SOCIETY THE WILDLIFE SOCIETY 5410 Grosvenor Lane Bethesda, MD 20814⚫ Tel. (301) 897-9770 WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES CONCERNS ABOUT THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR'S PROPOSED RECOMMENDATIONS submitted by Harry E. Hodgdon, Executive Director, The Wildlife Society, 26 October 1987 Commemorating 50 years of excellence - 1937-1987 3 INTRODUCTION President Carter signed the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) into law in December of 1980, setting aside approximately 103 million acres of federal land in the national conservation systems of Alaska. This legislation increased the Arctic National Wildlife Range from 8.9 to 17.9 million acres, and renamed the area the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (Figure 1). Recent additions by the State of Alaska have increased the refuge to 19 million acres. Although ANILCA designated 8 million acres of Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) mountain terrain as Wilderness, it did not resolve the future status of a 1.55 million acre portion of the Refuge's coastal plain. This area, referred to as the "1002 area," is located in the northernmost part of ANWR between the Brooks Range and the Beaufort Sea (Figure 2) and lies within the arctic tundra ecosystem. The arctic tundra is the last relatively undeveloped terrestrial ecosystem in North America. According to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service standards, 99% of the 1002 area is classified as wetland. Although the 1002 area makes up only a fraction of the entire Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, it is of crucial importance to the area's wildlife. According to Interior's Final 1002 Report, "[it] is the most biologically productive part of the Arctic Refuge for wildlife and is the center of wildlife activity." THE 1002 REPORT Available geological evidence suggests that the 1002 area may contain significant deposits of oil and gas. In light of this, Section 1002 (h) of ANILCA required the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study of the fish and wildlife resources of ANWR's 1002 area, to develop an oil and gas exploration program, and to prepare a report to Congress that included an assessment of the environmental impacts of future development and recommendations as to whether or not oil production should occur. The overall responsibility for the report was given to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which completed a draft in November 1986. Dubbed the "1002 Report," DOI submitted copies to federal agencies, the Canadian government, the State of Alaska, and to conservation organizations, petroleum industries, and the media. Public hearings were held only after several conservation organizations filed suit against the Department of the Interior for failure to allow for sufficient public review and comment (Trustees for Alaska v. Hodel, 1986). The Secretary of the Interior, Donald P. Hodel, submitted the final 1002 Report to Congress in April, 1987, recommending leasing of the entire 1002 area for oil development as soon as possible. The report states that the chances of finding vast energy resources on the area outweigh the risks of damage to ANWR's fish and wildlife. Furthermore, DOI suggested that experience at the nearby Prudhoe Bay oil field indicates that environmental protection and oil development are compatible in the arctic. The report concluded that "oil and gas activities can be conducted in the 1002 area in a manner consistent with the need and desire to conserve the area's significant environmental values." CRITICISMS OF INTERIOR'S ANALYSIS The conclusions of the 1002 Report were widely criticized by conservationists. Interior's assessment is thought by many to lack the information necessary to support its recommendation of full leasing. Even the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress found the document wanting (The New York Times, 10 June 1987). EPA stated that the 1002 Report is "incomplete in its presentation of scientific data that would support the impact conclusions of the Secretary's recommendation" (EPA Review Comments, 1987). Criticisms of Wildlife and Fisheries Impacts The proposed full leasing plan could affect several species of fish and wildlife indigenous to the region: 1) Caribou (Rangifer tarandus) The caribou is perhaps the most controversial of the species found in ANWR. Caribou are migratory animals, often travelling great distances to winter and bear their young in separate areas. Two herds use the 1002 area. The Porcupine Caribou Herd (PCH) is the largest of the two at 200,000 animals (Whitten, 1987). It is considered by some to be the last free-roaming, migratory herd of North American caribou that can be protected in most of its range (Rogers, 1987). In some years several hundred PCH animals remain in the 1002 area year-round (Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 1987), but most of the PCH uses the 1002 area for only 6-8 weeks of its annual cycle. These 6-8 weeks during June and July, however, are thought to be critical to the herd's reproductive success. 5 The Central Arctic Herd (CAH) is smaller, composed of about 16,000 animals. The CAH sometimes calves in western sections of the 1002 area (Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 1987). Like the PCH, a small proportion of the herd winters in the 1002 area. Although the PCH has not yet experienced any oil development within its range, CAH movement patterns regularly bring it into areas of oil development (Curatolo and Murphy, 1986). Avoidance of roads, pipelines, and oil facilities by the Central Arctic Herd has been documented (Cameron et al, 1979; Cameron and Whitten, 1980; Whitten and Cameron, 1983; Dau and Cameron, 1985). It is the Porcupine Caribou Herd, however, that is the chief source of the ANWR conflict. At the heart of the controversy is the PCH calving grounds (Figure 3), the area where female caribou choose to give birth to their young. It is thought that caribou select calving grounds because of certain ecological characteristics such as early snowmelt, relative absence of predators, lack of disturbance, local abundance of food, proximity to insect relief habitat, or some combination of these factors (Lent, 1980; Cameron, 1983). The dispute centers on whether core areas of calving (i.e., areas that traditionally experience high numbers of maternal caribou) exist, and if so, whether they exist within the 1002 area. Although some individuals contend that core calving areas do not exist, the vast majority of caribou biologists agree that most herds have clearly definable core calving areas. Interior's Draft 1002 Report stated that 78% of the PCH core calving area was on the 1002 area. The Final Report, however, revised this figure to 27%, stating that the PCH calves in different areas each year and that only concentrated, not core, areas were found there. The Final Report neglects to mention that this calving concentration area has supported approximately 85% of the PCH's total calving activity (EPA Review Comments, 1987). If full leasing is carried out, as Interior recommends, a major disruption of this intensive-use area likely would occur. The PCH also uses the 1002 area's coastal region for insectrelief habitat. On warm, windless days in late June and early July, caribou move to the coastline of the Beaufort Sea to escape large swarms of mosquitoes and parasitic botflies (Smith and Cameron, 1985a). Here lower temperatures and stronger winds provide escape from insect harassment. When insect harassment ceases, caribou return inland to feed (Cameron, 1983). Thus, "oscillatory movements occur between coastal habitat and inland feeding sites" (Cameron, 1983). If caribou are constantly harassed by insects, they may reduce foraging activities and their ability to grow and fatten may decline, possibly increasing susceptibility to predation and |