Assessing Climate Change Vulnerability of Breeding Birds in Arctic ...

Assessing Climate Change Vulnerabilityof Breeding Birds in Arctic AlaskaA report prepared for the Arctic Landscape ConservationCooperativeJoe Liebezeit, Erika Rowland, Molly Cross, Steve Zack

The Wildlife Conservation Society saves wildlife and wild places worldwide. We do so throughscience, global conservation, education and the management of the world's largest system ofurban wildlife parks, led by the flagship Bronx Zoo. Together these activities change attitudestowards nature and help people imagine wildlife and humans living in harmony. WCS iscommitted to this mission because it is essential to the integrity of life on Earth.AUTHORSJoe LiebezeitErika RowlandMolly CrossSteve Zack© 2012 Wildlife Conservation Society – North America Program, 301 N. Willson AvenueBozeman, MT 59715http://www.wcsnorthamerica.org/Disclaimer: This document represents the work and views of the authors and does not necessarilyimply endorsement by the project funders.Suggested citation: Liebezeit, J., E. Rowland, M. Cross, and S. Zack. 2012. Assessing ClimateChange Vulnerability of Breeding Birds in Arctic Alaska. A report prepared for the ArcticLandscape Conservation Cooperative. Wildlife Conservation Society, North America Program,Bozeman, MT., 167pp.1

CONTENTSExecutive Summary............................................................................................................ 1Section 1. Introduction........................................................................................................ 3Vulnerability Assessment Basics............................................................................. 7Section 2. Methods.............................................................................................................. 8Vulnerability assessments of bird life cycle components........................................ 8Regions considered in the Vulnerability Assessment............................................ 10Climate Change Vulnerability Index Tool ............................................................ 10Geospatial Inputs to the CCVI.............................................................................. 13Sensitivity survey and expert solicitation.............................................................. 16Visualizing species sensitivity and climate change vulnerability ......................... 16Section 3. Results............................................................................................................. 18Climate exposure .................................................................................................. 18Indirect exposure .................................................................................................. 18Species sensitivity.................................................................................................. 19Relative vulnerability to climate change................................................................21Alternate climate scenarios....................................................................................23Sources of climate change vulnerability................................................................23Section 4. Discussion........................................................................................................ 25Climate change vulnerability of Arctic Alaska birds............................................ 25Comparisons with other vulnerability assessments .............................................. 26Climate change vulnerability in context ............................................................... 27Information Gaps.................................................................................................. 27Limitations of the CCVI tool................................................................................. 28Other Uncertainties .............................................................................................. 29Informing research, conservation and management .............................................29Considerations for focusing future efforts .............................................................29Conservation and management activities ............................................................. 30Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 32References..........................................................................................................................33Acknowledgements........................................................................................................... 37Appendix A: Hamon AET:PET Aridity Index ................................................................. 38Appendix B: Species Accounts......................................................................................... 39Appendix C: Summary of the Climate Change Vulnerability Assessments ForWinter Range and Passage Migration............................................................................. 148Appendix D: Sensitivity Survey Experts ........................................................................ 154Appendix E: Workshop................................................................................................... 156Appendix F: Revised Sensitivity Questions ....................................................................159

Executive SummaryClimate change is occurring at anaccelerated rate in the Arctic compared tomost other places on the earth. Temperatureand moisture changes are leading towarming permafrost, increased coastalerosion, more frequent fires, and shrubinvasion, altering geomorphology,hydrology, and habitat structure. These rapidchanges in habitats, especially thoseassociated with hydrology, are ultimatelyinfluencing wildlife populations. ArcticAlaska harbors some of the most importantbreeding and staging grounds for millions ofbirds representing over 90 species. Many ofthese species are migratory, wintering atdisparate sites across the planet, and someare already experiencing population declinesand/or are species of conservation concern.As climate change has become a focal issuefor agencies and other institutions in recentyears, one of the recognized needs is theapplication of science-driven assessments toreconsider landscape management, wildliferesearch, and conservation priorities in thiscontext. To help address these emergingneeds the Wildlife Conservation Societyconducted a climate change vulnerabilityassessment for arctic breeding birds to helpguide climate-informed wildlifemanagement in the region. The specificgoals of this assessment were to: 1) providea climate change vulnerability ranking for54 Arctic Alaskan breeding bird species; 2)evaluate the relative contribution of specificsensitivity and exposure factors to individualspecies rankings; 3) consider how thisassessment may be integrated with otherapproaches; and 4) appraise theeffectiveness of the NatureServe ClimateChange Vulnerability Index (CCVI) tool.The CCVI tool was developed byNatureServe specifically to compare theadded vulnerability posed by climate changeto species in a region. We assessedvulnerability with reference to changesprojected for 2050 and restricted ingeographic scope to the Alaska portion ofthe Arctic LCC region. The CCVI is aspreadsheet based algorithm that integratesinformation on species sensitivity, directexposure to projected atmospheric changesin climate, and indirect exposure factors.Direct exposure factors, temperature andmoisture balance change, were incorporatedas geospatial inputs. We ran the tool withdata from five global circulation models,two emissions scenarios, and at two spatialresolutions. Indirect exposure factorsincluded sea-level rise, dispersal relative tobarriers, and human mitigation in responseto climate change. Sensitivity factors (lifehistory traits making a species more or lessvulnerable) were scored by species expertson survey forms based on publishedliterature and their personal knowledge.The CCVI results ranked two species ashighly vulnerable (Gyrfalcon, CommonEider), seven as moderately vulnerable(Brant, Steller’s Eider, Pomarine Jaeger,Yellow-billed Loon, Buff-breastedSandpiper, Red Phalarope, RuddyTurnstone), and five as likely to increase(Savannah Sparrow, Lapland Longspur,White-crowned Sparrow, American TreeSparrow, Common Redpoll). Theassessment outcome suggests that the mostimportant contributions to the climatechange vulnerability for the 54 bird speciesinclude: 1) being a specialists in at least onelife history trait and/or having a strongcoastal orientation; 2) the quality and natureof interactions with other species; 3)restrictions associated with physical habitatand diet; 4) dependence on other species tomeet habitat needs; and 5) changes indisturbance regimes that would negativelyaffect the speices. Physiologicalhydrological niche (i.e., dependence onwetland habitats in the arctic) was thought to1

have the greatest potential to influencevulnerability; although its effect onoutcomes was diminished by the way thetool applies exposure weights to sensitivityfactors. Currently available projections forArctic Alaska suggest negligible change inmoisture balance driven by atmosphericdemand.There was insufficient information toaddress questions, both for particularsensitivity factors and for certain species ortaxon groups. These and other informationgaps highlight the need for more research orsynthesis of existing data to fill this void.Key needs identified to better understand theclimate change vulnerability of birds inArctic Alaska include: 1) the effects oftemperature increases on surface hydrology,wetland availability, and vegetation change;2) information on nearly all aspects ofphenology and its relationship with andresponse to changing environmentalconditions; 3) greater knowledge of thegenetic diversity of species, its relationshipto climatic gradients, and its role in climatechange response.Climate change vulnerability indices areone of several approaches to understandingthe effects of climate change on species,each with its own limitations. While theCCVI tool does not examine statistical ormechanistic relationships betweensensitivity and exposure factors and does notintegrate climate stressors affectingmigratory birds outside of their breedinggrounds, this assessment represents astarting point to help prioritize management,conservation, and research efforts withrespect to breeding birds in the AlaskanArctic.Long-tailed Jaegers on the coastal plain of Alaska (Photo: S. Zack @ WCS)2

Section 1. IntroductionOf all places on the earth, climate change isoccurring most dramatically at the poles(Gillett et al. 2008). In the Arctic, airtemperature has increased at almost twicethe global average rate in the past 100 years,accompanied by significantly alteredweather patterns, increased glacial and polarpack ice melt, and sea level rise (IPCC2007). More specifically, in Arctic Alaskamean annual temperature is rising at a rateof 0.45 °C per decade (Data from M.Shulski reported in Martin et al. 2009;Figure 1.1). Over the next 60 years, meanannual temperatures are expected to increaseapproximately 5 °C (Figure 1.2) and to 7 °Cby the end of the century with most of thewarming occurring in winter (Martin et al.2009). Annual precipitation is expected toincrease 20-40% over the next 60 years(Figure 1.3) although increasingtemperatures may lessen the effects ofincreased precipitation by driving anincrease in evapotranspiration rates (TWSSNAP http://www.snap.uaf.edu/data.php).While in some Arctic sites there is evidenceof tundra drying, the pattern is spatiallyheterogeneous (e.g., Riordan et al. 2006). Itis uncertain whether the future will bring anet annual drying or moistening. Moreover,it is unclear how surface hydrology andgeomorphology changes will eitherexacerbate or compensate for shifts inatmospheric moisture (Martin et al. 2009).Regionally, recent temperature and moisturechanges are leading to warming permafrost(Romanovsky et al. 2007), increased coastalerosion (Jones et al. 2009), more frequentfires (Racine and Jandt 2008), and shrubinvasion (Tape et al. 2006), likely alteringgeomorphology, hydrology, and habitatstructure (see Martin et al. 2009 for athorough review).Key resources of concern in the Arcticare the vast productive wetlands in northernAlaska (particularly in the Arctic CoastalPlain) and the birds that migrate from allover the globe during the brief summerseason to breed. Avian research in the regionpoints to the unique importance of largeparts of Arctic Alaska in harboring some ofthe most important avian breeding groundsin the entire circumpolar Arctic (Andres etFigure 1.1. 50-year trend in mean annual temperature at seven sites on the North Slope (Source: M.Shulski in Martin et al. 2009).3

al. 2012). Over 90 species of birds,representing millions of individuals thatregularly nest in this region (Johnson andHerter 1989), are the most conspicuous anddiverse vertebrates in the ecosystem. Inparticular, significant populations ofshorebirds (Pitelka 1974, Johnson et al.2007, Liebezeit et al. 2011, Andres et al.2012), waterfowl (King and Hodges 1979),and water birds (Earnst et al. 2005) come toArctic Alaska to nest every year. A numberof species which rely on Alaskan Arcticbreeding and staging grounds haveexperienced population declines and/or arespecies of conservation concern. Theseinclude 10 shorebird species (AlaskaShorebird Group 2008, Morrison et al. 2006,Bart et al. 2007) and others such as theYellow-billed Loon (Gavia adamsii). Twospecies, the Spectacled and Steller’s Eiders(Somateria fischeri, Polysticta stelleri) arelisted as threatened under the U.S.Endangered Species Act (U.S. Departmentof Interior 1993, 1997).Initial explorations of climate changeimpacts to breeding birds in the region rangefrom potentially negative to positive effectsbut are challenged by a paucity of baselineinformation (Martin et al. 2009, Zack andLiebezeit 2010). Scientific research,monitoring, and modeling studies forunderstanding how these changes areimpacting important biophysical processes,let alone the wildlife and bird populations inArctic Alaska, are absent or in initial stages.The high costs and logistical difficulty ofconducting scientific research andmonitoring in the remote arctic hashistorically made it challenging to developlong-term and region-wide field-basedprograms to measure wildlife populations. Itis likely, though, that some Arctic-breedingbird species will (and may already) benegatively impacted, while others willbenefit from a warming climate.Figure 1.2. (Upper panel) Mean annual temperaturefor the Arctic LCC region (°C) and (Lower panel)change in mean annual temperature (°C) projected for2040-2069. Maps created by WCS using CRUhistorical climate data and 5-Model Composite– A1Bprojections (SNAP 2011).As climate change continues toaccelerate in the far north and ultimatelyinfluences wildlife populations in the region,including the avifauna, land managers willbe more challenged to prepare for, and copewith, impending impacts. At a global scaleecologists have predicted major changes inthe viability and distribution of wildlifepopulations and the habitats that supportthem. Already range and phenological shiftsfor multiple taxa have been detected(Parmesan and Yohe 2003, Rosenzweig etal. 2008). Although the ability of species toadapt to climate changes has been tested for4

Figure 1.3. (Upper Panel) Mean annual precipitationfor the Arctic LCC region (mm) and (Lower Panel)change in the mean annual precipitation in mm (left)and in % change (right) projected for 2040-2069.Maps created by WCS using CRU historical climatedata and 5-Model Composite– A1B projections(SNAP 2011).eons, both at the physiological andbehavioral level (Parmesan 2006), the speedwith which the climate is currently changingmay preclude adaptation in many species(Visser 2008).The combination of this rapid pace ofclimate change with increasing humanimpacts could lead to accelerated rates ofextinction for many species (IPCC 2007).Wildlife managers and conservationists willrequire additional kinds of information tomake decisions about their goals for wildlifepopulations in changing conditions andabout the consistency of land uses and otherpolicy choices with these goals. As such,explicitly addressing climate changeimpacts, often called “climate changeadaptation”, is becoming an important newapproach in natural resource management(Glick et al. 2011).Federal and state agencies have recentlyestablished programs with a mandate tomanage wildlife with respect to climatechange. The Department of Interior-led -Landscape Conservation Cooperatives(LCCs) and U.S. Geological Survey -Climate Science Centers (CSCs) are chargedwith integrating federal agency and partnerscience and management expertise in acoordinated response to climate change andother landscape-scale stressors in manyregions. A specific goal of the Arctic LCCcharter is to develop “effective conservationplanning dependent on knowledge of the5

elative vulnerabilities of habitats, species,and species assemblages” (Arctic LCC2010). In addition, the state of AlaskaDepartment of Fish and Game State WildlifeAction Plan is due for revision in 2015, atwhich time they may be forced to contendwith the new threats emerging as a result ofclimate change. Agencies, academicians,and non-governmental organizations haverecognized the need to use science-drivenassessments and syntheses to reconsiderwildlife research, management, andconservation priorities with respect toclimate change. As a contribution towardthese emerging needs, the WildlifeConservation Society (WCS) conducted aclimate change vulnerability assessment tohelp guide climate-informed wildlifemanagement in the region.Recognized as one effective method forintegrating climate change considerationsinto conservation and other planning efforts,climate change vulnerability assessmentscan provide key inputs to early steps in theprocess. Vulnerability assessments combineinformation about the characteristics of atarget or resource (species, habitat, orprocess) that make it sensitive to climatechange with the magnitude of projectedexposure to that change, and its capacity toadapt to the changes (see text box on nextpage). With these components, vulnerabilityassessments can help us identify what islikely to be most affected by projectedclimate changes and why they are likelyvulnerable (Glick et al. 2011). They canoffer important contributions to a climatechange adaptation strategy (Figure 1.4) byguiding management and planning priorities,assisting in informing and developingmanagement strategies, and enabling a moreefficient allocation of resources (Glick et al.2011). Assessment outcomes can alsoprovide information for scientists to developtestable hypotheses for monitoring andresearch.Figure 1.4. Overarching framework for developingclimate change adaptation strategies (Source: Glickand Stein 2011)Climate change vulnerability assessmentresults, in and of themselves, do not dictatean agency’s management, research, orconservation priorities. Land managers anddecision makers must also consider othermanagement priorities, costs, and logisticalissues before taking action on the basis of avulnerability assessment. Vulnerabilityassessments pull together the best availableinformation about a resource of interest,which is often based on expert opinion andconsidered less rigorous by some (Martin etal. 2011). The final results should beinterpreted within this context, and, in manycases, are best viewed as a starting point orone of several complementary sources ofinformation integrated to provide guidanceon addressing a management orconservation problem.The specific goals of our assessmentwere to:1. Provide a climate changevulnerability ranking for 54 ArcticAlaskan breeding bird species, usingthe NatureServe Climate ChangeVulnerability Index (CCVI) tool(Young et al. 2010). Ranks mayrange from highly vulnerable,presumed stable, to likely benefitfrom climate change.6

For 17 shorebird species providea climate change vulnerabilityranking for their wintering andmigration grounds to combinewith the breeding ground resultfor an overall vulnerabilityranking spanning their entireannual cycle.2. Evaluate the relative contribution ofspecific sensitivity and exposurefactors to individual species rankingsto better understand how and whyclimate might be impacting speciesnow and into the future in the region.3. Consider how this assessment can beintegrated with other approaches tohelp prioritize management,research, and conservation.4. Comment on the effectiveness of theCCVI tool in this assessment.In this report we provide the results of ourvulnerability assessment of Arctic breedingbirdspecies to climate change, and somethoughts about the process of conducting theassessment and the application of output.Vulnerability Assessment BasicsIn the context of climate change,vulnerability is defined as the extent towhich a species, habitat, or ecosystem issusceptible to negative impacts fromclimate change impacts (Schneider et al.2007). A vulnerability assessment is afunction of the sensitivity of a system orspecies to climate changes, its exposure tothose changes, and its capacity to adapt tothose changes (IPCC 2007, Glick et al.2011; see figure below). Sensitivity refersto intrinsic traits of a system or species (e.g.physiological tolerances) that make themvulnerable to climate change. In contrast,exposure refers to extrinsic factors (e.g.increasing temperatures) that a system orspecies is likely to experience. The adaptivecapacity refers to opportunities availablethat may improve a species’ or system’sability to cope with sensitivity or exposurestressors (e.g. dispersal to differenttemperature gradient). The interplay ofthese three factors defines the relativevulnerability. There are a number ofdifferent approaches to conducting avulnerability assessment (Rowland et al.2011) ranging from simple conceptualmodel flowcharts to more advancedpredictive modeling. All of theseapproaches are based on the corecomponents described above.The relationship of the key components of avulnerability assessment (Source: Glick et al. 2011).7

Section 2. MethodsThere are numerous approaches toconducting climate change vulnerabilityassessments for targets ranging fromecosystem processes to individual species,which are more or less appropriate indifferent situations and often best applied ina step-wise or complementary way (Glick etal. 2009, Rowland et al. 2011). TheNatureServe Climate Change VulnerabilityIndex tool (CCVI-Version 2.1) is designedto provide a relatively rapid assessment ofmultiple species and is best suited to regionsin which vulnerability assessments are justgetting underway. It offers a structuredstarting point for developing anunderstanding of relative vulnerability basedon a consistent set of synthesizedinformation (Young et al. 2010). The tooladdresses factors relevant to vulnerability toclimate change only; thus, results are meantto be considered in conjunction with otherconservation status assessments (e.g. IUCNRed List, Audubon Watchlist, EndangeredSpecies Act). We used this tool to initiallyexamine impacts that projected climatechanges for Arctic Alaska (Arctic LCCregion, Figure 2.1) might have on 54 speciesof birds that breed in the region (Table 2.1).Vulnerability was assessed with reference tochanges projected for 2050, a timeframechosen to consider the implications of neartermchanged to more current managementand conservation adaptation strategies. Thevulnerability assessment exercise included:1) a survey of individual species experts toinform sensitivity (i.e., life history trait)inputs, 2) application of the CCVI tool, 3) aworkshop during which preliminary resultsand methods were vetted by participatingexperts, and 4) a revision informed by theworkshop discussions to generate finalresults.Vulnerability assessments of bird life cyclecomponentsWe considered 54 of the approximately 90species of birds that regularly use theterrestrial and freshwater habitats in ArcticAlaska (Table 2.1.) (Johnson and Herter1989). Our assessment included 17shorebird, 16 land bird species (passerines,raptors, ptarmigan), 21 waterbird species(loons, ducks, geese, gulls, terns, jaegers).We did not include all commonly nestingspecies in the assessment because of fundingand time constraints; however, we didinclude a cross-section of bird speciesrepresenting the main taxonomic groups. Weselected species that were known to haveimportant populations in the region, were ofconservation concern, and/or were believedto be predisposed to climate change impactsbased on existing information (e.g. breedingrange constraints).The primary focus of this effort was toimprove our understanding of the climatechange vulnerability of the 54 bird speciesduring their breeding season in ArcticAlaska. However, we also recognized thatmost of these birds are migratory and onlyspend a small portion of their lives in theArctic. Many of these species mayexperience climate change stressors in otherparts of their range. For this reason, weconducted separate vulnerabilityassessments for 17 shorebird speciesfocused on their wintering grounds and keypassage migration areas, respectively. Wechose shorebirds for this pilot effort as theyundertake some of the longest migrations ofbirds in Arctic Alaska, and climate changevulnerability likely varies spatially andtemporally. We integrated the winteringground and passage migration area resultswith those of the breeding season tocalculate an overall vulnerability score. Theresults of the additional assessments arepreliminary since information on shorebird8

Table 2.1. Fifty-four species included in the vulnerability assessment.9

esults by assuming that each level isequally likely to represent the “true” value.Numerical indices are converted tocategorical outputs based on thresholdsassociated with various combinations ofsensitivity and exposure (Table 2.3). Thenumerical index allows for a ranking ofrelative vulnerability across a group ofspecies within a specific assessment area,while categorical outputs facilitate groupingby degrees of vulnerability. For detailedinformation about the tool and underlyingalgorithm, see Young et al. (in press).We report the categorical output (degreeof vulnerability), the tool-assigned“confidence level” resulting from the MonteCarlo simulations, and the numerical indexscore.We also report the range of numericalindex scores generated by the Monte Carlosimulations to offer insight into thesensitivity of the tool output to uncertaintiesin both the exposure and sensitivity factorinputs (see details on CCVI inputs below).While the relative climate changevulnerability of a group of species is useful,the scores for the sensitivity factors thatindicate the underlying sources of potentialvulnerability identified through this exerciseare of greater relevance to subsequentadaptation planning efforts (see Dubois et al.2011 example). We provide detailedsummaries with an individualized factorscoringtable for each assessed species inAppendix B.Figure 2.1. Arctic LCC (BCR 3) region of Arctic Alaska. Maps created by WCS using Alaska300m digital elevation model. USGS EROS, Anchorage, Alaska and other map layers downloaded from theAlaska State Geo-spatial Data Clearinghouse (http://www.asgdc.state.ak.us/). Map projection: AlaskaAlbers Equal Area Conic.11

Table 2.2. Exposure weightings for sensitivity and indirect exposure factors. Weights for temperature and moistureare assigned 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, depending on the number of standard deviations the projected change for the range of agiven species is above the average projected change for the entire state of Alaska. A weight of 0.5 is assigned if theincrease is

Table 2.3. Numerical index score thresholds andcorresponding vulnerability categories (degree ofvulnerability) as assigned by the CCVI. Vulnerabilitythresholds are based on hypothetical examples ofexposure and sensitivity combinations that might leadto different levels of vulnerability (Young et al. inpress).IndexScore Vulnerability Category>10.0 Extremely Vulnerable (EV)7.0-9.9 Highly Vulnerable (HV)4.0-6.9 Moderately Vulnerable (MV)-2-3.99 Presumed Stable (PS)

CCVI Modification #1: Temperature Exposure CategoriesThe CCVI tool uses projected changes in the magnitude of atmospheric temperature and moisture (HamonAET:PET reflecting the interaction of precipitation and temperature as the potential for drying; see Appendix A fordetail) to assess climate exposure for each species. The magnitude of change categories in the CCVI are based on +/-standard deviations from the average change in temperature/moisture projected for the conterminous United States(i.e., did not include Alaska). Due to the high magnitude of temperature change projected for Alaska, the exposureinputs for all species fell in the highest magnitude category. Because the CCVI provides information about relativevulnerability within a specific assessment area (here the BCR3/Arctic LCC region), we re-scaled the temperaturecategories to reflect the standard deviations from the average projected change in temperature for the state of Alaskato offer the potential for some differentiation between species we reviewed.Table 2.3. Summary of the multiple climate projections used in different runs of the CCVI tool to compareinfluence on species’ vulnerability in the Arctic LCC (CW indicates Climate Wizard data).EmissionScenarioModel (GCM)1. A1B Temp: SNAP 5-model composite*/Moisture: CW 5-model average (SNAP models)2. A1B Temp: SNAP CCCMA model/Moisture: CW CCCMA model3. A1B Temp: SNAP ECHAM5 model/Moisture: CW 5-model average (SNAP models)4. A1B Temp: SNAP 5-model composite* /Moisture: TWS/SNAP-PET 5-model average5. A2 Temp: SNAP 5-model composite* /Moisture: CW 5-model average (SNAP models)6. A2 Temp: CW 5-model average (SNAP models) /Moisture: CW 5-model average (SNAP models)*Output of 5 climate models downscaled to 2 km by SNAP based on performance assessment for north: ECHAM5, GFDL21,MIROC, HAD, CCCMAArctic coastal plain of Alaska (Photo: S. Zack @ WCS)14

Emission Scenarios and Climate ProjectionsThe exposure inputs for this vulnerability assessment were based on the A1B and A2 emission scenariosas projected by the five climate models that best replicate Alaska’s historical climate (SNAPhttp://www.snap.uaf.edu/).The A1B and A2 emission scenarios are narratives that represent plausibleapproximations of future conditions based on assumptions about technological changes, and social,economic and policy developments that incorporate feedback mechanisms that lead to the crossing ofcritical thresholds. These two scenarios, quantified as greenhouse gas concentrations, respectivelycharacterize different futures with (1) a moderate increase in emissions followed by a decline, and (2) asteady increase in emissions*. The outputs for the ECHAM5 and CCCMA general circulation models(GCMs), developed by the Max Planck Institute of Meteorology and Canadian Center for ClimateModeling and Analysis), roughly bracket the high and low ends of the range of temperature projectionsfor the Arctic LCC region.*Note that recent trends in actual emissions have exceeded these scenario-based projections (Raupach et al. 2007).Sea-level rise impacts: We used the sea levelrise inundation model and data provided bythe Center for Remote Sensing of Ice Sheets(CReSIS) with global coverage(https://www.cresis.ku.edu/data/sea-levelrise-maps)to calculate the percentage of thespecies range potentially affected (IndirectExposure B1). In this model, sea level riseor inundation zones were calculated fromthe Global Land One-km Base Elevation(GLOBE) digital elevation model, a rasterelevation dataset covering the entire world.The sea-level rise data was available in 1-mincrements. We considered several sea levelrise projections and recent observations toinform our data selection (Rhamstorf et al.2007, Vemeer and Rhamstorf 2009,Overpeck and Weiss 2009). These rangedfrom 0.75-1.9 m to as much as 4-6 m, linkedto the uncertain dynamics of the Antarcticice sheet, by the end of the 21 st century. Therate of melting of ice masses in Antarcticaand Greenland and their contribution to sealevelrise have the potential to trigger anincrease of several meters but this continuesto be uncertain (e.g., Areneborg et al. 2012).We examined the effects on the sea-levelrise factor scoring using both the 1-m and 2-m data sets. Using the 1-m data set impliedthat sea level rise would not contribute to theclimate change vulnerability of any of thespecies we assessed. While this may be anaccurate reflection of the impact of sea levelrise on these species for mid-century, theresult was due, in part, to the misalignmentbetween species distribution and sea levelrise data layers along the Arctic coastline,resulting in sea level rise occurring offshore.15

We chose to use the 2-m overlay in thevulnerability assessment as a plausiblefuture to capture the potentially importantimpacts of sea level rise for species withcoastally limited distributions. The 2-meterdata shifted the sea-level rise score from“neutral” to “slightly increasedvulnerability” for 7 of the 54 species.Sensitivity survey and expert solicitationWe asked individual species experts to scorethe sensitivity factors of the CCVI (13 of 23;see Fig 2.2.). Some factors have subcategories,and others require a geospatialoverlay to assess. Most species experts wereagency, academic, non-governmental, orprivate industry scientists with advanceddegrees that have spent multiple yearsstudying some aspect of their focal speciesand were familiar with the respective bodyof literature. We solicited responses from 83species experts of which 51 responded bycompleting sensitivity surveys and providinginformation on one measure of indirectclimate exposure – “human climatemitigation” (Appendix C). The sensitivitysurveys were based on those used in avulnerability assessment conducted in theState of Florida using the CCVI (Dubois etal. 2011).Experts were instructed to respond toquestions taken verbatim from the CCVIguidance document, provide citations andwritten justifications for their responses, andassign a “confidence level” to their responseusing a 1-5 scale. Sensitivity surveyresponses were entered into the CCVI andrun with the various climate exposure andother geospatial inputs to generatepreliminary climate change vulnerabilityresults for the 54 species.We presented preliminary results (notreported here) during a workshop inAnchorage, Alaska on December 7-9 th ,2011. The 31 participants represented amajority of the species’ experts whoreturned a sensitivity survey. It becameclear; both in reading survey responses andthrough discussions at the workshop, thatindividual experts interpreted somequestions differently. In addition, expertsexpressed some discomfort in answeringsensitivity questions that also required someunderstanding and/or speculation aboutclimate exposure and ecosystem responses.To address these issues, a sub-group ofsix avian experts (Appendix D) and WCSclimate change program staff revised theproblematic sensitivity factor questions afterthe workshop and re-evaluated the originalresponses of the larger expert group in lightof this agreed upon language andstandardized interpretation (Appendix F).The original responses and supportinginformation provided by species expertswere circulated to the sub-group and weasked all six experts to revise the originalresponses on their own. We then met as agroup to discuss any suggested changes tothe original scores and to explore anywithin-group differences in the revisedresponses. We did not strive to reachconsensus, but sought to ensure that relevantnuances in reasoning were recorded andquestion interpretation was consistent.Because the CCVI can accommodatemultiple scores for any one factor, all of there-evaluated responses were used togenerate the revised vulnerabilityassessment results.Visualizing species sensitivity and climatechange vulnerabilityWe illustrate similarities and differencesbetween the sensitivities and climate changevulnerabilities of the 54 bird species with aprinciple components analysis (PCA) basedon a variance-covariance matrix (because ofthe standard scale of the variables) andEuclidean distance measure using PASTsoftware (Hammer et al. 2001). While not anideal multivariate method for categorical16

data, interpretations of scatter-plots and axisloadings (i.e., those characteristics that drivescatter-plot patterns) are relativelystraightforward (McCune and Mefford1999). Numerical scores for all of theindirect exposure and sensitivity factorswere included except the genetic andphenology factors. These were omittedbecause they were scored as “insufficientdata” for many species. The resulting matrixincluded 14 variables and 54 species. For thepurposes of this analysis, we used thenumerical average for any factor withmultiple different scores reflecting theuncertainty of respondents. The PCAscatter-plots were then color-coded to reflectthe categorical vulnerability index assignedby the CCVI using the three differentclimate exposure inputs of the revisedassessment.Caribou pair near a pingo on the arctic coastal plainof Alaska. (Photo: S. Zack @ WCS)CCVI Modification #2: Natural Barriers toDistribution ShiftsThe CCVI guidance suggests that most birds shouldnot experience natural barriers that would limit theirdispersal (by flight) in response to climate change.But range shifts for bird species whose distributionsare limited to the coast of the Arctic Coastal Plain inthe Arctic LCC are assumed to be impaired becausethere is no landmass to the north. Therefore, theArctic Ocean represents a barrier to birds that haverestricted distributions along the northernmostcircumpolar coastlines. While birds may be able toshift distributions longitudinally, we scored thenorthern 1/3 rd of the Arctic Coastal Plain as “slightlyincreases” vulnerability, rather than “neutral”(Appendix F).CCVI Modification #3: Predicted Impacts of LandUse Change Resulting from Human Response toClimate ChangeBecause of the limited accessibility of the ArcticLCC region and the low levels of current humanactivity, we considered only ongoing and highlyplausible activities. These included shoreline erosionfortification and the conversion of ice roads related toresidential and energy development to all-weatherroads. Other climate change related mitigationactivities (e.g., wind farm developments, hydro dams,natural gas infrastructure, coal mining) were deemedeither unlikely to occur in the region or to be onlylocalized in scale in the next 50 years. We also didnot consider secondary impacts such as increasednest predation or hunting related to a more extensiveroad system).CCVI Modification #4: Dependence on SpecificDisturbance RegimesThis factor addressed species’ responses todisturbance regimes that are likely to be altered byclimate change. We limited our consideration ofpotential impacts to the following list of disturbancesfor the Arctic LCC region: (1) Increased coastalerosion and overwash linked to stormfrequency/intensity; (2) Thermokarstprocesses/events-lake drainage, ice wedgedegradation, upland slumps affecting aquaticsystems, (3) Upland tundra fire; (4) Extremerain/snow events; (5) Expansion of pathogens inadjacent regions.17

Section 3. ResultsHere we present a general summary of thevulnerability scores for the 54 bird speciesbreeding in Arctic Alaska, and how thecomponents of vulnerability evaluated bythe CCVI (direct climate exposure, indirectexposure, and sensitivity) contributeddifferentially to the results. For a detailedlook at the factors influencing thevulnerability of particular species, see theindividual Species’ Accounts in AppendixB.Climate exposureThe CCVI uses future temperature andmoisture changes generated by GCMs. Themagnitude of projected temperature changeis great for many northern latitudes, and theregion of the Arctic LCC in Alaska is noexception. The projected warming for 2050(2040-2069 average) for all emissionscenarios and models exceeded +3.1 o Cacross the Arctic LCC region. For 23 of the54 species, temperature exposure for the2050 timeframe was +4.3 o C or greater forthe A1B SRES emissions scenario andcomposite of all five SNAP climate models.The ranges of these 23 species weregenerally restricted to the north-central andwestern parts of Alaska’s Arctic LCCregion.Projected changes in moisture (asmeasured by the Hamon AET:PET aridityindex) between the historical and future timeperiod were minimal, regardless of emissionscenario or GCM model used. Themagnitude of moisture changes for allspecies fell in the CCVI’s lowest category,having little direct negative influence on thespecies’ vulnerabilities reported below.However, the low magnitude of moisturechange does temper the impact of the highmagnitude of temperature, moderating itsinfluence on the eight sensitivity factorsweighted by the combined exposure.Indirect exposureIn a region with a relatively light humanfootprint and few anthropogenic barriers towithin range movement or shifts, only 3 ofthe 4 indirect exposure factors were relevantto northern Alaska: sea level rise, naturalbarriers to dispersal, and human responses toclimate change. Sea level rise (SLR) andother disturbances linked to storminessduring the lengthening open-water season(e.g., erosion and wash-over) have thepotential to strongly affect species that usecoastal habitats. The CCVI separates itsevaluation of these influences by using aGIS overlay for SLR, and a qualitativeevaluation of species’ sensitivity toassociated disturbances. Only seven of thebird species we examined (Brant, SnowGoose, Steller’s Eider, Buff-breastedSandpiper, White-rumped Sandpiper,Dunlin, and Common Eider) will potentiallylose 10% or more of their range in theAlaska portion of the Arctic LCC toinundation under a 2-m SLR scenario.We assumed that the Arctic Oceanrepresents a barrier to climate changemovements of birds that are restricted to thenorthernmost coastline of Alaska. Therefore,11 species with the majority of theirbreeding population within the northern1/3 rd of the Arctic Coastal Plain wereassigned a score of “slightly increasedvulnerability” with regard to naturaldistribution barriers (Ruddy Turnstone, StiltSandpiper, Common Eider, SpectacledEider, White-rumped Sandpiper, PomarineJaeger, Buff-breasted Sandpiper, Steller’sEider, King Eider, Snow Goose, and Brant).Expert participants noted 30 specieswhose vulnerability might be increasedslightly by human responses to climatechange, using the list of adaptation ormitigation activities considered feasible forArctic Alaska during the next 50 years (seeMethods).18

Species sensitivityWe included several bird groups in ourassessment, ranging from terrestrial tofreshwater aquatic and marine species, and,not surprisingly, the species within thesegroups often shared similar scores for thesensitivity factors. Many of the species haveextensive ranges, whether migratory orresident, and experience varying climateconditions throughout their annual life cycle.As a result, temperature was indicated as aphysiologically limiting factor for only afew species and, even in those cases, onlyslightly increased vulnerability. However,due to dependencies on different types ofwetland or marine settings, physiologicalhydrological niche was thought to have thegreatest potential of all the sensitivity factorsto influence vulnerability (“Increase” and“Greatly increase”). All but two speciesreceived scores indicating this sensitivitymight lead to at least a slight increase invulnerability. For roughly half of the birds,some type of interspecific interaction (e.g.,predator-prey relationships) was identifiedas possibly shaping the species’ response toclimate change.The remaining sensitivity factorstypically had either neutral to potentiallypositive or ambiguous influence on thebreeding birds we assessed. There were fewspecies for which either restrictions tophysical habitat elements or limited dietmight limit their ability to respond tochanging climate. The net effect of changesto important disturbance regimes wasuniversally considered difficult to determinesince different disturbances might shiftpopulation abundance and/or range inopposite directions. In addition, mostexperts expressed low confidence in theirassessment of the effects of climate changeon disturbances and the subsequent effectsto species (Figure 3.1). Much of theinformation needed to score the genetic andphenological response factors was alsounknown. Of the 18 species for whichinformation about their documented ormodeled response to climate change wasavailable, all but two (Gyrfalcon and KingEider) showed little to no associated shifts indistribution or abundance and received“neutral” scores in this optional section ofthe CCVI tool.The PCA scatter-plot in Figure 3.2illustrates some of the similarities anddifferences between the 54 bird species inthe factors contributing to their overallclimate change vulnerability. The axisloadings (Figure 3.2.b.) indicate which ofthe sensitivity factors most stronglyinfluence the species’ patterns. Historicaland physiological hydrological niche, and toa lesser degree sensitivity to SLR, humanresponse to climate change, and dispersalbarriers, separate species along axis 1 (xaxis),with the more sensitive species on thepositive end. Birds are grouped along axis 2(y-axis) primarily with regard to physicalhabitat restrictions (e.g., geologicalsubstrates and cliffs). Most of the specieswith habitat restrictions are located nearestthe top of the plot (e.g., Gyrfalcon, SnowBunting, Common Eider). Physiologicalhydrological niche also contributes to theaxis 2 patterns. Therefore, all of the speciessensitive to either historical or physiologicalhydrological niche are in the lower or upperright quadrant of the scatter-plot. Notsurprisingly, this includes many of thewaterfowl and shorebirds that are dependenton water to varying degrees during thebreeding season.19

Figure 3.1. Categorical “confidence” assigned to the factor scores by the expert sub-group (6 reviewers and theirresponses for the 54 species) that re-evaluated the sensitivity responses of the original group of individual species’experts. Bars represent the relative proportions of “high”, “medium”, and “low” confidence ratings for each factor.A male Pectoral Sandpiper. A common breeder inArctic Alaska. (Photo: S. Zack @ WCS)20

Figure 3.2. (a) The sensitivity “scores” (ordinal numerical values) displayed in multivariate space (PCA) toillustrate similarities between species in the sensitivity component of climate change vulnerability. (b) The PCAloadings of the sensitivity factors on axis 1 (x-axis) and axis 2 (y-axis). Loading values indicate which factorsexplain the most variability along the two axes.Relative vulnerability to climate changeUsing the climate projections for the A1Bemission scenario from the composite of allfive SNAP climate models combined withthe sensitivity factor inputs, the CCVI toolidentified nine of the fifty-four species aseither highly vulnerable (n=2) or moderatelyvulnerable (n=7) to the potential impacts ofclimate change in the Arctic LCC region ofAlaska (Figure 3.3). The majority of thebird species whether migratory or yearroundresidents, were presumed to be stable.The results suggest that five passerinespecies (the three sparrows, the LaplandLongspur, and the Common Redpoll) mayeven increase their presence in the region.The distribution of the Monte Carlosimulation results for each bird species withrespect to the five vulnerability categories isshown in Figure 3.4. The tool assigns“confidence” in the original result based onthe proportions of outcomes falling in thedifferent categories. For example,confidence in the result of “moderately21

vulnerable” for the Yellow-billed Loon isconsidered “low” because the simulationresults are almost evenly distributedbetween the highly vulnerable, moderatelyvulnerable and presumed stable categories.In contrast, the confidence in the result forthe Semipalmated Sandpiper is considered“high” because over 80% of the simulationoutcomes fell in the presumed stablecategory.Figure 3.3. The numerical vulnerability scores andindex categories as assigned by the CCVI tool usingthe initial climate scenario as the exposure inputs(Temp: SNAP 5-model composite/Moisture: CW 5-model average (SNAP models).Index Score Vulnerability Category>10.0 Extremely vulnerable (red)7.0-9.9 Highly vulnerable (orange)4.0-6.9 Moderately vulnerable (yellow)-2.0-3.99 Presumed stable (blue)

Figure 3.4. The proportion of the Monte Carlo simulations in different vulnerability categories for each species(colored stacked bars). The colored overlays below the x-axis indicate the vulnerability category assigned to eachspecies by the CCVI tool calculations (as shown in Figure 3.3). The proportions are used as a measure of“confidence” (Low-Moderate-High-Very High) in the numerical score/vulnerability category generated by the toolalgorithm (see species accounts). IL=Increase Likely, PS=Presumed Stable, MV=Moderately Vulnerable,HV=Highly Vulnerable, EV=Extremely Vulnerable.Alternate climate scenariosWe explored the sensitivity of the CCVI tooloutputs to different climate exposure inputs.A comparison of the vulnerability results forthe five different combinations of climateprojections and spatial resolution (seeMethods) shows little variation (Figure 3.5).The vulnerability outcomes were onlyaltered by the projections from the CCCM(Canadian Center for Climate Modeling andAnalysis) global circulation model, theSNAP model that produces the lowestmagnitude of warming (roughly 1 o C coolerthan the other models). Using inputs fromthat model, Gyrfalcon and Common Eidershifted from highly to moderately vulnerableand Buff-breasted Sandpiper moved frommoderately vulnerable to presumed stable.Only the three alternate climate projectionsrepresenting the greatest differentiation ininputs are shown in the tables.Sources of climate change vulnerabilityFigure 3.6 indicates the degree to whicheach of the sensitivity factors examined inthe assessment are contributing to theclimate change vulnerability of the ninespecies that fell into the moderately orhighly vulnerable categories. For many ofthese bird species, the quality and nature ofinteractions with other species, restrictionsassociated with physical habitat and diet,dependence on other species to meet habitatneeds, and changes in disturbance regimesthat affect them, are important forconsidering whether there might beappropriate response options that can beexplicitly identified.23

Figure 3.5. Changes in the CCVI tool score and vulnerability category output using input from different globalcirculation models (GCMs) for presumed stable through highly vulnerable bird species. (a) Temperature data: A1BSRES emission scenario, SNAP 5-model composite (ECHAM5, GFDL2.1, MIROC, HAD, CCCMA), 2 kmresolution; (b) Temperature data: A1B SRES emission scenario, SNAP CCCMA GCM output, 2 km resolution; (c)Temperature data: A1B SRES emission scenario, SNAP 5-model composite ECHAM5 GCM, 2 km resolution.While the index scores vary somewhat across models, only those highlighted in blue changed category from theinitial run in Figure 3.6a. [Note: Moisture projections from all models show little change to increases for theassessment region. Moisture had little influence over CCVI results in this assessment and is not shown here.]24

Figure 3.6. Contribution of the different sensitivity and indirect exposure factors to climate change vulnerability forthe nine species in our Arctic breeding bird assessment that ranked moderately or highly vulnerable.Section 4. DiscussionThis report details the first effort tocharacterize the vulnerability of ArcticAlaska breeding birds to climate change.The primary value of this assessment lies inthe process of breaking a complexphenomenon into constituent parts so thatwe can begin to identify why species in aparticular geography are vulnerable, whetherthere are actions we can take to addressthose vulnerabilities, and what data gapsmay exist.Climate change vulnerability of ArcticAlaska birdsDifferentiating the sources: The outcomesof this vulnerability assessment rest on thecumulative influences of multiple potentialsources of vulnerability to climate. In somecases, those sources differed across species.For example, the sensitivities leading to the“highly vulnerable” rank for Gyrfalcon andCommon Eiders contrast markedly as aresult of their differing hydrologic niches,diets, and other life history traits. Bothspecies were identified as being sensitive toclimate change effects on relatively rarephysical habitats, although for notablydifferent reasons. Overwash and erosionfrom increasing storm frequency (Jones etal. 2009) may have a devastating effect onbarrier-island nest sites, on which CommonEiders depend. For the Gyrfalcon, changingthermal conditions at cliff face nesting sitescould negatively influence nesting success.There were some identified sources ofvulnerability that were common to manyspecies. Physiological hydrologic niche wasscored as a key sensitivity factor for overhalf the species in the assessment, including7 of the 9 species ranked as moderatelyvulnerable or higher. This is not surprisingas many of the species that breed in theregion rely on wetland habitats for bothnesting and foraging (e.g., most shorebirdsand waterfowl). However, hydrologicalsensitivity was not the most significantcontributor to an overall vulnerabilityranking because annual changes in moisture(as measured by the ratio of precipitation toPET) in the region (one component ofexposure) is projected to be low. There wereseveral waterfowl and shorebird species that,despite an assignment of a “greatlyincreased vulnerability” score for thissensitivity factor, were not identified asvulnerable by their overall score. This is, in25

large part, due to the guidance andstrucuture of the CCVI tool. The toolguidance recommends using annual valuesfor exposure, to capture the cumulativechange and potential impacts, with the resultof masking significant changes to differentseasons, which may impact the ecologicalsystem. In addition, hydrological sensitivityis weighted only by the moisture componentof exposure. In this way, the effects of anactual contribution to vulnerability may bediminished in the assessment results.In some cases, vulnerability results weredriven by single (or a small number of) keyfactors. Specialized species (e.g., those withrestricted diets), as well as those with rangesrestricted to coastal areas, and thereforesome sensitivity to sea-level-rise andchanges to other coastal disturbanceprocesses linked to loss of ice cover, tendedto rank higher with respect to climatechange vulnerability. The most dramaticexample is for Pomarine Jaegers in that theyare thought to nest only in years when theirkey food source (brown lemmings) arepresent in sufficient numbers. There is someevidence suggesting that changes in climateare shifting that predator-prey cycle withlikely negative impacts on jaeger breedingpotential (Ims and Fugli 2005, Post et al.2009).For detailed accounts of the sources ofvulnerability for individual species, consultAppendix B.Comparisons with other vulnerabilityassessmentsAlthough few peer-reviewed studies of thepotential vulnerability of birds to climatechange exist, there are three other effortsthat offer insights relevant to the results ofour Alaska Arctic breeding bird assessment:1) the 2010 State of the Birds report(NABCI 2010) focusing on habitat typesthroughout the U.S.; 2) a climate-changevulnerability assessment for California’s atriskbird species (Gardali et al. 2012); and 3)an Arctic LCC taxon-oriented evaluation ofclimate change science needs (Arctic LCC2012). Each of these assessments examinesbird vulnerabilities at different scales andfrom different perspectives. The 2010 Stateof the Birds report conducted an assessmentof climate change impacts on habitats.Gardali et al. (2012) used a species-basedapproach incorporating many of the samefactors as the CCVI tool, while most notablyadding species distribution-modelingcomponent based on projected climatechanges. The effort of the Arctic LCC inAlaska identified ecological processes mostrelevant to predetermined taxon groups.The various assessments share someoverlap in approach and yield severalfindings in common with our assessment forparticular bird species or groups of birds.First, the likely impact of temperatureincreases on surface hydrology, wetlandavailability, and vegetation change waswidely recognized as critically important inall of the assessments. Birds associated withwetlands had the largest representation onthe vulnerable list relative to thoseassociated with other habitats in both theArctic Alaska (this report) and Californiabased(Gardali et al. 2012) speciesassessments. Two of the three assessmentsnoted the sensitivity to climate-drivenchanges of wetland habitats and thegeophysical processes that support them,especially in the Arctic.Shifts in phenology are also consideredcritical in a changing climate by allassessments. However, there appears to berelatively little information about phenologyfor most species. In some assessments, lifehistory characteristics that predispose aspecies to timing issues can be used in lieuof clear documentation. In the State of theBirds assessment “migration status”captured concerns about phenology byassuming that longer distance migrants26

would be more vulnerable lacking cuesabout breeding ground conditions andsubject to a greater risk of a mismatch infood availability and timing of arrival. In acomparable way, we included migrationdistance as a proxy linked to phenology inour pilot effort examining speciesvulnerability across the full life cycle(breeding, migration, wintering) forshorebirds (see Appendix C). Early researchfindings suggest that some shorebirds andpasserines may have the capacity to adjusttheir life history strategies and track somephenological changes. Nest initiation, in theArctic and elsewhere, has advanced forsome species alongside changes in green-uptiming (D. Ward, J. Liebezeit, unpublisheddata). For the most part, other keyphenology events (e.g., chick hatch andinsect emergence) are only beginning to beexamined in this and other regions.The Arctic-specific assessments (thisreport and Arctic LCC 2012) complementeach other and provide reinforcement formany of the same priorities and concerns,blending a refined focus on species-specificvulnerabilities with their connections tochanges in biophysical processes. In both,changes in extreme weather and other events(e.g., longer open water season) that mayalter coastal habitat conditions were noted asa climate-related source of vulnerability.For many coastally-restricted species, directimpacts such as the flooding of nests, aswell as the transformation of habitatsthrough salt water intrusion were consideredparticularly important. Interactions betweenspecies were also considered important,whether viewed as a biophysical process orspecific relationship. In our assessment,experts identified nearly half the birds as atleast slightly vulnerable to some type ofinterspecific interaction (most of which werepredator-prey relationships).Climate change vulnerability in contextThe results we present here are not intendedto offer a definitive statement on climatechange vulnerabilities, but rather offerpreliminary assertions about the climatechange vulnerability of the species weassessed and suggest numerous hypothesesabout the factors underlying them.Interpretations of our results should betempered by uncertainties and unknownsrelated to all projections of climate changeand associated biophysical responses (e.g.,Littell et al. 2011). The use of multipleclimate scenarios increases the rigor of ourassessment, as does the inclusions of themultiple sensitivity scores for some species.But there remain several issues that need tobe considered when interpreting the results.Information gapsThere are large knowledge gaps inunderstanding important biophysicalprocesses and individual species biology.Clearly, wet tundra and aquatic habitats areimportant for many breeding bird species inArctic Alaska and even slight changes inthese habitats may be detrimental to manyspecies. Experts based their ranking for thisfactor on the potential for tundra habitats toexperience net drying in the comingdecades, in turn altering habitat structureand availability of food resources. While adrying trend appears to be occurring at somesites in the circumpolar arctic (Smith et al.2005, Smol and Douglas 2007), currentlyavailable projections for Arctic Alaska(TWS-SNAP 2012) from some climatemodels actually suggest minimal change to aslight annual gain in net atmosphericmoisture balance. However, the geomorphicprocesses relevant to ground and surfacehydrology are not considered in theseprojections (i.e. estimates of the relationshipbetween PET and precipitation changes).Warming arctic temperatures and theinterplay between permafrost melt,27

thermokarst disturbances, drainage patterns,and subsequent habitat changes arecomplicated and understudied (Martin et al.2009). Efforts are now targeting researchtowards improving our understanding ofclimate change effects on some of theseaspects of surface hydrology.There was also insufficient informationto address questions about genetics andphenology for most species. Species withlow genetic variation are generally thoughtto be more vulnerable to climate change (seeYoung et al. 2010). However, there is awidely acknowledged paucity of studiesdocumenting genetic variation other than afew targeted efforts (see species accounts forcitations) and some general assessments at abroader taxonomic level (e.g., Baker andStrauch 1988). Long-term data sets and/orregion-wide data sets relevant to phenologydo exist for some waterfowl (e.g. Larned etal. 2012), shorebirds (R. Lanctot,unpublished data; J. Liebezeit, unpublisheddata,), and other bird groups in the ArcticLCC region. Some of these data are beingused to examine the relationship betweenremotely sensed variables (e.g., NDVI) andbird arrival and nest initiation (D. Ward etal. unpublished). For the majority of birds,however, long-term data are non-existent,inadequate for phenology assessments, oravailable but not currently applied toassessing such changes.Limitations of the CCVI toolClimate change vulnerability indices are oneapproach to understanding the effects ofclimate on species (e.g., Rowland et al.2011). As with all approaches, there arelimitations to the NatureServe CCVI tooland how it is applied. Most importantly, theCCVI tool does not examine statistical ormechanistic relationships between thespecies traits and their exposure to climatechange. Rather, the tool was designed tooffer a relatively coarse, quick, andconsistent look at the potential vulnerabilityof multiple species in a way that accountsfor numerous factors. It is structured toreadily add new information and revise theassessments as knowledge of the species andsystem increases and may be used toidentify need for more targeted researchefforts.There are also issues related to themanner in which we conducted ourassessment. The CCVI tool was developedto consider a wide range of both plant andanimals species in an area. Our narrow focuson birds tested its ability to parse out morenuanced differences in sensitivities andrelative vulnerabilities between closelyrelated species. As illustrated by themodifications suggested by expertparticipants and documented in the Methodssection, the generalized language onsensitivity factors from the CCVI guidancewas sometimes challenging to relate to birdsin the Arctic and, in a few cases, irrelevantaltogether. Although participants did notidentify any missing sensitivity factors priorto its application, many of themrecommended that the differential weightingof particular sensitivity factors onvulnerability outcomes be allowed. Forexample, some workshop participantsquestioned whether factors such asdisturbance effects and genetic influence onclimate change response should carry equalweight. Another challenge, regarding theeffects of climate-related changes indisturbance regimes, is that changes in sometypes of disturbance might benefit a specieswhile others might be detrimental, makingthe net effect difficult to determine andscore.Finally, many species we examinedrange widely across the world and areexposed to different climate stressors at theirwintering and staging areas. We exploredclimate change impacts for the shorebirdsubgroup across their flyways (Appendix C),28

ut there are great challenges to conductinga rigorous vulnerability assessment acrossthe breeding, passage, and wintering ranges(see Appendix C for further discussion). Atleast one effort is currently attempting toaddress those challenges (Galbraith et al. InPrep).Pacific Loon (Photo: S. Zack @ WCS)Other uncertaintiesEliciting expert knowledge to informconservation issues is a common endeavor(e.g., Martin et al. 2012). Although there arewell-recognized limitations, expertknowledge may be the best available datasource in situations where empirical data islimited or absent. Elicitation can beconstructive, if the effort is designedthoughtfully. While we distributed writtensurveys to species experts based nearlyverbatim on the language in the NatureServeCCVI guidance, individuals sometimesinterpreted questions differently. Reasonsinclude: 1) language ambiguity in thesurveys (e.g., it was not clear if a change inlemming population cycles should becaptured under “interspecies interaction” or“disturbance”); 2) questions confoundingelements of climate exposure withsensitivity (e.g., whether or not a specieswas sensitive to a disturbance combinedwith the likelihood of that disturbanceregime being affected by climate change);and 3) confusion about the scale ofinterpretation (e.g., whether experts shouldbe considering a species’ thermal niche inthe context of the Arctic LCC region aloneor across its entire range). In addition, wewere unable to find more than onerespondent per species for the majority ofspecies for the initial survey to offer insighton the potential variance in expertperspectives. Workshop discussions,question modifications, and reassessmentwith a smaller working group providingresponses for all species (i.e., six responsesper species) allowed us to address the issuesthat, in hindsight, would have been betterdealt with at the start of the project.Informing research, conservation andmanagementClimate change vulnerability assessmentsare not intended to be end points, but ratherthe initial input to further discussions orplanning. This report provides a wealth ofknowledge gleaned from species experts andshould be exploited in refining ourunderstanding of vulnerabilities of AlaskanArctic breeding birds, guiding research andhelping to formulate testable hypotheses inthe context of climate change. It can alsoserve as a reference for those starting toconsider changes to management andconservation practices with respect toclimate change.Considerations for focusing future effortsWhile the relative ranking offers insightsabout species vulnerabilities, thisinformation alone does not pre-determinewhether to focus on the most or leastvulnerable species, or what actions to take.Species not ranked as vulnerable to climatechange may merit consideration inmanagement planning and decisions forother reasons. For example, an increase inthe abundance of Common Ravens (rankedas “presumed stable”) has potentiallynegative implications for other species in the29

egion since they sometimes prey on theeggs and young of nesting birds.The results also do not speak to theresponse of species to climate changeoutside of the Arctic LCC region of Alaska.The 54 species we considered in theassessment reflect a representative crosssectionof species in the Alaskan Arctic;however, species that currently do not occur(or barely occur) within the assessment areacould move into the region and subsequentlyaffect other species. For example, CommonLoons could expand their range northwardfrom interior Alaska and compete withYellow-billed Loons for resources.Similarly, some dabbling duck species thatare currently present but are more commonbreeders to the south (e.g. Mallard, NorthernShoveler) may increase and compete withspecies occupying similar niches to thenorth.It is appropriate to interpret ourassessment and other efforts to understandclimate change vulnerability in combinationwith existing conservation rankings (see alsoYoung et al. 2010), as climate change mayexacerbate stressors that are alreadyaffecting many bird species (e.g., Gardali etal. 2012). Three of the four species currentlylisted under the US Endangered Species Actor recently considered for such listing inArctic Alaska were ranked as vulnerable inour assessment (e.g., Steller’s Eider, BuffbreastedSandpiper, Yellow-billed Loon;Figure 4.1). Spectacled Eiders, another listedspecies, was near the vulnerability threshold.For these species, our results reinforceconsiderations for continued protections. Atthe same time, our assessment might raiseconcerns about climate changevulnerabilities for species otherwiseconsidered stable with respect to the effectsof non-climate stressors (e.g. Gyrfalcon,Common Eider).It may also be prudent to morethoroughly consider the key sources ofsensitivity identified for species that arepresumed stable but near the moderatelyvulnerable threshold. While from a relativeperspective these species may not be ofgreatest concern, a single key climaterelatedsensitivity has the potential to bedetrimental. It may be useful to focusresearch agendas and proactively developresponse strategies and monitoring plansthat can be integrated into relevantmanagement plans.Conservation and management activitiesIt should be acknowledged that tools forreducing climate change vulnerabilities maybe somewhat limited in Arctic Alaska. Theregion’s vast size and remoteness, and thesensitivity of its habitats to change, make itdifficult to contemplate actionscommensurate with the potential impacts(Zack and Liebezeit 2012). The results ofthis assessment enhance our understandingof the potential responses of particularspecies to climate change and maycontribute to thinking about futureconservation actions and land protection inthe context of energy and other developmentissues. Attempting to identify climaterefugia and enhancing the protection of largeunits of land may, at present, be the beststrategy for conserving species as climatedrives changes in the region. Our assessmentsuggests several species for which climateinducedlandscape changes might reduce thequality or availability of suitable habitat incurrently utilized locations.30

Figure 4.1. The vulnerability results of the Alaskan Arctic breeding bird climate change vulnerability assessmentalongside non-climate vulnerabilities identified through other assessments and indices. Color codes across indicesare roughly comparable. 1 Gotthardt, T.A., K.M. Walton, T.L. Fields. 2012. Setting priorities for Alaska’s species ofgreatest need: the Alaska Species Ranking System (ASRS). Alaska Natural Heritage Program, Univeristy of AlaskaAnchorage, AK. 46 pp. 2 Canada’s endangered wildlife designation.These species may be appropriate focalspecies for identifying in situ refugia wherethe degree of climate impacts may be mostlimited, as well as ex situ refugia whereconditions may become more favorable inthe future (e.g., Ashcroft 2010, Keppel et al.2012).Although our assessment was focused onthe breeding grounds of the focal birdspecies with the intention of informing31

management strategies in Arctic Alaska,important climate change and other impactsare occurring outside the breeding season forsome species. A few species withpopulations that are thought to be declining(e.g., American Golden-plover, Dunlin)were not ranked as particularly vulnerable toclimate change impacts in Arctic Alaska.Most of these species are thought to bedeclining due to habitat loss and alterationon migration stopover sites or winteringgrounds (Brown et al. 2001). For otherspecies ranked as vulnerable or nearvulnerableto climate change in ArcticAlaska, specific sites in wintering ranges oralong the routes of passage migration mayoffer the greatest opportunities formanagement actions that mitigate theimpacts of changing climate. This may beespecially important in cases wherevulnerabilities on a species’ Alaska breedinggrounds cannot be directly ameliorated.Conversely, we perhaps better understandwhich factors likely do not contributegreatly to vulnerability for the bird speciesconsidered. We also identified importantgaps in our knowledge specific to climatechange impacts. The last twoaccomplishments can help informsubsequent research efforts throughprioritization and hypothesis development.While climate change will greatly challengewildlife and habitats in Arctic Alaska, thiseffort provides one tool useful insafeguarding these valuable resources.Common Eider flying over the Beaufort Sea.(Photo: S. Zack @ WCS)ConclusionDespite obvious challenges, this assessmentrepresents a starting point to help prioritizemanagement actions and conservationplanning efforts with respect to Arcticbreeding birds. Through the assessmentprocess we identified particular factors thatare likely the most important contributors toincreased vulnerability to climate change.32

ReferencesAlaska Shorebird Group (ASG). 2008. Alaska Shorebird Conservation Plan. Version II. Alaska Shorebird Group,Anchorage, AK.Andres, B.A., J.A. Johnson, S.C. Brown, and R.B. Lanctot. 2012. Shorebirds breed in unusually high densities in theTeshekpuk Lake Special Area, Alaska. Arctic: in pressArctic LCC. 2010. The Arctic Landscape Conservation Cooperative Conservation Goals. Adopted by the ArcticLCC Steering Committee, 24 August 2010. Unpublished document, 8pp.Arctic LCC. 2012 Linking climate and habitat change in arctic Alaska: recommended monitoring and modelingactivities. Report of the Arctic Landscape Conservation Cooperative Species and Habitat Working Group. 52 pp.Arneborg, L., A.K. Wahlin, G. Bjork, B. Liljebladh, A.H. Orsi.2012. Persistent inflow of warm water onto thecentral Amundsen shelf. Nature Geoscience 5: 876-880.Ashcroft, M.B. Identifying refugia from climate change. Journal of Biogeography 37: 1407-1413.Baker, A.J. and J.G. Strauch. 1988. Genetic variation and differentiation in shorebirds. – Acta XX CongressusInternationalis Ornithologicus 2: 1639–1645.Bart, J., S. Brown, B. Andres, R. Platte, and A. Manning. 2012. North slope of Alaska. Ch. 4 in Bart, J. and V.Johnston, eds. Shorebirds in the North American Arctic: results of ten years of an arctic shorebird monitoringprogram. Studies in Avian Biology.Bart, J., S. Brown, B. Harrington, and R.I.G. Morrison. 2007. Survey trends of North American shorebirds:population declines or shifting distributions? Journal of Avian Biology 38:73-83.Bentzen, R.L. and A.N. Powell. 2012. Population dynamics of king eiders breeding in northern Alaska. Journal ofWildlife Management 76: 1011 – 1020.Brown, S., C. Hickey, B. Harrington, and R. Gill, eds. 2001. United States Shorebird Conservation Plan, 2 nd ed.Manomet, Massachusetts: Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences.Dubois, N., A. Caldas, J. Boshoven, and A. Delach. 2011. Integrating Climate Change Vulnerability Assessmentsinto Adaptation Planning: A Case Study Using the NatureServe Climate Change Vulnerability Index to InformConservation Planning for Species in Florida [Final Report]. Defenders of Wildlife, Washington D.C.Earnst, S.L., R.A. Stehn, R.M. Platte, W.M. Larned, and E.J. Mallek. 2005. Population size and trend of YellowbilledLoons in northern Alaska. Condor 107: 289-304.ESRI 2009. ArcGIS Desktop: Release 9.3. Redlands, CA: Environmental Systems Research Institute.Galbraith, H., D.W. Desrochers, S. Brown, and J.M. Reed. In prep. Predicting the vulnerabilities of North Americanshorebirds to climate change.Gardali, T., N.E. Seavy, R.T. DiGaudio, and L.A. Comrack. 2012. A Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment ofCalifornia’s At-Risk Birds. PLoS ONE 7(3): e29507. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0029507Gillett, N.P., D.A. Stone, P.A. Stott, T. Nozawa, A.Y. Karpechko, G.C. Hegerl, M.F. Wehner, and P.D. Jones. 2008.Attribution of polar warming to human influence. Nature Geoscience 1: 750-754. doi:10.1038/ngeo338.33

Glick, P., A. Staudt, and B. Stein. 2009. A new era for conservation: Review of climate change adaptation literature.National Wildlife Federation, Reston, VA.Glick, P., B.A. Stein, and N.A. Edelson, eds. 2011. Scanning the Conservation Horizon: A Guide to Climate ChangeVulnerability Assessment. National Wildlife Federation, Washington, D.C.Hammer, O., D.A.T. Harper, and P.S. Ryan. 2001. PAST: Palentological statistical software package for educationaland data analysis. Palaentologia Electronica 4: 9 pp.Ims, R.A., and E. Fuglei. 2005. Trophic interaction cycles in tundra ecosystems and the impact of climate change.BioScience 55: 311-322.Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation andVulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panelon Climate Change, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, eds.,Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 976pp. Available: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg2.htm.Johnson, J.A., R.B. Lanctot, B.A. Andres, J.R. Bart, S.C. Brown, S.J. Kendall, and D.C. Payer, D.C. 2007.Distribution of breeding shorebirds on the Arctic Coastal Plain of Alaska. Arctic 60: 277-293.Johnson, S.R. and D.R. Herter. 1989. The birds of the Beaufort Sea, Anchorage: British Petroleum Exploration(Alaska), Inc.Jones, B.M., C.D. Arp, M.T. Jorgenson, K.M. Hinkel, J.A. Schmutz, and P.L. Flint. 2009. Increase in the rate anduniformity of coastline erosion in Arctic Alaska. Geophys. Res. Letters 36, L03503.Keppel, G., K.P. Van Niel, G.W. Wardell-Johnson, C.J. Yates, M. Byrne, L. Mucina, A.G.T. Schut, S.D. Hopper,S.E. Franklin. 2012. Refugia: identifying and understanding safe havens for biodiversity under climate change.Global Ecology and Biogeography 21: 393-404.King, J.G., and J.I. Hodges. 1979. A preliminary analysis of goose banding on Alaska's Arctic slope. Pages 176-188in R.L. Jarvis and J.C. Bartonek, editors. Management and Biology of Pacific Flyway Geese. Oregon StateUniversity Book Stores, Corvallis, USA.Larned, W.W., R. Stehn, and R. Platte. 2012. Waterfowl breeding population survey, Arctic Coastal Plain, Alaska,2011. Unpubl. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report, Migratory Bird Management, Soldotna, AK.Liebezeit, J.R., G.C. White, and S. Zack. 2011. Breeding ecology of birds at Teshekpuk Lake: a key habitat site onthe Arctic Coastal Plain of Alaska. Arctic 64: 32-44.Littell, J.S., D. McKenzie, B.K. Kerns, S. Cushman C.G. Shaw C.G. 2011. Managing uncertainty in climate-drivenecological models to inform adaptation to climate change. Ecosphere 2:art102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/ES11-00114.1Martin, P.D., J.L. Jenkins, F.J. Adams, M.T. Jorgenson, A.C. Matz, D.C. Payer, P.E.,Reynolds, A.C. Tidwell, andJ.R. Zelenak. 2009. Wildlife response to environmental Arctic change: predicting future habitats of Arctic Alaska.Report of the Wildlife Response to Environmental Arctic Change (WildREACH): Predicting Future Habitats ofArctic Alaska Workshop, 17-18 November 2008. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fairbanks, Alaska, USA.Martin, T.G., M.A. Burgman, F. Fidler, P.M. Kuhnert, S. Low-Choy, M. McBride, K. Mengersen. 2011. Elicitingexpert knowledge in conservation science. Conservation Biology 26: 29-38.McCune, B. and M.J. Mefford. 1999. PC-ORD. Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Data, Version 4. MjM SoftwareDesign, Gleneden Beach, OR, USA.34

Morrison, R.I.G., B.J. McCaffery, R.E. Gill, S.K. Skagen, S.L. Jones, G.W. Page, C.L. Gratto-Trevor, and B.A.Andres. 2006. Population estimates of North American shorebirds, 2006. Wader Study Group Bulletin 111:67-85.North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI) U.S. Committee. 2010. The State of the Birds 2010 Reporton Climate Change, United States of America. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior.Overpeck, J.T. and J.L. Weiss. 2009. Projections of future sea level becoming more dire. Proceedings of theNational Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106: 21461-21462.Parmesan, C. 2006. Ecological and evolutionary responses to recent climate change. Annual Review of Ecology,Evolution, and Systematics 37: 637-669.Parmesan C. and G. Yohe. 2003. A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems.Nature 421: 37-42.Pitelka, F.A. 1974. An avifaunal review for the Barrow region and North Slope of Arctic Alaska. Arctic and AlpineResearch 6:161-184.Post, E., M.C. Forchhammer, M.S. Bret-Harte, T.V. Callaghan, T.R. Christensen, B. Elberling, A.D. Fox, O. Gilg,D.S. Hik, T.T. Høye, R.A. Ims, E. Jeppesen, D.R. Klein, J. Madsen, A.D. McGuire, S. Rysgaard, D.E. Schindler, I.Stirling, M.P. Tamstorf, N.J.C. Tyler, R. van der Wal, J. Welker, P.A. Wookey, N.M. Schmidt, and P. Aastrup.2009. Ecological dynamics across the Arctic associated with recent climate change. Science 325:1355-1358.Racine, C. and R. Jandt. 2008. The 2007”Anaktuvuk River” tundra fire on the Arctic Slope of Alaska: a newphenomenon? In D.L. Kane and K.M. Hinkel (Eds.), Ninth International Conference on Permafrost, ExtendedAbstracts (p. 247-248). Institute of Northern Engineering, University of Alaska Fairbanks.Racine, C., R. Jandt, C. Meyers, and J. Dennis. 2004. Tundra fire and vegetation change along a hillslope on theSeward Peninsula, Alaska, USA. Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research 36: 1-10.Rahmstorf, S., A. Cazenave, J.A. Church, J.E. Hansen, R.F. Keeling, D.E. Parker, and R.C.J. Somerville. 2007.Recent climate observations compared to projections. Science: 316-709. doi:10.1126/science.1136843.Raupach, M.R., G. Marland, P. Ciais, C. La Quere, J.G. Canadell, G. Klepper, and C.B. Field. 2007. Global andregional drivers of accelerating CO 2 emissions. PNAS 104: 10288-10293. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0700609104.Ridgely, R.S., T.F. Allnutt, T. Brooks, D.K. McNicol, D.W. Mehlman, B.E.Young, and J. R. Zook. 2007. DigitalDistribution Maps of the Birds of the Western Hemisphere, version 3.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.Riordan, B., D. Verbyla, and A.D. McGuire. 2006. Shrinking ponds in subarctic Alaska based on 1950-2002remotely sensed images. Journal of Geophysical Research 111, GO4002, 11 pp. doi: 10.1029/2005JG000150.Romanovsky, V.E., S. Gruber. A. Instanes, H. Jin, S.S. Marchenko, S.L. Smith, D. Trombotto, and K.M. Walter.2007. Frozen Ground. In: Global outlook for ice and snow, Earthprint, United Nations EnvironmentProgramme/GRID, Arendal, Norway, pp. 181-200.Rosenzweig, C., D. Karoly, M. Vicarelli, P. Neofotis, Q. Wu, G. Casassa, A. Menzel, T.L. Root, N. Estrella, B.Seguin, P. Tryjanowski, C. Liu, S. Rawlins, and A. Imeson, 2008: Attributing physical and biological impacts toanthropogenic climate change. Nature 453: 353-357. doi:10.1038/nature06937.Rowland, E.L., J.E. Davison, and L.J. Graumlich. 2011. Approaches to evaluating climate change impacts onspecies: A guide to initiating the adaptation planning process. Environmental Management 47:322-337.Schneider, S.H., S. Semenov, A. Patwardhan, I. Burton, C.H.D. Magadza, M. Oppenheimer, A.B. Pittock, A.Rahman, J.B. Smith, A. Suarez, and F. Yamin. 2007. Assessing key vulnerabilities and the risk from climate change.Pages 779-810 in Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, edited by M. L. Parry, O. F.35

Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden, and C.E. Hanson. Contribution of Working Group II to the FourthAssessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,UK.Smith, L.C., Y. Sheng, G.M. MacDonald, and L.D. Hinzman. 2005. Disappearing Arctic lakes. Science 308: 1429.Smol, J.P., and M.S.V. Douglas. 2007. Crossing the final ecological threshold in high Arctic ponds. Proc. Natl.Acad. Sci. 104: 12395-12397.SNAP. 2011. Scenarios for Alaska Planning, http://www.snap.uaf.edu/downloads/alaska-climate-datasets, retrieved2011.Tape, K., M. Sturm, C. Racine. 2006. The evidence for shrub expansion in northern Alaska and the pan-Arctic.Global Change Biology 12: 686-702.The Wilderness Society (TWS) and Scenarios Network for Alaska Planning (SNAP), Projected (2001-2099: A1Bscenario) monthly total potential evapotranspiration from 5 AR4 GCMs that perform best across Alaska and theArctic, utilizing 2km downscaled temperature as model inputs. http://www.snap.uaf.edu/data.php.U.S. Department of Interior. 1993. Federal Register. Final rule to list the Spectacled Eider as threatened. FederalRegister 58(88):27374-27480.U.S. Department of Interior. 1997. Federal Register. Threatened status for the Alaska breeding population of theSteller’s Eider. Federal Register 62(112):31748-31757.Vemeer, M. and S. Rhamstorf. 2009. Global sea level linked to global temperature. PNAS 106(51): 21527–21532.Visser, M.E. 2008. Keeping up with a warming world; assessing the rate of adaptation to climate change. Proc. R.Soc. B. 22 March 2008: 275: 1635 649-659. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2007.0997.Young, B.E., K.R. Hall, E. Byers, K. Gravuer, G. Hammerson, A. Redder, and K. Szabo. (2012, in press). Rapidassessment of plant and animal vulnerability to climate change. In: Conserving Wildlife Populations in a ChangingClimate (ed. Brodie, J., Post, E. & Doak, D.). University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Young, B., E. Byers, K. Gravuer, G. Hammerson, and A. Redder. 2010. Guidelines for Using the NatureServeClimate Change Vulnerability Index. NatureServe, Arlington, VA.Warnock, N. 2010. Stopping vs. staging: the difference between a hop and a jump. Journal of Avian Biology 41:621–626.Zack, S. and J. Liebezeit. 2012. Arctic Alaska: Wildlife Conservation Amid Climate-mediated Transformation. In:Climate and Conservation: Landscape and Seascape, planning, and action. Editors: Charles Chester, Jodi Hilty,and Molly Cross. Island Press.Zack, S. and J. Liebezeit. 2010. New conservation priorities in a changing Arctic Alaska – Workshop Summary.Wildlife Conservation Society report. 26 pp.36

AcknowledgmentsWe thank the Arctic Landscape Conservation Cooperative (LCC), the Kresge Foundation, andthe Liz Claiborne/Art Ortenberg Foundation for providing financial support. We thank the U.S.Geological Survey, in particular, David Ward, for logistical support and providing free use oftheir conference room for the workshop. We graciously thank all of the species sensitivityexperts for their time completing the surveys. We were impressed by the detail and volume ofinformation included in many of the surveys. We thank the workshop attendees for their timeproviding important feedback to help strengthen the final results. We appreciate the time by fourexternal reviewers (Jerry Hupp, David Ward, Philip Martin, and Greg Balogh) for theircomments helping to improve the report. Finally, we thank Heidi Clark and Kelsey Wohlfrom inthe WCS Bozeman office for their work formatting and proofing the report.37

Appendix AHamon AET:PET Aridity IndexTemperature and precipitation are two fundamental climate outputs from the GCM projections, fromwhich many other bioclimatic variables are derived, as well as being the key inputs to many biophysicalresponse and impact models. Organisms and biophysical processes may respond directly to changes intemperature, but often responses to changes in precipitation (e.g., rain, snow) are influenced bytemperature. Through processes such as evaporation and transpiration, temperature mediates theavailability of moisture in a system (e.g., soil moisture availability).The vulnerability of system components may not be adequately captured with respect to precipitationwithout considering the effects of changes in temperature on net moisture availability. In places such asArctic Alaska, where projected changes in the magnitude of warming are high, there is an increasedpotential for drying (i.e., moisture demand). Corresponding increases in precipitation (moisture supply)may be able to offset the drying to some degree, if precipitation is also projected to increase. For thesereasons, the CCVI tool uses a moisture (availability) metric, rather than gross precipitation as an exposurefactor (Young et al. 2010).Potential evapotranspiration (PET) is, simply stated, the atmospheric demand for moisture, driven bytemperature and other variables (e.g., wind speed, relative humidity). There are different ways tocharacterize the relationship between moisture supply and demand, such as P-PET (whereP=precipitation) or the ratio between P and PET. The latter may be expressed as AET:PET, whereAET=actual evapotranspiration and is often equated with precipitation and may be capped at PET(Girvetz and Zganjar in review). These formulae integrating the effects of temperature and precipitationon moisture availability are called aridity indices.There are several methods for estimating the potential evapotranspiration component of these aridityindices (e.g., Lu et al. 2005). The Hamon method widely is used, including applications in the Arctic(e.g., Hay and McCabe 2010). The Hamon method derives PET based on average temperature andlatitude (as a proxy for day length) and is highly correlated with temperature. The key assumptionunderlying this method using future projections is that no changes in cloud cover or relative humidity willaccompany future changes in climate (McAfee et al. in review).Girvetz, E., C. Zganjar, in review at Climatic Change. Improving the Aridity Index for assessing global climate change.Hay, L.E. and J. McCabe. 2010. Hydrologic effects of climatic change in the Yukon River Basin. Climatic Change 100: 509-523.DOI 10.1007/s10584-010-9805-x.Lu, J., G. Sun, S.G. McNulty, and D.M. Amatya. 2005. Comparison of six evapotranspiration methods for regional use in thesoutheastern United States. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 41:621-633.McAfee, S.A., A.L. Springsteen, B. O’Brien, W.M. Loya, and T.S. Rupp, in review at Journal of Applied Meterology andClimatologty. High-Resolution Potential Evapotranspiration (PET) Datasets for Alaska.38

Appendix BSpecies AccountsPhotos: S. Zack @ WCS39

AdTundra Swan (Cygnus columbianus)Vulnerability: Presumed StableConfidence: HighThe Tundra Swan is the more widespread and northerly ranging of the two native swan speciesin North America. In Arctic Alaska, they nest in wet to dry tundra habitat types preferring islandsin lakes or ponds, or naturally occurring frost heaves at the intersection of polygon pond rims.Nesting territories almost always include a large lake that the family will use as a safe havenfrom terrestrial predators (Limpert and Earnst 1994). During the breeding season, their diet isprimarily vegetarian, eating emergent and submerged vegetation in lakes and ponds. They alsograze on terrestrial vegetation near the water (Limpert and Earnst 1994). Most North Slopebreeders winter on the east coast Mid-Atlantic States (Limpert and Earnst 1994). The currentArctic Coastal Plain population is estimated at approximately 10,000 (Larned et al. 2012).E. WeiserRange: We used the extant NatureServe rangemap for the assessment as it closely matched theBirds of North America and other rangedescriptions (Johnson and Herter 1989, Bart etal. 2012).Human Response to CC: Human activities inresponse to climate change, in particular,shoreline fortification against erosion couldimpact Tundra Swans as they sometimes usenear coastal areas for resting and foraging duringmigratory staging (Limpert and Earnst 1994).However, such activity will likely be localizedin the near future so it was considered to slightlyincrease vulnerability, if at all.Physiological Hydro Niche: Tundra Swans wereranked as particularly vulnerable to changes inhydrologic niche because of their dependence onlakes for breeding and molting (to avoidpredation) and aquatic vegetation (for foraging).Non-breeding flocks also rely heavily on lakes.If substantial drying occurs, this species couldexperience a considerable negative impact.Current projections of annual potential evapotranspirationsuggest negligible atmosphericdrivendrying for the foreseeable future (TWSand SNAP), and atmospheric moisture, as anexposure factor (most influential on the“hydrological niche” sensitivity category), wasnot heavily weighted in the assessment.However, its interaction with hydrologicprocesses is very poorly understood (Martin etal. 2009).Disturbance Regime: Climate-mediateddisturbance events, namely thermokarst, couldboth create and destroy good foraging andnesting habitats through both ice wedgedegradation and draining of thaw lakes (Martinet al. 2009). Likewise, predicted increased stormfrequency (Jones et al. 2009) could reduceavailability of their primary forage(submerged/emergent vegetation) as waterturbulence in bays and rivers could increase (S.Earnst, pers. comm.).Biotic Habitat Dependence: Tundra Swansdepend on Arctophila grass for brood-rearingcover thus the “biotic habitat dependencecategory” was considered a source ofvulnerability. The broad range of responses inthis category (from “neutral” to “greatlyincreased” vulnerability) reflects the uncertainty40

Tundra Swan (Cygnus columbianus)Vulnerability: Presumed StableConfidence: HighD=Decrease vulnerability, SD=Somewhat decrease vulnerability, N=Neutral effect, SI=Slightly increase vulnerability,I=Increase vulnerability, GI=Greatly increase vulnerability.in how climate-change would affect thisrelationship.Phenological Response: A long-term data set(1987-1990) indicates Tundra Swan breedingwas associated with the timing of river break-up,and incubation and brood-rearing success werehigher in earlier years (S. Earnst, unpublisheddata). However this finding was preliminary,and, in general, the relationship betweenseasonal temperature / precipitation andphenology for this species in the Alaska portionof the Arctic LCC has not been studiedcomprehensively.In summary, despite some vulnerability,current information suggests Tundra Swans willremain “stable” and be able to adjust to climatemediatedchanges in their breeding range withinthe time frame of this assessment.Literature CitedBart, J., S. Brown, B. Andres, R. Platte, and A. Manning.2012. North slope of Alaska. Ch. 4 in Bart, J. and V.Johnston, eds. Shorebirds in the North American Arctic:results of ten years of an arctic shorebird monitoringprogram. Studies in Avian Biology.Jones, B.M., C.D. Arp, M.T. Jorgenson, K.M. Hinkel, J.A.Schmutz, and P.L. Flint. 2009. Increase in the rate anduniformity of coastline erosion in Arctic Alaska. Geophys.Res. Letters 36, L03503.Johnson, S.R. and D.R. Herter. 1989. The birds of theBeaufort Sea, Anchorage: British Petroleum Exploration(Alaska), Inc.Larned, W., R. Stehn, and R. Platte. 2012. Waterfowlbreeding population survey, Arctic Coastal Plain, Alaska,2011. Unpublished Report, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Anchorage, AK. 51pp.Limpert, R.J. and S.L. Earnst. 1994. Tundra Swan (Cygnuscolumbianus). In: The Birds of North America No. 89 (A.Poole and F. Gill, Eds.). Philadelphia: Academy of NaturalSciences; Washington, D.C.: The American Ornithologists’Union.Martin, P., J. Jenkins, F.J. Adams, M.T. Jorgenson, A.C.Matz, D.C. Payer, P.E. Reynolds, A.C. Tidwell, and J.R.Zelenak. 2009. Wildlife response to environmental Arcticchange: Predicting future habitats of Arctic Alaska. Reportof the Wildlife Response to Environmental Arctic Change(WildREACH), Predicting Future Habitats of Arctic AlaskaWorkshop, 17-18 November 2008. Fairbanks, Alaska,USFWS, 148 pages.The Wilderness Society (TWS) and Scenarios Network forAlaska Planning (SNAP), Projected (2001-2099: A1Bscenario) monthly total potential evapotranspiration from 5AR4 GCMs that perform best across Alaska and the Arctic,utilizing 2km downscaled temperature as model inputs.http://www.snap.uaf.edu/data.php.41

Greater White-fronted Goose (Anser albifrons)Vulnerability: Presumed StableConfidence: ModerateThe Greater White-fronted Goose, with a nearly circumpolar distribution, has the most expansiverange of any species in its genus. In Alaska, this species breeds in large numbers in both theYukon-Kuskokwim Delta and also on the Arctic Coastal Plain, but they will also nest in theinterior. On the coastal plain breeding habitat ranges from lowland wet to upland dry tundraoften near ponds or lakes (Ely and Dzubin 1994). The Greater White-fronted Goose diet isdominated by vegetative matter, primarily grass and sedge rhizomes, tubers, and berries (Ely andDzubin 1994). Arctic Alaskan populations winter on the Gulf Coastal plain in Louisiana andTexas as well as northern Mexico (Ely and Dzubin 1994). The Alaskan Arctic Coastal Plainpopulation is estimated at 200,000 and population growth has been rapid in the past decade buthas recently leveled off (Larned et al. 2012).J. Liebezeit @ WCSRange: We used the extant NatureServe map forthe assessment as it matched other range mapsources and descriptions (Johnson and Herter1989, Ely and Dzubin1994).Physiological Hydro Niche: Among the indirectexposure and sensitivity factors in theassessment (see table on next page), GreaterWhite-fronted Goose ranked neutral in mostcategories with the exception of physiologicalhydrologic niche for which they were evaluatedto have a “slightly to greatly increased”vulnerability. This response was drivenprimarily by this species reliance on waterbodies for breeding and foraging. A drying trendcould have negative impacts by reducingavailability of suitable habitats. Currentprojections of annual potential evapotranspirationsuggest negligible atmosphericdrivendrying for the foreseeable future (TWSand SNAP). Thus atmospheric moisture, as anexposure factor (most influential on the“hydrological niche” sensitivity category), wasnot heavily weighted in the assessment.Human Response to CC: All-weather roads(necessitated by a warming climate andshortened ice road season) associated withenergy extraction activities could impact GreaterWhite-fronted Geese, particularly nearTeshekpuk Lake, however other sources ofhuman activity related to climate changemitigation will be much less pervasive in thenear future so would likely only slightly increasevulnerability.Disturbance Regime: Climate-mediateddisturbance processes, namely thermokarst,could both create and destroy foraging andnesting habitats through both ice wedgedegradation and draining of thaw lakes (Martinet al. 2009). Likewise, predicted increasedcoastal erosion and resulting salinization (Joneset al. 2009) could both negatively and positivelyaffect post-breeding aggregations of stagingbirds by destroying and creating foraging /molting habitat.42

Greater White-fronted Goose (Anser albifrons)Vulnerability: Presumed StableConfidence: HighD=Decrease vulnerability, SD=Somewhat decrease vulnerability, N=Neutral effect, SI=Slightly increase vulnerability,I=Increase vulnerability, GI=Greatly increase vulnerability.Interactions with Other Species: In terms of“interactions with other species”, it is possiblethat red fox nest predation could increase if theybecome more numerous (Pamperin et al. 2006)and geese would not be able to defend nests assuccessfully as against the smaller arctic foxes.Physiological Thermo Niche: Because thisspecies experiences much warmer conditions atinterior Alaska breeding sites, they should beable to adapt physiologically to a warmer Arcticenvironment.Phenological Response: Timing of nesting hasadvanced about 10 days since the 1970s likely inresponse to increasing spring and summertemperatures (D. Ward, pers. comm.) however itis unknown if they can synchronize timing tochanging schedules of other species andprocesses they depend on (e.g. spring green uptiming).In summary, this assessment suggests thatGreater White-fronted Geese will likely beadaptable enough to cope with climate changespredicted to occur in Arctic Alaska, at leastduring the 50 year timeline of this assessment.Literature CitedEly, C.R. and A.X. Dzubin.1994. Greater White-frontedGoose (Anser albifrons). In: The Birds of North AmericaNo. 131 (Poole, A. and Gill, F. eds.). The Birds of NorthAmerica, Inc. Philadelphia, PA.Johnson, S.R. and D.R. Herter. 1989. The birds of theBeaufort Sea, Anchorage: British Petroleum Exploration(Alaska), Inc.Jones, B.M., C.D. Arp, M.T. Jorgenson, K.M. Hinkel, J.A.Schmutz, and P.L. Flint. 2009. Increase in the rate anduniformity of coastline erosion in Arctic Alaska.Geophysical Research Letters 36, L03503.Larned, W. W., R. Stehn, and R. Platte. 2012. Waterfowlbreeding population survey, Arctic Coastal Plain, Alaska,2011. Unpubl. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report,Migratory Bird Management, Soldotna, AK.Martin, P., J. Jenkins, F.J. Adams, M.T. Jorgenson, A.C.Matz, D.C. Payer, P.E. Reynolds, A.C. Tidwell, and J.R.Zelenak. 2009. Wildlife response to environmental Arcticchange: Predicting future habitats of Arctic Alaska. Reportof the Wildlife Response to Environmental Arctic Change(WildREACH), Predicting Future Habitats of Arctic AlaskaWorkshop, 17-18 November 2008. Fairbanks, Alaska,USFWS, 148 pages.Pamerin, N.J., E.H. Follmann, and B. Petersen. 2006.Interspecific killing of an arctic fox by a red fox at PrudhoeBay, Alaska. Arctic 59: 361-364.The Wilderness Society (TWS) and Scenarios Network forAlaska Planning (SNAP), Projected (2001-2099: A1Bscenario) monthly total potential evapotranspiration from 5AR4 GCMs that perform best across Alaska and the Arctic,utilizing 2km downscaled temperature as model inputs.http://www.snap.uaf.edu/data.php.43

Snow Goose (Chen Caerulescens)Vulnerability: Presumed StableConfidence: ModerateThe Snow Goose is a common breeder in Arctic Alaska, typically nesting in small, densecolonies scattered near the coast. This species nests on flat tundra, near ponds, shallow lakes,streams, and islands in river deltas (Mowbray et al. 2000). During the breeding season, their dietis primarily vegetarian, eating both aquatic and drier tundra vegetation (Mowbray et al. 2000).For brood rearing, one of the more important habitats is salt affected tundra on islands in riverdeltas (J. Shook, pers. comm.). Most North Slope breeders winter in western North Americafrom British Columbia into California (Mowbray et al. 2000). Current Arctic Coastal Plainpopulation is estimated at approximately 9,000 with an increasing trend (Larned et al. 2012).J. Liebezeit @ WCSRange: We used the extant NatureServe rangemap for the assessment as it closely matched theBirds of North America and other rangedescriptions (Bart et al. 2012, Johnson andHerter 1989).Sea Level Rise & Natural Barriers: Because ofthis its restricted range along coastal areas inArctic Alaska, this species was consideredslightly vulnerable to both sea-level rise and tolimitations in expansion of their range northward(“natural barriers” factor).Physiological Hydro Niche: Snow Geese werescored as particularly vulnerable to changes inhydrologic niche because of their significantassociation with coastal habitats (in particularsalt marsh), ponds, and wet tundra habitats fornesting, foraging, brood-rearing, molting, andavoiding predation. If substantial tundra dryingoccurs, this species could experience aconsiderable negative impact. Currentprojections of annual potential evapotranspirationsuggest negligible atmosphericdrivendrying for the foreseeable future (TWSand SNAP). Thus atmospheric moisture, as anexposure factor (most influential on the“hydrological niche” sensitivity category), wasnot heavily weighted in the assessment.Disturbance Regime: Climate-mediateddisturbances, most importantly increasing storms(Jones et al. 2009) on the coastal plain(including high winds) can back up water andcause the flooding of river deltas. This maydestroy nests that are often less than a meterabove sea level. Breeding densities could declinenearest the coast, but they may be able tosuccessfully nest inland or redistribute to othercolony areas on the coastal plain (J. Shook, pers.comm.).Interactions with Other Species: In terms ofinteractions with other species, it is possible thatred fox nest predation could increase as thispredator’s range expands northward from borealregions (Pamperin et al. 2006). Geese wouldunlikely be able to defend nests as successfullyas against the smaller arctic foxes. Also, climatechanges may disrupt the regularity of the44

Snow Goose (Chen Caerulescens)Vulnerability: Presumed StableConfidence: ModerateD=Decrease vulnerability, SD=Somewhat decrease vulnerability, N=Neutral effect, SI=Slightly increase vulnerability,I=Increase vulnerability, GI=Greatly increase vulnerability.lemming cycles (Post et al. 2009), thus exposingthis species to greater nest predation pressure iflemmings become a less common food sourcefor predators.Phenological Response: Although long-termdata sets for this species exist (e.g. Larned et al.2012), the relationship between seasonaltemperature / precipitation andphenological patterns in the Alaska portion ofthe Arctic LCC has not been examined.In summary, while Snow Geese will likelyexperience some negative impacts from climatechange this species appears, overall, to haveenough versatility in life history traits andbehaviors to remain “stable” at least during thetimeframe of this assessment (to 2050).Literature CitedBart, J., S. Brown, B. Andres, R. Platte, and A. Manning.2012. North slope of Alaska. Ch. 4 in Bart, J. and V.Johnston, eds. Shorebirds in the North American Arctic:results of ten years of an arctic shorebird monitoringprogram. Studies in Avian Biology.Johnson, S.R. and D.R. Herter. 1989. The birds of theBeaufort Sea, Anchorage: British Petroleum Exploration(Alaska), Inc.Jones, B.M., C.D. Arp, M.T. Jorgenson, K.M. Hinkel, J.A.Schmutz, and P.L. Flint. 2009. Increase in the rate anduniformity of coastline erosion in Arctic Alaska. Geophys.Res. Letters 36, L03503.Larned, W., R. Stehn, and R. Platte. 2012. Waterfowlbreeding population survey, Arctic Coastal Plain, Alaska,2011. Unpublished Report, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Anchorage, AK. 51pp.Mowbray, T.B., F. Cooke, and B. Ganter. 2000. SnowGoose (Chen caerulescens). In: The Birds of NorthAmerica, No. 514 (A. Poole and F. Gill, Eds.).Philadelphia: Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington,D.C.: The American Ornithologists’ Union.Pamerin, N.J., E.H. Follmann, and B. Petersen. 2006.Interspecific killing of an arctic fox by a red fox at PrudhoeBay, Alaska. Arctic 59: 361-364.Post, E., M.C. Forchhammer, M.S. Bret-Harte, T.V.Callaghan, T.R. Christensen, B. Elberling, A.D. Fox, O.Gilg, D.S. Hik, T.T. Høye, R.A. Ims, E. Jeppesen, D.R.Klein, J. Madsen, A.D. McGuire, S. Rysgaard, D.E.Schindler, I. Stirling, M.P. Tamstorf, N.J.C. Tyler, R. vander Wal, J. Welker, P.A. Wookey, N.M. Schmidt, and P.Aastrup P (2009) Ecological dynamics across the Arcticassociated with recent climate change. Science 325:1355-1358.The Wilderness Society (TWS) and Scenarios Network forAlaska Planning (SNAP), Projected (2001-2099: A1Bscenario) monthly total potential evapotranspiration from 5AR4 GCMs that perform best across Alaska and the Arctic,utilizing 2km downscaled temperature as model inputs.http://www.snap.uaf.edu/data.php45

Brant (Branta bernicla)Vulnerability: Moderately VulnerableConfidence: ModerateThe Brant is a small goose well known in Alaska for the tens of thousands of individuals thatmolt in the Teshekpuk Lake area of the coastal plain during the late summer. In ArcticAlaska, this species typically nests within 8 km of the coast although in the NationalPetroleum Reserve – Alaska (NPR-A) can nest up to 30 km inland (Reed et al. 1998, D.Ward, pers. comm.). Brant often nest in colonies near the upper edge of salt marshes alongsloping seacoasts or on estuarine deltas, although in areas where salt marshes are lesscommon, they will be more dispersed, nesting near small ponds and freshwater marshes (Reedet al. 1998). Brant subsist on a vegetarian diet and during breeding primarily focus on just afew species of sedges and grasses (Reed et al. 1998). Alaskan breeders spend their wintersalong the Pacific Coast of North America as far down as Baja California (Reed et al 1998).Current Pacific Brant population (which includes the sizeable Y-K delta breeders) isestimated at approximately 125,000 (Arctic Goose Joint Venture 2008).climate change mitigation (e.g. wind farms) willbe much less pervasive in the near future sowould likely only slightly increase vulnerability.S. Zack @ WCSRange: For this assessment, we adjusted theNatureServe Map to more closely reflect therange map depicted in the Birds of NorthAmerica account as the latter more accuratelyrepresented this species’ range based on multipleaccounts and expert opinion (Johnson and Herter1989, Reed et al. 1998, D. Ward, pers. comm.).Sea Level Rise: Because Brant rely on coastalareas for breeding, foraging, and especiallymolting/staging in the Arctic LCC area, theywould most likely be negatively impacted bypredicted sea level rise and a disturbance regimeof increased storm surge frequency and saltwater intrusion (IPCC 2007, Jones et al. 2009).Their ability to shift to nesting habitats that areless susceptible to such phenomena is possibleas they are known to nest further inland in someplaces, albeit in lower numbers than near thecoast (Reed et al. 1998).Human Response to CC: All-weather roads(necessitated by a warming climate andshortened ice road season) associated withenergy extraction activities could impact Brant,particularly near Teshekpuk Lake, howeverother sources of human activity related toPhysiological Hydro Niche: Brant response tochanging hydrological conditions could rangefrom slight to greatly increased vulnerability(see table below) as they are reliant on coastalwetlands that are periodically inundated by saltwater and nesting areas could be negativelyimpacted directly through potential tundradrying and indirectly as some nest predators maybe able to more readily access nesting sitespreviously surrounded by water. Currentprojections of annual potential evapotranspirationsuggest negligible atmosphericdrivendrying for the foreseeable future (TWSand SNAP). Thus atmospheric moisture, as anexposure factor (most influential on the“hydrological niche” sensitivity category), wasnot heavily weighted in the assessment.46

Brant (Branta bernicla)Vulnerability: Moderately VulnerableConfidence: ModerateD=Decrease vulnerability, SD=Somewhat decrease vulnerability, N=Neutral effect, SI=Slightly increase vulnerability,I=Increase vulnerability, GI=Greatly increase vulnerability.Dietary Versatility: Brant rely on just a fewwetland plant species for forage (Carexsubspatheca and Puccinellia phryganodes).Although they do eat other plants, it is possiblethat a significant reduction in availability ofthese species (via tundra drying or other events)could negatively impact Brant populations.Interactions with Other Species: Brant areknown to sometimes nest in the territory ofpredatory birds for protection, particularlyRussian populations (Summers et al. 1987).However; it is unknown how a changing climatewould alter this behavior and if it would confer apositive or negative outcome toward nestingsuccess.Phenological Response: There are long-termdata sets on Brant in northern Alaska and theydo indicate that timing of nesting has advancedabout 10 days since the 1970s (D. Ward, pers.comm.). Although this provides some evidencethat Brant can keep pace with climate changes, itis unknown how they can adjust to the changingphenology of the plant species they depend onfor forage.In summary, the accumulation of potentialsources of vulnerability, particularly with regardto this species’ heavy reliance on coastal andwetland habitats for breeding, foraging, andmolting, resulted in this species ranking asmoderately vulnerable in all three climatechange projections we considered.Literature CitedArctic Goose Joint Venture. 2008.http://www.agjv.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=15&Itemid=55IPCC. 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report.Contribution of Working Groups I, II, and III to the 4 thAssessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel onClimate Change. Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC. 104p.Johnson, S.R. and D.R. Herter. 1989. The birds of theBeaufort Sea, Anchorage: British Petroleum Exploration(Alaska), Inc.Jones, B.M., C.D. Arp, M.T. Jorgenson, K.M. Hinkel, J.A.Schmutz, and P.L. Flint. 2009. Increase in the rate anduniformity of coastline erosion in Arctic Alaska. Geophys.Res. Letters 36, L03503.Reed, A. D.H. Ward, D.V. Derksen, and J.S. Sedinger.1998. Brant (Branta bernicla). In: The Birds of NorthAmerica No. 337 (Poole, A. and Gill, F. eds.), Philadelphia,and American Ornithologists' Union, Washington D.C.:Academy of Natural Sciences.Summers, R.W., L.G. Underhill, E.E. Syroechkovski, Jr.,H.G. Lappo, R.P. Prys-Jones, and V. Karpov. The breedingbiology of dark-bellied Brent Geese and King Eiders on thenortheastern Taimyr Peninsula, especially in relation toSnowy Owl nests. Wildfowl 45: 110-118.The Wilderness Society (TWS) and Scenarios Network forAlaska Planning (SNAP), Projected (2001-2099: A1Bscenario) monthly total potential evapotranspiration from 5AR4 GCMs that perform best across Alaska and the Arctic,utilizing 2km downscaled temperature as model inputs.http://www.snap.uaf.edu/data.php.47

Cackling/Canada Goose (Branta hutchinsii / canadensis)Vulnerability: Presumed StableConfidence: HighCackling and Canada Geese were recently split into two species. The Cackling Goose tavernerisubspecies is thought to be the dominant breeder on Alaska’s Arctic Coastal Plain although someevidence suggests they may interbreed with Canada Goose parvipes subspecies (Mowbray et al.2002). Coastal plain Cackling/Canada geese nest in moist sedge shrub tundra with brood rearingin wet sedge meadows, often near the coast (Mowbray et al. 2002). On the coastal plain their dietis dominated by Carex spp. (J. Hupp, pers. comm.). Arctic Alaskan populations winter primarilyin w. Washington and Oregon as well as n. California (Mowbray et al. 2002). The AlaskanArctic Coastal Plain population is estimated at ~8,000 with a stable population (Larned et al.2012).S. Zack @ WCSRange: We used the extant NatureServe map forthe assessment as it matched the Birds of NorthAmerica range description (Mowbray et al.2002). It should be noted that most birds occurnear Teshekpuk Lake (J. Hupp, pers. comm.).Physiological Hydro Niche: Reliance onparticular hydrologic conditions was ranked asthe greatest potential source of vulnerability forthe Cackling/Canada geese. This response wasdriven primarily by this species close associationwith moist/wet sedge communities and largelakes for both nesting and foraging. A dryingtrend could have negative impacts by reducingavailability of suitable habitats. Currentprojections of annual potential evapotranspirationsuggest negligible atmosphericdrivendrying for the foreseeable future (TWSand SNAP). Thus atmospheric moisture, as anexposure factor (most influential on the“hydrological niche” sensitivity category), wasnot heavily weighted in the assessment.Human Response to CC: All-weather roads(necessitated by a warming climate andshortened ice road season) associated withenergy extraction activities could impactbreeding and molting habitats, particularly nearTeshekpuk Lake. However, combined sources ofhuman activity related to climate changemitigation will likely be minimal and localizedin the near future.Physiological Thermal Niche: Because thisspecies is distributed across a broad thermalrange in North America they are likely notimpacted or could benefit from warmingtemperatures, reducing stress related to earlyseason cold temperatures.Disturbance Regime: Climate-mediateddisturbance processes, namely thermokarst,could both create and destroy foraging andnesting habitats through both ice wedgedegradation and draining of thaw lakes (Martinet al. 2009). Likewise, predicted increasedcoastal erosion and resulting salinization (Joneset al. 2009) could both negatively and positivelyaffect nesting and staging birds by destroyingand creating nesting, foraging, and moltinghabitats.Dietary Versatility: Because this speciescomplex relies so heavily on Carex spp. as a dietsource, any reduction in this food source relatedto climate could have negative consequences.Genetic Variation: Current mitochondrial DNAevidence suggests Cackling/Canada geese have48

Cackling/Canada Goose (Branta hutchinsii / canadensis)Vulnerability: Presumed StableConfidence: HighD=Decrease vulnerability, SD=Somewhat decrease vulnerability, N=Neutral effect, SI=Slightly increase vulnerability,I=Increase vulnerability, GI=Greatly increase vulnerability.high genetic diversity (Scribner et al. 2003) andso would likely cope well with climate-mediatedimpacts that exert influence across their range.Interactions with Other Species: In terms of“interactions with other species”, it is possiblethat nest predation by red fox could increase asthis species’ range may expand northwardmoving in from boreal regions (Pamperin et al.2006) and geese would not be able to defendnests as successfully as against the smaller arcticfoxes. Also, climate changes may makelemming cycles less regular (Ims and Fuglei2005) and thus could expose this species togreater nest predation pressure if lemmings nolonger become periodically superabundant.Phenological Repsonse: Arrival data collectedon the Colville River Delta (J. Helmericks,unpub. data) are currently being analyzed. Evenif their arrival dates have advanced (like otherNorth Slope geese; D. Ward, pers. comm.) it isunknown if they can synchronize timing tochanging schedules of other phenomena (e.g.spring green up timing).In summary, this assessment suggests thatCackling/Canada Geese will likely be able toadapt to climate changes projected to occur inArctic Alaska in the next 50 years.Literature CitedIms, R.A., and E. Fuglei. 2005. Trophic interaction cyclesin tundra ecosystems and the impact of climate change.BioScience 55: 311-322.Jones, B.M., C.D. Arp, M.T. Jorgenson, K.M. Hinkel, J.A.Schmutz, and P.L. Flint. 2009. Increase in the rate anduniformity of coastline erosion in Arctic Alaska.Geophysical Research Letters 36, L03503.Larned, W. W., R. Stehn, and R. Platte. 2012. Waterfowlbreeding population survey, Arctic Coastal Plain, Alaska,2011. Unpubl. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report,Migratory Bird Management, Soldotna, AK.Martin, P., J. Jenkins, F.J. Adams, M.T. Jorgenson, A.C.Matz, D.C. Payer, P.E. Reynolds, A.C. Tidwell, and J.R.Zelenak. 2009. Wildlife response to environmental Arcticchange: Predicting future habitats of Arctic Alaska. Reportof the Wildlife Response to Environmental Arctic Change(WildREACH), Predicting Future Habitats of Arctic AlaskaWorkshop, 17-18 November 2008. Fairbanks, Alaska,USFWS, 148 pages.Mowbray, T.B., C.R. Ely, J.S. Sedinger and R.E. Trost.2002. Canada Goose (Branta canadensis), The Birds ofNorth America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Labof Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North AmericaOnline: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/682doi:10.2173/bna.682Pamerin, N.J., E.H. Follmann, and B. Petersen. 2006.Interspecific killing of an arctic fox by a red fox at PrudhoeBay, Alaska. Arctic 59: 361-364.Scribner, K.T . S.L. Talbot, J.M. Pearce, B.J. Pierson, K.S.Bollinger, and D.V. Derksen. 2003. Phylogeography ofCanada geese (Branta canadensis) in western NorthAmerica. Auk. 120: 889-907.The Wilderness Society (TWS) and Scenarios Network forAlaska Planning (SNAP), Projected (2001-2099: A1Bscenario) monthly total potential evapotranspiration from 5AR4 GCMs that perform best across Alaska and the Arctic,utilizing 2km downscaled temperature as model inputs.http://www.snap.uaf.edu/data.php.49

Northern Pintail (Anas acuta)Vulnerability: Presumed StableConfidence: ModerateThe Northern Pintail is the most common breeding dabbling duck in Arctic Alaska, with its corebreeding area centered on the coastal plain. In Alaska this species nests on wet sedge (Carex) orgrass meadows, sloughs, river banks, pond shores and in tidal habitats (Austin and Miller 1995).During the breeding season pintails consume mostly animal foods (aquatic invertebrates)although they switch to a largely vegetarian diet later in summer and fall (Austin and Miller1995). Northern Pintails spend their winters primarily in the southern US and Mexico (Austinand Miller 1995). The North American pintail population is down from 6 million in the early1970s to 2.6 million in 2005 (http://ak.audubon.org/species/norpin). However, aerial surveyssuggest the pintail population on the Alaskan Arctic Coastal Plain has not shown a significantchange since 1992, although there is substantial annual variation (J. Hupp, pers. comm.).H. Eskinassessment. This uncertainty is reflected in therange of vulnerability scores in the table below.Physical Habitat Restrictions: Pintailsexpansive breeding range and ability to utilizedifferent wetland habitat types make them lesssensitive to constraints posed bydispersal/movement barriers when responding topotential shifts in habitat availability.Range: We used the extant NatureServe map forthe assessment as it matched other range mapsources and descriptions (Johnson and Herter1989, Austin and Miller 1995, Bart et al. 2012).However, it should be noted that this species lesscommonly nests in the Brooks Range andfoothills (J. Hupp, pers. comm.).Physiological Hydro Niche: Among the indirectexposure and sensitivity factors in theassessment (see table on next page), NorthernPintails ranked neutral in most categories withthe exception of physiological hydrologic nichefor which they were evaluated to have a“slightly to greatly increased” vulnerability.This response was driven primarily by thisspecies close association with shallow wetlandhabitats on the coastal plain. Effects of climatechange (and projected drying trends) on wetlandavailability in northern Alaska are very poorlyunderstood and current projections of annualpotential evapotranspiration suggest negligibleatmospheric-driven drying for the foreseeablefuture (TWS and SNAP).Thus atmosphericmoisture, as an exposure factor (most influentialon the “hydrological niche” sensitivitycategory), was not heavily weighted in thePhysiological Thermo Niche: Because thisspecies breeding range also occurs much furthersouth (e.g. prairie pothole region) they wouldlikely be able to adapt physiologically to awarmer Arctic environment and perhaps couldeven benefit from it.Disturbance Regime: Disturbance (e.g. largescalethermokarst, disease outbreaks) and humanmitigation or adaptation activities related toclimate could impact this species. But thesetypes of factors will likely be localized in impactor, in the case of thermokarst, could actually50

Northern Pintail (Anas acuta)Vulnerability: Presumed StableConfidence: ModerateD=Decrease vulnerability, SD=Somewhat decrease vulnerability, N=Neutral effect, SI=Slightly increase vulnerability,I=Increase vulnerability, GI=Greatly increase vulnerability.increase viable habitat (Martin et al. 2009).Dietary Versatility: Because of the highflexibility in pintail diet they would likely beable to cope with climate-mediated changes inprey base and could benefit from increasedavailability of aquatic invertebrates resultingfrom increased productivity of warmingwetlands.Genetic Variation: Northern Pintails have highgenetic variation (Flint et al. 2009) and there isno evidence of recent genetic bottlenecks in theAlaska population so they would be likely towithstand any climate-mediated impacts (e.g.disease outbreaks) that would wipe out a lessgenetically diverse population.Phenological Response: There is at least onelong-term data set on arrival dates of NorthernPintails in Arctic Alaska that could shed somelight on how this species phenology may bechanging with climate (J. Hupp, pers. comm.),however, that data set has currently not beenanalyzed so it is unknown how this species willrespond to changing biotic schedules.In summary, this assessment suggests thatNorthern Pintails will likely be able to cope withclimate and perhaps even benefit fromassociated habitat changes that may occur inArctic Alaska during the 50 year timeline of thisassessment.Literature CitedAustin, J.E. and M.R. Miller. 1995. Northern Pintail (Anasacuta). In: The Birds of North America No. 163 (Poole, A.and Gill, F. eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc.Philadelphia, PA.Bart, J., S. Brown, B. Andres, R. Platte, and A. Manning.2012. North slope of Alaska. Ch. 4 in Bart, J. and V.Johnston, eds. Shorebirds in the North American Arctic:results of ten years of an arctic shorebird monitoringprogram. Studies in Avian Biology.Flint, P. L., K. Ozaki, J. M. Pearce, B. Guzzetti, H.Higuchi, J. P. Fleskes, T. Shimada, and D. V. Derksen.2009. Breeding season sympatry facilitates geneticexchange among allopatric wintering populations ofnorthern pintails in Japan and California. Condor 111: 591-598.Johnson, S.R. and D.R. Herter. 1989. The birds of theBeaufort Sea, Anchorage: British Petroleum Exploration(Alaska), Inc.Martin, P., J. Jenkins, F.J. Adams, M.T. Jorgenson, A.C.Matz, D.C. Payer, P.E. Reynolds, A.C. Tidwell, and J.R.Zelenak. 2009. Wildlife response to environmental Arcticchange: Predicting future habitats of Arctic Alaska. Reportof the Wildlife Response to Environmental Arctic Change(WildREACH), Predicting Future Habitats of Arctic AlaskaWorkshop, 17-18 November 2008. Fairbanks, Alaska,USFWS, 148 pages.The Wilderness Society (TWS) and Scenarios Network forAlaska Planning (SNAP), Projected (2001-2099: A1Bscenario) monthly total potential evapotranspiration from 5AR4 GCMs that perform best across Alaska and the Arctic,utilizing 2km downscaled temperature as model inputs.http://www.snap.uaf.edu/data.php.51

Greater Scaup (Aythya marila)Vulnerability: Presumed StableConfidence: HighThe Greater Scaup is the only diving duck in the genus Aythya that has a circumpolardistribution. In Alaska this species has its highest nesting densities in the Yukon-KuskokwimDelta but they also breed in Arctic Alaska throughout the Brooks Range, foothills and ArcticCoastal Plain. Its breeding habitat is typically characterized by relatively shallow (1–2 m) lakesand large ponds with low surrounding vegetation in extensive, largely treeless, wetlands (Kesselet al. 2002). Greater Scaup have an omnivorous diet but tend to focus on more protein-richanimal foods (mostly aquatic invertebrates) during the summer. This species winters primarily inmarine waters of both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts (Kessel et al. 2002). Breeding groundpopulation estimates for this species from 1978-2011 range from 434,000 – 642,000 and there issome evidence of regional declines (Kessel et al. 2002).drying trend could limit wetland availability innorthern Alaska. Current projections of annualpotential evapotranspiration suggest negligibleatmospheric-driven drying for the foreseeablefuture (TWS and SNAP), and its interaction withhydrologic processes is very poorly understood(Martin et al. 2009). This uncertainty is reflectedin the range of vulnerability severity scores inthis category (see table below).C. RuttRange: We used the extant NatureServe map forthis assessment as it closely matched other rangemap sources and descriptions (Johnson andHerter 1989, Kessel et al. 2002). However, itshould be noted that this species doesoccasionally breed sporadically closer to theArctic Ocean coastline and along the DaltonHighway (Kessel et al. 2002).Physiological Hydro Niche: Among the indirectexposure and sensitivity factors in theassessment (see table on next page), GreaterScaup ranked neutral in most categoriesalthough they were ranked with a greater than“slight increase” in vulnerability for“physiological hydrologic niche” and“interactions with other species”. For the firstcategory this response was driven by the scaup’srequirement for wetlands and ponds rich inaquatic invertebrates for feeding duringmigration, nesting, and brood rearing. They needsmaller wetlands, likely with abundant emergentvegetation for cover and feeding, particularly forbrood rearing (Kessel et al. 2002). A tundraInteractions with Other Species: In terms of“interactions with other species”, it is possiblethat red fox nest predation could increase as thisspecies may become more numerous moving infrom boreal regions (Pamperin et al. 2006) andscaup would not be able to defend nests assuccessfully as against the smaller arctic foxes.However this does not seem to be a problem forthem in the southern portion of their range.Disturbance Regime: Disturbances (e.g. largescalethermokarst, disease outbreaks) and human52

Greater Scaup (Aythya marila)Vulnerability: Presumed StableConfidence: HighD=Decrease vulnerability, SD=Somewhat decrease vulnerability, N=Neutral effect, SI=Slightly increase vulnerability,I=Increase vulnerability, GI=Greatly increase vulnerability.mitigation activities related to climate couldimpact this species, but experts felt this to beunlikely as these types factors will likely belocalized or, in the case of thermokarst, couldpotentially create habitat (Martin et al. 2009).Physical Habitat Restrictions: The GreaterScaup’s expansive breeding range into southernAlaska makes them less susceptible toconstraints posed by natural barriers related todispersal/movement issues. Because this speciesexperiences much warmer conditions at interiorAlaska breeding sites, they would likely have noproblem adapting physiologically to a warmerArctic environment and perhaps could expandtheir nesting presence in far northern Alaska.Phenological Response: There are no long-termdata sets on nesting or migration chronology forGreater Scaup for the North Slope (D. Safine,pers. comm.) and so it is currently unknown howthey would respond to phenology changes.In summary, this assessment suggests thatGreater Scaup will likely be adaptable enough tocope with climate change and perhaps evenbenefit from associated habitat changes that mayoccur in Arctic Alaska, at least during the 50year timeline of this assessment.Literature CitedJohnson, S.R. and D.R. Herter. 1989. The birds of theBeaufort Sea, Anchorage: British Petroleum Exploration(Alaska), Inc.Kessel, B., D.A. Rocque, and J.S. Barclay. 2002. GreaterScaup (Aythya marila). In: The Birds of North America No.163 (Poole, A. and Gill, F. eds.). The Birds of NorthAmerica, Inc. Philadelphia, PA.Martin, P., J. Jenkins, F.J. Adams, M.T. Jorgenson, A.C.Matz, D.C. Payer, P.E. Reynolds, A.C. Tidwell, and J.R.Zelenak. 2009. Wildlife response to environmental Arcticchange: Predicting future habitats of Arctic Alaska. Reportof the Wildlife Response to Environmental Arctic Change(WildREACH), Predicting Future Habitats of Arctic AlaskaWorkshop, 17-18 November 2008. Fairbanks, Alaska,USFWS, 148 pages.Pamerin, N.J., E.H. Follmann, and B. Petersen. 2006.Interspecific killing of an arctic fox by a red fox at PrudhoeBay, Alaska. Arctic 59: 361-364.The Wilderness Society (TWS) and Scenarios Network forAlaska Planning (SNAP), Projected (2001-2099: A1Bscenario) monthly total potential evapotranspiration from 5AR4 GCMs that perform best across Alaska and the Arctic,utilizing 2km downscaled temperature as model inputs.http://www.snap.uaf.edu/data.php.53

Steller’s Eider (Polysticta stelleri)Vulnerability: Moderately VulnerableConfidence: ModerateThe Steller’s Eider, is the smallest of the four eiders and in many ways resembles dabbling ducksmore than sea ducks. This species was listed as “threatened” in 1997 under the EndangeredSpecies Act as it has virtually disappeared from historic breeding areas in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, once the most populated breeding ground in Alaska. In Arctic Alaska,Steller’s Eiders nest in polygonal tundra near the coast or up to 30km inland on sites with acomplex of interconnected ponds (Fredrickson 2001). During the breeding season, their dietconsists primarily of aquatic insects including chironomid and tipulid larvae (Fredrickson 2001).Alaskan breeders spend their winters along the Alaskan panhandle and the eastern AleutianIslands (Fredrickson 2001). Current Arctic Coastal Plain population is estimated at

Steller’s Eider (Polysticta stelleri)Vulnerability: Moderately VulnerableConfidence: ModerateD=Decrease vulnerability, SD=Somewhat decrease vulnerability, N=Neutral effect, SI=Slightly increase vulnerability,I=Increase vulnerability, GI=Greatly increase vulnerability.salinization (Jones et al. 2009) could bothnegatively and positively affect post-breedingaggregations of staging birds by destroying andcreating foraging habitat.Interactions with Other Species: Steller’s eiderbreeding success is strongly influenced by nestpredation, and average nest success is higherwhen there is abundant lemming prey. Lemmingcycles may become less regular (Post et al.2009), potentially exposing eiders to greater nestpredation.Phenological Response: As of yet, therelationship between seasonal temperature /precipitation and phenology for this species inthe Arctic LCC has not been studied.In summary, the sources of potentialvulnerability identified by this assessment,particularly with regard to this species heavyreliance on coastal and wetland habitats forbreeding, foraging, and post-breeding activityand their small range in Arctic Alaska, yielded amoderately vulnerable result in all three climatechange projections we considered.Literature CitedFredrickson, L.H. 2001. Steller’s Eider (Polysticta stelleri).In: The Birds of North America No. 571 (Poole, A. andGill, F. eds.), Philadelphia, and American Ornithologists'Union, Washington D.C.: Academy of Natural Sciences.Jones, B.M., C.D. Arp, M.T. Jorgenson, K.M. Hinkel, J.A.Schmutz, and P.L. Flint. 2009. Increase in the rate anduniformity of coastline erosion in Arctic Alaska. Geophys.Res. Letters 36, L03503.Larned, W., R. Stehn, and R. Platte. 2012. Waterfowlbreeding population survey, Arctic Coastal Plain, Alaska,2011. Unpublished Report, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Anchorage, AK. 51pp.Martin, P., J. Jenkins, F.J. Adams, M.T. Jorgenson, A.C.Matz, D.C. Payer, P.E. Reynolds, A.C. Tidwell, and J.R.Zelenak. 2009. Wildlife response to environmental Arcticchange: Predicting future habitats of Arctic Alaska. Reportof the Wildlife Response to Environmental Arctic Change(WildREACH), Predicting Future Habitats of Arctic AlaskaWorkshop, 17-18 November 2008. Fairbanks, Alaska,USFWS, 148 pages.Post, E., M.C. Forchhammer, M.S. Bret-Harte, T.V.Callaghan, T.R. Christensen, B. Elberling, A.D. Fox, O.Gilg, D.S. Hik, T.T. Høye, R.A. Ims, E. Jeppesen, D.R.Klein, J. Madsen, A.D. McGuire, S. Rysgaard, D.E.Schindler, I. Stirling, M.P. Tamstorf, N.J.C. Tyler, R. vander Wal, J. Welker, P.A. Wookey, N.M. Schmidt, and P.Aastrup P (2009) Ecological dynamics across the Arcticassociated with recent climate change. Science 325:1355-1358.The Wilderness Society (TWS) and Scenarios Network forAlaska Planning (SNAP), Projected (2001-2099: A1Bscenario) monthly total potential evapotranspiration from 5AR4 GCMs that perform best across Alaska and the Arctic,utilizing 2km downscaled temperature as model inputs.http://www.snap.uaf.edu/data.php.55

Spectacled Eider (Somateria fischeri)Vulnerability: Presumed StableConfidence: LowThe Spectacled Eider is a medium-sized sea duck with males easily recognized by their striking“clown-like” head plumage. This species was listed as threatened in 1993 under the EndangeredSpecies Act as it has suffered severe population declines in western Alaska. The Arctic CoastalPlain population may also be declining. In Arctic Alaska, breeding Spectacled Eiders use riverdeltas and wet tundra habitats, including drained-lake basins, flooded wetlands, and islets withina matrix of thaw lakes for both nesting and foraging (Petersen et al. 2000). During the breedingseason, their diet consists primarily of both adult and larval aquatic insects (Petersen et al. 2000).Alaskan breeders spend their winters offshore in the Bering Sea, often amassed in smallopenings in the pack ice (Petersen et al. 2000). Current Arctic Coastal Plain population isestimated at 6-8,000 (http://seaduckjv.org/infoseries/spei_sppfactsheet.pdf).S. Zack @ WCSRange: We adjusted the NatureServe Map tomore closely reflect recent satellite telemetrystudies indicating that most Spectacled Eiders inArctic Alaska nest within 20 km of the coast (M.Sexson, pers. comm.). Because of their relianceon nesting habitats near the coast, their ability toshift to new habitats is restricted.Human Response to CC: All-weather roads(necessitated by a warming climate andshortened ice road season) associated withenergy extraction activities could impact thisspecies. At the same time, impounded watercreated by a road network could provideadditional foraging habitat (J. Liebezeit, pers.obs.). Overall, human activity in response toclimate change will likely be localized in thenear future so would only slightly increasevulnerability.Physiological Hydro Niche: The greatestpotential source of vulnerability for SpectacledEiders was with respect to “physiologicalhydrologic niche” category, in which scoresranged from “neutral” to “greatly increased”vulnerability. This range reflects uncertaintyboth in the direction and intensity of change inArctic hydrology, as well as in the effect thiswill have on the eider (less or greatervulnerability). If substantial tundra dryingoccurs, this species could experience aconsiderable negative impact as they are highlydependent on wet tundra habitats for nesting andforaging (Petersen et al. 2000). Currentprojections of annual potential evapotranspirationsuggest negligible atmosphericdrivendrying for the foreseeable future (TWSand SNAP). Thus atmospheric moisture, as anexposure factor (most influential on the“hydrological niche” sensitivity category), wasnot heavily weighted in the assessment.Disturbance Regime: In terms of disturbance,projected increases in winter precipitation andsurface temperatures (ACIA 2005) will likelyalter the amount, extent, and duration offlooding, potentially limiting nesting habitat. Atthe same time thermokarst could create newnesting and foraging habitats (Martin et al.2009).Interactions with Other Species: Spectacledeiders are known to sometimes nest in gull56

Spectacled Eider (Somateria fischeri)Vulnerability: Presumed StableConfidence: LowD=Decrease vulnerability, SD=Somewhat decrease vulnerability, N=Neutral effect, SI=Slightly increase vulnerability,I=Increase vulnerability, GI=Greatly increase vulnerability.territories supposedly to gain protection(Petersen et al. 2000). How a changing climatemight alter this relationship is not known. It ispossible that nest predation by red fox couldincrease as their population may be expanding inthe arctic (Pamperin et al. 2006). Eiders may notbe able to defend nests as successfully as againstthe smaller arctic foxes.Genetic Variation: Spectacled Eiders aregenetically homogenous across their range as aresult of male dispersal (Scribner et al. 2001)and thus could be vulnerable to certain climatemediatedevents in the near future (e.g. diseaseoutbreaks).Phenological Response: The relationshipbetween seasonal temperature / precipitation andphenology for this species in the Arctic LCC hasnot yet been examined.In summary, this assessment suggests theSpectacled Eider will remain stable in the faceof a changing climate. However, it was rankedclose to the cut-off for “moderately vulnerable”(see assessment results section) and worthcontinued attention as Arctic Alaska climaticconditions continue to change.Literature CitedACIA. 2005. Arctic Climate Impact Assessment.Cambridge University Press, 1042p.Jones, B.M., C.D. Arp, M.T. Jorgenson, K.M. Hinkel, J.A.Schmutz, and P.L. Flint. 2009. Increase in the rate anduniformity of coastline erosion in Arctic Alaska. Geophys.Res. Letters 36, L03503.Martin, P., J. Jenkins, F.J. Adams, M.T. Jorgenson, A.C.Matz, D.C. Payer, P.E. Reynolds, A.C. Tidwell, and J.R.Zelenak. 2009. Wildlife response to environmental Arcticchange: Predicting future habitats of Arctic Alaska. Reportof the Wildlife Response to Environmental Arctic Change(WildREACH), Predicting Future Habitats of Arctic AlaskaWorkshop, 17-18 November 2008. Fairbanks, Alaska,USFWS, 148 pages.Pamerin, N.J., E.H. Follmann, and B. Petersen. 2006.Interspecific killing of an arctic fox by a red fox at PrudhoeBay, Alaska. Arctic 59: 361-364.Petersen, M.R., J.B. Grand, and C.P. Dau. 2000. SpectacledEider (Somateria fischeri). In: The Birds of North AmericaNo. 547 (Poole, A. and Gill, F. eds.), Philadelphia, andAmerican Ornithologists' Union, Washington D.C.:Academy of Natural Sciences.Scribner, K.T., M.R. Petersen, R.L. Fields, S.L. Talbot,J.M. Pearce, R.K. Chesser. 2001. Sex-biased gene flow inSpectacled Eiders (Anatidae): inferences from molecularmarkers with contrasting modes of inheritance. Evolution55:2105-2115.The Wilderness Society (TWS) and Scenarios Network forAlaska Planning (SNAP), Projected (2001-2099: A1Bscenario) monthly total potential evapotranspiration from 5AR4 GCMs that perform best across Alaska and the Arctic,utilizing 2km downscaled temperature as model inputs.http://www.snap.uaf.edu/data.php.57

King Eider (Somateria spectabilis)Vulnerability: Presumed StableConfidence: ModerateThe King Eider, conspicuous for the male’s elegant plumage, is a common nester on the ArcticCoastal Plain of Alaska. King Eiders typically nest in wet lowland tundra with many small pondsand pools, islands, and wet marshes. Dry tundra is also used when small lakes and ponds areavailable nearby as foraging areas (Powell and Suydam 2012). Unlike other eiders, this species isnot as closely tied to coastal breeding habitats. During the breeding season, their diet is primarilyomnivorous (Powell and Suydam 2012). Alaskan breeders spend their winters in marineenvironments mostly in the Bering Sea and along the Aleutians (Powell and Suydam 2012).Eider populations have declined since the 1970s (Powell and Suydam 2012). Current ArcticCoastal Plain population is estimated at approximately 15,000 (Larned et al. 2005).S. Zack @ WCSRange: We used the extant NatureServe rangemap for this assessment as it closely matched theBirds of North America and other rangedescriptions. Because of their reliance onhabitats relatively near the coast their ability toshift to new habitats is restricted.Human Response to CC: All-weather roads(necessitated by a warming climate andshortened ice road season) associated withenergy extraction activities could impact thisspecies. At the same time, impounded watercreated by a road network could provideadditional foraging habitat (J. Liebezeit, pers.obs.). Overall, human activity related to climatechange mitigation will likely be localized in thenear future so would only slightly increasevulnerability.Physiological Hydro Niche: King Eidersshowed the strongest “increased vulnerability”response in the “physiological hydrologic niche”category, ranging from “slightly” to “greatlyincreased” vulnerability. This range representsuncertainty both in the direction and intensity ofchange in Arctic hydrology, as well as in theeffect this will have on the eider. If substantialtundra drying occurs, this species couldexperience a negative impact as they are highlydependent on wet tundra habitats for nesting andforaging (Powell and Suydam 2000). Currentprojections of annual potentialevapotranspiration suggest negligibleatmospheric-driven drying for the foreseeablefuture (TWS and SNAP). Thus atmosphericmoisture, as an exposure factor, was not heavilyweighted in the assessment. Also, interactionwith hydrologic processes is very poorlyunderstood (Martin et al. 2009).Disturbance Regime: Climate-mediateddisturbance, namely thermokarst, could bothcreate and destroy good foraging and nestinghabitats through both ice wedge degradation anddraining of thaw lakes (Martin et al. 2009).Likewise, increased coastal erosion and resultingsalinization (Jones et al. 2009) could bothnegatively and positively affect post-breedingaggregations of staging birds by destroying andcreating foraging/molting habitat.Interactions with Other Species: King Eidersare known to benefit from nesting in the vicinityof aggressive species, (e.g. Glaucous Gulls) butthese interactions are not required for58

King Eider (Somateria spectabilis)Vulnerability: Presumed StableConfidence: ModerateD=Decrease vulnerability, SD=Somewhat decrease vulnerability, N=Neutral effect, SI=Slightly increase vulnerability,I=Increase vulnerability, GI=Greatly increase vulnerability.persistence (Bentzen et al. 2009. It is possiblethat red fox nest predation could increase as thisspecies may become more numerous in thearctic (Pamperin et al. 2006) and eiders wouldnot be able to defend nests as successfully asagainst the smaller arctic foxes.Genetic Variation: King Eiders have relativelyhigh genetic variation (Pearce et al. 2004) and sowould potentially be able to cope well withclimate driven changes.Phenological Response: The relationshipbetween seasonal temperature/precipitation andphenology for this species in the Arctic LCC hasnot yet been studied, so it is at best speculativeto assert how King Eiders would respond tochanging habitat phenology.Related Distribution Response: Decline of birdsfrom 1970s to 1990s is potentially explained byreduced carrying capacity of wintering habitatsin the Bering Sea due to a regime shift towardswarmer waters supporting a different and lessenergetically profitable benthic invertebratecommunity (Suydam et al. 2000).In summary, despite some sources ofvulnerability, King Eiders will likely remain“stable” and adjust to climate-mediated changesin their breeding range for the next 50 years.Literature CitedBentzen, R. L., Powell, A. N. and Suydam, R. S. 2009.Strategies for nest-site selection by King Eiders. – Journalof Wildlife Management 73: 932-938.Jones, B.M., C.D. Arp, M.T. Jorgenson, K.M. Hinkel, J.A.Schmutz, and P.L. Flint. 2009. Increase in the rate anduniformity of coastline erosion in Arctic Alaska. Geophys.Res. Letters 36, L03503.Larned, W., R. Stehn, and R. Platte. 2005. Eider breedingpopulation survey, Arctic Coastal Plain, Alaska, 2005.Unpublished Report, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Anchorage, AK. 51pp.Martin, P., J. Jenkins, F.J. Adams, M.T. Jorgenson, A.C.Matz, D.C. Payer, P.E. Reynolds, A.C. Tidwell, and J.R.Zelenak. 2009. Wildlife response to environmental Arcticchange: Predicting future habitats of Arctic Alaska. Reportof the Wildlife Response to Environmental Arctic Change(WildREACH), Predicting Future Habitats of Arctic AlaskaWorkshop, 17-18 November 2008. Fairbanks, Alaska,USFWS, 148 pages.Pamerin, N.J., E.H. Follmann, and B. Petersen. 2006.Interspecific killing of an arctic fox by a red fox at PrudhoeBay, Alaska. Arctic 59: 361-364.Pearce, J.L., S.L.Talbot, B.J. Pierson, M.R. Petersen, K.T.Scribner, D.L. Dickson, and A. Mosbech. 2004. Lack ofspatial genetic structure among nesting and wintering KingEiders. – Condor 106: 229-240.Powell, Abby N. and Robert S. Suydam. 2012. King Eider(Somateria spectabilis), The Birds of North AmericaOnline (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology;Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online:http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/491doi:10.2173/bna.491Suydam, R.S., D.L. Dickson, J.B. Fadely, and L.T.Quakenbush. 2000. Population declines of King andCommon Eiders of the Beaufort Sea. Condor 102: 219-222.The Wilderness Society (TWS) and Scenarios Network forAlaska Planning (SNAP), Projected (2001-2099: A1Bscenario) monthly total potential evapotranspiration from 5AR4 GCMs that perform best across Alaska and the Arctic,utilizing 2km downscaled temperature as model inputs.http://www.snap.uaf.edu/data.php.59

Common Eider (Somateria mollissima)Vulnerability: Highly VulnerableConfidence: LowThe Common Eider, a large sea duck, is more closely tied to marine environments than are manyother sea ducks. On the Arctic Coastal Plain of Alaska this species nests primarily on barrierislands and peninsulas of the Arctic Coastal Plain (a small proportion of the total area) while inother parts of its range they select quite varied nesting sites (Goudie et al. 2000). Common eidersdepend on a marine prey base, eating invertebrates (primarily mollusks and crustaceans) bydiving to the sea floor. Alaskan breeders spend their winters nearby in the Bering Sea, Gulf ofAlaska, and off Russia’s Chukotka Peninsula (SDJV 2004). Current Arctic Coastal Plainpopulation is estimated at approximately 2,000 (Dau and Bollinger 2009).and survival. Climate change will likely affectice conditions, sea levels, stability of fresh-waterhabitats, and other factors which would alter thesalinity of essential aquatic habitats (Nystrom etal. 1988, C. Dau pers. comm.). These could havenegative consequences.S. Zack @ WCSRange: We adjusted the NatureServe Map tomore closely reflect the range map depicted inthe Birds of North America account for thisassessment as the latter more accuratelyrepresented this species’ range based on multipleaccounts and expert opinion (Johnson and Herter1989, Goudie et al. 2000, C. Dau pers. comm.).Sea Level Rise: Because of the Common Eiders’reliance on barrier islands and other coastalareas for nesting they would most likely benegatively impacted by predicted sea level riseand a disturbance regime of increased stormsurge frequency (IPCC 2007, Jones et al. 2009).Their ability to shift to nesting habitats that areless susceptible to such phenomena is minimalas they rely on coastal habitats for breedingthroughout their range (Goudie et al. 2000).Human Response to CC: Hardening of thewindward side of barrier islands (to preventerosion on development platforms as off-shoreactivity increases) could benefit species byprotecting islands from erosion, althoughincreased human activity could also increasestress to incubating birds and young (C. Dau,pers. comm.).Physiological Hydro Niche: The salinity regimeencountered by Common Eiders affects breedingPhysical Habitat Restrictions: At other places(outside the Arctic LCC) throughout theirbreeding range Common Eiders utilize a varietyof nesting habitat from tundra heath to borealforest (Goudie et al. 2000). It is unknown if theArctic Alaska populations, which seem to relyalmost exclusively on barrier islands, have thecapacity and adaptability to utilize differenttypes of nesting habitat. In this assessment it wasassumed they do not but this could be an area offuture investigation.60

Common Eider (Somateria mollissima)Vulnerability: Highly VulnerableConfidence: LowD=Decrease vulnerability, SD=Somewhat decrease vulnerability, N=Neutral effect, SI=Slightly increase vulnerability,I=Increase vulnerability, GI=Greatly increase vulnerability.Interactions with Other Species: CommonEiders are known to sometimes nest in theterritory of predatory birds to gainprotection which can sometimes increase nestsuccess (Goudie et al. 2000). However; it isunknown how a changing climate would alterthis behavior and if it would confer a positive ornegative outcome.Pheonological Response: Despite the existenceof long-term data sets on Common Eiders innorthern Alaska (Dau and Bollinger 2009) anassessment of phenology-related variables hasnot been a part of that effort so it is, at best,speculative to assert how this species willrespond to changing biotic schedules.In summary, the accumulation of potentialsources of vulnerability, particularly with regardto barrier island nesting, resulted in a ranking ofhighly vulnerable for this species in two of thethree climate change projections we considered.Literature CitedDau, C. P., and K. S. Bollinger. 2009. Aerial populationsurvey of common eiders and other waterbirds in nearshore waters and along barrier islands of the Arctic CoastalPlain of Alaska, 1-5 July 2009. Unpublished report. U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska. 20 pp.Goudie, I., G.J. Robertson, and A. Reed. 2000. CommonEider (Somateria mollissima). In: The Birds of NorthAmerica No. 546 (Poole, A. and Gill, F. eds.), Philadelphia,and American Ornithologists' Union, Washington D.C.:Academy of Natural Sciences.IPCC. 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report.Contribution of Working Groups I, II, and III to the 4 thAssessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel onClimate Change. Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC. 104p.Jones, B.M., C.D. Arp, M.T. Jorgenson, K.M. Hinkel, J.A.Schmutz, and P.L. Flint. 2009. Increase in the rate anduniformity of coastline erosion in Arctic Alaska. Geophys.Res. Letters 36, L03503.Johnson, S.R. and D.R. Herter. 1989. The birds of theBeaufort Sea, Anchorage: British Petroleum Exploration(Alaska), Inc.Nystrom, K.G.K. and O. Pehrsson. 1988. Salinity as aconstraint affecting food and habitat choice of musselfeedingdiving ducks. Ibis 130: 94-110.SDJV (Sea Duck Joint Venture). 2004. Common Eider factsheet. http://seaduckjv.org/infoseries/coei_sppfactsheet.pdf61

Long-tailed Duck (Clangula hyemalis)Vulnerability: Presumed StableConfidence: ModerateThe Long-tailed Duck is one of the most common sea ducks in Arctic Alaska, and has acircumpolar distribution. They are known for their ability to dive to impressive depths (> 60 m)in search of food (Robertson and Savard 2002). In Arctic Alaska, this species typically nests inwet tundra near shallow Carex or Arctophila-dominated ponds, and braided streams (Robertsonand Savard 2002). During the breeding season, their diet consists primarily of aquaticinvertebrates although they will also take vegetative matter (Robertson and Savard 2002). Duringpost-breeding molt, this species uses coastal lagoons and deep, open lakes (Robertson andSavard 2002). Long-tailed Ducks winter on both coasts of North America and on the Great Lakes(Robertson and Savard 2002). Current Arctic Coastal Plain population is estimated atapproximately 44,000 with a stable trend across recent years (Larned et al. 2012).S. Zack @ WCSRange: We modified the NatureServe rangemap for this assessment to more accuratelyreflect this species more coastally-orientedbreeding range based on the Birds of NorthAmerica (Robertson and Savard 2002) and otherrange descriptions (Bart et al. 2012, Johnson andHerter 1989).Physiological Hydro Niche: Long-tailed Duckswere ranked as particularly vulnerable tochanges in hydrologic niche because of theirsignificant association with wet tundra andshallow pond habitats for nesting and foraging.If substantial tundra drying occurs, this speciescould experience a negative impact. Currentprojections of annual potentialevapotranspiration suggest negligibleatmospheric-driven drying for the foreseeablefuture (TWS and SNAP), and its interaction withhydrologic processes is very poorly understood(Martin et al. 2009). Thus atmospheric moisture,as an exposure factor (most influential on the“hydrological niche” sensitivity category), wasnot heavily weighted in the assessment.Physical Habitat Restrictions: Hardening of thewindward side of barrier islands (to preventerosion on development platforms as off-shoreactivity increases) could impact this species,although molting Long-tailed Ducks thatcurrently use hardened sites around existingoilfields (e.g. West Dock) show little sign ofimpact (J. Reed, pers. comm.).Disturbance Regimes: Climate-mediateddisturbance processes, most importantlyincreasing storms and associated coastal erosion(Jones et al. 2009) could affect barrier island /lagoon systems, thus affecting the availability ofmolting sites for Long-tailed Ducks. These typesof habitat features are relatively uncommon inthe Arctic LCC and are particularly susceptibleto such disturbances.Interactions with Other Species: In terms ofinteractions with other species, it is possibleclimate changes may disrupt lemming cycles(Post et al. 2009) and thus could expose thisspecies to greater nest predation pressure iflemmings are no longer a periodicallysuperabundant food source for predators.62

Long-tailed Duck (Clangula hyemalis)Vulnerability: Presumed StableConfidence: ModerateD=Decrease vulnerability, SD=Somewhat decrease vulnerability, N=Neutral effect, SI=Slightly increase vulnerability,I=Increase vulnerability, GI=Greatly increase vulnerability.Phenological Response: Although long-termdata sets exist for this species (e.g. Larned et al.2012), the relationship between seasonaltemperature / precipitation and phenology forthis species in the Arctic LCC has not beenexamined, so it is at best speculative on howthey would respond to changing bioticschedules.In summary, Long-tailed Ducks will likelyexperience some negative impacts from climatechange. In particular, they may be mostsusceptible to coastal impacts during the moltingperiod. Overall, though, this species appears tohave enough versatility in life history traits andbehaviors to remain “stable” with regard toclimate change at least during the timeframe ofthis assessment (to 2050).Literature CitedBart, J., S. Brown, B. Andres, R. Platte, and A. Manning.2012. North slope of Alaska. Ch. 4 in Bart, J. and V.Johnston, eds. Shorebirds in the North American Arctic:results of ten years of an arctic shorebird monitoringprogram. Studies in Avian Biology.Johnson, S.R. and D.R. Herter. 1989. The birds of theBeaufort Sea, Anchorage: British Petroleum Exploration(Alaska), Inc.Jones, B.M., C.D. Arp, M.T. Jorgenson, K.M. Hinkel, J.A.Schmutz, and P.L. Flint. 2009. Increase in the rate anduniformity of coastline erosion in Arctic Alaska. Geophys.Res. Letters 36, L03503.Larned, W., R. Stehn, and R. Platte. 2012. Waterfowlbreeding population survey, Arctic Coastal Plain, Alaska,2011. Unpublished Report, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Anchorage, AK. 51pp.Post E, M.C. Forchhammer, M.S. Bret-Harte, T.V.Callaghan, T.R. Christensen, B. Elberling, A.D. Fox, O.Gilg, D.S. Hik, T.T. Høye, R.A. Ims, E. Jeppesen, D.R.Klein, J. Madsen, A.D. McGuire, S. Rysgaard, D.E.Schindler, I. Stirling, M.P. Tamstorf, N.J.C. Tyler, R. vander Wal, J. Welker, P.A. Wookey, N.M. Schmidt, and P.Aastrup. 2009. Ecological dynamics across the Arcticassociated with recent climate change. Science 325:1355-1358.Robertson, G.J. and J.-P.L. Savard. 2002. Long-tailed Duck(Clangula hyemalis). In: The Birds of North America, No.651 (A. Poole and F. Gill, Eds.). The Birds of NorthAmerica, Inc., Phildelphia, PA.The Wilderness Society (TWS) and Scenarios Network forAlaska Planning (SNAP), Projected (2001-2099: A1Bscenario) monthly total potential evapotranspiration from 5AR4 GCMs that perform best across Alaska and the Arctic,utilizing 2km downscaled temperature as model inputs.http://www.snap.uaf.edu/data.php.63

Willow Ptarmigan (Lagopus lagopus)Vulnerability: Presumed StableConfidence: ModerateThe Willow Ptarmigan is an abundant and conspicuous breeding bird in Arctic Alaska and is oneof the few birds that remain in the Arctic year-round. During the breeding season this speciesnests in tall shrub habitats as well as in well-drained tundra sites (Hannon et al. 1998). In earlyspring Willow Ptarmigan are willow bud specialists (constituting up to 80% of their diet); insummer the dietary breadth widens substantially to include insects, berries, equisetum, andleaves (Hannon et al. 1998). In Alaska, female Willow Ptarmigan may move as far south as thesouthern side of the Brooks Range in winter while males stay closer to the tundra breedinggrounds (Irving et al. 1966). Global population estimate is 40 million (Rich et al. 2004).K. Pietrzakalaxensis), for food and cover. Any changes inthe distribution of this one plant species couldhave a significant impact on this species. Withshrub expansion taking place on the North Slope(Tape et al. 2006), it could provide expandedbreeding habitat opportunities. However, in thelong-term, as spruce and deciduous forestexpand into shrub-dominated areas, WillowPtarmigan habitat will likely be reduced.Range: We used the extant NatureServe rangemap for the assessment as it matched the Birdsof North America (Hannon et al. 1998) and otherrange descriptions (Johnson and Herter 1989).Physiological Thermal Niche: For most of theindirect exposure and sensitivity categories inthis assessment, Willow Ptarmigan were scoredwith a neutral response (see table on next page).This species is associated with dense shrubpatches, primarily in valley bottoms that arewarmer on average than surrounding uplandhabitats suggesting this species may be sensitiveto changes in localized thermal conditions.Physiological Hydro Niche: Willow Ptarmiganare sensitive to changes in snow depth in thewinter months due to their dependence on shrubsfor cover from predators and for food.Furthermore, Willow Ptarmigan delay egglayingin years with late spring snow melt andthis may result in lower breeding success(Martin and Weibe 2004). Current precipitationmodels do predict increased snowfall in winterin Arctic Alaska (http://www.snap.uaf.edu/).Biotic Habitat Dependence: In the winter andspring when snow cover is extensive, WillowPtarmigan on the North Slope of Alaska dependprimarily on one willow species, (SalixDisturbance Regime: Disturbance events suchas periodic flooding of riparian areas anddeposition of sediment may benefit ptarmiganby enhancing habitat suitability for earlysuccessionalwillows such as S. alaxensis.However, in the longer-term, the expectedinvasion of trees such as poplar (Populusbalsamifera) in riparian floodplains would bedetrimental to ptarmigan (Mann et al. 2010).64

Willow Ptarmigan (Lagopus lagopus)Vulnerability: Presumed StableConfidence: ModerateD=Decrease vulnerability, SD=Somewhat decrease vulnerability, N=Neutral effect, SI=Slightly increase vulnerability,I=Increase vulnerability, GI=Greatly increase vulnerability.Phenological Response: Willow Ptarmiganappear to adjust their lay dates according tosnow cover, which varies annually (Martin andWeibe 2004). No studies explicitly examininglong-term climate change and ptarmiganphenology have been conducted (K. Christie,pers. comm.).Genetic Variation: There is little information inthe literature regarding degree of geneticvariation or recent evolutionary bottlenecks forthis species.In summary, this assessment suggests thatWillow Ptarmigan have enough flexibility in lifehistory and in response to expected changes inenvironmental conditions to allow them toremain stable with regard to climate change, atleast within the next 50 years.Literature CitedHannon, S.J., P.K. Eason, and K. Martin. WillowPtarmigan (Lagopus lagopus). In The Birds of NorthAmerica, No. 369 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds ofNorth America, Inc. Philadelphia, PA.Irving, L, G.C. West, L.J. Peyton, and S. Paneak. 1966.Migration of Willow Ptarmigan in Arctic Alaska. Arctic20: 77-85.Johnson, S.R. and D.R. Herter. 1989. The birds of theBeaufort Sea, Anchorage: British Petroleum Exploration(Alaska), Inc.Mann, D.H., P. Groves, R.A. Reanier, and M.L. Kunz.2010. Floodplains, permafrost, cottonwood trees, and peat:What happened the last time climate warmed suddenly inarctic Alaska? Quaternary Science Reviews 29: 3812-3830.Martin, K., and K. L. Wiebe. 2004. Coping mechanisms ofalpine and arctic breeding birds: extreme weather andlimitations to reproductive resilience. Integr. Comp. Biol.44: 177-185.Rich, T.D., C.J. Beardmore, H. Berlanga, P.J. Blancher, M.S.W. Bradstreet, G.S. Butcher, D.W. Demarest, E.H. Dunn,W.C. Hunter, E.E. Iñigo-Elias, J.A. Kennedy, A.M.Martell, A.O. Panjabi, D.N. Pashley, K.V. Rosenberg,C.M. Rustay, J.S. Wendt, and T.C. Will. 2004. Partners inFlight North American Landbird Conservation Plan.Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Ithaca, New York.http://www.partnersinflight.org/cont_plan/default.htmTape, K., Sturm, M., and C. Racine. 2006. The evidence forshrub expansion in Northern Alaska and the Pan-Arctic.Global Change Biology 12: 686-702.65

Rock Ptarmigan (Lagopus mutus)Vulnerability: Presumed StableConfidence: ModerateThe Rock Ptarmigan is a common breeding bird in Arctic Alaska and, like the WillowPtarmigan, is one of the few birds that remain in the Arctic year-round. This species typicallybreeds in habitats that include a mix of rocky outcrops, graminoid meadows, and small patchesof Salix or Betula less than 1 m in height (Montgomerie and Holder 2008). Unlike the WillowPtarmigan, this species is less dependent on shrubs associated with riparian areas. In summer,Rock Ptarmigan consume a variety of foods including Dryas, Oxytropis, and Salix leaves,insects, Betula and Salix catkins, and berries (Montgomerie and Holder 2008). This specieswinters mainly within the breeding range but withdraws from the northernmost regions(Montgomerie and Holder 2008). Global population estimate is >8 million (Rich et al. 2004).S. Zack @ WCSRange: We used the extant Nature Serve rangemap for the assessment as it matched the Birdsof North America (Montgomerie and Holder2008) and other range descriptions (Johnson andHerter 1989).Physiological Thermal Niche: For most of theindirect exposure and sensitivity categories inthe assessment, Rock Ptarmigan were rankedwith a neutral response (see table on next page).This species breeds in alpine and arctic tundraregions, and is associated with cooler, higherelevation thermal environments within the arcticLCC. The availability of these environmentsmay decline as temperatures increase and shrubsand trees encroach on tundra habitats (Tape et al.2006, Danby et al. 2007).Physiological Hydro Niche: If winterprecipitation were to increase as some modelspredict (http://www.snap.uaf. edu/), access toshrubs, and thus food and protection frompredators would be reduced. It is important tonote that in general, Rock Ptarmigan are lessdependent on water driven environments(compared to Willow Ptarmigan).Disturbance Regime: In general climatemediateddisturbance events are unlikely to havea significant impact on Rock Ptarmigan,although increased freezing rain events early andlate in winter could lead to greater mortality (K.Christie, pers. comm.).Biotic Habitat Dependence: In the winter andspring, Rock Ptarmigan occur in tall shrubpatches associated with river and lake edges. Atthis time, dwarf birch (Betula nana) and willow(Salix spp.) are important for both food andcover. Conversely, Willow Ptarmigan exhibit astronger dependence on just one plant species(i.e. Salix alaxensis).Physical Habitat Restrictions: Unlike WillowPtarmigan, Rock Ptarmigan tend to prefer moreopen tundra areas with short or sparse shrubcover for breeding (Montgomerie and Holder2008), so they will likely not benefit as muchfrom shrub expansion. Over the long-term, astree-line advances, suitable habitat for thisspecies will likely be reduced, causing rangecontraction to higher elevations and latitudes(Lloyd et al. 2002).66

Rock Ptarmigan (Lagopus mutus)Vulnerability: Presumed StableConfidence: ModerateD=Decrease vulnerability, SD=Somewhat decrease vulnerability, N=Neutral effect, SI=Slightly increase vulnerability,I=Increase vulnerability, GI=Greatly increase vulnerability.Genetic Variation: Significant genetic variationexists in North American populations of RockPtarmigan (Holder et al. 1999) and so they maybe resilient responding to climate-mediatedimpacts at the population level.Phenological Response: Timing of snow meltcan influence breeding phenology andreproductive output for this species, whichexperiences decreased clutch size in years withlate snow melt (Wilson and Martin 2010).In summary, the flexibility in behavior andlife history exhibited by the Rock Ptarmigan, incombination with a widespread distribution inthe Arctic LCC, suggests they will likely remainstable under the current predictions of climatechange within the 50 year timeframe of thisassessment.Literature CitedDanby, R.K. and D.S. Hik. 2007. Variability, contingencyand rapid change in recent subarctic alpine treelinedynamics. J. of Ecology 95:352-363.Holder, K., R. Montgomerie, and V. L. Friesen. 1999. Atest of the glacial refugium hypothesis using patterns ofmitochondrial and nuclear DNA sequence variation in rockptarmigan (Lagopus mutus). Evolution 53:1936-1950.Johnson, S.R. and D.R. Herter. 1989. The birds of theBeaufort Sea, Anchorage: British Petroleum Exploration(Alaska), Inc.Lloyd, A.H., T.S. Rupp, C.L. Fastie, and A.M. Starfield.2002. ‘Patterns and dynamics of treeline advance on theSeward Peninsula, Alaska’, J. Geophys. Res 107,8161,doi:10.1029/2001JD000852.Montgomerie, R. and K. Holder. 2008. Rock Ptarmigan(Lagopus mutus), The Birds of North America Online (A.Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrievedfrom the Birds of North America Online:http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/051doi:10.2173/bna.51Rich, T.D., C.J. Beardmore, H. Berlanga, P.J. Blancher, M.S.W. Bradstreet, G S. Butcher, D.W. Demarest, E.H. Dunn,W.C. Hunter, E.E. Iñigo-Elias, J.A. Kennedy, A.M.Martell, A.O. Panjabi, D.N. Pashley, K.V. Rosenberg, C.M. Rustay, J.S. Wendt, and T.C. Will. 2004. Partners inFlight North American Landbird Conservation Plan.Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Ithaca, New http://wwwYork..partnersinflight.org/cont_plan/default.htmTape, K., M. Sturm, and C. Racine. 2006. The evidence forshrub expansion in Northern Alaska and the Pan-Arctic.Global Change Biology 12: 686-702.Wilson S. and K. Martin. 2010. Variable reproductiveeffort for two sympatric ptarmigan in response to springweather conditions in a northern alpine ecosystem. Journalof Avian Biology 41:319-326.67

Red-throated Loon (Gavia stellata)Vulnerability: Presumed StableConfidence: Very HighThe Red-throated Loon is the smallest of the world’s five loon species. This species typicallybreeds in low wetlands in both tundra and forested terrain (Barr et al. 2000). They nest on pondedges, sometimes along very small ponds (

Red-throated Loon (Gavia stellata)Vulnerability: Presumed StableConfidence: Very HighD=Decrease vulnerability, SD=Somewhat decrease vulnerability, N=Neutral effect, SI=Slightly increase vulnerability,I=Increase vulnerability, GI=Greatly increase vulnerability.Phenological Response: With regard to nestingphenology, no time-series data exist for theArctic LCC, but Red-throated Loons nesting onthe Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta in Alaska haveshown a trend of earlier average hatch date overthe past 27 years (Fischer et al. 2009). Even ifthe North Slope population is able to adjustnesting to earlier spring phenology, it isunknown if they can adjust timing to thechanging schedules of the other organisms onwhich they depend.In summary, the results of this assessmentsuggest Red-throated Loons will likely be ableto cope with climate and associated habitatchanges predicted to occur in Arctic Alaska, atleast during the next 50 years.Literature CitedAndes, B.A. 1993. Foraging flights of Pacific, Gaviapacifica, and Red-throated, Gavia Stellata, loons onAlaska’s Coastal Plain. Canadian Field-Naturalist 107(2):238-240.Arp, C.D., B.M. Jones, F.E. Urban, and G. Grosse. 2011.Hydrogeomorphic processes of thermokarst lakes withgrounded-ice and floating-ice regimes in the Arctic coastalplain. Hydrological Processes 25: 2422-2438.Barr, J.F, C. Eberl, and J.W. McIntyre. 2000. Red-throatedLoon (Gavia stellata). In The Birds of North America, No.513 (A. Poole. and F. Gill, Eds.). Philadelphia: TheAcademy of Natural Sciences; Washington, DC: TheAmerican Ornithologists’ Union.Bergman, R.D. and D.V. Derksen. 1977. Observations onArctic and Red-throated loons at Storkersen Point, Alaska.Arctic 30: 41-51.Fischer, J.B., R.A. Stehn, and G. Walters. 2009. Nestpopulation and potential production of geese andSpectacled Eiders on the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, Alaska,2009. US Fish and Wildlife, Migratory Bird Management,Waterfowl Management Branch, 1011 E. Tudor Rd.,Anchorage, AK, 99503.Groves, D.J., B. Conant, R.J. King, J.I. Hodges, and J.G.King. 1996. Status and trends of loon populationssummering in Alaska, 1971-1993. Condor 98: 1889-195.Jones, B.M., C.D. Arp, M.T. Jorgenson, K.M. Hinkel, J.A.Schmutz, and P.L. Flint. 2009. Increase in the rate anduniformity of coastline erosion in Arctic Alaska. Geophys.Res. Letters 36, L03503.Larned, W., R. Stehn, and R. Platte. 2012. Waterfowlbreeding population survey, Arctic Coastal Plain, Alaska,2011. Unpublished Report, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Anchorage, AK. 51pp.The Wilderness Society (TWS) and Scenarios Network forAlaska Planning (SNAP), Projected (2001-2099: A1Bscenario) monthly total potential evapotranspiration from 5AR4 GCMs that perform best across Alaska and the Arctic,utilizing 2km downscaled temperature as model inputs.http://www.snap.uaf.edu/data.php.69

Pacific Loon (Gavia pacifica)Vulnerability: Presumed StableConfidence: ModerateThe Pacific Loon is the most common breeding loon in Arctic Alaska, nesting throughout muchof the state (Russell 2002). This species typically breeds on lakes that are ≥1 ha in size in bothboreal and tundra habitats. They are primarily piscivorous although they are known to commonlyfeed chicks invertebrates (D. Rizzolo and J. Schmutz, unpublished data). Many Pacific Loonsspend their winters in offshore waters of the west coast of Canada and the U.S. (Russell 2002).The most recent Alaska population estimate is 100-125,000 individuals (Ruggles and Tankersley1992) with ~ 69,500 on the Arctic Coastal Plain specifically (Groves et al. 1996).S. Zack @ WCSencroachment (Tape et al. 2006) into tundrahabitats.Although small fish make up a significantpart of the Pacific Loon diet, they also eat manyinvertebrates (e.g., caddis fly larvae, nostracods)and so, unlike some other loon species, exhibitenough flexibility in their diet that they wouldlikely be able to adjust to climate-mediatedchanges in prey base.Range: We used the extant NatureServe map forthe assessment as it matched other range mapsources and descriptions (Johnson and Herter1989, Russell 2002).Physiological Hydro Niche: Among the indirectexposure and sensitivity factors in theassessment (see table on next page), PacificLoons ranked neutral in most categories with theexception of physiological hydrologic niche forwhich they were evaluated to have a “slightly togreatly increased” vulnerability. This responsewas driven primarily by this species reliance onsmall water bodies (typically

Pacific Loon (Gavia pacifica)Vulnerability: Presumed StableConfidence: ModerateD=Decrease vulnerability, SD=Somewhat decrease vulnerability, N=Neutral effect, SI=Slightly increase vulnerability,I=Increase vulnerability, GI=Greatly increase vulnerability.Phenological Response: Despite the existenceof long-term data sets for loons in northernAlaska (Mallek et al. 2005) there is currently noassessment of phenology-related variables and,thus, it is not known how this species mightrespond to changing biotic schedules. However,Pacific Loon populations in Alaska have beenrelatively stable over the history of aerialabundance surveys (> 35 years; Groves et al.1996).In summary, the Pacific Loon will likely beable to adjust to climate and associated habitatchanges predicted to occur in Arctic Alaska, atleast during the 50 year timeline of thisassessment.Literature CitedGroves, D.J., B. Conant, R.J. King, J.I. Hodges, and J.G.King. 1996. Status and trends of loon populationssummering in Alaska, 1971-1993. Condor 98: 1889-195.Johnson, S.R. and D.R. Herter. 1989. The birds of theBeaufort Sea, Anchorage: British Petroleum Exploration(Alaska), Inc.Mallek, E.J., R. Platte, and R. Stehn. 2005. Western AlaskaYellow-billed Loon Survey-2005. Natural ResourcesReport NPS/AKRARCN/NRTR-2006/04Martin, P., J. Jenkins, F.J. Adams, M.T. Jorgenson, A.C.Matz, D.C. Payer, P.E. Reynolds, A.C. Tidwell, and J.R.Zelenak. 2009. Wildlife response to environmental Arcticchange: Predicting future habitats of Arctic Alaska. Reportof the Wildlife Response to Environmental Arctic Change(WildREACH), Predicting Future Habitats of Arctic AlaskaWorkshop, 17-18 November 2008. Fairbanks, Alaska,USFWS, 148 pages.Ruggles, A.K. and N. Tankersley. 1992. Summer andwinter distribution and population estimates for loons(Gaviidae) in Alaska, 1992. Unpublished report cited inGroves et al. 1996.Russell, R.W. 2002 Pacific Loon (Gavia pacifica) andArctic Loon (Gavia arctica). In: The Birds of NorthAmerica No. 657 (Poole, A. and Gill, F. eds.), The Birds ofNorth America, Inc. Philadelphia, PA.Tape, K, M. Sturm, C. Racine. 2006. The evidence forshrub expansion in northern Alaska and the pan-Arctic.Global Change Biology 12: 686-702.The Wilderness Society (TWS) and Scenarios Network forAlaska Planning (SNAP), Projected (2001-2099: A1Bscenario) monthly total potential evapotranspiration from 5AR4 GCMs that perform best across Alaska and the Arctic,utilizing 2km downscaled temperature as model inputs.http://www.snap.uaf.edu/data.php.71

Yellow-billed Loon (Gavia adamsii)Vulnerability: Moderately VulnerableConfidence: LowVulnerableThe Yellow-billed loon, the largest of the world’s five loon species, and also the rarest, has oneof the highest nesting densities in the world on the central Arctic Coastal Plain of Alaska (Earnstet al. 2005). In Alaska, this species typically breeds on the edges of relatively deep (>2 m), large(usu. >12 ha) fish-bearing lakes (http://alaska.fws.gov/). Little is known about their diet inAlaska, but they are believed to depend on several fish species, with cisco (Coregonus spp.)being the most important (J. Schmutz, pers. comm.). Although previously thought to winter offthe coast of the Pacific Northwest, new evidence suggests the North American breedingpopulation winters in East Asia from the western Kuril Islands to the Yellow Sea (J. Schmutz etal., unpublished data). Earnst et al. (2005) estimates that

Yellow-billed Loon (Gavia adamsii)Vulnerability: Moderately VulnerableConfidence: LowVulnerableD=Decrease vulnerability, SD=Somewhat decrease vulnerability, N=Neutral effect, SI=Slightly increase vulnerability,I=Increase vulnerability, GI=Greatly increase vulnerability.wider latitudinal gradient. It is possible thatfeather density is higher on Yellow-billedLoons, to deal with the colder watertemperatures, which might cause heat stress iflake temperatures were substantially higher, butthis is speculative.Interactions with Other Species: Competitionwith Common Loons, more than habitatlimitation, might be the more important climatethreat for Yellow-billed Loons, if CommonLoons expand northward (J. Schmutz, pers.comm.).Dietary Versatility: Because Yellow-billed Loondiet may depend heavily on ciscos during thebreeding season, they may have less flexibilityin their diet compared to some other loonspecies. However, details of their diet are notwell known.Genetic Variation: This species is believed tohave low genetic variability (A. McMillan,unpublished data) and so would be susceptible toclimate-mediated impacts that stress them at thepopulation level (e.g. disease outbreaks).Phenological Response: Despite the existenceof long-term data sets for loons in northernAlaska (Mallek et al. 2005), an assessment ofphenology-related variables has not been a partof that effort, nor has not been examined, so it iscurrently unknown how this species will respondto changing biotic schedules.In summary, the accumulation of potentialsources of vulnerability, particularly with regardto this species dependence of fish-bearing lakesand their limited core range, yielded a result of“moderately vulnerable” for all three climatechange projections we considered.Literature CitedEarnst, S.L., R.A. Stehn, R.M. Platte, W.M. Larned, andE.J. Mallek. 2005. Population size and trend of YellowbilledLoons in northern Alaska. Condor 107: 289-304.Grosse, G. and B. Jones. 2012. Thermokarst Lake Drainage- Vulnerability to Climate Change and Prediction of FutureLake Habitat Distribution on the North Slope. Projectsummary prepared for the Arctic Landscape ConservationCooperative, Fairbanks, Alaska. 3p.Mallek, E.J., R. Platte, and R. Stehn. 2005. Western AlaskaYellow-billed Loon Survey-2005. Natural ResourcesReport NPS/AKRARCN/NRTR-2006/04.Martin, P., J. Jenkins, F.J. Adams, M.T. Jorgenson, A.C.Matz, D.C. Payer, P.E. Reynolds, A.C. Tidwell, and J.R.Zelenak. 2009. Wildlife response to environmental Arcticchange: Predicting future habitats of Arctic Alaska. Reportof the Wildlife Response to Environmental Arctic Change(WildREACH), Predicting Future Habitats of Arctic AlaskaWorkshop, 17-18 November 2008. Fairbanks, Alaska,USFWS, 148 pages.North, M.R. 1994. Yellow-billed Loon (Gavia adamsii). InThe Birds of North America, No. 121 (A. Poole. and F.Gill, Eds.). Philadelphia: The Academy of NaturalSciences; Washington, DC: The American Ornithologists’Union.The Wilderness Society (TWS) and Scenarios Network forAlaska Planning (SNAP), Projected (2001-2099: A1Bscenario) monthly total potential evapotranspiration from 5AR4 GCMs that perform best across Alaska and the Arctic,utilizing 2km downscaled temperature as model inputs.http://www.snap.uaf.edu/data.php.73

Rough-legged Hawk (Buteo lagopus)Vulnerability: Presumed StableConfidence: ModerateThe Rough-legged Hawk is truly a hawk of the far north, with its breeding range largelyrestricted to arctic tundra and taiga habitats. In open tundra, this species typically places nests onsteep outcroppings and cliff faces. Rough-legged Hawks rely on a diet of small mammals(mostly lemmings, voles) although a variety of birds are also eaten (Bechard and Swem 2002).On the coastal plain of Alaska they typically forage in open tundra and low-brush habitats (e.g.river floodplains) (Bechard and Swem 2002). Rough-legged Hawks spend their winters insouthern Canada and throughout the lower 48 (Bechard and Swem 2002). The current globalpopulation is estimated at > 4 million (Rich et al. 2004).S. Zack @ WCSwould negatively impact reproductive success orpreclude nesting.Disturbance Regimes: In terms of disturbanceregimes mediated by climate, increased fire(Racine et al. 2004) could change (improve)some foraging habitats, increasing accessibilityto some taller brush or tussock tundra habitats, ifforaging prey (microtine numbers) increase (B.Ritchie, pers. comm.).Range: We modified the NatureServe rangemap for the assessment to include the entireArctic LCC as suggested by the Birds of NorthAmerica and other range descriptions (Bechardand Swem 2002, Johnson and Herter 1989).Physical Habitat Restrictions: Among theindirect exposure and sensitivity factors in theCCVI (see table on next page), Rough-leggedHawks ranked neutral in most categories withthe exception of “physical habitat restrictions”where they ranked “neutral” to “increased”vulnerability as this species is dependent ontopographic relief (soil and rock bluffs, rockoutcrops) for nest sites. However, they dooccasionally nest on the ground or on humaninfrastructure (R. Ritchie, pers. comm.) showingsome flexibility in nest site selection.Physiological Thermal Niche: There is someanecdotal evidence that this species may prefermore southerly aspects in the Arctic LCC,particularly since they are free of snow soonerthan north-facing bluffs/nesting areas (B.Ritchie, pers. comm.). However, it is unknownwhat temperature extremes (in either direction)Interactions with Other Species: Because theyoften rely on lemmings and voles as a foodsource, they may be affected by lemmingpopulation cycles. Climate change couldincrease the length of lemming populationcycles and decrease maximum populationdensities (Ims and Fuglei 2005, Gilg et al. 2009).Currently there is no evidence to suggest thatsuch climate-mediated changes in lemmingabundance would negatively influence RoughleggedHawk nest survivorship, distribution,and/or abundance. This species’ more varied diet(compared to species that are much more closely74

Rough-legged Hawk (Buteo lagopus)Vulnerability: Presumed StableConfidence: ModerateD=Decrease vulnerability, SD=Somewhat decrease vulnerability, N=Neutral effect, SI=Slightly increase vulnerability,I=Increase vulnerability, GI=Greatly increase vulnerability.tied to lemmings like Snowy Owl) suggest theywould, in most cases, be able to compensate forsuch changes with little negative impact.Phenological Response: There currently existslittle or no information regarding thephenological constraints that would make thisspecies more or less vulnerable to a warmingclimate.In summary, the results of this assessmentsuggest Rough-legged Hawks will likely be ableto adjust to climate and associated habitatchanges predicted to occur in Arctic Alaska, atleast during the next 50 years.Literature CitedBechard, M.J. and T.R. Swem. 2002. Rough-legged Hawk(Buteo lagopus). In The Birds of North America, No. 641(A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America,Inc., Philadelphia, PA.Gilg, O., B. Sittler, I. Hanski. 2009. Climate change andcyclic predator–prey population dynamics in the highArctic. Global Change Biology 15: 2634-2652.Ims, R.A., and E. Fuglei. 2005. Trophic interaction cyclesin tundra ecosystems and the impact of climate change.BioScience 55: 311-322.Johnson, S.R. and D.R. Herter. 1989. The birds of theBeaufort Sea, Anchorage: British Petroleum Exploration(Alaska), Inc.Martin, P., J. Jenkins, F.J. Adams, M.T. Jorgenson, A.C.Matz, D.C. Payer, P.E. Reynolds, A.C. Tidwell, and J.R.Zelenak. 2009. Wildlife response to environmental Arcticchange: Predicting future habitats of Arctic Alaska. Reportof the Wildlife Response to Environmental Arctic Change(WildREACH), Predicting Future Habitats of Arctic AlaskaWorkshop, 17-18 November 2008. Fairbanks, Alaska,USFWS, 148 pages.Racine, C., R. Jandt, C. Meyers, and J. Dennis. 2004.Tundra fire and vegetation change along a hillslope on theSeward Peninsula, Alaska, USA. Arctic, Antarctic, andAlpine Research 36: 1-10.Rich, T.D., C.J. Beardmore, H. Berlanga, P.J. Blancher, M.S.W. Bradstreet, G.S. Butcher, D.W. Demarest, E.H. Dunn,W.C. Hunter, E.E. Iñigo-Elias, J.A. Kennedy, A.M.Martell, A.O. Panjabi, D.N. Pashley, K.V. Rosenberg,C.M. Rustay, J.S. Wendt, and T.C. Will. 2004. Partners inFlight North American Landbird Conservation Plan.Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Ithaca, New York.http://www.partnersinflight.org/cont_plan/default.htm.75

Gyrfalcon (Falco rusticolus)Vulnerability: Highly VulnerableConfidence: LowThe Gyrfalcon, the largest falcon, is an iconic bird of the circumpolar arctic and subarctic. Thisspecies nests primarily on precipitous cliff faces and typically utilizes nests built by other species(particularly Common Raven, Golden Eagle, and Rough-legged Hawk) (Booms et al. 2008).Gyrfalcon main prey includes bird species ranging in size from passerines to geese whileptarmigan are the preferred prey. Although not well documented, in winter this species movessouth throughout Canada and sometimes into the northern lower 48. Current population on theNorth Slope (tundrius subspecies) is estimated at 250 breeding pairs (USFWS 2000).evidenced by the fact that they do not breedbelow 55 degrees latitude. It is possible thatwarmer temperatures (particularly at nest siteson south-facing slopes) could influence nestingsite preference.S. Zack @ WCSRange: We used the extant NatureServe rangemap for the assessment as it closely matchedthat of the Birds of North America (Booms et al.2008) and other sources (Johnson and Herter1989).The results of this assessment suggest thatGyrfalcon may be quite vulnerable to climatechange due to factors mostly related to theirnarrow ecological niche that includes aspecialized diet and nesting requirements (seetable on next page).Biotic Habitat Dependence: In late winter andearly spring when females are producing eggs,the species is completely dependent on onespecies of ptarmigan (either Willow or RockPtarmigan depending on the region). Someptarmigan populations, in turn, exhibit cyclicalchanges in numbers (Mossop and Hayes 1994)which could be altered due to climate change.Physical Habitat Restrictions: Gyrfalcons selectcliff wall nest sites which, for the most part, arerare microsites in the Arctic LCC. The rarenessof these sites is further exacerbated by the factthat this species regularly uses stick nests madeby other bird species; as such sites may providehigher nest success or other advantages (T.Booms, pers. comm.). Gyrfalcons also have atleast some sensitivity to thermal conditions,Disturbance Regime: In terms of climatemediateddisturbances, Gyrfalcons require dry or“normal” spring conditions to successfully hatchyoung. An increase in spring storms wouldlikely reduce nest success. In addition, thisspecies is known to be highly susceptible to awide variety of pathogens. The introduction of anew pathogen to the current regime could havedrastic effects on survival (T. Booms, pers.comm.). Spread of shrub habitats northward(Tape et al. 2006) will likely reduce availableupland tundra and open land foraging habitats.Phenological Response: Gyrfalcons haverelatively low genetic variation (Johnson et al.2009) making them susceptible to climatemediatedimpacts that stress them at thepopulation level (e.g. disease outbreaks).A 30 year dataset from the Yukon shows76

Gyrfalcon (Falco rusticolus)Vulnerability: Highly VulnerableConfidence: LowD=Decrease vulnerability, SD=Somewhat decrease vulnerability, N=Neutral effect, SI=Slightly increase vulnerability,I=Increase vulnerability, GI=Greatly increase vulnerability.that Gyrfalcons are nesting 20 days later andhave declined by 40% in occupancy. Ptarmiganhave apparently stopped cycling in this studyarea, possibly caused by climate change. This islikely creating a phenological mismatch linkedto the later nesting (D. Mossop, unpublisheddata). A recent modeling effort indicates that thefuture Gyrfalcon range in Alaska could decreasesubstantially (Booms et al. 2011).In summary, the accumulation of sources ofpotential vulnerability, particularly with regardto specialization in diet, nesting patterns andnew modeling studies suggest this species ishighly vulnerable to climate changes in theArctic LCC.Literature CitedBooms, T. L., T.J. Cade and N.J. Clum. 2008. Gyrfalcon(Falco rusticolus), The Birds of North America Online (A.Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrievedfrom the Birds of North America Online:http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/114doi:10.2173/bna.114Booms, T., M. Lindgren, and F. Huettmann. 2011. LinkingAlaska’s Predicted climate, Gyrfalcon, and ptarmigandistributions in space and time: A unique 200-yearperspective. In R.T. Watson, T.J. Cade, M. Fuller, G. Hunt,and E. Potapov (Eds.). Gyrfalcons and Ptarmigan in achanging world. The Peregrine Fund, Boise, Idaho, USA.http://dx.doi.org/10.4080/gpcw. 2011.0116Johnson J.A., K.K. Burnham, W.A. Burnham, and D.P.Mindell. 2007. Genetic structure among continental andisland populations of gyrfalcons. Molecular Ecology 16:3145–3160.Johnson, S.R. and D.R. Herter. 1989. The birds of theBeaufort Sea, Anchorage: British Petroleum Exploration(Alaska), Inc.Jones, B.M., C.D. Arp, M.T. Jorgenson, K.M. Hinkel, J.A.Schmutz, and P.L. Flint. 2009. Increase in the rate anduniformity of coastline erosion in Arctic Alaska. Geophys.Res. Letters 36, L03503.Mossop, D. H. and R. Hayes. 1994. Long term trends in thebreeding density and productivity of Gyrfalcon Falcorusticolus in the Yukon Territory, Canada. IV World Conf.on Birds of Prey.Tape, K., M. Sturm, and C. Racine. 2006. The evidence forshrub expansion in northern Alaska and the pan-Arctic.Global Change Biology 12: 686-702.U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Management plan forAlaskan Raptors. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. MigratoryBird Management, Juneau, AK., 88 pp.77

Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus)Vulnerability: Presumed StableConfidence: ModerateThe Peregrine Falcon is one of the most ubiquitous bird species with a breeding distributionranging from tundra to the tropics. In Arctic Alaska this bird’s breeding stronghold is found inmajor river systems where cliff ledges abound and serve as preferred nesting sites. PeregrineFalcons prey on a wide variety of bird species ranging from small passerines to medium-sizedducks and will also take small mammals (White et al. 2002). This species travels widely andArctic-breeding Peregrine Falcons make some of the longest migrations of any bird species. TheNorth American subspecies (tundrius) winters in Central and South America (White et al. 2002).The global population is estimated at ~1.2 million individuals (BirdLife International 2012).S. Zack @ WCSRange: We used the extant NatureServe rangemap for the assessment as it closely matchedthat of the Birds of North America (White et al.2002) and other sources (Johnson and Herter1989). It is important to note that breeding ismost dense along rivers, especially through theBrooks Range foothills (B. Ritchie, Pers.comm.).Human Response to CC: Power lines associatedwith more all-weather roads (necessitated by awarming climate and shortened ice road season)for energy extraction activities could result inmore collision fatalities; although their huntingstyles and flight behaviors should reduce thepotential for this (B. Ritchie, pers. comm.).Physiological Thermal Niche: Because thisspecies has a widely distributed breeding rangeacross a broad thermal gradient in NorthAmerica and elsewhere, negative effects ofwarming are unlikely. This species couldactually benefit from warming temperatures,reducing stress related to early season coldtemperatures.Physiological Hydro Niche: Peregrine Falconsuse a range of wet to dry habitats as foraginggrounds. Wetter habitats can be particularlyimportant during key times of the breedingseason and during post-breeding. A tundradrying trend could have some negative effects,but this species would likely be able toeffectively utilize drier habitats. Currentprojections of annual potential evapotranspirationsuggest negligible atmosphericdrivendrying for the foreseeable future (TWSand SNAP), and its interaction with hydrologicprocesses is very poorly understood (Martin etal. 2009). Thus atmospheric moisture, as anexposure factor, was not heavily weighted in theassessment.Disturbance Regime: In terms of climatemediateddisturbance, increased fire frequency(Racine and Jandt 2008) may both create anddestroy favorable hunting habitat. Similarly,thermokarst, through both ice wedgedegradation and draining of thaw lakes (Martinet al. 2009) could both create and reduce nestingsites on deep lakes and wetland foraging sites.Physical Habitat Restrictions: AlthoughPeregrine Falcons primarily rely on relativelylimited nesting sites in the Arctic LCC (e.g. cliffledges, riparian cliffs, nests built by otherspecies), they also exhibit flexibility using dirtbluffs, eroding banks, and recently, oil field and78

Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus)Vulnerability: Presumed StableConfidence: ModerateD=Decrease vulnerability, SD=Somewhat decrease vulnerability, N=Neutral effect, SI=Slightly increase vulnerability,I=Increase vulnerability, GI=Greatly increase vulnerability.other human infrastructure for nest substrates (B.Ritchie, pers. comm.).Genetic Variation: Peregrine Falcons haveaverage genetic variation (White and Boyce1988), reducing susceptibility to climatemediatedimpacts that stress them at thepopulation level (e.g. disease outbreaks)compared to species with lower geneticvariation.Phenological Response: Although there hasbeen some long-term monitoring of nestingPeregrine Falcons in Arctic Alaska (Swem andMatz 2011), effects on phenological factors inresponse to changing climate have not beenexamined.In summary, despite some identifiedvulnerabilities this assessment suggests thatPeregrine Falcons will likely be able to adjust tothe climate changes predicted to occur in ArcticAlaska in the next 50 years.Literature CitedBirdLife International 2012. Falco peregrinus. In: IUCN2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version2012.1. .Johnson, S.R. and D.R. Herter. 1989. The birds of theBeaufort Sea, Anchorage: British Petroleum Exploration(Alaska), Inc.Martin, P., J. Jenkins, F.J. Adams, M.T. Jorgenson, A.C.Matz, D.C. Payer, P.E. Reynolds, A.C. Tidwell, and J.R.Zelenak. 2009. Wildlife response to environmental Arcticchange: Predicting future habitats of Arctic Alaska. Reportof the Wildlife Response to Environmental Arctic Change(WildREACH), Predicting Future Habitats of Arctic AlaskaWorkshop, 17-18 November 2008. Fairbanks, Alaska,USFWS, 148 pages.Racine, C. and R. Jandt. 2008. The 2007”AnaktuvukRiver” tundra fire on the Arctic Slope of Alaska: a newphenomenon? In D.L. Kane and K.M. Hinkel (Eds.), NinthInternational Conference on Permafrost, ExtendedAbstracts (p. 247-248). Institute of Northern Engineering,University of Alaska Fairbanks.Swem, T. and A. Matz. 2011. Observations of Gyrfalconsalong the Colville River, Alaska, 1981–2005. Pages 229–236 in R. T. Watson, T. J. Cade, M. Fuller, G. Hunt, and E.Potapov (Eds.). Gyrfalcons and Ptarmigan in a ChangingWorld, Volume I. The Peregrine Fund, Boise, Idaho, USA.http://dx.doi.org/ 10.4080/gpcw.2011.0120White, C.M., N.J. Clum, T.J. Cade and W.G. Hunt. 2002.Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus), The Birds of NorthAmerica Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab ofOrnithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North AmericaOnline: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/660doi:10.2173/bna.660.White, C.M., and D.A. Boyce. 1988. An overview ofPeregrine Falcon subspecies. In: T. Cade, J. Enderson, C.Thelander, and C. White (eds). Peregrine FalconPopulations: their management and recovery. ThePeregrine Fund. Boise, ID.The Wilderness Society (TWS) and Scenarios Network forAlaska Planning (SNAP), Projected (2001-2099: A1Bscenario) monthly total potential evapotranspiration from 5AR4 GCMs that perform best across Alaska and the Arctic,utilizing 2km downscaled temperature as model inputs.http://www.snap.uaf.edu/data.php.79

Black-bellied Plover (Pluvialis squatarola)Vulnerability: Presumed StableConfidence: ModerateThe Black-bellied Plover breeds regularly in Arctic Alaska with the highest numbersconcentrated in the central portion of the Arctic Coastal Plain (Johnson et al. 2007). Ingeneral, this species tends to choose dry habitats for nesting such as dry heath tundra, exposedridges, and river banks. They will occasionally nest in wetter tundra habitats but tend to selectdrier microsites (Paulson 1995). Black-bellied Plovers search for invertebrate prey visually onopen tundra during the breeding season. This species winters along the coastlines of NorthAmerica from southern Canada to Middle America (Paulson 1995). Current Alaskapopulation estimate (P. s. squatarola) is 50,000 with a declining population trend (Morrisonet al. 2006).S. Zack @ WCSRange: We modified the NatureServe rangemap by expanding the breeding range slightly tothe west in the Arctic Coastal Plain based onrecent findings (Bart et al. 2012).Physiological Hydro Niche: Among the factors(see table on next page), Black-bellied Ploverranked “neutral” in many categories. Scores forphysical hydrological niche ranged from“decreased to increased vulnerability.” Thisrange represents uncertainty both in the directionand intensity of change in arctic hydrology, aswell as in the effect this will have on the plover(less or greater vulnerability). If significanttundra drying occurs, this species couldexperience loss of preferred wet foraging habitat(Bart et al. 2012), although they commonlyutilize drier foraging habitats (Paulson 1995).Because they often nest in drier tundra, they mayactually benefit from large-scale tundra drying.Current projections of annual potentialevapotranspiration suggest negligibleatmospheric-driven drying for the foreseeablefuture (TWS and SNAP). Thus atmosphericmoisture, as an exposure factor (most influentialon the “hydrological niche” sensitivitycategory), was not heavily weighted in theassessment. Complex hydrological processescould ameliorate or exacerbate a drying trend(Martin et al. 2009).Historical Hydro Niche: Conversion of iceroads to all-weather roads, could impacthydrology at local and regional scales(Jorgensen et al. 2010). These changes tohydrology can affect the shallow tundrawetlands in which Black-bellied Plovers forage,reducing water levels, soil moisture andinvertebrate abundance.Disturbance Regime: Climate-mediatedthermokarst, could both create and destroynesting and foraging habitats (Martin et al.2009).Interactions with Other Species: Climatechange may reduce the amplitude of lemmingcycles (Post et al. 2009) and thus could exposethis species to greater nest predation pressure iflemmings become less available as alternativeprey.Dietary Versatility: Plovers have a flexible dietand current evidence suggests they takeadvantage of a wide variety of prey (Paulson1995) so they would likely not face any negativeimpacts from a changing prey base.80

Black-bellied Plover (Pluvialis squatarola)Vulnerability: Presumed StableConfidence: ModerateD=Decrease vulnerability, SD=Somewhat decrease vulnerability, N=Neutral effect, SI=Slightly increase vulnerability,I=Increase vulnerability, GI=Greatly increase vulnerability.Phenological Response: The timing of breedingin this species is closely tied to snow melt atsome sites (Smith et al. 2010) and so they mayor may not be vulnerable to climate changes thatalter snow melt patterns.In summary, Black-bellied Plovers haveenough versatility in their life history traits andbehaviors on the breeding grounds that willlikely enable them to cope and their populationsto remain “stable” with regard to climate changeat least during the timeframe of this assessment(to 2050).Literature CitedBart, J., S. Brown, B. Andres, R. Platte, and A. Manning.2012. North slope of Alaska. Ch. 4 in Bart, J. and V.Johnston, eds. Shorebirds in the North American Arctic:results of ten years of an arctic shorebird monitoringprogram. Studies in Avian Biology.Johnson, J.A., R.B. Lanctot, B.A. Andres, J.R. Bart, S.C.Brown, S.J. Kendall, and D.C. Payer. 2007. Distribution ofbreeding shorebirds on the Arctic Coastal Plain of Alaska.Arctic 60(3): 277-293.Jorgensen, J.C., J.M. VerHoef, and M.T. Jorgensen. 2010.Long-term recovery patterns of arctic tundra after winterseismic exploration. Ecological Applications 20:205-221.Martin, P., J. Jenkins, F.J. Adams, M.T. Jorgenson, A.C.Matz, D.C. Payer, P.E. Reynolds, A.C. Tidwell, and J.R.Zelenak. 2009. Wildlife response to environmental Arcticchange: Predicting future habitats of Arctic Alaska. Reportof the Wildlife Response to Environmental Arctic Change(WildREACH), Predicting Future Habitats of Arctic AlaskaWorkshop, 17-18 November 2008. Fairbanks, Alaska,USFWS, 148 pages.Morrison, R.I.G., McCaffery, B.J., Gill, R.E., Skagen, S.K.,Jones, S.L., Page, G.W., Gratto-Trevor, C.L., and Andres,B.A. 2006. Population estimates of North Americanshorebirds, 2006. Wader Study Group Bulletin 111:67-85.Paulson, D.R. 1995. Black-bellied Plover (Pluvialissquatarola). In The Birds of North America, No. 186 (A.Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc.Philadelphia, PA.Post E, M.C. Forchhammer, M.S. Bret-Harte, T.V.Callaghan, T.R. Christensen, B. Elberling, A.D. Fox, O.Gilg, D.S. Hik, T.T. Høye, R.A. Ims, E. Jeppesen, D.R.Klein, J. Madsen, A.D. McGuire, S. Rysgaard, D.E.Schindler, I. Stirling, M.P. Tamstorf, N.J.C. Tyler, R. vander Wal, J. Welker, P.A. Wookey, N.M. Schmidt, and P.Aastrup. 2009. Ecological dynamics across the Arcticassociated with recent climate change. Science 325:1355-1358.Smith, P.A., H.G. Gilchrist, M.R. Forbes, J.-L. Martin, andK. Allard. 2010. Inter-annual variation in the breedingchronology of Arctic shorebirds: effects of weather, snowmelt and predators. Journal of Avian Biology 41:292-304.The Wilderness Society (TWS) and Scenarios Network forAlaska Planning (SNAP), Projected (2001-2099: A1Bscenario) monthly total potential evapotranspiration from 5AR4 GCMs that perform best across Alaska and the Arctic,utilizing 2km downscaled temperature as model inputs.http://www.snap.uaf.edu/data.php.81

American Golden-plover (Pluvialis dominica)Vulnerability: Presumed StableConfidence: ModerateThe American Golden-plover is a conspicuous breeding bird in Arctic Alaska with slightlyhigher density in the Brooks Range foothills compared to the coastal plain (Johnson et al. 2007).In general, this species tends to nest in upland dry habitats, quite often near wetland areas(Johnson and Connors 1996). Like other plovers, American Golden-plovers search forinvertebrate prey visually and forage in a mix of wet to dry tundra during the breeding season.This species winters primarily in the southern portion of South America (Johnson and Connors1996). Current North American population estimate is 200,000 with a declining trend (Morrisonet al. 2006).Disturbance Regime: Disturbance processes,such as climate-mediated thermokarst could bothcreate and destroy nesting and foraging habitats.Fire frequency in the foothills is likely toincrease (Racine and Jandt 2008), reducing soilmoisture and potentially diminishing availabilityof invertebrate prey. Fires could also reducenesting site availability (Martin et al. 2009). Inthe foreseeable future, fire will likely only affecta small portion of the landscape and thus notS. Zack @ WCSsignificantly impact plover habitat.Range: We used the extant NatureServe rangemap for the assessment as it closely matchedthat of the Birds of North America (Johnson andConnors 1996) and other range descriptions(Johnson and Herter 1989, Johnson et al. 2007).Physiological Thermal Niche: Among theindirect exposure and sensitivity factors in theassessment (see table on next page), AmericanGolden-plover ranked “neutral”, in manycategories. In the physiological hydrologic nichecategory there was broad range of scores fromneutral to increased vulnerability. This rangerepresents uncertainty both in the direction andintensity of change in Arctic hydrology, as wellas in the effect this will have on the plover. Ifsignificant tundra drying occurs, this speciescould experience loss of wet foraging habitat,although they commonly utilize a mix of bothdry and wet foraging habitats (Johnson andConnors 1996). Because they typically nest indrier tundra, they may actually benefit fromlarge-scale tundra drying. Current projections ofannual potential evavapotranspiration suggestnegligible atmospheric-driven drying for theforeseeable future (TWS and SNAP). Thusatmospheric moisture, as an exposure factor wasnot heavily weighted in the assessment.Interactions with Other Species: Climatechanges may reduce the amplitude of lemmingcycles making them less available as alternativeprey (Ims and Fuglei 2005) and thus couldexpose this species to greater nest predation.Dietary versatility: Plovers have a flexible dietand current evidence suggests they takeadvantage of a wide variety of prey (Johnsonand Connors 1996) so they would likely not faceany negative impacts from a changing prey base.Phenological Response: Although notdemonstrated in American Golden-plovers, thereis evidence suggesting shorebirds are able to82

American Golden-plover (Pluvialis dominica)Vulnerability: Presumed StableConfidence: ModerateD=Decrease vulnerability, SD=Somewhat decrease vulnerability, N=Neutral effect, SI=Slightly increase vulnerability,I=Increase vulnerability, GI=Greatly increase vulnerability.shift their nest initiation dates in response toclimate warming (J. Liebezeit and S. Zack,unpublished comm.). However, it is unknown ifthey can synchronize timing to match potentiallychanging schedules of invertebrate prey.Genetic Variation: Shorebird species arebelieved to have low genetic variation (Bakerand Stauch 1988) and thus potentially would bemore vulnerable to certain climate-mediatedevents in the near future (e.g. disease outbreaks).In summary, American Golden-plovers haveenough versatility in their life history traits andbehaviors on the breeding grounds that willlikely enable them to cope and remain “stable”with regard to climate change at least during thetimeframe of this assessment (to 2050).Literature CitedBaker, A.J. and Strauch, J.G. 1988. Genetic variation anddifferentiation in shorebirds. – Acta XX CongressusInternationalis Ornithologicus 2: 1639–1645.Ims, R.A., and E. Fuglei. 2005. Trophic interaction cyclesin tundra ecosystems and the impact of climate change.BioScience 55: 311-322.Johnson, O.W and P.G. Connors. 1996. American Goldenplover(Pluvialis dominica). In The Birds of NorthAmerica, No. 201 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds ofNorth America, Inc. Philadelphia, PA.Johnson, S.R. and D.R. Herter. 1989. The birds of theBeaufort Sea, Anchorage: British Petroleum Exploration(Alaska), Inc.Martin, P., J. Jenkins, F.J. Adams, M.T. Jorgenson, A.C.Matz, D.C. Payer, P.E. Reynolds, A.C. Tidwell, and J.R.Zelenak. 2009. Wildlife response to environmental Arcticchange: Predicting future habitats of Arctic Alaska. Reportof the Wildlife Response to Environmental Arctic Change(WildREACH), Predicting Future Habitats of Arctic AlaskaWorkshop, 17-18 November 2008. Fairbanks, Alaska,USFWS, 148 pages.Morrison, R.I.G., B.J. McCaffery, R.E. Gill, S.K. Skagen,S.L. Jones, G.W. Page, C.L. Gratto-Trevor, and B.A.Andres. 2006. Population estimates of North Americanshorebirds, 2006. Wader Study Group Bulletin 111:67-85.Racine, C. and R. Jandt. 2008. The 2007”AnaktuvukRiver” tundra fire on the Arctic Slope of Alaska: a newphenomenon? In D.L. Kane and K.M. Hinkel (Eds.), NinthInternational Conference on Permafrost, ExtendedAbstracts (p. 247-248). Institute of Northern Engineering,University of Alaska Fairbanks.Johnson, J.A., R.B. Lanctot, B.A. Andres, J.R. Bart, S.C.Brown, S.J. Kendall, and D.C. Payer. 2007. Distribution ofbreeding shorebirds on the Arctic Coastal Plain of Alaska.Arctic 60(3): 277-293.The Wilderness Society (TWS) and Scenarios Network forAlaska Planning (SNAP), Projected (2001-2099: A1Bscenario) monthly total potential evapotranspiration from 5AR4 GCMs that perform best across Alaska and the Arctic,utilizing 2km downscaled temperature as model inputs.http://www.snap.uaf.edu/data.php.83

Whimbrel (Numenius phaeopus)Vulnerability: Presumed StableConfidence: HighThe Whimbrel is one of the larger breeding shorebirds in Arctic Alaska, occurring in both taigaand tundra habitats. In Arctic Alaska, this species nests in a variety of tundra habitats rangingfrom lowland wet polygonal to well-drained moist upland tundra, sometimes with significantshrub cover (Skeel and Mallory 1996). During the breeding season, Whimbrel will visuallysearch for prey in wet to dry tundra habitats. This species winters along North Americancoastlines, mainly from the southern U.S. to South America (Skeel and Mallory 1996). CurrentNorth American population estimate is 66,000 (Morrison et al. 2006).Biotic Habitat Dependence: The uncertaintyalso reflects this species’ relatively flexiblenesting and foraging behavior. Although theytend to occupy more well-drained sites ingeneral, they do commonly utilize a mix of bothdry and wet foraging habitats and will nest inwet tundra as well (although tend to select driermicrosites; Skeel and Mallory 1996).S. Zack @ WCSRange: We used the extant NatureServe rangemap for this assessment as it closely matchedthat of the Birds of North America (Skeel andMallory 1996). However, it should be notedrecent studies from Alaskan Arctic haveindicated Whimbrel distribution is centered inthe Brooks Range foothills and that they arelargely absent in wet sedge dominated habitatcloser to the Arctic Ocean coastline (Johnson etal. 2007, Bart et al. 2012).Physiological Hydro Niche: Among the indirectexposure and sensitivity factors in theassessment (see table on next page), Whimbrelscored “neutral” in many categories. In thephysiological hydrologic niche category therewas broad range of scores from slightlydecreased to increased vulnerability. This rangerepresents uncertainty both in the direction andintensity of change in Arctic hydrology, as wellas in the effect this will have on the Whimbrel(less or greater vulnerability). Currentprojections of annual potentialevapotranspiration suggest negligibleatmospheric-driven drying for the foreseeablefuture (TWS and SNAP). Thus atmosphericmoisture, as an exposure factor (most influentialon the “hydrological niche” sensitivitycategory), was not heavily weighted in theassessment. Also, complex hydrologicalprocesses could ameliorate or exacerbate thedrying trend (Martin et al. 2009).Disturbance Regime: Climate-mediateddisturbance processes, such as thermokarst,could both create and destroy nesting andforaging habitats. Fire frequency is likely toincrease (Racine et al. 2004), potentiallydiminishing availability of invertebrate prey.Fires could also reduce nest site availability. Inthe foreseeable future, fire will likely only affecta small portion of the landscape and thus notsignificantly impact Whimbrel habitat.Interactions with Other Species:Climate changes may reduce the amplitude oflemming cycles making them less available asalternative prey (Ims and Fuglei 2005) and thuscould expose this species to greater nestpredation.Dietary Versatility: This species has a flexiblediet and current evidence suggests they takeadvantage of a wide variety of prey (Skeel and84

Whimbrel (Numenius phaeopus)Vulnerability: Presumed StableConfidence: HighD=Decrease vulnerability, SD=Somewhat decrease vulnerability, N=Neutral effect, SI=Slightly increase vulnerability,I=Increase vulnerability, GI=Greatly increase vulnerability.Mallory 1996) so they would likely not face anynegative impacts from a changing prey base.Phenological Response: Although notdemonstrated in Whimbrel, there is evidencesuggesting some shorebirds are able to trackphenological changes associated with a warmingclimate at least in terms of nest initiation (J.Liebezeit and S. Zack unpublished data; D.Ward, pers. comm.). However, it is unknown ifthey can synchronize timing to other organismschanging schedules that they depend on (e.g.invertebrate prey).In summary, Whimbrel appear to haveenough versatility in their life history traits andbehaviors on the breeding grounds that willlikely enable them to cope and remain “stable”with regard to climate change at least during thetimeframe of this assessment (to 2050).Literature CitedBart, J., S. Brown, B. Andres, R. Platte, and A. Manning.2012. North slope of Alaska. Ch. 4 in Bart, J. and V.Johnston, eds. Shorebirds in the North American Arctic:results of ten years of an arctic shorebird monitoringprogram. Studies in Avian Biology.Ims, R.A., and E. Fuglei. 2005. Trophic interaction cyclesin tundra ecosystems and the impact of climate change.BioScience 55: 311-322.Johnson, J.A., R.B. Lanctot, B.A. Andres, J.R. Bart, S.C.Brown, S.J. Kendall, and D.C. Payer. 2007. Distribution ofbreeding shorebirds on the Arctic Coastal Plain of Alaska.Arctic 60(3): 277-293.Skeel, M.A. and E.P. Mallory. 1996. Whimbrel (Numeniusphaeopus), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole,Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved fromthe Birds of North America Online:http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/219doi:10.2173/bna.219.Martin, P., J. Jenkins, F.J. Adams, M.T. Jorgenson, A.C.Matz, D.C. Payer, P.E. Reynolds, A.C. Tidwell, and J.R.Zelenak. 2009. Wildlife response to environmental Arcticchange: Predicting future habitats of Arctic Alaska. Reportof the Wildlife Response to Environmental Arctic Change(WildREACH), Predicting Future Habitats of Arctic AlaskaWorkshop, 17-18 November 2008. Fairbanks, Alaska,USFWS, 148 pages.Morrison, R.I.G., B.J. McCaffery, R.E. Gill, S.K. Skagen,S.L. Jones, G.W. Page, C.L. Gratto-Trevor, and B.A.Andres. 2006. Population estimates of North Americanshorebirds, 2006. Wader Study Group Bulletin 111:67-85.Racine, C., R. Jandt, C. Meyers, and J. Dennis. 2004.Tundra fire and vegetation change along a hillslope on theSeward Peninsula, Alaska, USA. Arctic, Antarctic, andAlpine Research 36: 1-10.The Wilderness Society (TWS) and Scenarios Network forAlaska Planning (SNAP), Projected (2001-2099: A1Bscenario) monthly total potential evapotranspiration from 5AR4 GCMs that perform best across Alaska and the Arctic,utilizing 2km downscaled temperature as model inputs.http://www.snap.uaf.edu/data.php.85

Bar-tailed Godwit (Limosa lapponica)Vulnerability: Presumed StableConfidence: HighThe Bar-tailed Godwit completes one of the most incredible journeys of any bird species,traveling non-stop across the Pacific Ocean from Alaska to Australia and New Zealand during itsfall migration. In Arctic Alaska, this species is found most commonly west of the Colville Riverand is particularly frequent in the Brooks Range foothills (Johnson et al. 2007). On the NorthSlope, Bar-tailed Godwits nest in moist tussock tundra near wetlands to wet sedge meadows(McCaffery and Gill 2001). They typically forage in shallow, flooded areas on insects but willeat berries upon arrival to breeding grounds (McCaffery and Gill 2001). Current populationestimate for North American breeders (baueri subspecies) is 90,000 with a declining trend(Morrison et al. 2006).C. RuttRange: We used the extant NatureServe rangemap for the assessment as it closely matchedthat of the Birds of North America (McCafferyand Gill 2001) and other sources (Bart et al.2012, Johnson et al. 2007).Physiological Hydrologic Niche: Conversion ofice roads to all-weather roads, a possibleconsequence of reduced suitability of wintersnow and ice conditions, could impacthydrology at local and regional scales. Shallowtundra wetlands can be adversely affected byroad construction and potentially impactavailability of invertebrate prey. The extent ofsuch activities will likely be localized.Physiological Thermal Niche: Compared toother arctic shorebirds, Bar-tailed Godwits breedover a relatively wide latitudinal gradient bothnear and far from marine shorelines, thus there isno evidence to suggest that they have anythermal sensitivity during nesting. They couldactually benefit from warmer temperatures at thenorthern terminus of their breeding range viareduction in cold stress.Physical Habitat Restrictions: Although BartailedGodwits do exploit a range of upland towet tundra habitats for nesting, they depend onwater-dominated habitats for foraging duringboth breeding and post-breeding and so may benegatively impacted by a net drying trend.Because of their flexible habitat use they may beable to better adjust to utilizing drier habitatscompared to other shorebird species. Currentprojections of annual potentialevapotranspiration suggest negligibleatmospheric-driven drying for the foreseeablefuture (TWS and SNAP). Thus atmosphericmoisture, as an exposure factor was not heavilyweighted in the assessment.Disturbance Regime: Disturbance processes,specifically thermokarst-mediated changes onthe landscape, could both destroy and create newnesting and foraging habitat (Martin et al. 2009).More frequent tundra fires (Racine and Jandt2008) could reduce nesting and foraging habitatalthough tundra fires will likely be a localizedphenomena in the near future.Interactions with Other Species:Climate change may reduce the amplitude oflemming cycles (Ims and Fuglei 2005) and thuscould expose this species to greater nestpredation pressure if lemmings become lessavailable as alternative prey.86

Bar-tailed Godwit (Limosa lapponica)Vulnerability: Presumed StableConfidence: HighD=Decrease vulnerability, SD=Somewhat decrease vulnerability, N=Neutral effect, SI=Slightly increase vulnerability,I=Increase vulnerability, GI=Greatly increase vulnerability.Phenological Response: There is evidencesuggesting some shorebirds are able to trackphenological changes associated with a warmingclimate at least in terms of nest initiation (J.Liebezeit and S. Zack, unpublished data; D.Ward, pers. comm.). However, currently there isno examination of this with Bar-tailed Godwits.In summary, Bar-tailed Godwits appear tohave enough versatility in their life historyattributes to enable them to compensate forchanges and remain “stable” with regard toclimate change at least during the timeframe ofthis assessment (next 50 years).Literature CitedBart, J., S. Brown, B. Andres, R. Platte, and A. Manning.2012. North slope of Alaska. Ch. 4 in Bart, J. and V.Johnston, eds. Shorebirds in the North American Arctic:results of ten years of an arctic shorebird monitoringprogram. Studies in Avian Biology.Ims, R.A., and E. Fuglei. 2005. Trophic interaction cyclesin tundra ecosystems and the impact of climate change.BioScience 55: 311-322.Johnson, J.A., R.B. Lanctot, B.A. Andres, J.R. Bart, S.C.Brown, S.J. Kendall, and D.C. Payer. 2007. Distribution ofbreeding shorebirds on the Arctic Coastal Plain of Alaska.Arctic 60(3): 277-293.Martin, P., J. Jenkins, F.J. Adams, M.T. Jorgenson, A.C.Matz, D.C. Payer, P.E. Reynolds, A.C. Tidwell, and J.R.Zelenak. 2009. Wildlife response to environmental Arcticchange: Predicting future habitats of Arctic Alaska. Reportof the Wildlife Response to Environmental Arctic Change(WildREACH), Predicting Future Habitats of Arctic AlaskaWorkshop, 17-18 November 2008. Fairbanks, Alaska,USFWS, 148 pages.McCaffery, B. and R. Gill. 2001. Bar-tailed Godwit(Limosa lapponica). In The Birds of North America, No.581 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of NorthAmerica, Inc. Philadelphia, PA.Morrison, R.I.G., B.J. McCaffery, R.E. Gill, S.K. Skagen,S.L. Jones, G.W. Page, C.L. Gratto-Trevor, and B.A.Andres. 2006. Population estimates of North Americanshorebirds, 2006. Wader Study Group Bulletin 111:67-85.Racine, C. and R. Jandt. 2008. The 2007”AnaktuvukRiver” tundra fire on the Arctic Slope of Alaska: a newphenomenon? In D.L. Kane and K.M. Hinkel (Eds.), NinthInternational Conference on Permafrost, ExtendedAbstracts (p. 247-248). Institute of Northern Engineering,University of Alaska Fairbanks.The Wilderness Society (TWS) and Scenarios Network forAlaska Planning (SNAP), Projected (2001-2099: A1Bscenario) monthly total potential evapotranspiration from 5AR4 GCMs that perform best across Alaska and the Arctic,utilizing 2km downscaled temperature as model inputs.http://www.snap.uaf.edu/data.php.87

Ruddy Turnstone (Arenaria interpres)Vulnerability: Moderately VulnerableConfidence: LowThe Ruddy Turnstone, named after its habit of turning over stones and other objects in search ofprey, occurs throughout the circumpolar arctic. In Alaska, this species typically nests in barrenhalophytic, sparsely vegetated sites (Bart et al. 2012, Nettleship 2000), usually near the coast oralong rivers, and rarely inland (Johnson et al. 2007). During the breeding season, RuddyTurnstones feed primarily on dipteran insects obtained in dry to wet habitats near ponds andstreams and often along pond margins (Nettleship 2000). This species winters along both coastsof North America in the west from northern California down into South America (Nettleship2000). Current population estimate for Alaska is 20,000 (Morrison et al. 2006) and for the NorthSlope is likely

Ruddy Turnstone (Arenaria interpres)Vulnerability: Moderately VulnerableConfidence: LowD=Decrease vulnerability, SD=Somewhat decrease vulnerability, N=Neutral effect, SI=Slightly increase vulnerability,I=Increase vulnerability, GI=Greatly increase vulnerability.particularly susceptible to flooding events whichwill likely increase as storm frequency andseverity in the arctic increases (Jones et al.2009). Other climate-mediated disturbanceprocesses, such as thermokarst, could bothcreate and destroy nesting and foraging habitats.Interactions with Other Species: Climatechange may reduce the amplitude of lemmingcycles (Ims and Fuglei 2005) and thus couldexpose this species to greater nest predationpressure if lemmings become less available asalternative prey.Phenological Response: Although notdemonstrated in turnstones, there is evidencesuggesting some shorebirds are able to trackphenological changes associated with a warmingclimate at least in terms of nest initiation (J.Liebezeit and S. Zack, unpublished data; D.Ward, pers. comm.). However, it is unknown ifthey can adjust timing to the changing schedulesof the other organisms on which they depend(e.g. invertebrate prey).In summary, this species’ dependence oncoastal and riverine habitats combined withother sources of vulnerability yielded a rankingof “moderately vulnerable” in this assessment.Literature CitedBart, J., S. Brown, B. Andres, R. Platte, and A. Manning.2012. North slope of Alaska. Ch. 4 in Bart, J. and V.Johnston, eds. Shorebirds in the North American Arctic:results of ten years of an arctic shorebird monitoringprogram. Studies in Avian Biology.Ims, R.A. and E. Fuglei. 2005. Trophic interaction cycles intundra ecosystems and the impact of climate change.BioScience 55: 311-322.Johnson, J.A., R.B. Lanctot, B.A. Andres, J.R. Bart, S.C.Brown, S.J. Kendall, and D.C. Payer. 2007. Distribution ofbreeding shorebirds on the Arctic Coastal Plain of Alaska.Arctic 60(3): 277-293.Jones, B.M., C.D. Arp, M.T. Jorgenson, K.M. Hinkel, J.A.Schmutz, and P.L. Flint. 2009. Increase in the rate anduniformity of coastline erosion in Arctic Alaska.Geophysical Research Letters 36, L03503.Morrison, R.I.G., B.J. McCaffery, R.E. Gill, S.K. Skagen,S.L. Jones, G.W. Page, C.L. Gratto-Trevor, and B.A.Andres. 2006. Population estimates of North Americanshorebirds, 2006. Wader Study Group Bulletin 111:67-85.Nettleship, D.N. 2000. Ruddy Turnstone (Arenariainterpres). In The Birds of North America, No. 537 (A.Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc.Philadelphia, PA.The Wilderness Society (TWS) and Scenarios Network forAlaska Planning (SNAP), Projected (2001-2099: A1Bscenario) monthly total potential evapotranspiration from 5AR4 GCMs that perform best across Alaska and the Arctic,utilizing 2km downscaled temperature as model inputs.http://www.snap.uaf.edu/data.php.89

Red Knot (Calidris canutus)Vulnerability: Presumed StableConfidence: HighThe Red Knot, roselaari subspecies, is a relatively uncommon breeding shorebird in ArcticAlaska. They typically nest in coastal alpine habitats, preferring sparsely vegetated and broadalpine ridgelines and dome tops (Harrington 2001, J. Johnson, pers. comm.). There is littleinformation on breeding season diet in this species however; field observations suggest a varieddiet from insects to plant materials (e.g., lichens, leaves, berries) (Harrington 2001). During May,knots occur in coastal lagoons adjacent to suitable nesting habitats. These lagoons apparentlyserve as foraging and resting sites preceding dispersal to nesting areas (J. Johnson, pers. comm.).This subspecies winters at sites along the Pacific Coast from California down into CentralAmerica. Current population estimate for roselaari is 20,000 (Morrison et al. 2006) althoughnewer estimates place it at approximately 17,000 (J. Lyons, unpublished data).N. HadjdukovichRange: We modified the NatureServe breedingrange map based on new evidence and expertopinion (J. Johnson, unpublished data). Weremoved the Barrow breeding area as there is norecent evidence of breeding there. Weconstrained the western portion of their breedingrange to within 50km of the coast based on theirassociation with coastal alpine habitats andrecent surveys (J. Johnson, unpublished data).Finally, we included breeding range in thenortheastern Brooks Range within the ArcticRefuge as there is strong suspicion of nestingthere (J. Johnson, pers. comm.).Physiologic Thermo Niche: Among the indirectexposure and sensitivity factors in theassessment (see table on next page), Red Knotsranked neutral in most categories. This species isassociated with cold-adapted alpine habitats andso it may be sensitive to changes in thermalconditions (i.e. warming) that are likely to occurin this region (http://www.snap.uaf.edu/).Physical Habitat Restrictions: Although RedKnots nest in relatively arid habitats someindividuals (>50%) that nest near the coastforage in coastal habitats throughout thebreeding season. Also, just prior to breedingthey depend on coastal lagoons for foraging andresting which may provide a temporal buffer forknots that arrive when inland sites are stillcovered by snow (J. Johnson, pers. comm.). Likeother shorebirds, Red Knots utilize coastalhabitats post-breeding as well (J. Johnson,unpublished data, Taylor et al. 2010). Loss oralteration of coastal lagoons as a result ofclimate-mediated erosion and overwash fromincreased storm frequency (Jones et al. 2009)would likely have an adverse effect on knots.Dietary Versatility: Red Knots have anomnivorous diet and current evidence suggeststhey can take advantage of a wide variety ofprey and so would likely not be impacted bychanges in prey base associated with climatechange.90

Red Knot (Calidris canutus)Vulnerability: Presumed StableConfidence: HighD=Decrease vulnerability, SD=Somewhat decrease vulnerability, N=Neutral effect, SI=Slightly increase vulnerability,I=Increase vulnerability, GI=Greatly increase vulnerability.Interactions with Other Species: Climatechange may reduce the amplitude of lemmingcycles (Ims and Fuglei 2005) and thus couldexpose this species to greater nest predationpressure if lemmings become less available asalternative prey. In addition, this species willcommunally feed and flock with othershorebirds during breeding and migration andwill join other shorebird species in mobbingpotential predators during the nesting season(Harrington 2001) but it is unknown if thesebehaviors increase species persistence.Phenological Response: Although notdemonstrated in Red Knots, there is evidencesuggesting shorebirds are able to trackphenological changes associated with a warmingclimate at least in terms of nest initiation (J.Liebezeit and S. Zack, unpublished data; D.Ward, pers. comm.). However, it is unknown ifthey can synchronize timing to other organismschanging schedules that they depend on (e.g.invertebrate prey).In summary, Red Knots will likelyexperience some negative impacts from climatechange however these will be slight and, overall,they have enough versatility in their life historytraits and behaviors and remain “stable” withregard to climate change at least during thetimeframe of this assessment (to 2050).Literature CitedHarrington, Brian A. 2001. Red Knot (Calidris canutus),The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca:Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds ofNorth America Online:http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/563.doi:10.2173/bna.563Ims, R.A. and E. Fuglei. 2005. Trophic interaction cycles intundra ecosystems and the impact of climate change.BioScience 55: 311-322.Jones, B.M., C.D. Arp, M.T. Jorgenson, K.M. Hinkel, J.A.Schmutz, and P.L. Flint. 2009. Increase in the rate anduniformity of coastline erosion in Arctic Alaska.Geophysical Research Letters 36, L03503.Morrison, R.I.G., B.J. McCaffery, R.E. Gill, S.K. Skagen,S.L. Jones, G.W. Page, C.L. Gratto-Trevor, and B.A.Andres. 2006. Population estimates of North Americanshorebirds, 2006. Wader Study Group Bulletin 111:67-85.Taylor, A.R., R.B. Lanctot, A.N. Powell, F. Huettmann, D.Nigro and S.J. Kendall. 2010. Distribution and CommunityCharacteristics of Staging Shorebirds on the NorthernCoast of Alaska. Arctic 63(4): 451-467.91

Semipalmated Sandpiper (Calidris pusilla)Vulnerability: Presumed StableConfidence: HighThe Semipalmated Sandpiper is likely the most abundant breeding shorebird on the ArcticCoastal Plain of Alaska, with the highest densities occurring in the western portion of the coastalplain (Johnson et al. 2007). In Arctic Alaska, this species nests in a range of upland dry to moistand wet tundra habitats near water and typically focus their foraging along marsh and pond edges(Gratto-Trevor 1992). The current North American population estimate is 2 million (Morrison etal. 2006). While the Alaska breeding population appears to be stable, there is evidence thateastern Semipalmated Sandpiper populations are declining (Andres et al. 2012).S. Zack @ WCSRange: We used the extant NatureServe rangemap for the assessment as it closely matchedthat of the Birds of North America (Gratto-Trevor 1992) and other sources (Johnson et al.2007, Bart et al. 2012).Physical Habitat Restrictions: Among theindirect exposure and sensitivity factors (seetable on next page), Semipalmated Sandpipersscored “neutral”, in many categories. Althoughthis species breeds primarily on the coastal plainin the Arctic LCC assessment area, they dooccur well inland and so sea level rise impactswill likely be minimal and their ability to shiftrange (e.g. in response to habitat changes) willnot be significantly compromised.Physiological Hydro Niche: Although thisspecies relies on water-dominated habitats forforaging, they often utilize moist to dry tundrafor nesting. For this reason, the physiologicalhydrologic niche category was scored only as“slightly increased” vulnerability. Significanttundra drying could certainly have an impact ontheir foraging habitats. However, currentprojections of annual potential evapotranspirationsuggest negligible atmosphericdrivendrying for the foreseeable future (TWSand SNAP). Thus atmospheric moisture, as anexposure factor (most influential on the“hydrological niche” sensitivity category), wasnot heavily weighted in the assessment.Disturbance Regime: Climate-mediateddisturbance processes, namely thermokarst,could both create and destroy good foraging andnesting habitats through both ice wedgedegradation and draining of thaw lakes.Likewise, increased coastal erosion and resultingsalinization (Jones et al. 2009) could bothnegatively and positively affect post-breedingstaging birds by destroying and creatingforaging habitat.Dietary Versatility: Semipalmated Sandpipershave a flexible diet and evidence suggests theytake advantage of a wide variety of invertebrateprey (Gratto-Trevor 1992) so they would likelynot face negative impacts from a changing preybase.Interactions with Other Species: In terms ofdependence on interspecific interactions, thisspecies will communally feed and flock withother shorebirds during post- breeding staging(Taylor et al. 2010), but it is unknown if thesebehaviors increase species persistence.Climate change may reduce the amplitude oflemming cycles (Ims and Fuglei 2005) and thuscould expose this species to greater nestpredation pressure if lemmings become lessavailable as alternative prey.92

Semipalmated Sandpiper (Calidris pusilla)Vulnerability: Presumed StableConfidence: HighD=Decrease vulnerability, SD=Somewhat decrease vulnerability, N=Neutral effect, SI=Slightly increase vulnerability,I=Increase vulnerability, GI=Greatly increase vulnerability.Genetic Variation: Little is known aboutSemipalmated Sandpiper genetics although, ingeneral, many shorebird species are believed tohave low genetic variation (Baker and Stauch1988) and thus potentially would be morevulnerable to certain climate-mediated events inthe near future (e.g. disease outbreaks).However, at this time, there is no support forlow genetic variation for this species.Phenological Response: There is evidencesuggesting that this species is able to trackphenological changes associated with a warmingclimate at least with respect to nest initiation (J.Liebezeit and S. Zack unpublished data, D.Ward, pers. comm.). However, it is unknown ifthey can synchronize timing with otherorganisms they depend on (e.g. invertebrateprey).In summary, despite some potential sourcesof vulnerability, Semipalmated Sandpipers willlikely be able to compensate for most andremain “stable” with regard to climate change atleast during the timeframe considered by thisassessment.Literature CitedAndres, B.A., C. Gratto-Trevor, P. Hicklin, D. Mizrahi,R.I.G. Morrison, and P.A. Smith. 2012. Status of theSemipalmated Sandpiper. Waterbirds 35: 146-148.Baker, A.J. and J.G.Strauch. 1988. Genetic variation anddifferentiation in shorebirds. – Acta XX CongressusInternationalis Ornithologicus 2: 1639–1645.Bart, J., S. Brown, B. Andres, R. Platte, and A. Manning.2012. North slope of Alaska. Ch. 4 in Bart, J. and V.Johnston, eds. Shorebirds in the North American Arctic:results of ten years of an arctic shorebird monitoringprogram. Studies in Avian Biology.Ims, R.A. and E. Fuglei. 2005. Trophic interaction cycles intundra ecosystems and the impact of climate change.BioScience 55: 311-322.Johnson, J.A., R.B. Lanctot, B.A. Andres, J.R. Bart, S.C.Brown, S.J. Kendall, and D.C. Payer. 2007. Distribution ofbreeding shorebirds on the Arctic Coastal Plain of Alaska.Arctic 60(3): 277-293.Jones, B.M., C.D. Arp, M.T. Jorgenson, K.M. Hinkel, J.A.Schmutz, and P.L. Flint. 2009. Increase in the rate anduniformity of coastline erosion in Arctic Alaska.Geophysical Research Letters 36, L03503.Gratto-Trevor, C.L. 1992. Semipalmated Sandpiper(Calidris pusilla). In The Birds of North America, No. 6(A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America,Inc. Philadelphia, PA.Morrison, R.I.G., B.J. McCaffery, R.E. Gill, S.K. Skagen,S.L. Jones, G.W. Page, C.L. Gratto-Trevor, and B.A.Andres. 2006. Population estimates of North Americanshorebirds, 2006. Wader Study Group Bulletin 111:67-85.Taylor, A.R., R.B. Lanctot, A.N. Powell, F. Huettmann, D.Nigro and S.J. Kendall. 2010. Distribution and CommunityCharacteristics of Staging Shorebirds on the NorthernCoast of Alaska. Arctic 63(4): 451-467.The Wilderness Society (TWS) and Scenarios Network forAlaska Planning (SNAP), Projected (2001-2099: A1Bscenario) monthly total potential evapotranspiration from 5AR4 GCMs that perform best across Alaska and the Arctic,utilizing 2km downscaled temperature as model inputs.http://www.snap.uaf.edu/data.php.93

Western Sandpiper (Calidris mauri)Vulnerability: Presumed StableConfidence: LowThe Western Sandpiper is one of the most abundant sandpipers in the western hemisphere. InAlaska, the core of its breeding population is in the Yukon-Kuskokwim River Delta. It alsobreeds less commonly in the western portion of the North Slope (Johnson et al. 2007). Thisspecies nests in well-drained moist to upland tundra habitats dominated by dwarf shrubs andtussock grasses (Wilson 1994). During the breeding season Western Sandpipers typically forageon aquatic insects in wet tundra habitats and along pond edges near nesting areas, butoccasionally forage on terrestrial arthropods as well (Wilson 1994). This species winters alongthe west coast of North America from California to Peru (Wilson 1994). Current populationestimate for North America is 3.5 million with a declining trend (Morrison et al. 2006).S. MaslowskiRange: We modified the NatureServe range mapto more closely match the Birds of NorthAmerica map and evidence from recent studiesthat suggest greater usage of inland sites in thewestern portion of the coastal plain (Bart et al.2012, Johnson et al. 2007).Physiological Hydro Niche: Because WesternSandpipers use wet tundra habitats to somedegree, primarily for foraging during both thebreeding season and during post-breedingstaging they were scored as “neutral-toincreased”vulnerability in the “physiologicalhydrologic niche” category (see table). Dryingof wet tundra habitats could reduce invertebrateavailability. Current projections of annualpotential evapotranspiration suggest negligibleatmospheric-driven drying for the foreseeablefuture (TWS and SNAP). Thus atmosphericmoisture, as an exposure factor (most influentialfor “hydrological niche” sensitivity category),was not heavily weighted in the assessment.Human Response to CC: Shoreline armoringrelated to climate change mitigation couldreduce the availability of staging habitats thisspecies uses prior to fall migration. However,shoreline armoring would be limited to existingcommunities or infrastructure, which is limitedin extent at present and thus impacts would beslight.Physiological Thermal Niche: The heart of theWestern Sandpiper breeding range is in the subarcticand so presumably, as arctic temperaturesrise, themal conditions could become moreamenable for expansion of their breeding rangeinto more of the coastal plain potentiallyincreasing competition with the closely relatedSemipalmated Sandpipers.Disturbance Regime: Climate-mediateddisturbance processes, namely thermokarst,could both create and destroy lake habitatsthrough both ice wedge degradation anddraining of thaw lakes (Martin et al. 2009).Increased fire frequency (Racine and Jandt2008) could reduce habitat suitability requiredby the species for nesting, although for thetimeline of this assessment fires will likely belocalized phenomenon. Increased coastal erosionand resulting salinization (Jones et al. 2009)could impacts post-breeding staging birds.Interactions with Other Species: In terms ofinterspecies interactions, this species willcommunally feed and flock with othershorebirds during post-breeding staging (Tayloret al. 2010), but it is unknown if these behaviorsincrease species persistence. Climate change94

Western Sandpiper (Calidris mauri)Vulnerability: Presumed StableConfidence: LowD=Decrease vulnerability, SD=Somewhat decrease vulnerability, N=Neutral effect, SI=Slightly increase vulnerability,I=Increase vulnerability, GI=Greatly increase vulnerability.may reduce the amplitude of lemming cycles(Ims and Fuglei 2005) and thus could exposethis species to greater nest predation pressure iflemmings become less available as alternativeprey.Phenological Response: There is evidencesuggesting some shorebirds are able to trackphenological changes associated with a warmingclimate at least in terms of nest initiation (J.Liebezeit and S. Zack unpublished data; D.Ward, pers. comm.). However, it is unknown ifthey can synchronize timing to other organismschanging schedules that they depend on (e.g.invert. prey).In summary, while a few potential sourcesof climate-related vulnerability were identifiedfor this species, the assessment presumes thatWestern Sandpiper will be stable in this regionat least for the next few decades.Literature CitedBart, J., S. Brown, B. Andres, R. Platte, and A. Manning.2012. North slope of Alaska. Ch. 4 in Bart, J. and V.Johnston, eds. Shorebirds in the North American Arctic:results of ten years of an arctic shorebird monitoringprogram. Studies in Avian Biology.Ims, R.A. and E. Fuglei. 2005. Trophic interaction cycles intundra ecosystems and the impact of climate change.BioScience 55: 311-322.Johnson, J.A., R.B. Lanctot, B.A. Andres, J.R. Bart, S.C.Brown, S.J. Kendall, and D.C. Payer. 2007. Distribution ofbreeding shorebirds on the Arctic Coastal Plain of Alaska.Arctic 60(3): 277-293.Jones, B.M., C.D. Arp, M.T. Jorgenson, K.M. Hinkel, J.A.Schmutz, and P.L. Flint. 2009. Increase in the rate anduniformity of coastline erosion in Arctic Alaska.Geophysical Research Letters 36, L03503Martin, P., J. Jenkins, F.J. Adams, M.T. Jorgenson, A.C.Matz, D.C. Payer, P.E. Reynolds, A.C. Tidwell, and J.R.Zelenak. 2009. Wildlife response to environmental Arcticchange: Predicting future habitats of Arctic Alaska. Reportof the Wildlife Response to Environmental Arctic Change(WildREACH), Predicting Future Habitats of Arctic AlaskaWorkshop, 17-18 November 2008. Fairbanks, Alaska,USFWS, 148 pages.Morrison, R.I.G., B.J. McCaffery, R.E. Gill, S.K. Skagen,S.L. Jones, G.W. Page, C.L. Gratto-Trevor, and B.A.Andres. 2006. Population estimates of North Americanshorebirds, 2006. Wader Study Group Bulletin 111:67-85.Racine, C. and R. Jandt. 2008. The 2007”AnaktuvukRiver” tundra fire on the Arctic Slope of Alaska: a newphenomenon? In D.L. Kane and K.M. Hinkel (Eds.), NinthInternational Conference on Permafrost, ExtendedAbstracts (p. 247-248). Institute of Northern Engineering,University of Alaska Fairbanks.The Wilderness Society (TWS) and Scenarios Network forAlaska Planning (SNAP), Projected (2001-2099: A1Bscenario) monthly total potential evapotranspiration from 5AR4 GCMs that perform best across Alaska and the Arctic,utilizing 2km downscaled temperature as model inputs.http://www.snap.uaf.edu/data.php.Wilson, W.H. 1994. Western Sandpiper (Calidris mauri),The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca:Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds ofNorth America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/090. doi:10.2173/bna.9095

White-rumped Sandpiper (Calidris fuscicollis)Vulnerability: Presumed StableConfidence: ModerateThe White-rumped Sandpiper is a small shorebird that is a relatively rare breeder in ArcticAlaska. They nest in coastal wetlands between Barrow and Cape Halkett on the Arctic CoastalPlain of Alaska (Bart et al. 2012). In eastern Canada this species is similarly associated withcoastal wetlands (Smith et al. 2007), but may also use moist tundra or even dwarf shrub tundrafor nesting (Parmelee 1992). White-rumped Sandpipers have one of the longest migrations ofany bird species and winter primarily in southern South America east of the Andes (Parmelee1992). Current estimate of the North American population is 1.12 million with a declining trend(Morrison et al. 2006).Arthur Morris/BIRDS AS ARTRange: We modified the NatureServe range mapfor this assessment, restricting this speciesbreeding range to the region around Barrow. Webased this adjustment on recent studies thatsuggest the Birds of North America range is nolonger accurate (Johnson et al. 2007, Bart et al.2012).Sea Level Rise & Natural Barriers: Because ofthis species’ restricted range along low lyingcoastal areas on the coastal plain they wereranked as being “slightly vulnerable” to bothsea-level rise and to limitations in expansion oftheir range northward (“natural barriers” factor).Human Response to CC: Conversion of iceroads to all-weather roads, a possibleconsequence of reduced suitability of wintersnow and ice conditions, could impacthydrology at local and regional scales. Shallowtundra wetlands can be adversely affected byroad construction and potentially impactavailability of invertebrate prey. The extent ofsuch activities will likely be localized.Physiological Thermal Niche: White-rumpedSandpipers select concealed nest sites, shelteredfrom the wind (Smith et al. 2007) indicating theymay have some sensitivity to changing thermalconditions.Physiological Hydro Niche: Because thisspecies depends heavily on coastal tundrahabitats, hydrological niche was their greatestpotential source of vulnerability. The range ofscores represents uncertainty both in thedirection and intensity of change in Arctichydrology, as well as in the effect this will haveon the sandpiper. Slight changes in moistureregime or active layer depth can have substantialimpacts on tundra wetlands, because they aregenerally shallow. Current projections of annualpotential evapotranspiration suggest negligibleatmospheric-driven drying for the foreseeablefuture (TWS and SNAP). Thus atmosphericmoisture, as an exposure factor (most influentialon the “hydrological niche” sensitivitycategory), was not heavily weighted in theassessment.Disturbance Regime: Disturbances, specificallycoastal erosion and increased coastal floodingfrom increased storms (Jones et al. 2009) maynegatively impact both breeding and postbreedingWhite-rumped Sandpipers. However,such coastal disturbance events, as well asthermokarst-mediated changes on the landscape,could create new nesting and foraging habitat.96

White-rumped Sandpiper (Calidris fuscicollis)Vulnerability: Presumed StableConfidence: ModerateD=Decrease vulnerability, SD=Somewhat decrease vulnerability, N=Neutral effect, SI=Slightly increase vulnerability,I=Increase vulnerability, GI=Greatly increase vulnerability.Interactions with Other Species: In terms ofdependence on interspecific interactions, thisspecies will communally feed and flock withother shorebirds during post-breeding staging(Taylor et al. 2010) but it is unknown if thesebehaviors increase species persistence.Climate change may reduce the amplitude oflemming cycles (Post et al. 2009) and thus couldexpose this species to greater nest predationpressure if lemmings become less available asalternative prey.In summary, White-rumped Sandpipers willlikely experience some negative impacts fromclimate change, however they appear to haveenough versatility in their life history traits andbehaviors to remain “stable” with regard toclimate change at least during the timeframe ofthis assessment (to 2050).Literature CitedBart, J., S. Brown, B. Andres, R. Platte, and A. Manning.2012. North slope of Alaska. Ch. 4 in Bart, J. and V.Johnston, eds. Shorebirds in the North American Arctic:results of ten years of an arctic shorebird monitoringprogram. Studies in Avian Biology.Johnson, J.A., R.B. Lanctot, B.A. Andres, J.R. Bart, S.C.Brown, S.J. Kendall, and D.C. Payer. 2007. Distribution ofbreeding shorebirds on the Arctic Coastal Plain of Alaska.Arctic 60(3): 277-293.Jones, B.M., C.D. Arp, M.T. Jorgenson, K.M. Hinkel, J.A.Schmutz, and P.L. Flint. 2009. Increase in the rate anduniformity of coastline erosion in Arctic Alaska.Geophysical Research Letters 36, L03503.Parmelee, David F. 1992. White-rumped Sandpiper(Calidris fuscicollis), The Birds of North America Online(A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology;Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online:http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/029doi:10.2173/bna.29Post, E., M.C. Forchhammer, M.S. Bret-Harte, T.V.Callaghan, T.R. Christensen, B. Elberling, A.D. Fox, O.Gilg, D.S. Hik, T.T. Høye, R.A. Ims, E. Jeppesen, D.R.Klein, J. Madsen, A.D. McGuire, S. Rysgaard, D.E.Schindler, I. Stirling, M.P. Tamstorf, N.J.C. Tyler, R. vander Wal, J. Welker, P.A. Wookey, N.M. Schmidt, and P.Aastrup. 2009. Ecological dynamics across the Arcticassociated with recent climate change. Science 325:1355-1358.Morrison, R.I.G., B.J. McCaffery, R.E. Gill, S.K. Skagen,S.L. Jones, G.W. Page, C.L. Gratto-Trevor, and B.A.Andres. 2006. Population estimates of North Americanshorebirds, 2006. Wader Study Group Bulletin 111:67-85.Smith, P.A., H.G. Gilchrist, and J.N.M. Smith. 2007.Effects of nest habitat, food, and parental behaviour onshorebird nest success. Condor 109: 15-31.Taylor, A.R., R.B. Lanctot, A.N. Powell, F. Huettmann, D.Nigro and S.J. Kendall. 2010. Distribution and CommunityCharacteristics of Staging Shorebirds on the NorthernCoast of Alaska. Arctic 63(4): 451-467.The Wilderness Society (TWS) and Scenarios Network forAlaska Planning (SNAP), Projected (2001-2099: A1Bscenario) monthly total potential evapotranspiration from 5AR4 GCMs that perform best across Alaska and the Arctic,utilizing 2km downscaled temperature as model inputs.http://www.snap.uaf.edu/data.php.97

Baird’s Sandpiper (Calidris bairdii)Vulnerability: Presumed StableConfidence: HighThe Baird’s Sandpiper is an uncommon breeding bird in Arctic Alaska using both coastal andmontane regions. This species typically nests in upland, well-drained, exposed tundra, generallyavoiding wet tundra although will sometimes nest in wet prairie meadows near lakes (Marconi &Salvadori 2008). Like other sandpipers, Baird’s Sandpipers feed almost entirely on insects duringthe breeding season adjusting to seasonal shifts in primary prey items (Moskoff andMontgomerie 2002). This species is a long-distance migrant and winters throughout the southerncone of South America. Current population estimate is 300,000 (Morrison et al. 2006).S. Zack @ WCSRange: We used the extant NatureServe rangemap for the assessment as it closely matchedthat of the Birds of North America (Moskoff andMontgomerie 2002) and other sources (Johnsonand Herter 1989). However, it should be notedthat the breeding range may be more restrictedthan previously thought because of theirpreference for well-drained stony ridges andriparian nesting habitat (Johnson et al. 2007).Physiological Thermal Niche: Among theindirect exposure and sensitivity factors in thisassessment (see table on next page), Baird’sSandpiper ranked “neutral”, in many categories.For three categories they ranked as “neutral toslightly increased” vulnerability. This species,particularly in Arctic Canada, nests in relativelyhigher latitude sites therefore it is possible thatthey are associated with a colder thermalenvironment; however this pattern is lessdiscernable in Alaska.Physiological Hydro Niche: At a site in Canada,Marconi and Salvadori (2008) suggest thatBaird’s may nest preferentially in wet prairiemeadow, however previous observations at thesame site suggested that Baird’s generally nestin drier shrubby areas (Lepage et al. 1998) asgenerally appears to be the case in Alaska. Thissuggests that a tundra drying trend could havesome negative impact on this species but theywill most likely be able to adjust to drier nestingsites. They do depend on water-dominatedhabitats for foraging during both breeding andpost-breeding so this may be more important interms of a tundra drying impacts. Currentprojections of annual potential evapotranspirationsuggest negligible atmosphericdrivendrying for the foreseeable future (TWSand SNAP). Thus atmospheric moisture, as anexposure factor (most influential on the“hydrological niche” sensitivity category), wasnot heavily weighted in the assessment.Interactions with other Species: Changes inlemming cycling could negatively impact thisspecies indirectly through increased nestpredation if lemming population booms becomerarer (Ims and Fuglei 2005). However, there iscurrently no evidence that Baird’s are affectedby lemming cycles.Phenological Response: Baird’s were rankedfrom “slightly decreased” to “increased”98

Baird’s Sandpiper (Calidris bairdii)Vulnerability: Presumed StableConfidence: HighD=Decrease vulnerability, SD=Somewhat decrease vulnerability, N=Neutral effect, SI=Slightly increase vulnerability,I=Increase vulnerability, GI=Greatly increase vulnerability.vulnerability to phenology changes. At present,it is unknown how this species will respond. Amismatch in timing would likely be negative fornesting (Schekkeman and Tulp 2008) or theymay be able to track changes and take advantageof the positive benefits of earlier nesting.Disturbance Regime: Disturbance processes,specifically thermokarst-mediated changes onthe landscape could both destroy and create newnesting and foraging habitat. More tundra firescould theoretically increase nesting habitat byspeeding up shrub invasion.In summary, Baird’s Sandpipers appear tohave enough versatility in their life historyattributes to enable them to compensate forchanges and remain “stable” with regard toclimate change at least during the timeframe ofthis assessment (next 50 years).Literature CitedIms, R.A. and E. Fuglei. 2005. Trophic interaction cycles intundra ecosystems and the impact of climate change.BioScience 55: 311-322.Johnson, S.R. and D.R. Herter. 1989. The birds of theBeaufort Sea, Anchorage: British Petroleum Exploration(Alaska), Inc.Johnson, J.A., R.B. Lanctot, B.A. Andres, J.R. Bart, S.C.Brown, S.J. Kendall, and D.C. Payer. 2007. Distribution ofbreeding shorebirds on the Arctic Coastal Plain of Alaska.Arctic 60(3): 277-293.Lepage, D., D.N. Nettleship, and A. Reed. 1998. Birds ofBylot Island and adjacent Baffin Island, NorthwestTerritories, Canada, 1979 to 1997. Arctic 51: 125-141.Marconi, L. and O. Salvadori. 2008. Utilisation de l’habitatchez deux espèces de limicoles, le bécasseau de Baird(Calidris bairdii) et le bécasseau à croupion blanc (Calidrisfuscicolis), nichant à l’île Bylot, Nunavut, Canada.Universite du Quebec, Rimouski.Moskoff, W. and R. Montgomerie. 2002. Baird's Sandpiper(Calidris bairdii). In The Birds of North America, No. 661(A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America,Inc. Philadelphia, PA.Morrison, R.I.G., B.J. McCaffery, R.E. Gill, S.K. Skagen,S.L. Jones, G.W. Page, C.L. Gratto-Trevor, and B.A.Andres. 2006. Population estimates of North Americanshorebirds, 2006. Wader Study Group Bulletin 111:67-85.The Wilderness Society (TWS) and Scenarios Network forAlaska Planning (SNAP), Projected (2001-2099: A1Bscenario) monthly total potential evapotranspiration from 5AR4 GCMs that perform best across Alaska and the Arctic,utilizing 2km downscaled temperature as model inputs.http://www.snap.uaf.edu/data.php.Tulp, I. and H. Schekkerman. 2008. Has prey availabilityfor arctic birds advanced with climate change? Hindcastingthe abundance of tundra arthropods using weatherand seasonal variation. Arctic 61: 48-60.99

Pectoral Sandpiper (Calidris melanotos)Vulnerability: Presumed StableConfidence: HighThe Pectoral Sandpiper is one of the most abundant breeding birds on the Arctic Coastal Plain ofAlaska. They typically have low nest site fidelity which is likely related to their promiscuousmating strategy, thus nest densities are highly variable from year to year at a given site (Holmesand Pitelka 1998). In Arctic Alaska, primary breeding habitat includes low-lying ponds in a mixof marshy to hummocky tundra and nests are typically placed in slightly raised or better drainedsites (Holmes and Pitelka 1998). Pectoral Sandpipers spend their winters primarily in southernSouth America (Holmes and Pitelka 1998). The current North American population estimate is500,000 and they are believed to be declining (Morrison et al. 2006).M. MudgeRange: We used the extant NatureServe rangemap for the assessment as it closely matchedthat of the Birds of North America (Holmes andPitelka 1998). It should be noted that in Alaskathe highest densities occur in the western portionof the coastal plain (Johnson et al. 2007).Physiologic Hydro Niche: Net loss of nestingand foraging habitat related to drying tundra islikely to be the most important source ofvulnerability for this species (see table on nextpage). Wet / moist coastal tundra habitats in theArctic LCC may decrease in extent if changes insummer temperature and soil active layer depthcreate a generally drier summer environment inthe Arctic. Current projections of annualpotential evapo-transpiration suggest negligibleatmospheric-driven drying for the foreseeablefuture (TWS and SNAP). Thus atmosphericmoisture, as an exposure factor (most influentialon the “hydrological niche” sensitivitycategory), was not heavily weighted in theassessment. Increasing shrubs and paludificationmay also decrease sedge/wet meadow tundraextent (Martin et al. 2009).Physical Habitat Restrictions: Shorelinearmoring related to climate change mitigationcould reduce the availability of brackish waterstaging habitats that this species sometimes usesprior to fall migration. However, shorelinearmoring would be focused on existingcommunities or infrastructure, which is limitedin extent at present. Overall, pectoral sandpiperstend to stopover/stage infrequently at coastalareas (most birds tend to feed in tundrahabitats prior to fall migration), so this limitstheir exposure to coastal land use changes aswell (A. Taylor, pers. comm.).Disturbance Regime: Climate-mediateddisturbance, namely thermokarst, could bothcreate and destroy foraging and nesting habitatsthrough both ice wedge degradation anddraining of thaw lakes. Likewise, increasedcoastal erosion and resulting salinization (Joneset al. 2009) could both negatively and positivelyaffect post-breeding aggregations of stagingbirds by destroying and creating foraginghabitat.Interactions with Other Species: In terms ofdependence on interspecific interactions, thisspecies will communally feed and flock withother shorebirds during post- breeding staging(Taylor et al. 2010) but it is unknown if thesebehaviors increase species persistence. Pectoralsandpiper nest survivorship is often higher in100

Pectoral Sandpiper (Calidris melanotos)Vulnerability: Presumed StableConfidence: HighD=Decrease vulnerability, SD=Somewhat decrease vulnerability, N=Neutral effect, SI=Slightly increase vulnerability,I=Increase vulnerability, GI=Greatly increase vulnerability.boom lemming years (J. Liebezeit, unpublisheddata). Lemming cycles are predicted to becomerarer (Ims and Fuglei 2005) and couldpotentially expose this species to greater nestpredation pressure.Phenological Response: There is evidencesuggesting that this species is able to trackphenological changes associated with a warmingclimate at least in terms of nest initiation (J.Liebezeit and S. Zack unpublished data; D.Ward, pers. comm.). However, it is unknown ifthey can synchronize timing to changes in theschedules of other organisms that they dependon (e.g. invertebrate prey).In summary, despite the potential negativeeffects of tundra drying, Pectoral Sandpiperswill likely be able to compensate for suchchanges and remain “stable” with regard toclimate change at least during the timeframe ofthis assessment.Literature CitedIms, R.A. and E. Fuglei. 2005. Trophic interaction cycles intundra ecosystems and the impact of climate change.BioScience 55: 311-322Holmes, R.T. and F.A. Pitelka. 1998. Pectoral Sandpiper(Calidris melanotos). In The Birds of North America, No.348. (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of NorthAmerica, Inc. Philadelphia, PA.Johnson, J.A., R.B. Lanctot, B.A. Andres, J.R. Bart, S.C.Brown, S.J. Kendall, and D.C. Payer. 2007. Distribution ofbreeding shorebirds on the Arctic Coastal Plain of Alaska.Arctic 60(3): 277-293.Jones, B.M., C.D. Arp, M.T. Jorgenson, K.M. Hinkel, J.A.Schmutz, and P.L. Flint. 2009. Increase in the rate anduniformity of coastline erosion in Arctic Alaska.Geophysical Research Letters 36, L03503.Martin, P., J. Jenkins, F.J. Adams, M.T. Jorgenson, A.C.Matz, D.C. Payer, P.E. Reynolds, A.C. Tidwell, and J.R.Zelenak. 2009. Wildlife response to environmental Arcticchange: Predicting future habitats of Arctic Alaska. Reportof the Wildlife Response to Environmental Arctic Change(WildREACH), Predicting Future Habitats of Arctic AlaskaWorkshop, 17-18 November 2008. Fairbanks, Alaska,USFWS, 148 pages.Morrison, R.I.G., B.J. McCaffery, R.E. Gill, S.K. Skagen,S.L. Jones, G.W. Page, C.L. Gratto-Trevor, and B.A.Andres. 2006. Population estimates of North Americanshorebirds, 2006. Wader Study Group Bulletin 111:67-85.Taylor, A.R., R.B. Lanctot, A.N. Powell, F. Huettmann, D.Nigro and S.J. Kendall. 2010. Distribution and CommunityCharacteristics of Staging Shorebirds on the NorthernCoast of Alaska. Arctic 63(4): 451-467.The Wilderness Society (TWS) and Scenarios Network forAlaska Planning (SNAP), Projected (2001-2099: A1Bscenario) monthly total potential evapotranspiration from 5AR4 GCMs that perform best across Alaska and the Arctic,utilizing 2km downscaled temperature as model inputs.http://www.snap.uaf.edu/data.php.101

Dunlin (Calidris alpina)Vulnerability: Presumed StableConfidence: HighThe Dunlin (arcticola subspecies) is a common breeding bird in Arctic Alaska from the areasurrounding Barrow to the east. The pacifica subspecies also occurs within the Arctic LCCassessment area in the region around Cape Lisburne and Cape Krusenstern. Dunlin use a widevariety of breeding habitats found in the northern sub-arctic and arctic. On the Arctic CoastalPlain of Alaska, C. a. arcticola breed in moist-wet tundra, often in areas with ponds, polygons,and strangmoor landforms (Warnock and Gill 1996). The arcticola subspecies winters in Asiawhile pacifica winters along the west coast of North America. Current population estimate is 1.3million (arcticola: 750,000, pacifica: 500,000; Morrison et al. 2006) with a declining trend.Dunlin do commonly nest and forage in moisttundra (rather than wet tundra) during thebreeding season so it is possible theycould adjust to drier habitats. The geospatialcomponent of the assessment picked up Dunlinas being slightly vulnerable to sea-level rise.Dietary Versatility: Dunlin have a flexible dietand current evidence suggests they takeadvantage of a wide variety of prey (Warnockand Gill 1996) so they would likely not face anynegative impacts from a changing prey base.S. Zack @ WCSRange: We used the extant Nature Serve rangemap for the assessment as it closely matchedthat of the Birds of North America (Warnockand Gill 1996) and other sources (Johnson andHerter 1989, Johnson et al. 2007, Bart et al.2012).Physiological Hydro Niche: Among the indirectexposure and sensitivity factors in theassessment (see table on next page), Dunlinranked “neutral”, in many categories. Only inthe physiological hydrologic niche category wasthere a clear scoring of increased vulnerability.The range from “slightly increased” to “greatlyincreased” vulnerability represents uncertaintyin the severity of such an impact. If significanttundra drying occurs this species couldexperience a considerable negative impact asthey often utilize wet tundra habitats for nestingand foraging (particularly the arcticolasubspecies; Warnock and Gill 1996). Currentprojections of annual potential evapotranspirationsuggest negligible atmosphericdrivendrying for the foreseeable future (TWSand SNAP). Thus atmospheric moisture, as anexposure factor (most influential on the“hydrological niche” sensitivity category), wasnot heavily weighted in the assessment.Interactions with Other Species: In terms ofdependence on interspecific interactions, thisspecies will communally feed and flock withother shorebirds during post-breeding staging(Taylor et al. 2010) but it is unknown if thesebehaviors increase species persistence. Also,climate change may reduce the amplitude oflemming cycles (Ims and Fuglei 2005) and thuscould expose this species to greater nestpredation pressure if lemmings become lessavailable as alternative prey.Genetic Variation: Little is known about Dunlingenetics although, in general, many shorebirdspecies are believed to have low geneticvariation (Baker and Stauch 1988) and thus102

Dunlin (Calidris alpina)Vulnerability: Presumed StableConfidence: HighD=Decrease vulnerability, SD=Somewhat decrease vulnerability, N=Neutral effect, SI=Slightly increase vulnerability,I=Increase vulnerability, GI=Greatly increase vulnerability.potentially more vulnerability to certain climatemediatedevents (e.g. disease outbreaks).However, at this time, there is little evidence tosupport such occurrences in the near future.Phenological Response: Although there isevidence suggesting that some shorebird speciesare able to track phenological changesassociated with a warming climate at least interms of nest initiation (J. Liebezeit and S. Zackunpublished data; D. Ward, pers. comm.) thereis no such evidence for Dunlin specifically atthis time.In summary, despite potential negativeresponse to changes in tundra conditions, ,Dunlin will likely be able to remain “stable”with regard to climate change, at least during thetimeframe of this assessment (next 50 years).Literature CitedBaker, A.J. and J.G. Strauch. 1988. Genetic variationand differentiation in shorebirds. – Acta XX CongressusInternationalis Ornithologicus 2: 1639–1645.Bart, J., S. Brown, B. Andres, R. Platte, and A. Manning.2012. North slope of Alaska. Ch. 4 in Bart, J. and V.Johnston, eds. Shorebirds in the North American Arctic:results of ten years of an arctic shorebird monitoringprogram. Studies in Avian Biology.Ims, R.A. and E. Fuglei. 2005. Trophic interaction cycles intundra ecosystems and the impact of climate change.BioScience 55: 311-322.Johnson, J.A., R.B. Lanctot, B.A. Andres, J.R. Bart, S.C.Brown, S.J. Kendall, and D.C. Payer. 2007. Distribution ofbreeding shorebirds on the Arctic Coastal Plain of Alaska.Arctic 60(3): 277-293.Johnson, S.R. and D.R. Herter. 1989. The birds of theBeaufort Sea, Anchorage: British Petroleum Exploration(Alaska), Inc.Morrison, R.I.G., B.J. McCaffery, R.E. Gill, S.K. Skagen,S.L. Jones, G.W. Page, C.L. Gratto-Trevor, and B.A.Andres. 2006. Population estimates of North Americanshorebirds, 2006. Wader Study Group Bulletin 111:67-85.Taylor, A.R., Lanctot, R.B., A.N. Powell, F. Huettmann, D.Nigro and S.J. Kendall. 2010. Distribution and CommunityCharacteristics of Staging Shorebirds on the NorthernCoast of Alaska. Arctic 63(4): 451-467.The Wilderness Society (TWS) and Scenarios Network forAlaska Planning (SNAP), Projected (2001-2099: A1Bscenario) monthly total potential evapotranspiration from 5AR4 GCMs that perform best across Alaska and the Arctic,utilizing 2km downscaled temperature as model inputs.http://www.snap.uaf.edu/data.php.Warnock, Nils D. and Robert E. Gill. 1996. Dunlin(Calidris alpina), The Birds of North America Online (A.Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrievedfrom the Birds of North America Online:http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/203doi:10.2173/bna.203103

Stilt Sandpiper (Calidris himantopus)Vulnerability: Presumed StableConfidence: LowThe Stilt Sandpiper is an uncommon to common breeding shorebird on the Arctic Coastal Plainof Alaska that typically nests near the coast from the Canadian border to the Barrow area(Johnson et al. 2007, Klima and Jehl 2012). Highest known breeding densities occur in ArcticCanada where they often nest in taiga and boreal habitats. In Alaska, they prefer nesting in wet,poorly drained tundra and forage mainly in marshes, pools, damp pond margins, and onshorelines of drying ponds during the breeding season (Klima and Jehl 2012). Stilt Sandpipersprimarily migrate through the central North American Flyway toward core wintering areasthroughout South America. Current population estimate is 820,000 and stable (Morrison et al.2006).proclivities for nesting near the coast leavesthem little option for shifting their rangenorthward. Again their flexibility in nestinghabitat as demonstrated by Canadian populationsmay signal flexibility in nesting habitat use.J. Liebezeit @ WCSRange: We modified the NatureServe mapbased on recent studies (Johnson et al. 2007,Bart et al. 2012) and the Birds of North Americaaccount descriptions (Klima and Jehl (2012).Physiological Hydro Niche: Among the indirectexposure and sensitivity factors in theassessment (see table on next page), StiltSandpipers scored neutral in most categorieswith the exception of “physiological hydrologicniche”, for which they were deemed to bepotentially sensitive to a tundra drying impact.While in Alaska this species is known toprimarily nest in wetter tundra habitats (e.g.strangmoor), in Canada it often nests in driertundra and taiga habitats (Klima and Jehl 2012),indicating that the species may be able to adaptto drying conditions. Current projections ofannual potential evapotranspiration suggestnegligible atmospheric-driven drying for theforeseeable future (TWS and SNAP). Thusatmospheric moisture, as an exposure factor(most influential on the “hydrological niche”sensitivity category), was not heavily weightedin the assessment.Natural Barriers: Natural barriers are likely notan issue for this species although theirDisturbance Regime: In terms of disturbanceregimes, this species could be impacted byhabitat degradation along the coast (from moresevere storms and subsequent overwash anderosion; Jones et al. 2009), which they utilizepost-breeding for fueling up before migration(although their use of coastal habitats duringpost-breeding is minimal compared to othershorebird species, Taylor et al. 2010). Moretundra fires (Racine et al. 2004) couldtheoretically reduce nesting and foraging habitat,but such fires are relegated to inland areas sothey would likely not be impacting current Stilthabitats in Alaska in the foreseeable future.Interactions with Other Species: Climatechange may reduce the amplitude of lemmingcycles (Ims and Fuglei 2005) and thus couldexpose this species to greater nest predationpressure if lemmings become less available asalternative prey.104

Stilt Sandpiper (Calidris himantopus)Vulnerability: Presumed StableConfidence: LowD=Decrease vulnerability, SD=Somewhat decrease vulnerability, N=Neutral effect, SI=Slightly increase vulnerability,I=Increase vulnerability, GI=Greatly increase vulnerability.Also, this species will communally feed andflock with other shorebirds during breeding andmigration and will join other shorebird speciesin mobbing potential predators during thenesting season (particularly just after hatch;Kilma and Jehl 2012), but it unknown if thesebehaviors increase species persistence.In summary, Stilt Sandpipers have enoughversatility in their life history traits andbehaviors on the breeding grounds to likelyallow them to adjust to changing climateconditions and remain “stable” at least duringthe timeframe of this assessment (to 2050).Literature CitedBart, J., S. Brown, B. Andres, R. Platte, and A. Manning.2012. North slope of Alaska. Ch. 4 in Bart, J. and V.Johnston, eds. Shorebirds in the North American Arctic:results of ten years of an arctic shorebird monitoringprogram. Studies in Avian Biology.Ims, R.A. and E. Fuglei. 2005. Trophic interaction cycles intundra ecosystems and the impact of climate change.BioScience 55: 311-322.Johnson, J.A., R.B. Lanctot, B.A. Andres, J.R. Bart, S.C.Brown, S.J. Kendall, and D.C. Payer. 2007. Distribution ofbreeding shorebirds on the Arctic Coastal Plain of Alaska.Arctic 60(3): 277-293.Jones, B.M., C.D. Arp, M.T. Jorgenson, K.M. Hinkel, J.A.Schmutz, and P.L. Flint. 2009. Increase in the rate anduniformity of coastline erosion in Arctic Alaska. Geophys.Res. Letters 36, L03503.Klima, J. and J.R. Jehl, Jr. 2012. Stilt Sandpiper (Calidrishimantopus), The Birds of North America Online (A.Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrievedfrom the Birds of North America Online:http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/341doi:10.2173/bna.341Morrison, R.I.G., B.J. McCaffery, R.E. Gill, S.K. Skagen,S.L. Jones, G.W. Page, C.L. Gratto-Trevor, and B.A.Andres. 2006. Population estimates of North Americanshorebirds, 2006. Wader Study Group Bulletin 111:67-85.Racine, C., R. Jandt, C. Meyers, and J. Dennis. 2004.Tundra fire and vegetation change along a hillslope on theSeward Peninsula, Alaska, USA. Arctic, Antarctic, andAlpine Research 36: 1-10.Taylor, A.R., R.B. Lanctot, A.N. Powell, F. Huettmann, D.Nigro and S.J. Kendall. 2010. Distribution and CommunityCharacteristics of Staging Shorebirds on the NorthernCoast of Alaska. Arctic 63(4): 451-467.The Wilderness Society (TWS) and Scenarios Network forAlaska Planning (SNAP), Projected (2001-2099: A1Bscenario) monthly total potential evapotranspiration from 5AR4 GCMs that perform best across Alaska and the Arctic,utilizing 2km downscaled temperature as model inputs.http://www.snap.uaf.edu/data.php.105

Buff-breasted Sandpiper (Tryngites subruficollis)Vulnerability: Moderately VulnerableConfidence: ModerateThe Buff-breasted Sandpiper is known for its dramatic lekking displays and breeds near arcticcoastlines from central Alaska into Canada (Lanctot and Laredo 1994). This species nests in avariety of habitats ranging from dry sedge tussock tundra to wet sedge-graminoid meadows andstrangmoor (Lanctot and Laredo 1994). Buff-breasted Sandpipers typically forage in areas ofdry, elevated tundra with sparse vegetation primarily consuming terrestrial arthropods (Lanctotand Laredo 1994). This species is one of the few shorebirds that do not show a seasonal shifttoward lowland, wet sites during brood-rearing (Jones 1980, R. Lanctot, unpublished data). BuffbreastedSandpipers spend winters on the pampas of South America. Current population estimatein North America is 30-56,000 with a declining trend (Lanctot et al. 2010, Morrison et al. 2006).historically experienced low variation in averageprecipitation across their relatively small Alaskabreeding range, suggesting sensitivity toincreased variation.S. Zack @ WCSRange: We modified the NatureServe rangemap to more closely match the more restrictedand coastally oriented breeding range depictedin the Birds of North America account (Lanctotand Laredo 1994) and as described in morerecent assessments (Johnson et al. 2007; Bart etal. 2012). Within its range, this species issparsely distributed (R. Lanctot, pers. comm.).Sea Level Rise: Because this species’ range isrestricted to coastal areas in Arctic Alaska, theywere ranked as being slightly vulnerable to bothsea-level rise and to limitations in expansion oftheir range northward.Physiological Hydro Niche: Because BuffbreastedSandpipers use wet tundra habitats tosome degree for nesting, foraging, and broodrearing(though less than many other shorebirds)they were ranked as “neutral-to-increased”vulnerability in the “physiological hydrologicniche” category (see table). Current annualmoisture balance predictions suggest negligibleincreases in drying for the foreseeable future(TWS and SNAP). Thus moisture balance, as anexposure factor (most influential on the“hydrological niche” sensitivity category), wasnot heavily weighted in the assessment.However, historical hydrological niche wasranked as “greatly increased” as they haveDisturbance Regime: Climate-mediateddisturbances, namely thermokarst, could bothcreate and destroy lake habitats through both icewedge degradation and draining of thaw lakes(Martin et al. 2009). Increased fire frequencycould reduce habitat suitability required by thespecies for nesting, although for the purpose ofthis assessment fires were considered to haveonly localized effects.Interactions with Other Species: Climatechange may reduce the amplitude of lemmingcycles (Ims and Fuglei 2005) and thus couldexpose this species to greater nest predationpressure if lemmings become less available asalternative prey.Genetic Variation: Shorebird species arebelieved to have low genetic variation (Bakerand Stauch 1988) making them potentially morevulnerable to certain climate-mediated events inthe near future (e.g. disease outbreaks).106

Buff-breasted Sandpiper (Tryngites subruficollis)Vulnerability: Moderately VulnerableConfidence: ModerateD=Decrease vulnerability, SD=Somewhat decrease vulnerability, N=Neutral effect, SI=Slightly increase vulnerability,I=Increase vulnerability,GI=Greatly increase vulnerability.Phenological Response: There is evidencesuggesting some shorebirds are able to trackchanges associated with a warming climate atleast in terms of nest initiation (J. Liebezeit andS. Zack, unpublished data; D. Ward, pers.comm.). However, it is unknown if they cansynchronize timing to shifting schedules oforganisms they rely on (e.g. invertebrate prey).In summary, this species’ combination ofpotential sources of vulnerability provided aranking of “moderately vulnerable”.Literature CitedBaker, A.J. and J.G. Strauch. 1988. Genetic variation anddifferentiation in shorebirds. – Acta XX CongressusInternationalis Ornithologicus 2: 1639–1645.Bart, J., S. Brown, B. Andres, R. Platte, and A. Manning.2012. North slope of Alaska. Ch. 4 in Bart, J. and V.Johnston, eds. Shorebirds in the North American Arctic:results of ten years of an arctic shorebird monitoringprogram. Studies in Avian Biology.Ims, R.A. and E. Fuglei. 2005. Trophic interaction cycles intundra ecosystems and the impact of climate change.BioScience 55: 311-322.Johnson, J.A., R.B. Lanctot, B.A. Andres, J.R. Bart, S.C.Brown, S.J. Kendall, and D.C. Payer. 2007. Distribution ofbreeding shorebirds on the Arctic Coastal Plain of Alaska.Arctic 60(3): 277-293.Jones, S.G. 1980. Abundance and habitat selection ofshorebirds at Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. Masters thesis,Brigham Young University, Salt Lake City, UT.Lanctot, R.B., J. Aldabe, J.B. Almeida, D. Blanco, J.P.Isacch, J. Jorgensen, S. Norland, P. Rocca, and K.M.Strum. 2010. Conservation Plan for the Buff–breastedSandpiper (Tryngites subruficollis). Version 1. 1. U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska, and ManometCenter for Conservation Sciences, Manomet, MA, USA.Lanctot, R.B. and C.D. Laredo. 1994. Buff-breastedSandpiper (Tryngites subruficollis). In The Birds of NorthAmerica, No. 91 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). Philadelphia:The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington D.C.: TheAmerican Ornithologists’ Union.Martin, P., J. Jenkins, F.J. Adams, M.T. Jorgenson, A.C.Matz, D.C. Payer, P.E. Reynolds, A.C. Tidwell, and J.R.Zelenak. 2009. Wildlife response to environmental Arcticchange: Predicting future habitats of Arctic Alaska. Reportof the Wildlife Response to Environmental Arctic Change(WildREACH), Predicting Future Habitats of Arctic AlaskaWorkshop, 17-18 November 2008. Fairbanks, Alaska,USFWS, 148 pages.Morrison, R.I.G., B.J. McCaffery, R.E. Gill, S.K. Skagen,S.L. Jones, G.W. Page, C.L. Gratto-Trevor, and B.A.Andres. 2006. Population estimates of North Americanshorebirds, 2006. Wader Study Group Bulletin 111:67-85.The Wilderness Society (TWS) and Scenarios Network forAlaska Planning (SNAP), Projected (2001-2099: A1Bscenario) monthly total potential evapotranspiration from 5AR4 GCMs that perform best across Alaska and the Arctic,utilizing 2km downscaled temperature as model inputs.http://www.snap.uaf.edu/data.php.107

Long-billed Dowitcher (Limnodromus scolopaceus)Vulnerability: Presumed StableConfidence: LowThe Long-billed Dowitcher is a medium-sized shorebird that commonly breeds on the ArcticCoastal Plain of Alaska. This species nests in higher densities in the western portion of thecoastal plain compared to the east (Johnson et al. 2007). They prefer wet grassy meadows fornesting often showing an affinity for sedge-willow, wet meadow or sedge marsh along drainagesor near ponds (Takekawa and Warnock 2000). Long-billed Dowitchers generally migrate west ofthe Mississippi River and winter primarily along the Pacific and Gulf Coasts of North Americainto Mexico (Takekawa and Warnock 2000). Current population estimate of the North Americanpopulation is 400,000 (Morrison et al. 2006).evapotranspiration suggest negligibleatmospheric-driven drying for the foreseeablefuture (TWS and SNAP). Thus atmosphericmoisture, as an exposure factor (most influentialon the “hydrological niche” sensitivitycategory), was not heavily weighted in theassessment.C. RuttRange: We used the extant NatureServe rangemap for the assessment as it closely matchedthat of the Birds of North America as well asother range descriptions (Johnson et al. 2007,Bart et al. 2012).Physiological Hydro Niche: Among the indirectexposure and sensitivity factors in theassessment (see table on next page), Long-billedDowitchers ranked “neutral”, in manycategories. In the physiological hydrologic nichecategory, the ranking ranged from neutral togreatly increased vulnerability. This rangerepresents uncertainty both in the direction andintensity of change in Arctic hydrology, as wellas in the effect this will have on dowitchers.Significant tundra drying could have aconsiderable negative effect, given that thisspecies primarily depends on wet tundra habitatsfor nesting and foraging in Alaska, as well as inother parts of their range (Takekawa andWarnock 2000). Current models for the AlaskanArctic generally project a greater potentialdrying in the western coastal plain(http://www.snap.uaf.edu/), which is also whereLong-billed Dowitchers’ have highest nestdensities (Johnson et al. 2007). Currentprojections of annual potentialDisturbance Regime: Disturbance regimes,specifically coastal erosion and increased coastalflooding (Jones et al. 2009) have the possibilityof negatively impacting both breeding and postbreedingdowitchers. However, such coastaldisturbance, as well as thermokarst-mediatedchanges on the landscape, could create newnesting and foraging habitat. As a case in point,along the coast, dowitchers are often associatedwith salt ponds (Taylor et al. 2010) and thuscould benefit from salt water intrusion fromstorm events. More tundra fires (Racine et al.2004) could theoretically reduce nesting andforaging habitat but tundra fires are relegated toinland areas at this point so they would likelynot significantly impact dowitcher habitats inAlaska soon.Dietary Versatility: This species has anomnivorous diet and current evidence suggeststhey take advantage of a wide variety of prey108

Long-billed Dowitcher (Limnodromus scolopaceus)Vulnerability: Presumed StableConfidence: LowD=Decrease vulnerability, SD=Somewhat decrease vulnerability, N=Neutral effect, SI=Slightly increase vulnerability,I=Increase vulnerability, GI=Greatly increase vulnerability.(Takekawa and Warnock 2000) so they wouldlikely not face any negative impacts from achanging prey base.Interactions with Other Species: Climatechange may reduce the amplitude of lemmingcycles (Ims and Fuglei 2005) and thus couldexpose this species to greater nest predationpressure if lemmings become less available asalternative prey. Also, this species willcommunally feed and flock with othershorebirds during breeding and migration, aswell as join other shorebird species in mobbingpotential predators during the nesting season(Takekawa and Warnock 2000). It is unknown ifthese behaviors increase species persistence.In summary, despite some vulnerability,overall, Long-billed Dowitchers will likely beable to compensate for climate-changes andremain “stable” at least during the timeframe ofthis assessment (next 50 years).Literature CitedBart, J., S. Brown, B. Andres, R. Platte, and A. Manning.2012. North slope of Alaska. Ch. 4 in Bart, J. and V.Johnston, eds. Shorebirds in the North American Arctic:results of ten years of an arctic shorebird monitoringprogram. Studies in Avian Biology.Ims, R.A. and E. Fuglei. 2005. Trophic interaction cyclesin tundra ecosystems and the impact of climate change.BioScience 55: 311-322.Johnson, J.A., R.B. Lanctot, B.A. Andres, J.R. Bart, S.C.Brown, S.J. Kendall, and D.C. Payer. 2007. Distribution ofbreeding shorebirds on the Arctic Coastal Plain of Alaska.Arctic 60(3): 277-293.Jones, B.M., C.D. Arp, M.T. Jorgenson, K.M. Hinkel, J.A.Schmutz, and P.L. Flint. 2009. Increase in the rate anduniformity of coastline erosion in Arctic Alaska.Geophysical Research Letters 36, L03503.Morrison, R.I.G., B.J. McCaffery, R.E. Gill, S.K. Skagen,S.L. Jones, G.W. Page, C.L. Gratto-Trevor, and B.A.Andres. 2006. Population estimates of North Americanshorebirds, 2006. Wader Study Group Bulletin 111:67-85.Racine, C., R. Jandt, C. Meyers, and J. Dennis. 2004.Tundra fire and vegetation change along a hillslope on theSeward Peninsula, Alaska, USA. Arctic, Antarctic, andAlpine Research 36: 1-10.Takekawa, J.T. and N. Warnock. 2000. Long-billedDowitcher (Limnodromus scolopaceus). In The Birds ofNorth America, No. 493 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). TheBirds of North America, Inc. Philadelphia, PA.Taylor, A.R., R.B. Lanctot, A.N. Powell, F. Huettmann, D.Nigro and S.J. Kendall. 2010. Distribution and CommunityCharacteristics of Staging Shorebirds on the NorthernCoast of Alaska. Arctic 63(4): 451-467.The Wilderness Society (TWS) and Scenarios Network forAlaska Planning (SNAP), Projected (2001-2099: A1Bscenario) monthly total potential evapotranspiration from 5AR4 GCMs that perform best across Alaska and the Arctic,utilizing 2km downscaled temperature as model inputs.http://www.snap.uaf.edu/data.php.109

Red-necked Phalarope (Phalaropus lobatus)Vulnerability: Presumed StableConfidence: ModerateThe Red-necked Phalarope commonly breeds in both the Brooks Range foothills and ArcticCoastal Plain of Alaska. In Alaska, this species typically nests in wet tundra near water’s edge.It differs from the Red Phalarope in that it breeds further inland and at higher elevations (Rubegaet al. 2000). Like other phalaropes, this species depends on aquatic food sources for much of itsdiet (Rubega et al. 2000). Red-necked Phalaropes spend winter at sea in tropical waters in largenumbers off the west coast of South America (Rubega et al. 2000). Current North Americanpopulation estimate is 2.5 million with a declining trend (Morrison et al. 2006).S. Zack @ WCSRange: We modified the NatureServe range mapfor the assessment to more closely match that ofthe Birds of North America (Rubega et al. 2000)and other habitat descriptions (Bart et al. 2012).It should be noted that this species occurs moreabundantly at inland wet tundra sites more thanalong the immediate coast (Johnson et al. 2007).Physiologic Hydro Niche: Among the indirectexposure and sensitivity factors in theassessment (see table on next page), the greatestpotential source of vulnerability for Red-neckedPhalaropes was in the “physiological hydrologicniche” category. Scores for physicalhydrological niche ranged from “slightly” to“greatly increased “vulnerability. This rangerepresents uncertainty both in the direction andintensity of change in Arctic hydrology, as wellas in the effect this will have on the phalarope. Ifsubstantial tundra drying occurs this speciescould experience a considerable negative impactas they primarily depend on wet tundra habitatsfor nesting and foraging in Alaska (Rubega et al.2000). Currently it is unknown how adaptablethis species would be in utilizing drier habitatsfor nesting. Current projections of annualpotential evapotranspiration suggest negligibleatmospheric-driven drying for the foreseeablefuture (TWS and SNAP), and its interaction withhydrologic processes is very poorly understood(Martin et al. 2009). Thus atmospheric moisture,as an exposure factor (most influential on the“hydrological niche” sensitivity category), wasnot heavily weighted in the assessment.Human Response to CC: Shoreline armoring byhumans in response to climate change couldreduce the availability of stopover or staginghabitats this species uses prior to fall migration.However, shoreline armoring would be limitedto existing communities or infrastructure, whichis limited in extent at present.Physical Habitat Restrictions: During postbreeding,Red Phalaropes will often use theleeward side of barrier islands for foraging(Taylor et al. 2010). These types of habitatfeatures are relatively uncommon and arevulnerable to disturbance. Coastal erosion andoverwash, in particular, have the potential tonegatively impact post-breeding phalaropes.Other disturbances, such as thermokarstmediatedchanges on the landscape, could bothcreate and destroy nesting and foraging habitats.More tundra fires could theoretically reducenesting and foraging habitat but tundra fires arerelegated to inland areas and are presently highlylocalized so they would likely not significantly110

Red-necked Phalarope (Phalaropus lobatus)Vulnerability: Presumed StableConfidence: ModerateD=Decrease vulnerability, SD=Somewhat decrease vulnerability, N=Neutral effect, SI=Slightly increase vulnerability,I=Increase vulnerability, GI=Greatly increase vulnerability.impact current phalarope habitats in Alaska inthe near future.Interactions with Other Species:Climate change may reduce the amplitude oflemming cycles (Ims and Fuglei 2005) and thuscould expose this species to greater nestpredation pressure if lemmings become lessavailable as alternative prey.Genetic Variation: Little is known about RedneckedPhalarope genetics although, in general,many shorebird species are believed to have lowgenetic variation (Baker and Stauch 1988).Phenological Response: Although notdemonstrated in phalaropes, there is evidencesuggesting shorebirds are able to trackphenological changes associated with a warmingclimate at least in terms of nest initiation (J.Liebezeit and S. Zack, unpublished data; D.Ward, pers. comm.). However, it is unknown ifthey can synchronize timing to other organismschanging schedules that they depend on (e.g.invertebrate prey).In summary, although ranked as “stable” inthis assessment, this species’ high dependenceon wet habitats for nesting, foraging, and postbreedingactivities, combined with othervulnerabilities may make it vulnerable ifgeomophological changes linked to permafrostultimately lead to drier conditions.Literature CitedBaker, A.J. and Strauch, J.G. 1988. Genetic variationand differentiation in shorebirds. – Acta XX CongressusInternationalis Ornithologicus 2: 1639–1645.Bart, J., S. Brown, B. Andres, R. Platte, and A. Manning.2012. North slope of Alaska. Ch. 4 in Bart, J. and V.Johnston, eds. Shorebirds in the North American Arctic:results of ten years of an arctic shorebird monitoringprogram. Studies in Avian Biology.Ims, R.A. and E. Fuglei. 2005. Trophic interaction cycles intundra ecosystems and the impact of climate change.BioScience 55: 311-322.Johnson, J.A., R.B. Lanctot, B.A. Andres, J.R. Bart, S.C.Brown, S.J. Kendall, and D.C. Payer. 2007. Distribution ofbreeding shorebirds on the Arctic Coastal Plain of Alaska.Arctic 60(3): 277-293.Morrison, R.I.G., B.J. McCaffery, R.E. Gill, S.K. Skagen,S.L. Jones, G.W. Page, C.L. Gratto-Trevor, and B.A.Andres. 2006. Population estimates of North Americanshorebirds, 2006. Wader Study Group Bulletin 111:67-85.Taylor, A.R., R.B. Lanctot, A.N. Powell, F. Huettmann, D.Nigro and S.J. Kendall. 2010. Distribution and CommunityCharacteristics of Staging Shorebirds on the NorthernCoast of Alaska. Arctic 63(4): 451-467.Tracy, D.M., D. Schamel, and J. Dale. 2002. Red Phalarope(Phalaropus fulicarius). In The Birds of North America,No. 698 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of NorthAmerica, Inc. Philadelphia, PA.The Wilderness Society (TWS) and Scenarios Network forAlaska Planning (SNAP), Projected (2001-2099: A1Bscenario) monthly total potential evapotranspiration from 5AR4 GCMs that perform best across Alaska and the Arctic,utilizing 2km downscaled temperature as model inputs.http://www.snap.uaf.edu/data.php.111

Red Phalarope (Phalaropus fulicarius)Vulnerability: Moderately VulnerableConfidence: LowThe Red Phalarope commonly breeds on the Arctic Coastal Plain of Alaska, but is moreabundant west of the Colville River primarily near the coast (Johnson et al. 2007). In Alaska, thisspecies almost exclusively nests in wet/moist polygonal or marshy tundra and are dependent onaquatic food sources for much of their diet (Tracy et al. 2002). Red Phalaropes are the mostpelagic of the three phalarope species and spend most of their winters in subtropical and tropicalseas near areas of nutrient upwelling (Tracy et al. 2002). Current population estimate of theNorth American population is 1.25 million with a suspected declining trend (Morrison et al.2006).S. Zack @ WCSRange: We used the extant Nature Serve rangemap for the assessment as it closely matchedthat of the Birds of North America (Tracy et al.2002) as well other range descriptions (Johnsonet al. 2007, Bart et al. 2012).Physiological Hydro Niche: Among the indirectexposure and sensitivity factors in theassessment (see table on next page), the greatestpotential source of vulnerability for RedPhalaropes was in the “physiological hydrologicniche” category. Scores for physicalhydrological niche ranged from “slightly” to“greatly increased “vulnerability. This rangerepresents uncertainty both in the direction andintensity of change in Arctic hydrology, as wellas in the effect this will have on the phalarope. Ifsubstantial tundra drying occurs this speciescould experience a considerable negative impactas they primarily depend on wet tundra habitatsfor nesting and foraging in Alaska as well as inother parts of their range (Tracy et al. 2002). It isunknown how adaptable this species would be inutilizing drier habitats for nesting. Currentprojections of annual potential evapotranspirationsuggest negligible atmosphericdrivendrying for the foreseeable future (TWSand SNAP), and its interaction with hydrologicprocesses is very poorly understood (Martin et112al. 2009). Thus atmospheric moisture, as anexposure factor, was not heavily weighted in theassessment.Physiological Thermal Niche: Red Phalaropewere also scored as having a “slight increase” invulnerability with respect to physiologicalthermal niche because they tend to breed closerto the coast which is cooler than interior habitatswhere the same breeding and foraging habitattypes are available. It is possible, phalaropes areresponding to some other factor, rather thanthermal conditions, in their coastal restriction.Disturbance Regime: During post-breeding,Red Phalaropes will often use the leeward sideof barrier islands for foraging (Taylor et al.2010). These types of habitat features arerelatively uncommon and are vulnerable todisturbances. In particular, coastal erosion andoverwash (Jones et al. 2009) related to morefrequent and severe storms may negativelyimpact post-breeding phalaropes. Otherdisturbance processes, such as thermokarstmediatedchanges on the landscape, could bothcreate and destroy nesting and foraging habitats.Interactions with Other Species: Climatechange may reduce the amplitude of lemmingcycles (Ims and Fuglei 2005) and thus could

Red Phalarope (Phalaropus fulicarius)Vulnerability: Moderately VulnerableConfidence: LowD=Decrease vulnerability, SD=Somewhat decrease vulnerability, N=Neutral effect, SI=Slightly increase vulnerability,I=Increase vulnerability, GI=Greatly increase vulnerability.expose this species to greater nest predationpressure if lemmings become less available asalternative prey. In addition, this species willcommunally feed and flock with othershorebirds during post- breeding staging (Tayloret al. 2010) but it is unknown if these behaviorsincrease species persistence.Phenological Response: There is evidencesuggesting some shorebirds are able to trackphenological changes associated with a warmingclimate at least in terms of nest initiation (J.Liebezeit and S. Zack, unpublished data; D.Ward, pers. comm.). However, it is unknown ifthey can synchronize timing to other organismschanging schedules that they depend on (e.g.invertebrate prey).In summary, as a result of the combinedpotential sources of vulnerability, Red Pharalopewas considered “moderately vulnerable” toclimate change in this assessment.Literature CitedBart, J., S. Brown, B. Andres, R. Platte, and A. Manning.2012. North slope of Alaska. Ch. 4 in Bart, J. and V.Johnston, eds. Shorebirds in the North American Arctic:results of ten years of an arctic shorebird monitoringprogram. Studies in Avian Biology.Ims, R.A. and E. Fuglei. 2005. Trophic interaction cycles intundra ecosystems and the impact of climate change.BioScience 55: 311-322.Johnson, J.A., R.B. Lanctot, B.A. Andres, J.R. Bart, S.C.Brown, S.J. Kendall, and D.C. Payer. 2007. Distribution ofbreeding shorebirds on the Arctic Coastal Plain of Alaska.Arctic 60(3): 277-293.Jones, B.M., C.D. Arp, M.T. Jorgenson, K.M. Hinkel, J.A.Schmutz, and P.L. Flint. 2009. Increase in the rate anduniformity of coastline erosion in Arctic Alaska. Geophys.Res. Letters 36, L03503.Morrison, R.I.G., B.J. McCaffery, R.E. Gill, S.K. Skagen,S.L. Jones, G.W. Page, C.L. Gratto-Trevor, and B.A.Andres. 2006. Population estimates of North Americanshorebirds, 2006. Wader Study Group Bulletin 111:67-85.Taylor, A.R., R.B. Lanctot, A.N. Powell, F. Huettmann, D.Nigro and S.J. Kendall. 2010. Distribution and CommunityCharacteristics of Staging Shorebirds on the NorthernCoast of Alaska. Arctic 63(4): 451-467.Tracy, D.M., D. Schamel, and J. Dale. 2002. Red Phalarope(Phalaropus fulicarius). In The Birds of North America,No. 698 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of NorthAmerica, Inc. Philadelphia, PA.The Wilderness Society (TWS) and Scenarios Network forAlaska Planning (SNAP), Projected (2001-2099: A1Bscenario) monthly total potential evapotranspiration from 5AR4 GCMs that perform best across Alaska and the Arctic,utilizing 2km downscaled temperature as model inputs.http://www.snap.uaf.edu/data.php.113

Glaucous Gull (Larus hyperboreus)Vulnerability: Presumed StableConfidence: ModerateThe Glaucous Gull is a large gull with a circumpolar distribution. In Alaska, it is the mostcommon gull along Arctic Ocean coastal areas. Like other gulls, this generalist species hasbenefited from the presence of humans in the arctic and readily utilizes human-subsidized foodresources (e.g. edible garbage, roadkills; Day 1998). Glaucous Gulls take advantage of a widevariety of natural prey as well and are a noted nest predator. Alaskan populations of this specieswinter in the Pribilof and Aleutian islands of Alaska and in decreasing numbers down to coastalOregon and California (Denlinger 2006). The global population is estimated at 340,000-2,400,000 (Wetlands International 2006).S. Zack @ WCSRange: We used the extant NatureServe rangemap for this assessment as it closely matched theBirds of North America (Gilchrist 2001) andother range descriptions (Johnson and Herter1989).Physical Habitat Restrictions: Among theindirect exposure and sensitivity factors (seetable on next page), Glaucous Gull rankedneutral in most categories with the exception ofphysiological hydrologic niche for which theywere evaluated to have a “neutral to greatlyincreased” vulnerability. This response wasdriven primarily by their common use of smallislands in shallow ponds and lakes for nesting toescape fox and bear predation (Gilchrist 2001).If tundra lakes drain due to permafrost meltingand/or if less surface water is available,Glaucous Gulls could become limited by nestinghabitat or at least experience years of lownesting success more frequently as predationrates could increase.Physiological Hydro Niche: The wide range inresponses in this category captures thesignificant uncertainty both in the direction andintensity of change in Arctic hydrology, as wellas in the effect this will have on gulls. Currentprojections of annual potentialevapotranspiration suggest negligibleatmospheric-driven drying for the foreseeablefuture (TWS and SNAP). Thus atmosphericmoisture, as an exposure factor (most influentialon the “hydrological niche” sensitivitycategory), was not heavily weighted in theassessment.Human Response to CC: Increased humanactivity and infrastructure associated withclimate change mitigation could benefitGlaucous Gulls as witnessed by the influence ofcurrent human developments in the region (Day1998). Glaucous Gull reproductive success isoften higher in human developed areas in theArctic (Weiser and Powell 2010). Melting seaice will likely allow for additional offshoredrilling and new shipping routes – both of whichhave the potential to benefit Glaucous Gulls ifthey provide a new at-sea source of food(garbage). This could improve subadult /nonbreeding survival rates and result in anincreased population in Arctic Alaska.Physiological Thermal Niche: Glaucous Gullsare coastally oriented (the coast being coolerthan inland areas). The lakes/ponds on whichthey nest are also quite cold with water114

Glaucous Gull (Larus hyperboreus)Vulnerability: Presumed StableConfidence: ModerateD=Decrease vulnerability, SD=Somewhat decrease vulnerability, N=Neutral effect, SI=Slightly increase vulnerability,I=Increase vulnerability, GI=Greatly increase vulnerability.temperatures barely above 0° C for most of thesummer. Glaucous Gulls are thermoneutral to 2°C (Gabrielsen and Mehlum 1989) so it is notsurprising that these cold-adapted birds wouldbe uncomfortable in warm weather. This couldpotentially change their distribution if localtemperatures increase although it is unlikely thatsummer coastal temperatures would change somuch as to eliminate them from arctic Alaska.Phenological Response: Currently, there are nolong-term data sets to provide sufficientinformation on Glaucous Gull phenologicalresponse to climate change in the arctic and so itis unknown how they will respond to changingphenologies.In summary, this vulnerability assessmentsuggests that Glaucous Gulls will remain stablein the region with regard to climate changeimpacts and potentially even benefit from awarming climate.Literature CitedDay, R.H. 1998. Predator populations and predationintensity on tundra-nesting birds in relation to humandevelopment. Fairbanks: Unpublished report by ABR, Inc.for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.Gabrielsen, G.W., and F. Mehlum. 1989. Thermoregulationand energetics of arctic seabirds. Pp. 137-145 in C. Bech,and R.E. Reinertsen, editors. Physiology of cold adaptationin birds. Plenum Press, NY.Gilchrist, H.G. 2001. Glaucous Gull (Larus hyperboreus).In: The Birds of North America No. 573 (Poole, A. andGill, F. eds.), Philadelphia, and American Ornithologists'Union, Washington D.C.: Academy of Natural Sciences.Denlinger, L.M. 2006. Alaska Seabird Information Series.Unpubl. Rept., U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv., Migr. BirdManage., Nongame Program, Anchorage, AK.Johnson, S.R. and D.R. Herter. 1989. The birds of theBeaufort Sea, Anchorage: British Petroleum Exploration(Alaska), Inc.Martin, P., J. Jenkins, F.J. Adams, M.T. Jorgenson, A.C.Matz, D.C. Payer, P.E. Reynolds, A.C. Tidwell, and J.R.Zelenak. 2009. Wildlife response to environmental Arcticchange: Predicting future habitats of Arctic Alaska. Reportof the Wildlife Response to Environmental Arctic Change(WildREACH), Predicting Future Habitats of Arctic AlaskaWorkshop, 17-18 November 2008. Fairbanks, Alaska,USFWS, 148 pages.Weiser, E., and A.N. Powell. 2010. Does garbage in thediet improve reproductive output of Glaucous Gulls?Condor 112:530-538.Wetlands International. 2006. Waterbird populationestimates (Eds. S. Delany and D.A. Scott), fourth edition.The Wilderness Society (TWS) and Scenarios Network forAlaska Planning (SNAP), Projected (2001-2099: A1Bscenario) monthly total potential evapotranspiration from 5AR4 GCMs that perform best across Alaska and the Arctic,utilizing 2km downscaled temperature as model inputs.http://www.snap.uaf.edu/data.php.115

Sabine’s Gull (Xema sabini)Vulnerability: Presumed StableConfidence: Very HighA gull of the Subarctic and Arctic, the Sabine’s Gull, with its distinctive plumage, commonlynests in the Alaskan Arctic, often in association with Arctic Terns (Sterna paradisaea). Thisspecies typically nests near fresh water in swampy low-lying tundra, in tidal marshes, and onsmall coastal islands (Day et al. 2001). During the breeding season, aquatic insects and otherinvertebrates are their most important food items (Day et al. 2001). Sabine’s Gulls spend theirwinters offshore primarily in subtropical and tropical coastal upwelling zones (Day et al. 2001).The northern Alaska population estimate is rarely surveyed extensively. Two surveys in 1996indicate a population somewhere between 6,000 and 10,000 (Day et al. 2001).S. Zack @ WCSpotential drying trend could also be offset bychanges in surface hydrology that create morenesting and foraging habitat (Martin et al. 2009).Physical Habitat Restrictions: Sabine’s Gullsare not associated with any uncommongeological features.Dietary Versatility: They have relatively highdietary versatility, allowing flexibility inresponse to any climate-mediated changes thatwould affect these aspects of this species lifehistory.Range: For the CCVI, we adjusted theNatureServe Map to reflect the range mapdepicted in the Birds of North America accountas the latter more accurately represented thisspecies’ range based on multiple accounts andexpert opinion (Johnson and Herter 1989, Day etal. 2001, Bart et al. 2012, I. Stenhouse, pers.comm.).Physiological Hydro Niche: Among the indirectexposure and sensitivity factors in theassessment (see table on next page), Sabine’sGull ranked neutral in most categories with theexception of physiological hydrologic niche, forwhich they were evaluated to have a “slightly togreatly increased” vulnerability. This responsewas driven primarily by this species reliance onsmall water bodies for foraging and for selectingnest sites (Stenhouse et al. 2005). Currentprojections of annual potential evapotranspirationsuggest negligible atmosphericdrivendrying for the foreseeable future (TWSand SNAP). Thus atmospheric moisture, as anexposure factor (most influential on the“hydrological niche” sensitivity category), wasnot heavily weighted in the assessment. AnyInteractions with Other Species: Sabine’s Gullsare described as nesting only in association withArctic Terns in some places (i.e. Greenland). Inother areas, however, such as eastern CanadianArctic and in Arctic Alaska, the association withArctic Terns is less strict. The interactionbetween these species may be related tocombined nest defense however it is unknown ifsuch an association would be impacted byclimate change or result in any net benefit orimpact (I. Stenhouse, pers. comm.).116

Sabine’s Gull (Xema sabini)Vulnerability: Presumed StableConfidence: Very HighD=Decrease vulnerability, SD=Somewhat decrease vulnerability, N=Neutral effect, SI=Slightly increase vulnerability,I=Increase vulnerability, GI=Greatly increase vulnerability.Phenological Response: Little is known aboutSabine’s Gull genetics and there are currently nolong-term data sets for this species that indicatea change in phenology.In summary, the results suggests Sabine’sGull will likely be able to adjust to climate andassociated habitat changes predicted to occur inArctic Alaska, at least during the 50 yeartimeline of this assessment.Literature CitedBart, J., S. Brown, B. Andres, R. Platte, and A. Manning.2012. North slope of Alaska. Ch. 4 in Bart, J. and V.Johnston, eds. Shorebirds in the North American Arctic:results of ten years of an arctic shorebird monitoringprogram. Studies in Avian Biology.Day, R.H., I.J. Stenhouse, and H.G. Gilchrist. 2001Sabine’s Gull (Xema sabini). In: The Birds of NorthAmerica No. 593 (Poole, A. and Gill, F. eds.), The Birds ofNorth America, Inc. Philadelphia, PA.Johnson, S.R. and D.R. Herter. 1989. The birds of theBeaufort Sea, Anchorage: British Petroleum Exploration(Alaska), Inc.Martin, P., J. Jenkins, F.J. Adams, M.T. Jorgenson, A.C.Matz, D.C. Payer, P.E. Reynolds, A.C. Tidwell, and J.R.Zelenak. 2009. Wildlife response to environmental Arcticchange: Predicting future habitats of Arctic Alaska. Reportof the Wildlife Response to Environmental Arctic Change(WildREACH), Predicting Future Habitats of Arctic AlaskaWorkshop, 17-18 November 2008. Fairbanks, Alaska,USFWS, 148 pages.Stenhouse, I.J., H.G. Gilchrist, and W.A. Montevecchi.2005. Factors affecting nest-site selection of Sabine’s Gullsin the eastern Canadian Arctic. Canadian Journal ofZoology 83: 1240-1245.The Wilderness Society (TWS) and Scenarios Network forAlaska Planning (SNAP), Projected (2001-2099: A1Bscenario) monthly total potential evapotranspiration from 5AR4 GCMs that perform best across Alaska and the Arctic,utilizing 2km downscaled temperature as model inputs.http://www.snap.uaf.edu/data.php.117

Arctic Tern (Sterna paradisaea)Vulnerability: Presumed StableStable Confidence: ModerateThe Arctic Tern completes annual epic migrations from pole to pole covering at least 40,000 kmon their round-trip journeys. They breed throughout Arctic Alaska from boreal to tundra habitatsand have their highest nesting densities inland (Lensink 1984). Arctic Terns typically choose nestsites on open ground near water and often on small islands in ponds and lakes (Hatch 2002).Arctic terns consume a wide variety of fish and invertebrate prey, fish are particularly importantduring the breeding season for feeding young (Hatch 2002). This species spends their winters(austral summers) in offshore waters near Antarctica (Hatch 2002). Alaskan Arctic Coastal Plainpopulation estimates from 2011 range from 7-12,000 (Larned et al. 2012).including warmer boreal environs so there is noplausible reason to think they could not adaptphysiologically to a warmer Arctic environmentin the foreseeable future.Dietary Versatility: Although small fish makeup a significant part of the Arctic Tern, they alsoeat many invertebrates and so exhibit enoughflexibility in their diet that they would likely beable to cope with climate-mediated changes inprey base.K. PietrzakRange: We used the extant Nature Serve mapfor the assessment as it matched other range mapsources and descriptions (Johnson and Herter1989, Hatch 2002).Physiological Hydrologic Niche: Among theindirect exposure and sensitivity factors in theassessment (see table on next page), ArcticTerns ranked neutral in most categories with theexception of physiological hydrologic niche forwhich they were evaluated to have a “slightly togreatly increased” vulnerability. This responsewas driven primarily by this species reliance onwetland and shallow water bodies for breedingand foraging. An arctic drying trend could resultin loss of small water bodies. However, thisdrying trend could be offset by changes insurface hydrology that create more nesting andforaging habitat (Martin et al. 2009). Currentprojections of annual potential evapotranspirationsuggest negligible atmosphericdrivendrying for the foreseeable future (TWSand SNAP). Thus atmospheric moisture, as anexposure factor was not heavily weighted in theassessment.Physiological Thermal Niche: Arctic Ternsoccur throughout Alaska in a variety of habitatsDisturbance Regime: Climate-mediateddisturbance processes, namely thermokarst,could both create and destroy lake habitatsthrough both ice wedge degradation anddraining of thaw lakes (Martin et al. 2009). Lossof both coastal and inland nesting and foraginghabitats by coastal erosion, and an increase insea and riverine levels could have negativeimpacts although in the foreseeable future theseimpacts will likely be localized.Phenological Response: Despite the existenceof long-term data sets for Arctic Terns in118

Arctic Tern (Sterna paradisaea)Vulnerability: Presumed StableStable Confidence: ModerateD=Decreasevulnerability, SD=Somewhat decrease vulnerability, N=Neutral effect, SI=Slightly increase vulnerability,I=Increase vulnerability, GI=Greatly increase vulnerability.northern Alaska (Larned et al. 2012) anassessment of phenology-related variables hasnot been a part of that effort or has not beenexamined so it is currently unknown how thisspecies will respond to changing bioticschedules.Interactions with Other Species: Fox nestpredation could increase as the availability of“island” nesting sites could be more limited ifshallower ponds dry out from a region-widetundra drying trend.In summary, the results of this vulnerabilityassessment indicate that the Arctic Tern willlikely be adaptable enough to cope with climatechange and associated habitat changes predictedto occur in Arctic Alaska, at least during the 50year timeline of this assessment.Literature CitedHatch, J.J. 2002. Arctic Tern (Sterna paradisaea), TheBirds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca:Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds ofNorth America Online:http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/707doi:10.2173/bna.707Johnson, S.R. and D.R. Herter. 1989. The birds of theBeaufort Sea, Anchorage: British Petroleum Exploration(Alaska), Inc.Larned, W., R. Stehn, and R. Platte. 2012. Waterfowlbreeding population survey, Arctic Coastal Plain, Alaska,2011. Unpublished Report, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Anchorage, AK. 51pp.Lensink, C.J. 1984. The status and conservation of seabirdsin Alaska. Pp. 13-27 in Status and conservation of theworld’s seabirds. (J.P. Croxall, P.G.H. Evans, and R.W.Schreiber, eds.) International Council of Bird Preservation,Cambridge, UK.Martin, P., J. Jenkins, F.J. Adams, M.T. Jorgenson, A.C.Matz, D.C. Payer, P.E. Reynolds, A.C. Tidwell, and J.R.Zelenak. 2009. Wildlife response to environmental Arcticchange: Predicting future habitats of Arctic Alaska. Reportof the Wildlife Response to Environmental Arctic Change(WildREACH), Predicting Future Habitats of Arctic AlaskaWorkshop, 17-18 November 2008. Fairbanks, Alaska,USFWS, 148 pages.The Wilderness Society (TWS) and Scenarios Network forAlaska Planning (SNAP), Projected (2001-2099: A1Bscenario) monthly total potential evapotranspiration from 5AR4 GCMs that perform best across Alaska and the Arctic,utilizing 2km downscaled temperature as model inputs.http://www.snap.uaf.edu/data.php.119

Pomarine Jaeger (Stercorarius pomarinus)Vulnerability: Moderately vulnerableConfidence: LowThe Pomarine Jaeger, the largest of the three jaegers, prowls the arctic tundra subsisting on a dietcomposed almost entirely of brown lemmings (Lemmus trimucronatus). This species presumablynests only in years when lemmings are abundant (Wiley and Lee 2000). Their breeding range inAlaska is relatively close to the coast, typically nesting in wet tundra habitats, the same habitatsas those utilized by their favorite prey. Pomarine Jaegers may forgo breeding in low lemmingyears and prematurely return to their tropical and sub-tropical pelagic wintering grounds (Wileyand Lee 2000). Current global population estimate is 250,000 – 3 million individuals (BirdLifeInternational 2012).S. Zack @ WCSRange: For the assessment, we used a rangemap modified from the NatureServe map thatmore closely approximated the range depicted inthe Birds of North America species account(Wiley and Lee 2000). We also included aninland breeding range extension in theTeshekpuk Lake region (J. Liebezeit,unpublished data).Interactions with Other Species: In theassessment, Pomarine Jaegers were ranked asparticularly vulnerable (“increased” or “greatlyincreased”) to climate change impacts for threecategories which are tied to their dependence ontheir main source of food - brown lemmings (seetable below). They have low dietary versatilityand their “interaction” with brown lemmings interms of being dependent on their cyclicalpopulation booms could potentially make themvulnerable to climate change. In fact, there issome concern that climate change could disruptlemming cycles (Ims and Fuglei 2005). Theresulting repercussion on Pomarine Jaegers isunknown but could be detrimental.Physiologic Hydro Niche: Because Pomarinejaegers nest in wet habitats the physiologicalhydrologic niche category also scored highlybecause of the potential for a drying trend in thearctic which could result in a net loss of wettundra habitats. Current projections of annualpotential evapo-transpiration suggest negligibleatmospheric-driven drying for the foreseeablefuture (TWS and SNAP), and its interaction withhydrologic processes is very poorly understood(Martin et al. 2009). Thus atmospheric moisture,as an exposure factor, was not heavily weightedin the assessment. This species’ “preference” forwet habitats may be more related to being closeto their prey base rather than to a physiologicalneed. Unfortunately, little is known about theirnesting habitat requirements or their flexibilityin nest site selection (Wiley and Lee 2000).120

Pomarine Jaeger (Stercorarius pomarinus)Vulnerability: Moderately vulnerableConfidence: LowD=Decrease vulnerability, SD=Somewhat decrease vulnerability, N=Neutral effect, SI=Slightly increase vulnerability,I=Increase vulnerability, GI=Greatly increase vulnerability.Physical Habitat Restrictions: Because thisspecies often breeds relatively close to the coastthey could be constrained in nesting habitat bythe natural barrier of the Arctic Ocean if climatechange results in a net loss of wet tundra habitats(and the associated lemmings) on the coastalplain.Phenological Response: Currently there isinsufficient information on how or if specificclimate-mediated disturbance regimes willimpact this species. Certainly, disturbances thatwould impact lemming populations (e.g.increasing snow depth) would, in turn, likelyimpact Pomarine Jaegers.In summary, the combined dependence ofPomarine Jaegers on one primary food source,brown lemmings (which themselves, could bevulnerable to a warming climate), use of coastalareas, reliance on wet habitats, and other factors,resulted in a “moderately vulnerable” rankingfor this species in this assessment.Literature CitedBirdLife International 2012. Stercorarius longicaudus. In:IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.Version 2012.1. .Ims, R.A. and E. Fuglei. 2005. Trophic interaction cycles intundra ecosystems and the impact of climate change.BioScience 55: 311-322.The Wilderness Society (TWS) and Scenarios Network forAlaska Planning (SNAP), Projected (2001-2099: A1Bscenario) monthly total potential evapotranspiration from 5AR4 GCMs that perform best across Alaska and the Arctic,utilizing 2km downscaled temperature as model inputs.http://www.snap.uaf.edu/data.php.Wiley, R.H., and D.S. Lee. 2000. Pomarine Jaeger(Stercorarius pomarinus). In The Birds of North America,No. 483. (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of NorthAmerica, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.121

Parasitic Jaeger (Stercorarius parasiticus)Vulnerability: Presumed StableConfidence: HighThe Parasitic Jaeger, unlike the two other jaegers (the Long-tailed and Pomarine Jaegers), has avaried diet and is not closely tied to lemmings as a food source (Wiley and Lee 1999). Thisspecies utilizes both low-lying marshy tundra and drier tussock-heath tundra for nesting sites(Wiley and Lee 1999). Parastic Jaegers often hunt for fledgling and adult birds and are believedto be an important nest predator (Wiley and Lee 1999). Like the other jaeger species, ParasiticJaegers winter in offshore tropical and sub-tropical oceans. The current global populationestimate is 500,000 - 10,000,000 (BirdLife International 2012). There is no Alaska populationestimate available.W. GoldenbergRange: We used the extant NatureServe rangemap for the assessment as it closely matched theBirds of North America and other rangedescriptions (Johnson and Herter 1989, Bart etal. 2012).Physiological Hydro Niche: For most of theindirect exposure and sensitivity categories inthe assessment, Parasitic Jaegers were rankedwith a neutral response (see table on next page).Only in one category (Physiological hydroniche), was this species ranked with the potentialfor increased vulnerability as a drying trend inthe arctic could negatively impact this species.Parasitic Jaegers breed and hunt in tundrahabitats ranging the full spectrum from wet todry. So, while they may be impacted in thewetter habitats by a drying trend, it is uncertainwhether that would have an overall negativeeffect on the species. Current projections ofannual potential evapo-transpiration suggestnegligible atmospheric-driven drying for theforeseeable future (TWS and SNAP), and itsinteraction with hydrologic processes is verypoorly understood (Martin et al. 2009). Thusatmospheric moisture, as an exposure factor(most influential on the “hydrological niche”sensitivity category), was not heavily weightedin the assessment.Disturbance Regimes: Climate-related shifts indisturbance regimes (e.g. greater storm severity[Jones et al. 2009], disease outbreaks) andclimate change mitigation and adaptationactivities in the region will likely not occur at alarge enough scale to impact Parasitic Jaegerpopulations in Alaska.Dietary Versatility: Unlike the other jaegerspecies, the varied and flexible diet of ParasiticJaegers may enable it to cope with any climatemediatedchanges in prey base (Ims and Fuglei2005).Phenological Response & Genetic variation:There currently exists little or no informationregarding the genetic or phenological traits that122

Parasitic Jaeger (Stercorarius parasiticus)Vulnerability: Presumed StableConfidence: HighD=Decrease vulnerability, SD=Somewhat decrease vulnerability, N=Neutral effect, SI=Slightly increase vulnerability,I=Increase vulnerability, GI=Greatly increase vulnerability.would make Parasitic Jaegers more or lessvulnerable to a warming climate.In summary, this assessment suggests thatParasitic Jaegers may be the most resilient ofjaeger species in coping with potential impactsassociated with climate change and within thiscontext will likely remain stable, at least duringthe time frame of this assessment.Literature CitedBart, J., S. Brown, B. Andres, R. Platte, and A. Manning.2012. North slope of Alaska. Ch. 4 in Bart, J. and V.Johnston, eds. Shorebirds in the North American Arctic:results of ten years of an arctic shorebird monitoringprogram. Studies in Avian Biology.BirdLife International 2012. Stercorarius longicaudus. In:IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.Version 2012.1. .Johnson, S.R. and D.R. Herter. 1989. The birds of theBeaufort Sea, Anchorage: British Petroleum Exploration(Alaska), Inc.Jones, B.M., C.D. Arp, M.T. Jorgenson, K.M. Hinkel, J.A.Schmutz, and P.L. Flint. 2009. Increase in the rate anduniformity of coastline erosion in Arctic Alaska. Geophys.Res. Letters 36, L03503.The Wilderness Society (TWS) and Scenarios Network forAlaska Planning (SNAP), Projected (2001-2099: A1Bscenario) monthly total potential evapotranspiration from 5AR4 GCMs that perform best across Alaska and the Arctic,utilizing 2km downscaled temperature as model inputs.http://www.snap.uaf.edu/data.php.Wiley, R.H., and D.S. Lee. 1999. Parasitic Jaeger(Stercorarius parasiticus). In The Birds of North America,No. 445. (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of NorthAmerica, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.Ims, R.A. and E. Fuglei. 2005. Trophic interaction cycles intundra ecosystems and the impact of climate change.BioScience 55: 311-322.123

Long-tailed Jaeger (Stercorarius longicaudus)Vulnerability: Presumed StableConfidence: HighThe Long-tailed Jaeger, the most sleek and graceful of the three jaegers, is a common bird inArctic Alaska. Similar to the larger Pomarine Jaeger, this species diet consists primarily oflemmings and voles, however, unlike the Pomarine Jaeger, Long-tailed Jaegers can withstandcyclical rodent crashes as they can readily switch to other food sources (Wiley and Lee 1998).The Long-tailed Jaegers breeding range in Alaska extends more deeply into the interior thaneither the Pomarine or Parasitic Jaeger and typically nests in drier upland tundra (Wiley and Lee1998). The current global population estimate is >150,000 – 5,000,000 (BirdLife International2012). There is no Alaska population estimate available.S. Zack @ WCSRange: We used the extant NatureServe rangemap for the assessment as it closely matched theBirds of North America (Wiley and Lee 1998)and other range descriptions (Johnson andHerter 1989, Bart et al. 2012).For most of the indirect exposure andsensitivity categories in the assessment, LongtailedJaegers were ranked with a neutralresponse (see table on next page). Only in onecategory (Physiological hydro niche), was thisspecies ranked with the potential for significantvulnerability to climate change as wetter tundrahabitats may be impacted by a drying trend.Physiological Hydro Niche: Long-tailed Jaegersuse wet tundra habitats for foraging, particularlynon-breeding individuals that congregate aroundedges of ponds or swamps where arthropods arenumerous (Wiley and Lee 1998). Alsosometimes they will nest near water bodies.However, in general, they tend to nest and huntmore often in drier tundra. Therefore, any tundradrying will likely have a minimal impact.Current projections of annual potential evapotranspirationsuggest negligible atmosphericdrivendrying for the foreseeable future (TWSand SNAP), and its interaction with hydrologicprocesses is very poorly understood (Martin etal. 2009). Thus atmospheric moisture, as anexposure factor was not heavily weighted in theassessment.Human Response to CC: Long-tailed Jaegers(mostly non-breeders) do utilize coastal habitatsduring the breeding season to some extent.Human response to climate change related to theextension of levees and coastline hardening mayoccur but the extent of these activities will belocalized and thus unlikely to significantlyimpact Long-tailed Jaeger populations.Disturbance Regime: In terms of disturbanceregime, the expected increase in storm intensitycould result in deeper snow cover (Martin et al.2009). Early arriving jaegers could havedifficulty foraging for their key lemming andvole prey. However, because of their ability toswitch to other prey, this will likely not be asignificant problem for them. Unlike, PomarineJaeger’s dependency on lemmings the LongtailedJaeger will likely be able to cope withclimate-mediated changes in lemmingabundance and cycling (Ims and Fuglei 2005).124

Long-tailed Jaeger (Stercorarius longicaudus)Vulnerability: Presumed StableConfidence: HighD=Decrease vulnerability, SD=Somewhat decrease vulnerability, N=Neutral effect, SI=Slightly increase vulnerability,I=Increase vulnerability, GI=Greatly increase vulnerability.Physiological Thermal Niche: Long-tailedJaegers breeding range extends farther into theinterior than the other Jaegers, suggesting theycan withstand higher temperatures and thuspossess greater thermal tolerance.Phenological Response: There currently existslittle or no information regarding the genetic orphenological traits that would make Long-tailedJaegers more or less vulnerable to changingclimate conditions.In summary, although Long-tailed Jaegersmay experience some negative impacts fromclimate change, overall their use of variednesting and foraging habitats, their dietaryversatility, and large geographic range willlikely enable this species to remain stable for thenear future.Literature CitedBart, J., S. Brown, B. Andres, R. Platte, and A. Manning.2012. North slope of Alaska. Ch. 4 in Bart, J. and V.Johnston, eds. Shorebirds in the North American Arctic:results of ten years of an arctic shorebird monitoringprogram. Studies in Avian Biology.BirdLife International 2012. Stercorarius longicaudus. In:IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.Version 2012.1. .Ims, R.A. and E. Fuglei. 2005. Trophic interaction cycles intundra ecosystems and the impact of climate change.BioScience 55: 311-322.Johnson, S.R. and D.R. Herter. 1989. The birds of theBeaufort Sea, Anchorage: British Petroleum Exploration(Alaska), Inc.Martin, P., J. Jenkins, F.J. Adams, M.T. Jorgenson, A.C.Matz, D.C. Payer, P.E. Reynolds, A.C. Tidwell, and J.R.Zelenak. 2009. Wildlife response to environmental Arcticchange: Predicting future habitats of Arctic Alaska. Reportof the Wildlife Response to Environmental Arctic Change(WildREACH), Predicting Future Habitats of Arctic AlaskaWorkshop, 17-18 November 2008. Fairbanks, Alaska,USFWS, 148 pages.The Wilderness Society (TWS) and Scenarios Network forAlaska Planning (SNAP), Projected (2001-2099: A1Bscenario) monthly total potential evapotranspiration from 5AR4 GCMs that perform best across Alaska and the Arctic,utilizing 2km downscaled temperature as model inputs.http://www.snap.uaf.edu/data.php.Wiley, R.H., and D.S. Lee. 1998. Long-tailed Jaeger(Stercorarius longicaudus). In The Birds of North America,No. 483. (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of NorthAmerica, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.125

Snowy Owl (Bubo scandiacus)Vulnerability: Presumed StableConfidence: HighThe Snowy Owl, a conspicuous and majestic bird of the circumpolar arctic, is an efficient hunterof small mammals in tundra environs. In years of high lemming numbers they will focus on thisabundant food source but will readily switch to a wide variety of other prey when lemmings arescarce (Parmelee 1992). Their breeding range in Alaska is generally restricted to the ArcticCoastal Plain, typically nesting in more upland tundra habitats, although they often, though notexclusively, forage in wetter tundra (Parmelee 1992). Snowy Owls are unpredictable migrantsand will sometimes “invade” portions of southern Canada and the northern contiguous US, inwinters when lemmings are scarce in the Arctic. The current global population is estimated at300,000 (Rich et al. 2004).drier upland tundra. Because of this, they areunlikely to be significantly affected by a tundradrying trend in the arctic which could result in anet loss of wet tundra habitats. Currentprojections of annual potential evapotranspirationsuggest negligible atmosphericdrivendrying for the foreseeable future (TWSand SNAP). Thus moisture balance, as anexposure factor (most influential on the“hydrological niche” sensitivity category), wasnot heavily weighted in the assessment.C. RuttRange: We used the extant Nature Serve rangemap for the assessment as it closely matched theBirds of North America (Parmelee 1992) andother range descriptions (Johnson and Herter1989).Interactions with Other Species: Snowy owlnesting seems to be tied to some degree tolemming population booms, so reductions inbrown lemmings or less frequent populationbooms (through habitat change and/or increasedicing events; see Ims and Fuglei 2005) couldimpact nest survivorship of snowy owls,distribution, and abundance. Thus, in thisassessment, related categories (“dietaryversatility”, “species interaction”) were rankedas “slightly increased” vulnerability. However,Snowy Owl’s ability to switch to a variety ofother prey sources suggest that it may be able tocompensate for such changes with little negativeeffect.Physiological Hydro Niche: Similarly, althoughSnowy Owls do utilize wet tundra habitats forforaging, sometimes extensively, they exploitdrier tundra habitats as well, typically nesting inDisturbance Regime: In terms of climatemediateddisturbances, deeper snow andsubsequent flooding in early spring could reducehunting success. Additionally, increased fires(Racine et al. 2004) could reduce availablehunting and nesting areas but it is likely thiswould not result in significant impacts as theeffects of these disturbances would be localized.However, over time (probably >50 years to besignificant) increased fires could accelerateshrubification (Tape et al. 2006) reducing habitatquality.126

Snowy Owl (Bubo scandiacus)Vulnerability: Presumed StableConfidence: HighD=Decrease vulnerability, SD=Somewhat decrease vulnerability, N=Neutral effect, SI=Slightly increase vulnerability,I=Increase vulnerability, GI=Greatly increase vulnerability.Physiological Thermal Niche: While habitatand prey are available further south, Snowy owlbreeding range in the Arctic LCC is restrictedalong a 50-100km band along the Alaskancoastline, where temperatures are coolercompared to inland in the summer, suggesting apotential thermal sensitivity.Phenological Response: There is at least onelong-term data set in Arctic Alaska that couldshed some light on how this species phenologymay be changing with climate (D. Holt, pers.comm.). To date, though, it has not beenanalyzed so it is unknown how this species is orwill respond to changing biotic schedules.In summary, Snowy Owls certainly havesome life history traits that potential make themvulnerable to climate change. However, withinthe time frame of this assessment this specieswill likely be able to cope with impactsassociated with a changing climate and remainstable.Literature CitedIms, R.A. and E. Fuglei. 2005. Trophic interaction cycles intundra ecosystems and the impact of climate change.BioScience 55: 311-322.Parmelee, David F. 1992. Snowy Owl (Bubo scandiacus),The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca:Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds ofNorth America Online:http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/010doi:10.2173/bna.10Racine, C., R. Jandt, C. Meyers, and J. Dennis. 2004.Tundra fire and vegetation change along a hillslope on theSeward Peninsula, Alaska, USA. Arctic, Antarctic, andAlpine Research 36: 1-10.Rich, T.D., C.J. Beardmore, H. Berlanga, P.J. Blancher, M.S.W. Bradstreet, G.S. Butcher, D.W. Demarest, E.H. Dunn,W.C. Hunter, E.E. Iñigo-Elias, J.A. Kennedy, A.M.Martell, A.O. Panjabi, D.N. Pashley, K.V. Rosenberg,C.M. Rustay, J.S. Wendt, and T.C. Will. 2004. Partners inFlight North American Landbird Conservation Plan.Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Ithaca, New York.http://www.partnersinflight.org/cont_plan/default.htm.Tape, K, M. Sturm, C. Racine. 2006. The evidence forshrub expansion in northern Alaska and the pan-Arctic.Global Change Biology 12: 686-702.The Wilderness Society (TWS) and Scenarios Network forAlaska Planning (SNAP), Projected (2001-2099: A1Bscenario) monthly total potential evapotranspiration from 5AR4 GCMs that perform best across Alaska and the Arctic,utilizing 2km downscaled temperature as model inputs.http://www.snap.uaf.edu/data.php.127

Short-eared Owl (Asio flammeus)Vulnerability: Presumed StableConfidence: HighThe Short-eared Owl occurs widely throughout North America. An owl of open country, theynest on the ground inhabiting marshes, grasslands, and tundra throughout their range. LikeSnowy Owls, Short-eared owl population dynamics are linked to cycles in their primary prey -small mammals (Holt and Leasure 1993). In the Alaskan Arctic, they typically nest on driertundra sites, usually with enough vegetation to conceal incubating females. They often forage inwet tundra habitats, though not exclusively (Holt and Leasure 1993). Short-eared Owls migrateto wintering grounds in the lower 48 and northern Mexico (Holt and Leasure 1993). The currentglobal population is estimated at 2 million (Rich et al. 2004).atmospheric-driven drying for the foreseeablefuture (TWS and SNAP).M. MudgeRange: We used the extant NatureServe rangemap for the assessment as it closely matched theBirds of North America and other rangedescriptions (Johnson and Herter 1989, Holt andLeasure 1993).Interactions with Other Species: Like theSnowy owl, Short-eared Owl successfulreproduction seems to be tied to some degree tolemming population cycles (Holt and Leasure1993). Climate change has increased the lengthof lemming population cycles and decreasesmaximum population densities (Ims and Fuglei2005, Gilg et al. 2009) which could negativelyinfluence Short-eared Owl nest survivorship,distribution, and abundance. However, theirability to switch to a variety of other preysources suggest they would, in most cases, beable to compensate for such changes with littlenegative impact.Physiological Hydro Niche: Although ShortearedOwls do utilize wet tundra habitats forforaging, sometimes extensively, they exploitdrier tundra habitats as well and they typicallynest in drier upland tundra. Because of this, theyare unlikely to be significantly affected bytundra drying events in the arctic, which couldresult in a net loss of wet tundra habitats.However, current projections of annual potentialevapotranspiration suggest negligibleDisturbance Regimes: Deeper snow andsubsequent flooding in early spring could reducehunting success. Fires and resultingshrubification (Tape et al. 2006) may reduceavailable hunting and nesting areas, but it isunlikely this would result in significant impacts,as the percentage of ground affected would beminimal. Thermokarst will likely change uplandtundra habitats to new vegetation communities(Martin et al. 2009) but it is unknown how thesenew communities may or may not be suitable forShort-eared Owls.Interspecies Interactions: Increasedfreeze/thaw and icing events could eliminaterodent cycles and keep their populationsrelatively low (Gilg et al. 2009).Human Response to CC: Increasing power linesassociated with a wider-ranging road network orother human activities in response to climatechange could cause direct mortality, but theextent of such infrastructure will likely beminimal in the near future.128

Short-eared Owl (Asio flammeus)Vulnerability: Presumed StableConfidence: HighD=Decrease vulnerability, SD=Somewhat decrease vulnerability, N=Neutral effect, SI=Slightly increase vulnerability,I=Increase vulnerability, GI=Greatly increase vulnerability.Physiological Thermal Niche: Because ShortearedOwls breed over a wide latitudinalgradient, there is no evidence to suggest thatthey have any thermal sensitivity during nesting.They could actually benefit from warmertemperatures at the northern terminus of theirbreeding range via reduction in cold stress.Phenological Response &Genetic Variation:There currently exists little or no informationregarding the genetic or phenological traits thatwould make this species more or less vulnerableto a warming climate.In summary, while Short-eared Owls havesome life history traits that potentially makethem vulnerable to climate change, within thetime frame of this assessment this species willlikely be able to cope with impacts associatedwith a changing climate and remain stable.Literature CitedGilg, O., B. Sittler, I. Hanski. 2009. Climate change andcyclic predator–prey population dynamics in the highArctic. Global Change Biology 15: 2634-2652.Holt, D.W. and S.M. Leasure. 1993. Short-eared Owl (Asioflammeus). In The Birds of North America, No. 62. (A.Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc.,Philadelphia, PA.Ims, R.A. and E. Fuglei. 2005. Trophic interaction cycles intundra ecosystems and the impact of climate change.BioScience 55: 311-322.Johnson, S.R. and D.R. Herter. 1989. The birds of theBeaufort Sea, Anchorage: British Petroleum Exploration(Alaska), Inc.Martin, P., J. Jenkins, F.J. Adams, M.T. Jorgenson, A.C.Matz, D.C. Payer, P.E. Reynolds, A.C. Tidwell, and J.R.Zelenak. 2009. Wildlife response to environmental Arcticchange: Predicting future habitats of Arctic Alaska. Reportof the Wildlife Response to Environmental Arctic Change(WildREACH), Predicting Future Habitats of Arctic AlaskaWorkshop, 17-18 November 2008. Fairbanks, Alaska,USFWS, 148 pages.Rich, T.D., C.J. Beardmore, H. Berlanga, P.J. Blancher, M.S.W. Bradstreet, G.S. Butcher, D.W. Demarest, E.H. Dunn,W.C. Hunter, E.E. Iñigo-Elias, J.A. Kennedy, A.M.Martell, A.O. Panjabi, D.N. Pashley, K.V. Rosenberg, C.M. Rustay, J.S. Wendt, and T.C. Will. 2004. Partners inFlight North American Landbird Conservation Plan.Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Ithaca, New York.http://www.partnersinflight.org/cont_plan/default.htm.Tape, K, M. Sturm, C. Racine. 2006. The evidence forshrub expansion in northern Alaska and the pan-Arctic.Global Change Biology 12: 686-702.The Wilderness Society (TWS) and Scenarios Network forAlaska Planning (SNAP), Projected (2001-2099: A1Bscenario) monthly total potential evapotranspiration from 5AR4 GCMs that perform best across Alaska and the Arctic,utilizing 2km downscaled temperature as model inputs.http://www.snap.uaf.edu/data.php.129

Common Raven (Corvus corax)Vulnerability: Presumed StableConfidence: ModerateConThe Common Raven is wide-ranging throughout much of North America utilizing a variety ofhabitats from deserts in the southwestern U.S. to tundra habitats in Arctic Alaska (Boarman andHeinrich 2000). Historically, this species did not nest in the northern portion of the ArcticCoastal Plain of Alaska but with the growing human presence in the region, particularly from oildevelopment activities, they have been able to utilize human structures for nesting (Johnson andHerter 1989, Day 1998). Ravens are a generalist species and take advantage of a wide variety ofprey and are a noted nest predator. Although some individuals may move south in the winter,many remain on the coastal plain (Johnson and Herter 1989). The global population is estimatedat 16 million (Rich et al. 2004).J. Liebezeit @ WCSRange: We adjusted the NatureServe map tomatch the Birds of North America range map forthis assessment as it more accurately representedthis species’ range based on other accounts andpersonal observations (Johnson and Herter 1989,S. Backensto, J. Liebezeit, pers. obs.) TheNature Serve map did not include the ravenrange extending to the Arctic Ocean coastline.Based on the assessment ravens are likely tobe slightly less vulnerable in five categories andslightly more vulnerable in two, but overallclimate change impacts will have little impact(“neutral”) on this species (see table on nextpage).Human Response to CC: Increased humanactivity and infrastructure associated withclimate change mitigation could benefit ravensas witnessed by the influence of current humandevelopments in the region on ravenpopulations. However, in the next 50 years,there likely will be no significant developmentof this type in Arctic Alaska so it would onlyhave nominal influence on ravens.Physiological Thermal Niche: Ravens usewarm thermal environments created by oilprocessing facilities to roost and some breedingpairs in the oil fields place their nests on heatedstructures. On the Colville river, nests orientedto southerly aspects are common (S. Backensto,pers. comm.). No studies have indicated if thesebehaviors actually benefit ravens (e.g. increasenest survivorship). Despite this, these behaviorssuggest they may benefit from a warmingclimate by reducing the physiological stress ofcold temperatures during key parts of theirlifecycle.Physiological Hydro Niche: Ravens canwithstand dramatic extremes in moisture regimetolerances as is exhibited by the fact that theyare equally at home in the Mojave Desert as theyare in the wet Pacific Northwest. Therefore, adrier or wetter arctic will unlikely have anegative impact on this species.Dietary Versatility: The ravens’ varied diet andability to exploit human food subsidies could130

Common Raven (Corvus corax)Vulnerability: Presumed StableConConfidence: ModerateD=Decrease vulnerability, SD=Somewhat decrease vulnerability, N=Neutral effect, SI=Slightly increase vulnerability,I=Increase vulnerability, GI=Greatly increase vulnerability.benefit this species as the climate warms, humanactivity in the region increases, and the foodbase changes.Physical Habitat Restrictions: Despite ravenuse of human structures for nesting on thecoastal plain, overall, nesting sites are still quitelimited since they depend on relativelyuncommon geologic features (e.g. cliffs, riverbanks). This paucity of adequate breeding siteswill still be a key limiting factor for this species.Genetic Variation: Although genetic studies onAlaskan raven populations have not beencompleted, they do tend to have high geneticvariation (Webb et al. 2011) and thus would beless susceptible to disease and other disturbanceevents.Phenological Response: Currently, there are nolong term data sets to provide sufficientinformation on raven phenological response toclimate change in the Arctic and so it isunknown how they will respond to changingbiotic schedules.In summary, the generalist nature of thisspecies, combined with their high adaptabilityand expansive range suggests ravens will remainstable in the region with regard to climatechange impacts during the 50 year timeline ofthis assessment.Literature CitedBoarman, W.I. and Heinrich, B. 1999. Common raven(Corvus corax). In: The Birds of North America No. 476(Poole, A. and Gill, F. eds.), Philadelphia, and AmericanOrnithologists' Union, Washington D.C.: Academy ofNatural Sciences.Day, R.H. 1998. Predator populations and predationintensity on tundra-nesting birds in relation to humandevelopment. Fairbanks: Unpublished report by ABR, Inc.for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.Johnson, S.R. and D.R. Herter. 1989. The birds of theBeaufort Sea, Anchorage: British Petroleum Exploration(Alaska), Inc.Rich, T.D., C.J. Beardmore, H. Berlanga, P.J. Blancher, M.S.W. Bradstreet, G. S. Butcher, D.W. Demarest, E.H.Dunn, W.C. Hunter, E.E. Iñigo-Elias, J.A. Kennedy, A.M.Martell, A.O. Panjabi, D.N. Pashley, K.V. Rosenberg, C.M. Rustay, J.S. Wendt, and T.C. Will. 2004. Partners inFlight North American Landbird Conservation Plan.Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Ithaca, New York.http://www.partnersinflight.org/cont_plan/default.htmWebb, W., J.M. Marzluff, and K.E. Omland. 2011.Random interbreeding between cryptic lineages of theCommon Raven: evidence for speciation in reverse.Molecular Ecology (1-13). DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2011.05095.x131

American Tree Sparrow (Spizella arborea)Vulnerability: Increase LikelyConfidence: ModerateThe American Tree Sparrow is a common breeding bird of boreal and tundra dominated habitatsin northern Canada and Alaska. This species breeds in open scrubby areas; willow, birch, andalder thickets, stunted spruce, open tundra with scattered shrubs, often near lakes or bogs(Naugler 1993). In summer American Tree Sparrows consume a wide variety of animal prey(primarily both larval and adult insects). Alaskan birds are short-distance migrants and winter intemperate North America (Naugler 1993). This species’ population is very large (>10 million)although the overall population has undergone a small (statistically insignificant) decrease overthe last 40 years in North America (Butcher and Niven 2007).S. Zack @ WCSPhysiological Thermal Niche: Because thisspecies tolerates warm temperatures at breedingsites in the Alaskan interior and further south, itis unlikely that a warming climate willcompromise this species’ physiological ability toadapt thermally. Warming could actuallyfacilitate northern expansion of their range.Range: We used the extant NatureServe rangemap for the assessment as it closely matched theBirds of North America (Naugler 1993) andother range descriptions (Johnson and Herter1989).For most of the sensitivity categories in theassessment, American Tree Sparrows wereranked with a neutral response (see table on nextpage) and for five categories, they ranked aspotentially having decreased vulnerability. Asshrubby and boreal habitats increase on theNorth Slope (Tape et al. 2006), American TreeSparrows will be able to exploit new areas andpotentially expand their breeding range furthernorthward.Human Response to Climate Change: In theirlower 48 wintering range, this species is knownto adapt well to human-dominated environmentsand are a frequent bird in suburban settings(Naugler 1993). Because of this, any increase inhuman presence (e.g. activities associated withclimate change mitigation) will likely have nonegatively impact on this species.Physiological Hydrologic Niche: AmericanTree Sparrow breeding territories are generallyfound near water, such as bogs, lakes or riparianareas, and so it is possible that an arctic dryingtrend could negatively impact this species.However, a drying trend is more likely to affectshallow ponds and emergent tundra which areless likely to be utilized by this riparian-orientedspecies. Current projections of annual potentialevavapotranspiration suggest negligibleatmospheric-driven drying for the foreseeablefuture (TWS and SNAP) and so wet habitatsmay only be minimally impacted.132

American Tree Sparrow (Spizella arborea)Vulnerability: Increase LikelyConfidence: ModerateD=Decrease vulnerability, SD=Somewhat decrease vulnerability, N=Neutral effect, SI=Slightly increase vulnerability,I=Increase vulnerability, GI=Greatly increase vulnerability.Phenological Response: One common breedingpasserine, the Lapland Longspur, appears tohave adjusted nest initiation in response toclimate warming over the last 10 years (J.Liebezeit and S. Zack, unpublished data), but itis unknown whether this result can begeneralized. During a 20-year period (1992-2011) American Tree Sparrows have shown nosignificant shift in earlier or later departure datesfrom the Alaska Bird Observatory’s bandingstation in Fairbanks, Alaska (S. Guers,unpublished data). However, there areapparently no other long-term datasets for thisspecies’ breeding or migration activities and solittle else is known regarding phenology in thisspecies (S. Guers, pers. comm.).In general, this vulnerability assessmentsuggests that American Tree Sparrows willlikely increase, potentially expanding theirbreeding range in Arctic Alaska under thecurrent predictions of climate change.Literature CitedButcher, G.S. and D.K. Niven. 2007. Common Birds inDecline. Audubon magazinehttp://birds.audubon.org/common-birds-decline.Johnson, S.R. and D.R. Herter. 1989. The birds of theBeaufort Sea, Anchorage: British Petroleum Exploration(Alaska), Inc.Naugler, C.T. 1993. American Tree Sparrow (Spizellaarborea), No. 37, The Birds of North America Online (A.Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrievedfrom the Birds of North America Online:http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/037doi:10.2173/bna.37Tape, K, M. Sturm, C. Racine. 2006. The evidence forshrub expansion in northern Alaska and the pan-Arctic.Global Change Biology 12: 686-702.The Wilderness Society (TWS) and Scenarios Network forAlaska Planning (SNAP), Projected (2001-2099: A1Bscenario) monthly total potential evapotranspiration from 5AR4 GCMs that perform best across Alaska and the Arctic,utilizing 2km downscaled temperature as model inputs.http://www.snap.uaf.edu/data.php.133

Savannah Sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis)Vulnerability: Increase LikelyConfidence: Very HighThe Savannah Sparrow has a widespread breeding range across North America from thesouthern U.S. to Arctic Alaska. This species will breed in open habitats ranging from meadows,cultivated fields, grazed pastures, roadsides, coastal grasslands and tundra (Wheelwright andRising 2008). On the coastal plain of Arctic Alaska, tundra nesting habitat is often associatedwith stream/river drainages, nesting on the ground often hidden under low shrubs (Wheelwrightand Rising 2008). During the breeding season they forage in a wide range of habitats on a varietyof insect prey although seeds and other vegetative matter are also consumed (Wheelwright andRising 2008). Savannah Sparrows are short-distance migrants and winter in the southern U.S.and Mexico (Wheelwright and Rising 2008). The North American population trend is currentlystable (Wheelwright and Rising 2008).C. RuttRange: We used the extant NatureServe rangemap for the assessment as it closely matched theBirds of North America and other rangedescriptions (Johnson and Herter 1989,Wheelwright and Rising 2008).For most of the indirect exposure andsensitivity categories in the assessment,Savannah Sparrows were scored with a neutralresponse (see table on next page). For fivecategories their traits were considered todecrease vulnerability.Human Responses to CC: Across their rangeSavannah Sparrows have generally benefitedfrom human activity, and their densities over thepast century are probably greater than at anytime in the past because of this species’dependence on human-modified open habitats(e.g. fields, hay fields, cropland) (Wheelwrightand Rising 2008). Based on this pattern, humanresponses to climate change in the Arctic LCCwill likely either have no impact or potentiallybenefit this species.Physiological Thermal Niche: As they are at thenorthern extreme of their breeding range inArctic Alaska, Savannah Sparrows may actuallybenefit from a warmer climate, particularlyduring the nestling stage when theirthermoregulatory capacity is compromised andcold snaps can be frequent and potentially lethal(Barry 1962) early in the breeding season. Atsome point, ambient temperatures may exceed acritical point in their ability to adjustphysiologically, however the magnitude ofclimate warming estimated for the next 50 yearsis likely not great enough for this to be an issue(Martin et al. 2009).Physiological Hydro Niche: Savannah Sparrowsare not known to be closely associated withaquatic/wetland habitats or moisture regimesalthough they do often use habitats alongriparian stretches on the coastal plain (J.Liebezeit, unpublished data.). Reduction ininvertebrate communities from net drying affectcould negatively affect foraging success duringthe breeding season but current projections ofannual potential evapo-transpiration suggestnegligible atmospheric-driven drying for the134

Savannah Sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis)Vulnerability: Increase LikelyConfidence: Very HighD=Decrease vulnerability, SD=Somewhat decrease vulnerability, N=Neutral effect, SI=Slightly increase vulnerability,I=Increase vulnerability, GI=Greatly increase vulnerability.foreseeable future (TWS and SNAP). Also thisspecies could potentially switch to less aquaticdependentprey as they have a broad diet(Wheelwright and Rising 2008).Genetic Diversity: Savannah Sparrows exhibithigh genetic diversity (Zink et al. 2005) andwould thus likely be more resilient to diseaseand other disturbance events than species withlower genetic diversity.Phenological Response: One common breedingpasserine, the Lapland Longspur, appears tohave adjusted nest initiation in response toclimate warming over the last 10 years (J.Liebezeit and S. Zack, unpublished data), but itis unknown whether this result can begeneralized. During a 20-year period (1992-2011) Savannah Sparrows have shown nosignificant shift in earlier or later departure datesfrom the Alaska Bird Observatory’s bandingstation in Fairbanks, Alaska (S. Guers,unpublished data). Little else is known regardingphenology in this species (S. Guers, pers.comm.).In general, this assessment suggests thatSavannah Sparrows exhibit high flexibility inhabitat use and behavior and so will likelyincrease under current predictions of climatechange.Literature CitedBarry, T.W. 1962. Effect of late seasons on Atlantic Brantreproduction. Journal of Wildlife Management 26: 19-26.Johnson, S.R. and D.R. Herter. 1989. The birds of theBeaufort Sea, Anchorage: British Petroleum Exploration(Alaska), Inc.Martin, P., J. Jenkins, F.J. Adams, M.T. Jorgenson, A.C.Matz, D.C. Payer, P.E. Reynolds, A.C. Tidwell, and J.R.Zelenak. 2009. Wildlife response to environmental Arcticchange: Predicting future habitats of Arctic Alaska. Reportof the Wildlife Response to Environmental Arctic Change(WildREACH), Predicting Future Habitats of Arctic AlaskaWorkshop, 17-18 November 2008. Fairbanks, Alaska,USFWS, 148 pages.The Wilderness Society (TWS) and Scenarios Network forAlaska Planning (SNAP), Projected (2001-2099: A1Bscenario) monthly total potential evapotranspiration from 5AR4 GCMs that perform best across Alaska and the Arctic,utilizing 2km downscaled temperature as model inputs.http://www.snap.uaf.edu/data.php.Wheelwright, N. T. and J. D. Rising. 2008. SavannahSparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis), The Birds of NorthAmerica Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab ofOrnithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North AmericaOnline: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/045.doi:10.2173/bna.45.Zink, R.M., J.D. Rising, S. Mockford, A.G. Horn, J.M.Wright, M. Leonard, and M.C. Westberg. 2005.Mitochondrial DNA variation, species limits, and rapidevolution of plumage coloration and size in the SavannahSparrow. Condor 107(1):21-28.135

White-crowned Sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys)Vulnerability: Increase LikelyConfidence: HighThe White-crowned Sparrow is a common breeding bird from the Pacific Coast in the Lower 48to the northern extent of its range in Arctic Alaska (Chilton et al. 1995). The Gambel’ssubspecies, the breeder in Alaska, is most commonly associated with shrubby riparian habitatsthat run through both boreal and tundra environs. White-crowned Sparrows consume a widevariety of plant and animal prey and during the breeding season feed their young a strict diet ofinsect and other animal prey. Alaskan birds are short-distance migrants and winter in temperateNorth America (Chilton et al. 1995). Overall White-crowned Sparrow populations appear to bestable (Chilton et al. 1995).Physiological Thermal Niche: Because thisspecies tolerates warm temperatures at breedingsites in the Alaskan interior and further south, itis unlikely that a warming climate willcompromise its physiological ability to adaptthermally. Warming could actually facilitatenorthern expansion of their range by reducingcold stress, particularly during the nestingperiod.S. Zack @ WCSRange: We used the extant NatureServe rangemap for the assessment as it closely matched theBirds of North America (Chilton et al. 1995) andother range descriptions (Johnson and Herter1989).For most of the indirect exposure andsensitivity categories in the assessment, WhitecrownedSparrows were scored as neutral (seetable on next page), and for five categories, theyranked as potentially having decreasedvulnerability. As shrubby and boreal habitatsincrease on the North Slope (Tape et al. 2006),White-crowned Sparrows will be able to exploitnew areas and potentially expand their breedingrange further northward (Martin et al. 2009).Human Response to CC: In their Lower 48wintering range, this species is known to adaptwell to human-dominated environments and area frequent bird in suburban settings. Because ofthis, any increase in human presence (e.g.activities in response to climate change) willlikely have no negative impact on this species,and could, in fact, be beneficial throughincreasing habitat patchiness and heterogeneity.Physiological Hydro Niche: White-crownedSparrow breeding territories are generally foundnear a source of water (standing or running), andso it is possible that a drying trend couldnegatively impact this species. However, adrying trend would more likely affect shallowponds and emergent tundra which are less likelyto be utilized by this riparian-oriented species.Also, it is important to point out that currentprojections of annual potential evapotranspirationsuggest negligible atmosphericdrivendrying for the foreseeable future (TWSand SNAP).136

White-crowned Sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys)Vulnerability: Increase LikelyConfidence: HighD=Decrease vulnerability, SD=Somewhat decrease vulnerability, N=Neutral effect, SI=Slightly increase vulnerability,I=Increase vulnerability, GI=Greatly increase vulnerability.Phenological Response:One common breeding passerine, the LaplandLongspur, appears to have adjusted nestinitiation in response to climate warming overthe last 10 years (J. Liebezeit and S. Zack,unpublished data), but it is unknown whetherthis result can be generalized. For WhitecrownedSparrows, there are long-term data setsavailable from bird banding stations inFairbanks (Alaska Bird Observatory), Tok(Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge), and nearDenali National Park (Alaska Bird Observatory)that include spring arrival dates and falldeparture dates. Unfortunately, these data havenot been examined or the year-to-year variationmakes it difficult to see trends (S. Sharbaugh,pers. comm.).In general, this assessment suggests thatWhite-crowned Sparrows will likely increaseand expand their breeding range in ArcticAlaska under the current projections of climatechange.Literature CitedChilton, G., M. C. Baker, C. D. Barrentine and M. A.Cunningham. 1995. White-crowned Sparrow (Zonotrichialeucophrys), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole,Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved fromthe Birds of North America Online:http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/183doi:10.2173/bna.183Johnson, S.R. and D.R. Herter. 1989. The birds of theBeaufort Sea, Anchorage: British Petroleum Exploration(Alaska), Inc.Martin, P., J. Jenkins, F.J. Adams, M.T. Jorgenson, A.C.Matz, D.C. Payer, P.E. Reynolds, A.C. Tidwell, and J.R.Zelenak. 2009. Wildlife response to environmental Arcticchange: Predicting future habitats of Arctic Alaska. Reportof the Wildlife Response to Environmental Arctic Change(WildREACH), Predicting Future Habitats of Arctic AlaskaWorkshop, 17-18 November 2008. Fairbanks, Alaska,USFWS, 148 pages.Tape, K, M. Sturm, C. Racine. 2006. The evidence forshrub expansion in northern Alaska and the pan-Arctic.Global Change Biology 12: 686-702.The Wilderness Society (TWS) and Scenarios Network forAlaska Planning (SNAP), Projected (2001-2099: A1Bscenario) monthly total potential evapotranspiration from 5AR4 GCMs that perform best across Alaska and the Arctic,utilizing 2km downscaled temperature as model inputs.http://www.snap.uaf.edu/data.php.137

Lapland Longspur (Calcarius lapponicus)Vulnerability: Increase LikelyConfidence: ModerateThe Lapland Longspur is the most abundant passerine breeder on the North Slope of Alaska.This species is most commonly associated with the Arctic Coastal Plain, but also nests in alpinehabitats in the interior Brooks Range. High nesting densities have been found throughout theAlaskan coastal plain (Custer and Pitelka 1977, Liebezeit et al. 2011) with nesting sites often indry/moist tundra near tussocks and less frequently in wetter tundra habitats (Hussell andMontgomerie 2002). During the breeding season they typically forage in a wide range of habitatson a variety of invertebrates but also consume seeds and other vegetative matter (Hussell andMontgomerie 2002). Alaskan Lapland Longspurs are short-distance migrants and are believed towinter in temperate North America. Current North American population estimate is 40-50million.C. Ruttthe next 50 years are probably not drasticenough for this to be an issue (Martin et al.2009).Range: We used the extant NatureServe rangemap for this assessment as it closely matched theBirds of North America and other range maps(Hussell and Montgomerie 2002, Bart et al.2012).For most of the indirect exposure andsensitivity categories in the assessment, LaplandLongspurs were ranked with a neutral response(see table on next page). For five categories,longspurs were ranked as potentially havingdecreased vulnerability. For two categories(“habitat restrictions” and “biotic dispersalpotential”) this ranking is a reflection of thisspecies ubiquitous range across the assessmentarea and flexible usage of habitats for bothnesting and foraging.Physiological Thermo Niche: Longspurs mayactually benefit from a warmer physiologicalthermal niche, particularly during the nestlingstage when their thermo-regulatory capacity iscompromised and cold snaps can be frequentand potentially lethal (Barry 1962) early in thebreeding season. At some point, ambienttemperatures may exceed a critical tipping pointin longspur ability to adjust physiologically,however summer climate warming estimates inPhenological Response: Some evidenceindicates that Lapland Longspurs are able totrack phenological changes associated with awarming climate at least in terms of nestinitiation (J. Liebezeit and S. Zack, unpublisheddata) suggesting they may be able to compensatefor a warming climate, at least in terms of nesttiming. However their ability to cope withdecoupling of nest initiation and other events isunknown.Physiological Hydro Niche: In terms ofhydrological niche, longspurs may experiencesome detrimental impact as they do have somelevel of dependency on wetter habitats. Theywould unlikely be significantly affected. In fact,a drying trend could expand preferred habitat. Itis important to note that current moisture138

Lapland Longspur (Calcarius lapponicus)Vulnerability: Increase LikelyConfidence: ModerateD=Decrease vulnerability, SD=Somewhat decrease vulnerability, N=Neutral effect, SI=Slightly increase vulnerability,I=Increase vulnerability, GI=Greatly increase vulnerability.balance predictions suggest, at best, negligibledrying for the foreseeable future (TWS andSNAP). Thus moisture balance, as an exposurefactor was not heavily weighted in theassessment.Disturbance regime: Unlike many of theshorebirds and waterfowl species, longspurs arenot dependent on shoreline habitats and sowould likely not be significantly impacted byrising sea level or coastal disturbance events.Overall, this assessment suggests thatLapland Longspus could benefit and possiblyincrease under the current predictions of climatechange during the timeframe of this assessment.Literature CitedBarry, T.W. 1962. Effect of late seasons on Atlantic Brantreproduction. Journal of Wildlife Management 26: 19-26.Bart, J., S. Brown, B. Andres, R. Platte, and A. Manning.2012. North slope of Alaska. Ch. 4 in Bart, J. and V.Johnston, eds. Shorebirds in the North American Arctic:results of ten years of an arctic shorebird monitoringprogram. Studies in Avian Biology.Custer, T.W. and F.A. Pitelka. 1977. Demographic featuresof a Lapland Longspur population near Barrow, Alaska.Auk 94: 505-525.Hussell, D.J.T. and R. Montgomerie. 2002. LaplandLongspur (Calcarius lapponicus). In The Birds of NorthAmerica, No. 656 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds ofNorth America, Inc. Philadelphia, PA.Liebezeit, J.R., G.C. White, and S. Zack. 2011. Breedingecology of birds at Teshekpuk Lake: a key habitat site onthe Arctic Coastal Plain of Alaska. Arctic 64 (1): 32-44.Martin, P., J. Jenkins, F.J. Adams, M.T. Jorgenson, A.C.Matz, D.C. Payer, P.E. Reynolds, A.C. Tidwell, and J.R.Zelenak. 2009. Wildlife response to environmental Arcticchange: Predicting future habitats of Arctic Alaska. Reportof the Wildlife Response to Environmental Arctic Change(WildREACH), Predicting Future Habitats of Arctic AlaskaWorkshop, 17-18 November 2008. Fairbanks, Alaska,USFWS, 148 pages.The Wilderness Society (TWS) and Scenarios Network forAlaska Planning (SNAP), Projected (2001-2099: A1Bscenario) monthly total potential evapotranspiration from 5AR4 GCMs that perform best across Alaska and the Arctic,utilizing 2km downscaled temperature as model inputs.http://www.snap.uaf.edu/data.php.139

Smith’s Longspur (Calcarius pictus)Vulnerability: Presumed StableConfidence: Very HighThe Smith’s Longspur is a relatively understudied passerine breeder on the North Slope ofAlaska. In this region, they are most commonly associated with the Brooks Range foothillswhere they are found in broad valleys and low passes (S. Kendall, pers. comm.). Smith’sLongspurs are known for their polygynandrous mating system which is unusual in passerines. Inarctic Alaska, this species nests on open tundra, from upland hummocky terrain (Briskie 2009) towet meadow habitats (Johnson and Herter 1989). During the breeding season they forage on avariety of invertebrates but also consume seeds and other vegetation (Briskie 2009). Smith’sLongspurs are short-distance migrants and winter in the U.S. Midwest. Current populationestimate is unknown but the trend is believed to be stable (BirdLife International 2012).evapo-transpiration suggest negligibleatmospheric-driven drying for the foreseeablefuture (TWS and SNAP). Also, this speciescould switch to less aquatic-dependent prey asthey apparently have a broad diet (Briskie 2009).S. Zack @ WCSRange: We used the extant NatureServe rangemap for the assessment as it closely matchedthat described in the Birds of North America(Briskie 2009) and other range descriptions(Johnson and Herter 1989).Physiological Hydro Niche: Smith’s Longspurswere ranked as potentially most vulnerable toclimate change in the physiological hydrologicalniche although the range from “neutral” to“increased” vulnerability selected in thesecategories reflects uncertainty in the severity ofimpact (see table on next page). This speciesrelies to some degree on wet tundra habitats forforaging and nesting. They also tend to nest inassociation with rivers and streams and mayutilize riparian areas for foraging more than iscurrently documented (S. Kendall, pers. comm.).Reduction in invertebrate communities andhabitat loss from a net drying affect couldnegatively impact foraging success and nest siteavailability during the breeding season. Butcurrent projections of annual potentialDisturbance Regime: An increase in fires(Racine and Jandt 2008) would likely degradeSmith’s Longspur breeding habitat, but impactsare mostly unknown and likely would belocalized (S. Kendall, pers. comm.). The currentregime of infrequent fires in tundra habitatallows for the growth of dwarf and tall/lowshrubs which are habitats utilized by thisspecies. Increased flooding in streams and riverscould affect riparian habitat but it is unknownhow these events might impact Smith’sLongspur use of these habitats.Genetic Variation: There is little information inthe literature regarding genetic variation orrecent evolutionary bottlenecks for this species.140

Smith’s Longspur (Calcarius pictus)Vulnerability: Presumed StableConfidence: Very HighD=Decrease vulnerability, SD=Somewhat decrease vulnerability, N=Neutral effect, SI=Slightly increase vulnerability,I=Increase vulnerability, GI=Greatly increase vulnerability.Phenological Response: Although someevidence indicates that their relative, theLapland Longspur, is able to track phenologicalchanges associated with a warming climate atleast in terms of nest initiation (J. Liebezeit andS. Zack unpublished data) this has not beendocumented for Smith’s Longspurs. Their abilityto cope with decoupling of nest initiation andother phenological events (Tulp andSchekkerman 2008), on which they aredependent, is also unknown.In summary, this assessment suggests thatSmith’s Longspurs have enough flexibility toremain stable under the current predictions ofclimate change within the 50 year timeframe ofthis assessment.Literature CitedBirdLife International. 2012. Calcarius pictus. In: IUCN2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version2012.1. www.iucnredlist.org.Briskie, James V. 2009. Smith's Longspur (Calcariuspictus), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole,Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved fromthe Birds of North America Online:http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/034doi:10.2173/bna.34Johnson, S.R. and D.R. Herter. 1989. The birds of theBeaufort Sea, Anchorage: British Petroleum Exploration(Alaska), Inc.Racine, C. and R. Jandt. 2008. The 2007”AnaktuvukRiver” tundra fire on the Arctic Slope of Alaska: a newphenomenon? In D.L. Kane and K.M. Hinkel (Eds.), NinthInternational Conference on Permafrost, ExtendedAbstracts (p. 247-248). Institute of Northern Engineering,University of Alaska Fairbanks.The Wilderness Society (TWS) and Scenarios Network forAlaska Planning (SNAP), Projected (2001-2099: A1Bscenario) monthly total potential evapotranspiration from 5AR4 GCMs that perform best across Alaska and the Arctic,utilizing 2km downscaled temperature as model inputs.http://www.snap.uaf.edu/data.php.Tulp, I. and H. Schekkerman. 2008. Has prey availabilityfor arctic birds advanced with climate change? Hindcastingthe abundance of tundra arthropods using weatherand seasonal variation. Arctic 61: 48-60.141

Snow Bunting (Plectrophenax nivalis)Vulnerability: Presumed StableConfidence: ModerateThe Snow Bunting is one of the first birds to return to their Arctic breeding grounds, with malesarriving in early April. This species occurs throughout the circumpolar arctic and, as a cavitynester,will use human-made nest sites (e.g. barrels, buildings, pipelines) as readily as naturalones (rock cavities, under boulders, cliff faces; Lyon and Montgomerie 1995). Snow Buntingsconsume a wide variety of both plant (e.g. seeds, plant buds) and animal prey (invertebrates).Their wintering range is centered in the northern continental US and southern Canada although itextends north into the low arctic in some places (Lyon and Montgomerie 1995). Current globalpopulation estimate is 40 million (Rich et al. 2004).Arctic Alaska (see Martin et al. 2009) is notlikely to have a strong negative or positive affecton this species. Current projections of annualpotential evapotranspiration suggest negligibleatmospheric-driven drying for the foreseeablefuture (TWS and SNAP). Thus atmosphericmoisture, as an exposure factor, was not heavilyweighted in the assessment.A. LeistRange: We used the extant NatureServe rangemap for the CCVI as it matched the Birds ofNorth America and other range descriptions(Johnson and Herter 1989).Human Response to CC: Increased humanactivity and infrastructure associated withhuman response to climate change could benefitSnow Buntings by providing increased artificialnesting habitat, as they are known to readily takeadvantage of human infrastructure (Lyon andMontgomerie 1995, J. Liebezeit, pers. obs.).Because it is unlikely that there will besignificant development of this type in ArcticAlaska, the influence on this species would benominal.Physiological Thermal Niche: Changes inthermal and hydrological niche will likely notoffer a significant benefit or disadvantage forthis species. Increasing temperatures could makesome nesting sites “too hot” while, in otherscases provide warmer conditions beneficial forraising altricial young.Physiological Hydro Niche: Snow buntings willutilize wet tundra for foraging but are not tiedstrongly to water-dominated habitats (Lyon andMontgomerie 1995) and so any tundra drying inDietary Versatility: The Snow Bunting’s variedomnivorous diet will likely be beneficial to thisspecies as the climate warms, human activity inthe region increases, and the food base changes.Physical Habitat Restrictions: Despite buntinguse of human structures for nesting, nesting siteson the coastal plain are still quite limited sincethey depend on relatively uncommon geologicfeatures (e.g. cliffs, rock outcrops). This paucityof adequate breeding sites on the coastal plainwill likely continue to be a limiting factor forthis species.142

Snow Bunting (Plectrophenax nivalis)Vulnerability: Presumed StableConfidence: ModerateD=Decrease vulnerability, SD=Somewhat decrease vulnerability, N=Neutral effect, SI=Slightly increase vulnerability,I=Increase vulnerability, GI=Greatly increase vulnerability.Genetic Varitation: There are currently noSnow Bunting studies that add insight into howclimate change impacts would influence theirpopulation genetics.Phenological Response: There are also no longtermdata sets to provide sufficient informationon how Snow Buntings will respond to changingarctic phenology.In summary, this vulnerability assessmentsuggests that Snow Buntings are relativelyflexible in most sensitivity factors and have anexpansive enough breeding range to adjust toclimate changes and remain stable (andpotentially even benefit) in the region over thenext 50 years.Literature CitedJohnson, S.R. and D.R. Herter. 1989. The birds of theBeaufort Sea, Anchorage: British Petroleum Exploration(Alaska), Inc.Lyon, B. and R. Montgomerie. 1995. Snow Bunting(Plectrophenax nivalis). In: The Birds of North AmericaNo. 198 (Poole, A. and Gill, F. eds.), Philadelphia, andAmerican Ornithologists' Union, Washington D.C.:Academy of Natural Sciences.Martin, P., J. Jenkins, F.J. Adams, M.T. Jorgenson, A.C.Matz, D.C. Payer, P.E. Reynolds, A.C. Tidwell, and J.R.Zelenak. 2009. Wildlife response to environmental Arcticchange: Predicting future habitats of Arctic Alaska. Reportof the Wildlife Response to Environmental Arctic Change(WildREACH), Predicting Future Habitats of Arctic AlaskaWorkshop, 17-18 November 2008. Fairbanks, Alaska,USFWS, 148 pages.Rich, T.D., C.J. Beardmore, H. Berlanga, P.J. Blancher, M.S.W. Bradstreet, G.S. Butcher, D.W. Demarest, E.H. Dunn,W.C. Hunter, E.E. Iñigo-Elias, J.A. Kennedy, A.M.Martell, A.O. Panjabi, D.N. Pashley, K.V. Rosenberg,C.M. Rustay, J.S. Wendt, and T.C. Will. 2004. Partners inFlight North American Landbird Conservation Plan.Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Ithaca, New York.http://www.partnersinflight.org/cont_plan/default.htm.The Wilderness Society (TWS) and Scenarios Network forAlaska Planning (SNAP), Projected (2001-2099: A1Bscenario) monthly total potential evapotranspiration from 5AR4 GCMs that perform best across Alaska and the Arctic,utilizing 2km downscaled temperature as model inputs.http://www.snap.uaf.edu/data.php.143

Common Redpoll (Acanthis flammea)Vulnerability: Increase LikelyConfidence: LowThe Common Redpoll is an abundant finch of northern regions around the world. Redpolls occurthroughout Alaska, thriving in habitats ranging from boreal to tundra across a wide elevationgradient (Knox and Lowther 2000). This species nests in trees when available. In tundra habitats,they nest in willows (primarily along riparian areas) or on the ground (Knox and Lowther 2000,J. Liebezeit, unpublished data). While primarily a seed eater, in summer this species consumesarthropods to feed young (Knox and Lowther 2000). Common Redpolls winter as far north as theBrooks Range but will wander further south in irruptive years when seed-crop production fails(Knox and Lowther 2000). While their global population numbers in the millions, they arebelieved to be experiencing an overall population decline (Rich et al. 2004).S. Zack @ WCSRange: We used the extant NatureServe rangemap for this assessment as it closely matched theBirds of North America (Knox and Lowther2000) and other range descriptions (Johnson andHerter 1989).For most of the indirect exposure andsensitivity categories in the assessment,Common Redpolls were ranked with a neutralresponse (see table on next page).Physiological thermal niche: This speciesshows no close association with a particularthermal environment. Early work has shown thattheir upper thermal limit is ~38ºC and canwithstand temperatures as low as -51ºC (Brooks1968, S. Sharbaugh, pers. comm.). As such, theywould likely be able to withstand a warmingclimate for years to come although little isknown about thermal conditions necessary forsuccessful hatch and fledging of their altricialyoung.Physiological hydro niche: Common Redpollsare not known to be closely associated withaquatic/wetland habitats or moisture regimes(Knox and Lowther 2000) though they do oftenuse willow habitats along riparian stretches onthe coastal plain (J. Liebezeit, unpublisheddata.). Reduction in invertebrate communitiesfrom net drying could negatively affect foragingsuccess during the breeding season. Currentprojections of annual potential evapotranspirationsuggest negligible atmosphericdrivendrying for the foreseeable future (TWSand SNAP). Also, this species could potentiallyswitch to less aquatic-dependent prey as theyhave a broad diet (Knox and Lowther 2000).Disturbance Regime: As shrubby and borealhabitats increase on the North Slope (Tape et al.2006), Common Redpolls will be able to exploitnew areas and potentially nest in higher densitieson the coastal plain. An increase in firefrequency could speed up the advance ofshrubification (Racine et al. 2004).Phenological Response: One common breedingpasserine, the Lapland Longspur, appears tohave adjusted nest initiation in response toclimate warming over the last 10 years (J.Liebezeit and S. Zack, unpublished data), but itis unknown whether this result can begeneralized. However there are apparently144

Common Redpoll (Acanthis flammea)Vulnerability: Increase LikelyConfidence: LowD=Decrease vulnerability, SD=Somewhat decrease vulnerability, N=Neutral effect, SI=Slightly increase vulnerability,I=Increase vulnerability, GI=Greatly increase vulnerability.no long-term datasets for Common Redpollbreeding or migration activities and so little isknown regarding phenology in this species (S.Sharbaugh, pers. comm.).In general, this assessment suggests thatCommon Redpolls will likely increase in ArcticAlaska under the current projections of climatechange. They would likely take advantage ofnew shrubby nesting habitats and have enoughflexibility, both physiologically andbehaviorally, to cope with expected climatechanges over the next 50 years in Arctic Alaska.Literature CitedBrooks, W.S. 1968. Comparative adaptations of theAlaskan Redpoll to the Arctic Environment. WilsonBulletin 80:253-276.Johnson, S.R. and D.R. Herter. 1989. The birds of theBeaufort Sea, Anchorage: British Petroleum Exploration(Alaska), Inc.Knox, A.G. and P.E. Lowther. 2000. Common Redpoll(Acanthis flammea), The Birds of North America Online(A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology;Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online:http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/543.doi:10.2173/bna.543Racine, C., R. Jandt, C. Meyers, and J. Dennis. 2004.Tundra fire and vegetation change along a hillslope on theSeward Peninsula, Alaska, USA. Arctic, Antarctic, andAlpine Research 36: 1-10.Rich, T.D., C.J. Beardmore, H. Berlanga, P.J. Blancher, M.S.W. Bradstreet, G.S. Butcher, D.W. Demarest, E.H. Dunn,W.C. Hunter, E.E. Iñigo-Elias, J.A. Kennedy, A.M.Martell, A.O. Panjabi, D.N. Pashley, K.V. Rosenberg, C.M.Rustay, J.S. Wendt, and T.C. Will. 2004. Partners in FlightNorth American Landbird Conservation Plan. Cornell Labof Ornithology. Ithaca, New York.http://www.partnersinflight.org/cont_plan/default.htmTape, K, M. Sturm, C. Racine. 2006. The evidence forshrub expansion in northern Alaska and the pan-Arctic.Global Change Biology 12: 686-702.The Wilderness Society (TWS) and Scenarios Network forAlaska Planning (SNAP), Projected (2001-2099: A1Bscenario) monthly total potential evapotranspiration from 5AR4 GCMs that perform best across Alaska and the Arctic,utilizing 2km downscaled temperature as model inputs.http://www.snap.uaf.edu/data.php.145

Hoary Redpoll (Acanthis hornemanni)Vulnerability: Presumed StableConfidence: HighThe Hoary Redpoll, closely related and often difficult to distinguish from the Common Redpoll,is a common finch of the circumpolar arctic. In Alaska their range is largely sympatric with theCommon Redpoll although they tend to be more common further north. Like the CommonRedpoll, they utilize both forested and tundra habitats although they tend to utilize tundrahabitats more extensively (Knox and Lowther 2000). In Arctic Alaska tundra, this species nestsin willows (primarily along riparian areas) or on the ground in shrubby areas (Knox and Lowther2000, J. Liebezeit, unpublished data). While primarily a seed eater, in summer this speciesconsumes arthropods to feed young (Knox and Lowther 2000). Hoary Redpolls often winterwithin their breeding range but will wander further south in irruptive years when seed-cropproduction fails (Knox and Lowther 2000). Their overall population estimate is unknown.C. RuttRange: We used the extant NatureServe rangemap for the assessment as it closely matched theBirds of North America and other rangedescriptions (Johnson and Herter 1989, Knoxand Lowther 2000).For most of the indirect exposure andsensitivity categories in the assessment, HoaryRedpolls were ranked with a neutral response(see table on next page).Physiological Thermo Niche: This speciesshows no close association with a particularthermal environment. Early work has shown thattheir upper thermal limit is ~38ºC and canwithstand temperatures as low as -57ºC (Brooks1968, S. Sharbaugh, pers. obs.). As such, theywould likely be able to withstand a warmingclimate although little is known about thermalconditions necessary for successful hatch andfledging of their altricial young. They tend tonest further north in greater numbers thanCommon Redpoll, which suggests some affinityfor colder temperatures although this behaviorcould be related to a factor(s) unrelated tothermal conditions.Physiological Hydro Niche: Hoary Redpolls arenot known to be closely associated withaquatic/wetland habitats or moisture regimesalthough they do rely on willow habitats alongriparian stretches on the coastal plain (Knox andLowther 2000, J. Liebezeit, unpublished data)more than Common Redpolls which will oftenchoose willows in more upland tundra (Knoxand Lowther 2000).Dietary Versatility: Reduction in invertebratecommunities from net drying affect couldnegatively affect foraging success during thebreeding season but current predictions forchanges in atmospheric drying are neglibile(TWS and SNAP). Also, this species couldpotentially switch to less aquatic-dependent preyas they have a broad diet (Knox and Lowther2000).Disturbance Regime: As shrubby and borealhabitats increase on the North Slope (Tape et al.2006), Hoary Redpolls will be able to exploitnew areas and potentially nest in higher densitieson the coastal plain. An increase in firefrequency could speed up the advance ofshrubification (Racine et al. 2004).146

Hoary Redpoll (Acanthis hornemanni)Vulnerability: Presumed StableConfidence: HighD=Decrease vulnerability, SD=Somewhat decrease vulnerability, N=Neutral effect, SI=Slightly increase vulnerability,I=Increase vulnerability, GI=Greatly increase vulnerability.Phenological Response:One common breeding passerine, the LaplandLongspur, appears to have adjusted nestinitiation in response to climate warming overthe last 10 years (J. Liebezeit and S. Zack,unpublished data), but it is unknown whetherthis result can be generalized. However, thereare apparently no long-term datasets for HoaryRedpoll breeding or migration activities and solittle is known regarding phenology in thisspecies (S. Sharbaugh, pers. comm.).In general, this assessment suggests thatHoary Redpolls will likely remain stable inArctic Alaska under the current projections ofclimate change. Though within the “presumedstable” category, assessment results suggest theydo lean toward the “increase likely” category asthey could take advantage of new shrubbynesting habitats and have enough flexibility,both physiologically and behaviorally, to copewith expected climate changes over the next 50years in Arctic Alaska.Literature CitedBrooks, W.S. 1968. Comparative adaptations of theAlaskan Redpoll to the Arctic Environment. WilsonBulletin 80:253-276.Johnson, S.R. and D.R. Herter. 1989. The birds of theBeaufort Sea, Anchorage: British Petroleum Exploration(Alaska), Inc.Knox, Alan G. and Peter E. Lowther. 2000. Hoary Redpoll(Acanthis hornemanni), The Birds of North AmericaOnline (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology;Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online:http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/544.doi:10.2173/bna.544.Racine, C., R. Jandt, C. Meyers, and J. Dennis. 2004.Tundra fire and vegetation change along a hillslope on theSeward Peninsula, Alaska, USA. Arctic, Antarctic, andAlpine Research 36: 1-10.Tape, K, M. Sturm, C. Racine. 2006. The evidence forshrub expansion in northern Alaska and the pan-Arctic.Global Change Biology 12: 686-702.The Wilderness Society (TWS) and Scenarios Network forAlaska Planning (SNAP), Projected (2001-2099: A1Bscenario) monthly total potential evapotranspiration from 5AR4 GCMs that perform best across Alaska and the Arctic,utilizing 2km downscaled temperature as model inputs.http://www.snap.uaf.edu/data.php.147

Appendix CSummary of the Climate Change Vulnerability AssessmentsFor Winter Range and Passage MigrationShorebirds are long distant migrants andonly spend a short part of their lives on thebreeding grounds. At migration stopoverpoints and on the wintering grounds theyinevitably encounter climate changestressors that may be quite different than onthe breeding grounds. For this reason, weconducted separate climate changevulnerability assessments for 17 shorebirdspecies 1 (Table AB.1) focused on theirwintering grounds and key passagemigration areas. The intent was to provide aclimate change vulnerability rankingcombining all three portions of theirlifecycle for an overall vulnerability scorespanning their entire annual range. Theresults of the additional assessments arepreliminary since shorebird usage ofstopover and wintering areas (particularly inSouth America and Asia) is poorly known,and reviewers recommended majormodifications to our method for evaluatingvulnerability during passage migration thatwere too significant to address within thetimeframe of the current project. Here weoffer a brief summary of the pilot effort.Winter Range Vulnerability Assessment:Methods and ResultsMethods: We assessed the vulnerability ofthe 17 shorebird species in their winteringgrounds using the NatureServe ClimateChange Vulnerability Index tool (CCVIVersion 2.1, Young et al. 2010) as we didfor the breeding grounds assessment. Weengaged experts from within and outside the1 The same 17 included in the breeding seasonassessmentUnited States to score the sensitivity factors.Overall, the methods were nearly identicalto those described previously (see Methodsin main body of the report). The keydifferences included:• The assessment was based on theentire winter range of each species.The ranges were often quite large,commonly capturing significantclimate variability (e.g., FigureAB.1). For species that winter in theWestern Hemisphere, we used winterranges offered through NatureServeas a starting point. For specieswintering in the Austral-Asianflyway, GIS shapefiles were initiallysought through the USGS AlaskaScience Center Avian InfluenzaResearch program(http://alaska.usgs.gov/science/biology/avian_influenza/index.php). Editsto the initial range maps for both theWestern Hemisphere and Austral-Asian flyway were made based oncomments or alternate sourcessuggested by experts who completedthe sensitivity surveys. Initial rangemaps were also compared with GISshapefiles published by Bird LifeInternational, but this source was notused as a basis for altering maps(http://www.birdlife.org/datazone).• We used Climate Wizard’s 50-kmresolution climate projection dataexclusively, as it was the onlyreadily accessible climate dataavailable for all the continents(www.climatewizardcustom.org/).148

• Only one scenario of future climatewas considered for each species,which was the ensemble output ofthe16 general circulation models(GCMs) from the IPCC report (IPCC2007).• There were no readily available datafor the climate change effects on thepelagic winter ranges of bothphalarope species. Geospatial data ofhistorical changes in oceantemperature and acidification wereused as proxies (Halpern et al. 2008-http://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/globalmarine).Table AB.1. Seventeen shorebird species consideredin the vulnerability assessment.Common NameBlack-bellied PloverAmerican Golden-ploverWhimbrelBar-tailed GodwitRuddy TurnstoneRed KnotSemipalmated SandpiperWestern SandpiperWhite-rumped SandpiperBaird's SandpiperPectoral SandpiperDunlinStilt SandpiperBuff-breasted SandpiperLong-billed DowitcherRed-necked PhalaropeRed PhalaropeScientific NamePluvialis squatarolaPluvialis dominicaNumenius phaeopusLimosa lapponicaArenaria interpresCalidris canutusCalidris pusillaCalidris mauriCalidris fuscicollisCalidris bairdiiCalidris melanotosCalidris alpinaCalidris himantopusTryngitessubruficollisLimnodromusscolopaceusPhalaropus lobatusPhalaropusfulicariusFigure AB.1. An example of a range map used in thewinter range assessment.Results: The results of the assessmentindicate that 5 of the 17 species weconsidered were highly (Long-billedDowitcher, Black-bellied Plover) ormoderately (Western Sandpiper,Semipalmated Sandpiper, and Dunlin)vulnerable to climate change in their winterranges (Figure AB.2). The sensitivities orindirect exposure factors contributing to thevulnerability of these species includeddependencies on physiological hydrologicalniche, sea level rise impacts, changes to keydisturbance regimes, and impacts by humanactivities in response to climate change. Thelife history and other information providedfor the remaining 12 species suggest thatwith respect to climate-mediated changes,they will be able to “remain stable”.149

Figure AB.2. Sensitivity factor scores provided by species’ expert for the 17 shorebird species and their resultingclimate change vulnerability. Blue boxes show factors that contributed most to vulnerability results.Passage Migration VulnerabilityAssessment: Methods and ResultsMethods: For passage migration, we onlyaddressed the sensitivity component ofvulnerability, with questions targeted onmigratory behavior, routes, and numbers andconditions of key staging stopover sites (asdefined by Warnock 2010, Figure AB.4).The passage migration questions wereincluded in the sensitivity survey (e.g., seeAppendix F for the breeding range example)sent to species experts for the winter rangeassessment. Two species (WesternSandpiper and Whimbrel) were scored bymultiple experts (2). The NatureServe toolwas not applied because of the extensivegeographic range used by many shorebirdsas they migrate between breeding andwintering grounds and the tremendousvariation in the projected changes to climatealong these corridors (Figure AB.3). Writtendescriptions from various sources (e.g.,NatureServe) and expert input helped togenerally identify key stopover sites withinmigratory corridors. Ideally, a spatiallyexplicit exposure component would beintegrated and focused on key staging andstopover grounds in the assessment.We developed a straightforward scoringsystem for the sensitivity factors (TableAB.3) with positive values indicating acontribution toward increasing vulnerability.We simply summed the scores assigned to agiven species. We intentionally capped themaximum value of 10 allowed by thisscoring system to be generally consistentwith the threshold value of 10 used by theNatureServe tool to assign the “Extremelyvulnerable” category to a species (seeMethods in main body of report). Withlimited basis for assessing climate changevulnerability for migratory species atpresent, we chose this simple approach toenable the generation of a numericalvulnerability score, as well as initiatediscussion at the expert workshop inDecember 2011 about how climate changemight affect species during migration.150

Figure AB.3. An example of the passage migrationrange used in this component of the assessment.Results: The results of this assessment maybest be considered a starting point todevelop an alternative method, but they dohighlight potential sources of vulnerabilityduring migration. The results, depicted intable AB.3, indicate increasing level ofvulnerability as integer value increases (upto maximum score of 10). Several species(total scores >3) might warrant furtherscrutiny, such as, the Western Sandpiper,White-rumped Sandpiper, Bar-tailedGodwit, and Whimbrel (Table AB.3).Potential sources of vulnerability for thesespecies include: migration routes restrictedto coastlines, a limited number of sites forstaging prior to migration (500 at stopover sites(c) Intermix with other speciesDependence on wind as migration aidGeography on northbound and southbound migrationroutes (coastal/inland/open ocean)Number of Staging AreasMigration site bottlenecks (>50% population stop ingiven area)Stopover timing linked to food source availabilityLocation (a) and number (b) of key wintering areasFigure AB.4. Scoring options for the sensitivityfactors considered in the passage migrationvulnerability assessment. A score of 0.5 was givenwhen experts responded with “sometimes”. SeeTable A2.2 for further factor explanations.151

Table A2.3. Total of scores assigned to migrationrelatedsensitivity factors for the 17 shorebirdspecies. “Partial response” indicates that thesensitivity survey was incomplete.Common Name Summed TotalStilt Sandpiper -2Western Sandpiper 1 6.5Long-billed Dowitcher 2White-rumped Sandpiper 3.5Black-bellied Plover 1Buff-breasted Sandpiper -1Ruddy Turnstone 5(partial response)Red Knot 2Red-necked Phalarope 0Whimbrel 1 1Bar-tailed Godwit 6Whimbrel 2 3Western Sandpiper 2 3Semipalmated Sandpiper 3(partial response)Red Phalarope 5Dunlin 1American Golden-plover -1(partial response)Pectoral Sandpiper -4.5Baird’s Sandpiper 0DiscussionUndoubtedly different parts of the annualrange of a migratory species will contributedifferentially to their vulnerability to climatechange. Even if the species’ degree ofvulnerability is similar throughout theannual life cycle, it is likely that the factorsinfluencing vulnerability in differentgeographies will vary. While tentative,Figure A2.5 illustrates how climate changevulnerability might be apportioned amongthe components of the shorebirds’ life cycle.For many species, our results veryspeculatively suggest that the greatestcontributions toward climate changevulnerability may occur in wintering rangesand along migratory routes. While the vastareas occupied by some species duringmigration and winter pose challenges forpotential adaptation interventions, they mayactually offer the best opportunities forconservation actions. In general, themagnitude of change projected for theseportions of the species’ ranges are muchlower than projections of climate change andrelated impacts anticipated for ArcticAlaska. If little else, our preliminary effortto integrate climate change vulnerabilityacross the annual life cycle of the migratoryshorebirds reinforces the acknowledgedneed to consider the potential effects ofclimate change and options for adaptation(management and conservation) ingeographies beyond the arctic breedinggrounds.152

Figure A2. 5. Cumulative climate change vulnerability for the 17 shorebird species throughout their annual lifecycle.ReferencesBirdLife International and NatureServe. 2011. Bird species distribution maps of the world. BirdLife International,Cambridge, UK and NatureServe, Arlington, USA.Halpern B.S,, S. Walbridge, K.A. Selkoe, C.V. Kappel F. Micheli, K. D'Agrosa, J.F. Bruno, K.S. Casey, C. Ebert,H.F. Fox, R. Fujita, D. Heinemann, H.S. Lenihan, E.M.P. Madin, M.T. Perry, E.R. Selig, M. Spalding, R. Steneck.2008. A Global Map of Human Impact on Marine Ecosystems.Science 319 (5865): 948-952 and Supporting OnlineMaterial.Warnock, N. 2010. Stopping vs. staging: the difference between a hop and a jump. Journal of Avian Biology 41:621-626.153

Appendix DSensitivity Survey ExpertsExpertBrad AndresStacia BackenstoRebecca BentzenTravis BoomsStephen BrownPhil BrunerKatie ChristieChris DauSusan EarnstRobert GillSue GuersChris HarwoodJerry HuppDavid IronsJim JohnsonSteve KendallEunbi KwonRichard LanctotJoe LiebezeitPhilip MartinKate MartinLaura McKinnonSteffen OppelAbby PowellJohn ReedBob RichieDan RizzoloDavid SafineBrett SandercockJoel SchmutzMatt SexsonSusan SharbaughJohn ShookPaul SmithIain StenhouseAffiliationBreeding GroundsU.S. Fish and WildlifeNational Park ServiceUniversity of Alaska - FairbanksAlaska Department of Fish and GameManomet Center for Conservation SciencesBrigham Young UniversityUniversity of Alaska - FairbanksU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceU.S. Geological SurveyU.S. Geological SurveyAlaska Bird ObservatoryU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceU.S. Geological SurveyU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceKansas State UniversityU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceWildlife Conservation SocietyArctic Landscape Conservation CooperativeU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceTrent UniversityRoyal Society for the Protection of BirdsUniversity of Alaska - FairbanksU.S. Geological SurveyABR, Inc – Environmental research & servicesU.S. Geological SurveyU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceKansas State UniversityU.S. Geological SurveyU.S. Geological SurveyResearch ProfessionalABR, Inc – Environmental research & servicesSmith and Associates Ecological Research, Ltd.Biodiversity Research Institute154

Appendix D (continued)Audrey TaylorDiane TracyDavid WardNils WarnockEmily WeiserTeri WildKent WohlSteve ZackUniversity of Alaska - AnchorageResearch ProfessionalU.S. Geological SurveyAudubon AlaskaUniversity of OtagoUniversity of Alaska - FairbanksU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (retired)Wildlife Conservation SocietyPassage Migration and Wintering GroundsPhil BattleyMassey UniversityJoseph BuchananWashington Department of Fish and WildlifeRob ClemensThe University of QueenslandJesse ConklinMassey UniversityRichard FullerThe University of QueenslandGuillermo Fernandez Aceves University of MazatlanDavid MizrahiNew Jersey AudubonPablo RoccaAves Uruguay* Seven of the breeding season experts also completed passage migration/wintering groundssensitivity surveys.Reassessment ExpertsExpertGreg BaloghJoe LiebezeitPhilip MartinPaul SmithDavid WardSteve ZackAffiliationBreeding GroundsArctic Landscape Conservation CooperativeWildlife Conservation SocietyArctic Landscape Conservation CooperativeSmith and Associates Ecological Research, Ltd.U.S. Geological SurveyWildlife Conservation Society155

Appendix EWorkshop Attendees and AgendaDecember 9-10, 2011Expert AttendeesGreg BaloghTravis BoomsStephen BrownPhil Bruner*Roy Churchwell*Molly CrossGeorge DivokyGuillermo Fernandez AcevesTom Fondell*Chris HarwoodJerry HuppRichard LanctotJoe LiebezeitWendy LoyaPhilip MartinBrian McCafferyDavid PayerJohn Pearce*Abby PowellMartin RobardsPablo RoccaErika RowlandSarah Saalfeld*Susan SavageJoel Schmutz*Jon SlaghtPaul SmithDiana SolovyevaDavid WardNils WarnockRyan WilsonSteve Zack* Day 1 onlyAffiliationBreeding GroundsArctic Landscape Conservation CooperativeAlaska Department of Fish and GameManomet Center for Conservation SciencesBrigham Young UniversityUniversity of Alaska - FairbanksWildlife Conservation SocietyFriends of Cooper IslandUniversity of MazatlanU.S. Geological SurveyU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceU.S. Geological SurveyU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceWildlife Conservation SocietyThe Wilderness SocietyArctic Landscape Conservation CooperativeU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceU.S. Geological SurveyUniversity of Alaska - FairbanksWildlife Conservation SocietyAves UruguayWildlife Conservation SocietyManomet Center for Conservation SciencesU.S. Forest ServiceU.S. Geological SurveyWildlife Conservation SocietySmith and Associates Ecological Research, Ltd.Zoological College of the Russian Academy of ScienceU.S. Geological SurveyAudubon AlaskaThe Wilderness SocietyWildlife Conservation Society156

Appendix E (continued)Climate change vulnerability assessment for breeding birdsin Arctic AlaskaA collaborative workshop sponsored by the Wildlife Conservation SocietyUSGS Alaska Science Center – Glenn Olds Building4210 University DriveAnchorage, Alaska 99503December 9-10, 2011AGENDAWorkshop objectives:• Describe the methods and present results of our assessment ranking the climate changevulnerability of bird species that breed in Arctic Alaska.• Get feedback from workshop participants on the preliminary findings and suggest anyrefinements in the assessment that may improve its efficacy.• Identify how this information can feed into subsequent planning, conservation, andmanagement (e.g. adaptation planning, research and management focus, etc.).Day 18:45 am Welcome and introductions – Joe Liebezeit9:00 am Overview of workshop: Background, scope & objectives – Steve Zack / JoeLiebezeit9:15 am Current state of knowledge on Climate Change impacts to Arctic Alaskan birds –Philip Martin9:45 am What is a vulnerability assessment and why do one? – Molly Cross10:15 am Break (beverages/snacks provided)10:35 am Methods used for the Arctic Alaska breeding bird vulnerability assessment –Erika Rowland11:30 am Questions regarding the methods12:00pmLunch break (deli lunch provided)12:15 pm Lunchtime talk #1: Population structure and genetic identity of WesternSandpipers during the nonbreeding season in Northwestern Mexico – GuillermoFernández Aceves157

Appendix E (continued)12:45 pm Lunchtime talk #2: Changes in bird communities in Chaun Delta, ChukotkaRussia, from 1970 to the present with reference to climate change andanthropogenic factors – Diana Soloveyva1:30 pm Presentation of the vulnerability assessment results – Erika Rowland2:15 pm Break (beverages/snacks provided)2:35 pm Discussion of vulnerability assessment results5:00 pm Adjourn6:30 pm Dinner provided by WCS at the Snow Goose RestaurantDay 29:00 am Recap of Day 1 and overview of Day 2 – Joe Liebezeit9:15 am Applying vulnerability information – Molly Cross10:00 am Discussion: How might we use the vulnerability analyses presented here10:30 am Break (beverages/snacks provided)10:50 am Continue discussion on applying vulnerability assessment information12:00 pm Lunch (deli lunch provided)12:15 pm Lunchtime talk: Towards bird vulnerability assessment and adaptation to climatechange in Laguna de Rocha, Uruguay – Pablo Rocca1:00 pm Arctic LCC goals and direction and “habitat / species group” effort – PhilipMartin1:30 pm Next steps and/or recommendations3:45pmConcluding comments – Joe Liebezeit4:00 pm Adjourn158

Appendix FNatureServe Climate Change Vulnerability IndexSpecies Sensitivity WorksheetsRevision(In response to comments made at workshop in Anchorage, AK on 12/9-10/2011)2/26/2012Based on: Young et al. (2010). Guidelines for Using the NatureServe Climate Change Vulnerability Index, Release2.01. NatureServe, Arlington VA.159

PLEASE KEEP THESE POINTS IN MIND AS WE COMPLETE THE REASSESSMENT OFARCTIC BREEDING BIRD SPECIES:1. Multiple responses to each factor may be made to capture uncertainty.2. In the original assessment, we also requested “confidence ratings” for factor responses tounderstand whether uncertainty in responses was due to uncertainty in the exposure/climatechange components of each factor question or lack of knowledge about the given speciesecology/biology. Because we have tried to reduce the exposure-sensitivity confounding in therevised questions, we will only assign a 1-2-3 confidence rating associated with the groupsunderstanding of species biology/ecology.3. If there is no information known that addresses the factor questions, “insufficient data forassessment” is an option. However, I did not include it with each factor.(B2) Distribution Relative to BarriersThis factor assesses the degree to which natural and anthropogenic barriers limit a species' abilityto shift its range in response to climate change. This factor assesses the distribution of thespecies on the landscape and focuses on conditions that limit dispersal at the range boundaries.This factor is not meant to address habitat fragmentation or how the availability of suitablehabitat might shift within the species' range. These issues will be addressed in other factors.NOTE: Barriers are not considered to contribute to the vulnerability of most bird species. Butrange shifts for bird species whose distributions are limited to the coast of the Arctic CoastalPlain (ACP) in Alaska will likely be impaired, assuming that because there is no landmass to thenorth, the extensive northern ocean represents a barrier to birds that have restricted distributionsalong the northernmost circumpolar coastlines. Please follow the ACP guidance instructionsembedded in the questions for your response to this factor.1. Barriers completely or almost completely surround the current distribution such that thespecies' range in the assessment area is unlikely to be able to shift significantly OR the directionof climate change-caused shift in the species' favorable climate envelope is fairly wellunderstood and barriers prevent a range shift in that direction. Examples: None for migratorybird species breeding in Alaska.2. Barriers border the current distribution such that climate change-caused distributional shifts inthe assessment area are likely to be greatly impaired. Examples: None for migratory bird speciesbreeding in Alaska.3. Barriers border the current distribution such that climate change-caused distributional shifts inthe assessment area are likely to be significantly impaired. Examples: Coastally breeding birdspecies, with the majority of the breeding population within the northern 1/3 rd of the ArcticCoastal Plain (e.g., Steller’s Eider, Spectacled Eider.)4. Small barriers exist for this species but are not likely to significantly impair distributionalshifts with climate change. Examples: Species that have coastal to near-coastal breeding(northern 2/3 rd of Arctic Coastal Plain) but whose distributions also extend into the high arcticCanadian Archipelago and/or Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta (e.g., Snow Goose).160

5. Significant barriers do not exist for this species. Examples: Most birds with broad distributionsoutside arctic Alaska and Canada (e.g. Greater Scaup, Lapland Longspur)(B3) Predicted Impact of Land Use Changes Resulting from HumanResponses to Climate ChangeStrategies designed to mitigate or adapt to climate change have the potential to physically affectlarge areas of land and the species that depend on these areas. This factor is NOT intended tocapture habitat loss resulting from on-going human activities, as these are already includedin existing conservation status ranks. Also, consider only the direct physical impacts of theland use change, including direct habitat destruction or habitat loss through resulting impacts onhydrology (e.g. impoundment of water from road construction) or other physical processes. DoNOT consider any indirect affects of human activity here (e.g. increased subsistence hunting,increasing subsidized predators) that may be associated with these activities. Lastly, includeonly new activities related directly to climate change mitigation or adaptation here.Examples of ongoing or highly plausible activities ONLY in the Arctic LCC 1 :• Shoreline eroding fortification• Conversion of ice roads to all-weather roads (residents and related to energy)/additionalculverts and water-crossings1Other potential climate change related human mitigation activities (e.g. wind-farm developments, hydro dams,natural gas infrastructure) were deemed unlikely to be developed in the region in the next 50 years.Note: As you answer these questions take into account the likely scale of themitigation/adaptation related land use change as well as the importance to the species ofindividual sites where such developments are likely to be constructed.1. The species is likely or very likely to be significantly impacted by mitigation/adaptationrelatedland use changes that are occurring or likely will occur in the assessment area in the next50 years.2. The species may possibly be significantly impacted by mitigation/adaptation-related land usechanges that are occurring or likely will occur in the assessment area/species’ range in the next50 years.3. The species is unlikely to be significantly affected by mitigation/adaptation-related land usechanges that are occurring or likely will occur within the assessment area OR it is unlikely thatany mitigation/adaptation-related land use changes will affect large areas of the assessmentarea/the species’ range.4. The species may possibly benefit from mitigation/adaptation-related land use changes that areoccurring or likely will occur within the assessment area/the species’ range.5. The species is likely to benefit from mitigation/adaptation-related land use changes that arelikely or very likely to occur within the assessment area/the species’ range.161

(C2aii) Physiological Thermal NicheThis factor assesses the degree to which a species is restricted to relatively cool or cold abovegroundterrestrial or aquatic environments for at least part of their stay on the breeding grounds.Because the upper thermal tolerance is not documented for most species, this question isintended to approach thermal niche indirectly through habitat association, whereby it isactually the preferred habitat that is thermally limited. It is meant to refer to the cold sites withinthe assessment area--the highest elevations, northernmost areas, but not sites that are likely tosimply shift in location without reduction or loss (e.g. shady ravines). The restriction to theserelatively cool environments may be permanent or seasonal. Consider the extent of andconstraints on the species’ distribution in Alaska and adjacent Canada outside the Arctic LLCboundaries, if relevant, in your response to this factor.Note: While thermal and hydrological niche are sometimes closely linked, if species is morestrongly restricted by hydrology, select option #3 and respond with reference to hydrologicalconstraints in the next question.1. Species is completely or almost completely restricted (>90% of occurrences or range) torelatively cool or cold environments in the assessment area. (we don’t know of any examples)2. Species is moderately restricted (50-90% of occurrences or range) to relatively cool or coldenvironments in the assessment area. (We don’t know of any examples)3. Species distribution is not restricted to cool or cold environment in the assessment area.(most species)4. Species shows a preference for environments towards the warmer environments in theassessment area (e.g. south-facing slopes). (e.g. Lapland Longspur nesting on south facingsubstrates)(C2bii) Physiological Hydrologic NicheCheck multiple boxes to capture uncertainty and also do a bit of a sensitivity analysis. Themultiple choices do not have to fall along a continuum—especially given the uncertainty inhydrological trajectories for the region (drying or wetting).This factor pertains to a species' dependence on a narrowly defined precipitation/hydrologicregime, including strongly seasonal precipitation patterns and/or specific aquatic wetlandhabitats. Consider the level of dependence of the species on particular hydrologic conditions.Dependence may be permanent or seasonal.Examples:• Specific aquatic wetland habitats-wet and emergent tundra• Birds dependent on foraging in small waterbodies and nesting in wet tundra habitat• Birds nesting on “island” sites to avoid predators1. Species is completely or almost completely dependent (>90% of occurrences or range) on aspecific aquatic/wetland habitat or seasonal precipitation patterns.162

2. Species is moderately dependent (50-90% of occurrences or range) on a specificaquatic/wetland habitat or localized moisture regime.3. Species is somewhat dependent (10-50% of occurrences or range) on a specificaquatic/wetland habitat or seasonal precipitation.4. Species has little or no dependence on a specific aquatic/wetland habitat or seasonalprecipitation patterns.5. Species has very broad moisture tolerances.(C2c) Dependence on Specific Disturbance RegimesThis factor pertains to a species' response to specific disturbance regimes that are likely to beimpacted by climate change, such as fires, floods, severe winds, pathogen outbreaks, or similarevents. Consider disturbances that impact species indirectly, such as changes in flood frequencyimpacting sand/gravel bar nesting species. Also consider potential impacts on species thatcurrently benefit from a lack of disturbance.Consider ONLY the following disturbances, recent trends in changes to their frequency, severityand extent and their potential impacts:• Increased coastal erosion and overwash linked to storm frequency/intensity (e.g.,Common Eider nesting sites on barrier islands)• Thermokarst processes/events— lake drainage, ice wedge degradation in drainage areas,upland slumps and effects on aquatic systems (e.g. influencing prey availability forpiscivorous species like loons.)• Upland tundra fire impact on quality of nesting sites• Extreme rain/snow events (e.g. snow storms can cause region-wide abandonment ordelay in nesting)• Expansion into assessment area of pathogens currently in adjacent regions1. Species’ distribution, abundance, or habitat quality.is very likely to be reduced by a changein the frequency, severity, or extent of a disturbance regime over the next 50 years.2. Species’ distribution, abundance, or habitat quality may possibly be reduced by a change inthe frequency, severity, or extent of a disturbance regime over the next 50 years.3. Species’ distribution, abundance, or habitat quality is unlikely to be affected by a change inthe frequency, severity, or extent of a disturbance regime over the next 50 years.4. Species’ distribution, abundance, or habitat quality may possibly be increased by a change inthe frequency, severity, or extent of a disturbance regime over the next 50 years.5. Species’ distribution, abundance, or habitat quality is likely to be increased by a change inthe frequency, severity, or extent of a disturbance regime over the next 50 years.163

(C3) Restriction to Uncommon Geological FeaturesThis factor pertains to a species' need for a particular soil/substrate, geology, water chemistry, orspecific physical feature (e.g., caves, cliffs, active sand dunes) for one or more portions of its lifecycle. Do not include features that have been addressed by previous factors, such as springs orephemeral pools or biotic habitat components, such as a particular type of plant community, asthese will be addressed elsewhere. Response should be based on the commonness of feature anddegree of species restriction.Example:• Species dependent on cliffs for nesting (e.g. Gyrfalcon)• Species that utilize protected waters as on the leeward side of barrier islands (e.g. postbreedingphalaropes)• Species dependent on gravel river/stream bed habitat for nesting (e.g. SemipalmatedPlover)1. Species is very highly dependent on (>85% of occurrences) a particular highly uncommongeological feature or derivative.2. Species is moderately to highly dependent on (65-85% of occurrences) a particular highlyuncommon geological feature or derivative OR is restricted to a geological feature or derivativethat is not one of the dominant types within the species' range.3. Species is dependent on (>85% of occurrences) a common geological feature or derivativethat is among the dominant types within the species' range.4. Species is somewhat flexible but not highly generalized in dependence upon geologicalfeatures or derivatives. This category should include species found on a subset of dominantsubstrates occurring within the species' range (e.g., many birds and mammals).5. Species is highly generalized relative to dependence upon geological features or derivatives.(C4a) Dependence on Other Species to Generate HabitatFor this factor, habitat refers to any physical habitat necessary for completion of the life cycle,including those used on a seasonal basis (but not including restricted diets-next factor). Considerhow specialized the species is in its association with another species to generate habitat. If aspecies is dependent on a single species to generate habitat, but the vulnerability of that speciesis unknown, check the first two boxes below — (We could think of no examples for ArcticAlaska).1. Required habitat is generated primarily by a single species and that species may be highlyvulnerable to climate change within the assessment area.2. Required habitat is generated primarily by a single species and that species may bevulnerable to climate change within the assessment area.164

3. Required habitat is generated by one or more, but not more than a few species.Examples: burrowing owls depend on excavations made by relatively few species of mammals,marbled murrelets depend on a few species of large trees to provide nesting platforms4. Required habitat is generated by more than a few species or does not involve species-specificprocesses.(C4b) Dietary VersatilityThis factor pertains to the diversity of food types consumed by animal species.1. Diet is completely or almost completely dependent (>90%) on one species during any part ofthe year. Example: Clark's nutcracker depends heavily on the seeds of whitebark pine; pomarinejaeger depends on brown lemming population eruptions for successful reproduction2. Diet is completely or almost complete dependent (>90%) on a few species from a single guildof species during any part of the year. Example: the larvae of various fritillary butterflies relyheavily on a few species of violets, during winter ptarmigan depend heavily on few species ofwillows for forage3. Diet is flexible, including several species but either solely plant or animal-based.Example: post-breeding shorebird species may rely on a few species of benthic invertebrates4. Omnivorous diet, includes several species of both plants and animals.(C4e) Other Interspecific InteractionsThis factor refers to interactions unrelated to habitat, diet, or propagule dispersal, such asmutualism, parasitism, or commensalism, or predator-prey relationships.Examples:• Some waterfowl species are known to nest within the nesting territory of birds of prey affordingprotection from nest predators• Documented changes in predator-prey relationships - e.g., ability of waterfowl to fend off Arcticfox vs. red fox predation1. Species requires an interaction with a single other species for persistence OR changes in aspecific predator-prey relationship has the potential to strongly effect the persistence of thespecies.2. Species requires an interaction with one member of a small group of taxonomically relatedspecies for persistence OR changes in a specific predator-prey relationship has the potential tosomewhat effect the persistence of the species. Select this category in cases for which specificityis suspected but not known for certain.3. Does not require an interspecific interaction OR many potential candidates can be used.(C5a) Measured Genetic Variation (not included in revision)165

(C6) Phenological ResponseThis factor assesses changes in a species' phenological response (e.g., timing of migration,breeding, etc.) relative to observed (historical) changes in temperature or precipitation dynamicsPotential sources of data include large databases such as that of the U.S. National PhenologyNetwork other multi-species studies.Note: If there are no data available to make comparisons between the observed responsesof the species under question with other species in similar habitats or taxonomic groups, selectall of the last 3 options.1. Phenological variables measured for the species show no detectable change in response todocumented changes in seasonal temperature or precipitation patterns or other climate-relatedphenological variables (green-up, snowmelt/cover, ice-out, freeze up, etc.) within the assessmentarea. (Increase vulnerability)2. Phenological variables measured for the species show detectable change in response todocumented changes in seasonal temperature or precipitation patterns or other climate-relatedphenological variables (green-up, snowmelt/cover, ice-out, freeze up, etc.) within the assessmentarea, but the phenological change is significantly less than that of other species in similar habitatsor taxonomic groups. (Somewhat increase vulnerability)3. Phenological variables measured for the species indicate detectable change in response todocumented changes in seasonal temperature or precipitation patterns or other climate-relatedphenological variables (green-up, snowmelt/cover, ice-out, freeze up, etc.) within the assessmentarea, but the phenological change is similar to that of other species in similar habitats ortaxonomic groups (Neutral)4. Phenological variables measured for the species indicate detectable change in response todocumented changes in seasonal temperature or precipitation patterns or other climate-relatedphenological variables (green-up, snowmelt/cover, ice-out, freeze up, etc.) within the assessmentarea but the phenological change is significantly greater than that of other species in similarhabitats or taxonomic groups (Somewhat decrease vulnerability)(D1) Documented Changes in Distribution or Abundance in Response toRecent Climate ChangeThis factor pertains to the degree to which distribution or abundance has changed in response torecent climate change, for example range contractions or population declines due to phenologymismatches and critical resources. Consider a time frame of 10 years or three generations,whichever is longer. — Only consider population level declines in abundance or distributioncontractions for responses #1, #2, and #3. Northward shifts in range limits without overallreductions/contractions at the southern edge should are captured in #5 and #6 (e.g., mallard).1. Distribution or abundance has undergone a major reduction (>70% over 10 years or threegenerations) believed to be associated with climate change.166

2. Distribution or abundance has undergone a moderate reduction (30-70% over 10 years orthree generations) believed to be associated with climate change.3. Distribution or abundance has undergone a small but measurable reduction (10-30% over 10years or three generations) believed to be associated with climate change.4. Distribution or abundance is not known to be increasing or decreasing with climate change.Includes species undergoing range shifts without significant change in distributional area orspecies undergoing changes in phenology but without a change in net range or population size.5. Distribution or abundance has undergone a small but measurable increase (10-30% over 10years or three generations) believed to be associated with climate change. Distribution changesmust be true increases in area, not range shifts.6. Distribution or abundance has undergone a moderate or major increase (>30% over 10 yearsor three generations) believed to be associated with climate change. Distribution changes mustbe true increases in area, not range shifts.Note: Eighteen of the 54 experts responded to this question. The response can alter the overallvulnerability results just based on the B&C sections if they are contrary to those results. Forexample, if a species is calculated to be MV based on the B&C factor responses, D responsesindicating that model or observed changes to distribution show reductions, the MV could getbumped to a HV.167