New York, USA.2 Mielke, P2W2 and K. J. Berry21982. An extended class of2 permutation techniques for matched pairs. Communications2 in Statistics: Theory and Methods 2 >1297-1207.2 Minnis, P2 E. F2Harrison, L. L. Stowe, G2G2Gibson, F2M2 Denn, D. R. Doelling, and W2L. Smith, Jr22993. Radiative2 climate forcing by the Mount Pinatubo eruption. Science 259:14121415.2 Murphy, S. M., and J. A. Curatolo. 987. Activity budgets and movement rates of caribou encountering pipelines, roads,2 and traffic in northern Alaska. Canadian Journal of Zoology2 65: 483- 490. , and B. E. Lawhead. 2001. Caribou. Pages 59-84 in J. C.2 Truett and S. R. Johnson, editors. The natural history of an2 Arctic oil field: development and the biota. Academic Press, San Diego, California, USA.2 Myneni, R. B., C. J. Tucker, G2Asrar, and C. D. Keeling. 1998.2 Interannual variations in satellite-based vegetation index data from 1981 to 1991. Journal of Geophysical Research2 D6 03:6145-6160. Myneni, R. B., C. D. Keeling, C. J. Tucker, A. Asrar, and R. R.2 Nemani. 2997. Increased plant growth in the northern high2 latitudes from 2981 to 2991. Nature 386:698-702.2 Nellemann, C. and R. D. Cameron. 2996. Effects of petroleum2 development on terrain preferences of calving caribou.2 Arctic 49: 3- 8. , and. 2998. Cumulative impacts of an evolving2 oil-field complex on the distribution of calving caribou.2 Canadian Journal of Zoology 76:1425-1430.2 Nixon, W2A C. 1990. Group dynamics and behavior of the2 Porcupine caribou herd during the insect season. Thesis,2 University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska, USA.2 O'Neill, R. V2 and A. W2King. 2998. Homage to St. Michael:2 or, why are there so many books on scale. Pages 3-16 in D L. Peterson and V T. Parker, editors. Ecological scale: theory and applications. Columbia University Press, New York, New York, USA.2 Parker, K. L., R. G White, M. P Gillingham, and D. F Holleman. 1990. Comparison of energy metabolism in2 relation to daily activity and milk consumption by caribou and muskox neonates. Canadian Journal of Zoology 68:106-2 4. Paruelo, J2M., H. E2Epstein, W2K. Lauenroth, and I. C. Burke.2 1997. ANPP estimates for NDVI for the central grassland2 region of the United States. Ecology 78:953-958.2 Pollard, R. H., W2B. Ballard, L. E. Noel, and M. A. Cronin.2 1996. Summer distribution of caribou, Rangifer tarandus grand, in the area of the Prudhoe Bay oil field, Alaska,2 1990-1994. Canadian Field-Naturalist 2 0:2559-674.2 Post, E., and N. C. Stenseth. 2999. Climatic variability, plant2 phenology, and northern ungulates. Ecology 80:1322-1339.2 ,, R. Langvatn, and J. Fromentin. 2997. Global2 climate change and phenotypic variation among red deer cohorts. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London,2 Series B 264:1317-1324.2 Rexstad, E. A., and E. Debevec. 001. Hueristic metric for ecological monitoring. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of The Wildlife Society, 28 September, 2001, Reno,2 Nevada, USA. Roffe, T2J. 1993. Perinatal mortality in caribou from the2 Porcupine herd, Alaska. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 29:295-303.2 Russell, D. E., K. L. Gerhart, R. G White, and D. van de Wetering. 2998. Detection of early pregnancy in caribou:2 evidence for lactational infertility2Journal of Wildlife2 Management 62:1066-1075.2 , A. M. Martell, and W2A C. Nixon. 2993. Range2 ecology of the Porcupine caribou herd in Canada. Rangifer Special Issue 8. , and R. G2White. 2998. Surviving in the north - a2 conceptual model of reproductive strategies in arctic2 caribou. Proceedings of the Eighth North American Caribou2 Workshop, 23-25 April 2998, Whitehorse, Yukon Territory,2 Canada. Sakamoto, Y2 M. Ishiguro, and G2Kitagawa. 1986. Akaike2 information criteria statistics. KTK Scientific, Tokyo, Japan.2 Seaman, D. E., B. Griffith, and R. A. Powell. 2998.2 KERNELHR: a program for estimating animal home ranges. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26:95-100.2 , J. J. Millspaugh, B. J. Kernohan, G2C. Brundige, K. J.2 Raedeke, and R. A. Gitzen. 1999. Effects of sample size on2 kernel home range estimates. Journal of Wildlife2 Management 63:739-747.2 , and R. A. Powell. 1996. An evaluation of the accuracy2 of kernel density estimators for home range analysis.2 Ecology 77:2075-2085.2 Serreze, M. C., J. E. Walsh, F S. Chapin III, T Osterkamp, M. Dyurgerov, V Romanovsky, W C Oechel, J. Morison, T Zhang, and R. G2Barry22000. Observational evidence ofrecent2 change in the northern high latitude environment. Climatic Change 46:159-207.2 Shipley, L. A., and D. E. Spalinger21992 Mechanics of2 browsing in dense food patches - effects of plant and animal2 morphology on intake rate. Canadian Journal of Zoology2 70:1743-1752.2 Shippert, M. M., D. A. Walker, N. A. Auerbach, and B. E. Lewis. 1995. Biomass and leaf-area index maps derived2 from SPOT images for Toolik Lake and Imnavat Creek2 areas, Alaska. Polar Record 31:147-154.2 Silverman, B. W 1986. Density estimation for statistics and data analysis. Chapman and Hall, London, England, United Kingdom. ARCTIC REFUGE COASTALfPLAIN TERRESTRIALfWILDLIFE RESEARCH fUMMARIESf 37f Smith, W2T2 and R. D. Cameron. 2983. Responses of caribou2 to industrial development on Alaska's Arctic slope. Acta2 Zoologica Fenica 275:43-45.2 Spalinger, D. E., T2A. Hanley, and C. T2Robbins. 2988.2 Analysis of the functional response in foraging in the Sitka2 black tailed deer2Ecology 69:1256-1275.2 Sparks, D. R., and J. C. Malechek. 2968. Estimating percentage2 dry weight in diets using a microscopic technique. Journal2 of Range Management 1:264-265.2 Stone, R. S., J. R. Key, and E. G Dutton. 2993. Properties and2 decay of stratospheric aerosols in the Arctic following the2 991 eruptions of Mount Pinatubo. Geophysical Research2 Letters 20:2359-2362.2 Thompson, D. C., and K. H. McCourt. 2981. Seasonal diets of2 the Porcupine Caribou herd. American Midland Naturalist2 05:70-76. , and J. M. Wallace. 2998. The Arctic Oscillation2 signature in wintertime geopotential height and temperature fields. Geophysical Research Letters 25:1297-1300.2 , and. 2001. Regional climate impacts of the2 Northern Hemisphere Annular Mode and associated climate trends. Science 293:85-89. Toupin, B., J. Huot, and M. Manseau. 2996. Effect of insect2 harassment on the behaviour of the Riviere George caribou.2 Arctic 49:375-38 . Trudell, J., and R. G White. 2981. The effect of forage structure2 and availability on food intake, biting rate, bite size, and2 daily eating time of reindeer2Journal of Applied Ecology2 8:63-81. Tucker, C. J. 2979. Red and photographic infrared linear2 combinations for monitoring vegetation. Remote Sensing of the Environment 8:127-150.2 , I. Y2Fung, C. D. Keeling, and R. H. Gammon. 2986.2 Relationship between atmospheric COp variations and a2 satellite-derived vegetation index. Nature 319:195-199.2 , and P2J. Sellars. 2986. Satellite remote sensing of2 primary production. International Journal of Remote Sensing 7:1395-1416.2 Tussing, A. R., and S. Haley21999. Drainage pierces ANWR in2 Alaska study scenario. Oil and Gas Journal 97:71-84.2 U.S. Geological Survey22001. Arctic National Wildlife Refuge,2 00 Area, petroleum assessment, 998, including economic analysis. U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet FS-028-012 (Supercedes FS-040-98) April 2001.2 Walsh, N. E., S. G2Fancy, T2R. McCabe, and L. F2Pank. 1992.2 Habitat use by the Porcupine caribou herd during predicted insect harassment. Journal of Wildlife Management 56:465-2 473.2 , B. Griffith, and T2R. McCabe. 2995. Evaluating growth2 ofthe Porcupine caribou herd using a stochastic model. Journal2 of Wildlife Management 59:262-272.2 , T2R. McCabe, J. M. Welker, and A. N. Parsons. 2997.2 Experimental manipulations of snow-depth: effects on2 nutrient content of caribou forage. Global Change Biology 32 (Supplement 2):158-164.2 White, R.G21983. Foraging patterns and their multiplier effects2 on productivity of northern ungulates. Oikos 40:377-384.2 . 2992. Nutrition in relation to season, lactation, and2 growth of north temperate deer2Pages 407-417 in R. D. Brown, editor2The biology of deer2Springer-Verlag, New2 York, New York, USA.2 , F2L. Bunnell, E. Gaare, T2Skogland, and B. Hubert.2 981. Ungulates on arctic ranges. Pages 397-483 in L.C.2 Bliss, O. W Heal, and J. J. Moore, editors. Tundra ecosystems: a comparative analysis. International Biological2 Program 25. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,2 England, United Kingdom. , and J. R. Luick. 2984. Plasticity and constraints in the2 lactational strategy of reindeer and caribou. Symposium of2 the Zoological Society of London 51:215-232.2 , B. R. Thomson, T2Skogland, S. J. Person, D. E. Russell,2 D. F2Holleman, and J. R. Luick. 2975. Ecology of caribou2 at Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. Pages 251-201. in J. Brown, editor2 Ecological investigations of the tundra biome in the2 Prudhoe Bay region, Alaska. Biological Papers, University of Alaska, Special Report 2.2 , and J. Trudell. 2980 a Patterns of herbivory and nutrient2 intake of reindeer grazing tundra vegetation. Pages 180-1952 in E. Reimers, E. Gaare, and S. Skjenneberg, editors.2 Proceedings of the Second International Reindeer/Caribou2 Symposium, Roros, Norway, 2979. Directoratet for vilt og2 ferskvannsfisk, Trondheim, Norway , and. 2980 b Habitat preference and forage2 consumption by reindeer and caribou near Atkasook,2 Alaska. Arctic and Alpine Research 12:512529.2 Whitten, K. R., and R. D. Cameron. 2983. Movements of2 collared caribou, Rangifer tarandus, in relation to petroleum2 development on the Arctic slope ofAlaska. Canadian FieldNaturalist 97:143-146.2 , and. 2985. Distribution of caribou calving in2 relation to the Prudhoe Bay oil field. Pages. 35-39 in A. M.2 Martell and D.E. Russell, editors. Caribou and human2 activity: proceedings of the First North American Caribou2 Workshop, Whitehorse, Yukon Territory, 2983. Canadian2 Wildlife Service Special Publications, Ottawa, Ontario,2 Canada. , E222Harner, F22. Mauer, 2nd R. B. Harris. 2992.2 Productivity and early calf survival of the Porcupine caribou herd. Journal of Wildlife Management 56:201-212.2 Wiens, J. A. 2989. Spatial scaling in ecology2Functional2 Ecology 3:385-397.2 Wilmshurst, J. and J. Fryxell. 995. Patch selection by red deer in relation to energy and protein intake: a re-evaluation of Langvatn and Hanley's (1993) results. Oecologia 104:297-2 300. Wolfe, S. A. 2000. Habitat selection by calving caribou of the2 Central Arctic herd, 2980-95. Thesis, University of Alaska,2 Fairbanks, Alaska, USA. , B. Griffith, and C. A. Gray Wolfe. 2000. Response of2 reindeer and caribou to human activities. Polar Research 9:63-73. Young, D. J., and T2R. McCabe. 2997. Grizzly bear predation2 rates on caribou calves in northeastern Alaska. Journal of Wildlife Management 61:1056-1066.2 Zhou, L., C. J. Tucker, R. K. Kaufmann, D. Slayback, N. V2 Shabanov, and R. B. Myneni. 2001. Variation in northern2 vegetation activity inferred from satellite data of vegetation2 index during 2981 to 2999. Journal of Geophysical2 Research-Atmospheres 2)6 (D17):20069-20083.2 MapM J Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Range of the Central Arctic and Porcupine Caribou Herds Caribou Ranges ] Porcupine Caribou Herd Range ^ Central Arche Caribou Held Range Other Features [J Arctic Refuge Boundary US-Canada Border ARCTIC NATIONAL A'NGE of t Kilometers Figure 3.2. For the Porcupine caribou herd: annual range (wide white solid line), calving sites (yellow points), and aggregate extent of calving (thin solid yellow line). 1983-2001. For the Central Arctic caribou herd: aggregate extent of calving (thin solid white line) and calving sites (white points). 1980-1995. (Adapted from Wolfe 2000). Porcupine & Central Arctic mix during summer (July) Kaktovik Beaufort Sea Central Arctic Herd Range Porcupine Herd Range Teshekpuk Herd Range Dalton Highway Old Crow Chalky itsik Fort Yukon Porcupine, Central Arctic & Teshekpuk mix during Fall/Winter Porcupine & Fortymile mix during Fall/Winter IB B MapM J Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Range of the Central Arctic and Porcupine Caribou Herds Caribou Ranges ] Porcupine Caribou Herd Range ^ Central Arche Caribou Held Range Other Features [J Arctic Refuge Boundary US-Canada Border Porcupine & Central Arctic mix during summer (July) Kaktovik Beaufort Sea Central Arctic Herd Range Porcupine Herd Range Teshekpuk Herd Range Dalton Highway Old Crow Chalky itsik Fort Yukon Porcupine, Central Arctic & Teshekpuk mix during Fall/Winter Porcupine & Fortymile mix during Fall/Winter IB B ARCTIC NATIONAL A'NGE of t Kilometers Figure 3.2. For the Porcupine caribou herd: annual range (wide white solid line), calving sites (yellow points), and aggregate extent of calving (thin solid yellow line). 1983-2001. For the Central Arctic caribou herd: aggregate extent of calving (thin solid white line) and calving sites (white points). 1980-1995. (Adapted from Wolfe 2000). ARCTIC NATIONAL A'NGE of t Kilometers Figure 3.2. For the Porcupine caribou herd: annual range (wide white solid line), calving sites (yellow points), and aggregate extent of calving (thin solid yellow line). 1983-2001. For the Central Arctic caribou herd: aggregate extent of calving (thin solid white line) and calving sites (white points). 1980-1995. (Adapted from Wolfe 2000). Porcupine & Central Arctic mix during summer (July) Kaktovik Beaufort Sea Central Arctic Herd Range Porcupine Herd Range TeshekpukHerd Range Dalton Highway Old Crow Chalkyitsik Fort Yukon Porcupine, Central Arctic & Teshekpuk mix during Fall/Winter Porcupine & Fortymile mix during Fall/Winter IB B MapM J Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Range of the Central Arctic and Porcupine Caribou Herds Caribou Ranges ] Porcupine Caribou Herd Range ^ Central Arche Caribou Held Range Other Features [J Arctic Refuge Boundary US-Canada Border Porcupine & Central Arctic mix during summer (July) Kaktovik Beaufort Sea Central Arctic Herd Range Porcupine Herd Range TeshekpukHerd Range Dalton Highway Old Crow Chalkyitsik Fort Yukon Porcupine, Central Arctic & Teshekpuk mix during Fall/Winter Porcupine & Fortymile mix during Fall/Winter IB B ARCTIC NATIONAL A'NGE of t Kilometers Figure 3.2. For the Porcupine caribou herd: annual range (wide white solid line), calving sites (yellow points), and aggregate extent of calving (thin solid yellow line). 1983-2001. For the Central Arctic caribou herd: aggregate extent of calving (thin solid white line) and calving sites (white points). 1980-1995. (Adapted from Wolfe 2000). MapM J Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Range of the Central Arctic and Porcupine Caribou Herds Caribou Ranges ] Porcupine Caribou Herd Range ^ Central Arche Caribou Held Range Other Features [J Arctic Refuge Boundary US-Canada Border ARCTIC NATIONAL A'NGE of t Kilometers Figure 3.2. For the Porcupine caribou herd: annual range (wide white solid line), calving sites (yellow points), and aggregate extent of calving (thin solid yellow line). 1983-2001. For the Central Arctic caribou herd: aggregate extent of calving (thin solid white line) and calving sites (white points). 1980-1995. (Adapted from Wolfe 2000). MapM J Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Range of the Central Arctic and Porcupine Caribou Herds Caribou Ranges ] Porcupine Caribou Herd Range ^ Central Arche Caribou Held Range Other Features [J Arctic Refuge Boundary US-Canada Border Porcupine & Central Arctic mix during summer (July) Kaktovik Beaufort Sea Central Arctic Herd Range Porcupine Herd Range TeshekpukHerd Range Dalton Highway Old Crow Chalkyitsik Fort Yukon Porcupine, Central Arctic & Teshekpuk mix during Fall/Winter Porcupine & Fortymile mix during Fall/Winter IB B