11 Exclusion of females from denning areas would lead to a decline in the reproduction rate, concluded DOI's Final Report, but the overall population would not change as long as "similar intensive developments did not occur along the entire northern coast of Alaska and Canada." In the same section of the report, however, Interior contradicts the above statement, noting that additional polar bear habitat losses are expected from development of marine facilities in the Beaufort Sea. "Biologists believe the Beaufort Sea population can sustain little, if any, increase in mortality of females" without suffering a population decline (Amstrup et al, 1986). Exclusion of females from denning areas and increased hunting pressures likely would result in a decline in the Beaufort Sea polar bear population; Interior has been criticized for its unclear and contradictory account of the status of this species. 6) Brown Bear (Ursus arctos) A subspecies of the brown bear, the barren-ground grizzly bear of northern Alaska, is common on the 1002 area from late May through early July. During this period, approximately 100 of these bears move from the foothills and mountains south of ANWR to the coastal plain (Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 1987). Here they prey on calves of the Porcupine Caribou Herd (Interior News Release, 1987; Interior Final Report, 1987). The potential decline and change in distribution of the PCH food source caused by development of ANWR could result in decreased brown bear productivity and survival of young in years when alternate food sources are scarce (Interior Final Report, 1987). Brown bears also are susceptible to disturbance during denning. Winter exploration activities are of particular concern because they occur while bears are denning. Interior has stated that activities in other seasons probably would not affect denning, as bears would simply move away from the disturbances (Interior Final Report, 1987). However, this would eliminate potential brown bear denning sites from any areas experiencing human activities that disturb bears. The greatest concern involves brown bear interactions with humans. Brown bears habituate to human development quite readily, and often are killed in defense of life or property. (Alaska Department of Fish and Game policy does not allow for relocation of problem brown bears.) According to Interior, most brown bear deaths would probably result from human activities that attract bears--improper garbage disposal, poor food handling, or illegal feeding. well. Illegal hunting of the brown bear population could rise, as 12 construction of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (Follmann and Hechtel, 1983), and is the likely result of any human influx associated with oil development (Schallenberger, 1980). Based on these additive impacts, Interior predicts a moderate decline in number or change in distribution of brown bears using the 1002 area. 7) Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) According to the DOI Final Report, 5 to 10 wolves can be found on the 1002 area (Weiler et al, 1985). These predators use the coastal plain primarily in the summer when their caribou prey are most abundant. Although no denning has been documented on the 1002 area, some wolf dens have been found on the coastal plains to the east and west and in adjacent foothills to the south (Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 1987; Interior Final Report, 1987). The abundance of wolves is determined by the abundance of their ungulate prey (Keith, 1983), and the possible reduction and change in distribution of the PCH could significantly affect the wolf population in the 1002 area. A positive correlation exists between prey availablity, birthrate, and survival of young wolves (Mech, 1970; Harrington et al, 1983). Like the brown bear, the wolf's greatest threat from oil development would be from increased human presence. During construction of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System, wolves habituated to human activity, in some cases accepting handouts from workers (Follmann et al, 1980). If habituation leads to public safety problems, some wolves may be killed to protect human lives. (As with brown bears, Alaska Department of Fish and Game policy does not allow for relocation of problem wolves.) Illegal shooting and trapping of wolves could be the most likely cause of wolf mortality, however. It is generally acknowledged that wolves have been greatly reduced from the Prudhoe Bay area since development began. moderate In light of this information, DOI predicts a decline of the wolf population using the 1002 area if oil development is approved. 8) Wolverine (Gulo gulo) Wolverines live throughout the 1002 area at low density (Mauer, 1985). Solitary animals, they are primarily scavengers, feeding on carcasses often left by other predators. Under certain conditions, however, a wolverine is capable of killing an adult caribou. 13 Because of their feeding habits, the ANWR wolverine population is closely related to those of large herbivores such as caribou and muskoxen, the animals on which they primarily feed (van Zyll de Jong, 1975). Thus any detrimental effects on the PCH and muskox could indirectly affect the ANWR wolverine population. Potential reductions in brown bear and wolf numbers, predators that hunt caribou and muskox, also could reduce the number of prey carcasses available for scavenging (Interior Final Report, 1987). Moreover, according to DOI, wolverine distribution and movements could be altered by the presence of human activity associated with oil development. Wolverines occur exclusively in remote areas where human activity is low (Mauer, 1985), and "displacement from local areas of development is very likely" (Interior Final Report, 1987). Increased hunting and trapping, however, probably would affect wolverines most (van Zyll de Jong, 1975). According to Interior, wolverines on the tundra are vulnerable to illegal hunting from snowmobiles and aircraft; the influx of humans into ANWR and the improved access resulting from the roads, trails, and airstrips accompanying oil development could increase these pressures. The Department concludes that the cumulative effects of displacement, reduced food resources, and increased legal and illegal hunting and trapping "could possibly reduce by half or more the 1002 area wolverine population." DOI recommends harvest controls to mitigate effects. 9) Wilderness and Remoteness Values The expected displacement and reduction in wildlife populations and the development of oil production facilities on the ANWR coastal plain would eliminate the present wild land values of the 1002 area. Critics of Interior's recommendation believe that Interior should be acting to conserve the few remaining wild tracts left in the U.S., not promoting their development. Moreover, several wildlife species indigenous to ANWR require remote conditions to survive--coexistence with humans is extremely difficult and must be regulated carefully. For example, the wolverine occurs exclusively in remote regions where human activity is low (van Zyll de Jong, 1975), and it has been extirpated from the southern portions of its range as human populations have expanded (Myhre, 1967). It is thought that wolverines could flourish if "sufficiently large tracts of proper habitat were set aside and protected" (Wilson, 1982). Unmanaged wild land is a legitimate wildlife management tool and should be 14 carefully considered as an option. The wolf, polar bear, and brown bear also prefer isolated habitat. Although these species may adapt to human presence and activity, such interactions often lead to major behavioral and ecological disruptions. Feeding habits of bears and wolves may change when the animals become habituated to human sources of food such as garbage and food storage areas. Wolves, brown bears, and polar bears that have become conditioned to human activity also may be dangerous to humans; they may lose their fear of humans and associate human presence with food (Craighead and Mitchell, 1982; Amstrup et al, 1986). These animals are therefore more likely to come into contact with and endanger humans. In short, "[m]aintaining large wilderness areas of prime habitat inviolate to energy exploitation is essential to the future of [human-threatening predators] throughout their range in North America" (Craighead and Mitchell, 1982). Proponents of development believe there already is enough legally designated Wilderness available in Alaska already. Almost half of ANWR's 19 million acres currently are protected as Wilderness. However, this view neglects to consider the special importance of the coastal plain to ANWR's wildlife. In the United States, ANWR is the last sizeable arctic coastal plain that can be considered wild, and only 25 of Alaska's 1,100 miles of coastline are currently designated as Wilderness (National Wildlife Federation, 1987). 10) Long-term and Cumulative Development Impacts As the oil and gas potential of the arctic has been recognized, the area has been exposed to development pressures previously not encountered. The U.S., Canada, the Soviet Union, and the Scandinavian countries all operate oil production facilities in their arctic regions. The cumulative effects of development activities on the arctic environment have been largely ignored. Researchers recently have detected an "arctic haze" in the northern atmosphere that is believed to be the result of air pollution from combined arctic industrial activities (National Wildlife Federation, 1987). The effects of development on air and water quality must be addressed from a global perspective if the health of the whole region is to be maintained. Increased development also has the potential to disrupt the ecology and migration of wildlife indigenous to the arctic. Admirably, the Soviet Union and Canada have precluded development from the core calving areas of their native ungulate populations 15 (Regelin, 1987). Additionally, long-term impacts have received little attention in the DOI Report. Although U.S. oil activities in the arctic have been underway for 15 years, critics of further development argue that this is not a long time considering the fragility of the arctic ecosystem (The New York Times, 26 April 1987). Further research is needed to determine the long-term effects of development (Cameron, 1983). Moreover, there are no funds set aside for reclamation and removal of roads and buildings for any U.S. arctic development. Costs are significant: the Alaska Oil and Gas Association estimates that restoration of oil exploration sites alone would require 1.5 to 2 times the funds needed for construction (Mahoney, 1987). If the area is to return to its previous natural state, these structures must be removed upon project completion. 1) Subsistence Peoples Other Criticisms The village of Kaktovik is the only settlement near the 1002 area. The settlement is composed of about 180 people, 90% of whom are Native Inupiat Eskimos. Kaktovik residents live primarily by subsistence activities; in 1978, 85% of the village's households obtained all of most of their food supply from hunting, fishing, and gathering (Peterson, 1978). Several other subsistence communities located outside ANWR harvest caribou, polar bears, and snow geese that may spend parts of their life cycle on the 1002 area. Development of the 1002 area has the potential to severely disrupt the subsistence life of Kaktovik. According to DOI's Final 1002 Report, "[e]ffects on subsistence use species, disruption of traditional subsistence use sites, and likely psychological effects on people accustomed to isolation will result in a major adverse effect on subsistence lifestyles and a significant restriction on subsistence for the residents of Kaktovik." Interior feels some effects will be beneficial, however, because more money would be available for the villagers to purchase guns, snowmobiles, boats, and fuel (Interior Final Report, 1987). Already, Natives have replaced kayaks with motorboats, dog teams with snowmobiles and aircraft, and bows and spears with rifles. Harvests of fish and wildlife by local residents have increased with the acquisition of these items, forcing more intensive management of caribou and polar bear populations than in previous times. |