The full list of projects contains the entire database hosted on this portal, across the available directories. The projects and activities (across all directories/catalogs) are also available by country of origin, by geographical region, or by directory.
To conserve the federally listed Alaska-breeding population of Steller’s eiders through monitoring breeding, surveying populations, predator management, and analyzing the effects of management actions. Main gaps: We are only collecting data on the breeding biology of this species along the road system near Barrow, Alaska.
To collect contemporary data on the distribution, abundance and trends in abundance of Arctic-breeding shorebirds. Main gaps: No long term funding available to continue to conduct these surveys.
Protect wildlife and habitat for future generations; fulfill international treaty obligations related to fish and waterfowl; provide opportunity for subsistence use by residents Main gaps: Few data prior to 1981.
1) Annual monitoring of molting Greater White-fronted Geese (Interior refuges) 2) Waterfowl (primarily) breeding pair survey (MBM- done 1997, 2008-09) 3) Breeding Bird Survey (2 routes; annual, though not in 2009) 4) Alaska Landbird Monitoring Survey (2 plots; biennial) 5) Refuge moose population survey (annual) 6) Refuge wolf survey (annual as conditions allow; minimum census) 7) Henshaw Creek fish weir (annual; TCC = operator) 8) Stream gages (operational Oct 2009; will operate at least 6 years) 9) Snow markers (6 on refuge; checked monthly in winter; statewide??)
To inventory and monitor resources of the Yukon Flats Basin to achieve refuge purposes.
Track and analyze all bear/human conflicts for all circumpolar polar bear range states (countries). As a result of on-going and predicted future habitat loss, polar bears are expected to spend longer periods of time on land where they are susceptible to human disturbance. At the same time, human activity in coastal areas of the Arctic is increasing (e.g. oil and gas exploration, tourism) in conjunction with an increased number of nutritionally stressed bears occurring on land. The increasing trend of both polar bear and human use of coastal areas has the potential to result in increasing polar bear-human interactions. Harvest data indicates that defense of life kills have been increasing (USFWS unpublished data). To date, polar bear attacks have been rare but when they do occur, they evoke strong public reaction, especially for residents of communities within the range of polar bears. For sound management of polar bears to be implemented, and adequate protection afforded to people living, recreating, and working in polar bear country, it is imperative that polar bear managers assemble a database of critical information related to bear-human interactions. Interactions with humans may threaten polar bears by: (1) displacement from preferred habitats, such as denning, feeding and resting areas; (2) ingestion of or exposure to contaminants or toxic substances; (3) association of humans with food (food-conditioning) resulting in nuisance bears being killed due to safety concerns for local residents/workers. Polar bear managers can help maintain the current status of their polar bear populations by reducing lethal take of polar bears during bear-human interactions. To prevent escalating conflicts between polar bears and humans, bear-human interaction plans need to be developed and implemented. During the March 2009 Polar Bear Range States Meeting in Tromso, Norway the U.S. was tasked with taking the lead on developing a polar bear / human interaction initiative to address the anticipated future increase in interactions due to climate change. Tor Punsvik, Environmental Advisor, Office of The Governor of Svalbard, Norway and Dr. Terry D. DeBruyn, Polar Bear Project Leader, FWS, Alaska were requested by the Range States to develop a polar bear/human interaction database for the next Range States Meeting in Canada in 2011. It is anticipated that a draft database, populated with data from both the U.S. and Norway, will be ready by November 2009 for testing and comment by the Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG). The draft database will be distributed to PBSG members, comment sought, and a request made that members populate the database with pertinent polar bear/human incidents (of primary interest, initially, are records from each country that relate to the use of bear spray and fatalities (both bear and human) resulting from bear-human interactions). At a subsequent meeting of U.S. and Norway in spring 2010, the database will be updated and thereafter redistributed to the PBSG and Range State members. It is anticipated that data from all Polar Bear Range States will then be available for consolidation and validation in winter 2010 and ready to present at the Range States meeting in 2011. To ensure the success of the project, partnering with various agencies and pertinent groups in the range state countries will occur. The Polar Bear Range States parties agree on the need to develop comprehensive strategies to manage bear-human conflicts. Some existing strategies include active deterrence, reduction of attractants, and community education and outreach. Expertise developed for management of other bear species should be consulted in the development of strategies specific to polar bears. The parties agreed to exchange experiences with management of bear-human interactions. Two specific opportunities were identified to develop bear-human interaction strategies: the upcoming Bear-human Workshop in November 2009 in Canmore, Alberta, Canada and the Polar Bear Aversive Conditioning Workshop planned to be held in Alaska in 2010. The Polar Bear-Human Information Management System (PBHIMS) has been developed to standardize the collection of polar bear data across the Range States. This system provides a user-friendly data entry interface and the ability to analyze the collected data. Data stored in the system includes bear-human conflicts, bear observations, bear harvests, and bear natural history data. Scanned images of the original bear forms, narratives, reports, and photos can be attached to each incident to provide additional information that may not be captured in the system. Main gaps: Developed for use by USFWS; other range states are not using it yet.
(1) Monitor the subsistence and handicraft harvest of polar bears, sea otters and walrus; (2) Obtain essential biological data needed to manage; and (3) Help prevent the illegal take, trade and transport of specified raw marine mammal parts. The Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 allows Alaska Natives to harvest marine mammals for subsistence uses. The Marine Mammal Protection Act (pdf) requires that all sea otter and polar bear hides and skulls, and all walrus tusks be tagged by a representative of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This program is implemented through resident MTRP taggers located in coastal villages and communities throughout Alaska. There are more than 150 taggers located in about 100 villages. The information collected by the MTRP will help ensure the long-term survival of these species by monitoring the Native harvest and controlling the illegal take, trade, and transport of marine mammal parts. To find out how to contact taggers, call John Trent at 1-907-786-3815 or 1-800-362-5148. Main gaps: The MTRP harvest data are for 3 stocks of northern sea otter and, with data provided by Russian authorities, for the one stock of Pacific walrus. Polar bear harvest for the Chukchi Sea and southern Beaufort Sea polar bear stocks are for US communities only. Additional harvest occurs in Canada but is accounted for by the Inuvialuit-Inupiat Agreement of 1988. In the largest Alaska walrus harvesting communities, MTRP data are supplemented and independently assessed by a Walrus Harvest Monitoring Program (WHMP) that has existed, more or less continuously since 1960. This program also collects biological specimens. The contact for WHMP is Jonathan_Snyder@atfws.gov. Mr. Snyder is also in the Office of Marine Mammals Management, Region 7, USFWS MS 341 1011 East Tudor Road, Anchorage AK, 99503. Network type: Subsistence harvest data on polar bears and northern sea otters are collected from hunters in Alaska coastal communities.
More information about the following long-term observing activity will be available in due course. • Soil survey program description: http://www.ak.nrcs.usda.gov/soils/index.html • Soil climate survey program description: http://www.ak.nrcs.usda.gov/soils/SoilClimateSites/SoilClimateSites.html • For information and data, contact: Rick McClure, email@example.com
Collect snow data and related environmental parameters for streamflow forecasting. Locations: Sixty one (61), see http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/snotel/Alaska/alaska. Main gaps: Lack of resources for equipment and staff. Access to potential observing sites is limited, and disallowed in some cases, due to land status or their location in public lands designated and/or proposed as wilderness areas.
The main objective is to monitor and assess the impacts of global change on the Human-Rangifer System across the Arctic through cooperation, both geographically and across disciplines. CARMA is a network of researchers, managers and community people that share information on the status of the world's wild Rangifer (reindeer and caribou) populations and how they are affected by global changes (e.g. climate change and industrial development). CARMA is primarily focussed on the status of most of the large migratory Rangifer herds and thus, as yet, do not deal with woodland caribou and Peary caribou in North America or forest and marine reindeer in Fennoscandia and Russia. As well, the do not deal with domestic reindeer or the herding economy. Network type: - Networking - Data, experience and knowledge exchange
The purpose of the project is to combine the Danish Meteorological Institute’ HIRHAM climate model and permafrost research. This collaboration between the two fields is expected to result in a prognosis of changes in the permafrost distribution in Western Greenland (maritime Arctic climate) and Alaska (continental Arctic climate) to the year 2050. Network type: permafrost
Since 2007, SLU has conducted daily phenology observations on forest trees (birch, Scots pine, and Norway spruce) during the spring at four sites in northern Sweden (Fig. 5, Table 5, ##7.2, 8.2, 13.2, and 14.2) In addition, the phenology of 15 plant species is observed at two sites and of birch at one site, all at Abisko (Table 5, #1.11, and 1.12).
At present, Sweden has 4 integrated monitoring (IM) sites that are part of a European network on integrated monitoring with an extensive measurement program. One of these sites, Gammtratten, situated in central Västerbotten, monitors several variables (Table 4, #3.2). SGU conducts groundwater sampling at 3 of the sites. In total, 18 stations are sampled 4 times per year. A program for comprehensive information on the state of forests in Europe was launched 1985 in response to acid deposition and fear of forest decline. The program was named the European ICP-Forest Program (International Co-operative Program on Assessment and Monitoring of Air Pollution Effects on Forests operating under the UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution, Table 6, #5). ICP-Forest monitors forest conditions in Europe and operates at two levels of intensity. Level I is a systematic 16 km by 16 km transnational grid having around 6 000 observation plots in Europe. Level II is comprised of around 800 sites in selected forests throughout Europe with more intense observations. The Level I measurements consist of three parts: crown condition assessment, soil condition assessment, and foliar survey. The crown condition assessment includes the degree of defoliation, discoloring, and damage visible on trees. The soil condition assessment addresses possible nutrient imbalances caused by, e.g. acid deposition. The foliar survey assesses foliar nutrient concentrations, because changes in environmental conditions may affect foliar nutrient concentrations. The Swedish contribution is made by the national forest inventory (SLU-FRM), which estimates the degree of crown defoliation and discoloring on 700 permanent plots around the country. The Swedish Forest Agency (SST) organizes the Level II observational plots. They manage a program with more than 200 permanent plots throughout Sweden, on which they estimate forest vitality (several measures), forest growth, soil chemistry, and field vegetation. Of these plots, 100 are connected to the international network, and 20 are north of 60°N. Foliage chemistry is determined on 100 plots, deposition and soil water chemistry on 50 plots, air quality on 25 plots, and climate on 14 plots. The sampling intensity varies from once in 5 years to once per hour depending
Bird populations are monitored as part of SEPA’s “Landscape” program. The Swedish bird census project determines, once per year, the species and number of birds at about 500 sites throughout the country (Table 4, #5.2). The Department of Zooecology, Lund University, organizes this census. Ottenby Bird Observatory on Öland is responsible for bird counting and ringing of small birds at Ottenby (Table 4, #5.3), a key location for migrating birds. From August to November the number and species of migrating birds are counted at Falsterbo in southern Sweden. The Department of Zoo-ecology, Lund University, organizes the census (Table 4, #5.4). Falsterbo is a key location for migrating birds of prey. The Swedish sea-bird inventory is taken place at about 100 sites where these birds spend their winter. Number and species are estimated in January of each year in the internationally coordinated program. The Department of Zoo-ecology, Lund University, conducts the Swedish part (Table 4, #5.5).
Census on small mammals (voles, lemmings, and shrews) are conducted twice per year at 3 sites along the mountain chain (Table 4, #2.2) and at 2 sites in the forest landscape (Table 4, #3.3). Part of the material collected is sent to the environmental sample bank at the Swedish Museum of Natural History (NRM). The Department of Ecology, Environment, and Geosciences (UmU-EMG) at Umeå University is in charge of the program and analyzes the data.
Samples in moose (Table 4, #3.4) from Norrbotten and Jämtland counties (and 3 counties in southern Sweden) have been analyzed every autumn since 1996. The Swedish Museum of Natural History (NRM) organizes this work and stores some of the material, and the Swedish Veterinary Institute (SVA) performs chemical analyses on some of the tissues. Hunting associations organize much of the field sampling. Analyses: As, Cs, Cd, Cr, Co, Cu, Pb, Mn, Hg, Mo, Ni, Se, Sr, V, Zn. 2007 screening of organic compounds Sites: Norrbotten, Jämtland, Western Götaland, Jönköping, and Kronoberg Counties Intensity: Each autumn since 1980 (Grimsö), else from 1996
An alternative for metal deposition measurements is to analyze their abundance in mosses since metals bind strongly to cation exchange sites in them. The concentration of metals in mosses would therefore act as an index for metal deposition. It is also assumed that uptake of most water and dissolved substances comes directly from precipitation; even if it has been shown that capillary transport of dissolved metals may be substantial. A national inventory of metals in mosses takes place at 5-year intervals (Table 4, #1.11). The two-to-three last years growth is identified and collected for chemical analysis ICP-AES and ICP-MS (As, Cd, Hg) Metals are adsorbed by mosses and metal concentration in mosses are therefore seen as a proxy for metal deposition. Moss species: Pleurozium schreberi, Hylocomium splendens Analyzed metals: As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Fe, Hg, Ni, Pb, V, Zn Sampling sites: More than 700 sites over Sweden Time period: 1/5 years, first report 1975 and last reported 2005.
The tree limit has been monitored since 1915 at some sites in the Swedish mountains. The Department of Ecology, Environment, and Geosciences (EMG) at Umeå University, and Jämtland and Dalarna county boards monitored about 300 sites along the Scandinavian mountain chain for upper elevation trees taller than 2 m (Öberg, 2007).
At present SEPA’s program on wetlands is mainly a follow-up on wetland states, e.g. hydrological intactness and biodiversity. On the other hand, wetlands are part of the national inventory of landscape, NILS (see above). Wetland status is embraced by reporting obligations according to the EU Habitat Directive, and SEPA now uses high-resolution satellite data for operational monitoring.
The National Inventory of Landscapes in Sweden (NILS) is a sample-based, nationwide environmental monitoring program focused on biodiversity. NILS started in full scale in 2003 and is based at the Department of Forest Resources Management, SLU. The program includes all terrestrial environments in Sweden, including agricultural land, wetlands, urban environments, forests, and mountains. NILS is based on 631 permanent sampling squares of 1 km x 1 km (Fig. 4). Within each square, 12 sample plots are field surveyed and an air photo interpretation is done for the whole area. A more extensive air photo interpretation within wider squares of 5 km x 5 km is also planned. The program will have a rotation time of 5 years. Results from NILS are intended to follow up on the national environmental objectives, land use status and change, and the distribution and area of different biotopes (Table 4, #5.1). The NILS program is divided into several subinventories, i.e. the general landscape (Table 4, #5.1), the mountains (Table 4, #2.1), arable land (Table 4, #4.6), and wetlands (Table 4, #6.3).