inventory and monitoring plan for the alaska maritime

Inventory and Monitoring Plan for

the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge

Heather Renner/USFWS

April 2017

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Alaska Maritime NWR

Inventory and Monitoring Plan April 2017

1

Contents

I. Signatures ................................................................................................................................ ii

II. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 2

III. Methods................................................................................................................................ 5

IV. Results .................................................................................................................................. 7

A. Summary of Selected Surveys .............................................................................................. 7

B. Summary of Non-Selected Surveys ...................................................................................... 7

C. Narratives of Selected Surveys ........................................................................................... 15

Amending or Revising the IMP .................................................................................................... 58

A. Amending the IMP .............................................................................................................. 58

B. Revising the IMP ................................................................................................................. 58

V. Appendices ............................................................................................................................ 59

Appendix A. Associated Step-down or Cooperative Plans ...................................................... 59

Appendix B. SMART Tool Survey Prioritization Criteria ...................................................... 66

Appendix C. SMART Tool Prioritization Scores, Rankings, and Survey Selection ............... 70

Appendix D. Estimated Annual Survey Costs. ........................................................................ 72

Appendix E. Data Management. .............................................................................................. 74

Appendix F. Estimated Monthly Schedule for Selected Current and Expected Inventory and

Monitoring Surveys. ................................................................................................................. 76

Appendix G. Environmental Action Statement (EAS) ............................................................ 78

Alaska Maritime NWR


2

II. Introduction

On December 2, 1980, President Jimmy Carter signed the Alaska National Interest Lands

Conservation Act (ANILCA; 16 U.S.C. 140hh-3233, 43 U.S.C. 1602-1784) into law. This Act,

among other things, established the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge by combining 11

previously established National Wildlife Refuges with additional new lands. The purposes for

which the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge was established are outlined in Section

302(8)(B) of ANILCA, and include:

(i) to conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their natural diversity including, but

not limited to marine mammals, marine birds, and other migratory birds, the marine resources

upon which they rely, bears, caribou, and other mammals;

(ii) to fulfill the international treaty obligations of the United States with respect to fish and

wildlife and their habitats;

(iii) to provide, in a manner consistent with the purposes set forth in subparagraphs (i) and (ii),

the opportunity for continued subsistence uses by local residents;

(iv) to provide, in a manner consistent with subparagraphs (i) and (ii), a program of national and

international scientific research on marine resources; and

(v) to ensure, to the maximum extent practicable and in a manner consistent with the purposes set

forth in paragraph (i), water quality and necessary water quantity within the refuge.

To meet these and other purposes, Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge)

biologists inventory, monitor, and conduct research on aspects of the Refuge’s natural resources.

Refuge management prioritizes survey and research efforts in light of their relative importance

for informing management decisions, addressing treaty and policy obligations, and achieving

Refuge objectives and purposes.

The Refuge is comprised primarily of islands and other isolated lands that occur along much of

the coastline of Alaska. The Refuge provides breeding habitat for more than 80% of the seabirds

in the state. Furthermore, large populations of marine mammals haul out on refuge beaches or

live in nearshore waters adjacent to the Refuge. Marine species breeding on the refuge are

dependent upon resources in nearby oceans. Refuge lands span most of the terrestrial and marine

ecosystem types administered by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Alaska. In recognition of

the vast geographic extent of the Refuge, the ANILCA establishing order divided the Refuge into

five geographic units: Gulf of Alaska, Alaska Peninsula, Aleutian Islands, Bering Sea, and

Chukchi Sea.

Because the Refuge is composed primarily of offshore islands, a number of endemic taxa occur,

many rare or isolated enough to be of special concern. At least six endangered or threatened

species occur on or near the Refuge. The Aleutian Islands Unit alone has at least 14 endemic

subspecies of birds and small mammals, and dozens of endemic species and subspecies of plants

Alaska Maritime NWR


3

and invertebrates. Biological diversity has not yet been fully inventoried, particularly for

invertebrates and non-vascular plants. These two groups may contain a number of taxa new to

science. The value of the refuge for study has been recognized through designation of several

Research Natural Areas and the designation of the Aleutian Islands Unit as an International

Biosphere Reserve.

The unique life history traits of seabird and marine mammal species that breed on the Refuge are

well suited to reflect changes in different portions of the marine food web through long-term

ecosystem monitoring. For instance, the various seabird species that the Refuge supports include

both fish and plankton feeders, some of which are restricted to surface feeding while others are

capable of deep foraging dives. Furthermore, some species feed nearshore while others forage

far from breeding sites. It is typically difficult and expensive to measure changes in marine food

webs directly, so using apex predators such as seabirds and marine mammals as indicators is

becoming a well-established approach.

Data collected by the ongoing seabird monitoring program are being used to evaluate

conservation issues for the birds (a Refuge need) and to test hypotheses about effects of

ecosystem changes (e.g., variation in ocean climate). This latter use contributes to joint

objectives of the refuge and its partners (e.g., National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska Ocean

Observing System, North Pacific Research Board, Alaska Department of Fish and Game):

understanding processes in large marine ecosystems, distinguishing among natural and

anthropogenic causes of ecosystem change, and predicting effects of future ecosystem changes.

Invasive species management has resulted in the removal of introduced mammals from some

Refuge islands. Removal of both predatory (e.g. rats, foxes) and herbivorous (e.g. marmots,

rabbits, rats) invasive mammals has had a profound positive effect on these islands. Recovery of

Refuge resources after the removal of these non-native species is an important Refuge objective

and monitoring the response is a top priority of the Inventory and Monitoring Plan (IMP).

Water quality and water quantity are among the ANILCA purposes of the refuge. While explicit

surveys for water quality and water quantity are not included in the survey matrix, monitoring of

water quality and water quantity is already or could be incorporated into other surveys (see

surveys 2, 7, 16, 20, 25, 27, 28, 29, 31 and 36).

Specific Refuge Resource Issues and Concerns

The Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP; 1988) identified several important

resource issues and concerns (see below). However, the CCP is more than 25 years old and

needs to be updated. Several new issues that could have profound effects on the Refuge have

been identified since the CCP was completed and many of these will need to be addressed in the

coming years. Even after a new CCP is completed, there will be a need to periodically update

the list of concerns to ensure that the Refuge’s inventory and monitoring program is

appropriately focused. For instance, more complete inventories will almost certainly reveal

important gene pools, not currently known, that require monitoring. Because the old CCP

Alaska Maritime NWR


4

provides only general guidance and does not set priorities or specific management objectives, the

Refuge intends to undergo an updated CCP process as soon as is practicable.

The CCP lists the following “Potential problems affecting fish, wildlife and habitats”

o Depletion of forage fish by commercial fisheries

o Mortality of seabirds and marine mammals in fishing nets

o Introduced predators

o Marine mammal management

o Grazing and trespass problems (habitat damage)

o Lack of detailed resource data

o Monitoring of subsistence activities on the Refuge

Several additional issues have been identified that could impact important Refuge resources,

including:

o Climate change

o Introduction of invasive rodents during a shipwreck on or near the Refuge

o Light pollution from ships and coastal installations

o Avian influenza

o Marine Protected Areas

o Seabird and marine mammal interactions with commercial fisheries (e.g., bycatch,

processing waste)

o Human disturbance

o Marine debris

o Habitat change due to geologic/meteorological events

o Conservation of endemics

o Contaminants

o Expansion of introduced ungulates beyond their original range (i.e., Kagalaska

caribou)

o Novel uses of the Refuge (e.g., Wet Dog race)

Other references used as guidance for evaluating and prioritizing survey efforts include plans,

and interim monitoring goals and objectives that were established by staff in 1997, listed in

Appendix A.

The IMP provides the rationale for the ranking and selection of surveys that the Refuge intends

to conduct over the life of the plan (ten years), and briefly describes the purpose, management

context, and partnerships involved in those surveys, all of which are included in the Planning and

Review of Inventory and Monitoring on Refuges (PRIMR) database. The IMP provides

guidance, transparency and continuity for the biological program and assists managers with

budget allocation decisions. It will be revisited annually by refuge staff to ensure that the current

surveys are relevant, that the refuge has the resources to conduct them, and that new issues are

being considered. The addition of new surveys or deletion of old surveys will require IMP

Alaska Maritime NWR


5

revision and approval. Updating protocols will require IMP amendment but will not require

approval. (See Section VI – Revising or Amending the IMP)

This plan documents the prioritization process and results for those inventory and monitoring

surveys that are currently being conducted or are proposed to be conducted at the Refuge from

2016 to 2025. This document was developed in collaboration with the National Wildlife Refuge

System (NWRS) Region 7 Inventory and Monitoring (I&M) Branch, and in accordance with the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service policy 701 FW 2.

Special studies are needed to supplement the inventory and monitoring program, particularly in

such areas as monitoring methods development, ecosystem process evaluation, and basic ecology

of little-known taxa. Several of these studies are included in this plan because they are high

priority and could be Refuge-led. However, because of the Refuge’s unique research purpose and

due to the large amount of existing research collaboration (partly due to complex logistics) and

support, ideally a separate “Research Plan” would be developed to further guide research

priorities.

III. Methods

In September-October 2013, Refuge biological staff reviewed existing and historical surveys

(“surveys”) and entered these into the PRIMR database. In November 2013, Refuge biological

staff (Heather Renner, Supervisory Biologist; Leslie Slater, Gulf of Alaska Unit Biologist; Nora

Rojek, Alaska Peninsula Unit Biologist; Jeff Williams, Aleutian Islands Unit Biologist; Marc

Romano, Bering Sea Unit Biologist; Arthur Kettle, Biological Science Technician; Steve Ebbert,

Wildlife Biologist), Refuge Manager (Steve Delehanty), Region 7 (Alaska) I&M Coordinator

(Diane Granfors), Kenai National Wildlife Refuge Supervisory Biologist (John Morton), and

Aleutian/Bering Sea Islands Landscape Conservation Cooperative staff (Doug Burn/Coordinator,

Aaron Poe/Science Coordinator) met at Refuge headquarters for three days to discuss the IMP

process and Refuge biological activities, resources of concern, and information needs. During the

first day, the team completed a Needs Assessment, which laid a foundation for developing the

IMP and informed Regional Office staff of the Refuge’s data management and support needs.

Some additional I&M surveys were proposed to fill gaps in meeting CCP objectives.

The team evaluated the biological and management utility of existing and proposed surveys

using a prioritization tool devised by biologists of the NWRS I&M Program. This Simple Multi-

Attribute Rating Table (SMART) tool entailed evaluation of the extent to which each survey met

24 criteria based on assignment of pre-defined scores for each criterion (USFWS. 2014. A User’s

Guide for a SMART Survey Prioritization Tool (Version 2.2). Since criteria differed in scope

and effect, each was assigned a weight (0-100) using a direct rating process (Goodwin and

Wright 2011) that reflected the Refuge’s interpretation of importance. Refuge staff revised one

of the SMART criteria and excluded others due to duplication or lack of relevance, yielding a list

of 12 criteria (Appendix B).

https://ecos.fws.gov/ServCat/Reference/Profile/27522

https://ecos.fws.gov/ServCat/Reference/Profile/27522

Alaska Maritime NWR


6

During the winter of 2014-15, Refuge biologists fleshed out the additional proposed surveys and

entered these into PRIMR. Due to overlapping objectives and similarity of methods, some

surveys were combined. A subsequent review of selection rationales by Refuge biologists led to

minor adjustments in survey evaluation scores (Appendix C). Following these steps, the SMART

tool criteria were used to produce a prioritized list of 36 Refuge surveys. The final priority

ranking reflects consistency with existing management plans and expected information needs.

The final prioritized list of 36 surveys was then divided into the following tiers based on overall

priority of the survey and our likely capacity to conduct the survey (Appendix C):

a. “Current” surveys that are either continued or scheduled to begin in 2016 because the

survey is high priority and because it is reasonably certain that the capacity will be available to

conduct the survey (e.g., surveys conducted with operational or other FWS funds).

b. “Expected” new surveys that have a likely chance of being conducted during the span

of the IMP because of moderate to high priority and because the capacity to conduct the survey

comes from less certain sources (e.g., from partners or through grants).

c. “Future” surveys that have been prioritized but have low chance of being conducted

during the span of the IMP because of low priority or because the capacity to conduct the survey

will be difficult to secure.

Historic surveys that are no longer conducted and are low priority/unlikely to be conducted in the

future remain in PRIMR but are not included here.

Refuge biologists estimated costs for each survey to include permanent staff time (i.e., full-time

equivalent (FTE)) and costs which would be allocated from our program budget. Permanent staff

member time included designing/planning, coordination, training, field work/data collection,

data entry, archiving/data management, analysis, and reporting. Permanent staff member time

could be potentially reallocated to different projects if our priorities change but is capped by the

size of our staff. We included seasonal biological technician time (mostly for data collection) as

a monetary cost because we hire a variable number of technicians in a given year depending on

our budget. Although in some years we use volunteers as a substitute for one or more paid

technicians, we are unable to predict this and we estimated costs based on biological technician

salaries (GS-5 and GS-7).

On the Refuge, selection and scheduling of surveys is often necessarily opportunistic due to the

extremely high costs of transportation to the Refuge. R/V Tiglax scheduling opportunities as well

as piggybacking projects in existing camps can change the price of a project by tens to hundreds

of thousands of dollars. We did not include costs for R/V Tiglax time in our cost estimates. If the

R/V Tiglax is unavailable in a given year, the survey could be substantially more expensive due

to the need for charter transportation, and may preclude implementation that year.

Most of our biological program budget each year ($420,000 of $490,000 in FY15) is allocated to

our single highest priority project, which is annual seabird monitoring at a suite of nine sites

around the Refuge. However, many other projects are piggybacked onto this effort because their

costs are minimal when personnel are already in camp for the summer. Although the costs of

Alaska Maritime NWR


7

these projects are not additional to the $420k for annual seabird monitoring, we estimated their

costs separately (only including salary and equipment when the crew is already on site).

Estimating labor costs separately allows us to evaluate reallocation of crew time to higher

priority tasks – but it’s essential to recognize that these projects would be substantially more

expensive if they stood alone.

Some survey descriptions (especially those for new projects) are broad and could potentially

include work on a variety of species or at a variety of locations. In many cases we estimated a

range of costs depending on the location or species being studied, or the level of effort.

IV. Results

A. Summary of Selected Surveys

The prioritization process identified 36 surveys to be implemented (Appendix C). Of these, 26

surveys that will be conducted using current capacity were classified as “Current” (Table 1).

Additional surveys that are likely to be implemented within the time span of this IMP were

classified as “Expected” (Table 1), and desired surveys that require additional capacity were

classified as “Future” (Table 2). Section B provides a list of non-selected (future) surveys (Table

2). Descriptions of each selected survey (Current, Expected, and Future) are given in Section C.

B. Summary of Non-Selected Surveys

The following surveys were considered but were not selected for implementation (Table 2).

Some are of high information priority, some lower - but all would require additional funding,

FTEs, or collaborative support from the Refuge’s partners for completion.

Future (in order of priority)

McKay’s Bunting monitoring

Seabird, Fish, Marine Mammal, and Oceanography Coordinated Investigations

(SMMOCI)

Population estimates of burrow- and crevice-nesting seabirds at annual and intermittent

sites

Development of field techniques for monitoring burrow- and crevice-nesting seabirds

Use of water resources by species in the Semidi Islands Group

Determine native/non-native status of mammals on Refuge

Winter waterfowl monitoring

Alaska Maritime NWR


8

Table 1. Summary of selected surveys for Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge. Survey

Priority1

Survey ID

Number2

Survey

Name/(Type)3

Survey

Status4

Plan

guidance5

Survey

Area6

Staff

Time

(FTE)7

Avg. Ann

Cost

(OPR)8

Survey

Timing9

Survey

Length10

Survey

Coord.11

Protocol

Citation12

Protocol

Status13

1.01 FF07RAM

000-027

Annual

Seabird

Monitoring

(CB)

Current A Entire

station; 9

selected

sites

FWS:

3.25

$420,000 May -

early

Sept./

Recurring

every year

1980-

Indefinite

Heather

Renner,

Supervisory

Wildlife

Biologist

(none) Initial

Survey

Instructions

1.02 FF07RAM

000-019

Monitoring

recovery of

ecosystems

following

removal of

invasive

species (CM)

Current CCP Entire

station

varies

dependi

ng on

species

and

location

varies

depending

on species

and

location

Varies

with

species

group/

Sporadic

or Ad Hoc

1980-

Indefinite

Heather

Renner,

Supervisory

Wildlife

Biologist

(none) Initial

Survey

Instructions

1.03 FF07RAM

000-040

Auklet

Colony

Mapping

(BM)

Current A AIU, APU,

BSU

FWS:

0.25

$5,000-

10,000

Middle of

breeding

season/

Each

colony

every 10-

15 years

2004-

Indefinite

Heather

Renner,

Supervisory

Wildlife

Biologist

(none) Initial

Survey

Instructions

1.04 FF07RAM

000-035

Seabird

Population

Trends at

Intermittent

Sites (BM)

Current A Entire

station

FWS:

0.25

$20,000-

30,000

Summer

months,

every 5+

years

1980-

Indefinite

Heather

Renner,

Supervisory

Wildlife

Biologist

(none) Initial

Survey

Instructions

1.05 FF07RAM

000-060

Confirming

Success of

Invasive

Species

Eradication

(CM)

Current CCP Entire

station

FWS:

0.20

$30,000 Varies/

Sporadic

or Ad Hoc

1980-

Indefinite

Steve

Ebbert,

Invasive

Species

Biologist

(none) Initial

Survey

Instructions

1.06 FF07RAM

000-049

Monitoring of

range

condition of

islands with

introduced

grazers (CM)

Current CCP AIU, APU,

BSU

FWS:

0.10

Other:

varies

$10,000 Summer/

Sporadic

or Ad Hoc

2005-

Indefinite

Steve

Ebbert,

Invasive

Species

Biologist

(none) Initial

Survey

Instructions

Alaska Maritime NWR


9

Survey

Priority1

Survey ID

Number2

Survey

Name/(Type)3

Survey

Status4

Plan

guidance5

Survey

Area6

Staff

Time

(FTE)7

Avg. Ann

Cost

(OPR)8

Survey

Timing9

Survey

Length10

Survey

Coord.11

Protocol

Citation12

Protocol

Status13

1.07 FF07RAM

000-050

Aleutian Tern

Population

Monitoring

(CM)

Current A, B Statewide FWS:

0.02

$2,000 Summer/

Frequency

variable

2013-

Indefinite

Heather

Renner,

Supervisory

Wildlife

Biologist

(none) Regional

Initial

Survey

Instructions

1.08 FF07RAM

000-055

Red-faced

Cormorant

Surveys (BM)

Current A, B AIU, APU,

BSU,

FWS:

0.10

$15,000 Summer/

annual

some

sites/

every 15

years

other sites

1987-

Indefinite

Heather

Renner,

Supervisory

Wildlife

Biologist

(none) Initial

Survey

Instructions

1.09 FF07RAM

000-059

Winter

Distribution

of Trust

Species (R)

Current A Entire

station

FWS:

0.35

$20,000 Winter/

Sporadic

or Ad Hoc

2003-

Indefinite

Heather

Renner,

Supervisory

Wildlife

Biologist

(none) Initial

Survey

Instructions

1.10 FF07RAM

000-051

Endemic

Species

Studies-

Distribution,

Abundance &

Status (CM)

Current P Mostly

AIU, BSU

FWS:

0.04

$20,000 Summer/

Sporadic

or Ad Hoc

1980-

Indefinite

Heather

Renner,

Supervisory

Wildlife

Biologist

(none) Initial

Survey

Instructions

1.11 FF07RAM

000-043

Aleutian

Shield Fern

population

monitoring

(M)

Current M AIU FWS:

0.01

$2,000 Summer;

Sporadic

or Ad Hoc

1985-

Indefinite

Heather

Renner,

Supervisory

Wildlife

Biologist

(none) Initial

Survey

Instructions

1.12 FF07RAM

000-056

Adak/

Kagalaska

Caribou

Surveys (CM)

Current CCP AIU FWS:

0.08

$10,000 Summer/

Sporadic

or Ad Hoc

2013-

Indefinite

Steve

Ebbert,

Invasive

Species

Biologist

(none) Initial

Survey

Instructions

1.13 FF07RAM

000-036

Beached

Wildlife and

Oil

(COASST)

(CB)

Current A AK, WA,

OR and CA

FWS:

0.02

Other:0

.04

$5,000 Part

of annual

seabird

monitoring

May-Sept.

Recurring

every year

2007-

Indefinite

Heather

Renner,

Supervisory

Wildlife

Biologist

(none) National

Initial

Survey

Instructions

Alaska Maritime NWR


10

Survey

Priority1

Survey ID

Number2

Survey

Name/(Type)3

Survey

Status4

Plan

guidance5

Survey

Area6

Staff

Time

(FTE)7

Avg. Ann

Cost

(OPR)8

Survey

Timing9

Survey

Length10

Survey

Coord.11

Protocol

Citation12

Protocol

Status13

1.14 FF07RAM

000-044

Seabird

Densities at

Sea (CI)

Current A Marine

areas

adjacent to

Refuge

FWS:

0.02-

0.10

$0-$5,000 Year

round or

Ad Hoc

1980-

Indefinite

Kathy

Kuletz,

MBM

(none) Initial

Survey

Instructions

1.15 FF07RAM

000-011

Seabird

Tissue

Archival and

Monitoring

Program (CB)

Current A Entire

station

Other:

0.25

$1,500 Summer/

Recurring

every year

1997-

Indefinite

Heather

Renner,

Supervisory

Wildlife

Biologist

(none) National

Initial

Survey

Instructions

1.16 FF07RAM

000-045

Kittlitz's

Murrelet Nest

Searching

(CI)

Current A AIU, CSU FWS:

0.01

$10,000 June-July 2004-

Indefinite

Heather

Renner,

Supervisory

Wildlife

Biologist

(none) Initial

Survey

Instructions

1.17 FF07RAM

000-028

Rock

Ptarmigan

Population

Studies (CR)

Current F Agattu

Island, Attu

Island, AIU

FWS:

0.10

$7,000 Summer/

Sporadic

or Ad Hoc

2003-

Indefinite

Heather

Renner,

Supervisory

Wildlife

Biologist

(none) Initial

Survey

Instructions

2.01 FF07RAM

000-052

Efficacy of

Rodent

Detection

Devices (CR)

Expected CCP Off Refuge

(Communit

ies with

rats)

FWS:

0.04,

Other:

0.06

$5,000 Sporadic

or Ad Hoc

2014-

Indefinite

Steve

Ebbert,

Invasive

Species

Biologist

(none) Initial

Survey

Instructions

1.18 FF07RAM

000-067

Inventory of

Refuge

Invertebrates

(CI)

Current P Entire

station

FWS:

0.02,

Other:

0.04

$10,000-

30,000

Summer/

Occurs

one time

only

2008-

Indefinite

Heather

Renner,

Supervisory

Wildlife

Biologist

(none) Initial

Survey

Instructions

1.19 FF07RAM

000-018

Post-eruption

Kasatochi

Island

Succession

(CB)

Current Q AIU -

Kasatochi

Island

FWS:

0.01

$5,000,

piggybacke

d on other

projects

Annual

for 5

years,

then Ad

Hoc

2008-

Indefinite

Nora Rojek,

AIU

biologist

(none) Initial

Survey

Instructions

1.20 FF07RAM

000-058

Wilderness

Character

Monitoring

(BM)

Current Q Entire

station

FWS:

0.02,

Other:

0.58

$1,000,

Part of

annual

seabird

monitoring

Recurring

every 5-

10 years

2012-

Indefinite

Marc Weber,

Deputy

Refuge

Manager

(none) National

Initial

Survey

Instructions

Alaska Maritime NWR


11

Survey

Priority1

Survey ID

Number2

Survey

Name/(Type)3

Survey

Status4

Plan

guidance5

Survey

Area6

Staff

Time

(FTE)7

Avg. Ann

Cost

(OPR)8

Survey

Timing9

Survey

Length10

Survey

Coord.11

Protocol

Citation12

Protocol

Status13

1.21 FF07RAM

000-066

Inventory of

Refuge Flora/

Vegetation

Communities

(I)

Current P Entire

station

FWS:

0.04

$5,000-

20,000

Summer/

Sporadic

or Ad Hoc

1980-

Indefinite

Stephen

Talbot,

Regional

Refuge

Botanist

(none) Initial

Survey

Instructions

2.02 FF07RAM

000-054

Monitoring

for Incursions

of Non-native

Species in

Entry Points

(CM)

Expected CCP Entire

station

FWS:

0.02,

Other:

0.17

$2,500 Year

round/

Recurring

every year

2016-

Indefinite

Steve

Ebbert,

Invasive

Species

Biologist

(none) Initial

Survey

Instructions

1.22 FF07RAM

000-039

Migratory

birds and

marine

mammals-

timing and

diversity

(BM)

Current P, F, H Entire

station

FWS:

0.01

$5,000 Part

of annual

seabird

monitoring

May –

Sept./

Recurring

every year

1980-

Indefinite

Heather

Renner,

Supervisory

Wildlife

Biologist

(none) Initial

Survey

Instructions

2.03 FF07RAM

000-068

Inventory of

Refuge

Vertebrates

(I)

Expected P, Q Entire

station

FWS:

0.01

$5,000-

$10,000

Year

round,

mostly

summer

1980-

Indefinite

Heather

Renner,

Supervisory

Wildlife

Biologist

(none) Initial

Survey

Instructions

1.23 FF07RAM

000-037

Beach

Passerine

Survey (BM)

Current F Entire

station

FWS:

0.01

$1,000 Part

of annual

seabird

monitoring

June/

Recurring

every year

1995-

Indefinite

Heather

Renner,

Supervisory

Wildlife

Biologist

(none) Initial

Survey

Instructions

1.24 FF07RAM

000-038

Landbird

Point Count

Survey (CB)

Current F Entire

station

FWS:

<0.01

$1,000 Part

of annual

seabird

monitoring

June/

Recurring

every year

1990-

Indefinite

Heather

Renner,

Supervisory

Wildlife

Biologist

(none) Regional

Initial

Survey

Instructions

1.25 FF07RAM

000-048

Marine

Debris Survey

(CB)

Current Q Entire

station,

mostly

annual

monitoring

sites

FWS:

0.02

Other:0

.04

$5,000 Part

of annual

seabird

monitoring

May-

Sept./

Recurring

every year

2012-

Indefinite

Heather

Renner,

Supervisory

Wildlife

Biologist

(none) National

Initial

Survey

Instructions

Alaska Maritime NWR


12

Survey

Priority1

Survey ID

Number2

Survey

Name/(Type)3

Survey

Status4

Plan

guidance5

Survey

Area6

Staff

Time

(FTE)7

Avg. Ann

Cost

(OPR)8

Survey

Timing9

Survey

Length10

Survey

Coord.11

Protocol

Citation12

Protocol

Status13

1.26 FF07RAM

000-041

Nearshore

Marine Water

Temperature

(BM)

Current Q Entire

station

FWS:

0.01

$3,000 Part

of annual

seabird

monitoring

May-

Sept./

Recurring

every year

1993-

Indefinite

Heather

Renner,

Supervisory

Wildlife

Biologist

(none) Initial

Survey

Instructions

1 The rank for each survey listed in order of priority (e.g., numeric, tiered, alpha-numeric, or combination of these).

2 A unique identification number consisting of refuge code-computer assigned sequential number. Refuge code comes from the FBMS cost center identifier.

3 Short titles for the survey name, preferably the same name used in refuge work plans. PRIMR code for survey type in parentheses: Inventory (I), Baseline Monitoring (BM), Cooperative Baseline Monitoring (CB), Monitoring to Inform Management (M), Cooperative Monitoring to Inform Management (CM), Research (R), and Cooperative Research (CR).

4 Surveys selected for the timespan of this IMP (i.e., Current, Expected).

5 The step-down or collaborative guidance plan(s) that justify the selected survey (see Appendix A).

6 Refuge management unit names, entire refuge, or names of other landscape units included in survey.

7 Estimates of Service (FWS) and non-Service (Other) permanent staff time needed to complete the survey (1 work year = 2080 hours = 1 FTE).

8 Estimates of average annual operations cost for conducting the survey during the years it is conducted (e.g., equipment, contracts, travel) including temporary staff time but not permanent staff time.

9 Timing and frequency of survey field activities.

10 The years during which the survey is conducted.

11 The name and position of the survey coordinator (the Refuge Biologist or other designated Service employee) for each survey (MBM = Migratory Bird Management).

12 Citations for initial survey instructions are provided in the survey narratives.

13 Scale of intended use (Site-specific if not listed, Regional or National) and stage of approval (Initial Survey Instructions, Complete Draft, In Review, or Approved) of the survey protocol.

*NOTE – the Refuge has well-developed and peer reviewed protocols for nearly all current surveys which are published online and updated annually. Details are in section C “Narratives of Selected Surveys”.

Table 2. Summary of non-selected surveys for Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge. Survey

Priority1

Survey ID

Number2

Survey

Name/(Type)3

Survey

Status4

Plan

guidance5

Survey

Area6

Staff

Time

(FTE)7

Avg. Ann

Cost

(OPR)8

Survey

Timing9

Survey

Length10

Survey

Coord.11

Protocol

Citation12

Protocol

Status13

3.01 FF07RAM

000-053

McKay’s

Bunting

Monitoring

Future F BSU (St.

Matthew/

Hall

Islands)

FWS:

0.30

$100,000 May-June 2003;

Future

Marc

Romano,

BSU

Biologist

(none) Initial

Survey

Instructions

Alaska Maritime NWR


13

Survey

Priority1

Survey ID

Number2

Survey

Name/(Type)3

Survey

Status4

Plan

guidance5

Survey

Area6

Staff

Time

(FTE)7

Avg. Ann

Cost

(OPR)8

Survey

Timing9

Survey

Length10

Survey

Coord.11

Protocol

Citation12

Protocol

Status13

3.02 FF07RAM

000-042 Seabird, Fish,

Marine

Mammal, and

Oceanography

Coordinated

Investigations

(SMMOCI)

(CB)

Historic,

Future N Entire

station FWS:

0.5

Other:

0.25

$250,000

startup,

$30,000

maintain

July/

ideally

annual

1995-

Indefinite Heather

Renner,

Supervisory

Wildlife

Biologist

(none) Initial

Survey

Instructions

3.03 FF07RAM

000-064 Population

Estimates of

Burrow- and

Crevice-

Nesting

Seabirds at

Annual and

Intermittent

Sites (CB)

Future A, B Entire

station Unknown –

methods

developme

nt needed

Breeding

season TBD Heather

Renner,

Supervisory

Wildlife

Biologist

(none) Initial

Survey

Instructions

3.04 FF07RAM

000-063

Development

of Field

Techniques for

Monitoring

Burrow- and

Crevice-

Nesting

Seabirds (CR)

Future A, B Entire

station

FWS

0.10

$100,000

1-year post

doc or 2-3

yr. graduate

student

Year

round

(data

analysis+

field wk.)

TBD Heather

Renner,

Supervisory

Wildlife

Biologist

(none) Initial

Survey

Instructions

3.05 FF07RAM

000-061

Use of Marine

Waters by

Species in the

Semidi Islands

Group (CR)

Future N, Q APU -

Semidi

Islands

FWS:

0.25

$100,000 Seabird

breeding

season

TBD , APU

Biologist

(none) Initial

Survey

Instructions

3.06 FF07RAM

000-062

Determine

Native/Non-

native Status of

Mammals on

the Refuge

(CR, I)

Future P Entire

station

FWS:

0.01

$5,000-

$10,000

Varies,

frequency

determine

d by

managem

ent need

TBD ,Invasive

Species

Biologist

(none) Initial

Survey

Instructions

3.07 FF07RAM

000-026

Winter

Waterfowl

Monitoring

(CM)

Historic,

Future

J AIU, BSU

Shemya,

Adak,

Amchitka,

Pribilof I.

FWS:

0.1

$10,000 Winter/

annual

when

implement

ed

1980-

Indefinite

Heather

Renner,

Supervisory

Wildlife

Biologist

(none) Initial

Survey

Instructions

Alaska Maritime NWR


14

1 The rank for each survey listed in order of priority (e.g., numeric, tiered, alpha-numeric, or combination of these).

2 A unique identification number consisting of refuge code-computer assigned sequential number. Refuge code comes from the FBMS cost center identifier.

3 Short titles for the survey name, preferably the same name used in refuge work plans. PRIMR code for survey type in parentheses: Inventory (I), Baseline Monitoring (BM), Cooperative Baseline Monitoring (CB), Monitoring to Inform Management (M), Cooperative Monitoring to Inform Management (CM), Research (R), and Cooperative Research (CR).

4 Surveys selected for the timespan of this IMP (i.e., Current, Expected).

5 The step-down or collaborative guidance plan(s) that justify the selected survey (see Appendix A).

6 Refuge management unit names, entire refuge, or names of other landscape units included in survey.

7 Estimates of Service (FWS) and non-Service (Other) permanent staff time needed to complete the survey (1 work year = 2080 hours = 1 FTE).

8 Estimates of average annual operations cost for conducting the survey during the years it is conducted (e.g., equipment, contracts, travel) including temporary staff time but not permanent staff time.

9 Timing and frequency of survey field activities.

10 The years during which the survey is conducted.

11 The name and position of the survey coordinator (the Refuge Biologist or other designated Service employee) for each survey.

12 Citations for initial survey instructions are provided in the survey narratives.

13 Scale of intended use (Site-specific if not listed, Regional or National) and stage of approval (Initial Survey Instructions, Complete Draft, In Review, or Approved) of the survey protocol.

Alaska Maritime NWR


15

C. Narratives of Selected Surveys

1.01: Annual Seabird Monitoring (FF07RAM000-027)

1) What is the population or attribute of interest, what will be measured, and when?

This survey is the cornerstone of the Refuge’s monitoring program and consists of annual 2-4

month field camps at nine sites. We monitor ~30 seabird species, encompassing four nesting

strategies (ledge-, burrow-, crevice-, and surface- nesting) and eight foraging guilds (piscivores

and planktivores, nearshore and offshore foragers, divers and surface feeders), to measure one or

more of the following parameters: population trends (at least every three years), timing of

breeding (annually), reproductive success (annually), diet composition (annually), and survival

(annually).

2) Which refuge management objective does the survey support? Is the objective derived

from the CCP, interim objectives, an HMP, or other?

This project supports the following interim objective from 1997: Monitor the health of Refuge

biodiversity and resources at annual monitoring sites. Our monitoring strategy is clearly laid out

in the Alaska Seabird Conservation Plan (USFWS 2009)

3) Why is it important to conduct the survey? Describe how survey results will be used to

make better-informed refuge management decisions. If survey results are used to trigger a

management response, identify the management response and threshold value for

comparison to survey results.

The Refuge is home to ~80% of Alaska’s seabirds. Additionally, the Refuge is well suited for

long-term ecosystem monitoring. Seabirds and marine mammals, as suites of species, reflect

changes in different portions of the marine food web. It is typically difficult and expensive to

measure changes in marine food webs directly, so using apex predators such as seabirds and

marine mammals as indicators has become a well-established approach.

Data collected for the ongoing seabird monitoring program are used to evaluate population

trends of trust species (a Refuge need) and vital rates that may contribute to population change;

the monitoring program also provides data to test hypotheses about effects of ecosystem changes

(e.g., variation in ocean climate). This latter use contributes to the joint objectives of the Refuge

and its partners (e.g., National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska Ocean Observing System, North

Pacific Research Board, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, North Pacific Fisheries

Management Council) which are to understand processes in large marine ecosystems, to separate

natural and anthropogenic causes of ecosystem change, and to predict effects of future changes.

4) Is this a cooperative survey? If so, what partners are involved in the survey?

The Refuge partners with Region 7 Migratory Bird Management as well as other Refuges and

multiple agencies on protocols and data reporting (see paragraph above).

5) Protocol status?

Detailed survey instructions and standard operating procedures for each parameter and species

group are regularly updated and are publicly available online at

Alaska Maritime NWR


16

https://absilcc.org/science/amnwr/SitePages/protocols.aspx. These will form the foundation for a

fully developed protocol, including survey design, data management, etc., to be developed.

https://absilcc.org/science/amnwr/SitePages/protocols.aspx

Alaska Maritime NWR


17

1.02: Monitoring recovery of ecosystems following removal of invasive species

(FF07RAM000-019)


This survey is conducted dependent on current and expected invasive species control or

eradication actions. Pre-eradication inventory and population size data will be collected on

species potentially impacted by non-native mammals. Data may be collected on a variety of

attributes including vegetation state, populations of ground-nesting birds, or health of salmon

streams.



The survey supports the Refuge management objective for removal of introduced species to

protect natural biodiversity, which is an objective derived from the CCP.


make better informed refuge management decisions. If survey results are used to trigger a



The Refuge has undertaken several projects to eradicate invasive mammals from Refuge islands.

In most cases the only post-eradication monitoring conducted was done to determine the success

or failure of eradication efforts. However, there is a growing management need to identify the

short- and long-term effects of eradication on the island ecosystems. This is particularly true for

eradication projects targeting large mammals, which may have a greater landscape-level impact

than eradication of rodents and other small mammals.


Partnerships will depend on the island and species group being surveyed, but may include other

Federal agencies, state agencies, Tribal governments, universities, non-profit organizations, and

private companies.

5) Protocol status?

Standardized protocols for this survey have not been developed and will depend on the species

affected and management questions associated with them. In some cases, existing standardized

protocols from other surveys may be used (e.g., off-road point count surveys for landbirds).

Alaska Maritime NWR


18

1.03: Auklet Colony Mapping (FF07RAM000-040)


These surveys are intended to quantify colony extent of crevice-nesting auklets (e.g., least auklet,

crested auklet), which is thought to be a useful alternative to monitoring population size directly.

Surveys are conducted during the middle of the breeding season, when evidence of auklet

presence at the breeding colony is presumed to be greatest. Refuge personnel helped develop a

standardized method for colony mapping using a randomized systematic grid survey with two

components: a simple presence/absence survey and an auklet evidence density survey (Renner et

al. 2006; citation below). A quantitative auklet evidence density index was derived from the

frequency of droppings and feathers. This method has been used to map several colonies in the

Pribilof and Aleutian islands. Quantitatively mapping all large auklet colonies is logistically

feasible using this method and would provide an important baseline for monitoring colony status.

Regularly monitoring select colonies using this method may be the best means of detecting

changes in distribution and population size of crevice-nesting seabirds. Crevice-nesting species

nest across a broad range of the Refuge and mapping the major colonies of these species will

take a great deal of time and resources but each colony can be surveyed opportunistically at a

decadal interval.



This survey supports three interim objectives identified in 1997: 1) Continue to monitor Refuge

resources as identified in the Refuge Wildlife Inventory Plan; 2) Monitor the health of Refuge

biodiversity and resources at annual monitoring sites; and, 3) Monitor the health of Refuge

biodiversity and resources at periodic and intermittent sites.





Crevice-nesting auklets are among the most numerous seabirds in the northern hemisphere.

Monitoring populations of auklets and other crevice-nesting seabirds remains problematic,

although numerous methods have been attempted since the mid-1960s. Anecdotal evidence

suggests several large auklet colonies have recently decreased in both abundance and extent,

concurrently with vegetation encroachment and succession. This survey is our best method of

tracking population change for important trust species. Results also will be used to understand

the role of habitat loss and vegetational succession in population dynamics of auklets.


Although the USFWS has primary responsibility for these surveys, in the past other cooperators

(including university researchers and personnel from other federal agencies) have assisted with

protocol development and conducted surveys.

5) Protocol status?

Two peer-reviewed publications have been produced detailing specific survey instructions:

Alaska Maritime NWR


19

Renner, H. M., M. Renner, J. H. Reynolds, A. M. A. Harding, I. L. Jones, D. B. Irons, and G. V.

Byrd. 2006. Colony mapping: A new technique for monitoring crevice-nesting seabirds.

The Condor 108:423–434.

Reynolds, J. H. and Renner, H. M. 2014. Using patch occupancy models to estimate area of

crevice-nesting seabird colonies. Condor 116: 316–324.

Alaska Maritime NWR


20

1.04: Seabird Populations Trends at Intermittent Sites (FF07RAM000-035)


A wide suite of marine birds and marine mammals is included on surveys of intermittent

monitoring sites, but the majority of the work focuses on population monitoring of ledge-nesting

seabirds, burrow- and crevice-nesting seabirds, and ground-breeding bird species (including

seabirds, shorebirds, raptors, and passerines). Population trends and “boom-or-bust” reproductive

success are monitored to compare to more detailed surveys at annual sites described in Survey

1.01.



This survey supports two interim objectives identified in 1997: 1) Continue to monitor Refuge

resources as identified in the Refuge Wildlife Inventory Plan, and 2) Monitor the health of

Refuge biodiversity and resources at periodic and intermittent sites.





The Refuge covers a broad geographic area, and as a result, most sites cannot be visited

annually, due to the expense and time required. Intermittent monitoring sites were established in

each of the 5 Refuge units to add information on Refuge resources beyond the annual monitoring

sites (survey 1.01 – Annual Seabird Monitoring # FF07RAM000-027). Data collected for the

ongoing seabird monitoring program are used to evaluate conservation issues for birds (a Refuge

need), and to test hypotheses about effects of ecosystem changes (e.g., variation in ocean

climate). This latter use contributes to the joint objectives of the Refuge and its partners (e.g.,

National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska Ocean Observing System, North Pacific Fisheries

Management Council, North Pacific Research Board, Alaska Department of Fish and Game)

which are to understand processes in large marine ecosystems, to separate natural and

anthropogenic causes, and to predict effects of future changes.


These surveys are typically conducted by Refuge personnel. Occasionally a cooperator will

opportunistically assist on an individual survey. Region 7 staff and the office of Migratory Bird

Management assist the Refuge in reporting and presenting results from these surveys.

5) Protocol status?

Detailed survey instructions for each parameter and species group are regularly updated and are

publicly available online at https://absilcc.org/science/amnwr/SitePages/protocols.aspx.


Alaska Maritime NWR


21

1.05: Confirming Success of Invasive Mammal Eradication (FF07RAM000-060)


The purpose of the survey is to determine if the effort to eradicate the target population was

successful and if further surveys or eradication efforts are needed. The population of interest is

the population of invasive mammals targeted for the eradication. The presence or absence of

evidence of survivors of the eradication effort is measured. Methods will vary depending upon

logistics and ability to detect the target species at low density.



The survey supports the Refuge management objective for removal of introduced species,

especially eradication of introduced predators, to protect natural biodiversity, and prevent new

grazing of non-native ungulates on Refuge lands. These objectives come from the CCP. Other

federal statutes, regulations, and policies clearly support preventing the introduction of invasive

species, detecting, rapidly responding to and controlling invasive species populations, and

monitoring invasive species populations.





The Refuge has conducted several projects designed to eradicate invasive species from Refuge

islands. Post-eradication monitoring is essential to confirm the success of eradication projects,

and to better inform future project development and planning.


Most surveys to search for invasive species that possibly survived the eradication effort are led

by Refuge staff. However, participants may include, but are not limited to, personnel from other

federal agencies, especially USDA APHIS Wildlife Services, college and university students and

faculty, residents of local communities, and NGO partners.

5) Protocol status?

Eradication projects have an operation plan that includes post eradication surveys. Typically the

protocol is very similar to protocols used to capture animals during the eradication, although the

effort could be spatially and temporally smaller.

Alaska Maritime NWR


22

1.06: Monitoring of range condition of islands with introduced grazers (FF07RAM000-049)


The objective of this survey is to collect data on range quality on islands with introduced grazers

to evaluate range condition and determine which (if any) locations are appropriate for practices

such as the use of exclusion areas, prescribed grazing, or grazer eradication. Data on grazer

utilization of habitat and rangeland health are collected and trends are noted.



The survey supports the Refuge management objective for ecological monitoring of wildlife and

their habitats, which is an objective derived from the CCP.





Several species of grazers (e.g., reindeer, cattle, rabbits, ground squirrels) have been introduced

to islands throughout the Refuge. Previously conducted reindeer utilization surveys show rapid

ongoing tundra degradation in the Pribilof Islands, corresponding to fluctuating herd size.

Lichens in particular have been heavily impacted and lichen range conditions have deteriorated

over large parts of islands where these grazers were introduced. The effects of other introduced

grazers have not been studied at other locations, but continued range degradation could have a

number of negative ecological and social impacts on Refuge islands. The end result would be

range condition maps and an estimate of the sustainable number of grazers that the habitat can

support based on the condition of the range at the time of the survey.

The Refuge, in partnership with the St. George Traditional Council, the Tribal Government of St.

Paul Island, other neighboring land owners, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural

Resource Conservation Service, needs current information on range condition on Refuge islands

in order to make informed management decisions, particularly when it comes to management of

introduced grazers.


The main partner for this survey is the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource

Conservation Service. Additional partners include the St. George Traditional Council and the

Tribal Government of St. Paul Island.

5) Protocol status?

Initial survey instructions can be found in:

National range and pasture handbook. 1997. USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service

Grazing Lands Technology Institute (GLTI), Fort Worth, Texas.

Swanson, J. D., and L. N. Knapman. 2001. A procedure for evaluating lichen utilization on

reindeer range. USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service and USDI-Bureau of

Land Management. Anchorage and Fairbanks, Alaska.

Alaska Maritime NWR


23

Alaska Maritime NWR


24

1.07: Aleutian Tern Population Monitoring (FF07RAM000-050)


Aleutian terns nesting in Alaska are the primary target of these surveys, although Arctic terns are

often found nesting within and in close proximity to Aleutian tern colonies, and the two may be

surveyed concurrently. Counts are conducted of adults attending nesting colonies during the late

incubation or early chick-rearing period.



The survey supports the CCP objective: Complete other wildlife and habitat inventories and

special studies. In addition, Aleutian terns have been identified as a Region 7 Priority Species.





The Aleutian tern breeds throughout coastal areas of Alaska and the Russian Far East, and

winters (at least in part) in Southeast Asia. Our understanding of the species is limited primarily

to anecdotal observations and there are few details known about its behavior, diet, life history,

migration, wintering range, or demographics. Published breeding population estimates for the

Aleutian tern originated from sources that are now more than two decades old.

Within the last decade, there have been reports of colony declines and disappearances at

individual sites in Alaska. However, a single population-level stressor that could potentially

account for a decline in Aleutian tern numbers has not been identified. Although some effort has

been made to monitor Aleutian terns in a few discrete locations throughout the state (e.g.,

Yakutat, Kodiak Island), a coordinated, statewide monitoring program is needed to track the

population and to identify and manage potential threats. Aleutian tern colonies are spread

throughout a wide geographic area that contains a broad mix of federal, state, native, and private

land ownership and wildlife management jurisdictions. A coordinated, statewide monitoring

program would focus the efforts of groups already involved in Aleutian tern management, and

prioritize future monitoring and research efforts.


Aleutian terns nest throughout much of coastal Alaska. Their colonies occur across a wide range

of management authorities including land controlled by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the

U.S. Forest Service, the National Park Service, the State of Alaska, Alaska Native Corporations,

Alaska Tribal Governments, and private land owners. Comprehensive surveys for Aleutian terns

will require the cooperation of all of these groups. Additional partnerships with the USGS and

university researchers may be necessary for study design and data analysis assistance.

5) Protocol status?

A draft protocol was developed by the US Forest Service and partners for statewide use in 2013

and a methods development workshop is tentatively planned for December 2017.

Alaska Maritime NWR


25

1.08: Red-faced Cormorant Surveys (FF07RAM000-055)


Within Alaska, the red-faced cormorant occurs throughout the Aleutian Islands and along the

Alaska Peninsula to the Gulf of Alaska. Large colonies are also found on St. Paul and St. George

in the Pribilof Islands, in the Bering Sea. Currently, the status of many red-faced cormorant

populations is unknown, however, some populations are known to be declining (e.g., Aleutian

Islands, Pribilof Islands). Surveys of red-faced cormorant colonies will be conducted to obtain

population estimates at appropriate geographical scales (e.g., island groups).



This survey supports three interim objectives identified in 1997: 1) Monitor the health of Refuge

biodiversity and resources at annual monitoring sites; 2) Continue to monitor Refuge resources

as identified in the Refuge Wildlife Inventory Plan; and, 3) Monitor the health of Refuge

biodiversity and resources at periodic and intermittent sites.





Red-faced cormorants have been monitored sporadically in a few locations within the Refuge.

Preliminary results indicate that the species may be experiencing localized declines, but the

temporal and spatial coverage of the surveys is not great enough to determine the status of the

species throughout its range. Red-faced cormorants are believed to have low fidelity to nesting

areas, and they may move to neighboring islands within an archipelago. This makes monitoring

the species difficult when time and resources allow only single-island monitoring efforts. In

order to properly monitor this species and determine its status, systematic surveys of discrete

island groups (e.g., Pribilof Islands, Near Islands, Rat Islands, etc.) are necessary. These surveys

need to be replicated at appropriate intervals to determine the trajectory of each population.


No.

5) Protocol status?

Detailed survey instructions and standard operating procedures are regularly updated and are

publicly available online at https://absilcc.org/science/amnwr/SitePages/protocols.aspx. These

will form the foundation for a fully developed protocol, including survey design, data

management, etc., to be developed.


Alaska Maritime NWR


26

1.09: Winter Distribution of Trust Species (FF07RAM000-059)


Recent advances in tracking device technology have made it possible to track the winter

movements of a wide variety of species. The Refuge is working with several partners to employ

new technology that allows us to track the winter distribution of trust species, particularly

seabirds, in order to identify potential threats away from the breeding grounds.



This project supports the following interim objective from 1997: Complete other wildlife and

habitat inventories and special studies.





The vast majority of seabirds in Alaska nest within the borders of the Refuge. Monitoring of

these species is much easier during the breeding season because they are typically conspicuous

and concentrated, which greatly increases the ability to monitor vital rates and identify threats.

However, the wintering distribution of many seabirds nesting within the Refuge is poorly known.

Conditions on the wintering grounds, including food availability and threats, can impact adult

survival and juvenile recruitment. Thus, in order to properly manage these species it is important

to identify their wintering areas.


The main partners have been university researchers and graduate students.

5) Protocol status?

Protocols will be tested and developed in cooperation with partners.

Alaska Maritime NWR


27

1.10: Endemic Species Studies - Distribution, Abundance and Status (FF07RAM000-051)


In order to manage and protect endemic species, the Refuge implements targeted studies to

answer basic natural history questions about the species deemed most vulnerable. In addition,

Refuge personnel and cooperators opportunistically survey Refuge lands to identify additional

endemic species.




biodiversity and resources at annual monitoring sites; 2) Monitor the health of Refuge

biodiversity and resources at periodic and intermittent sites; 3) Continue to monitor Refuge

resources as identified in the Refuge Wildlife Inventory Plan.





The Refuge is home to several endemic species that are poorly studied. Basic information on

species distribution, abundance, and status is not available for many of these species. Given that

many of these species occur on only a single island (e.g., Pribilof shrew, black-footed lemming),

they are potentially vulnerable to short-term environmental perturbations or accidental

introductions of invasive species. Results of this survey will be used to inform management of

these species.


Currently, the Refuge does not have the capacity or the expertise to design and conduct proper

surveys for many of these species. Partnerships will be necessary in order to meet the survey

objectives. Likely cooperators for this survey include USGS-Alaska Science Center and

University of Alaska-Alaska Natural Heritage Program.

5) Protocol status?

Protocols will be tested and developed in cooperation with partners.

Alaska Maritime NWR


28

1.11: Aleutian Shield Fern population monitoring (FF07RAM000-043)


All occurrences of Aleutian Shield Fern - so far only a very few individuals are known.



The survey supports three objectives from the CCP: 1) Complete other wildlife and habitat

inventories and special studies; 2) continue to monitor Refuge resources as identified in the

Refuge Wildlife Inventory Plan, and 3) Protect Aleutian shield fern habitat and continue to

monitor its occurrence. In addition, the 2007 Aleutian Shield Fern Management Plan and the

1992 Aleutian Shield Fern Recovery Plan indicate the need for protecting and monitoring the

extant population. Interim objective identified in 1997: protect Aleutian shield fern habitat and

continue to monitor its occurrence as identified in the recovery plan.





The endangered Aleutian shield fern is known from only two locations, Atka and Adak islands in

the Aleutian Islands, Alaska (Lipkin 1985), making it one of the rarest and most restricted plants

in North America. The Atka population has not been relocated since its original discovery in

1932 (Christensen 1938), in spite of repeated attempts (e.g., Smith and Davidson 1988). In 1975,

Aleutian shield ferns were discovered at Adak (Smith 1985, Anderson 1992), and subsequently,

three additional populations have been found there (Talbot, et al. 1995a, Talbot and Talbot

2002).


In the past, this work has been done cooperatively with the Regional office of Fisheries and

Ecological Services as well as the Regional Refuge botanist.

5) Protocol status?

Tande (1989) describes the monitoring protocol in detail with maps and instructions.

Tande, G. F. 1989. Aleutian shield-fern (Polystichum aleuticum C. Chr.) field studies for 1989:

Establishment of permanent population monitoring plots and habitat characterization.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report. AMNWR 89/12. Homer, Alaska.

I&M will conduct a Quick Review of the protocol.

Alaska Maritime NWR


29

1.12: Adak/Kagalaska Caribou Surveys (FF07RAM000-056)


This is a survey of populations of non-native caribou on Adak and Kagalaska islands.

Occasionally and irregularly in the past, counts have been made of adults and calves. Ideally,

future studies will determine: 1) indices of caribou presence and population trends between

intervening aerial surveys by utilizing ground-based measures, 2) inter-island movement rates

between Adak and Kagalaska, and 3) the relationship between caribou demography, movements,

and habitat conditions. These studies would prove valuable for managing this non-indigenous

(and now invasive) herd. Caribou are a state-managed species and the Refuge’s primary concern

for the species population dynamics is related to effects on the habitat.






federal statutes, regulations, and policy clearly support preventing the introduction of invasive

species, detecting, rapidly responding to and controlling invasive species populations, and

monitoring invasive species populations.





Barren-ground caribou calves from the Nelchina herd were captured, held in captivity and

released on Adak Island (180,940 acres, 73,255 hectares) in 1958 and 1959. At that time, Adak

Island was within the Aleutian Island Reserve, a wildlife refuge designation. The Alaska

National Interest Lands Conservation Act was enacted in 1980 to create what is now called the

Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge. Adak Island was home to a major naval base, with a

large community associated with that base. The caribou were released, at least in part, to provide

recreational hunting opportunities for military personnel stationed there. Adak is 500 miles (800

km) outside the native range of caribou, but the introduction was successful and the herd quickly

became established on the island. During the early years, when Adak Island had an Army base

and then a Naval base with between 1000 and 6000 people, sport hunting kept the herd to 200-

400 animals. Since the closure of the island’s military base in 1997, sport hunting has not limited

the herd. A 2012 survey estimated between 2512 and 2880 caribou on Adak Island. The Refuge

manages the majority of Adak Island, but the remainder is owned by the Aleut Corporation

which complicates management actions.

Continued study of Adak caribou population trends and their associated ecosystem impacts is of

importance due to the expansion of the herd to Kagalaska Island, resulting in a multi-island

metapopulation.


Alaska Maritime NWR


30

Past surveys have included Refuge staff, local residents and Naval communities, college

graduate students, and USDA Wildlife Services personnel. Helicopter time was shared with the

Alaska Volcano Observatory and other agencies. Future surveys may include Friends of Alaska

Refuges or other NGO personnel.

5) Protocol status?

Observer drop off and pick up points along the shore line of Kagalaska are established. Survey

routes are determined by the number of personnel on hand, individual experience, amount of

time for survey, and results of previous surveys.

Methods development is needed.

Alaska Maritime NWR


31

1.13: Beached Wildlife and Oil (COASST) (FF07RAM000-036)


Background data on the quantity and persistence of seabird carcasses that wash up on Refuge

beaches are collected at many of the Refuge annual seabird monitoring sites. Oiling is

documented simultaneously. Standard protocols developed by the Coastal Observation and

Seabird Survey Team (COASST) program are used to ensure that data are comparable with the

COASST database. Surveys are typically conducted twice a month during the field season at one

or more beaches at annual monitoring sites.



The survey supports two objectives from the CCP: 1) Complete other wildlife and habitat

inventories and special studies; and 2) continue to monitor Refuge resources as identified in the

Refuge Wildlife Inventory Plan.





COASST organizes coastal monitoring of beach-cast seabird carcasses at over 350 sites in

California, Oregon, Washington, and Alaska. Resulting data advances the science of coastal

ecology and contributes to natural resource management. COASST data have a variety of uses

including: documenting marine die-offs, harmful algal blooms, and potential impacts of resource

development on coastal ecosystems in the Pacific Northwest. The Refuge is primarily interested

in this survey because it can help assess background bird mortality to prepare for oil spills.


COASST is a citizen science project of the University of Washington. This survey is conducted

in partnership with State, tribal and federal agencies, environmental organizations, and

community groups throughout the west coast of North America.

5) Protocol status?

The COASST program has produced specific protocols for the survey. The Refuge has site-

specific survey instructions (https://absilcc.org/science/amnwr/SitePages/protocols.aspx) that

indicate where and when to conduct the surveys at annual monitoring sites.


Alaska Maritime NWR


32

1.14: Seabird Densities at Sea (FF07RAM000-044)


Density of marine birds across the north Pacific Ocean, Bering Sea, and Chukchi Sea are

calculated from survey data collected by observers aboard vessels of opportunity. These data are

maintained in a comprehensive database jointly maintained by the USFWS and USGS.



This survey supports the following interim objective identified in 1997: Continue to monitor

Refuge resources as identified in the Refuge Wildlife Inventory Plan. It also meets objective I.2

of the Alaska Seabird Conservation Plan (USFWS 2009).





Data on the pelagic distribution and abundance of seabirds are critical for understanding the

basic ecology of marine birds, monitoring population trends, assessing impacts of human

activities, identifying critical marine habitats, and educating the public about seabird

conservation. To address these needs, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Geological

Survey have undertaken the task of consolidating and providing comprehensive geographic data

on the pelagic distribution of seabirds in the North Pacific, Bering Sea, and Chukchi Sea.


This effort is led by the USFWS, Region 7, Office of Migratory Bird Management. The surveys

are conducted aboard vessels of opportunity operated by a wide-variety of public agencies (e.g.,

U.S. Coast Guard, NOAA, etc.). The R/V Tiglax is a regular platform for surveys and Refuge

biologists often participate. Data storage and analysis responsibilities are being shared by the

USFWS and USGS.

5) Protocol status?

Protocol developed by USFWS, Region 7, Office of Migratory Bird Management for the North

Pacific Pelagic Seabird Observer Program. See

https://alaska.usgs.gov/science/biology/nppsd/resources.php.

https://alaska.usgs.gov/science/biology/nppsd/resources.php

Alaska Maritime NWR


33

1.15: Seabird Tissue Archival and Monitoring Program (FF07RAM000-011)


Eggs are collected from a variety of species at annual seabird monitoring sites across the Refuge

in order to document contaminant levels present in them.



This survey supports the following interim objective identified in 1997: Continue to monitor

Refuge resources as identified in the Refuge Wildlife Inventory Plan. It also meets objective I.6,

strategy I.6.i of the Alaska Seabird Conservation Plan (USFWS 2009).





Seabirds are an important group of upper trophic-level marine organisms with potential for

accumulating lipophilic contaminants. Analyses of seabird tissues, particularly eggs, have played

important roles in temporal and spatial environmental monitoring of persistent organic pollutants

and mercury in Canada and Europe. In 1999, the Refuge, the U.S. Geological Survey Biological

Resources Division (USGS-BRD), and the National Institute of Standards and Technology

(NIST) implemented the Seabird Tissue Archival and Monitoring Project (STAMP) to monitor

contaminants in Alaska’s marine environments. The project was designed as an ongoing 100-

year-long effort to track trends in environmental quality by collecting Alaskan seabird eggs using

standardized protocols, processing and banking the contents under conditions that ensure

chemical stability during long-term (decadal) storage, and analyzing subsamples of the stored

material to determine current baseline levels of persistent bioaccumulative contaminants (e.g.,

chlorinated pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls [PCBs], brominated flame retardants

[polybrominated diphenyl ethers—PBDEs], butyltin compounds, and mercury).

The project provides a means to monitor both legacy environmental contaminants and chemicals

of emerging environmental concern and provides the capability to verify analytical results by

accessing banked samples and re-analyzing them using more sensitive and accurate methods in

the future.


This project is cooperatively run by the AMNWR (Dave Roseneau), USGS-BRD, and the NIST.

5) Protocol status?

Survey instructions were developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and

can be found in the latest report for the project located at

http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=909692

http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=909692

Alaska Maritime NWR


34

1.16: Kittlitz's murrelet nest searching (FF07RAM000-045)


The population of interest is all Kittlitz's murrelets nesting on Refuge. Surveys are conducted on

Refuge lands to locate nests and monitor reproductive success. Historically all surveys have been

conducted in the Aleutian Islands Unit, but this could expand to other units.



The survey supports the Refuge management objective for fish and wildlife inventories, which is

an objective derived from the CCP. Little is known about conservation needs of Kittlitz’s

murrelets on Refuge islands. The Alaska Seabird Conservation Plan (USFWS 2009) lists needs

for better population, productivity and habitat information for this species.





Basic life history information for the species is lacking and past nest searches have contributed

the majority of the information known about its nesting habits. Kittlitz's murrelets were a

candidate for listing under the ESA but were found to be ‘Not warranted’ in 2013. However, the

species remains a species of substantial conservation concern as dramatic declines have been

recorded throughout Alaska.


Partner with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered Species and Migratory Bird

Management offices.

5) Protocol status?

Initial survey instructions are in:

Kaler, R. S., L. A. Kenney, and B. K. Sandercock. 2009. Breeding Ecology of Kittlitz's

Murrelets at Agattu Island, Aleutian Islands, Alaska. Waterbirds 32: 363-373.

Alaska Maritime NWR


35

1.17: Rock ptarmigan population studies (FF07RAM000-028)


The populations of interest are endemic island populations of rock ptarmigan. Relative

abundance is inferred based upon point counts established across island habitat types. The

number of ptarmigan observed using point count survey methods is used to compare ptarmigan

relative abundance between years and islands. Surveys are most effective when conducted in

early spring, during the months of April and May.



The survey supports the Refuge management objective for fish and wildlife inventories, which is

an objective derived from the CCP. Little is known about conservation needs of endemic

subspecies of rock ptarmigan on Refuge islands. Rock ptarmigan were extirpated from many

islands during the last century.





Some endemic subspecies of rock ptarmigan are restricted to a fraction of their former range, in

some cases to one or a few islands. Genetic cycling among the populations is poorly

documented. Over time, surveys will help us understand the risk of populations to landscape-

scale stressors such as invasive species, climate change, and human disturbance.

Several subspecies of rock ptarmigan occur in the Aleutian Islands. Evermann’s rock ptarmigan

is found only in the Near Islands group. Refuge staff reintroduced rock ptarmigan from Attu

Island to Agattu Island where they were previously extirpated by introduced Arctic fox. Periodic

counts of ptarmigan are necessary to understand the population fluctuations of this endemic

subspecies.


Surveys are conducted by USFWS staff, and most recently, volunteers. In the future, surveys are

planned utilizing students and faculty, volunteers from Friends of Alaska Refuges, and USDA

employees. Private consultants and graduate students have assisted on this survey in the past.

5) Protocol status?

The most current SOP for surveying ptarmigan in the Aleutian Islands using the point count

method is drafted and is being reviewed for publication (March 2017) in Canadian Field

Naturalist.

Braun, C. E., W. P. Taylor, and S. M. Ebbert. In Review. Historical review: Monitoring Rock

Ptarmigan populations in the Western Aleutian Islands, Alaska. Canadian Field-Naturalist 130:

In Review

In the past, flushing transects were used, and could be used again on some islands. That protocol

is documented in survey reports.

Alaska Maritime NWR


36

1.18: Inventory of Refuge Invertebrates (FF07RAM000-067)


Very little is known about the diversity of invertebrates that occur on Refuge land. Currently,

invertebrate surveys on Refuge lands are conducted opportunistically. However, Refuge staff

recognize the need for broader, more systematic surveys. The scale of these surveys should be

broad enough to characterize the dominant invertebrate species at each site, yet fine enough to

identify any rare or unusual species.




biodiversity and resources at annual sites; 2) Monitor the health of Refuge biodiversity and

resources at periodic and intermittent sites; and 3) complete other wildlife and habitat inventories

and special studies.





While select islands within the Refuge have been systematically surveyed to inventory

invertebrate species, the vast majority have not. Given the remote and diverse nature of the

Refuge it is very possible that the Refuge supports undocumented endemic invertebrate species

or invertebrate species of conservation concern. To properly manage the invertebrate resources

of the Refuge, managers need to know what species are present and their distributions.


The Refuge does not have the capacity to properly conduct invertebrate surveys and analyze

collected samples. The Refuge has partnered with the University of Alaska Anchorage, Alaska

Natural Heritage Program and the University of Alaska Fairbanks, Museum of the North, to

conduct surveys and identify samples.

5) Protocol status?

See initial survey instructions:

Sikes, D. S., and J. Slowik. 2010. Terrestrial arthropods of pre- and post-eruption Kasatochi

Island, Alaska, 2008-2009: a shift from a plant-based to a necromass-based food web.

Arctic, Antarctic and Alpine Research 42:297-305.

Alaska Maritime NWR


37

1.19: Post-eruption Kasatochi Island Succession (FF07RAM000-018)


This survey documents plant community succession, geological weathering, and arthropod and

avian species richness and diversity changes over time since the Kasatochi eruption in 2008.

Annual visits currently take place once in spring and once in late summer.



This survey supports several of the purposes for which the Refuge was established, including:

“...(i) to conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their natural diversity including,

but not limited to marine mammals, marine birds and other migratory birds, the marine resources

upon which they rely, bears, caribou and other mammals;

(iv) to provide in a manner consistent with subparagraphs (i) and (ii), a program of national and

international scientific research on marine resources...”





Many of the habitats managed by the Refuge are found on volcanic islands. These habitats are

formed and reformed in a series of naturally occurring slow, and sometimes cataclysmic,

eruptions. This project aims to understand how communities respond to disturbance, and

reassemble/restructure post-disturbance. Results can inform managers about natural processes,

how frequently eruptions might happen, and how long communities and species might take to

reassemble/restructure post-disturbance.


This survey is conducted primarily by subject-matter specialists. Partners include University of

Alaska, USGS Alaska Science Center, Alaska Volcano Observatory, and Kansas State

University.

5) Protocol status?

None, but see:

Williams, J. C., B. A. Drummond, and R. T. Buxton. 2010. Initial effects of the August 2008

volcanic eruption on breeding birds and marine mammals at Kasatochi Island, Alaska.

Arctic, Antarctic and Alpine Research 42:306-314.

Walker, L.R., D. S. Sikes, A. R. Degange, S. C. Jewett, G. Michaelson, S. L. Talbot, S. S.Talbot,

B. Wang, and J. C. Williams. 2013. Biological legacies: direct early ecosystem recovery

and food web reorganization after a volcanic eruption in Alaska. Ecoscience 20:240-251.

Alaska Maritime NWR


38

1.20: Wilderness Character Monitoring (FF07RAM000-058)


Five wilderness qualities are defined by the Wilderness Act of 1964 as Untrammeled,

Undeveloped, Natural, Solitude, and “Other Features”. A monitoring strategy was developed in

2012 to monitor these characteristics in places where the Refuge is already collecting data (e.g.,

annual seabird monitoring sites).



Refuges with designated wilderness are mandated to provide stewardship to protect wilderness

character. The survey aims to improve wilderness stewardship by providing managers a tool to

assess how attributes are changing over time (Landres et al 2015).





The purpose of this survey is to establish a baseline assessment and monitoring strategy for the

Wilderness areas of the Refuge as part of an interagency initiative to monitor trends in

wilderness character throughout the National Wilderness Preservation System.

In 2008, the Interagency Wilderness Character Monitoring Team – representing the Department

of the Interior Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park

Service, U.S. Geological Survey, and the U.S. Forest Service (Department of Agriculture) –

published a strategy for monitoring wilderness character based on the aforementioned qualities.

This strategy divides each quality into a hierarchical set of monitoring questions, indicators, and

measures to assess trends in Wilderness Character. While the qualities, monitoring questions,

and indicators are nationally consistent, measures are specific and sometimes unique to

individual Wilderness areas. This approach balances national and local needs for monitoring by

defining locally relevant measures by which trends can be compiled at higher levels for national

or regional reporting.


No.

5) Protocol status?

A protocol is provided in:

Pippins, K. 2012. Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge Wilderness: A report on

wilderness character monitoring. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service unpubl. report, Homer,

AK.

See also:

Landres et al. 2008. Keeping It Wild: An Interagency Strategy to Monitor Trends in Wilderness

Character Across the National Wilderness Preservation System. US Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service: General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-212.

Alaska Maritime NWR


39

Landres et al. 2009. Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness

Character. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: General Technical Report WO-80.

Landres at al. 2015. Keeping it Wild 2: an updated inter-agency strategy to monitor trends on

wilderness character across the National Wilderness Preservation System. Gen. Tech.

Rep. RMS-GTR-340.

Alaska Maritime NWR


40

1.21: Inventory of Refuge Flora/Vegetation Communities (FF07RAM000-066)


This survey documents vegetation species distribution and plant species richness on the Refuge.

Opportunistic vegetation surveys of Refuge lands are being conducted using standard protocols.

However, Refuge staff recognizes the need to design and implement more systematic and

comprehensive surveys. Future surveys (not described here) will be designed to characterize the

dominant vegetation types of each site and identify any rare or unusual plant species.



This survey supports four interim objectives identified in 1997: 1) Monitor the health of Refuge

biodiversity and resources at annual sites, 2) Monitor the health of Refuge biodiversity and

resources at periodic and intermittent sites, 3) Complete other wildlife and habitat inventories

and special studies, and 4) Continue to monitor refuge resources as identified in the Refuge

Wildlife Inventory Plan.





While select islands within the Refuge have been surveyed to inventory plant communities, the

vast majority of Refuge lands have not. These opportunistic surveys serve to create an inventory

list of plants and vegetation communities that occur on the Refuge. Little is known about the

various habitats across much of the Refuge. Given the remote and diverse nature of the Refuge, it

is very possible that its lands support undocumented endemic plant species or plant species of

conservation concern. Some locations have been surveyed intensively, so invasive species’

intrusions could be documented. To properly manage the plant resources of the Refuge,

managers need to know what species are present and each species’ distribution.


The Refuge does not have the capacity to properly conduct vegetation surveys and analyze

collected samples. The regional botanist has been performing occasional surveys on the refuge.

The Refuge has been providing the logistical support to conduct the surveys.

5) Protocol status?

Methods development is needed, but see:

Talbot, S. S., W. B. Schofield, S. L. Talbot, and J. A. Daniëls. 2010. Vegetation of eastern

Unalaska Island, Aleutian Islands, Alaska. Botany 88:366-388.

Alaska Maritime NWR


41

1.22: Migratory birds and marine mammals-timing and diversity (FF07RAM000-039)


Refuge personnel have been conducting opportunistic observations of birds and marine

mammals at annual monitoring sites for several decades. These daily observations provide a

record of the presence and timing of many species that Refuge personnel do not otherwise

monitor.



This survey supports two interim objectives identified in 1997: 1) Monitor the health of Refuge

biodiversity and resources at annual sites, and 2) complete other wildlife and habitat inventories






Daily observations provide a record of the presence and timing of many species at Refuge annual

monitoring sites. This basic inventory can provide a means to assess changes in species

composition and/or timing of breeding over time, as well as document presence of rare species or

species of special concern (threatened, endangered, etc.).


No.

5) Protocol status?

Detailed survey instructions and standard operating are regularly updated and are publicly

available online at https://absilcc.org/science/amnwr/SitePages/protocols.aspx (26 Annotated List

Protocol v1.1 and 27 Misc Data Protocol v1.2). These will form the foundation for a fully

developed protocol, including survey design, data management, etc., to be developed.


Alaska Maritime NWR


42

1.23: Beach Passerine Survey (FF07RAM000-037)


Refuge personnel monitor the occurrence of landbirds using beach areas at annual monitoring

camps. Beach transects are supplemented with off-road point counts for species not well detected

by beach-based surveys. All landbirds occurring on the survey route are noted. Surveys are

conducted at least five times during the first two weeks of June.










This survey provides baseline data on species that may be jeopardized if predators such as rats

were introduced. Line transects along beaches, as well as off-road point count surveys (i.e.,

survey 1.26, # FF07RAM000-038) will provide us with indices to passerine populations and will

allow us to monitor trends or changes in local populations. Beach transects will be used for inter-

year and inter-site comparisons.


This survey is conducted primarily by Refuge personnel.

5) Protocol status?

Detailed survey instructions and standard operating are regularly updated and are publicly

available online at https://absilcc.org/science/amnwr/SitePages/protocols.aspx (see “Passerine

Protocol”). These will form the foundation for a fully developed protocol, including survey

design, data management, etc., to be developed.


Alaska Maritime NWR


43

1.24: Landbird point count survey (FF07RAM000-038)


Landbirds breeding at Refuge annual seabird monitoring sites. Landbirds are counted during a

survey completed one time each year, in June.










Refuge islands contain sizeable populations of upland breeding birds, including several endemic

subspecies. Off-road point count surveys will provide us with baseline population indices, and

allow us to monitor trends or changes in local populations and species distribution. Point count

survey data will be included in a state-wide upland breeding bird monitoring program sponsored

by Boreal Partners in Flight. Occasionally we document land bird response to removal of

invasive mammals.


Partnership with USGS (Colleen Handel) and Boreal Partners in Flight.

5) Protocol status?

Survey instructions are available through Boreal Partners in Flight at

http://alaska.usgs.gov/science/biology/bpif/monitor/alms/ALMSprotocol_2004.pdf Specific

survey instructions for Refuge annual monitoring sites are available in “Passerine Protocol,”

which is publicly available online at https://absilcc.org/science/amnwr/SitePages/protocols.aspx.

http://alaska.usgs.gov/science/biology/bpif/monitor/alms/ALMSprotocol_2004.pdf


Alaska Maritime NWR


44

1.25: Marine Debris Survey (FF07RAM000-048)


The NOAA Marine Debris Program (MDP) has developed standardized, statistically valid

methodologies for conducting rapid assessments of the debris material type and quantity present

in a monitored location. The monitoring guidelines focus on abundance, types, and concentration

rather than analyzing by potential source, as in many cases it is very difficult to connect a debris

item to a specific debris-generating activity. These techniques are intended to be widely

applicable to enable comparisons across regional and global scales.

These surveys are conducted primarily at Refuge annual monitoring sites, on a monthly basis

during the field season at one or more beaches (typically on the same beaches where COASST

surveys are conducted).



CCP: Continue coordination and partnering efforts associated with contaminant surveys and

remediation.





Marine debris has become one of the most widespread pollution problems in the world’s oceans

and waterways. Marine debris surveys assess the health of Refuge coastline, particularly the

beaches. These studies provide information on the amount and types of debris on shorelines by

tallying debris within discrete transects. Debris density reflects the long-term balance between

debris inputs and removal, and is important to understanding the overall impact of debris.


This survey is organized by the NOAA Marine Debris Program (Peter Murphy) and they are the

primary lead for the project; however, the surveys are carried out by a large group of

cooperators. Partners in this effort include, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park

Service, Surfrider chapters, the State of California, Oregon State University, SOLVE, Ocean

Conservancy, Heal the Bay, Save Our Shores, Sustainable Coastlines Hawaii, Hawaii Wildlife

Fund, Redfish Rocks Community Team, 4H Surf Club, Sea Turtle Restoration Project, Humboldt

State Marine Debris Program, Beach Angels, Hawppon, Pacific Whale Foundation, American

Reef, District of Ucluetet, Coastal Footprint, and the government of British Columbia, Gulf of

Alaska Keeper, Alaska Marine Stewardship Foundation, Alaska Department of Fish and Game,

and Sitka Sound Science Center.

5) Protocol status?

The Refuge follows a standard marine debris shoreline protocol developed by NOAA Marine

Debris Program in 2012. We conduct the standing-stock survey and send completed survey data

sheets to NOAA for analysis (see NOAA Marine Debris Shoreline Survey Field Guide at

https://marinedebris.noaa.gov/mdmap-protocol-documents-and-field-datasheets). Site specific

https://marinedebris.noaa.gov/mdmap-protocol-documents-and-field-datasheets

Alaska Maritime NWR


45

protocols have not been developed, but the survey is conducted on the same beaches used for

COASST surveys (site locations defined in the COASST site-specific protocols).

Alaska Maritime NWR


46

1.26: Nearshore marine water temperature (FF07RAM000-041)


Sea water surface temperature is measured at frequent intervals daily by data loggers deployed

near annual monitoring sites.



This survey supports the interim objectives identified in 1997: complete other wildlife and






Sea surface temperature can be used as a correlate to the seabird monitoring data we collect and

may suggest possible reasons for changes observed in the monitoring data (e.g., changes in

seabird populations, productivity and/or phenology). Research has shown that nearshore water

temperatures can have an impact on these parameters.


No.

5) Protocol status?

The Refuge has a SOP (“datalogger protocol”) and a central database for storing all sea surface

temperature data. The protocol for this survey is publicly available online at

https://absilcc.org/science/amnwr/SitePages/protocols.aspx.


Alaska Maritime NWR


47

Expected Surveys

2.01: Efficacy of Rodent Detection Devices (FF07RAM000-052)


Although the Refuge and its partners currently maintain rodent detection stations in key locations

on and off Refuge land, these detection stations have never been systematically tested to

determine their effectiveness. This study would test the current rodent detection devices in an

area that is known already to contain invasive rodents (e.g., Kodiak or Dutch Harbor). The

findings of this study will result in recommendations for improvements (if needed) of the current

detection devices.






federal statutes, regulations, and policy clearly support preventing the introduction of invasive

species, detecting, rapidly responding to, and controlling and monitoring invasive species

populations.





Several mixed-ownership islands within the Refuge (including St. Paul and St. George in the

Pribilof Islands) are currently free of invasive rats. These islands are at a high risk for rat (and

other invasive rodent) introduction because of their human population and the transport of goods

to the islands from elsewhere. The Refuge currently maintains a system of rodent detection

stations on the Pribilof Islands in order to provide early detection of a potential rodent

introduction.

The Refuge needs to be confident that biosecurity methods are effective, successful, and can

detect new rodent invasions while they are at low density. If early detection methods are

successful, more response alternatives are feasible prior to a population becoming established.

Our current Pribilof rodent detection systems are untested. Shipwreck “rat spill” response

methods use the best available strategies, but could be improved by adopting methods adapted

from defense of harbors from rodents. It should be possible to maintain islands as rodent-free

with tested and effective island biosecurity devices even after multiple invasion events.


Friends of Alaska National Wildlife Refuges, Pribilof Tribes and, Native Corporations.

5) Protocol status?

The protocol for this survey was developed by the St. Paul Tribe in consultation with the Refuge

Invasive Species Biologist. Some refinement may be necessary.

Alaska Maritime NWR


48

2.02: Monitoring for Incursions of Non-native Species in Entry Points (FF07RAM000-054)


Monitoring stations currently in-place are checked on a regular schedule to provide early

detection of non-native species incursions. Efforts are primarily geared toward rodent species

including rats and mice. Detection stations are checked approximately once every month during

the summer when the likelihood of a rodent introduction is higher (due to increased ship and

airplane traffic) but winter monitoring schedules vary based on available personnel and funding.



CCP: Prevent the introduction of rats and other non-indigenous species to Refuge lands.





Several of the islands within the Refuge are mixed-ownership islands that support small villages

(e.g., St. Paul, St. George, Atka). The transport of goods to these islands, through harbors and

airports that support the villages, is a potential vector for the introduction of invasive species. Of

primary concern to the USFWS is the potential for introduction of invasive rodents (including

rats and house mice) to islands that currently do not support populations of them, and the

resulting harm to native flora and fauna. Monitoring programs to detect the introduction of

invasive rodents are in place on some islands (St. Paul and St. George) but maintaining these

programs, including raising adequate funds and nurturing partnerships with local cooperators, is

a constant concern.


Cooperation is required for this survey to be effective. Several of the islands within the Refuge

that are most vulnerable to invasive species introductions are mixed-ownership islands that

support small villages (e.g., St. Paul, St. George, Atka). The cooperation of the tribal and village

(or city) government is essential because most of the likely points of entry for invasive species

(e.g., harbors and airports) are on village or tribal land.

Other cooperators in this survey include the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and the U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

5) Protocol status?

Initial Survey Instructions for the surveys on St. Paul and St. George are available through the

Tribal Eco offices.

Alaska Maritime NWR


49

2.03: Inventory of Refuge Vertebrates (FF07RAM000-068)


Reconnaissance for vertebrate species on Refuge lands is conducted opportunistically to

inventory the dominant vertebrate species across the Refuge (including fish). However, Refuge

staff recognizes the need for systematic surveys of Refuge lands. These expected surveys also

will provide information on the distribution (and possibly abundance) of rare vertebrate species

and non-native, invasive vertebrate species.



The survey supports the following objective from the CCP: Complete other wildlife and habitat

inventories and special studies.





While select islands within the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge have been

systematically surveyed to inventory vertebrate species (including fish), the vast majority of

Refuge lands have not. To properly manage the vertebrate resources of the Refuge, managers

need to know what species are present and the extent of each species' distribution.


No. This survey has not been developed, but may involve a partnership with university

researchers or USGS.

5) Protocol status?

None. Survey design and methods to be developed.

Alaska Maritime NWR


50

Future Surveys

3.01: McKay's Bunting Monitoring (FF07RAM000-053)


This species is endemic to St. Matthew and Hall islands and is not known to breed at any other

location; Refuge-based work will be conducted on these islands exclusively. The first priority for

monitoring McKay’s bunting is determining the size and trends of the breeding population.

Additional monitoring of the nesting ecology of the species is needed, though it will take a great

deal of effort to obtain this information.



This survey supports two interim objectives identified in 1997: 1) Continue to monitor Refuge

resources as identified in the Refuge Wildlife Inventory Plan, and 2) Monitor the health of

Refuge biodiversity and resources at periodic and intermittent sites. In addition, McKay’s

bunting has been designated as a Tier 1 Priority Species for Region 7.





McKay's Bunting is one of the most poorly studied passerine species in Alaska. This species is

endemic to the St. Matthew Islands (St. Matthew, Hall, and Pinnacle) in the central Bering Sea,

and the remoteness of their breeding area is one of the primary reasons that this species is so

poorly studied. In 2013, Region 7 of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designated McKay's

Bunting as a Tier 1 Priority Species. In order to develop conservation objectives for this species,

baseline monitoring is required.


This survey will likely be conducted in cooperation with the Region 7 Office of Migratory Bird

Management.

5) Protocol status?

Initial survey instructions can be found in:

Matsuoka, S. M.; Johnson, J. A. 2008. Using a multimodel approach to estimate the population

size of McKay's Buntings. Condor 110(2): 371-376.

Johnson, J.A., DeCicco, L.H., Matsuoka, S.M., and Sowls, A.L. 2013. Nesting ecology of

McKay’s buntings on St. Matthew Island, Alaska. Wilson Journal of Ornithology

125(2):376-384.

Alaska Maritime NWR


51

3.02: Seabird, Fish, Marine Mammal, and Oceanography Coordinated Investigations

(SMMOCI) (FF07RAM000-042)


Surveys of seabirds and marine mammals are conducted along pre-determined survey routes near

annual seabird monitoring colonies. Local oceanography is characterized by measuring water

temperature and salinity continuously at the sea surface and by taking profiles of the water

column at numerous stations on a series of CTD (conductivity, temperature and depth) transects.

The relative biomass of zooplankton and fish is measured with a dual-frequency echosounder,

and a mid-water trawl is used to identify species associated with the acoustic signal. Longlines

are set to catch large demersal fish species. Bottom trawls are used to describe the bottom fauna

and plankton are sampled at multiple sites.



This project supports the following interim objective from 1997: Complete other wildlife and






Forage fish comprise the primary prey base for several species of marine birds and mammals that

have been monitored in Alaska over the past 20 years. Knowledge of the marine ecosystem is

important for understanding causes of seabird population change. In the past, FWS, USGS, and

NOAA cooperated in the efforts to characterize foraging habitat for seabirds and Steller sea lions

at multiple locations on the Refuge where background seabird monitoring data are available.


Historically this survey is conducted in cooperation with USGS Alaska Science Center,

NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service, and University of Alaska Fairbanks.

5) Protocol status?

Initial survey instructions are provided in:

Gould, P. J., and D. J. Forsell. 1989. Techniques for shipboard surveys of marine birds. U. S.

Fish and Wildlife Service Technical Report 25, Washington, D. C.

Dragoo, D. E., G. S. Drew, and W. R. Bechtol. 2010. Seabird, fish, marine mammal and

oceanography coordinated investigations (SMMOCI) in the central Aleutian Islands,

Alaska, July 2009. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report AMNWR 2010/12. Homer,

Alaska.

Alaska Maritime NWR


52

3.03: Population Estimates of Burrow- and Crevice-Nesting Seabirds at Annual and

Intermittent Sites (FF07RAM000-064)


Population estimates of burrow- and crevice-nesting alcids and storm-petrels will be generated at

the whole-island scale where appropriate.




biodiversity and resources at annual sites; and 2) Monitor the health of Refuge biodiversity and

resources at periodic and intermittent sites.





Burrow-and crevice-nesting alcids and storm-petrels make up a significant portion of the

breeding seabirds that occur on the Refuge. Counts of these species are extremely challenging

due to the difficulty in accessing birds within burrows and crevices, and as a result, accurate

population estimates have been difficult to obtain. In order to estimate populations of burrow-

and crevice-nesting species, it will first be necessary to perfect or improve upon the techniques

required for monitoring (see the related survey 3.03 # FF07RAM000-063). Once techniques are

developed, a targeted effort will be necessary to obtain population estimates of burrow- and

crevice-nesting species at annual and intermittent monitoring sites.


Partners may be necessary to help develop the techniques for this project, but that will be a

separate undertaking (see the survey 3.03 # FF07RAM000-063).

5) Protocol status?

A protocol is needed. See survey 3.03 # FF07RAM000-063.

Alaska Maritime NWR


53

3.04: Development of Field Techniques for Monitoring Burrow- and Crevice-Nesting

Seabirds (FF07RAM000-063)


The Refuge supports large populations of several burrow- and crevice-nesting seabirds including

alcids and storm-petrels. Because these species nest underground, counting and demographic rate

monitoring are problematic. Field techniques need to be developed, and protocols created, to

enable Refuge staff to improve monitoring methods for burrow- and crevice-nesting species.




biodiversity and resources at annual sites; and 2) Monitor the health of Refuge biodiversity and

resources at periodic and intermittent sites.





Burrow- and crevice-nesting alcids and storm-petrels make up a significant portion of the

breeding seabirds that occur on the Refuge. Monitoring of these species is extremely challenging

due to the difficulty in accessing birds within burrows and crevices. Accurate population

estimates are difficult to obtain for these species, and confidence limits around the estimates are

wide. In addition, collection of productivity information on these species is problematic given

that most burrows and crevices are not completely accessible to view by observers. As a result,

the Refuge has a need to develop field techniques that take into account the challenges that are

faced when trying to monitor burrow- and crevice-nesting species.


This survey has not been fully developed, but may involve a partnership with university

researchers or USGS.

5) Protocol status?

No protocol has been developed.

Alaska Maritime NWR


54

3.05: Use of Marine Waters by Species in the Semidi Islands Group (FF07RAM000-061)


This survey will measure the abundance and distribution of important seabird prey taxa,

including zooplankton, forage fish, and other large forage nekton (e.g., squid) in the marine

waters of the Semidi subunit. Other objectives include: 1) characterizing the marine

environment within the Semidi subunit waters, including measures of temperature, salinity,

nutrients, and chlorophyll-a; 2) studying the foraging behavior, diet and breeding biology of

Semidi seabirds (e.g., black-legged kittiwakes); and 3) synthesizing data to assess how and

where Semidi seabirds exploit prey resources around the breeding colonies, the environmental

factors that influence rates of prey exploitation, and how that translates into breeding success and

population change.



This study would address a high priority knowledge gap in our understanding of a FWS Tier 1

Priority Species, the black-legged kittiwake, particularly the need to quantify functional

relationships between kittiwakes and their marine environment. This survey also supports an

objective in the CCP: establish an ecosystem-based research program to address a variety of

management and resource issues and concerns. It supports two interim objectives identified in

1997: 1) Monitor the health of Refuge biodiversity and resources at annual sites; and 2) Monitor

the health of Refuge biodiversity and resources at periodic and intermittent sites.





The Semidi Islands comprise the most important seabird breeding area in the Gulf of Alaska. In

addition to the nine islands, the Semidi subunit of the AMNWR includes a large area of marine

waters (more than 1000 km2 in size) surrounding the island complex. While considerable work

has been done at a few of the colonies on a suite of seabird species, little work has been done to

characterize the marine communities, particularly of prey species important for seabird breeding

success. This survey will help close this data gap by measuring the abundance and distribution

of important seabird prey taxa, including zooplankton, forage fish, and other large forage nekton

(e.g., squid) in the marine waters of the Semidi subunit.

The vast majority of the area within the boundaries of the Refuge is composed of terrestrial

sites above the mean high tide line. The main exception to this is the nearshore area surrounding

the Semidi Islands group. In order to properly manage this unique portion of the Refuge,

managers require information on species presence and trophic relationships within the area.


The Refuge does not have the capacity to properly conduct all aspects of this project. Partners for

similar work in the past have included USGS Alaska Science Center, NOAA/National Marine

Fisheries Service, the University of Alaska Fairbanks, and the University of Washington (data

analysis).

Alaska Maritime NWR


55

5) Protocol status?

Methods development is needed, but see:

Gould, P. J., and D. J. Forsell. 1989. Techniques for shipboard surveys of marine birds. U. S.

Fish and Wildlife Service Technical Report 25, Washington, D. C.

Dragoo, D. E., G. S. Drew, and W. R. Bechtol. 2010. Seabird, fish, marine mammal and

oceanography coordinated investigations (SMMOCI) in the central Aleutian Islands,

Alaska, July 2009. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report AMNWR 2010/12. Homer,

Alaska.

Alaska Maritime NWR


56

3.06: Determine Native/Non-native Status of Mammals on the Refuge (FF07RAM000-062)


Any island population of mammal(s) occurring on the Refuge. A variety of means could be used

to investigate the origin of the population, ranging from genetics studies to literature research.



This survey supports several of the purposes for which the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife

Refuge was established, including:



upon which they rely, bears, caribou and other mammals;…”





The Refuge has as its first purpose to conserve fish and wildlife populations and their habits in

their natural diversity, especially for marine birds and migratory birds. We know that isolated

maritime islands that are naturally without terrestrial mammals (especially terrestrial predators of

eggs and nestlings) serve an important role for nesting seabirds, shorebirds, and waterfowl. It

was for this reason that many islands were set aside from other uses, such as fur farming or

livestock ranching. However, some Refuge islands are occupied by mammals, such as Arctic

ground squirrels, from relic populations that persisted through the last glaciation, or through

natural colonization. In those cases, they are a part of the island’s natural biodiversity the Refuge

is trying to protect. However, we also know that some species (for example, ground squirrels)

were stocked on some Refuge islands by humans for commercial purposes, and possibly by

Alaska Natives for subsistence uses. The Refuge is interested in learning more about the origins

of Refuge island mammals and how they might have impacted their environment.

The Refuge has restored nesting habitat for an estimated 1 million seabirds on Refuge islands by

eradicating invasive red and arctic foxes that were stocked on the islands for commercial fur

harvesting. If an island resident mammal is not a natural component of the suite of species that

occupy a Refuge island, we would investigate their impact on the island’s natural biodiversity

and consider management action, such as control or eradication.


Past surveys of mammals on the Refuge have involved University of Alaska Museum of the

North (Mammalogy Department), Friends of Alaska National Wildlife Refuges, and graduate

students.

5) Protocol status?

None developed.

Alaska Maritime NWR


57

3.07: Winter Waterfowl Monitoring (FF07RAM000-026)


Populations and species diversity of waterfowl that winter on the Refuge or nearby coastal

waters. Surveys would take place during the winter months utilizing observers on land as well as

possibly in boats.



This survey supports several of the purposes for which the Refuge was established, including:



upon which they rely, bears, caribou and other animals;

…(ii) to fulfill international treaty obligations of the United States relating to fish and wildlife

and their habitats;…”





Observations provide a record of the presence and timing of many waterfowl species across the

Refuge. These sightings can provide a means to assess changes in species composition and/or

timing of migration over time, as well as document presence of rare species or species of special

concern (threatened, endangered, etc.).


Historical cooperators have been tribal governments in the Pribilof Islands, birders in Dutch

Harbor and the Pribilofs.

5) Protocol status?

None developed.

Alaska Maritime NWR


58

Amending or Revising the IMP

A. Amending the IMP

When new survey protocols or new versions of existing protocols are approved and assigned to a

survey, the refuge and I&M staff need to amend the refuge IMP. When amending an IMP:

1. Update protocol citations and status in ServCat and PRIMR.

2. Update the estimates of survey cost and staff time in PRIMR.

3. Generate a new Table 1 with the changes to protocol status and citation and upload it into

ServCat.

4. No signatures are required.

B. Revising the IMP

Selecting a new survey or removing a selected survey from an approved IMP triggers a revision.

This differs from an amendment in that it changes the survey priorities of a refuge. When

revising an IMP:

1. Reassign the survey priorities in PRIMR.

2. If a new survey is included, provide a narrative justifying the survey and add required

information for Table 1 into PRIMR.

3. Generate a new narrative and Table 1 for review and approval.

4. Obtain signatures from refuge staff, the Regional I&M Coordinator, Regional Refuge

Biologist/Division Chief, and the Refuge Supervisor, but not the Regional Refuge Chief.

Use Figure 3 in Exhibit 1 of the I&M Policy.

5. Store the revised IMP (including the narrative, revised Table 1, and signature page) in

ServCat.

Alaska Maritime NWR


59

V. Appendices

Appendix A. Associated Step-down or Cooperative Plans

A. Alaska Seabird Conservation Plan 2009

The purpose of the Alaska Seabird Conservation Plan is to facilitate development of a

comprehensive regional approach to seabird conservation. It is intended primarily to direct

Service activities, but may serve to guide and coordinate efforts by other federal and state

agencies, universities, and private organizations interested in seabird issues.

This document contains: goals and objectives for seabird management, monitoring, research, and

outreach; and strategies to implement the objectives of the Seabird Conservation Program in

Alaska.

B. Alaska Seabird Colony Recensus Plan 1998

The quality of data for inventories of seabirds at various colonies on the Refuge is provided for

use in prioritizing efforts to recensus seabirds.

C. Aleutian Cackling Goose Flyway Management Plan 1999

The management plan replaced the Aleutian Goose Recovery Plan after the goose was delisted.

It provides direction for monitoring and special studies of Aleutian geese on the Refuge.

Specifically it includes the need to conduct periodic breeding pair estimates and to inventory new

nesting locations.

D. Emperor Goose Pacific Flyway Management Plan 2006

Like the Aleutian goose management plan, the emperor goose plan provides direction for

monitoring and special studies including work on the Refuge. Specifically it includes an

implementation task to initiate studies of winter ecology, the time when the majority of the

population in on the Refuge. This includes monitoring juvenile ratios.

E. Alaska Common Eider Action Plan 2006

This action plan was produced by the Seaduck Joint Venture and it has a number of elements

related to inventory and monitoring on the Refuge including:

Document the distribution of eiders in the Aleutian Islands

Develop a long-term monitoring plan for the Aleutians

Develop a genetics population model (will include inventory of gene pools)

Estimate population model parameters (includes gathering demographic data)

Monitor response of breeding eiders to removal of introduced foxes

Monitor eider population change and determine if there is an inverse relationship with sea

otter population trends.

Alaska Maritime NWR


60

F. Boreal Partners in Flight Landbird Conservation Plan for Alaska Biogeographic Regions

1999

This Plan uses a landscape approach to identify priority species, habitats, and conservation issues

and actions for landbirds in five biogeographic regions in Alaska. The Refuge includes areas

within 3 Biogeographic Regions. The major conservation issues for landbirds include invasive

species and climate change. The plan specifically calls for determining the status of the endemic

McKay’s Bunting, confined to the Refuge. This implies replication of the single quantitative

population survey and monitoring demographic rates and threats.

G. Alaska Raptor Management Plan 2001

This Plan reviews the biology and status of diurnal and nocturnal raptors that occur in Alaska,

identifies management issues and needs, and recommends monitoring levels for each species.

This plan says that the highest priority area in Alaska for bald eagle population assessment is the

Aleutian Islands and that contaminant hazards should be evaluated. Furthermore the plan sets an

inventory of the Peale’s peregrine falcon in the Aleutians as a priority.

H. Alaska Shorebird Conservation Plan 2008

This plan provides the framework and background for conservation planning for shorebirds in

Alaska. Specific guidance for the Refuge includes a focus on population surveys and trend

indices for black oystercatcher and several subspecies of rock sandpiper.

I. Short-tailed Albatross Recovery Plan 2008

The plan includes an implementation task concerning the need to contribute observations of birds

at sea for documenting the distribution of this endangered species. Considered a basic inventory,

the refuge ship R/V Tiglax is an ideal platform for this type of work.

J. Steller’s Eider Recovery Plan 2002

The primary guidance for the Refuge concerning Steller’s Eiders involves delineating wintering

areas, but several research projects like contaminants studies and diet studies will occur on or

near the Refuge as well.

K. Southwest Alaska Distinct Population Segment of the Northern Sea Otter Recovery Plan

2013

A protocol for monitoring populations has been developed. The Refuge is a cooperator on sea

otter surveys by providing logistical support and including sea otters in nearshore boat surveys of

Refuge islands.

L. Steller Sea Lion Recovery Plan (Revised 2007)

Alaska Maritime NWR


61

The lead agency for Steller Sea Lions is the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the recovery

plan calls for an extensive program of monitoring and research. The Refuge protects a major

portion of the rookeries and haul sites, but we do not have the lead on monitoring projects.

M. Aleutian Shield Fern Recovery Plan

The Aleutian shield fern, an endangered species, is currently known from a single island, Adak,

which is part of the Refuge. The recovery plan calls for monitoring the known population, and it

says that opportunistic additional surveys for new populations could be undertaken but that

finding other groups is only a remote possibility.

N. Fisheries Management Plan 1993

The Refuge’s Fishery Management Plan completed in 1993 primarily points out the inadequacy

of fish inventories on refuge-originating commercial fish stock, resident freshwater fish, and

marine forage fish important to marine mammals and birds. It calls for monitoring forage fish

populations, expanding the Refuge data bases on salmon, resident fish and fish habitats, and

evaluating sport fisheries at military sites. It also calls for monitoring water quality.

O. Avian Influenza Surveillance Plan 2006

The plan’s goal is to provide guidance for Pacific Flyway wildlife agencies in planning and

implementing surveillance to detect Asian H5N1 in wild migratory birds. The priority species

for this plan on the Refuge are Common Eiders and Aleutian Terns. Eider sampling began in

2004 in a partnership with USGS-Biological Resources Division, and there is a need to

determine if Aleutian Terns can be adequately sampled on the Refuge in a cooperative project

with Migratory Bird Management.

P. Minimum inventory standards for National Wildlife Refuge

Developed by the Promises Team for the NWRS, this document specifies minimum inventories

every refuge should ultimately conduct.

Q. Inventory and Monitoring Related Goals and Objectives from the Interim Goals and

Objectives for Alaska Maritime NWR in 1997:

GOAL A. Conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their natural diversity

including, but not limited to marine mammals, marine birds and other migratory birds, the

marine resources upon which they rely, bears, caribou, and other mammals.

A-1 Prevent the introduction of rats and other non-indigenous species to refuge lands.

Continue, on an on-going basis, partnered programs for the prevention of rat introductions in

the Pribilof Islands. Maintain a contingency capability to prevent possible rat introduction

by shipwreck, or other means, on refuge lands as per the Regional Rat Plan.

Alaska Maritime NWR


62

A-2 Remove introduced foxes from the following islands by FY 2002: Inkla, Elma,

Avatanak, Little Sitkin, Kagalaska, Great Sitkin, Chuginadak, Wosenesenki,

Semisopochnoi, Kanaga, Tanaga, Shemya, Attu, Adak, and Amlia.

A-3 Monitor the health of refuge biodiversity and resources, on an annual basis, at 10

refuge sites identified in the Refuge Wildlife Inventory Plan.

A-4 Monitor the health of refuge biodiversity and resources, on a periodic and/or

intermittent basis, at various refuge sites identified in the Refuge Wildlife Inventory Plan.

A-5 Monitor winter waterfowl populations on the schedule and at locations identified in the


A-6 Conduct Aleutian Canada goose transplants and monitoring on the schedule identified

in the Aleutian Canada Goose Recovery Plan.

A-7 Protect Aleutian Shield Fern habitat and continue to monitor its occurrence as

identified in the recovery plan.

A-8 Complete other wildlife and habitat inventories and special studies as approved in the


A-9 Remove introduced species from refuge lands or exchange such lands (islands) that

have introduced species for lands that are of equal or higher value as wildlife habitat by FY

2010. On valued lands with “on and off” grazing(Pribilofs) develop partnerships to

establish grazing plans which protect the refuge’s natural diversity.

GOAL B. Fulfill the international treaty obligations of the United States with respect to fish

and wildlife and their habitats.

B-1 Enforce the Migratory Bird Treaty Act on refuge lands.

GOAL C. Provide, in a manner consistent with the goals set forth as A and B, the opportunity

for continued subsistence uses by local residents.

C-1 Monitor key subsistence species in the Pribilof Islands; provide an annual report of key

species productivity to the Pribilof Islands Joint Management Board.

C-2 Continue to monitor refuge resources as identified in the Refuge Wildlife Inventory

Plan; provide annual reports to potentially concerned villages, subsistence boards, and other

entities, as appropriate, on key species productivity.

GOAL D. Provide, in a manner consistent with Goals A and B, a program of national and

international scientific research on marine resources.

Alaska Maritime NWR


63

D-1 Provide the Tiglax (on a cost share basis) to other scientific organizations for research

purposes on a “not-to-interfere-with-Service-mission” basis.

D-2 Continue coordination and partnering efforts associated with the Steller sea lion

recovery program.

D-3 Continue coordination and partnering efforts associated with the sea otter research

program with an emphasis on monitoring and study of the population in the central

Aleutians and on the affects of various contaminants on the population refuge-wide.

D-4 Continue coordination and partnering efforts associated with contaminant surveys and

remediation on affected lands and waters, both within and adjacent to the Refuge.

D-5 Continue coordination and partnering efforts associated with Class I air quality studies

on refuge lands.

D-6 Continue coordination and partnering efforts with the National Park Service on

National Natural and Historic Landmarks on refuge lands.

D-7 Continue coordination and partnering efforts with various agencies, museums, and

universities working on cultural and archaeologic studies on refuge lands; complete a

Cultural Resource Guide for the Refuge by the end of FY 1997.

D-8 Continue coordination and partnering efforts with various agencies and universities

working on geological studies on refuge lands.

D-9 By aggressively seeking partnerships, establish an ecosystem-based research program

to address a variety of management and resource issues and concerns.

GOAL E. Ensure water quality and necessary water quantity within the refuge.

E-1 Require all log transfer facilities potentially affecting refuge lands and waters to meet

State and EPA water quality standards for all runoff.

E-2 Require the Department of Energy to conduct regular and systematic sampling of water

quality on Amchitka Island.

E-3 Ensure that all free petroleum and lubricant products are removed from Adak ground

waters as per the Adak Base Realignment and Closure Cleanup Plan.

E-4 Be prepared to meet all oil spill contingencies as outlined in the Regional Oil Spill

Response Plan.

GOAL F. Provide opportunities for the public to use and enjoy refuge resources through

compatible recreational activities including hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and

photography, and environmental education and interpretation.

Alaska Maritime NWR


64

F-1 Complete a Public Use Management plan for the Refuge by FY 2002.

F-2 Conduct, during the school year, environmental education programs in the Homer area

and at Sand Point, St. Paul, St. George, Adak, Sitka, Unalaska, Akutan, Nikolski, Atka, and

Nome, on an as requested and staff-available basis.

F-3 Conduct conservation camps at St. Paul, St. George, Unalaska, and Atka.

F-4 Continue to conduct an interpretive program on the State Marine Highway System;

initiate a similar program on cruise ships plying refuge waters or waters adjacent to the

Refuge, if feasible.

F-5 Continue to disseminate information to increase understanding and awareness of refuge

resources and programs through visitor centers, public contacts, press releases, publications,

National Wildlife Refuge week, signs and other media.

F-6 Utilize the Tiglax as a tool in the refuge outreach program, as its schedule permits.

GOAL G. Provide and maintain the facilities and equipment necessary to ensure a safe and

secure environment for the visiting public and in which Service personnel can accomplish

refuge purposes, goals, and mandates.

G-1 Maintain the Adak headquarters, housing, facilities, and equipment at Service standards

as identified in the Refuge Needs Information System (RNIS) database.

G-2 Maintain the Tiglax at standards that meet U.S. Coast Guard and SAFETY

requirements, including but not limited to a haulout at least every 4 years (FY 2000, FY

2004, FY 2008, etc).

G-3 Maintain oceanographic equipment and upgrade hydro acoustic gear on the Tiglax to

the industry standard during its next haulout (FY 2000).

G-4 Construct, by FY 2000, a new headquarters/Visitor Center complex at Homer which

meets projected management needs for the year 2010.

G-5 Construct, by 2010, interpretive displays at St. Paul, St. George, Sand Point, Sitka,

Juneau, Kotzebue, Nome, Kodiak, and on the Marine Highway System, and maintain

existing and new displays.

G-6 Maintain Homer headquarters, facilities, and equipment at a level outlined in the RNIS

database.

G-7 Maintain field buildings, facilities, and equipment at a level outlined in the RNIS

database.

Alaska Maritime NWR


65

G-8 Work with Tanadgusix Corporation and St. George Tanaq Corporation to have support

facilities built as called for in the Pribilof Terms and Agreements.

R. Other guidance

e.g., ABSI-LCC strategic science plan

Although regional science plans do not have implementation sections that assign tasks to the

Refuge, monitoring data gathered on the Refuge are used to test hypotheses about changes in

marine ecosystems and are frequently part of integrated studies like those funded by the North

Pacific Research Board, the Exxon Valdez Trustee Council, and the National Science Foundation

(e.g., Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska Integrated Ecosystem projects). Data from seabird

monitoring also are included as indicators of Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska ecosystems’ status

in the Ecosystem Report, used by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council. The

Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna sets Holarctic priorities for conservation and includes a

monitoring program to which the Refuge contributes. Further, expert groups like the Pacific

Seabird Group and ecoregional planning efforts (e.g., those sponsored by World Wildlife Fund,

Audubon Society, and The Nature Conservancy) provide regional and taxonomic priorities for

parts of the Refuge (e.g., Important Bird Areas). Finally, several inventory data sets are

collected in cooperation with other agencies or other groups within FWS (e.g., incidental

observations of Northern Fur Seals, whales, Harbor Seals, and Pacific Walrus) or to comply with

general guidance about priorities [e.g., inventory of resources in marine protected areas (such as

Semidi Islands marine waters)].

Alaska Maritime NWR


66

Appendix B. SMART Tool Survey Prioritization Criteria

Below are the criteria for the SMART tool developed by the I&M initiative and used by Refuge

biologists to rank our surveys. We began with an equal weight for each criteria, but felt some

criteria were overlapping and gave too much weight to those objectives. As a group we adjusted

the weights due to our understanding of priorities for this unique Refuge.

No. Criteria Weight

1 Refuge Purpose 0.1075

2 NWRS Objectives 0.0968

3 Management Utility (Decision Support) for Refuge 0.1075

4 FWS Program Priorities (except ESA) 0.0538

5 FWS Partners 0.0538

6 AK Maritime Endemic 0.1075

7 Refuge Ecological Processes 0.1075

8 Survey Breadth 0.0753

9 Controversy 0.0753

10 Threat 0.1075

11 Survey Scope 0.1075

Alaska Maritime NWR


67

Appendix B (cont.). Criteria considered for survey prioritization

Refuge Priorities and Management Needs

1. Refuge Purpose: Does the survey provide information to evaluate whether the station is

achieving its purpose(s)?

Note: Refuge purposes are generally those defined under the Refuge’s founding legislation

(Executive Order) or under ANILCA in Alaska. Example 1: A survey addressing wilderness

character addresses purpose for a station with proposed or designed wilderness. Example 2:

Kodiak Refuge was founded to protect the breeding and feeding grounds of brown bears. A

brown bear survey directly relates to this purpose.

1. No

2. Yes, one purpose

3. Yes, two purposes.

4. Yes, three or more purposes

2. NWRS Objectives: Does the survey provide information to evaluate whether the station is

achieving regional or national objectives of the NWRS such as Biological Integrity, Diversity,

and Environmental Health (BIDEH); NWR Resources of Concern (e.g., migratory birds,

anadromous fishes, marine mammals); and compatibility of refuge uses, especially wildlife-

dependent recreation)?

Federally listed species are addressed under criterion #6 so they should not be considered as a

NWR Resources of Concern under this criterion. For BIDEH, only consider surveys addressing

the highest measure of biological integrity, which is viewed as those intact and self-sustaining

habitats and wildlife populations existing during historic conditions (see 601 FW 3.10).

1. No

2. One objective

3. Two objectives

4. Three or more objectives

3. Management Utility (Decision Support) for the Refuge: Does the survey provide data for

recurring management decisions, especially as part of an existing decision framework that is

implemented on a regular basis?

1. No set application for the Refuge

2. May have management implications, but they are not explicitly defined

3. Has management implications, but no current decision framework

4. Part of an existing adaptive management decision framework

Partner Priorities and Management Needs

4. FWS: Does the survey provide information that directly contributes to evaluating the status

and trends of resources that are a priority for another FWS regional or national program (e.g.,

Migratory Birds, Fisheries, Water Resources/Hydrology) other than ESA species?

Alaska Maritime NWR


68

Example 1: North American Breeding Bird Survey, North American Amphibian Monitoring

Program, Mid-Winter Waterfowl Survey, and Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Network are

priority surveys for regional or national FWS programs.

1. Does not address a management priority identified by a FWS regional or national

program or initiative

2. Addresses a management priority identified by one FWS regional or national program or

initiative

3. Addresses a management priority identified by two FWS regional or national programs or

initiatives

4. Addresses a management priority identified by three or more FWS regional or national

programs or initiatives

5. FWS Partners: Does the survey address an identified priority of a conservation partner, such

as a Landscape Conservation Cooperative(s) (LCC), state agency, or other conservation partner?

1. Does not focus a management priority identified by FWS partners

2. Focus on a management priority identified by one FWS partner

3. Focus on a management priority identified by two FWS partners

4. Focus on a management priority identified by three or more FWS partners

Ecological Application

6. Alaska Maritime Endemic: Does the survey focus on a species that is endemic or near-

endemic to the Refuge?

1. No

2. Yes, endemic or near-endemic subspecies

3. Yes, endemic or near-endemic species

4. Yes, multiple endemic or near-endemic subspecies or species

7. Refuge ecological Processes: Does the survey focus on an ecological process (e.g., fire,

water temperature, climate) that is changing at a rate that is important to the Refuge, or an

indicator species associated with that process?

1. No

2. Yes, one significant ecological process or species

3. Yes, two or more significant ecological processes or species

8. Survey Breadth: The focus of the survey is:

1. A single species or abiotic parameter

2. Multi-species or multi-abiotic parameters

3. A community – multi-trophic level or biota

4. An ecosystem – biotic community and abiotic parameters

Immediacy of Need

9. Controversy: Does the survey support decision-making to address a controversial action or

management decision related to Refuge resources?

Alaska Maritime NWR


69

Examples of controversy include changes to livestock grazing, predator control, or harvest

regulations.

1. Not controversial and little to no potential for controversy.

2. Not currently controversial, but potentially or suspected of controversy

3. Known controversy. Immediate management action is not currently needed but may be

in the near future.

4. Pressing controversy. Data required to support immediate management action.

10. Threat: Does the survey support decision-making to monitor and mitigate a known or

suspected threat to Refuge resources?

Examples of threats may include invasive species and climate change.

1. No existing threat or potential for a threat to Refuge resources.

2. No known threat, but potential for a threat to Refuge resources.

3. Known threat to Refuge resources. Immediate management action is not currently

needed but may be in the near future.

4. Urgent threat to Refuge resources. Immediate data are needed to support management

action.

Scope and Scale

11. Survey Scope: What proportion (%) of the species’, subspecies’, or communities’ (i.e.,

vegetation) geographic range under U.S. jurisdiction will be covered by the survey on the

station?

1. Low: Survey covers <1% of the species’ or communities’ population/range.

2. Medium: Survey covers 1-10% of the species’ or communities’ population/range.

3. High: Survey covers ≥10% of the species’ or communities’ population/range.

Alaska Maritime NWR


70

Appendix C. SMART Tool Prioritization Scores, Rankings, and Survey Selection

The following table lists the scores used to prioritize and select inventory and monitoring surveys

likely to be conducted during the life of this IMP. Prioritization scores were generated for

candidate surveys by Refuge staff scoring each survey on the SMART tool criteria provided in

Appendix B. Scores were then used to assign final priority and operation status of surveys.

Current surveys will be completed if future program funding meets the average level received

between 2013 and 2015, as nominally adjusted for inflation. One or more expected surveys

could be completed if program funding exceeds the average level of funding received between

2013 and 2015. Future projects (non-selected) are least likely to be conducted because non-

Refuge partners and support commitments have yet to be identified.

Final

Priority Survey Name SMART Tool

Score Survey Status1

1.01 Annual Seabird Monitoring 0.77 Current

1.02

Monitoring Recovery of Ecosystems Following

Removal of Invasive Mammals 0.66

Current

1.03 Auklet Colony Mapping 0.61 Current

1.04 Seabird Population Trends at Intermittent Sites 0.59 Current

1.05

Confirming Success of Invasive Mammal

Eradication 0.59

Current

3.01 McKay’s Bunting Monitoring 0.59 Future

1.06

Monitoring of Range Condition of Islands with

Introduced Grazers 0.58

Current

1.07 Aleutian Tern Population Monitoring 0.58 Current

1.08 Red-faced Cormorant Surveys 0.58 Current

1.09 Winter Distribution of Trust Species 0.57 Current

1.10

Endemic Species Studies - Distribution,

Abundance and Status 0.56

Current

3.02

Seabird, Fish, Marine Mammal, and

Oceanography Coordinated Investigations

(SMMOCI) 0.56

Historic, Future

3.03

Population Estimates of Burrow- and Crevice-

Nesting Seabirds at Annual and Intermittent Sites 0.55

Future

1.11 Aleutian Shield Fern population monitoring 0.54 Current

1.12 Adak/Kagalaska caribou surveys 0.54 Current

1.13 Beached Wildlife and Oil (COASST) 0.53 Current

1.14 Seabird Densities at Sea 0.52 Current

3.04

Development of Field Techniques for Monitoring

Burrow- and Crevice-Nesting Seabirds 0.51

Future

1.15 Seabird Tissue Archival and Monitoring Program 0.51 Current

3.05

Use of Marine Waters by Species in the Semidi

Islands Group 0.49

Future

3.06

Determine Native/Non-native Status of Mammals

on the Refuge 0.46

Future

1.16 Kittlitz's Murrelet Nest Searching 0.45 Current

1.17 Rock Ptarmigan Population Studies 0.45 Current

2.01 Efficacy of Rodent Detection Devices 0.43 Expected

1.18 Inventory of Refuge Invertebrates 0.39 Current

1.19 Post-eruption Kasatochi Island Succession 0.38 Current

Alaska Maritime NWR


71

Final

Priority Survey Name SMART Tool

Score Survey Status1

1.20 Wilderness Character Monitoring 0.35 Current

1.21

Inventory of Refuge Flora/Vegetation

Communities 0.32 Current

2.02

Monitoring for Incursions of Non-native Species

in Entry Points 0.31 Expected

1.22

Migratory Birds and Marine Mammals- Timing

and Diversity 0.28 Current

2.03 Inventory of Refuge Vertebrates 0.27 Expected

3.07 Winter Waterfowl Monitoring 0.27 Historic, Future

1.23 Beach Passerine Survey 0.26 Current

1.24 Landbird Point Count Survey 0.26 Current

1.25 Marine Debris Surveys 0.18 Current

1.26 Nearshore Marine Water Temperature 0.13 Current

1Current: High priority surveys that will be conducted if future funding corresponds to the 3-year average (2013 –

2015) Refuge biological program budget.

Expected: Surveys that are anticipated to be completed over the timespan of the IMP, but require the continued

collaborative support of the Refuge’s partners.

Future: Existing and new surveys that generally ranked as a lower priority and would require additional support of

the Refuge’s partners for completion.

Alaska Maritime NWR


72

Appendix D. Estimated Annual Survey Costs.

A. Current Surveys

Survey Name

Survey

Priority

Average

Annual

Staff Time,

FWS (hrs)1

FWS Staff

Total ($)2

Average

Annual

Volunteer

Time (hrs)

Average

Annual

Operations

Cost ($)3 Total Cost

Annual Seabird Monitoring 1.01 6,760 $262,220 1,500 $420,000 $682,220 Monitoring recovery of ecosystems following

removal of invasive mammals

1.02

varies depending on

species and

location

varies depending on

species and

location Auklet Colony Mapping 1.03 520 $20,171 40 $10,000 $30,171 Seabird Population Trends at Intermittent Sites 1.04 520 $20,171 80 $30,000 $50,171 Confirming Success of Invasive Mammal

Eradication 1.05 400 $15,516 0 $30,000 $45,516 Monitoring of range condition of islands with

introduced ungulates 1.06 200 $7,758 0 $10,000 $17,758 Aleutian Tern Population Monitoring 1.07 40 $1,552 80 $2,000 $3,552 Red-faced Cormorant Surveys 1.08 200 $7,758 0 $15,000 $22,758 Winter distribution of trust species 1.09 720 $27,929 0 $20,000 $47,929 Endemic Species Studies - Distribution,

Abundance and Status 1.10 80 $3,103 0 $20,000 $23,103 Aleutian Shield Fern population monitoring 1.11 20 $776 0 $2,000 $2,776 Adak/Kagalaska caribou surveys 1.12 160 $6,206 40 $10,000 $16,206 Beached Wildlife and Oil (COASST) 1.13 40 $1,552 0 $5,000 $6,552 Seabird Densities at Sea 1.14 40-200 $7,758 80 $5,000 $12,758 Seabird Tissue Archival and Monitoring Program 1.15 0 $0 500 $500 $500 Kittlitz's murrelet nest searching 1.16 20 $776 200 $10,000 $10,776 Rock Ptarmigan Population Studies 1.17 200 $7,758 80 $7,000 $14,758 Inventory of Refuge Invertebrates 1.18 40 $1,552 40 $30,000 $31,552 Post-eruption Kasatochi Island Succession 1.19 20 $776 0 $5,000 $5,776 Wilderness Character Monitoring 1.20 40 $1,552 0 $1,000 $2,552

Alaska Maritime NWR


73

Survey Name

Survey

Priority

Average

Annual

Staff Time,

FWS (hrs)1

FWS Staff

Total ($)2

Average

Annual

Volunteer

Time (hrs)

Average

Annual

Operations


Inventory of Refuge Flora/Vegetation

Communities 1.21 80 $3,103 40 $20,000 $23,103 Migratory birds and marine mammals- timing and

diversity 1.22 20 $776 40 $5,000 $5,776 Beach Passerine Survey 1.23 20 $776 20 $1,000 $1,776 Landbird point count survey 1.24 <20 <$776 40 0 <$776 Marine Debris Surveys 1.25 40 $1,552 40 $5,000 $6,552 Nearshore marine water temperature 1.26 20 $776 20 $3,000 $3,776

1 Includes permanent FWS staff time only – seasonal time is included in annual operations costs 2 Computed by dividing annual salary costs by 2080 (hrs worked/year) 3 Includes non-- R/V Tiglax transportation costs field equipment and any other estimated costs

B. Expected Surveys

Survey Name

Survey

Priority

Average

Annual

Staff Time,

FWS (hrs)1

FWS Staff

Total ($)2

Average

Annual

Volunteer

Time (hrs)

Average

Annual

Operations


Efficacy of rat detection devices 2.01 80 $3,103 0 $5,000 $8,103 Monitoring for Incursions of Non-native Species in

Entry Points 2.02 40 $1,552 0 $2,500 $4,052

Inventory of Refuge Vertebrates 2.03 20 $776 20 $10,000 $10,776 1 Includes permanent and seasonal FWS staff time 2 Computed by dividing annual salary costs by 2080 (hrs worked/year) 3 Includes non- R/V Tiglax transportation costs, field equipment and any other estimated costs

Alaska Maritime NWR


74

Appendix E. Data Management.

A. Current Procedures and Policies

There is no current overarching, coordinated system and framework for biological data

management at the Refuge. The following ad hoc approach is used for management of

biological data. For some data sets, centralized refuge databases have been created and these are

stored on the refuge server, as well as backed up on the data manager’s external hard drives. In

addition, each wildlife biologist at the station is responsible for management of their current

projects, as well as legacy projects within their respective subprogram area (in particular for data

sets that have not yet been centralized). Some historical data sets exist only in paper form, while

more recent projects consist of both paper and electronic data forms. Paper records are

organized and stored in file cabinets in general office areas; some may be in biologist’s offices.

Electronic data are primarily stored on computer hard drives in biologist’s offices. To facilitate

security, data are copied from resident hard drives to external hard drives on a monthly or more

frequent basis. External drives are stored in a cabinet or drawer (not fireproof) in each office.

With few exceptions, data are archived on external drives. For some data, an additional archival

record set has been copied to the Refuge’s biology server drive; a portion of the biological server

drive (bio archives) has been set aside for this purpose. Records housed in the server drives are

automatically backed-up on a regular basis: every two hours (retained 4 days), daily (retained 30

days) and weekly (retained 52 weeks). Metadata is generally lacking for most datasets.

B. Databases

MS Excel is used to store most Refuge biological datasets. Use of relational databases, such as

MS Access, has recently increased to facilitate data management including data entry, data

archiving, and data analyses and summarization (e.g., for annual field reports); as well as to

facilitate data requests and to transfer data to regional and/or national databases. For example,

Access databases have been created for data entry, archiving, and summary analyses for seabird

productivity monitoring, population data, and seabird diet data. Others are under development

and will ultimately store all historical data for each project. Technical support was sought and

provided to develop most of these Access databases.

C. GIS

Many Refuge biological projects collect and manage spatial data. In general, these datasets are

managed independently by biologists consistent with their management of other electronic data

records and there is no standard procedure for organizing GIS data refuge-wide. Analysis of

spatial data usually requires use of additional framework datasets. In 2010, common databases

such as orthoimagery, landcover, land ownership, etc., were put on the Refuge’s GIS server

driver to facilitate consistency, organization, and accessibility. The system is currently under-

utilized but limited server capacity could hamper the ability to maintain shared databases in the

future.

D. Action Items

Alaska Maritime NWR


75

The Refuge is continuing to develop central databases that will ultimately house all historical

data sets for important long-term monitoring surveys. Additionally, data entry and proofing

procedures have been standardized for several long-term monitoring surveys.

Currently all Refuge reports are documented in an EndNote database, and PDF files are archived

in an associated EndNote folder on the Refuge biology server. Hard copies of all Refuge reports

also are archived in Refuge filing cabinets in a storage room. Most reports also are sent to

ARLIS for library archiving and to provide access to the public. Additionally, in 2014, all

reports were provided to Carol Damberg, I & M biologist, for upload into ServCat. Once the

initial upload is completed, the Refuge can plan to archive future Refuge reports in ServCat.

Alaska Maritime NWR


76

Appendix F. Estimated Monthly Schedule for Selected Current and Expected Inventory and

Monitoring Surveys.

Survey Name

Ja

n

Feb

Ma

r

Ap

r

Ma

y

Ju

n

Ju

l

Au

g

Sep

t

Oct

No

v

Dec

Annual Seabird

Monitoring

R R, P P P T,

FW,

DE

FW,

DE

FW,

DE

FW,

DE

FW,

DE

A A R

Monitoring recovery of

ecosystems following

removal of invasive

mammals

P FW FW FW FW FW R

Auklet Colony Mapping P FW,

DE

FW,

DE

A, R

Seabird Population Trends

at Intermittent Sites1

P P FW FW A, R

Confirming Success of

Invasive Mammal

Eradication

P FW FW FW FW FW R

Monitoring of range

condition of islands with

introduced grazers

P P FW FW DE,

A

R

Aleutian Tern Population

Monitoring

P FW FW R

Red-faced Cormorant

Surveys

P FW DE A, R

Winter distribution of

trust species

FW FW FW

Endemic Species Studies -

Distribution, Abundance

and Status

P FW FW FW

Seabird, fish, marine

mammal, and

oceanography coordinated

investigations (SMMOCI)

P FW FW DE A R R

Aleutian Shield Fern

population monitoring

P FW FW FW FW FW

Adak/Kagalaska caribou

surveys

P FW FW FW FW FW A, R

Beached Wildlife and Oil

(COASST)

P FW FW FW FW FW,

DE,

R

Seabird Densities at Sea P FW FW FW FW FW,

DE,

R

Seabird Tissue Archival

and Monitoring Program

P FW DE A, R R R

Kittlitz's murrelet nest

searching

P FW FW DE,

A

R R

Rock Ptarmigan

Population Studies

P FW FW DE,

A, R

Efficacy of rat detection

devices

P FW FW

Alaska Maritime NWR


77

Inventory of Refuge

Invertebrates

P FW FW FW FW FW DE,

A, R

Post-eruption Kasatochi

Island Succession

P FW FW FW DE,

A, R

Wilderness Character

Monitoring

P FW FW FW FW FW

Inventory of Refuge

Flora/Vegetation

Communities

P FW FW FW FW FW

Monitoring for incursions

of non-native species in

entry points

FW FW FW FW FW FW FW FW FW FW FW FW

Migratory birds and

marine mammals- timing

and diversity

P FW FW FW FW FW R

Inventory of Refuge

Vertebrates

P FW FW FW FW FW DE,

A

R

Beach Passerine Survey FW DE,

A

R

Landbird point count

survey

FW,

DE

R

Marine Debris Surveys FW FW FW FW FW,

DE,

R

Nearshore marine water

temperature

P FW FW FW FW FW,

A, R

R

P=Planning, T=Training, FW=Field Work, DE=Data Entry, A=Analysis, R=Reporting 1Periodic (i.e., replicate survey every 5-10 years)

Appendix G. Environmental Action Statement (EAS)

UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION STATEMENT

Within the spirit and intent of the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) ( 40 CFR l 500-1508), and other statutes, orders, and policies that protect fish and wildlife resources, I have established the following administrative record and determined that the following proposed action does not require additional NEPA documentation.

Proposed Action, Alternatives, and NEPA Documentation

The proposed action is to implement an Inventory and Monitoring Plan (IMP) for the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge (AMNWR). This IMP is a refinement of the 1988 Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and associated Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Refuge. This IMP provides more-specific guidance for surveys of AMNWR's fish, wildlife, plant, habitat, and abiotic resources to fulfill the Refuge's purposes and help achieve AMNWR's goals and objectives.

The EIS for AMNWR's CCP included goals and objectives for the Refuge and assessed the impacts associated with a range of reasonable alternatives to achieve those goals and objectives. The rationale for selection of one specific alternative for implementation is explained in the Record of Decision (ROD) accompanying the final CCP. The goals, objectives, and survey strategies included in this IMP fall within the bounds of those described and assessed in the CCP and EIS.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 1502.9, no additional NEPA documentation is required to implement this IMP beyond the EIS and ROD prepared concurrently with the CCP. No substantial changes to the proposed action alternative that was identified, analyzed, and selected for implementation within the CCP, EIS, and ROD are proposed through this IMP. Similarly, no significant new information or circumstances exist relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts.

In accordance with 43 CRF 46.205 and 40 CFR 1508.4, some surveys within this IMP are covered by the following Departmental categorical exclusion because they would not have significant environmental effects.

"Research, inventory, and information collection activities directly related to the conservation of fish and wildlife resources which involve negligible animal mortality or habitat destruction, no introduction of contaminants, or no introduction of organisms not indigenous to the affected ecosystem." 516 DM 8.5B(J) '

71~ wL (A/.'-'J R,)? Steve Delehanty/Refuge Manager Date

Reference: USFWS. 1988. Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge final comprehensive conservation plan, wilderness review and environmental impact statement.

inventory and monitoring plan for the alaska maritime

Documents