1. North Slope Rapid Ecoregional Assessment Executive Summary Final Presentation September 10, 2015

2. Contents of this presentation National and regional contextNational and regional context REA approachREA approach Ecoregional conceptual modelEcoregional conceptual model Baseline data creationBaseline data creation Climate warmingClimate warming Landscape changeLandscape change Future OpportunitiesFuture Opportunities

3. University of Alaska Alaska Natural Heritage Program (AKNHP - UAA) Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER - UAA) Scenarios Network for Alaska & Arctic Planning (SNAP - UAF) Geophysical Institute Permafrost Lab (UAF) Margaret J. King & Associates BLM Alaska State Office National Operation Center Arctic Field Office Project Team

4. Review Board AMT / Tech Team BLM (Arctic Field Office, Alaska State Office, Fairbanks District Office, National Operations Center) BLM (Arctic Field Office, Alaska State Office, Fairbanks District Office, National Operations Center) FWS (Arctic NWR, Arctic LCC) FWS (Arctic NWR, Arctic LCC) USGS (Alaska Science Center, Climate Science Center) USGS (Alaska Science Center, Climate Science Center) NPS (Central Alaska Network I&M) NPS (Central Alaska Network I&M) State of Alaska (ADF&G, ADCCED, DNR) State of Alaska (ADF&G, ADCCED, DNR) North Slope Borough (Wildlife Department) North Slope Borough (Wildlife Department) North Slope Science Initiative North Slope Science Initiative US Arctic Research Commission US Arctic Research Commission Michigan Tech University Michigan Tech University University of Alaska Fairbanks University of Alaska Fairbanks

5. Project Transparency Bi-weekly team meeting with UA team and BLM (over 70 regularly scheduled meetings) AMT and Tech Team Meetings, Webinars, and Reports Project initiation (Feb. 2012 – Meeting in FBX) Project initiation (Feb. 2012 – Meeting in FBX) Selection of important resources and management questions (June 2013 – Meeting in FBX) Selection of important resources and management questions (June 2013 – Meeting in FBX) Data discovery (December 2013 - Webinar) Data discovery (December 2013 - Webinar) Methods (February 2014 – Meeting in FBX) Methods (February 2014 – Meeting in FBX) Workplan (September 2014 – Meeting in FBX) Workplan (September 2014 – Meeting in FBX) Distribution Model Webinars (October 2014) Distribution Model Webinars (October 2014) Integrated Products Rolling Review (November 2014/December 2014) Integrated Products Rolling Review (November 2014/December 2014) Final REA Documents and results (April 2015 – Meeting in FBX) Final REA Documents and results (April 2015 – Meeting in FBX)

6. Community Outreach / Stakeholders Three community outreach meetings in Barrow to North Slope Borough Planning Commission September 2013, October 2014, September 2015 September 2013, October 2014, September 2015 Four newsletters printed and electronic sent to almost 200 interested parties

7. National and Regional Context

8. REAs primary purposes To provide landscape-level information needed to develop habitat conservation strategies for regionally significant native plants, wildlife, and fish and other aquatic species To inform subsequent land use planning, including trade-off evaluation, environmental analysis, and decision-making for other interconnected public land uses and values, such as development, recreation, and conservation.

9. MonitoringFrameworks RegionalConservationStrategy Mitigation Programs Rapid Ecoregional Assessments Assessments ScienceIntegration Landscape Approach

10. An REA is a rapid assessment of how regional ecosystem resources might change in the future Change Agents Climate Change Development Invasives Fire Permafrost Conservation Elements Wildlife Vegetation Soils Areas of Importance Status Current Near-term Long-term Management Questions Socioeconomic Condition Subsistence What is an REA?

11. Land Status Study Area: 96,431 square miles Includes both the North Slope Borough and Northwest Arctic Borough

12. Ecoregional Conceptual Model

13. Assessment Components 20 Regionally Important Management Questions Conservation Elements : Aquatic and Terrestrial Species and Habitats Change Agents: Fire, Invasive Species, Permafrost, Anthropogenic Uses

14. Major Products Final technical report Separated into 11 sections, many with hundreds of pages of material Executive summary document Hundreds of maps, figures, tables and graphs Spatial data delivered to NOC with metadata Extensive review of data to meet BLM standards All input data used to develop products delivered to BLM NOC Spatial models for all products so users can recreate all figures delivered and update as new data is available Conceptual models for all conservation elements

15. Nine Terrestrial Habitats Tidal marsh Coastal plain moist tundra Coastal plain wetland Sand sheet wetland Sand sheet moist tundra Foothills tussock tundra Alpine dwarf shrub Tidal marsh Marine beach, barrier islands, and spits

16. Seven Terrestrial Species Caribou Nearctic brown lemming Arctic Fox Lapland Longspur Raptor concentration areas Willow ptarmigan Greater white-fronted goose

17. Three Aquatic Habitats and Five Fish Species Deep connected lakes Shallow connected lakes Large and small streams Dolly Varden Broad whitefish Burbot Chum salmon Arctic grayling

18. Invasive Species Development Change Agents Permafrost Fire

19. Baseline Data Terrestrial A comprehensive vegetation map New caribou forage maps Seasonal caribou distribution for the Western Arctic, Teshekpuk, and Central Arctic Herds New synthesized data for passerine species and raptor concentration areas Aquatic Hundreds of new fish occurrence points added to the BLM RipFish Database

20. Baseline Data Climate, Permafrost, Fire New estimates of fire frequency for tundra Thermokarst risk map Invasive Species Current and future invasive vulnerability maps Anthropogenic Analyzed all Subsistence Advisory Panel (SAP) transcripts Subsistence use species review Identified variables to determine effect of development on harvest of caribou and fish Air quality database of all available models, data, and literature for the region

21. Crucial Data Needs Data Gaps highlighted in each section of the report and it’s own standalone chapter Aquatics 1.No existing aquatic habitat classification 2.Outdated National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) and Digital Elevation Model (DEM) 3.No information on stream order or stream gradient 4.Lack of fish occurrence data 5.Lack of data on long-term trends and temporal change for fish 6.Lack of data on fish populations and movements 7.Lack of understanding of hydrologic conditions and no hydrologic models 8.Limited gauging stations 9.Limited water temperature data

22. Crucial Data Needs Terrestrial 1.No standard vegetation map 2.No accuracy assessment for vegetation maps used in the assessment 3.No comprehensive soil survey 4.Minimal understanding of vegetation succession 5.Caribou collar data for delineating migration corridors unavailable 6.No comprehensive current or historic shoreline maps 7.No freely available storm surge models 8.No spatial data for land birds and their habitat over time 9.Low resolution data (>30m) on lake margins, riparian corridors, and tidal marshes 10.Kernel density for the Porcupine Herd unavailable 11.Raw telemetry data for the Western Arctic, Teshekpuk, and Central Arctic herds unavailable 12.Seasonal fall and spring ranges were unavailable for the Teshekpuk Herd 13.The Nearctic brown lemming and raptor distribution models are known to be inaccurate 14.No specific information on threshold values linking species to specific CA responses

23. Crucial Data Needs Climate, Permafrost, Fire 1.Limited water temperature data and no water temperature models 2.Climate data unavailable at a finer scale than monthly mean data 3.No daily climate data to account for extreme events 4.No precipitation differentiation between rain and snow, or any direct measure of snow pack 5.Lack of long-term climate stations and permafrost bore holes to validate models 6.Climate data and permafrost data only available at a coarse resolution 7.No climate monitoring stations above 500m 8.Limited data on fire severity and fire history 9.Lack of clear linkage between climate variables we can model and factors important to species survival Invasive Species 1.Survey data lacking

24. Crucial Data Needs Anthropogenic 1.Much social and economic data is not amenable to aggregate to a regional scale. 2.Data available for the NSB not always available for the North West Arctic Borough. 3.Road and other land use data not consistently created or validated across jurisdictional boundaries 4.Local road and trail data are poor 5.Limited subsistence resource surveys and none systemically sampled annually. Only existing and available datasets used. 6.No air quality models available for the entire region 7.No water withdrawal maps 8.No comprehensive infrastructure dataset available publically and the magnitude of future oil and gas development is unknown for the region 9.No method for tracking food sharing across the ecoregion, limiting the ability to understand region-wide impacts of changes in subsistence species accessibility 10.No systematic sampling of contaminants for the region 11.Snow and ice road data limited to NPR-A 12.No spatial data on gravel pits and mines

25. January Temperature – Long-term Warming Winter warming will be greatest in the east, with a shift of about 8°F by the 2060s.

26. September Precipitation – Reduced Snowfall Precipitation more likely to fall as rain than snow

27. Increase in Active Layer Thickness Warming of permafrost, minimal loss at 1-m depth Increase in active layer thickness Changes likely to have greatest impact on water availability

28. Increased Fire Fire likely to remain absent – or almost absent Sporadic tundra fires may occur and managers should expect increased fire risk

29. Invasive Species Currently highly resistant Increased possibility of invasion by cold- tolerant non-native species

30. SAP Minutes and Social Indicators Analysis of SAP Meeting Minutes (Winter 1999 – Spring 2013; 1,500 pages) to explore how many times particular issues/themes are brought up No substantial themes raised by the group that were not already identified in the ecological conceptual model Caribou only individual species commonly mentioned Generally other species only mentioned in response to a presentation Of the 7 Artic Social Indicators Several only available through proxies Many indicators share the same proxies Some data not available by communities rather a region Only 12 communities not enough for meaningful statistics

31. Human Footprint Future human footprint estimates from North Slope Science Initiative's (NSSI) scenarios project Overall landscape condition for the region is very high Significant data gap

32. Landscape Integrity Overall landscape integrity is very high Areas around Prudhoe Bay, Wainwright, and Nuiqust high fragmentation

33. Cumulative Change Change Agents: January Temp July Temp Annual precipitation Permafrost Active Layer Relative flammability Human footprint Invasive species vulnerability

34. Cumulative Impacts by Land Management Status Land Management StatusCI = 3CI = 4CI = 5CI = 6CI = 7CI = 8 Bureau of Land Management 1,102 43,678 21,515 30,196 874 - Fish and Wildlife Service 18,635 19,120 3,446 4,633 < 1 - Military - - 60 18 3 - National Park Service 13,729 9,788 3,330 1,432 886< 1 Native Patent or IC 1,984 10,226 6,676 3,441 805< 1 Native Selected 11 681 688 213 81 - Private - -< 1 - - - State Patent or TA 3,954 13,410 17,204 13,866 1,060< 1 State Selected 334 1,564 801 137 173 -

35. Individual Species Conceptual Model

36. Warming Impacting Arctic Foxes Change in mean annual temperature from 2010- 2060 within modeled distribution of Arctic fox. Warmer temperatures = less snow in late winter Less prey Increase competition with red fox

37. Increased Shrub Cover Increased air temperature and precipitation likely to increase shrub cover Increased shrubs may increase food availability for herbivores like moose Increased shrub cover may increase likelihood of fire

38. Caribou Length of the growing season will increase by about 2 weeks May increased nutrient value of forage with peak lactation increasing calf survival May result in calves born after most of food has emerged, reducing calf survival

39. Landscape Change Summary Landscape condition remains high even in the high development scenario due to localized activities HOWEVER, the magnitude and spatial distribution of future oil and gas development are unknown. Because of this estimates of landscape integrity likely underestimate the actual impact We also do not understand the response of ecosystems with small numeric shifts from “very high” to “high” potentially resulting in large ecological effects

40. Cumulative Change Summary Changes relatively minimal in the near- term By 2060 most of the region is likely to change in significant ways Change highest along foothills and coastal plain transition

41. Species, Habitats, and Change Agent Summary Species and habitats are changing Magnitude and thresholds are largely unknown Some species and habitats will be “winners” and others “losers”. However we are unclear as to who these will be.

42. Future Opportunities While the North Slope is well studied comprehensive spatial data largely does not exist and is needed More research need to happen to define meaningful ecological thresholds to better understand CExCA relationships The REA is the important first step to multi-agency planning efforts, developing regional monitoring strategies, and for additional scenario planning products

43. Products Available and Pending Draft final technical supplements (available now) http://aknhp.uaa.alaska.edu/landscape-ecology/north- slope-rea/final-report/#content Draft final technical supplements (available now) http://aknhp.uaa.alaska.edu/landscape-ecology/north- slope-rea/final-report/#content http://aknhp.uaa.alaska.edu/landscape-ecology/north- slope-rea/final-report/#content http://aknhp.uaa.alaska.edu/landscape-ecology/north- slope-rea/final-report/#content Final community stakeholder newsletters (Sept. 2015) Final community stakeholder newsletters (Sept. 2015) Draft final executive summary (working with BLM VIS (Sept./Oct. 2015) Draft final executive summary (working with BLM VIS (Sept./Oct. 2015) Data Delivery (Fall 2015/Spring 2016) Data Delivery (Fall 2015/Spring 2016) Final report and all data on BLM national page “REA Data Portal” (Spring 2016) http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/Landscape_A pproach/reas/dataportal.html Final report and all data on BLM national page “REA Data Portal” (Spring 2016) http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/Landscape_A pproach/reas/dataportal.html http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/Landscape_A pproach/reas/dataportal.html http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/Landscape_A pproach/reas/dataportal.html REA BLM Training (similar format as to YKL) – data TBA REA BLM Training (similar format as to YKL) – data TBA

44. Jamie Trammell (907) 786-4865, ejtrammell@uaa.alaska.eduejtrammell@uaa.alaska.edu Monica McTeague (907) 786-6357 mlmcteague@uaa.alaska.edumlmcteague@uaa.alaska.edu Scott Guyer (907) 271-3284, sguyer@blm.govsguyer@blm.gov Questions? Observations? Comments?