Current Issues in Alaska Wetland ManagementINTRODUCTION Like other large areas of the circumpolar north, Alaska contains abundant wetlands. They are gen-Wetlands are a conspicuous

AD-A286 427

* Current Issues inAlaska Wetland ManagementCharles H. Racine August 1994

a

94-35661

-d "- -"c " OIC QUALITV

94 11 18 091

Allthogh wetlnds co over half of Alaka. fth sk~ur, nmangemn anreps. ion of twos areas is problemafic. The WchWWo lkurtor on AloskciwWMn vegeahon soils and hydology is axbunat, bA the apl~coton of OwaIterlur to wetla manogenw# Is poorty drmelps This repast ~bproblems. osue ad k~Imtabogap g ie monagemmof Alaan weftlansTheme e nmerous orgummnote d desbats on ft daeshgalr. Kr~cfon andvakue, and *Asxbanc of cndl w~AxW% in Aklask Permofro, fnr cycissand imiqu hydrologic reglau corTcalmrE ft despabon and duilreran olMoskcm wallands The twicion Wn value df most Ataskan wellwds cleatylie in VW WTrpoI~mo as habd, posicdolty b mlgrWV wckbkrds bdi anwidegtodirkg of reik role in f" a*t OAwu sbag.. 7jui kvWo~wrwUu~ellc and aftm tgorwf rmnahu co*ovmsal ud in nod d sutudDiskbmbw on d~ hm Inack on Alaskin wdlWd s uis smog *Ww o t* Imara=W t xt~dis m and cyi knc wtonpak vwi l oasoweilwwls m te aim48 sifts Ham. 9u1w O ~ d opmWiPft cin mDWO have d~d kimpw&W~ mmno and melodsID to estm two welb1 aft bwqn dewAdpe

umluk"Iw kv~aci are urwow as we ledrieqi tt "OW pom*ostWO@Wds wlAb" grae IN

FQIOWM"W O9NW U ~tI U S*" C'UVft Vntv' 1 .cWMUWVcamwAWStU iaEdf3IO S~ L hVa

9001of LkIf pwwmd tv ft hienw SOD~v to I#Wv OW~ IIvag19 6ft I 9 a** P a~~ 19 103

Special Report 94-26

U.S. Army Corpsof EngineersCold Regions Research &Engineering Laboratory

Current Issues inAlaska Wetland ManagementCharles H. Racine August 1994

AsbJbout FonrSTIS GRA&I

DTIZC TA13 [Unanounc••=ed 0]justification

Di.__~,ý__1.4onUk;•

Availability Oodes

CifICFE C THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS

Ai vcwJ ix ouAA: ivhisom c ftxc Isi u ii*i di

PREFACE

This report was prepared b,, Dr. Charles H. Racine, Research Ecologist, Geologi-cal Sciences Branch, Research Division, U.S. Army Cold Regions Research andEngineering Laboratory.

Library personnel were extremely helpful in locating literature: Nancy Listonand Deborah Smith-Cohen at CRREL and Martha Shepherd at the Federal ResourceLibrary in Anchorage. David Cate provided valuable help with editing and finalcompilation of the report.

i .. . Ii I i i n ,, , , , ' 'i

Current Issues in Alaska Wetland Management

CHARLES H. RACINE

INTRODUCTION Like other large areas of the circumpolar north,Alaska contains abundant wetlands. They are gen-

Wetlands are a conspicuous feature of the land- erally thought to cover almost half the area of thescape in northern boreal and arctic regions; only in state, or 175 million acres, twice the total arealthe High Arctic are wetlands extremely limited extentof wetlands in the contiguous United States.(Bliss et al. 1981). They develop in northern areas Alaskan wetlands span 200 of latitude and 580 ofbecause the evaporation rate is low relative to longitude and vary widely in origin, substrate andprecipitation, the drainage is impeded by perma- ecosystem properties. They occur in maritime,frost, there is extensive development of organic continental and arctic climates on glaciated andsoils and there are contributing geologic factors, urglaciated terrain and include both coastal andsuch as glaciers, large river systems, extensive freshwater systems. As Ford and Bedford (1987)coastlines with low coastal plains, and large inte- stated in their review of the hydrology of Alaskanriorlowland basins. Processes that formrand main- wetlands, "the geographic extent and enormoustain these wetlands include river geomorphic pro- diversity of wetland systems within the state sim-cesses, permafrost development and degradation ply overwhelm current understanding."(thermokarst), paludification, rising water tables Wetland information is needed by two distinctand patterns of vegetation succession (Drury 1956, groups: wetland scientists and wetland managers.Glaser 1987). Well-known wetland types such as While the wetland scientist is interested in wet-bogs, swamps, fens and marshes are well repre- land processes, structure and classification, wet-sented in northern regions, describing areas with land managers are concerned with regulationsshallow water or saturated soils that accumulate designed to prevent or control wetland modifica-plant organic materials, which decompose slowly tion. Federal protection of wetlands is provided inandsupportavarietyofplantsandanimalsadapted the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972,to saturated conditions (Mitsch and Gosselink commnonly called the Clean Water Act. Section 4041986). of trhis act requires permits for dredging and filling

All northern wetlands share tw o common char- in water% of the United States (including wet-acteristics: lands).

* The water in circumpolar wetlands re- The management and regulation of wetlandsmains frozenr for over half the year; and usually requires information for determining first

* Most of the high solar energy input dur- whether a particular site is or is not a "jurisdic-ing the brief summer is used to melt the ice tional" wetland according to a set of technicaland thaw the snow cover, with little en- criteria based on the vegetation, soil and hydro-ergy to provide the warm soil, air and logic conditions of the site. Once recognized as awater that are needed to sustain high rates wetland, the values and functions of the site areof biological activity, usually determined. It is necessary to know how

Despite the low energy status, polar wetlands are valuable (relative to other types) a particular wet-recognized as impottant breeding habitats for land is as habitat for moose, birds, fish (anadro-migratory waterbird populations, and they play mous and non-anadromous) and waterfowl, asan important role in the protection of permafrost. well as for water quality and hydrologic functions.Arctic and subactic wetlands are of increasing Finally the impacts or disturbances to the wetlandconcern and importance to regulatory and land that would result from a proposed project need tomanagement agencies charged with protecting be evaluated, followed by an understanding of thewater quality or wildlife potentially affected by methodsavailabletomitigatettieseimpacts.Thesethe accelerating development of northern oil, gas four areas, therefore, define the needs of wetlandand mineral resources. managers:

* Delineation, classification and mapping; sources of unpublished natural resource informa-* Functions and values; tion for Alaska. A major effort dedicated to re-* Impacts; and viewing this gray literature is beyond the scope of* Mitigation and restoration. this project. However, during 1990 these Anchor-

A fifth subject-legislation and management age libraries were used to review a number ofpolicy-is beyond the scope of this report. unpublished reports. The literature reviewed here

The purpose of this report is to identify prob- generally covers articles published between 1970lems and information gaps in the management of and January 1990.Alaskan wetlands. Under each of the four subject Federal agencies that have contributed exten-areas above, I attempt to identify historical papers, sively to the Alaskan wetland literature, mostlyreview papers or sources that give an overview in through unpublished repo~ts of varying availabil-relation to Alaskan wetlands. Then current re- ity, include the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, thesearch trends and issues are described, followed Alaska Department of Fish and Game, the Na-by the identification of knowledge gaps and re- tional Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,search needs. the Environmental Protection Agency and the Soil

Conservation Service. These agencies have spe-cialized in various aspects of Alaskan wetlands.

INFORMAllON SOURCES For example, NOAA funded a multi-year (1972-1981) Outer Continental Shelf research program,

There is a large amount of literature on wet- which covers Alaskan coastal wetlads. The U.S.lands, including vegetation, soils, climate and wild- Fish and Wildlife Service has rublished a series oflife, that can to some extent be applied to under- "community profiles" that present physical, cherni-standing the management needs for regional wet- cal and biological chararcteristics of wetland eco-lands in Alaska. These are generally more useful to logical communities and may present impact-re-a wetland scientist than to a wetlands manager. lated information as well (c.f. Hobbie 1984 onNo single source summarizes knowledge on the Arctic coastal plain tundra ponds). The Armywetlands of Alaska similar to a new volume on the Cold Regions Research and Engineering Labora-wetlands of Canada (National Wetlands Working tories has published reports on riverine wetlandGroup 1988). This regional approach for Canada processes and permafrost conditions. EPA hassummarized the literature on wetland types, their funded several studies on developing a cumula-development, their values and their human uses. tive impact assessment for North Slope wetlands.The discussion is greatly facilitated by the use of a The USDA Soil Conservation Service has mappedNational Canadian Wetland Classification sys- hydric soils and wetland vegetation in severaltem. In contrast with the Cowardin et al. (1979) areas of Alaska.wetland classification system used in the U.S., The large amount of literature on Alaskan wet-terms such as bog, fen, marsh and swamp have lands is the result of several factors:been retained. • The creation of large national parks, forests,

There is a voluminous body of unpublished preserves, wildlife refuges and state parks,"gray" literature that exists for Alaskan wetlands covering at least 50% of the state. Extensivein the form of "in-house" government reports and studies by the agencies responsible forcontract reports by private consulting firms. Many managing their areas have resulted in manyof these articles are not indexed orcataloged in any published and unpublished reports.systematic way and can only be obtained by visit- W Oiland gas development on the North Slope,ing agency libraries, authors or companies. In particularly the constructicn of the trans-Alaska many contract reports have been produced Alaska pipeline and the Dalton Highway,for oil companies operating on the North Slope. It as well as the development of several largeis difficult to access these "proprietary" reports. oilfields.However, the AEIDC (Arctic Environmental In- 9 Other energy-related projects, such as theformation Data Center) in Anchorage maintains Susitna hydropower project and themicrofiche, a catalog and an index to the ARCO Arnchitka and Cape Thompson nuclearArctic Environmental Reports. In addition, the projects.federal Alaska Resource Library (707 C Street, * The presence of several very detailed tun-Anchorage) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service dra ecosystem studies conducted as part ofLibrary (Tudor Road, Anchorage) are important the International Biological Program in the

2

1970s and more recently by the Department inland lowlands with extensive wetlands includeof Energy. These IBP studies are summa- the Yukon Flats, Tanana Flats and Innoko areas.rized in large books on terrestrial (Brown et Since 1984 the National Wetland Inventoryal. 1980) and aquatic (Hobbie 1980) ecosys- (NWI) conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlifetems on the Arctic coastal plain. These Tun- Service has been calculating and mapping wet-dra and Taiga Biome studies include land acreage for Alaska (Hall 1988). As of 1990,multiyear studies at a range of northern wetlands over about 20% of the state have beensites in North America, Europe and Russia mapped at a scale of 1:63,360 by the NWI. These(Bliss et al. 1981). In Alaska IBP sites in- regionsincludepartsofinteriorAlaska(Fairbanks--cluded wetlands at Barrow and Prudhoe Tanana basin and Yukon Flits), southcentralBay. At least one of these Alaskan IBP stud- Alaska (Anchorage), southeastern Alaska and thejes on the ecology of tundra ponds has been North Slope (Arctic coastal plain). Vegetation, as"translated" by Hobbie (1984) into a wet- interpieted on color infrared aerial photos, is theland-oriented approach. criterion for recognizing wetlands on these maps.

The R4D (Response, Resistance, Resilience and The Cowardin et al. (1979) classification system isRecovery from Disturbance) program being con- used to designat2 the different wetland types.ducted at Toolik Lake in the northern foothills of User notes accompanying each of the 1:63,360the Brooks Range involves process studies and quadrangle wetland maps summarize the regionalresponses to manipulation of both wetland terres- information on hydric soils, vegetation, topogra-trial and aquatic systems, particularly in terms of phy and climate. The NWI classification units arenutrient inputs and temperature changes. described in terms of dominant species and are

Extensive studies of floodplain taiga forests cross-referenced to the Viereck et al. (1986) Alaskaand succession in interior Alaska around Fairbanks vegetation classification.have also been published (Van Cleve et al. 1986). As part of the NWI, acreages have been calcu-Many of these sites represent wetlands, and the lated by region for Alaskan coastal wetlands byliterature can be used to help construct an under- Hall (1988). These include marine intertidal, estua-standing of wetland functions and values, particu- rine subtidal, estuarine intertidal nonvegetatedlarly in relation to food chains, primary produc- and estuarine intertidal vegetated (Cowardin et altion and hydrology. However, a review and sum- 1979 classification units). This survey showed thatmary of the conclusions and findings of these while Alaska contained about the same acreage ofdetailed ecosystem studies are beyond the scope estuarinehabitatasthecontiguousU.S. (21 millionof this report. acres), in Alaska a much smaller percentage (1.7%)

of this is estuarine intertidal vegetated wetlands(salt marsh) than in the contiguous U.S. (22.2%).

DELINEATION, CLASSIFICATION Southeast Alaska has the smallest acreage of saltAND MAPPING marsh; westrem Alaska has the largest.

Wetland inventories have also been conductedSoil type and vegetation composition, combined for several municipalities within Alaska, includ-

with some knowledge of hydrology, are the basis ing Anchorage (Racine and Hamilton 1980), Homerfor tfl' recognition and delineation of wetland,. (Jorf'enson and Berg 1987) and Juneau (Needhamusing the Federal manual (Federal Interagency and ,kordal 1987). The Homer study is a particu-Committee for Wetland Delineation 1989), Many lai .,good example of how soil, vegetation andof the general inventory studies of Alaskan veg- hydrologic information can be combined to delin-etation, soils and hydrology fail to distinguish eate wetlands. Regional wetland inventories in-wetland from non-wetland areas (i.e. Lee et al. clude studies of Knik Arm (Ritchie et al. 1981), the1982). However, by using published lists nf Alas- Kenai lowlands(Rosenberg 1986), theCopper Riverkan hydrophytic plant species (Reed 1988) and Delta (Thilenius 1990), the Colville Delta (Meehanhydric soils (Soil Conservation Service 1985), a and Jennings 1988)and the Tongass Forest (DeMeodecision can sometimes be made if a particular and Loggy 1989).study site is a jurisdictional wetland.

Major coastal wetland areas in Alaska have Soilsbeen identified, such as the Arctic coastal plain, A wetland or hydric soil is generally defined asYukon-Kuskokwim Delta, Copper River Delta, a soil that in its, undrained condition is saturated,Colville Delta asid Upper Cook Inlet areas. .arge fiomded or ponded long enough during the grow-

3

ing season to develop anaerobic conditions that in saturated soils ot wet conditions. A series offavor the growth and regeneration of hydrophytic unpublished literature reviews and classificationvegetation (Soil Conservation Service 1985, Na- schemes for Alaskan wetland vegetation weretionalTechnicalCommittee for Hydric Soils 1987). written by Batten (1980, 1986), Batten et al. (1978)In the Wetland Delineation Interagency Manual and Batten and Murray (1982). These are impor-(Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland De- tant and useful documents providing a statewidelineation 1989), hydric soils are recognized on the perspective of Alaskan wetland vegetation (in-basis of soilmorphologicindicators such as gleying cluding c( astal tidal wetlands). However, none ofand mottling due to saturation and development these wetland descriptions include :he soil andof reducing (anaerobic) conditions. However, "if hydrologiccriteria necessary for the recognition ofthe soil conditions are such that free oxygen is jurisdictional wetlands.present, organic matter is absent, or temperatures Satellite imagery and aerial photography haveare too low (below 410 F) to sustain micr,•bial activ- been used extensively to produce general vegeta-ity, gleization will not proceed and mottles will tion maps of various regions of Alaska (Walker etnot form even though the soil may be saturated for al. 1982, Swanson 14'85, Tande and Jennings 1986,prolonged periods of time" (Diers and Anderson Walker and Acevedvo 1 Q%7. Talbot and Markon1984). At many sites in northern Alaska soil tern- 1988). It is not oftitsi [- *k. to determine whichperatures at depth may never rise above 4!°F (5°C, map units are lUrudmatuL wetlands.or biological zero), so the concept of a growing In addition, nunrmhou. i&n.ntorues of vegeta-season during which the soils are saturated is tion have wern, c(ducti-d as ;-art of environmen-meaningless. There is a need to understand the tal statements and mre.ntoties for federal landseffects oi these soil temperature regimes on the (Racine and Anderson 1974, Rothe et al 1983) anddevelopment of hydric soil indicators. for development pro•ecLs (Hettinger and Janz 1974,

In addition, wildfire in the discontinuous per- Walker and Webber 1979)mafrost areas of interior Alaska may result in soils The Cowardin .t al. (1479) system of wetlandthat alternate between shallowly thawed and there- classification is based on vegetation and is beingfore waterlogged (late in the fire succession) and used in the mapping of Alaskzln wetlands by themore deeply thawed and better drained soils National Wetland Inventory. Mapping is accom-(shortly after fire) (Van Cleve and Viereck 1983). plished using color infrared aerial photography atTherefore, soils at the same site could theoretically a scale of I in. = I mile. Ihis system was developedalternatebetweenhydricandnon-hydricconditions. for tle contiguous U.S. for mapping wetlands

Soils are not well mapped in Alaska, and recog- from aerial photography and to avoid well-knownnition of hydric soil series is only beginning by the but ambiguous terms such as marsh, bog, swampSoil Conservation Service (1985). The Exploratory and fen. In Alaska, where peaty wetlands pre-Soil Survey of Alaska (Reiger et al 1979) contains dominate, these all fall into one term (palustrine),small-scale maps (1:250,000) and soil classifica- leaving very little room for the differentiation oftion. Detailed large-scale soil series designations classes.are required for wetland designatinn. Since the Other classification systems for Alaskan veg-presence of soils containing permafrost is often etation and landforms have been developed, in-important to the determination of wetland status, cluding a long-term project by the Institute ofmaps showing the distribution of permafrost, in- Northern Forestry (USFS). In the most recent ver-formation on ice content and the active layer depth sion of the Alaska vegetation classification (Viereckare valuableto wetland delineation. Unfortunately et al. 1986), wetlands are not specifically recog-maps showing permafrost distribution in Alaska nized, although the Aquatic community (plantsare extremely generalized (Ferrians 1%5). Infor- that are submerged or have floating leaves) andmation on permafrost distribution in Alaska can Wet Forb Herbaceous types are clearly wetlands.he obtained from literature available in the Inter- Batten (1980) developed an Alaskan wetlandnational Permafrost Conference proceedings and classification scheme based on the recognition ofby the Army Cold Regions Research and Engi- five major communities: I) aquatic, 2) marsh, 3)neering Laboratory (CRREL). wet meadow, 4) ericaceous shrub wetland and 5)

erect shrub wetland. A marsh has standing waterVegetation (greater than 15 cm deep) and is dominated by one

Wetland vegetation generally consists of hy- of the following species: Arctophila fulha, Equise-drophytes, or wetland plant.; adapted to growing turn flhwiatile, Ehe',claris palustris or Scirpus sp. In

4

contrast a wet meadow has water depths of less drainage by permafrost. Permafrost-induced wet-than 15 cm and is dominated by species of sedge lands in Alaska are analogous to many wetlands(Carex sp.) or cottongrass (Eriophorum sp.). on soils with an impervious layer in non-perma-

Other classification systems of Alaskar. wet- frost areas. In southeastern Alaska there is nolands have been developed by waterbird biolo- permafrost, but high precipitation causes soil satu-gists to better designate habitat types (Bergman et ration. Do these conditions require special consid-al. 1977, Kessel 1979, Derksen et al. 1981, Meehan eration in terms of wetland designation?and Jennings 1988). The Cowardin et al. (1979) Of particular concern in wetland delineation iswetland classification system is awkward for evalu- the occurrence of several extensive terrain types ofating the importance of wetlands to waterfowl, unknown wetland status (i.e. they have not beenand investigators have chosen more general clas- extensively subjected to the criteria in the Inter-sifications specific to physiographic features and agency Manual). These include tussock tundra,vegetation of local areas (Lensink and Derksen which is by far the most extensive tundra type in1986). Alaska, and open black spruce/moss forest or

Several papers have attempted to show how the "muskeg" types. Batten (1980) excluded tussockvarious classification systems in use in Alaska are tundra from his survey of Alaskan wetland types.interrelated by cross referencing two or more sys- In Canada the large expanses of tundra coveredtems (Rosenberg 1986, Jorgenson and Berg 1987). with tussock-forming graminoid species are notThese are important because they link wetland considered wetlands since they are not water-delineation and recognition to an evaluation of logged throughout the year (Zoltai and Polletttheir functions. Meehan and Jennings (1988) de- 1983). This view is in agreement with the defini-veloped habitat maps for the Colville River Delta tion of tundra bogs in Siberia used by Botch (1974).on the arctic coast and compared classification However, the Interagency delineation manual onlyunits used by Viereck et al. (1981), Markon (1980) requires that surface flooding and soil saturationand NWI. A GIS system was used to correlate the occur for one week or more during the grow i•gbird census data (tundra swan, greater white- season. Batten (1980) also excluded the followingfronted goose, yellow-billed loon and pacific loon) from his Alaskan wetland classification scheme:and the cover types. Eight habitat classes were * Willow thickets and perennial herb corn-recognized and ranked in terms of waterfowl use munities on gravel bars flooded annuallyand correlated with the Markon (1980) and but dry most of the summer;Bergman et al. (1977) wetland cover types. * Many coastal types, even though all are

Tande andJennings (1986) also developed maps probably inundated by tidewater at longand a vegetation classification for an area in the inter% ais (some annually), including theYukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge in wester n alder fringe at the forest edge, most strandAlaska. These vegetation types and landform fea- and all dune types, including Elymus types,tures will form thebasis fordetermining theamount and some well-drained types at the upperand quality of goose nesting habitat. The final edges of coastal marshes flooded only byunits were correlated with the NWI units with storm surges one or a few times annually;some problems. * Steep terrain such as seepage areas on cliffs,

bluffs etc;Problems and issues in wetland delineation * Snowbeds; and

With regard to soil, and hydrology, there re- o Solifluction lobes, or at least the termini ofmains abundant confusion concerning the wet- such lobes.land delineation and designation of saturated soils Alaskan floodplains are dynamic systems in whichareas that overlie permafrost. A recent oil corn periodic flooding may produce wetland condi-pany report (Senner 1989) questioned the designa- tions in areas that were previously levees or sandtion of arctic coastal plain tundra as wetland be- or gravel bars.cause of the desert-like low precipitation (less than Although vegetation has been mapped and clas-5 in. per year) and the dependence on permafrost sified over extensive areas of the state and someto trap standing water (i.e. there are no groundwa- soil surveys have been conducted, the correspun-ter connections). In interior Alaska there are for- dence between hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soilsested types on fairly steep north-facing slopes and hydrology has not been well tested in Alaskaunderlain by permafrost. Similarly in northern (Walker et al. 1989). Therefore the actual designa-Alaska, soils are often saturated due to impeded tion of a field site as either wetland or non-wetland

5

(upland) isoftendifficult. Althougha list of hydro- drologic systems and the quality of surface andphytic plants (Reed 1988) and a few hydric soils ground water. The most important value of Alas-lists are available, there is widespread recognition kan wetlands is generally recognized as related tothat Alaskan plant species have broad ecological habitat and food chain functions, with most em-amplitudes, making it difficult to assign species to phasi' placed on migratory waterbirds (includinga specific segment of the soil moisture gradient. swans, ducks, geese, loons and shorebirds). TheseEven a preliminary guide to the site identification arctic and subarctic wetland nesting areas areand delineation of the wetlands of Alaska (Huffman crucial to maintaining the North American water-and Tucker 1984) used only vegetation to identify fowl population. An annotated bibliography ofwetlands in each region of the state and ignored literature on Alaskan water birds was publishedthe soil and hydrology criteria entirely. by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Handel et al.

Two recent studies specifically attempted to 1981). Numerous studies by the U.S. Fish anddelineate wetlands using both vegetation and soil! Wildlife Service, the Alaska Department of Fishcriteria. On the North Slope (foothills region), and Game and other agencies have documentedWalker et al. (1989) tested the correspondence the wildlife habitat values of many wetland areasbetween hydric soils (as defined by Soil Conserva- in Alaska (Bergman et al. 1977, Ritchie et al. 1981,tion Service 1985) and wetland plant species (as Hogan and Tam e 1983, Rosenberg 198t., Meehandefined forAlaska by Reed 1988). A wetland index and Jennings 1988). In addition, the functioning ofusing plant species hydrophyte values (obligate to several site-specific arctic wetlands in terms offacultative) was calculated for the vegetation oc- energy capture, food chains and nutrient cyclingcurring on the various hydric soils. In general the has been studied in detail (Brown et al. 1980,correspondence was good, suggesting that vascu- Hobbie 1980). However, to translate a functionlar plant species lists can be used to distinguish into a value requires a standard of comparison bybetween wetlands and nonwetlands or hydric and which to assign some benefit.nonhydric soils. However, one hydric soil type The only published document to address wet-(Pergelic cryaquept) yielded a borderline index land functions from a state-wide perspective is thevalue; it is this soil type and vegetation (moist proceedings of a 1986 symposium entitled Alaska:tussock sedge/dwarf shrub tundra) that is one of Regional Wetland Functions (edited by Van der Valkthe most widespread tundra types in Alaska. This and Hall 1986). Papers in this volume cover hy-vegetation is rooted in the organic horizon, which drology (Ford and Bedford), subsistence use (Ellanafrequently drys out later in the summer while the and Sherrod), waterfowl habitat (Lensink andmineral soil remains saturated. Derksen) and vegetation (Batten). Human uses of

In southeastern Alaska, DeMeo and Loggy arcticwetlandsincludebothsubsistenceandsport(1989) used soils and vegetation to delineate and hunting and fishing, as well as energy develop-map forested wetlands in the Tongass National ment, since much of the oil and gas deposits inForest, They modified the vegetation weighting Alaska underlie wetlands.system in the new Interagency manual (based onthe percentage of the total number of dominant Regional studies of wetland functionsspecies that are either obligate, facultative-wet or and valuesfacultative). They dropped the facultative species Wetland function and values analyses for atand calculated an index for both the upland/ least one or more functions have been conductedfacultative-upland and obligate/facultative-wet in Juneau (Adamus 1987), Anchorage (Hogan andusing cover. Tande 1983), Seward (Oakley et al. 1987), Knik

Arm (Ritchie et al. 1981) and the Kenai lowlands(Rosenberg 1986). Extensive studies of waterbird

WETLANDS FUNCTIONS use and wetland habitat on the North Slope ofAlaska also provide a functional evaluation of

Once wetlands have been delineated using hy- these wetlands (Lensink and Derksen 1986).dric soils, hydrophytic vegetation and hydrology Adamus, who helped develop the wetlandcriteria, it is important to determine their func- evaluation manual for the contiguous U.S,, hastions, These define in human terms their values or tested some predictors for Juneau wetlandsbenefits in termsof water quality, quantity, habitat (Adamus et al. 1987). He considered several wet-and recreation. The potential values of wetlands land functions, including groundwater rechargeare well known and generally focus on providing and discharge, surface hydrologic control, sedi-habitat for fish and wildlife and maintaining hy- ment/toxicantretention, nutrienttransformation/

6

export, riparian support ans almonid habitat. For values, that any one function can be justificationeach of these functions, both direct measurement for recognizing a particular wetland of high value.and extrapolation from superficial characteristics In the case of the Arctic, the habitat value ofwere used to rate the function (high, moderate or wetlands for shorebirds and waterfowl is the mostlow). Some wetlands were instrumented to mea- studied and best understood.sure hydrologic fuiriction, while for others indirect Senner made little or no distinction between thecriteria were developed to rate the function. different types of wetland habitats and areas on

Hogan and Tande (1983) inventoried the veg- the North Slope. These areas and habitats haveetation and bird species in 11 palustrine wetlands different functions and values and should be con-in the Anchorage Bowl. The highest bird use was sidered separately. For example, the Colville Riverin bogs with the greatest open water and inter- delta is a unique wetland habitat of restrictedspersed vegetation; however, the greatest bird occurrence along the arctic coastal plain.density was found in small bogs bordering lakes.Another wetland study near Seward (Oakley et al. Hydrologic values1987) showed that wetlands adjacent to Salmon Senner argued that arctic wetlands have little orCreek are important to the overall salmonid pro- no hydrologic value (flood storage, groundwaterduction in the creek. recharge/discharge, erosion control/shoreline

Lensink and Derksen (1986) summarized the protection etc). His arguments are based mainlynumbers and density of waterfowl using wetlands on a paper in a wetlands symposium proceedingsin each of the major regions of Alaska. Both coastal by Robertson (1987), entitled "The Arctic Coast:and interior areas were included. The coastal habi- Wetland or Desert," a speculative paper that wastats of the Yukon Delia are critical to more species not supported by data. Senner argued that arcticor subspecies of waterfowl than any comparable wetlands do not regulate spring runoff or storearea in North America, while the Yukon Flats in meltwater since they are frozen during springthe Interior supports a breeding population den- breakup and only shallowly thawed the rest of thesity 2-2 times higher than other waterfowl breed- summer. A number of tundra wetland hydrologying areas in Alaska. papers by Woo and Steer (1986) in Canada and

Kane et al. (1981) in Alaska show that flow regula-Current issues in Arctic wetlands functions and tion and storage do occur in arctic wetlands byvalues: the Senner report mechanisms such as ice-free voids and cracks,

In a report by Senner (1980) the oil companies absorption by dehydrated moss and peat, lowhave questioned the values of North Slope wet- relief, subsurface flow and thaw pond storage.lands and therefox : the need for regulatory actions Watershed dischargedatashowing high peak flowsin areas where oilfield development is taking place and low base flows cited by Senner from Ford andin Alaska. This report, entitled "Effects of Petro- Bedford (1987) are from a site in the subarcticleum Operations in Alaska Wetlands," and a short rather than arctic. Hobbie (1984) stated that wherepamphlet with photos, has many technica, prob- ponds are abundant in the arctic coastal plain,lems, yet they were widely distributed, most of the water that would ordinarily run off in

The Alaska Department of Fish and Game and the spring instead goes to fill up the pond basins.several conservation groups and federal agencies Senner argued that because there is evidence ofhave critiqued this report (Post 1990). Roger Post permafrost tY'aw and erosion along arctic shore-of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game re- lines, the wetiands do not provide erosion controlviewed the research literaturc, concluding that or shoreline protection. However, removal of thepermafrost wetlands on the North Slope perform surface wetland vegetation cover in the arctic hascritical habitat and hydrologic functions that were been shown to result in tnermokarst and extei isivedenied by Senner (1989). This controversy over the erosion (Lawson 1986).functions and values of Alaskan wetlands is anexcellent opportunity to understand the Alaska Water qualitywetlands literature, issues and knowledge gaps in Senner argued (again citing Robertson as anthe literature. authority) that arctic wetlands do not improve

The Senner report makes the inference that a water quality by removing sediments, nutrients orwetland needs all functional values (flood storage, pollutants because of the short summers and coldhabitat, water supply, recreation etc.) to be consid- soils leading to low plant productivity and there-ered valuable, although the Clean Water Act 404 fore low uptake of nutrients. He argued that the(b)(l) states, under a list of a possible wetland presenceoforganicsoilsinwhichplantsarerooted

7

and the absence of a mineral soil and sediment Knowledge gaps in Alaskan wetland evaluationlayer indicates that nutrient uptake is low. Hobbie The habitat values of North Slope wetlands are(1984) showed that tundra pond wetlands (which well studied for the flat thaw-lake plain regioncover a significnrmt area of the arctic coastal plain) (Bergman et al. 1977). However, less well knownare reasonably productive and actually contain are the habitat values of rolling arctic terrain domi-fine sediments that have high cation exchange nated by moist tussock tundra with few thawand baffering capacity, particularly in relation to lakes. In interior Alaska the values of black sprucephofphate (PO4 ). Other studies by Chapin et al. muskeg wetlands underlain by permafrost need(1980) show that tundra vegetation is biologically to be defined (Van Cleve et al. 1986). Althoughactive at low temperatures and rapidly takes up hydrologic and ecologic aspects of black sprucephosphorus and nitrogen in response to fertiliza- wetlands and treeless bogs have been studied,tion. particularly in relation to fire, permafrost and

ecological succession, the functions associated withWaterbird habitat these wetlands have not been systematically ex-

With regard to wildlife in North Slope tundra, amined. Also, local areas of waterfowl concentra-Senner supported the "vacant hotel" notion that tions such as coastal deltas need to be better iden-population regulation occurs off the breeding tified (Meehan 1988).ground and that the limiting factors are the same The hydrologic and waver quality functions offor all species. Extensive studies by U.S. Fish and Alaskan wetlands are often poorly understood.Wildlife biologists, summarized by Meehan,* According to Ford and Bedford (1987) most of thecounter thisargument, clearly showing that differ- hydrologic information is concentrated for theent factors limit the populations of different water- arctic coastal plain or in the interior near Fairbanksfowl species. For example, the predominant ducks (Kane 1990). Particular information gaps includethat breed in the Arctic overwinter at sea in north- the hydrology of :illuvial wetlands associated withern latitudes. Factors affecting breeding ground most rivers or the high-elevation wetlands of theproductivity (drought and direct habitat loss) have southeast coast, the Seward Peninsula and alluvialhistorically been the major determinants of water- river valleys (Yukon Flats, Tanana Flats etc.). Thefowl populations. hydrologic role of permafrost is poorly understood,

The vacant hotel theory proposed by Senner as is snowmelt (Woo and Steer 1986). Wetlandalso conflicts with shorebird territoriality studies soils tend to have a high ice content during snow-by Pitelka et al. (1974). Such territoriality is a melt and thus probably do not contribute signifi-strong indication that the habitat is at effective cantly either to flood storage or to groundwatercarrying capacity. in addition many waterfowl recharge. Several site-specific wetland hydrologyspecies that breed in North Slope wetlands are also studies have been conducted in Anchorage (Glassterritorial (oldsquaw, tundra swans and the three 1986) and Juneau (Adawmus et al. 1987), whichspecies of loons). Another value of arctic wetlands show to what extent certain palustrine wetlandsnot mentioned by Senner or Post is that they store water and perform recharge-discharge func-provide "safety nets" for waterfowl such as non- tions.breeding pintails during drought conditions on Ellanna and Sherrod (1986) argued that sincethe prairies, subsistence-based socioeconomic and cultural sys-

tems are extremely dependent on wetlandsLarge mammal habitat throughout rural Alaska, any wetland evalua-

Senner denied that caribou and muskox use tion system should include this function andwetlands and that their populations are limited by value.predators and hunting rather than by habitat. Another area of deficiency in Alaska wetlandMicrotine (voles and lemming) habitat values are evaluation is the existence of a rapid methodol jgynot discussed, and it is well known that caribou 'or evaluating wetlands. Such a technique hasuse coastal plain wetlands to escape harassing in- been developed for the continental U.S. usingsects during the summer and as a calving area in predictors (Adamus et al. 1987). However, thethe spring. Also, moose and muskox use North 1986 symposium (Van der Valk and Hall 1986)Slope riparian wetlands for winter browse and cover, clearly suggested that existing techniques for evalu-

ating wetlands in the contiguous U.S. are notapplicable to Alaskan wetlands and in particular

Personal communication. to those underlain by permafrost.

8

Predictors for waterfowl hab~tat values may use. Included is a discussion of the role of eachalso be different in Alaska from those developed agenroy in relation to the various laws. The Corpsfor the contiguous U.S., where wetlands that are Section 404 permit is considered to be the onlyconnected to another water body such as a lake or program with statewide applicability for regulat-river had the highest waterfowl habitat values. In ing the filling of wetlands in Alaska. However, theAlaska, Lensink and Derksen (1986) found that disposal of spoils from placer mining in wetlandclosed-basin lakes in which water levels varied and streambed areas appears to be unregulated bydrastically had the highest productivity. They sug- the Corps.gested that variation in water levels encourages Senner (1989) argued that A!aska has lost onlythegrowthof emergentvegetation and the decom- 0.05% of its wetla z up to 1989. This statisticposition of accumulated organic sediments, par- lumps all the wetlands of Alaska into a singleticularly in closed-basin wetlands (not connected category, ignoring the important qualitative dif-to a river). This leads to higher levels of nutrients ferences and importauice of particular wet]--.nd(nitrogen and phosphate), resulting in higher wet- ecosystems. The percentage of wetlands lost inland productivity, as indicated by the abundance Alaska is locally high (greater than 50%), particu-of emergent vegetation. Lynch (1940) associated larly within municipalities such as Anchorage,wetlands of high productivity in the Mackenzie Fairbanks, Juneau, Seward and Homer.Delta to early successional floodplain lakes and The literature on impacts of oil development towetlands where alluviation (flooding) occurs on a Alaskan wetlands is contained in reports by pri-periodic basis. However, Murphy et al. (1984) vate consulting firms and government agencies, asfound that wetlands in the Tanana valley that were well as published articles. Both pre-project envi-connected to rivers had the highest productivity ronmental impact studies and post-project moni-(and more stable water levels), toring of actual effects can be used to understand

the impacts of various types of projects on wet-lands. Well-known examples of environmental

DISTURBANCES AND IMPACTS TO impact studies and svbsequent monitoring in-ALASKAN WETLANDS clude the exploration of the National Petroleum

Reserve in 1979, the Waterflood project (1980-Historically the uses of Alaskan wetlands have 1985) at Prudhoe Bay, the Endicott Causeway, the

involved a wide range of activities, including en- tram-Alaska pipeline (Alexander and Van Cleveergy development (hydroelectric, peat mining, oil/ 1983), the proposed gas pipeline and the proposedgas), mining for metals, agriculture and logg.ng. Susitna hydroelectric project. One of the earliestImpacts result from the exploration and prospect- Alaska environmental impact studies was con-ing for resources as well as the actual develop- ducted at Point Thompson in northwest Alaskament. Other impacts include municipality devel- (Project Chariot) in the 1960s (Wilimovsky andopment or construction of roads and buildings, Wolfe 1966), where the environment was describedpipelines and powerline projects, as well as the use because of a proposal to use nuclear explosives toof off-road vehicles. The major impacts to arctic build a deep-water port.and subarctic wetlands in Alaska are presently Measurements of impacts from these activitiesrelated to the discovery and development of oil inv,'lve the amount of soil and vegetation re-and natural gas. moved or buried under gravel fill, disturbance to

The 1983 Office of Technology Assessment wildlife, and changes in the hydrology (pondingAlaska Case Study (Marcus 1983) provided an or drainage), sedimentation and ground thermalexcellent overview of impacts in wetlands repre- regime, particularly where permafrost is present.senting the seven regions of Alaska. While oil and Thermokarst is a well-known impact of surfacegas exploration and development has proceeded disturbance in permafrost wetlands in Alaskain the North Slope region for many years, mineral (Lawson 1983). Flooding of an area or removal ofextraction and accompanying road development vegetation and associated organic soils alter theis planned on a L.rge scale in many other wetland ground thermal regime, resulting in thawing ofareas of the state. Marcus (1983) first described the ice-rich sediments and subsidence of the groundwetland acreage and uses in each region of the surface, followed by erosion on slopes. CRRELhasstate. He then described the wetland regulatory produced detailed studies of this phenomenor-,fiamework in terms of the various federal and both from an engineering and an ecological stand-state laws and regulations that apply to wetland point (Lawson 1986). Other impacts include

9

changes in water quality due to contaminants gravel extraction mines and overburden piles. In-including oil spills and dust. direct and cumulative impacts of oilfield develop-

At least two review papers -ammarize these ment are discussed below.effects in arctic Alaska: "Disturbance and Recov-ery of Alaskan Tundra Terrain: A Summary of Agriculture and forestryRecent CREEL Research" (Walker et al. 1987a) and At least two large Alaskan agricultural projectsthe Environmental Protection Agency's summary (Pt. MacKenzie in upper Cook Inlet and Deltaof the impaLts of oil development in northern Junction in the interior) have resulted in signifi-Alaska, particularly with reference to the effects of cant wetland impacts. The largest of these, in thegravel placement on wetlands and waterbirds Delta Junction area, involved the clearing of large(Meehan 1988). This report also contains an anno- areas where black spruce permafrost wetlandstated bibliography of literature on waterbirds and occupied over 50% of the area. The other project, atsurface impacts on the North Slope of Alaska. A Pt. MacKenzie, resulted in impacts to fewer wet-large-scale Department of Energy research pro- land acres. Perhaps 25% of the area cleared theregram in progress on the North Slope (R4D at was originally wetland. Historically other agricul-Toolik Lake) seeks to understand how environ- tural projects such as reindeer herding in themental changes (impacts) such as nutrient inputs Seward Peninsula have had significant effects onand temperature change affect basic tundra wet- wetland vegetation (Palmer and Rouse 1945). Someland processes. logging occurs in floodplains in interior Alaska. In

southeastern Alaska, coastal log transfer sites areOilfields constructed and affect some coastal wetlands.

In Alaska oil and gas exploration and develop-ment have taken place in wetlands on the North MiningSlope and in the Kenai peninsula (southcentral In Alaska the most extensive mining currentlyregion). The associated activities and impacts range involves coal extraction, which generally takesfrom off-road vehicle seismic studies and con- place in non-wetland conditions. However, thestruction of test well pads to actual oilfield devel- Beluga coal fields west of Anchorage underlieopment with pipelines, gravel roads, drill sites, several thousand acres of wetlands and may bewell pads, powerlines and gravel mines (Meehan developed in the future. Another coal field in the1988). Long-term impacts of exploratory drilling Chugach National Forest (Bering River) may re-(during the summer) at several sites on the quire construction of a road crossing parts of theNorth Slope in the 1940s have been documented Copper River Delta wetlands.(Lawson et al. 1978). The impacts of more i'ecent Current and past gold mining (placer mining)seismic exploratory programs (during the winter) often involves riverine wetlands, on which the im-in the Seward Peninsula and in Arctic National pact can be considerable. The Seward Peninsula inWildlife Refuge, respectively, have also been northwest Alaska has produced nearly 30% of thewell documented by Racine and Anderson placer gold mined in Alaska. Hydraulic mining(1979) and Felit and Raynolds (1989), showing techniques are still used, and sedimentation prob-localized disturbances from winter seismic explo- ably occurs downstream frow such mining opera-ration, tions. However, there is little information on im-

CRREL has also documented many of the engi- pacts of these operations. T. Jorgenson of Alaskaneering and ecological changes associated with Biological Research is investigating methods ofthe construction cf the trans-Alaska pipeline revegetating floodplain placer mining in interior(Brown and Berg 1980). Alluvial deposits found in Alaska.broad floodplains offer one of the prime sources of Other minerals being mined in the Seward Pen-gravel for road and pad construction in northern insula include tin, zinc and copper. The recentareas. Such gravel mining can exert a significant development of the Red Dog Mine north ofimpact on riverine wetlands in terms of seasonal Kotzebue has undoubtedly affected some wet-flooding, streamflow and vegetation cover, lands (where roads were constructed), althoughWoodward-Clyde Consultants (1980) prepared a the mine itself is located in the uplands. There isreport describing the inpactsof gravel removal on generally little information on the impact of theserivers based on measurements at 25 extraction mining activities on northwest Alaskan wetlands.sites. Other impacts associated with gravel roads Although peat mining in bogs is described asinclude late-melting snowbanks from plowing, extensive in other countries where it is used for

10

energy, no peat mining occurs in Alaska except on show increased production. Most waterbird spe-a small scale. cies avoid impoundments during the breding

season. The oil companies maintain that impactsDevelopment and recreation and management of projectscan only beevaluated

Urban expansion in Anchorage and Fairbanks, through the monitoring of wildlife populations inas well as other cities and towns such as Juneau, affected wetlands after the project is completedKenai, Soldotna and Homer, have had significant (Senner 1989). Their monitoring suggests thatimpacts on wetlands. In addition, recreational populations are not declining and that the directdevelopment along rivers and lakeshores in the cumulative habitat loss through gravel fill doesKenai Peninsula have affected wetlands and asso- not affect populations because there is abundantciated wildlife (Bangs et al. 1982, Rosenberg 1986). unoccupied habitat (vacant rooms) in the North

Slope oilfields. While abundant monitoring stud-Hydroelectric developments ies exist for the oilfield construction projects, the

Several hydroelectric projects have been federal agencies have recently proposed that theplanned or built in the southcentral and southeast focus of such impact studies be habitat alterationregions, where peak demands are greatest. The rather than population monitoring (Post 1990).proposed Susitna River project would have had a Population monitoring is prohibitively expensive,significant impact on wetlands and involved a and wildlife population sizes change from year tolarge number of studies, including the mapping of year. Habitat-based wetland management is boththe entire basin by the SCS. Bradley Lake in the efficient and cost effective.Kenai Peninsula was found to affect a downstreamestuarine salt marsh Uones and Jones 1975). Other Knowledge gapsnorthern energy projects for which impact studies As is clear from this discussion, the values andhave been conducted include the James Bay hydro functions of North Slope and other permafrost-project in Quebec, Canada (Berkes 1988). In the induced wetlands are being debated, and the scopeJames Bay case almost 4000 mi2 were flooded, and degree cf development and consequent loss ofwith several unpredicted impacts, such as mer- wetlands that can be sustained in various regionscury release, caribou drownings and wetland al- without affecting wildlife populations are largelyterations. unknown.

Assessment of cumulative impacts to wetlands,Current issues in wetland impacts although required by NEPA (the National Envi-

The possible cumulative impact of oil and gas ronmental Policy Act), has not been addressed,development in the Arctic region on wildlife and but some attention has been given to the problemwetlands is an important issue and lacks a means on the North Slope. Meehan et al, (1986) providedto evaluate it. It is estimated as inconsequential by a framework and approach to the problem insome and disastrous by others. Only a small frac- terms of cumulative impacts from oil and gastion of the total wetland area on the North Slope development on the North Slope. As new oilfieldshas actually been filled by oilfield development (in are developed, it is important to determine the1987, gravel covered 8650 acres of North Slope cumulative impact of each new proposed project.oilfields). However, no accepted and applied methodology

However, indirect and cumulative impacts ex- for cumulative impact assessment exists. Meehantend out from these gravel pads and roads in et ai. (1986) stated that shorebirds are certainlyNorth Slope wetlands; these include impeded affected by the cumulative impact of expandingdrainage (impoundments), permafrost thaw and oilfield facilities and that the effects are quantifi-dust (Walker et al. 1987b). Dust deposition along able.heavily traveled roads at Prudhoe Bay may extendup to 75 m from the road and eliminate certainmoss and lichen species, increase thaw depths andt MITIGATION OF IMPACTS ANDlead to earlier snowmelt (Meehan 1988). Many RESTORATION OF WETLANDSgravel roads at Prudhoe Bay also block drainageand create permanent or seasonal impoundments Individual or collective actions taken to offset(in 1983 there were 3400 acres of impoundments). adverse project impacts are termed mitigation.White some aquatic vegetation may be eliminated The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) listsbecause of increased water depth, others may five types of mitigation:

11

""A) a"•awdng the inmpactlaltogeth"r by noe mg and the cr-atum f (adpaceiv .4halkvw watertaking a certain acion o; parts of an ak- z1rWs to I•tii.d oe-rwwein" areas fct ftsh T•hnth4; b) mrnmuanx impact by luimtng the Wet contounng can be ued lo establush the appro-degree of magnitude of the actawl and its flmte hvdrologic hr•,.ieriat-s, organic matterimpklmentation- c) efft9vnnx the impact added to promotre development of a detntal foodby repairing, re"ilitation, or restoring chain, and ctrtain aquatic plants intro~ducedi.the affected environment, d) reducing aw The present review concentrates cu rectifyingeliminatig the impact over time by pres- ampacts by irepaing, rehabilitating or restoringervation or maintenannce operations dur- tlhaffect.• envidrnment. Restorationofdisturbe.ding the life of the action, and e) compensat- 0nlfield wetlands in the Arctic is difficult and maying for the impact by replacing or provid- involve manipulating hydrology, reconstructinguigsubstituteresourcesorenvirinments." swils and developing new plant materials and

planting techniques.I-Rview papers on mitigation of impacts in wet- A broad range of wetland restoration projects

lands include a 1986 National Wetland Sympo- have been undertaken in Alaska, but many havesiumentitled Mitigation f lmpactsand Losses (Kusler never been documented in a written report. Amonget al. 1986). In April 1990 a National Wetland the wetland sites where restoration efforts haveSymposium on wetland restoration was held, and been undertaken are olispill areas on the Norththeproceedings are available(Kusler and Kentula Slope (McKendrick and Mitchell 1978), pipeline1990). Other sources of information include Reha- haul road and corridor (Johnson 1981), riparianbilitation and Creation of Selected Coastal Habitats: gravel sites (Densmore et al. 1987) and oilfieldProceedings of a Workshop (Lewis and Bunce 1980). gravel pads, roadsand minesites (Jorgenson 1989).The EPA has recently published a report entitledWetland Creation and Restoration: Tlu, Status of the Current issues in mitigationScience (Kusler and Kentula 1989). The rehabilitation of abandoned oilfields will

The mitigation of impacts in arctic and subarc- eventually be an important issue in Alaska, and ittic regions was recently addressed by a sympo- is important to develop plans and schedules now.sium in Iceland (Salzberg 1987) entitled Restoration Senner (1989), in his contract repo- for the oiland Revegetation in Northern Circumpolar Lands. companies, argued that on the North Slope theCRREL personnel contributed to this symposium construction of gravel pads and roads is a form ofand earlier reviewed revegetation research in mitigation rather than an impact (i.e. prevention ofAlaska (Johnson and Van Cleve 1976, Walker et al. permafrost degradation) and is sufficient to fulfill1989). Restoration guidelines for northern areas the mitigation requirements of the 404 permit. Hehave been described by the Canadian Indian and also argued that the revegetation of these gravelNorthern Affairs (Hardy BBT Ltd. 1988). Meehan pads is only aesthetic or cosmetic and would pro-(1988) recommended % ways of mitigating a number duce little or no restoration of lost wildlife habitat.of North Slope oilfield impacts, including gravel The cost of wetland restoration in the Arctic ispads and mines, impoundments, dust and snow- high, and it is important that the effort accomplishbanks. the desired goals, particularly in relation to wild-

Impacts in North Slope wetlands can be mini- life habitat.mized by using mapping and remote sensing Jorgenson (1989) provided an excellent over-techniques to route traffic and road construction view of rehabilitation reoearch between 1984 andso as to avoid sensitive wetland areas, such as 1989 in the Kuparuk oilfield on the Arctic coastaldrained thaw lakes (Walker et al. 1987a). Proper plain. Techniques for restoring wetlands and otherciting of facilities can reduce erosion, water con- sites there are aimed primarily at rehabilitatingtamination, impoundments and thermokarst and fish and wildlife habitat, with other objectivesavoid high-value wildlife habitat. For example, including preventing hydraulic erosion, restoringgravel for road and pad construction can be exca- productivity and species diversity to conditionsvated from deep pits in upland areas rather than similar to the surrounding vegetation, revegetat-shallow scraping of gravel from floodplain wet- ing with native cultivars to compensate for the losslands. Improvements in directional drilling have of original habitat, reducing visual impacts andallowed the use of more wells per gravel pad and preventing thermal erosion. A major need is tosmaller pads. Where gravel has been mined in develop a set of realistic standards for evaluatingfloodplains, the impact can be mitigated by flood- such 'estoration efforts in these oilfields.

12

Restaration soils frequently contains stored seeds andRestoration usually refers to the long-term pro- propagules (Roach 1983). If this horizon is not

cess of returning a site to condition-. similar to the removed by the disturbance, these seeds germi-original one. Rehabilitation refers to the overall nate to establish new vegetation. Organic materialproctes of site repair, including soil reconstruc- also increases the moisture-trapping capacity andtion, hydrologic modification, e:,Dsion control and nutrient capital needed for reestablishing vegeta-revegetation. In addition, restoration may have an tion. However, organic material in the soil mayactive-asistedorpassive-unassisted revegetation also dry out rapidly and in some situations is acomponent. Assisted revegetation of wetlands poor substrate for seedling establishment. Phos-ranges from promotin9 the natural colonization of phorus is frequently limiting, and fertilization in-disturbed sites (through fertilization, scarification creases revegetation on many sites (McKendricketc.) to full-scale site preparation. contouring, fer- 1987). In wet organic soils, available nitrogen istilization and seeding. It is important that all wet- also low.land restoration projects first evaluate the benefits An understanding of successional pathways ofof natural revegetation vs. assisted revegetation natural plant colonization is needed to help directtechniques., wetland rehabilitation programs in places like the

North Slope oilfields (McKendrick 1987, JorgensonUnassisted restoration 1989). These studies of unassisted recovery have

Northern wetlands vary in their ability to resist also led to the identification of native cultivars,impacts or disturbances and in their ability to which havebeen subsequently tested by the Alaskarecover orce disturbed (that is, they vary in resil- plant materials center,ience). Therefore, some types of wetlands, whendisturbed in specific ways, may recover without Gravel fill restorationassistance over short or long periods of time. In Unassisted revegetation in arctic wetlands is"evaluating the mitigation strategy for various clearly slow, particularly on well-drained gravelprojects, t'is type of information may be useful. pads and roads or on mineral soil sites withoutExpensive active restoration projects may be un- organic matter. Although there are a number ofnecessary if the ecosystem can repair itself in a arctic species, including nitrogen-fixing legumes,reasonable length of time. In northem Alaska a that colonize river gravel bars, sand dunes andnumber of studies have been undertaken to deter- coastal sediments in Alaska, these do not appear tomine the rate and direction of revegetation and invade constructed gravel roads and pads exceptrecovery (natural attenuation) following natural when near rivers.or man-caused disturbances (Walker et al. 1987a). The most difficult sites to restore are thick gravelNatural disturbances, including flooding, lake pads (over 1 m thick) or roads that have beendrainage, wildfire and bank erosion, can provide constructed in wetlands (Johnson 1981). Wheremodels for understanding the recovery of man- pads are thinner than 1 m, the capillary rise ofproduced surface disturbances such as off-road groundwaterprovidesnutrientsandreducesmois-vehicle trails, bulldozed strips and gravel pads. ture stress in plants. On thick gravel pads the lowThese studies have been accomplished by moni- soil moisture of the well-drained gravels and atoring disturbed sites and by revisiting distur- buildup of saline soil conditions is not conducivebances up to 25 years old (Lawson et al. 1978, to seed germination and seedling establishment.Everett et al. 1985, Racine et al. 1987). Jorgenson (1989) has investigated the use of con-

Results show that wetlands recovery in perma- structed gravel berms to help capture driftingfrost depends on stabilization of the thawing sub- snow, which would increase the soil moisture andstrate and the amount of thermal erosion. Moist reduce the salinity on gravel pads in the Kuparuktundra (tussock-shrub tundra) is initially more oilfield.resistant to mechanical damage than wet commu-nities, but once altered it is slower to recover Restoration of shallow marshes(Komarkova 1983). ihe presence of organic mate- Plant material developrent for the North Sloperials in disturbed site soils is important to early oilfields has recently focused on the use of therecovery. Both bryophytes and grasses, as well as aquatic grass Arctophilafulva for plantings in shal-a limited number of forbs, generally colonize dis- low water, usually near mine sites, to enhanceturbed arctic wetland sites that have organic mat- waterfowl and shorebird habitat. An intensiveter. The thick organic horizon of arctic wetland five-year study of Arctophilafulva begun in 1985

13

(McKendrick 1988) showed that it provides forage cies). However, managers are concerned with thefor geese and swans, contributes to organic detri- impacts of human actions on wetlands and tech-tus for invertebrates and transplants easily. niques for repairing or restoring damaged wet-

lands to their original condition. In permafrostKnowledge gaps regions of the north, natural processes involving

A broad range of wetland restoration projects wildfire, vegetation succession, thermokiarst andhave been conducted in Alaska over the past 20 climate change may convert wetlands to non-wet-years. Many have been undertaken but never pre- lands and vice versa.sented in a written report. A database catalogingthe details and success of these attempts should bedeveloped. Techniques for restoring wetlands LITERATURE CITEDwhere gravel fill has been used need to be refined.Success criteria need to be developed to determine Acevedo, W., D. Walker, L. Gaydos and J. Wraythe way in which wildlife use restored areas and (1982) Vegetation and land cover, Arctic Nationalhow wildlife use affects the rate of revegetation. In Wildlife Refuge, Coastal Plain. Alaska Miscella-addition a technique is needed to identify which neous Inventory Series Map 1-1443, U.S. Geologi-oilfield gravel pads and roads should be removed cal Survey, Reston, Va.orrestoredonceanareaisabandoned.Thisshould Adamus, P. (1987) Juneau wetlands: Functionsbe based on the relative value of the wetlands and values. Adamus Resource Assessment Inc.where the fill has been placed. Unpublished report to the City of Juneau.

Adamus, P.R., E.J. Clairain, R.D. Smith and R.E.Young (1987) Wetland evaluation technique

CONCLUSIONS (WET). Vol. II, U.S. Army Engineer WaterwaysExperiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

A large body of literature on circumpolar arctic Alexander, V. and K. Van Cleve (1983) The Alaskaand subarctic wetlands is available, much of it pipeline: A success story. Annual Revieuw of Ecologyfrom Canadian and European-Russian sources. and Systematics, 14: 443-463.Because plant and animal species and soilsthrough- Bangs, E., T. Spraker, T. Bailey and V. Bemnsout this large area are similar and many of the (1982) Effects of increased human populations onsame processes operate to maintain and produce wildlife resources on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska.wetlands, it is possible to apply literature on wet- Transactions of flte 47t0 North American Wildlife andlands from one region of the north to other areas. Natural Resources Conference, p. 605-616.Throughout the circumpolar north, wetland soils Batten, A.R.(1980)Aproposedclassification frame-tend to store large amounts of organic carbon, and work for Alaskan wetland and aquatic vegetation.in the more northern regions, permafrost acts to Final report to U.S. Forest Service by Institute otpromote wetland development. Importantaspects Arctic Biology, University of Alaska.of northern wetlands include hydrologic processes Batten, A.R. (1986) A synopsis of Alaskan wetland(water tables, snowmelt etc.), riverine flooding vegetation. In Alaska: Regional Wetland Functionsand permafrost aggradation-degradation (A. Van der Valk and J. Hall, Ed.). Anchorage,(thermokarst), vegetation succession (including Alaska: The Environmental Institute, Universitypaludification), climate change and energy inputs, of Massachusetts.along with disturbances such as wildfire. Batten, A.R. and D.F. Murray (1982) A literature

The application of a large body of technical survey on the wetland vegetation of Alaska. U.S.literature dealing with wetland processes and or- Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experimentganisms in circumpolar and circumboreal regions Station. Technical Report Y-82-2.to wetland management and regulation is prob- Batten, A.R., S. Murphy and D.F. Murray (1978)lematic. Wetland regulators and managers are not Definition of Alaskan coastal wetlands by floristicconcerned with processes controlling wetland criteria. Final Report, EPA 80496501, Corvallisdevelopment; they are charged with the protec- Research Laboratory, Oregon.tion of wetlands, requiring first the jurisdictional Bergman, R.D., R.L. Howard, K.F. Abraham andidentification of wetlands, their functions and val- M.W. Weller (1977) Water birds and their wetlandues in relation to human and legal concerns (i.e. resources in relation to oil development atflood protection, water quantity and quality, wild- Storkersen Point, Alas!ka. U.S. Fish Wildlife Ser-life habitat and threatened and endangered spe- vice, Washington, D.C., Resource Publication 129.

14

Berkes, F. (1988) Intrinsic difficul.y of predicting Ellanna, L.J. and G.K. Sherrod (1986) Adamusimpacts: Lessons from the James Bay hydro project. wetland functional assessment methodology: Sub-Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 8(3): 201- sistence. In Alaska: Regional Wetland Functions (A.220. Van der Valk and J. Hall, Ed.). Anchorage, Alaska:Bliss, L.C., O.W. Heal and J.J. Moore (1981) Tun- The Environmental Institute, University of Massa-dra Ecosystems: A Comparative Analysis. Interna- chusetts.tional Biological Programme 25. Cambridge: Cam- Everett, K.R., B.M. Murray, D.F. Murray, A.W.bridge University Press, Johnson, A.E. Linkins and P.J. Webber (1985)Botch, M.S. (1974) Bogs in the tundra zone of Reconnaisance observations of long-term naturalSiberia, Bog Types of the U.S.S.R. and Principles of vegetation recovery in the Cape Thompson re-their Classification. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Na- gion, Alaska, and additions to the checklist oftional Research Council of Canada, 1974. Techni- flora. USA Cold Regions Research and Engineer-cal Translation no. 1925, p. 146-154. ing Laboratory, CRREL Report 85-11.Brown,J. and R.L. Berg (Ed.) 1980. Environmental Federal Interagency Committee for Wetlandengineering and ecological baseline investigations Delineation (1989) Federal manual for identifyingalong the Yukon River-Prudhoe Bay Haul Road. and delineating jurisdictional wetlands. U.S. ArmyUSA Cold Regions Research and Engineering Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protec-Laboratory, CRREL Report 80-19. tion Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service andBrown, J., P.C. Miller, L.L. Tieszen and F.L. U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, WashingtonBunnell (Ed.) (1980)An Arctic Ecosystem: TheCoastal Cooperative Technical Publication.Tundra at Barrow, Alaska, US/IBP Synthesis Series Felix, N.A. and M.K. Raynolds (1989) The effects12, Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania: Dowden, of winter seismic trails on tundra vegetation inHutchinson and Ross, Inc. northeastern Alaska, U.S.A. Arctic and Alpine Re-Chapin, F.S. Ill., P.C. Miller, W.D. Billings and search, 21: 188-202.P.1. Coyne (1980) Carbon and nutrient budgets Ferrians, O.J. (1965) Permafrost map of Alaska.and their control in coastal tundra. In An Arctic Miscellaneous Geologic Investigations Map 1-445,Ecosystem: The Coastal Tundra at Barrow, Alaska (j. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.Brown, P.C. Miller, L.L. Tieszen and F1L. Bunnell, Ford,J. and B. L. Bedford (1987) The hydrology ofEd.). Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania: Dowden, Alaskan wetlands, U.S.A.: A Review. Arctic andHutchinson and Ross, Inc., p. 458-482. Alpine Research, 19: 209-229.Cowardin, L.M., V.C. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. Glaser, P.H. (1987) The ecology of patterned bo-LaRoe (1979) Classification of wetlands and real peatlands of northern Minnesota: A commu-deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish nity profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bio-and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services, logical Report 85 (7.14).DeMeo, T.E. and W.D. Loggy (1989) Develop- Glass, R.L. (1986) Hydrolgic conditions in thement of wetlands mapping procedures for forest Klatt Bog area, Anchorage, Alaska. U.S. Geologi-planning in southeast Alaska. Watershed '89 (E.B. cal Survey, Water-Resources Investigation ReportAlexander, Ed.). U.S. Forest Service, Juneau, 85-4330.Alaska, Alaska Region R10-MB-77, p. 57-72. Hall, J. V. (1988) Alaska coastal wetlands survey.Densmore, R.V., B.J. Neiland, J.C. Zasada and National Wetlands Inventory, Alaska. U.S. FishM.A. Masters (1987) Planting willow for moose and Wildlife Service. Unpublished report.habitat restoration on the north slope of Alaska, Handel, C.M., M.R. Petersen, R.E. Gill and C.J.USA. Arctic and Alpine Research, 19: 537-543. Lensink (1981) An annotated bibliography of lit-Derksen, D.V., T.C. Rothe and W.D. Eldridge erature on Alaska water birds. U.S. Fish and Wild-(1981) Use of wetland habitats by birds in the life Service, FWS/OBS-81/12.National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. U.S. Fish and Hardy BBT Ltd. (1987) Reclamation guidelines ofWildlife Service, Research Publication 141. Northern Canada. Canada Land Resources andDiers, R. and J.L. Anderson (1984) Part I. Develop- Northern Affairs, Ottawa,ment of soil mottling. Soil Survey Horizons, Winter: Hettinger, L.R. and A.J. Janz (1974) Vegetation9-12. and soils of northeastern Alaska. Arctic Gas Bio-Drury, W.H. (1956) Bog flats and physiographic logical Report Series, Vol 21. Northern Engineer-processes in the upper Kuskokwim River region, ing Services Co. Ltd.Alaska. Contributions of the Gray Herbarium, 178, Hobbie,J.E. (Ed.) (1980) Limnology/of Tundra Ponds,130. Barrow, Alaska. US/IBP Synthesis Series 13.

15

Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania: Dowden, Hutchinson slum: Mitigation of !mpacts and Losses. Associationand Ross. of State Wetland Managers, New York.Hobble,J.E. (1984) The ecology of tundra ponds of Lawson, D.E. (1983) Erosion of perennially frozenthe arctic coastal plain: A community profile. U.S. streambanks. USA Cold Regions Research andFish and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-83/25. Engineering Lahoratory, CRREL Report 83-29.Hogan, M.and G.F. Tande (1983) Vegetation types Lawson, D.E. (1986) Response of permafrost ter-and bird use of Anchorage wetlands. U.S. Fish and rain to disturbance: A synthesis of observationsWildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska, Region 7 from northern Alaska, USA. Arctic and Alpine Re-Special Studies. search, 18: 1-17.Huffman, R.T. and G.E. Tucker (1984) Prelimi- Lawson, D.E., J. Brown, K.R. Everett, A W.nary guide to the onsite identification and delinea- Johnson, V. Komarkova, B.M. Murray, D.F.tion of the wetlands of Alaska. U.S. Army Corps of Murray and P.J. Webber (1978) Tundra distur-Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Tech- bances and recovery following the 1949 explor-nical Report Y-78-9. atory drilling, Fish Creek, northern Alaska. USAJohnson, L.A. (1981) Revegetation and selected Cold Regions Research and Engineering Labora-terrain disturbances along the trans-Alaska pipe- tory, CRREL Report 78-28.line, 1975-1978. USA Cold Regions Research and Lee, L.C., R.O. Teskey and T.M. Hinckley (1982)Engineering Laboratory, CRREL Report 81-12. Impact of water level changes on woody riparianJohnson, L.A. and K. Van Cleve (1976) Revegeta- and wetland communities. Vol. IX: Alaska. U.S.tion in arctic and subarctic North America. A Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS/OB5-82/22.literature review, USA Cold Regions Research and Lensink, C.J. and D.V. Derksen (1986) EvaluationEngineering Laboratory, CRREL Report 76-15. of Alaskan wetlands for waterfowl. In Alaska:Jones and Jones (1975) Bradley Lake environmen- Regional Wetland Functions (A. Van der Valk and J.tal assessment. Alaska District, U.S. Army Corps Hall, Ed.). Anchorage, Alaska: The Environmentalof Engineers, Anchorage, Alaska. Institute, University of Massachusetts, p. 45-84.Jorgenson, M.T. (1989) An overview of rehabilita- Lewis, J. C. and E.W. Bunce (Ed.) (1980) Rehabili-tion research in the Kuparuk oilfield. Final Report tation and creation of selected coastal habitats:prepared for ARCO Alaska, Inc. and Kuparuk Proceedings of a workshop. U.S. Fish and WildlifeRiver Unit by Alaska Biological Research Inc., Service, FWS/OBS-80/27.Fairbanks, Alaska. Lynch, J.J. (1940) Origin and natural maintenanceJorgenson, M.T. and E.E. Berg (1987) Wetlands of of some arctic waterfowl habitats. U.S. Fish andHomer. Alaska Biological Research, Inc, Fairbanks, Wildlife Service. Unpublished report.Alaska. Marcus, M.L. (1983) Wetland use and regulation:Kane, D. (Ed.) (1990) Symposium: Cold Region Alaska case study. Final report, Office of TechnolHydrology, Fairbanks, Ak (1986). American Wa- ogy Assessment, Congressional session 98-1,ter Resources Association. Markon, C.J. (1980) Terrestrial and aquamic h*.•iv.tiKane, D.L., S.R. Bredthauer and J. Stein (1981) mapping along the Alaska natural gas pipr ineSubarctic snowmelt runoff generation. In Proceed- system. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage,ings of the Special Conference on the Northern Commu- Alaska, Special Studies.nity: A Search for a Quality Environment, ASCE, McKendrick, J.D. (1987) Plant succession on dis-Seattle, Washington, p. 591-601. turbed sites, North Slope, Alaska, USA. Arctic andKessel, B. (1979) Avian habitat classification for Alpine Research, 19 (4): 554-565.Alaska. Murrelet, 60: 86-94. McKendrick, J.D. (1988) Arctophila revegetationKomarkova, V. (1983) Recovery of plant commu- feasibility study, 1987. Annual report to Standardnities and summer thaw at the 1949 Fish Creek Alaska Production Co.Test Well 1, Arctic Alaska. In Permafrost: Fourth McKendrick, J.D. and W.W. Mitchell (1978) Fer-International Co;ference, Proceedings, 17-22July 1983, tilizing and seeding oil-damaged arctic tundra toFairbanks, Alaska. National Academy Press Wash- effect vegetation recovery, Prudhoe Bay, Alaska.ington, D.C., p. 645-650. Arctic, 31: 296-304.Kusler, J.A. and M.E. Kentula (1990) Wetland Cre- Meehan, R. (1988) Oil development in northernation and Restoration: The Status of the Science. Wash- Alaska: A guide to the effects of gravel placementington, D.C.: Island Press. on wetlands and waterbirds. Environmental Pro-Kusler, J.A., M.L. Quammen and G. Brooks (Ed.) tection Agency, Environmental Research Labora-(1986) Proceedings of the National Wetland Sympo- tory, Corvallis, Oregon.

16

Meehan, R. and T.W. Jennings (1988) Character- Racine,C.H., LA.Johnsonand L.A. Viereck (1987)ization and value ranking of waterbird habitat on Patterns of vegetation recovery after tundra firesthe Colville River Delta, Alaska. Final report pre- in northwestern Alaska, USA. Arctic and Alpinepared for EPA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Research, 19: 461-469.Anchorage, Alaska. Reed, P.B. (1988) National list of plant species thatMeehan, R., P.J. Webber and D. Walker (1986) occur in wetlands: Alaska (Region A). U.S. FishTundra dev-,.ýopment review: Toward a cumula- and Wildlife Service, Biological report 88(26.11).tive impact assessment method. Report to U.S. Reiger, S., D.B. Schoephorster and C.E. FurbushEnvironmental Protection Agency, under U.S. (1979) Exploratory soil survey of Alaska. USDADepartment of Energy DE-A106-84RL, Soil Conservation Service.Mitsch, W. J. and J. G. Gosselink (1986) Wetlands. Ritchie, R.,J. Curatolo and A. Batten (1981) KnikVan Nostrand Reinhold: New York. Arm wetland study. Special Studies, U.S. Fish andMurphy, S., B. Kessel and L. Vining (1984) Water- Wildlife Services, Anchorage, Alaska, unpublishedfowl populations and limnologic characteristics of report.taiga ponds. 48:1156-1163. Roach, D.A. (1983) Buried seed and standing veg-National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils etation in two adjacent tundra habitats, northern(1987) Hydric soils of the United States. U.S. De- Alaska. Oecologia, 60: 359-364.partmient of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Ser- Robertson, S.B, (1987) Hydrology of arctic wet-vice, Washington, D.C. lands. In Proceedings of the National Wetland Sym-National Wetlands Working Group (1988) Wet- posium: Wetland Hydrology (J.A. Kusler and G.lands of Canada. Sustainable Development Branch, Brooks, Ed.). Association of State Wetland Manag-Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, and ers, Inc.Polyscience Publications inc., Montreal, Quebec, Rosenberg, D.H. (1986) Wetland types and birdEcological Land Classification Series No. 24. use of Kenai lowlands. Special Studies, U.S. FishNeedham, R.N. and T.M. Skordal (1987) Sum- and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska.mary of wetland mapping, Juneau, Alask&. Alaska Rothe, T.C., S.H. Lanigan, P.A. Martin and G.F.District, Corps of Engineers, Anchorage, Alaska. Tande (1983) Natural resource inventory ofOakley, K.J., Glaspel, G.E. Tande and T. Jennings Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska. Special Studies,(1987) Wetlands and their use by fish in the lower U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska.Salmon Creek drainage, Seward, Alaska. Alaska Salzburg, K. (Ed.) (1987) Restoration and vegeta-Department of Fish and Game, Habitat Division, tion succession in circumpolar lands, ProceedingsRegion II, Anchorage, Alaska. of conference, Reykjavik, Iceland. Arctic and AlpinePalmer, L.H. and C.H. Rouse (1945) Study of the Research, 19.Alaska tundra with reference to its reactions to Senner, R.G.B. (1989) Effects of petroleum opera-reindeer and other grazing. U.S. Department of tions in Alaskan wetlands. Robert Senner and Co.Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Research Re- for ARCO Alaska and BP Exploration, Anchorage.port 10. Soil Conservation Service (1985) Hydric Soils of thePitelka, F.A., R.T. Holmes and S.F. Maclean, Jr. United States. U.S. Department of Agriculture,(1974) Ecology and evolution of social organiza- Washington, D.C.tion in arctic sandpipers. American Zoologist, 14: Swanson, D. (1985) Range survey of the Seward185-204. Peninsula reindeer ranges, Alaska. USDA SoilPost, R. (1990) Arctic tundra wetlands: Values and Conservation Service.management. Alaska Fish and Game, 22: 14-17. Talbot, S. and C.J. Markon (1988) VegetationRacine, C.H. and J. A. Anderson (1979) Flora and mapping of Nowitna National Wildlife Refuge,vegetation of the Chuckchi-Imuruk area. In Bio- Alaska using Landsat MSS digital data.logical survey of the Bering Land Bridge National Photogrammatic Engineering and Remote Sensing, 52:Monument (H.R. Melchior, Ed.). Report to the U. 791-799.S. Department of Inte,'ior, National Park Service, Tande, G.F. and T.W. Jennings (1986) Classifica-Contract No. CX 9000-3-0316, p. 38-113 tionand mapping of tundranearHazen Bay YukonRacine, C.H. and E. Hamilton (1980) Mapping Delta National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska. U.S. Fishand classification of freshwater wetlands in the and Wildlife Service.Anchorage Alaska area. Final report, Oceano- Thilenius, J.F. (1990) Woody plant succession ongraphic Institute of Washington, Seattle, Wash- earthquake-uplifted coastal wetlands of the Cop-ington. per River Delta, Alaska. Forest Ecology and Manage-

17

ment, 33/31: 439-462. Gaydos,J. Brown and P.. Webber (1982) Landsat-Van der Valk, A and J. Hall (Ed.) (1986) Alaska: assisted environmental mapping in the ArcticRegional Wetland Functions. Anchorage, Alaska: National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska. USA Cold Re-The Environmental Institute, University of Massa- gions Research and Engineering Laboratory,chusetts. CRREL Report 82-37.Van Cleve, K. and L.A. Viereck (1983) A compari- Walker, D.A., D. Cate, J. Brown and C. RacineEon of successional sequences following fire on (1987a) Disturbance and recovery of arctic Alas-permafrost-dominated and permafrost-free sites kan tundra terrain: A review of recent investiga-in interior Alaska. In Proceedings, Fourth Interna- tions. USA Cold Regions Research and Engineer-tional Conference on Permafrost. Washington D.C.: ing Laboratory, CRREL Report 87-11.National Academy Press. Walker, D.A., P.J. Webber, E.F. Binnian, K.R.Van Cleve, K., F.S. Chapin 111, *' W. Flanagan, Everett, N.D. Lederer, E.A. Nordstrand and M.D.L.A. Viereck and C.T. Dyrnes& (Eld.) (1986) Forest Walker (1987b) Cumulative impacts of oil fieldsEcosystems in the Alaskan Taiga. A Synthesis of Struc- on northern Alaskan landscapes. Science, 238:757-ture and Function. New York; Springer Verlag. 761.Viereck, L.A., C.T. Dyrness and A.R. Batten (1981) Walker, M.D., D.A. Walkerand K.R. Eiverett (1989)Revision of preliminary classification system for Wetland soils and vegetation, Arctic foothills,vegetation of Alaska. U.S. Department of Agricul- Alaska. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biologicalture, Forest Service, General Technical Report Report 89(7).PNW-106. Wilimovsky, N.J. and J.N. Wolfe (Ed.) (1966)Viereck, L.A.,C.T.DymesaandA.R.Batten(1986) Environment of the Cape Thompson region,The 1986 revision of the Alaska vegetation classi- Alaska. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Divi-fication. USDA Forest Service, Institute of North- sionof Technical Information, PNE481,Oak Ridge,ern Forestry, Fairbanks, Alaska. Unpublished re- Tennessee.port. Woo, M.K. and P. Steer (1986) Runoff regime ofWalker, D.A. and W. Acevedo (1987) Vegetation slopes in continuous permafrost areas. Canadianand a landsat-derived land cover map of the Water Resources Journal, 11: 58--68.Beechey Point quadrangle, Arctic Coastal Plain, Woodward-Clyde Consultants (1980) Gravel re-Alaska. USA Cold Regions Research and Engi- moval studies in arctic and subarctic floodplainsneering Laboratory, CRREL Report 87-5 in Alaska. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biol. Serv.Walker, D.A. and P.J. Webber (1979) Report of Program FWS/OBS-80/08.Yukon River to Prudhoe Bay vegetation mapping Zoltai, S.C. and F.C. Pollett (1983) Wetlands inprogram. Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, Canada: Their classification, distribution and use.University of Colorado, Int. Rep. 607. In Mires: Swamp, Bog, Fen and Moor A.J.P. GoreWalker, D.A., W. Acevedo, K.R. Everett, L. (Ed.). Amsterdam: Elsevier Scientific

18

I Form ApprvedREPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No. 0704o.OIMPubWc rePodl hMgf rW W c0WIeUM Of IfWIROn W WGmaIR bmp AW*o w W' 'pone., incuag Ve IMe Mlot * babIeiing "Weiio" SUMSdaliv oo.Smal'ni Ve *d neebd., w oV-1ietO e•rldeViewh o•1- 1 Wo. MSed oomnmen mge•epwI otU bwdon , ale o ped of Wil M5.42 0111 2om ,mofidnig migguin• lot refal• Vile gixnAo, to WeAhMion Heedqwaee Sace. Dklorele 1 kiformuon O•oogee•bida Rapoft. 1215 JeMlaec Davis Hiwy, Sule 1204. AkonVA MM02e.4. toeI" 0MW offe MegmveapnwN end , Pepenkc edton Pel (0o04.0111). WI•,Ni . DC 20650.

1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave bierk) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED

August 19944. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS

Current Issues in Alaska Wetland Management

6. AUTHORS

Charles H. Racine

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 0. PERFORMING ORGANIZATIONREPORT NUMBER

U.S. Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory Special Report 94-2672 Lyme RoadHanover, N.H. 03755-1290

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING

Office of the Chief of Engineers AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

Washington, D.C.

1I. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

12s. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.Available from NTIS, Springfield, Virginia 22161

13. ABSTRACT (MaxImum 2W00 wrds)

Although wetlands cover over half of Alaska, the status, management and regulation of these areas is problematic.The technical literature on Alaskan wetland vegetation, soils and hydrology is abundant, but the application of theliterature to wetland management is poorly developed. This report identifies problems, issues and information gapsin the management of Alaskan wetlands. There are numerous arguments and debates on the designation, functionand values, and disturbance of certain wetlands in Alaska. Permafrost, fire cycles and unique hydrologic regimescomplicate the designation and delineation of Alaskan wetlands. The functions and values of most Alaskan wetlandsclearly lie in their importance as habitat, particularly for migrating waterbirds, but an understanding of their rolein flood water storage, water quality improvement, subsistence and other functions remains controversial and inneed of study. Disturbance and other impacts on Alaskan wetlands is small relative to the large area that wetlandscover and in comparison with the loss of wetlands in the lower 48 states. However, several development projects inAlaska have affected large wetland areas and methods to restore these wetlands are being developed. Cumulati .,eimpacts are unknown, as are techniques for restoring permafrost wetlands containing gravel fill.

14. SUBJECT TERMS 15, NUMBER OF PAGES

Alaska Wetland management .C

Wetlands 16. PRICE CODE

17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT

OF REPORT OF THIS PAGE OF ABSTRACT

UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED ULNSN 7540.01.•20-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89)

Presolrbed by ANSI Bid. Z•-182I 10I