HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA402~M
r--=N
-~
-~~
"-0ij-O
cO'
~:g~SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
M
ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT
TASK 7 :ENVIRONMENTAL
BIG GAME -1980
MAY 1981
Pttepared by:
T."e,ttial
EnV.'OftMenta'
Spictoioli/l",BftC.
I"""
I
-
-
-
"""'I,
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT
TASK 7:ENVIRONMENTAL
BIG GAME -1980
MAY 1981
Prepared for:
[i]
CALASKA
.Prepared by:
Teitel trial
Envi lon·mental
Spe-ciali/t/,Inc.
-,'f>"--:.~;;-,
POWEJ:~'~AUTHORITY ~~--'
ALASKA POWER AUTHOR ITY
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES ANNUAL REPORT
Subtask 7.11 -Big Game
July 1981
by
TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS,Inc.
Phoenix,New York 13135
rK
JlfJ5
.Slg
lC5<Z
no.11 ol
-
-
M
r-....i
N
~!~.
~
ooo
LO
LOr-....
M
(Y')
for
ACRES AMERICAN,INCORPORATED
Liberty Bank Building,Main at Court
Buffalo,New York 14202
ARLIS
Alaska Resources
Library &Information SerVices
Anc1wragc,.~4ska
.~
-
SUMMARY
This report embodies the initial findings with respect to the
populations of big game --bears,hoofed mammals,wolf and wolverine
in the Susitna basin,and the potential impacts on these populations by
the proposed Susitna Hydroelectric Project.It will be augmented by
the work of another year before the final report of Phase I is
prepared.
Biometrics and Data Processing
Field investigations of big game are being facilitated by the use of
radio-collars.Relocations involve both repeated habitat descriptions
and repeated physical locations,a body of data requiring initial
standardizati on and periodic computer-ai ded ana lys is.Techni cal and
conceptual problems associated with those requirements are outlined and
proposed solutions presented.Computer resource requirements are
i dent i fi ed and the progress to date in acqui ri ng those resources and
developing a production system is reported.
Brown and Bl ack Bear
Both black bear (Ursus americanus)and brown bear (U.arctos)
populations in the vicinity of the proposed Susitna hydroelectric dams
appear to be healthy and productive.Brown bears occur throughout the
study area while black bears appear largely confined to the finger of
forested habitat along the Susitna River.This finger becomes
progressively narrower proceeding upstream.In 1980,27 brown bears
and 27 black bears were captured,utiliZing helicopter darting
techniques.Adults were marked and radio-collared and periodically
relocated.A total of 143 point locations were obtained for brown
bears in 1980,120 of these from lS radio-collared individuals.A
total of 229 point locations were obtained for black bears in 1980,181
of these from 23 radio-collared individuals.
Winter denning sites (1980-81)of nine radio-collared brown bears are
we 11 above the proposed impoundment 1eve 1.Brown bear uses of areas
directly impacted by proposed impoundments appeared greatest in the
early spring following emergence from dens.We speculate that brown
bears may have been attracted to these areas in the spring by the early
availability of both vegetable and animal foods.Important vegetable
foods may include berries from the previous year.tubers.fresh
grasses.and sedges which may be available earlier in these areas
because of earlier snow melt.Animal foods utilized in these areas may
be winter-killed or weakened moose and,somewhat later,moose calves.
The proposed impoundments will presumably reduce this spring habitat.
The most interior run of salmon known in the study area occurs at
Prairie Creek,a feeder stream running from Stephan Lake to the
Talkeetna River.Four of 11 radio-collared brown bears moved to
Prairie Creek during the summer salmon run.No fewer than 30 brown
bears·fished here in 1980.Brown bear movements to or from Prairie
Creek may be inhibited by impoundments or access routes,thereby
reducing the availability of this salmon resource to an appreciable
proport i on of the be ars in the st udy area.
Stud i es in the headwaters of the Sus itna River conducted ; n 1979
estimated a brown bear density of 1 bear/41-62 km2.We conjecture
that brown bear density in the impoundment area is roughly comparable
to that in the area of the 1979 study.If so,the impoundment study
area of 3,500 km 2 contains approximately 70 brown bears.
Capture and relocation records for black bears suggested that black
bear distribution in 1980 was largely confined to or near the spruce
f.orests found in the vicinity of the Susitna River and its major
tributaries.These are the habitats which will be maXimally impacted
by the proposed impoundments;the restricted nature of black bear
distribution in the study area suggests that these populations may be
highly vulnerable to habitat losses by inundation as well as by
disturbances associated with construction and improved access.
-
81 ack bear use within the spruce habitats was most prevalent in the"
early spring.In 1ate surrnner 1980 many black bears moved to the more
open shrub lands adj acent to the spruce forests.Th is movement appeared
motivated by the prevalence of berries (Vaccinium)in these open
areas.
Black bears crossed the Sus i tna River mare frequent 1y th an brown bears.
This result probably reflects the relative proximity of black bear home
ranges to the river.The motivation or importance of these river
crossings for black bears is not known,nor is it yet known whether the
proposed impoundments would represent a significant barrier to such
crossings.
All fi ve of the radi o-co 11 ared black bears with 1980 dens in the
viCinity of the Watana impoundment denned below 2,200 feet elevation,
the approx imate proposed hi gh water mark of the Watana impoundment.
Two of nine black bears denning in the vicinity of the Devil Canyon
impoundment denned below the approximate proposed hi gh water mark
(1,450 feet);the average elevation of nine of these dens was 1,935
feet (1,300-2,750 feet).Nine of 14 black bear den sites were in
spruce habitats and five were in shrubland habitats adjacent to spruce
habitats.Thus it seems clear that many den sites utilized by black
bear in 1980 would be inundated by the proposed impoundments.The
impact of this den inundation on black bear populations is as yet
unknown.In 1981 these den sites will be visited and their
characteristics described.
Black bear density appeared variable throughout the study area.A very
rough estimate of 1 bear/4.1 km 2 was offered for one area of
r~latively high density.
Bear studies in the remainder of Phase I will concentrate on collection
of additional evidence on bear distribution and movements in the study
area.Efforts wi 11 be made to increase the proportion of marked
animals in the population throughout Phase I and Phase II.Among other
things this will ultimately permit a more accurate estimate of bear
popu 1at ions in the impact area.
,...
I
I
I
""'"
I
I
I
•-••~••....
I
.-•~•~
I
.-
I
I
.-
I
..-•
Caribou
The Nelchina caribou herd which occupies a range of about 20,000 mi 2
in southcentral Alaska has been important to hunters because of its
size and proximity to population centers.The proposed Susitna
impoundments would inundate a very small portion of apparently low
quality caribou habitat.However,concern has been expressed that the
impoundments and associated development might serve as barriers to
caribou movement,increase mortality,decrease use of nearby areas and
tend to isolate "su bherds".Overall objectives of the current study
are to evaluate potential impacts of the proposed hydroelectric project
on Nelchina caribou and to suggest possible mitigating measures.
Because of the changeable nature of caribou movement patterns,short-
term studies of distribution and movements must be tempered with
historical perspective.Fortunately the Nelchina herd has been studied
continuously since about 1948 and records previous to that time have
been reviewed.The primary methodology for this study is the
repetitive relocation of radio-collared caribou.Population estimates
are made with a modified version of the aerial photo-direct count-
extrapolation census procedure.
Late winter distribution of caribou in 1980 was in the Chistochina-
Gakona River drainages,the western foothills of the Alphabet Hills and
the Lake Louise Flat.The two main routes to the traditional calving
grounds in the northern foothills of the Talkeetna Mountains were
across the Lake Louise Flat into the calving area via the lower Oshetna
River and across the Susitna River in the area from Deadman Creek to
the big bend of the Susitna.Calving occurred between the Oshetna
River and Kosina Creek from 3,000 to 4,500 feet elevation.The main
summering concentration of Nelchina caribou occurred in the northern
and eastern slopes of the Talkeetna Mountains between Tsisi Creek and
Crooked Creek,primarily between 4,000 and 6,000 feet.Most caribou
were located on the Lake Louise Flat during the rut.During early
winter the herd was split in two groups;one in the Slide Mountain-
Little Nelchina River area and the other was spread from the
Chistochina River west to the Gakona River through the Alphabet Hills
to the Maclaren River .
-
"""
It appeared (based on only 8 months data)that at least two small
subherds with separate calving areas existed,one in the upper
Talkeetna River and one in the upper Nenana-Susitna drainages.
lnsufficient data were available to evaluate the status of the Chunilna
Hi 11 s group.
The Nelchina caribou herd was estimated to contain 18,558 animals in
October 1980.Herd composition was estimated at 49.0 percent cows,
30.3 percent bu 11 sand 20.7 percent calves.
It was apparent from historical records (and to a lesser degree from
movements of radio-collared animals)that the proposed Watana
impoundment would intersect a major migratory route.It seems possible
that the impoundment could be a barrier to movement and a potential
source of mortality,particularly during spring migration when females
are in relatively poor condition and various combinations of ice
shelving,ice sh~ets,overflow,ice floes and wind-blown glare ice
could occur.The impoundment could tend to isolate the northwestern
corner of the Ne1china range,an area which has been heavily used by
caribou in the past.Access routes.roads,railroads.and air fields.
cou 1d affect cari bou movements depend i ng on lac at ions and amount of
use.The proximity of the calving grounds to the Watana impoundment is
of concern because of the traditional fidel ity to this calving ground
and the possibility that increased human access and activity could
result in reduced use.
The Devil Canyon dam site and impoundment appears to have virtually no
potential to impact Nelchina caribOU.Conversely the Watana site would
almost certainly have negative impacts although the extent cannot yet
be predicted.
Dall Sheep
NO sheep were radio-collared,but an aerial survey of known or
suspected Dal1 sheep habitat in the vicinity of the proposed Susitna
Hydroelectric Project was conducted in July 1980 to delineate sheep
-
-
.~
distribution.Three discrete areas of habitat were identified.Sheep
in a 11 three areas may be subject to di sturbance from construct ion
activities,hel icopter traffic or access routes,although disturbance
may be reduced or e1 imi nated through routing or schedu 1i n9 of human
activities.
Sheep occupying the Watana Creek Hills were observed in lowland
habitats that might be inundated by the proposed Watana impoundment.
Little is known about the importance of this habitat to the population
but it is possible that some attractant such as a mineral lick occurs
there.If so,assessment of the impact of the Susitna Project on this
sheep population will be more complex than anticipated and an expansion
of the scope of the study will be necessary.
Wolverine
During April and May 1980,five adult wolverine were captured and four
(3 males,1 female)were radio-collared.Eighty-six radio locations
were obtained during 1980.
Yearly home range sizes for two males were 399 km 2 and 272 km 2 .
The summer home range for a lactating female was 86 km 2 .Summer
movement patterns of the three male wolverine seemed to be influenced
by the Susitna River.Only three occurrences of river crossings were
documented during the study"period.Within their home ranges,all
radio-collared wolverine showed a fidelity toward upland shrub (willow-
birch)habitats and toward southerly and westerly slopes.
An three male wolverine displayed a seasonal change in their home _
range usage.Preferences are presumably related to the wolverine
breeding season and timing of ground squirrel emergence and caribou
calving.Ground tracking during May and December,1980 indicated
wolverine dependence on small marrnnals for food.
-
-
Potential impacts on wolverine by the Susitna Hydroelectric Project
include the following:loss of habitat due to inundation and
construction (including roads and transmission lines),a probable
reduction in prey densities,increased competition with other
scavengers and predators,and a readjustment of home range size and
seasonal movements.
There is evidence that wolverine are intolerant of human disturbance.
Impacts from disturbance might be influenced by timing and placement of
construction activities.For example,activities on southerly and
westerly slopes are more likely to affect wolverines than are those on
northerly or easterly slopes.
Downstream Moose
Moose populations in the Susitna Valley were relatively small in the
early 1900's.Since then,man has altered the habitat through fires,
logging,and fa.rming,and the moose have increased.The lower Susitna
River moose population does not appear to mix with the Matanuska Valley
or Peters-Outch Hill s popu 1at ions,but more study of movement sis
necessary.
Deep snow in winter has been documented as a cause of migration from
rut and post rut areas in the Talkeetna Mountain foothills to the
Susitna River and vicinity,but no studies have determined the relative
use by moose of the Susitna River floodplain versus upland habitats
near the river.The present study focusses on the seasonal
distribution of moose populations using the lower Susitna,the relative
magnitude of season,al moose use of the Susitna floodplain and the
relative use of associated habitats.
In April 1980,10 moose were immobilized and equipped with radio
collars.Various biological specimens were taken from the moose at the
capture site.Periodic relocati.on flights were conducted to determine
each moose1s location and activity,and association with other moose
and with habitat type.
,.
r"
The small sample of marked moose,and the difficulty of spotting
unmarked moose in the timber,made determination of major seasonal
patterns of population distribution impracticable,although a variety
of individual patterns was noted.More work on seasonal movement and
di stri but i on is needed.
A preliminary surv€y of browse distribution and use along the river
showed a mean of 1.4 browse plants per square meter.Willow,most
prevalent in early successional stages,was consistently well browsed.
Birch,near the river,was also a preferred forage.Cottonwood,rose,
and highbush cranberry were less used,and alder was largely unused.
Potenti al for managing downstram pl ant cOlmlunities for increased
production of moose forag€,if this proves a desirable avenue of
mitigation,appears excellent.
Upstream.Moose
Compared to caribou,most moose make rel ative1y short seasonal
movements.Thus far,both resident and migratory sub-populations have
been identified.Presumably these both require the same general sort
of wi nter range.Since the Watana and Devi 1 Canyon impoundments wi 11
cover the lowest portion of the landscape,some present moose winter
range will be inundated.
The size of spring-fall home ranges of cows with calves was found to be
relatively large (16.8 km 2 )compared to findings elsewhere (2.2 -
16.9 km 2 , 7 studies).Although fidel ity to seasonal ranges by
marked individuals was high,some changed seasonal ranges,especially
in winter.Seasonal use of plant corrmunities corresponded to
elevational distribution of plant communities and indicate seasonal
elevational preferences of migratory moose.
-
-
.....
I""'"
I
Wolves
Intensive wolf studies have provided a good understanding of population
densities,and use of prey.Population densities in Game Management
Unit 13 have vari ed over recent years from 97 to 315 km 2/wolf.
There has been some decline in wolf populations lately,presumably due
to a heavy take by humans,but a strong tendency toward hi gh
reproductive gain folloWing a spring of low wolf population indicates
that the we 1f popu 1at i on has marked recuperat i ve powers.
Foods taken by wolves include moose (the major prey),caribou,beaver,
snowshoe hare,and smaller marrmals.Moose and caribou,winter
vulnerability to wolf predation is greater when snow is deeper.On the
average,a wolf pack takes prey in winter at the rate of about 5-7
kg/day/wolf .
-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY
Page
1 -INTRODUCTION - - - - - - -....-........- - -..- - - --..1
1.1 -Big Game Biometrics and Data Processing -..- - - - - 1
1.2 ..Brown and Black Bear Studies -..-......- -..- 2
1.3 -Caribou Herd Identity,Migration Patterns and
Habitat Use-- - - - - - - - - - - - - -5
1.4 -Da 11 Sheep _..- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7
1.5 -Wolverine - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8
1.6 -Downstream Moose - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9
1.7 -Upstream Moose - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -..- - -12
1.8 -Wolf Studies -~- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -13
2 -METHODOLOGY ..- - - - - - - - - -~- - - -..- - - - - - -15
2.1 -Data Processing - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -15
2.1.1 -Animal Distribution Analyses - - - - - - - - - - -15
2.1.2 ..Habitat Selectivity Analyses - - - - - - - - - - -15
2.1.3 -Species Interaction Analyses - - - - - - - - - - -16
2.1.4 -Basic Data Processing and Analysis ..- - - - - - -16
2.2 -Area of Study - - - - - - - - - - - - - -..- -16
2.2.1 -Black and Brown Bears - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -17
2.2.2 -Caribou - - - - - - - - - - -..- -..- - - - - - -18
2.2.3 -Dall Sheep ..- - - - - - - - -..---- - - - - -18
2.2.4 -Wolverine - - - - - -..-....- - -..- - - - - - -18
2.2.5 -Downstream Moose _..- -..- - - -..- - - - - - -19
2.2.6 -Upstream Moose - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -19
2.2.7 -Wolves - - - - - - - - -..- - - -..-..- - - - -19
2.3 -Radio-telemetry ..- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -20
2.3.1 -Black and Brown Bears - - - - -..- - - - - -......20
2.3.2 -Caribou - - - - - - -..- - - - - - - - - - - --..22
2.3.3 ..Dall Sheep - -.. ..-..-......- - -......-23
2.3.4 --Wolverine - - - - - - - - - - - - -..- - - -23
2.3.5 ..Downstream Moose - -..- - - -....- - - - - - - -25
2.3.6 -Upstream Moose - - - - - - - - - ----- - - - -26
2.3.7 ..Wolves - -....-..- - - -..- -..- - - -......-27
2.4 ..Population Studies - - - - - - - - - -..- - - - - -27
2.4.1 -Black and Brown Bears - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -27
2.4.2 -Caribou - -..- - - -..- -....- - - - - - - - - -28
2.4.3 -Dall Sheep - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --..29
2.4.4 -Wolverine - -...- - - - - - - -..- - - - - -..- -30
2.4.5 -Downstream Moose - - - - - - - -..- - - - -30
2.4.6 -Upstream Moose - - - - - - -..- - - - - - - -30
2.4.7 -Wolves - - - - - - - - - -..- - - -..- - - -31
2.5 -Food Availability-and Use - - - - - - - - - - - - - -31
2.5.1 -Downstream Moose - - - - - - -..- - - - - - - - -32
3 -RESULTS AND DISCUSSION - - - - - - -..- - -..- - - - - - -34
3.1 -Data Processing - - - - - - - - - - - - -..- - - - -34
3.1.1 -Data Entry of Radio Telemetry Observations - -_..34
3.1.2 -Data Analysis of Location Information - -..- -_..35
3.1.3 -Habitat Selectivity Analyses - - - -..- -....37
3.1.4 -Species Interaction Analyses - - - - - - -..- - -40
.-
-I
TABLE OF CONTENTS - 2
Page
3.2 -Black and Brown Bears - - - - - - - - - - --.-- - -40
3.2.1 -Sex and Age Composition of Captured Animals - - - -40
3.2.2 -Brown Bear Seasonal Distribution and Movements - -43
3.2.3 -Brown Bear Density - - -..-....- - - - - - - - -51
3.2.4 -Black Bear Seasonal Distribution and Movements - -53
3.2.5 -Black Bear Density - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -61
3.2.6 -Needs for Further Study - - - - - -..- - - - - - -63
3.3 -Caribou - -..- - -•- - -•- - - - - - - - - - - -64
3.3.1 ..Distribution and Movements - - - - - - - - - - - -64
3.3.2 ..Subherds - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -67
3.3.3 ..Population Size and Composition - - - - - - - - - -69
3.3.4 -Habitat Selection - -•- -•- - - - - - - -72
3.3.5 -Planned Activities for Remainder of Phase I -..-~73
3.4 -Dall Sheep ..- -..- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -74
3.4.1 -Watana Hills - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -..- -74
3.4.2 -Mount Watana ..- - - - - - - - - - - - - -•- - -76
3.4.3 -Portage-Tsusena Creek - - - - -..- - ----- - -76
3.4.4 -Hunter Use - - - -~- - - - - - -•- - - - - - -75
3.5 ..Wolverine - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -77
3.5.1 -Movements and Habitat Selection - - - - - - - - - -77
3.5.2 -Ground Tracking - - - - - -•- - - - - - - - - - -84
3.5.3 -Carcass Collection and Analysis ..- - - - - - - - -84
3.6 -Downstream Moose - - - - - - - - - - - - --..84
3.6.1 ..Population Distribution--..- - - - - - - - --..85
3.6.2 -Use of Riverine Habitats - - - - - - - - - - - - -87
3.6.3 -Browse Utilization - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -88
3.7 -Upstream Moose _..- - - - - - - - - - -..- - - - -89
3.7.1 -Home Range - - - -..- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -89
3.7.2 -Plant Community Use - - - - - - - - - - -..--- -91
3.7.3 -Population Identity - - - - - - - - -......- - - -91
3.8 ..Wolves - - - - - - -.....- - - - - - -..- - - - -94
3.8.1 -Packs and Pack Attributes - - - - - - - - - - -94
3.8.2 -Re 1at ions to Prey - -- - -..- - - - - -94
3.8.3 -Population Studies - - - - - - - - - - - -96
4 -IMPACT ASSESSMENT - - - - - - - -..- - -....- - -101
4.1 -Construction Impacts - - - - - - - - - - - - - -101
4.1.1 -Watana Dam and Reservoir - - - - - - - - - - -101
4.1.2 -Devil Canyon Dam and Reservoir - - - -..- - - - -102
4.1.3 -Access Road - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -..104
4.1.4 -Transmission Facilities - - - - - - - - - - - - - -104
4.2 -Operation Impacts - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -104
4.2.1 ..Watana Dam and Reservoir - - - - --(- -..- - - -104
4.2.2 -Devil Canyon Dam and Reservoir ..- - - - - - - - -110
4.2.3 -Access Road - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -110
4.2.4 -Transmission Facilities - - - - -..- - - - - - - -111
4.2.5 -Downstream Flow Regime - - - - --- - - - - - - -111
-
TABLE OF CONTENTS -3
Page
5 -MITIGATION - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -~- - -112
5.1 -Control of Human Activity - - - - - - - - - - - - - -112
5.2 -Siting - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -112
5.3 -Plant Community Management - - - - - - - - - - - - -112
.....,
6 -REFERENCES - -----
7 -AUTHORITIES CONTACTED
114
130
LIST OF TABLES
4S
44
97
78
70
71
80
52
54
56 0
58
59
46
47
75
-79
98
100
- - - -41
42
- - - - -49
1 -Brown Bears Captured in the Spring of 1980 - - -
2 -Bl ack Bears Captured in the Spri ng of 1980 - -
3 -Sex and Age Compos it i on of Marked Brown Bears
Remaining in the Study Area in October 1980
4 -Sex and Age Composition of Marked Black Bears
Remaining in the Study Area in October 1980 - - - -
5 -Average Spring Ages,in Years,of Susitna Area
Brown Bear Sub-populations 3 Years or Older - - - -
6 -Brown Bear Relocation Records for 1980 - - - -
7 -Capture and Den Site Locations for Brown Bears
Captured in 1980 - - - - - - - - - - -
8 -Reported Brown Bear Population Densities in
North America _..- - ----- - - - - -
9 -Black Bear Relocation Records for 1980 - - - - - -
10 Monthly Occurrence in Spruce Habitats for 23 Radio-
collared Black Bears in the Susitna Study Area -
11 -Black Bear Capture Sites,1980 - - - - - - - - - -
12 -Black BearDen Sites,1980 - - - - - - - - - ---
13 -Black Bear Population Densities in Various North
American Localities - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -62
14 -Nelchina Caribou Post-Calving and Age Composition
Data - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
15 -Nelchina Caribou Fall Sex and Age Composition Data - -
16 -Compil ation of Hi ghest Yearly Counts Completed in
Watana Hills Sheep Trend Count Data - - - - - - - -
17 -Tagging Location and Physical Measurements of
Wolverine Captured in Susitna River Basin 1980 - - -
18 -Drug Type,Dosage,and Subsequent Induction Time for
Wolverine Captured in Susitna River Basin,1980
19 -Summary of Home Range Size for Four Radio-collared
Wolverine in Susitna River Basin,1980 - - - - - -
20 -Comparison of Annual Wolverine Harvests from
1962-63 through 1979-80 in Game Management Un it 13 -81
21 -Reported Home Range Size,Cows wi th Calves - - - - - -90
22 -Percentage Utilization of Plant Communities by Month - - - -92
23 -Summary of Predation Statistics Derived from
Intensive Radio-monitoring of the Susitna and
Tyone Wolf Packs - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
24 0 -Estimated Number of Prey Individuals Consumed by
Game Management Unit 13 Wolves - - - - - - - - -
2S -Summary of Reported Wolf Densities for North America -
o..-
-.
I
.-
-
,~
1 -INTRODUCTION
Moose,caribou,brown and black bears,Dall sheep,wolves and wolverine
constitute the big game animals of the Susitna basin and the subject of
this report.These species have long been of concern to the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game,whose biologists have pursued their study
within,among other places,the Susitna basin,which constitutes part
of Game Management Unit 13.Because of this experience,and the
expertise that it has engendered,the AFD&G biologists were the logical
choice to carry out the more intensive field investigations
necessitated by the proposal to establish a hydropower complex on the
Susitna River.Their program of investigation,carried out under the
supervision of Karl Schneider,is impressive in concept and execution.
This document is largely a compilation by Dr.Richard Taber of the 1980
reports-produced by ADF&G.
1.1 -Big Game Biometrics and Data Processing:SuzAnne Miller and
Danny Anct i 1
The objective of the biometrics and data processing project is to
provide technical assistance in the quantitative and information-
management aspects of the big game studies.The time constraints,
volumes of data,and reporting requirements associated with the Susitna
Hydroelectric Project Impact Assessment Studies mandate the development
of efficient and accurate means of recording,analyzing,displaying and
reporting the data collected.This can only be done by means of
electronic data management systems.
Four major aspects of the big game studies have been identified as
requiring support from the biometrics and data processing project:
(a)Animal distribution analysis.
(b)Habitat selectivity analysis.
(c)Species interaction analysis.
(d)Basic data processing and analysis.
1.2 -Brown and Black Bear Studies:Sterling Miller and Dennis
McA 11 i ster ..
Black bear (Ursus americanus)and brown bear C~.'arctos)are widely
distributed and abundant-in Alaska.Black bear distribution in Alaska
coincides closely with the distribution of forests,with the IOOst
abundant populations occurring in lI open ll forests rather than heavy
timber;extensive open areas are usually avoided.Brown bears seem
best adapted to open areas of tundra or grasslands although,like black
bears,they inhabit a variety of different habitats in Alaska.
Taxonomically there is only one species of brown-grizzly bear.In
common usage the term brown bear i sut i 1i zed to refer to southern and
coastal populations of this species and grizzly bear refers to northern
and interior populations.Typically lIbrownll bears are larger and
darker than "grizzlyll bears.The brown-grizzly bears along the Susitna
River described in this report are,most appropriately,referred to as
brown bears.
Black bears in Alaska tend to be smaller than in many areas of the
conti QUous United States,most commonly they wei gh 100-200 lbs.
Several color phases of black bears are known,the Susitna population
includes individuals that are black,cinnamon,and dark brown.
In Alaska,both species of bears'spend the winter in dens.Black bears
use a variety of den sites and structures ranging from substantial
excavations on hillsides or under logs and trees to,less commonly,
simple and relatively shelterless sites.Brown bears most commonly den
in well excavated holes on high mountain slopes.The denning period
2
-
-
!~
for both species typically runs from October through April or May but
annual,geographic,and individual variations are conmon.In the
Susitna area a limited number of observations suggest that black bears
enter dens earlier and emerge later than brown bears (Miller
unpub 1i shed data).
Brown bears are more aggressive and dangerous to man than bl ad bears.
Th ismay be the resu It of eva luti 9n ina more open env ironment wi thout
trees to serve as escape habitat and the corresponding need for more
aggressive behavior to protect themselves and their offspring (Herrero
1972).The corresponding danger to man combined with the increased
vulnerability to hunting associated with more.open habitats,has led to
great reductions in brown bear distribution and abundance in the
contiguous United States.Except in Alaska and parts of Canada,the
species is currently classified as endangered.Black bears,on the
other hand,are still abundant throughout most of their original
range.
Both species I:tave evolved general i st and opportuni st strategi es and
are,correspondingly,biologically compatible with many kinds of
man-caused disturbances of their habitat.However,experience has
amply demonstrated that brown bear abundance is usually incompatible
with increasing human presence except in a few parks where bears are
given a legal priority over human development activities.
Both species of bears are omnivorous,eating a wide variety of grasses,
sedges,other herbaceous pl ants,roots and berries as well as animal
protein when available.Populations with access to salmon may heavily
uti'lize this resource during portions of the year.Brown bears have
recently been shown to be significant predators on moose calves in the
upper Susitna-Nelchina basin area (Ballard et a1.1980).
Brown bear research has been undertaken since 1978 in the Nelchina and
Susitna River basins.This research has concentrated on the magnitude
and effects of brown bear predation on moose but considerable life
3
In the 1ast 20 years brown bear popul at ions have increased and the
current population appears to be abundant,young and productive.Fall
harvests in the period 1970-1979 averaged 61 bears/year (30-84 bears/
year)in Alaska's Game Management Unit (GMU)13.This level of harvest
is suspected to be less than the maximum sustainable yield of this
population.In 1980 a May lOththru 25th bear season was held;the
same season will be held in 1981.
-
-
history
1981).
1948 to
levels.
data were also collected (Ballard eta1.1980,Spraker et al.
In this region federal predator control programs conducted from
1953 are suspected to have reduced bear populations to low
Unti 1 the present study,bl ack bear research has not been conducted in
the Susitna or Nelchina River basins.The abundance of black bears and
relatively light hunting pressure in these areas permits a year-long
open hunting season and an annual bag 1 imit of three bears.An annual
average of 63 black bears have been taken in GMU 13 from 1973-1979
(58-70 bears/year).Relative to brown bears,black bears are highly
productive and numerous and this population could sustain higher levels
of harvest.
The overall objectives of black bear and brown bear studies mandated by
proposed hydroelectric development on the Susitna River are:
liTo determine the distribution and abundance of black and
brown bears in the vicinity of proposed impoundment areas;
seasonal ranges,including denning areas~and movement
patterns of bears;and seasonal habitat use of black and
brown bears.1I
In Phase 1 of these studies,emphasis has been placed on determination
of relative abundance and seasonal distribution of the two species in
the vicinity of proposed impoundments,and on collection of baseline
information on basic biology of impact-area bears in order to compare
4
I"'!"..
.-
Susitna-area populations with populations elsewhere.With these kinds
of data available by completion of Phase I,Phase II efforts can
concentrate on quant ification of the level s of potent;al impacts and on
the reasons for them.
The objectives of the first year of effort were primarily procedural
rather than analytical:to radio collar a sample of both black and
brown bears,to periodically locate these bears and pinpoint their
locations,to locate den sites of radio-call ared bears,to begin
development of techniques which would permit an analysis of habitat
selectivity by bears,and to begin the collection of baseline
biological data by which to characterize impact-area bear populations .
1.3 -Caribou Herd Identity,Migration Patterns and Habitat Use:
Kenneth Pitcher
The Nelchina caribou (Rangifer tarandus)herd,one of 22 herds in
Al aska (Davi s 1978),has been important to sport and subsistence
hunters because of its size and proximity to population centers in
southcentral Alaska.Between 1954 and 1980 over 100,000 caribou were
ki 11 ed by hunters (Skoog 1968;unpub 1i shed data A1 ask a Department of
Fish and Game).
Because of its importance and accessibil ity.the Nelchina herd has been
the most intensively studied caribou herd in Alaska (Doerr 1978).The
U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service initiated research in 1948 and continued
through 1959 under the direction of Chatel ain,Scott and Skoog (Skoog
1968).The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has been continually
involved with the Nelchina herd since statehood including intensive
research on population,harvest,distribution,disease and range
monitoring (Skoog 1968,Lentfer 1965,McGowan 1966,Glenn 1967,HelTlTling
and Glenn 1968,1969,Pegau and Hemming 1972,Neiland 1972,Pegau and
Bos 1972,Pegau et al.1973,Bos 1973,1974,Alaska Department of Fish
5
and Game Survey and Inventory Reports 1970-1980).Skoog1s (1968)
doctoral dissertation,a major work on caribou biology,deals largely
with the Nelchina herd.
There is currently under study a proposal to construct a large
hydroelectric project on the Susitna River in the western portion of
the Nelchina caribou range.Impacts of the development,which may
include two dams and impoundments,access roads and electrical
transmission lines,on the Nelchina herd are unclear.Habitat loss due
to inundation does not appear to be a serious consideration as <1%of
the total Nelchina range would be involved.Skoog (1968)concluded
that caribou usage of this area was largely limited to transient
animals,although they occasionally spend time in the area in spring
using snow free areas.The proposed Watana impoundment could serve as
a barrier to migrating caribou.The area along the Susitna River
between Deadman Creek and Jay Creek has served as a traditional
migration route both during spring migration and the post ...calving shift
(Herrnning 1971).Ice shelving along the edges of the reservoir has been
suggested as a potenti al source of mortal ity to mi grating caribou
(Hanscom and Osterkamp 1980).Roads,railroads and electrical
transmission lines have all been reported to disrupt caribou movements
(Klein 1971,Vilma 1975,Cameron et "al.1979).Disturbance associ ated
with construction and maintenance of the hydroelectric facilities could
result in a reduction of caribou use of nearby areas as shown for the
Prudhoe Bay oi 1 fields (Cameron et a1.1978).Proximity of the
traditional calving grounds to the Watana impoundment is of some
concern because of the importance of the area to -the Ne 1china herd and
increased human activity in the area implicit to development.
Suspected II su bherds ll in the general area of the proposed impoundment
could become more isolated by development of the Susitna Hydroelectric
Project depending on their movement patterns and routes and their
reactions to the impoundments and related developments.
6
.-
Overall objectives of this project are to evaluate the potential
impacts of proposed Susitna hydroelectric development on the Nelchina
caribou herd and to suggest possible mitigating actions.Specific
objectives include:(1)determination of movement patterns,m'igration
routes and timing of major movements with emphasis on activities
occurring in the vicinity of proposed development;(2)delineation of
subherds (based on separate calving areas);(3)estimation of numbers
and sex and age of the mai n Nelchina herd and suspected subherds;and
(4)determination of habitat utilization of Nelchina caribou.
Compl icating the interpretation of data gathered during short-term
stud i es of cari bou mi gr atory routes is the well recogn i zed tendency for
changes in use of winter and sunmer ranges (Skoog 1968).The analysis
of data resulting from this study will have to rely heavi1y on
historical information.It is fortunate that results of intensive
research by Skoog (1968)and others on the Nelchina caribou herd are
available and they will be used extensively in the analysis.
1.4 -Dall Sheep:Robert Tobey
Oall sheep (avis dalli)are known to occupy all portions of the upper
Susitna River basin which contain extensive areas of habitat above 4000
feet elevation (Alaska Dept.of Fish and Game 1973).Three such areas
lie close enough to proposed Susitna Hydroelectric Project impoundment
areas that sheep usi ng these areas may be impacted by the project.
These areas are the Portage-Tsusena Creek drainages,the Watana Creek
Hi 11 s (east of Watana Creek)and Mount Watana incl uding the hi 11 s to
the-southwest.
Because Dal1 sheep usually are found at elevations above 3000 feet,the
most likely adverse impact of the Susitna Hydroelectric Project
appeared to be disturbance from construction activities and access
roads.As a result the scope of this study was limited to a
determination of the seasonal distribution and abundance of sheep
adj acent to the proposed impoundments.
7
-
-
-
The study area includes all drainages flowing into the Susitna River
from Gold Creek to Kosina Creek on the south and to the Denali Highway
on the north..Survey efforts were confi ned to the three areas of known
or suspected Dall sheep habitat within this area.
1.5 -Wolverine:Craig Gardner,Warren Ballard,and Donald Cornelius
The only information available on wolverine in the Susitna River basin
comes from work conducted by Rausch and Pearson (1972)and ADF&G
harvest records.Both sources provide a gross indication of population
status.These studies do not,however,provide the types of
information needed to determine the probable impacts of the proposed
Susitna Hydroelectric Project on wolverine populations.The current
study was initiated in April 1980 to:
(a)Determine distribution and abundance of the wolverine population
utilizing the study area.
(b)Determine wolverine seasonal habitat requirements and movement
patterns.
(c)Obtain an estimate of the popu1ation 1 s age structure and sex ratio
to determine population trends.
(d)Determine the wolverine's dependency on the area which will be
inundated by the proposed dam system or deve loped through road or
transmission line construction.
This report addresses preliminary findings of wolverine movements and
home range size,habitat use,and distribution within the impact area.
The report peri od only extends from 10 April through December 1980 due
to the late arrival of radio telemetry equipment.
8
-
1.6 -Downstream Moose:Paul Arneson
The moose below the proposed impoundment and those above are
distinguished by the designations downstream and upstream and treated
separately in th is study because the project would affect them in quite
different ways.
In the early 1950·s,the Susitna vall ey was termed "probably the most
productive moose habitat in the (Alaska)Territory"(Chatelain 1951).
It was nat unt il man-causedfi res and c1 eari ng of 1and duri ng and after
railroad construction created prime moose habitat that the moose
population rapidly increased.Prior to 1930 few moose were found in
the valley (Spencer and Chatelain 1953).At that time moose likely
utilized riparian habitats and what few browse species were available
in the mature spruce-hardwood forest.With the creation of new
habitat,the moose popul ation expanded and presently remai ns at
relatively high levels.
The identities of moose populations that may use the Susitna River
during some stage of their life cycle have not been determined.Moose
in peripheral areas have been studied and do not appear to mix with
populations that are found in the Susitna valley from the Deskha River
on the south to Portage Creek on the north.An extensive collaring
project in the Matanuska valley in the late 1960 l s revealed that most
moose remained in the valley.Only three were known to emigrate out of
the tagging area;one to Mt.Yenlo and two to Mt.Susitna (Rausch
1971).However,only visual collars were used,and observations
normally occurred only on the wintering grounds.A radio and visual
collaring project was conducted in 1975-1977 in the Peters-Dutch Hills
area northwest of the Susitna River (Didrickson and Taylor 1978).No
marked moose were known to have moved eastward to the Susitna River.
9
.,~
,~
-
-
Therefore,the moose herd north of Willow to the proposed Devil Canyon
dam site is likely a discrete population although various
subpopulations likely exist within the overall population.The
greatest number of animals spend the rutting period on the western
foothills of the Talkeetna Mountains.Many remain in that vicinity
until deep snow covers their forage,and they must migrate to lower
elevations where riparian and disrupted habitats provide suitable
winter forage.
Because no surveys have been conducted in the past to determine winter
moose use of riparian habitats of the Susitna River,the only data we
can use as a indicator of moose presence on or near the river are
records of railroad and highway killed moose and documentation of dead
moose on the r;ver Isis 1ands duri ng the severe wi nter of 1970-71.When
deep snows persist in the Willow to Talkeetna areas,the incidence of
railroad and highway-killed moose increases substantially.The mast
recent example of this is in the winter of 1978-79 when at least 171
railroad-killed moose were documented after a moderately heavy snow
year.The following winter 1979-80 when much less snow fell~far fewer
moose were recorded as railroad mortalities.During surveys in April
1971 following the severe winter of 1970-71,155 winter-killed moose
were tallied on the Susitna River and its tributaries.As stated by
LeResche et a~.(1974),UDuring harsh winters,river I bottoms I become
yarding areas for high densities of moose.When deep snow persists~
overbrowsing may occur,and these areas have been the scenes of the
most spectacular moose di e-offs recorded in Al aska ...ripari an
communities are the habitat of last resort for wintering moose.II
Winter range is widely considered a limiting factor in the welfare of
moo'se and other ungulate populations.Because moose are dependent upon
secondary successional stages of vegetation for their winter forage,
their winter range must be periodically disrupted by fire,land
clearing,beaver activity or flooding in order to create the necessary
transitory stage of vegetation (Chatelain 1951).
10
No research has been conducted to determi oe moose use of the important
riparian winter range along theSusitna River,and only a few studies
and quantitative records are available for that moose population in
general.Chatelain (1951 and 1952)and Spencer and Chatelain (1953)
reported on the early history and habitat use of moose in the Susitna
vall ey.Rausch I s(1959)research dealt with various parameters of
population dynamics of the moose herd in the Matanuska and Susitna
valleys.Bratlie (1968)further summarizes the status of the lower
Susitna and Matanuska moose herds through 1967.LeResche (1974)
briefly summarized the status of the Susitna moose.Since that time,
the only information gathered concerni ng the welfare of the lower
Susitna moose population has been the sex and age composition counts
conducted most every fall,harvest data and some age data from'
railroad~killed moose.
When pl anning began for downstream moose studi es on the proposed
Susitna Hydroelectric Project,it was known that a paucity of
quantitative data was available for the area of greatest impact and
importance on the lower river.Therefore,basic research had to be
initiated to meet the most obvious objectives.As the project
continued,these objectives were periodically changed to meet changing
conditions such as weather,logistics and other factors.The pr'imary
objectives of the study are:
(a)To determine the identity of moose subpopulations using the lower
Sus itna.
(b)To determi ne seasonal di stri but i on and movement patterns of these
moose subpopulations.
(c)To determine the relative magnitude of moose use of the lower
Susitna.
11
,"-
-
(d)To determine the relative use by moose of various habitats along
the lower Susitna and nearby areas.
(e)To summarize historic data as it pertains to the above
objectives.
Secondary object i ves are:
(a)To determine food habits of moose using the lower Susitna versus
those using nearby areas.
(b)To determine the relative condition and productivity of the moose
herd of the lower Susitna and vicinity.
During the first year of study,4 of the 5 primary objectives have been
part i ally fu Hi 11 ed.Primary obj ect i ve (a)wi 11 be accompl i shed in
1ate winter if conditions permit.
1.7 -Upstream Moose:Warren Ballard,Donald Cornelius,and Craig
Gardner
Prior to statehood,management of Alaska's moose involved little more
than establishing liberal seasons,conducting sex and age composition
counts,monitoring harvests and control 1 ing predators when necessary.
Within the past two decades,however,Alaska's human population has
grown significantly (Yankee 1974)and moose populations have been
declining.Consequently,management has become more intensive,
req-uiring detailed knowledge of various population and habitat
parameters which were not necessary when moose numbers were increasing
between 1940 and 1960 (Bishop and Rausch 1974).
Between 1963 and 1974,over 88,000 moose were harvested in Alaska
(AOF&G unpubl ished files).Of that number,18 perc.ent were from the
12
Nelchina basin (GMU-13).Moose numbers began to decline in the
Nelchina basin after the winter of 1961-62 (Bishop and Rausc~1974).
Deep snows were thought to be prevent i ng the popul at ion from
recovering.McIlroy (1974)suggested that low bull:cow ratios had
influenced conception rates while Bishop and Rausch (1974)considered
habitat deficiencies to be at least partially responsible for these
declines.
Because of its depr~ssed moose population and the importance of GMU-13
to the statewide harvest,a series of interrelated studies was
initiated in 1975 in an effort to identify problems and possible
solutions to aid in the population's recovery.These studies initially
focussed on moose-wolf relationships,to test the hypothesis that wolf
predation was responsible for low calf survival.A 1ater study
involved removing wolves from a portion of GMU-13,then measuring
moose-calf survival in subsequent years.In order to evaluate the
effects of wolf removal on study moose herds,it was necessary to
accomplish the following:identify discrete moose populations and
calving areas,and determine pregnancy rates,age structure,and
physical condition of moose in these populations.During the early
phases of this study renewed interest in developing hydroelectric power
on the Susitna River prompted expansion of these moose studies to
include a preliminary assessment of the potential impacts of Susitna
River hydroe 1ectr'i c deve 1opment on moo se.
1.8 -Wolf Studies:Warren Ballard,Robert Stephenson,and Ted
Spraker
Rausch (1969),Bishop and Rausch (1974)and McIlroy (1974)have
described the history of the GMU-13 moose population.All pointed to
an apparent inverse relationship between numbers of predators and
numbers of ungul ates.Moose apparently began decl ining after the
severe winter of 1961-62.This decline continued and was hastened by
severe winters occurring in 1965-66, 1970-71,and 1971-72.Fall calf:
cow ratios declined sharply and reached a record low for the basin in
13
-
1975.Although wolf predation was not suggested as the main reason for
the population decline~it was thought to have at least amplified the
decline and,more importantly~prevented recovery during mild winters
(Rausch et al.1975).This concern coupled with the findings of
Stephenson and Johnson (1972~1973),which revealed a high percentage
of calfll100se in wolf scats~suggested that wolf predation on calves
was preventing the moose population from increasing.Consequently a
series of studies was initiated to obtain information on wolves,and on
wolf-moose relationships in the Nelchina basin (Stephenson 1978~
Ballard and Spraker 1979).The current study consists of a
continuation of these,with the additional objective of assessing the
probab 1e impact of the proposed Sus i tna hydropower camp 1ex on wolves
and their prey.
14
./
-
-,
2 -METHODOLOGY
Since the bas ic task for 1980,for each of the 1arge mammals found in
the Susitna basin,has been to make estimates of distribution and
habitat selectivity,there is much in common among them with regard to
data records and analysis.Before field work is undertaken it is well
to have a plan for the systematic quantification and coding of data,
with the ultimate purposes of data processing in mind.Therefore,in
this,and each subsequent section,data processing shall come first.
In addition to the topics of distribution and habitat selectivity,data
processing includes species interaction analysis and basic data
processing and analysis,both included here.
2.1 -Data Processing
2.1.1 -Animal Distribution Analyses
Radio-telemetry techniques are being used by all the principal
investigators.The large numbers of animal s fitted with radio
collars and the numbers of observations per animal dictate that
automated means be used for data analysis and display.The
cartographic nature of radio telemetry data creates special
problems in data processing which require use of specialized
computer resources.
2.1.2 -Habitat Selectivity Analyses
An important component in eva1uat ion of the potenti al impacts of
dam construction is understanding how the various species utilize
the landscape available to them.The radio telemetry data are
used to identify where animal s are located and,in some cases,
the activities in which the animals are engaged at that spot.
However,in order to identify those elements of the landscape
15
.-.
'"""'
which influence animal distributions and movements,it is
necessary to relate those observations to the total landscape
available to each animal.Several conceptual and technical
problems are associ ated with such analyses.
2.1.3 •Species Interaction Analyses
The direct impacts of the proposed hydroelectric project will
undoubtedly vary among the big game species.However,close
ecological relationships between species (e.g.predator·prey
interactions)can result in indirect impacts which may not be
immediately apparent with single-species analyses.The
complexities of such analyses require the use of systems analysis
techniques and specialized computer resources.
2.1.4 •Basic Data Processing and Analysis
Direct assistance to principal investigators in data processing
and analysis is provided in the form of sampling designs,data
collection and analysis techniques,statistical analyses and
computer software.
2.2 •Area of Study
Because of differences in species di stri buti on and range of movement,
and because of a project distinction between the impoundment region and
the downstream region,there are differences among the different
speci eswith respect to the specific part of the 1andscape within which
its study took place.These differences are described by study,
below.
16
.~
,!
~I
-
2.2.1 -Bl ack and Brown Bears
Captured bears were located along the Susitna River and its
tributaries between Devil Creek (T32N/R8W,Talkeetna Mts.Quad)
and the Vee site or gaging station (T30N/R10E,Talkeetna Mts.
Quad).
The most distant bear captured south of the Susitna River was
G293 (upper Tsisi Creek),25 km south of the Susitna River.The
most distant bear captured north of the Susitna River was G312
(T21S/R4W,Healy Quad),about 30 km north of the Susitna River.
All black bears and half of the brown bears were captured within
5 km af the Susitna River.
Based on movements of radio-collared bears,the study area was
expanded to include upper Chunilna Creek,the whole of Prairie
Creek,the height of land separating upper Susitna drainages from
Talkeetna River drainages,KosinaCreek,and drainages of the
Sus itna as far east as the Oshetna River,and upper Jay,Watana,
Deadman and Tsusena creeks.The total area encompassed by
movements of radio-collared brown bears included approximately
3,500 km 2 .Because of the difficulty of radio-monitoring
this large area,most monitoring efforts were concentrated on a
core area within 15 km either side of the main Susitna River,
encompassing an area of only 800 km 2 .Bears ranging outside
of this core area were radio-located less frequently than bears
with a greater portion of their home ranges within the core area.
Within this study area black bears were much less ubiquitous than
brown bears.The mai n bl ack bear study area was southeast and
east of Devil Mountain to Tsusena Creek (T31-32N/RS-7W),an area
which would be impacted by construction of the Devil Canyon dam.
A secondary black bear study site,whi ch would be impacted by the
Watanadam,was centered around Deadman Creek (T32N/R4-5W).The
most upstream radio-collared black bear was in the vicinity of
the Vee gaging station.
17
,.....
I
!
'1"'"''
2.2.2 -Caribou
The Nelchina herd occupies an area of approximately 20,000
mi 2 bounded by four mount a in ranges:the A1 ask a Range to the
north,the Wrangell Mountains on the east,the Chugach Mountains
to the south and the Talkeetna Mountains to the west (Hemming
1971).
The Nelchina Range contains a diverse variety of habitats ranging
from spruce-covered 1owl ands to steep,barren mountains.Human
development is largely limited to the peripheries of the Nelchina
range and consists primarily of the Alaska Railroad,Parks
Highway,Denali Highway,Richardson Highway,Trans-Alaskan
Pipeline and Glenn Highway.
2.2.3 -Datl Sheep
Dall sheep occupy three areas within the study region which
contain extensive areas of habitat above 4,000 feet in elevation:
the Portage-Tsusena Creek drainages;the Watana Creek Hills (east
of Watana Creek);and Mount Watana,including the hills to the
southwest.
2.2.4 -Wolverine
The study area boundary follows the Susitna basin boundary in the
west to its intersection with the Denali Highway on the north,
the Denali Highway to its intersection with the Susitna River on
the east,down the Susitna River to its confluence with the Tyone
River to Tyone Lake,then a southwest line to the confluence of
the Little Oshetna River with the Oshetna River and along the
Oshetna River to its intersection with the basin boundary on the
south.
18
-
'A
-.
I
,F"""',
,","",
2.2.5 -Downstream Moose
In the broadest sense,the study area was defined as the
floodplain of the 5usitna River below the proposed Devil Canyon
dam,and those areas included in the home range of moose
radio-collared on the 5usitna River.In a practical sense,the
study area was reduced to that portion of the Susitna River from
approximately Portage Creek south to the Delta Islands.This
portion of river was further subdivided into three physiographic
sect ions:1)From Portage Creek to the confl uence of the Sus itna
and Chulitna rivers near Talkeetna,2)From Talkeetna to the
mouth of Montana Creek,and 3)From the mouth of Montana Creek to
the southel'ln end of Delta Islands.In addition,a specific study
site consisting of several islands was selected near the mouth of
Goose Creek and the north e,nd of Sheep Creek 51 ough.
2.2.6 -Upstream Moose
Moose movements and habitat use were studied in the upper Susitna
River basin upstream from Devil Mountain.Studies in relation to
hydroelectric development focused on the immediate hillsides
north of the river between Devi 1 Mountain and the mouth of the
Maclaren River.
2.2.7 -Wolves
Wolves were studied most intensively in the Susitna River study
area,wh i ch has the fa 11owi ng boundar i es:the area is bordered
on the north by the Denali Highway and extends from the Maclaren
River at the Denal i Highway south to Tyone Lake and Lake Louise,
then to the Glenn H;ghway.The western boundary is genera 11 y
defined as northwest from the Little Nelchina River along the
upper elevations of the Talkeetna Mountains to near the mouth of
Portage Creek and then northeast to the Denali Highway.
19
""""'I
I
i
.....
2.3 -Radio-telemetry
2.3.1 -Black and Brown Bears
Brown and bl ack bears were captured by procedures described in
Spraker et al.(1981)and Ballard et al.(1980).In brief,fixed
wing aircraft (PA-18)were used to search for bears and bears
were immobilized by darts fired from a helicopter (Bell 2068).
Drugs utilized included phencyclidine hydrochloride (Sernylan),
etorphine (M99)and its antagonist diprenorphine (MSO-SO),
ketamine hydrochloride (Vetelar),and xylazine (Rompun).
Standard morphological measurements were taken of immobil ized
bears.When terrai n conditions permitted,wei ghts were obtai ned
by means of a scale suspended from the helicopter or a hand-held
scale.Speci~ens of blood and hair were collected to assess
physiological condition.Identifying marks applied to all bears
included:lip tattoos,ear tags,and ear flags.Individual bear
numbers referred to in the report represent tattoo numbers with a
"Gil for brown bear and a IIB"for bl ack bears.Bears judged to
have completed 80 percent or more of their growth were fitted
with radio-collars which transmit in the range of 148.0-153.9
MHz.Ten bears were fitted with double transmitter collars
designed so that one transmitter transmitted data on ambient
temperature.
Because of the late arrival of new bear collars,some individuals
were fitted with radio-collars designed for other species or used
bear radi os from other projects.Except for the doub 1 e-
transmitter bear radios,all new bear radios were designed with
mortality sensors which halve the pulse rate when the collar is
stationary for 2 hours,a change recognizable when a collar has
been shed or the bear is dead;it also prolongs battery life by
reduced electrical draw when bears are ;n dens.
20
"'"
!
i I
,...
,i
Bears were captured on 10-22 April,1-7 May and 18-19 August,
1980.In the first effort only brown bears were seen.Beginning
on M(lY 1 black bears were abundant,having emerged from their
dens apparently between 22 April and 1 May.The August tagging
effoT't was des i gned to capture bl ack bears in mi d-surrmer
habitats,away from their 1979-80 dens.These SUlllTler captures
avoi ded den-site sel ect i vity bi ases whi ch may have resulted had
only spring-captured bears been followed to their 1980-81 dens.
Attempts to locate radio-collared animals were made on
approximate 10 day intervals in 1980.Actual flights varied from
this schedule depending on weather conditions and aircraft
availability.Most radio location flights were made in a Cessna
180 based in Anchorage and refueled at Susitna Lodge or
Talkeetna.Flights were made on 14,22,and 29 May,4,12 and 23
June,2,10,18 and 22 July,4,14,22,and 27 August,9 and 29
September and 9,18,and 27 October.Additional radio-locations
were made in conjunction with flights to locate other species in
the Susitna study area.Reasonable efforts were made to visually
observe all radio-located bears.The locations of all non-marked
bears spotted during radio-location flights were also recorded.
Locations were plotted on US Geological Survey maps (scale
1:63,360)and information on habitat type,behavior,
associations,topography,etc.were recorded.
Data col1 ected on monitoring fl i ghts were transferred to
individual-specific data forms and maps which will be the basis
for keypunching and digitizing.
Habitat-type information recorded during monitoring flights was
restricted to the following broad categories identifiable from
the air:
21
.....
1.Sparse tal'spruce
2.Mod.tall spruce
3.Dense tall spruce (riparian)
4.Sparse med.spruce
5.Mod.med.spruce
6.Oensemed.spruce
7.Sparse low spruce
8.Mod.low spruce
9.Dense low spruce
10.Riparian willow
11.Upland willow
12.Willow birch
13.Aspen
14.Riparian hardwood
15.Marsh
16.Alder
17.Rock/ice
F
I
-
..-
.-
.I
The nine habitat types which include spruce were broken down into
categories reflecting relative densities and heights of the
spruce component.Procedures to determine habitat selectivity
from these data and/or data from vegetational mapping subtasks
are under development.
Blood samples were analyzed for condition indices by Pathologists
Central Laboratories.Seattle.Hair samples are stored for
potential trace element analyses.Teeth were collected for aging
according to procedures described by Stoneburg and Jonkel (1966)
and Johnson and Lucier (1975).Feces collected during capture
are stored for food habits studies (anticipated for Phase II).
Captured bears were photographed.
2.3.2 -Caribou
Data on movement patterns,migration routes,timing of major
movements,subherd status and habitat use were collected by
periodic relocations of radio-collared animals.Caribou were
captured by use of immobilizing drugs [etorphine (M-99)and
xylazine {Rompun)J administered with projectile syringes
(Cap-Chur equipment)shot from a helicopter.Radio-collars in
the 152.0-153.0 MHz range,purchased from Telonics Inc.,were
used.Radio-collared caribou were relocated from a fixed-wing
aircraft (Cessna 180 or PA-18-150)equipped with two Vagi
22
-
antennas,one attached to wing struts on each side of the
aircraft.Antenna leads were attached to a right/left switch box
coupled to a radio-tracing receiver/scanner.Animals were
located by balancing the transmitter signal between the two
antennas through use of the left/right switch and orientation of
the aircraft and following the signal.Forty-one caribouwere
radio-collared.However,as of 10 December,12 collars had
either been shed or the animals had died leaving 29 functioning
transmitters on four males and 25 females.These included three
animals in the upper Susitna area,two in the Talkeetna River
area,and 24 in the main Nelchina herd."
2.3.3 -Dall Sheep
Dall sheep have not been subject to radio-telemetry to date,
because their principal habitat is well removed from the
impoundment area.
2.3.4 -Wolverine
Capture efforts were conducted during April and May 1980,using
helicopter capture techniques (Ballard and Spraker 1979).A
combination of 0.25 cc Sernylan (Bioceutic Lab.,Inc.)and 0.20
cc Rompun (Barrett Division of Cutter Laboratories,Inc.)was
used for immobilizing two wolverine.Because Sernylan is no
longer commercially available,a combination of 0.4 cc etorphine
(1 -mg/cc M-99,DooM Pharmaceuticals,Inc.)and 0.5 cc Rompun was
used to capture the 1 ast three wolverine.Each captured
wolverine was aged,sexed,weighed,measured,ear tagged and
radio-collared.Data from each wolverine were recorded on a
tagging form.After process i ng,wol veri ne immobil i zed with M-99
were injected with an equivalent cc dosage of the antagonist
dipremorphine (2 mg/ml M 50 ..50,DooM Pharmaceuticals,Inc.).Each
captured or necropsied wolverine is referred to by the last three
digits of its assigned accession number.
23
Radio collars (Telonics,Mesa,AZ)were constructed of butyl
rubber and had an inner 'circumference ranging from 29 to 39 cm.
Each collar was equipped with a whip antenna which extended 26 cm
from the collar.The entire unit weighed 232 g.
Radio locations were made approximately twice per week during
April and once per week thereafter,s imil ar to methods descri bed
by f'Jlech (1974).Radio locations were recorded on a 1:63,360
U.S.G.S.map and activity,number of associates,and general
habitat were described on a standard field form.
Aerial habitat classification followed a system described by
Ballard and Taylor (1980).This system was specially designed to
describe habitat from fixed-wing aircraft.For this reason and
because we were more familar with it,it was used in lieu of
Viereck1s and Dyrness·s classification system (1980).We believe
that most of our classifications can be transformed to Viereck's
and Dyrness's level 3 classification,which is probably as
accurate as can be obtained from the·air.
Wolverine tracks were followed on the ground during May and
December 1980 in an effort to gather information pertaining to
food habits and activity patterns.Tracks were initially found
by ai rcraft.Tracks were then fo Howed on snowshoes for 1 to 2
days.
Wolverine carcasses were purchased from hunters and trappers in
Game Management Unit (GMU)13 by offering $10.00 per carcass.
Each carcass was necropsied in an effort to quantify age
structure of the harvest,reproductive status,and morphometric
measurements.
Wolverine observation forms were distributed to pilots,
biologists and other investigators in the study area in an
attE!mpt to gather more data on wolverine distribution.Sightings
24
-
.......
I
of bath wolverine and wolverine tracks,general description of
habitat and activity were solicited.Harvest records from
sea 1i ng forms and bounty records from 1962 to prese.nt were
examined.
2.3.5 -Downstream Moose
The study began in April 1980 when 10 moose were captured:three
in the upper section (1 bull,2 cows)north of Curry,three in
the middle section (2 bulls,1 cow)plus one cow was collared at
the middle-lower section boundary,and three in the lower section
(1 bull,2 cows)near the mouth of Sheep Creek.All were darted
from a helicopter using 9 cc M-99 and 1 cc Rompun.Besides
placing a radio/visual collar on each moose,orangeear..flagging
and metal tags were placed in both ears.Blood,hair,a tooth
and feces were collected from each moose,various morphometric
measurements were made and each cow was palpated to determine
pregnancy status.When given the antagonist MSO-50 each moose
recovered in a normal amount of time,and no mortal ities occurred
in the tagging operation.
Relocation flights of the radio-collared moose began 29 April
1980.Aircraft for these flights were:Cessna 172 and 180 and
PA 18-150.Fl i ghts were conducted at approximately 10-day
intervals during summer and fall and at 15-or-more-day interval s
in winter when moose were not making long movements between
relocations.At each radio-relocation of a collared moose the
following parameters were recorded:date,time,location,visual
relocation,antlers present,activity,number of young,
association with other moose with a sex and age breakdown,
habitat type,elevation,slope,aspect,weather conditions
including snow cover and whether a photograph was taken.
25
After each flight the animal locations were plotted on 1:63,360
USGS quad maps,and the data were organized on keypunch forms.
Later,location data will be digitized on a geoprocessor to
facil itate analysis.Other data from each observation of
radio-collared moose will be computerized at a later date.
2.3.6 -Upstream Moose
Adult moose were captured with the aid of a hel icopter by darting
with 10-cc aluminum darts fired from a CAP-CHUR gun with
appropriate dosages of M-99 and Rompun.Helicopter capture
methods were identical to those used previously on other Alaskan
moose movement studies (Nielson and Shaw 1967).No attempt was
made to capture yearling moose.
Captured moose were marked either with a radio collar,a colored,
numbered visual collar,or both,permitting individual
recognition from fixed-wing aircraft.One-ha1f of the radio-
collars were color-coded with canvas tape wrapped around the
machine belting.Visual collars were similar to those described
by Franzmann et al.(1974).Radio collars were constructed of
machine belting 1.3 cm thick by 5.4 cm wide.Collars had an
inner adjustable circumference ranging from 101 em to 111 em.
The belting surrounded the radio components which were encased in
dental acrylic,theoretically making the unit waterproof.The
entire unit weighed 1,113 grams.Radio frequencies were in the
150.0 MHz range.Radio collars were purchased from A.V.M.
Instrument Company (810 Dennison Drive,Champaign,Ill.)and
visual collars were obtained from Denver Tent and Awning Co.
(Denver t Co 1o.).
Each moose was also ear-tagged with a numbered Monel metal tag,
fi xed to the base of the ear.Most metal tags were accompanied
by a 5 cm x 13 cm piece of colored plastic.
26
.....Radio signals were received with a 4-band,48-channel portable
receiver purchased from A.V.M.Instrument Co.Radio-collared
moose~were relocated from a Piper PA-18 Super Cub and STOL Cessna
180 fixed-wing aircraft.Tracking methods and equipment used
were similar to those described by Mech (1974).
2.3.7 -Wolves
Wolves were captured for radio-telemetry studies with a CAP-CHUR
gun Clnd dart fired from a Jet Ranger 2068 helicopter using
methods similar to those described by Baer et al.(1978).Our
capture technique differed from theirs in that we darted in all
type~i of vegetative cover and while the animal was moving.
Captured wol ves were equipped initi ally with an adjustabl e
machine belt radio collar manufactured by AVM Instrument Co.,and
later'with an adjustable collar made of fiberglass and urethane
manufactured by Telonics (Mesa,Ariz.).
Wolves were relocated with a portable radio-telemetry receiver
manufactured by AVM Instrument Co.The receiver contained four
bands with 12 channels per band and covered frequencies in the
150.0 to 152.0 MHz range.
2.4 -Population Studies
2.4.1 -Black and Brown Bears
Determination of the number of bears in the Susitna study area
was defined as a major objective of the impact assessment study.
Bear population estimates are exceptionally difficult and
expensive to obtain and it is unl ikely that an accurate estimate
will be achieved with the funds available for Phase I bear
studies.An imprecise estimate may be obtainable from radio-
27
-
,~
tracking determinations of home range size coupled with an
estimate of the proportion of the population which is
radio-collared.The precision of such estimates increases as the
proportion of the population which is radio-collared increases.
Because of the apparent abundance of brown bears in the Sus itna
study area and because of the large home range sizes of Nelchina
brown bears (average=570 km 2 ,range=191-1,380 km 2 ,Miller
and Ballard 1980),it will be expensive to obtain a precise
est imate.
2.4.2 -Caribou
A modified version of the aerial photo-direct count-extrapolation
census procedure (Hemming and Glenn 1969,Davis et al.1979,
Doerr 1979)was used to estimate the size of the Nelchina herd.
This technique is composed of three separate procedures:(1)a
complete count of all animals in the post-calving aggregation;
(2)a composition count of these same animals to determine the
proportion of adult females;and (3)representative fall
composition sampling of the entire herd to determine the
proport ions of females,males and ca 1ves (Doerr 1979).
Acceptance of four assumpt ions is necessary for the APDCE
technique:(1)all females in the herd are present in the
post-calving aggregations;(2)adult females are randomly
di str'ibuted throughout the post-cal v i ng aggregat ions;(3)the sex
and age cohorts are randomly distributed throughout the herd
during fall ;and (4)mortality of adult females from the time of
post-calving aggregation to the fall composition counts is zero
(Daviset al.1979).An evaluation of these assumptions by Davis
et al.(1979)indicated that all but assumption #3 were valid and
that the collection of representative fall composition data was
the most difficult procedure.
28
FP =
Na =
Pf =
Sf =
R =
.....
-I
'-
The fall population estimate is calculated from the following
equation (Doerr 1979).
FP =Na x Pf x Sf x(l +R)
where:
estimated fall population;
number of animals in the post-calving aggregation;
proportion of females in post-calving agregation;
survival of females from the time of post~calving
counts until the fall;and
ratio of.caribou other than females to females in the
fall.
Reconnaissance fl ights were made in a C-180 to determine when
caribou were suitably aggregated to census.p,A-18-150 Super Cubs
are usei:!to survey the aggregat ions and the caribou herds were
either photographed or directly counted.Hand-held,motor
driven,35 mmcameras were used to photograph caribou groups.
The 35 ll1lI co 1or s 1i des of cari bou groups were projected on a
paper screen and caribou images marked.The number of images
were then counted.
A helicopter (Bell 206B)was used to sample the post-calving
aggregations and the herd during the breeding seas0!l to estimate
proportions of females,males,and calves.Groups of caribou
were approached from the rear until the sex of each animal older
than calves could be determined from the external genitalia
(presence or absence of the vul va).
2.4.3 -Dall Sheep
Sheep observations were solicited from all Susitna study
participants.Date,location,number,sex and age of all sheep
29
,"'"
.-
.....
I,
,"""
obseY'ved and subsequent 1y reported were recorded on 1:63,360 USGS
topographic maps.Winter and spring observations were especially
requested because they show seasonal distribution and.,in some
instances,habitat use.
An aeri a 1 survey was conducted wi th a PA-18 Super Cub on 22 and
23 July 1980 in an effort to determine sex-age composition and
summer distribution.Sixteen hours were spent surveying sheep.
All observed sheep were identified as to number,sex,and age
class;.Locations were plotted on 1:63,360 USGS maps.Methods
used during the survey were typical of those used to survey sheep
elsewhere inA1ask a (McKn i ght and Hinman 1980).
2.4.4 -Wolverine
Data obtained during this study period are not sufficient for
population analysis,but it is anticipated that preliminary
population estimates will be available after another year of
study .
2.4.5 -Downstream Moose
Data obtained during this study period were not sufficient for
population analysis,but it is anticipated that preliminary
population estimates will be available after another year of
study.
2.4.6 -Upstream Moose
From 25 May through 13 June 1980,eight flights were made to
determine the birth rate and calving area of radio-collared moose
in the study area.
30
-I
..-.
Teeth obtained from radio-collared moose were aged during the
repoT't period;in addition,teeth from wolf-killed moose in the
study area were aged and bone marrow samples were analyzed to
determine relative condition of moose preyed upon by wolves.
During August,1980,33 snow depth markers were installed along
ei ght transects in moose habitat throughout the study area.
These markers were read throughout the winter to determine the
relationship between moose movements and snow depth.The markers
were placed in areas used by moose during the March 1980 winter
distribution survey and preliminary Susitna studies.Specific
site selection was done in collaboration with Jeff Kaufman from
R&M Consultants and George Calgett of the U.S Soil Conservation
Service.Random stratified moose census counts were designed
with the assistance of Dr.Wm.Gasaway,and carried out in late
October and early November,1980.
2.4.?-Wolves
Through radiolbcation and aeri al observat ion wolf packs were
identified and their seasonal ranges and composition determined.
2.5 -Food Availability and Use
This aspect of the study focussed on the food of moose particularly.
Moose make much winter use of successi anal ripari an shrubs and these
shrubs would tend to be flooded by an impoundment or affected by
changes in the seasonal magnitUde of downstream flow.
31
.-
2.5.1 -Downstream Moose
Techniques to be used in spring pellet group counts and browse
utilization/density studies were researched and several experts
in the field were contacted.Several designs were discussed,but
it was decided that each project is unique,and methods of this
type need to be IItai lor-made n for the project.Therefore,
several methods were tried during spring 1980 to determine which
was best suited for the habitats involved and which were best
suited for the degree of moose use in the area.Areas determined
to have the greatest vari ance in 1980 wi 11 be sampled with
greater intensity in spring 1981.
In the in iti a 1 survey of the ri ver,transect 1i nes were randoml y
selected in the upper,mid and lower portions of each of the
three sections.Transects followed existing section lines.On
these transects the number of browse plants available to moose
(or hare and beaver)were recorded on a strip 1 meter wide along
the ent ire transect,but the transect was di vi ded into 10-meter
sections.Pellet groups were counted in a 2-meter width in each
of thE!lO-meter sections.The habitat type in each lO""!Tleter
sectil)n was also recorded.Only the first 100-meters of upland
habiti!t on opposite banks of the river were surveyed at each
tranSl!ct.
For the second portion of the study,one study site was selected
near the mouth of Sheep Creek.Ten transects were randomly
selected on the study area.Along each transect a 2 X 2 meter
plot \~as used every 20 meters to record the browse
availability/utilization.At the same location a 2-meter radius
ci rc 1E!was used for pellet groups.The sma 11 er plat size was
chosen to better fit within given habitat types .
32
-
I'""'
Five browse species were considered:willow (Salix sp),
cottonwood (Populus balsamifera),paper birch (Betula
papyrifera),highbush cranberry (Viburnum edule)and rose (Rosa--..',.
acicu1aris).They were considered "browsab1e"if they were over
40 em tall (i.e.available above or near the snowline in winter)
and if their circumference at breast height was 13 em or less
(this circumference has been determined to be the maximum that
can be broken over by moose whi 1e foraging).To be counted as a
separate stem from a cl uster of stems,the p1 ant must have been
surrounded by soil or if it was a tlsucker tl on a cut-off stump or
matuT'e tree it must have been at an ang1 e of 45 degrees or less
from the main stem of the plant.If it was between 45 degrees
and perpendicular (90 degrees)to the trunk,it was classified as
a bramch and not a browse stem.
Only pellet groups containing 12 or more moose droppings and with
their approximate geometric center within the transect were
counted.
The habitat classification followed Viereck and Dyrness (1980)as
closely as possible.Additionally,the density and height of
plants were recorded.Four density categories were used:1)
Open (10%or 1ess crown canopy cover),2)Sparse (1O-25%),3)·
Medium (25 ..60%)and 4)Closed (60-100%).Four height categories
were also used:1)Low (1.5 m or less),2)Medium (1.S-6.0 m
[considered prime moose browse]),3)Tall (6.0-9.0 tall,5.0-13
cm dbh)and 4)Climax (9.0 m or more high,13 em or more dbh).
33
.-
-
-
3 -RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
3.1 -Data Processing
In the first year of Phase I studies the biometrics and data processing
efforts hav,e concentrated on development of techniques and procedures
des i gned to meet the obj ect i ves out 1i ned prev i ous 1y.De 1ays in
obtaining personnel and access to needed computer resources have
resulted in little actual analysis being accomplished in the first
year t but substantial progress has been made in development t and many
kinds of analyses appear ready to begin early in the second year of
Phase I studies.The following is a brief discussion of these
techn i ques and procedures.
3.1.1 -Data Entry of Radio Telemetry Observations
Each time a marked animal is relocated the observer pinpoints the
location on a map and records pertinent descriptive information
(identitYt behavior t associations,habitat t environmental
factors,etc.)on a field form.
The types of descriptive information recorded vary among species.
In order to facilitate analysis t the cartographic information
about the location of the animal must be associated with the
descriptive information.This process required handling the two
types of information separately for data entry and conversion t
and subsequently merging them for data analysis.
Descriptive data are transcribed onto standardized forms by the
investigators.These data are subsequently key-punched and
entered 00 the IBM computer at the Department of Administration t
Division of Data Processing t Anchorage.A magnetic tape of these
data is created and the information transferred to the Department
of Natural Resource's geoprocessing center for analysis.
34
Caribou
The Nelchina caribou herd which occupies a range of about 20,000 mi 2
in southclentral Alaska has been important to hunters because of its
size and proximity to population centers.The proposed Susitna
impoundments would inundate a very small portion of apparently low
quality caribou habitat.However,concern has been expressed that the
impoundments and associ ated development mi ght serve as barri ers to
cari bou movement,increase mortal i ty,decrease use of nearby areas and
tend to isolate IIs ubherds ll
•Overall objectives of the current study
are to evaluate potential impacts of the proposed hydroelectric project
on Nelchina caribou and to suggest possible mitigating measures..
Because of the changeable nature of caribou movement patterns,short-
term studies of distribution and movements must be tempered with
historical perspective.Fortunately the Nelchina herd has been studied
continuously since about 1948 and records previous to that time have
been reviewed.The primary methodology for this study is the
repetitiv1e relocation of radio-collared caribou.Population estimates
are made with a modified version of the aerial photo-direct count-
extrapolation census procedure.
Late winter distribution of caribou in 1980 was in the Chistochina-
Gakona River drainages,the western foothills of the Alphabet Hills and
the Lake Louise Flat.The two main routes to the traditional calving
grounds in the northern foothills of the Talkeetna Mountains were
across the lake louise Flat into the calving area via the lower Oshetna
River and across the Susitna River in the area from Deadman Creek to
the big bend of the Susitna.Calving occurred between the Oshetna
River and Kosina Creek from 3,000 to 4,500 feet elevation.The main
summering concentration of Nelchina caribou occurred in the northern
and eastern slopes of the Talkeetna Mountains between Tsisi Creek and
Crooked Creek,primarily between 4,000 and 6,000 feet.Most caribou
were located on the Lake louise Flat during the rut.During early
winter the herd was split in two groups;one in the Slide Mountain-
Littl e Nelchina River area and the other was spread from the
Chistochina River west to the Gakona River through the Alphabet Hills
to the Maclaren River.
,~
-
-
Cartographic information is converted to digital,x-y coordinates
through the process of digitization.This involves placing a map
on a digitizing table which,with the use of an electronic
tracing tool known as a cursor,records the two-dimensional
coordinates of a given location relative to known reference
points.Defining the reference points requires registration of
each map each time it is placed on the digitizing table.To
avoid having to register the same map for every individual animal
with sightings on that map,points of sightings are transferred
from maps used in the field to mylar overlays,one for each
animc~l for every ~ase map on which it has been sighted.
Digitization is done froITl these mylar overlays at the Department
of Natural Resource IS geoprocess i ng center,with regi strat i on of
each base map required only once for each corresponding set of
over"lays.
The cartographic information from digitization is then combined
with the descriptive information in a master file.This master
file is continually updated as new information is gathered.A
back up copy of the master fil e is created after each upd ate.
3.1.;~-Data Analysis oilocation Information
The D.epartment of Natural Resources I geoprocessor was especi all y
desi9ned for automated analysis and display of geographic-based
information.The geoprocessor is a mini computer with an array
of &;sociated peripheral devices such as a tape drive,disk unit,
digitizer,lineprinter,computer terminals and an x-y drum
plotter for drawing high quality color graphic displays on paper
or myl ar.The system i ncl udes a versatile set of comp.uter
programs (software)for performing functions on map-based
infol~mation.These functions include calculating polygon-line
interactions,polygon-polygon intersections,unions and relative
diffl:!rences,scale conversions,directions and distances between
.35
-
-
I~
-
points and areas.Additional programs are available to perform
funct'ions on descriptive data such as sorting,selecting subsets,
report writing,and mathematical calculations.User-:specific
software can also be written and integrated into the system.
Beforl~cOll1Tlitting the big game studies to utilization of the
geoprocessor for data analysis,a pilot project was undertaken.
This 'was intended to provide project personnel with the
opportunity to gain a better understanding of its capabil ities
and limitations,and to iron out potential technical difficulties
prior to actual use on real information.The pilot project
consisted of creating a udummyu set of animal sightings and going
throUigh the process of data entry and anal ys is.Three i ndi vi dua 1
animals,two moose and one wolf were created with 25 sightings
each.Descriptive data forms for each animal were created and
observation points mapped on two USGS 1:63,360 scale maps.In
developing the pilot project,several new computer programs had
to be developed to perform the task of merging the cartographic
and dl6scriptive fil es.These programs have been tested and the
systen is now ready for the data entry process as previously
outlined.
Several major problems have yet to be solved,for example,means
of lumping observations in a meaningful fashion in order to
define home ranges or areas of use.In the pilot project,home
range polygons were defined by connecting the outermost points
with straight lines.The area of each polygon and the areas of
overl ap can be determined by the geoprocessor.Other methods of
describing areas of use may ultimately prove to be more
meaningful,for example,ellipses encompassing a certain
percentage of point locations.
36
/"."
-
3.1.3.-Habitat Selectivity Analyses
The radio telemetry observations provide information on where
selected animals are at specific times.In order to utilize this
information to analyze habitat selectivity by the various species
several assumptions about these observations must be made,and
information about areas where animals are not located is
required.
The necessary assumptions are:
(a)The individuals which have been radio-collared represent a
random sample from the popul ation.This assumption may be
violated if,during the capture process,certain individuals
or groups of individuals have different probabilities of
be i ng captured.Fama 1es wi th young,for ex amp 1e,may be
more secret i ve and 1ess prone to capture in some speci es .
(b)The observations of an individual radio-collared animal
represent a random sample from the distribution of that
individual.All radio telemetry observations are made with
the use of aircraft.The locations of individuals during
times when the use of aircraft is not possible (e.g.
inclement weather,hours of darkness)may differ
substantially.
With these assumptions it is possible to compare areas which are
utilized with those areas which are not utilized.However,
several difficulties still remain.These include:
(a)Determining the total area available to an individual.This
is an obvious requirement for the basis of the comparison.
It makes little sense to compare areas which are not
available to be selected.
37
(~
(b)Accurately describing the landscape fe,atures.The
particular components of the habitat which motivate
selection may not be obvious or easily quantifiable.They
may also vary with temporal conditions.
Two techniques for analyzing habitat selectivity are being
considered.The·first involves expanding the use of the
geoprocessor to include landscape features.This would require
that the landscape attributes be spatially defined and entered
into the system via digitization.The level of resolution
required and the complexity of the attributes would determine the
1eve 1 of effort necessary to accomp 1i sh th is task.For ex amp Ie,
topographic features could be digitized from standard USGS maps.
However,capturing all the detail present in these maps would
require an excessive effort and create data processing problems
because of volume.Also,not all landscape features lend
themselves to precise spatial definitions.Vegetation,for
example,often occurs along continua.Aerial photos are being
used by the Agri cultura 1 Experimental Stat i on to create
vegetation maps,but the vegetation types designated on the maps
are based on overstory vegetation.
While the geoproces.sor is an effective tool to overlay animal
1ocat ions on landscape features,the degree of accuracy requi red
to provide meaningful results is often beyond the level of the
original maps.Extensive editing and integration of various maps
may be required.For example,when vegetation maps made from
aerial photos are electronically overlayed onto topographic maps,
boundaries around water bodies and other dominant features rarely
matc:h up initially.Similarly,the ability of the observer
trac:king radio-collared animals to accurately pinpoint the
location on a map can greatly influence the results.Likewise,
the descript i on of the hab i tat recorded by the ob server at the
time!of sighting ~ay not coincide with that entered from
vegl:!tation maps from aerial photos.Considering the problems
38
.,-.
._~1-,
associated with this technique for habitat selectivity analysis,
it was decided that this technique would be applied on atrial
basis only.Using the vegetation maps by the Agricultural
Experimenta 1 Station,1 andscape features for the area of
impoundment will be digitized.This technique will then be
evalu.ated before expanding into areas outside impoundments.
The slecond technique for habitat selectivity analyses arose from
consideration of the difficulties associated with the first
technique.The basic premise of the second technique is that the
most accurate information on the landscape features utilized by
the various species is obtained from the observer recording the
sighting.The process of transferring this information to maps
introduces additional error.The second technique avoids this
error by comparing landscape features at randomly selected points
with those where animals were observed.
The experimental design for the second technique is as follows.
The study area will be divided into sampling units based on
ecological factors.Sample units will vary in size and shape and
wi 11 be constructed such that it is reasonab 1e to assume that the
entire sample unit is avail able to any individual animal located
in it.Once an animal observation has been made in a sample
unit~random points will be selected within the sample unit.
Observers will drop a marker from the aircraft at each random
location and record the same landscape information as is recorded
for animal sightings.The number of random locations selected
wi 11 depend on the'homogeneity of the samp 1e unit and requi red
accuracy.Standard statistical techniques will be used to
compare the random locations with the animal observations.
39
......
-
.-
,
3.1.4 -Species Interaction Analyses
Computer simulation modelling is an effective technique for
analyzing species interactions.The most cumbersome aspect of
simulation modelling is the computer program development.
Specialized computer software for simulation modelling is
commercially available.These software packages provide the user
with program flexibil ity,enhanced output capabil ity in the form
of graphics,and streamlined input procedures which greatly
reduce the effort required for program development.However,the
majority of the commercial packages are aimed at economic and
business applications.It is~therefore,necessary to develop
our olwn s imul ation software package.Specifi cati ons for the
software are presently being developed.Several months of
program development and testing will be required to produce an
operaltional system.Once this system is in place~simulation
modelling of species interactions can proceed rapidly and
effic:i ent ly.
3.2 -Black and Brown Bears
3.2.1 -Sex and Age Composition of Captured Animals
Fi fty-four bears were captured and marked in 1980,27 brown bears
(Table 1)and 27 black bears (Table 2).One black bear (B303)
was c:aptured twi ce bri ngi ng the total number of black bear
captures to 28.One bear of each speci es di ed duri ng capture
operaltions (8296 and 13278).
Radio collars were placed on 15 brown bears and 11 of these
remain active.Four brown bears shed their collars (G279,13214,
G295,and (3309),all of these were large males (average age:9.2
years,range 4-12).One non-radioed bear (G311)was shot by a
hunt€!r.The tot a 1 number of marked and rad i o-co 11 ared brown
40
Table 1
Brown bears captured in the spring of 1980.
IF Capt.ure
Tattoo Se~Age Wt.Date Frequency Ear flags Comments
2.5:284 &:285w/2 @
w/283
'.1/283
Turgid
Collar shed by 5/4
w/2 ylgs,turgid
wi 299
'.1/299
Turgid
.w/2 ylgs,not marked
Capture mortality
Collar shed by 6/12
Recollar next spring
Recaptured '78 bear-
collar shed 9/9
Not.turgid
blue
orange
orange
orange
orange
orange
orange
wh.ite
green
green
wb.ite
white
orange
green
green
orange
orange
orange
white
white
white
orange
oraIl.ge
152.840
148.950
148.004
150.041/.103
15-0.142/.092
(150.061/.102)
150.041/.112
(150.368)
149.508
(151.512)
152.830
153.810
(150.650)
152.860
4/10
4/19
4/20
4/20
4/22
4/22
4/22
4/22
4/22
4/22
5/1
5/2
5/2
5/2
5/3
5/4
5/4
5/4
5/4
5/6
5/6
5/6
5/7
S/7
Turgid(?)
Collar shed by 5/14
wi 311
w/312,killed by
hunter 9/16
5/7 152.820 orange w/314 @ 2.5
5/7 orange w/313
5/7 green alone
250*
225*
375*
400*
300*
300*
286
154
9'0*
325*
280*
180*
180*
264
174
277
607
589
285
65
65
163
480
240
600
319
227
F 10.5
11 9.5
M 9.5
M 5.5
11 4,,5
F 3.5
M 4.5
r 12.5
11 2.5
11 2.5
M 3.5
F 3.5
M 4.5
M 10.5
11 12.5
r 13.5
M 1.5
11 1.5
r 3.5
11 6.5
F 5.5
M 12.5
F 10.5
11 (2.5)
F 9.5
F 2.5
F 1.5
313
314
315
277
(278)
(279)
280
(214)
281
282
283
284
285
286
292
293
294
(295 )
299
297
298
306
308A
30SB
(309)
312
(311)
-
/""'
!
*'Weight estimated ()Indicates shed collar or dead bear
Table 2
01 ack bears captured in the spring and summer of 1980 ..-----------Capture
Tattoo Sex Age Wt.Date Frequency Ear flags Cornme:p.ts
287
(288)
289
290
(291)
(296)
(300)
301
(302)
303
304
(305)
307
310
(316)
t1 10.5 225*
F 10.5 125*
F 9.5 130*
F 8.5 103
M (3.5)73
11 00.5)227
l1 (7.5)274
F 7.5 115
11 8.5 287
M 7.$217
M 10.5 235
11 (9.5)217
M 2.5 105
M 2.5 85
F (12.5)150*
5/1
5/1
5/2
5/2
5/2
5/3
5/4
5/4-
5/4
5/4-
5/4
5/5
5/S
5/6
5/7
150.111/.082
(150.032/.122)
150.092/.062
150.022/.142
(150.030)
(--)
(150.023/.121)
153.850
(150.189 )
153.870·
150.031/.080
(151.350)
(148.912)
';o1hite
'White
white
blue
orange
orange-
gree!l
blue
green
orange
green
.orange
blue/green
blue
w/2 ylgs,turgid,
collar shed by 8/27/80
101/2 ylgs,turgid
101/2 y1gs,turgid
Post-capture mortality
Capture mor~lity
Post-capture mortality
w/1 11g,turgid
collar shed by 8/4/80
Shot by hunter 8/30/80
101/1 newborn,1 ylg.
shot by hunter 8/28/80
*Weight estimated ( )Shed collar or dead bear
,.....
-
317
318
319
(320)
321 .
322
323
324
325
(326)
327
328
303
F 7.8
F 5.8
M 3.8
M (4.8)
r 10.8
M 4.8
11 2'~8
11 5.8
F 11.8
F (5.8)
l'5.8
F 6.8
M 7.8
133
126
174
200*
175*
154
122
190
164
125
118
150
260
8/18
8/18
8/18
8/18
8/18
8/19
8/18
8/19
8/18
8/19
8/19
8/19
8/19
152.703
152.690 .
152.632
(152.663)
152.673
152.643
152.612
152.624
152.632
(152.560)
152.653
152.573
152.870
white
white
oraag~
orange
'White
oraage
oraage
orange
white
whit.e
white
orange
w/1 cub
Shot by hunter 9/9/80
101/324
"1/322
~/2 cubs,shot by
hunter on 8/28/80
101/2 cubs
"1/303
recapture
..-
,..,.
[
-!
bears remaining in the Susitna study area (October 1980)by sex
and age categories is shown in Table 3.
The sex and age composition of current radio-collared bears is
shown in Tables 3 and 4.The sex ratio of adult brown bears
capt.ured for Susitna hydro studies is comparable to that in an
e.arlier study nearby and in the 10 year harvest statistics for
Unit 13 (Table 5).The age structure of hydro-project bears was
younger than in these other subpopulations (Table 5),most likely
the result of small sample size for hydro-project bears but
poss~ibly indicating locally heavy harvest levels.
Larger numbers of radio-collared individuals would be helpful for
both species.This is especially the case for brown bears which
will be subject to heavy hunting pressures in spring 1981 if
weather conditions are good during the season.Given equivalent
hunting losses of radio-collared black bears in 1981,by the end
of Phase I studies active black bear radios will have been
reduced to mi n ima 11 y acceptable numbers.
3.2.2 -Brown Bear Seasonal Distribution and Movements
Relclcations in 1980 for 15 radio-co11are~brown bears (excluding
offspring and sequential relocations at the same den site)total
120 points (Table 6).For the 11 bears with active radios in
winter 1980/81,107 relocations were obtained (3-14 per
individual)(Table 6).Dens were tentatively located for 10 of
these 11 bears.5i gMt i ngs of unmarked brown bears totaled 23,
yielldinga total of 143 poi nt-locations for brown bears in 1980.
These point-locations are in the process of being digitized.The
digHization process is designed to facilitate mapping and
anallys is of the poi nt-locat i on data;detail ed analys is of these
data will be delayed until digitization is complete and until
43
Table 3
Sex and age composition of marked brown bears remaining in the
study area in October 1980.Number with radio-collars is given
in parenthj:!ses.
1980 Age Males Females
0-1 0 0
1-2 2 1
2-3 2**.1
3-4 1 3 (1)
4-5 3 (1)0
5-6 1 (1 )1 (1)
6-7 1 (1)0
7-8 0 0
8 ....9 0 0
9-10 1 1 (1 )
10-11 1 (1)*2 (2 )
11-12 0 a
12-13 2 1 (1)
13-14-0 1 (1)
Totals 14 (4)11 (7)
-
-
-
***
One capture-related mortality not included (G214).
One bear sho~by hunter not included (G311).
Table 4
Sex and ag!~compos ition of marked
Susitna study area,October 1980.
given in parentheses.
black bears remalnlng in the
Number with radio-collars is
r
-
1980 Age Males Females
0-1 0 0
1-2 0 0
2-3 3 _(1)0
3--4 1 (1)*0
4--5 1 (1)**0
5-6 1 (1)2 (2)**
6-7 0 1 (1)
7-8 1 (1)*2 (2)
8-9 1 1 (1)
9-10 0 **1 (1)
10-1~2 (2)***2 (1)
11-12.0 1 .(1)
12-13 0 0 **
Totals 10 (7)10 (9)
*'One pest-capture mortality not included (B291,B300).
**One be~ar shot by hunter not included (B30S,B320,B326,B316).
***One c~,pture-related mortili ty not included (B29~).
Table 5
Average spring ages.in years.of Susitna area brown bear sub-'
populations.3.0 years or older .
.?",Average
Spring Age
......Subpopulation in Years (Range)n
~1a 1es
A*8.0 (3.5-23.5)208
B**7.4 {3.5-21.5}17
c***6.0 {3.5-12.5}11
Females
A*7.7 (3.5-28.5)191
B**7.4 (3.5-16.5)15
c***6.6 (3.5-13.5)9
-*Game Management Unit 13 fall harvests.1970-1980
**1979 Upper Susitna studies (Hiller and Ballard 1980)
***1980 Susitna Hydro studies-
-
......
-
.~
Table 6
Brown bear relocation records for 1980 .
*Radio-co11 a red
( )Indicates shed collar or dead bear .
**bears which are Offspring of previously listed adults
r'lllil9lA,
sufficient data to draw preliminary conclusions are available.
Only general hypotheses,based on the preliminary point-location
data,will be presented.
Brown bear use of the area in the immediate vicinity of the
Sus itl1a River and proposed impoundments appeared to be greatest
in the early spring,4-6 weeks following emergence from dens.
Elevel1 of the 21 bears (offspring excluded)captured in the
spri nl9 of 1980 were wi th in about 5 km of the Sus Hna River and
most of these were on south-faci ng slopes from whi ch the snow had
melted.Inspection of feces collected from these bears suggests
that many were feeding on berries (Vaccinium spp.)remaining from
the previous year I s crop.At least two of these bears were
feedi ng on a moose carcass found on the bank of the Sus itna
River,this moose probably was a winter kill rather than a bear
kill.It is a reasonable speculation that bear scavenging early
in the spring would be concentrated in the moose winter range
along the river,the area where most carcasses would be found.
The steep south-facing slopes along the Susitna River are also
the first 'areas to become clear of snow and many offer the
earliest opportunity to forage for vegetable material (previous
year1s berries,spring sedges and other new growth,tubers,
etc.) .
Prel imi nary data suggest that many brown bears move to lowl and
areas soon after emergence from dens.The 1980 capture locations
for seven of the nine bears followed to 1980/81 dens was lower
than the elevations of the 1980/81 dens.The average elevation
difference for these seven bears was 1,266 ft.(275-2,370 ft.)
(Table 7).
The importance of these spring foraging areas wi 11 be documented
early in the spring of 1981 by following bears as they emerge
from their dens.If the same bears that were captured along the
48
Table 7
Capture and den site locations for brown bears captured in 1980.
Bear USGS Coo rdina tes
"""'.Number Quadrangle Township Range Meridan.Elevation.(feet)
Capture Sites
j09 Talkeetna Mts.31H 3E Seward 2350
30BB Talkeetna Mts.32N 3E Seward 3350
315 Talkeetna tits.31N 3E Seward 3250
286 Talkeetna Mts.31H 4E Seward 1450
294 Talkeetna Mts.31N 4E Seward 1395
283 Talkeetna Mts.33N 4E Seward 3875
.~~,313 Talkeetna Mts.33N 4E Seward 3650
308A Talkeetna Mts.30N SE Seward 3300
281 Talkeetna Mts.32H 5E Se.,.;ard 2150
,.......282 Talkeet.na Mts.32N SE Seward 2100
279 Talkeetna Mts..32.lf SE Seward 1900
312 Healy 21S 5W Fairbanks 3350
293 Talkeetna Mts.29N 6:E Seward 3550
I~292 Talkeetna Mts.30N 6E Seward 3600
299 Talkeetna Mts.31N 6E Seward 3040
295 Talkeetna Mts.32N 6E Seward 1575
~278 Talkeetna Mts.28N 7t Seward 3575I
217 Talkeetna Mts.30N 7E Seward 3050
280 Talkeetna Mts.30N BE Seward 2775
306 Talkeetna Mts.3ZN 9E Seward 2750
214 Talkeetna Mts.30N 10E Seward 1950
Den Sites*'
Talkeetna Mts.27N 2.E Seward 2700
Talkeetna Mts.31N .lE Seward 2250
Talkeetna tlts.33N 4E Seward 4150
Talkeetna Mts.US 6W Fairbanks 4750
Talkeetna Mts.22S SW Fairbanks 4500
Talkeetna Mts.22S ·4W Fairbanks 3350
Talkeetna Mts.29N 6E Seward 4000-.Talkeetna Mts.31H i!Seward 3850
Talkeetna Mts.3ON'7E Seward 4850
'*Bear numbers for den site locations are not included to avoid
utilization of this information by hunters in spring 1981.
river in spring 1980 return to these sites in spring 1981,the
hypothesis that the impoundment area is selectively
(preferentially)utilized by brown bears early in the spring will
be supported.Such results were found in a Montana study (Singer
1978)where grizzly bears were observed to concentrate during
spring and fall on the floodplain of the north fork of the
Fl athead River where they fed on rhizomatous grasses,several key
forbs,roots and tubers.Singer found this use to be especially
marked in years of heavy snowfall.
Prairie Creek which flows from Stephan Lake to the Talkeetna
River is well known as an area where brown bears concentrate in
July and August to feed on salmon,especially king salmon.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game sport fisheries biologists
chara.cterize Prairie Creek as having one of the highest
concentrations of spawning king salmon in the Cook Inlet region
(Larry Engle,pers.comm.).In July,four radio-collared brown
bears (of 11 with active collars)moved to Prairie Creek to fish
for salmon.The first of the radio-collared brown bears that
moved to Prairie Creek was G294,a large male.He was in the Fog
Creek area on June 23 but had moved to Prairie Creek by July 2
and r'emai ned there unt il August 22;he was next seen near
Chuni1na Creek in October.
Other'radi o-co 11 ared bears that moved to Prai ri e Creek in July
and ~\ugust were G308B,G293,and G283.On August 10,past the
king salmon peak,a minimum of 13 brown bears were verified as
using Prairie Creek (4 marked adults,7 unmarked adults and 2
cubs);local residents have reported seeing 20 bears at one time
on Py'airie Creek.Our guess is that 30-40 individual brown bears
f i shE~di n this area in the summer of 1980.
50
-
,"""I I
i""'"
I
I
The importance of the Prairie Creek salmon run to study ~rea
brown bears will be difficult to eva1 uate.Other studi es (Miller
and Ball ard 1980)indicate that moderately dense brown bear
populations exist in the Ne1china Basin without access to salmon.
However,it is possible that the availability of this interior
run of salmon might provide nutritional benefits that result in
local bear populations that are more dense or less nutritionally
stressed (larger individuals)than adjacent populations without
access to a salmon run.
All QIf the radi o-co 11 ared bears seen at P ra i ri eCreek had
portions of their home ranges north of the Susitna River and
therefore had to cross the river enroute to or from Prairie
Creek.The maximum number of times an individual brown bear was
known to have crossed the Susitna River in 1980 was five (Table 6).
3.2.3 -Brown Bear Density
An imprecise estimate of brown bear density was obtained from
intensive trapping and mark-recapture techniques conducted in the
$usitna River headwaters in 1979 (Miller and Ballard 1980).This
estimate is compared with other North American estimates in Table
8.
Based on this density estimate of 1 bear/41-62 km 2 ,the
Susitna study area of 3,500 km 2 would have a population of
56-8S brown bears.It is our subjective evaluation that brown
bear density in the Susitna study area is more likely to be
highE!r than that estimated in our earl ier study,rather than
lower.However,using the midpoint of this estimate,70 bears,
it caln be seen th at on 1y approximately 37 percent of the bears
inhabiting the study area have been captured and that only 15
percent are currently radio-collared.An accurate density
deter'mination may be obtainable only when essentially all brown
bears utilizing the study area have been captured and marked.
51
Table 8
Reported brown bear population densities in North America.
Location Source
-
0.6
6.0
8.2
11.0
9-11
16-24
88
(16-300)
100
1.6
15.5
21.2
28.5
23~27
41-62
288
(43-780)
260
Kodiak Island,AK
Alaska Peninsula,AK
Glacier Nat.Park,Montana
Glacier Nat.Park,B.C.
SW Yukon Territory
Upper Susitna R.,AK
Western Brooks Range
Nat.Pet. Res.,AK***
Eastern Brooks Range,AK
Troyer and Hensel 1964*
Unpublished data (Glenn
pers.camm.)**
Martinka 1974*
Mundy and Flook 1973*
Pearson 1975*
Miller and Ballard 1980
Reyno 1ds 1980
Reynolds 1976
*Taken from Pearson 1975.
**Data refl:r to a 1800 mi 2 intensively studied area of the central Alaska
Peninsuli3..
***Mean is for the whole of the Nat.Pet.Reserve,AK,the range represents
values for different habitat types in this reserve where the highest
density occurred in an intensively studied experimental area.
~,
_.
'~
i
-
3.2.4 -Black Bear Seasonal Distribution and Movements
Relocations in 1980 for 23 radio-collared black bears (excluding
offspring and sequential relocations at the same den site)
totaled 181 points (Table 9);For the 16 bears with active
radios prior to October 1980,143 relocations were obtained (4-19
per individual)(Table 9).Dens were located for 14 of these 16
bears.The two b1 ack bears without den site locat ions had not
been found since early September 1980;possibly their radios
failed.Sightings of unmarked black bears totaled 48,yielding a
total of 229 point locations for black bears in 1980.Complete
analysis of this point location data will be delayed until
digitization is completed and more points are available;only
general and preliminary conclusions from these data will be
presented here.
Black bear distribution in the study area primarily was confined
to a finger of habitat along the Susitna River and its major
tributaries,This finger becomes progressively narrower and
supports fewer bears as one proceeds upstream.We did not see
black bears from Kosina Creek to Clarence Creek;however,reports
indicate that their distribution is continuous to the mouth of
the Oshetna River.Small numbers occur upstream at least as far
as the confluence of the Tyone and Susitna rivers.
Within the study area black bear numbers appear to be much higher
on the north side of the $usitna River than on the south side.
In the spring it is reasonable to speculate that this preference
may r'esult from relatively advanced plant phenology on the
south-facing slopes along the north side of the river.However,
the nlorth side of the river apparently was preferred throughout
the r'est of the summer as well,reasons for this are unclear.
53
-I Table 9
61 ack bear re 1ocati on records for 1980.
1980
Brown Age at Capture Date-Number No.River 80/81
Bear #Sex Capture .last Loca t ion Relocations Cross i ngs Located
*287 M 10.5 5/1/80 -10/13/80 15 a yes
"1''''*(288)F 10.5 5/1/80 .;.8/27/80 15 0
*289 F 9.5 5/2/80 -10/13/80 13 4 yes
*290 F 8.5 5/2/80 -10/13/80 19 4 yes"-
*(291 )M 3.5 5/2/80 -7/20/80 5 0
(296)M 10.5 5/3/80 -
*(300)M 7.5 5/4/80 -
*301 F 7.5 5/4/80 -10/13/80 19 2 yes
*(302)M 8.5 5/4/80 -8/4/80 5 0
*303 r~7.5 5/4/80 -9/9/80 14 2 no
*304 M 10.5 .5/4/80 -9/9/80 14 0 no
*(305)M 9.5 5/5/80 ~8/30/80 8 2
307 r"2.5 5/5/80 -
310 M 2.5 5/6/80 --*(316)F 12.5 5/7/80 -8/28/80 3 a
.1'.....*317 F 7.8 8/18/80 -10/13/80 5 0 yes
*318 F 5.8 8/18/80 -10/13/80 5 0 yes
.""'"*319 M 3.8 8/18/80 -10/13/80 5 4 yes
(320)M 4.8 8/18/80 -9/9/80 0 1
*321 F 10.8 8/18/80 -10/13/80 5 0 yes
*322 M 4.8 8/19/80 -10/13/80 4 0 yes
*323 M 2.8 8/18/S0 -10/13/80 5 2 yes
.....*324 M 5.8 8/19/80 -10/13/80 5 0 yes
*325 F 11.8 8/18/80 -10/13/S0 5 0 yes
*(326)F 5.8 8/19/80 -8/28/S0 2 0
*327 F 5.8 8/19/80 -10/13/80 5 1 yes
*328 F 6.8 8/19/80 -10/13/80 5 0 yes
*Radio-col1ared
(Hndi catE~s dead bear or shed collar.-
Black bears are well known to be primarily restricted to forested
biomes;this may be because trees are needed to avoid predation
on cubs (Herrero 1972).The distribution of black bears in the
study area follows this pattern.Especially in upstream portions
of the study area,spruce-forested habitats are primari ly
restricted to the vicinity of the SusitnaRiver and its major
tributaries;black bears were seldom observed very far from these
spruce habitats.Black bears occur farther from the Susitna
River in downstream portions of the study area,an apparent
correlation with the wider distribution of spruce forests
downstream re 1 ati ve to upstream.
No quantitative data are yet available on the proportion of black
bear range which is forested,therefore,selectivity or
pref€~rence for forested areas in the study area cannot yet be
demonstrated.However,a preliminary and superficial analysis of
the number of point locations of radio-coll ared bears 'which
occur'red in spruce habitats (habitat categories 1-9)and
non-spruce habitats was attempted (Table 10).As can be seen,
bl ack bears were most conmonly found in spruce forested habitats
in the spring (72%of the point locations in May)and least
commcmly found in these habitats in September (35%of the point
locations)(Table 10).Throughout the year 55 percent of the
point locations occurred in spruce habitats.These data probably
under-represent the importance of spruce habitats to bl ack bears
as milnY observati ons c1 ass ifi ed as in non-spruce habitats were in
closE~enough proximity to.spruce habitats that these habitats
were readily avail ab le to the bear should they be needed for
escape or other purposes.This situation can be clarified by
using the vegetation maps that have recently become available.
From the perspective of a black bear it is evident that not all
spruce forests in the study area are equal.Some areas are much
more densely popul ated by b1 ack bears than others that appear
55
Tabl.e 10
Monthly occurrence in spruce habitats for 23 radio-collared black
bears in the Susitna study area (capture and den sites not included).
I-
Na.Observations
In In
In Spruce Non-Spruce Unspecified %In
Month Habitats Habitats Habitats Total Spruce Habitats
May 23 9 2 34 72
June 17 9 1 27 65
July 11 14 0 25 44
August 28 24·1 53 54
September 9 17 a 26 II
Totals 88 73 4 165 55
-->,
,~
equival ent with respect to the superfici al appearance of the
spruce component.An example of this is the apparent preference
of black bears for the north side of the Susitna River,mentioned
above.Detailed analyses of vegetation composition in these
stands as well as food habits studies and perhaps~behavioral
studies will be necessary to identify the habitat components
which govern black bear distribution and abundance.
Data collected to date suggested that black bears are found least
frequently in spruce habitats in late summer (July-September)
(Table 10).At this time bl ad bears increasingly concentrated
on the tablelands between the Susitna River spruce habitats and
the nearby foothills to the north.Observations as well as feces
collected in August 1980 suggest that bears were seeking the
ripening berries (Vaccinium spp.)which appeared much more
abundant on the tablelands than in the spruce forests.
"The most important tableland areas identified included the area
around the Watana campsite,between Tsusena Creek and Delusion
Creek,and the upl ands between Devil Creek and Tsusena Creek,
especially the eastern portion of this area (T31-32N/R4E)(Table
11).At the time black bears were using these tablelands,brown
bears occurred primarily at hi gher el evat ions.
81 ack bears do use the south side of the Sus i tna River.They
were occasionally located on the,Fog Lakes Plateau and other
areas,but data collected to date suggest the south side of the
river is not preferred.One unmarked black bear was seen about 1
mile from Prairie Creek on August 4;however,Prairie Creek
sa lmon do not appear to be an important food source for Sus itna
area black bears.Possibly the abundance of brown bears around
Prairie Creek during the salmon run deters black bears.
Res i dents of Stephan Lake Lodge report that they have not seen
black bears along Prairie Creek during the salmon run.
57
Table 11
Black bear capture sites,1980.
Bear USGS
~Quadrangle Township Range tieridan Elevation (feet)"i\-"'"Number
.,~Capture Sites
E287 Talkeetna tits.3IN 3E Seward 1850
B288 Talkeetna Mts.3IN 3E Seward 1950....B189 Talkeetna Mts.32.N 5E Seward 2050
B290 Talkeetna Mts.3 L.l>f 2E Seward 1900
B29I Talkeetna tits.32N SE Seward 1625
B300 Talkeetna Mts.30N IDE Seward"2450
f"""B296 Talkeetna Mts.SON IDE Seward 2850
B3CI Talkeetna Mt.s.30N 10E Seward 2150
B302 Talkeet:na Mts.31N BE Seward 1850
.....B303 Talkeetna Mts.3221 4E Seward 2125
B304 Talkeetna Mts.32.N 4E Seward 2225
B3Q5 Talkeetna l::1ts.33N SE Seward 2150
B307 Talkeetna Mts.33N 4E Seward 2350
"""B3I0 Talkeetna t1ts.31N 3E Seward 2400I
B316 Talkeetna Mts.32J.~4E Seward 1750
B317 Talkeetna Mts.32N SE Seward·2260
B3Ia Talkeetna Mts.31N 4E .Seward 2025
B319 Talkeetna Mts.31N 4E Seward 1990
B320 Talkeet.na tits.31N 4E Seward 2400
r-B321 Talkeetna Mts.31N 3E Seward 2350
B322 Talkeetna Mts.32N 6E Seward 2375
B323 Taikeetna !its.32N 5E Seward 2225
B324 Talkeetna Mts.32N SE Seward 2400.....B325 Talkeet.na Mts.3tH 3E Seward 2150
B326 Talkeetna tits.32N 5E Seward 2400
B327 Talkeetna Mts.32N SE Seward.2200
B328 Talkeetna tits.32N SE .Seward 2225
--
.-
Table 12
Black bear den sites,1980-81 .
Bear
Number.
USGS
Quadrangle Township Range Meridan Elevation (feet)
Den Sites
'I""'"B287 Talkeetna tits.31N 3E Seward 1750
B289 Talkeetna Nts.32N 6E Serward 1950
B290 Talkeetna lits.31N 3£Se~ard 1850
B30l Talkeetna tits.30N 10E Seward 2000-B317 Talkeet.na tit.s.32N 4E Seward 1850
B318 Talkeet.na Ht.s.32..~4E Seward 2500
B319 Talkeet.na Mts.31N 2E Seward 1300
B321 Talkeetna tits.31N 3E Seward 2750
B322 Talkeet.na Mts.32N SE ·Seward 1950
B323 Talkeet.na Mt.s.32N 5E Se ...·ard 1750
.-B324 Talkeet.na !'its.31N 4E Seward 2190
B325 Talkeetna Hts.31N SE Seward 1500
B327 Talkeetna Mts.32N SE Serward 1975
B328 Talkeetna tits.32...lf 5E Seward 1725
.....
.-
-
.-
I
-
....
....
....
!
....
~
,
r-
!
""'",
Of the black bears with four or more radio.,.locations,eight
crossed the Susitna River at least once during 1980 and 12 had no
crossings documented (Table 9).Three black bears were
documented to have crossed the river four times (Table 9).Black
bears crossed the ri ver more frequent 1y than brown bears and a
hi'gher proportion of the black bear population crossed the river.
This was not unexpected as all radio-collared black bears were in
the immediate vicinity of the Susitna River while the home ranges
of many brown bears were not adjacent to the river.Reasons for
frequent river crossings by black bears and the importance of
those crossings to the bear population are not known .
Black bear den sites were located only from the air (Table 12).
Den characteristics,including exact elevation,slope,aspect,
habitat type,wi 11 be recorded from the ground after the bears
have left.However,our aerial locations indicated that most
black bear dens were below or near the proposed high water mark
of the proposed impoundments (assuming 2,200 feet for the Watana
dam and 1,450 feet for the Devi 1 Canyon dam.Five dens used by
radio-collared black bear were below the impoundment level
(average elevation=1,925 ft,range=1,750-2,OOO ft.).Two of the
ni ne bl ack bears denni ng in the impact area of the Devil Canyon
impoundment had dens apparently below the impoundment level
(average elevation=1,935 ft.,range=1,300-2,750 ft.).
All of the dens in the vicinity of the proposed Watana
impoundment are in spruce habitats along the'river or tributaries
such as Deadman Creek,and four of the nine black bear dens in
the vicinity of the Devil Canyon impoundment are in spruce
habitats along the river or tributari es such as Tsusena Creek.
60
r-
I
.....
Future studies should be directed at identifying habitat
components critical for black bears and assessing the
avail abi 1ityof these components outsi de of proposed impoundment
areas.Such critical components may vary between years.For
example,a food source used only lightly during years of abundant
berries might be critical in years of berry crop failure.
3.2.5 ~Black Bear Densities
No black bear density estimates are available from the study area
or adjacent areas.Our subjective impression is that portions of
the study area were very densely populated by black bears
relative to other Alaskan habitats.The only available data that
permit even a crude density estimate come from sightings of
marked and unmarked bl ack bears during the August tagging
operation.
In 1 1/2 days of spotting effort (August 18-19),35 bears were
seen in approximately 259 km 2 of search area,four of these
were marked.A radio~tracking effort on August 14 verified the
presence of seven radio-coll ared bl ack bears in the search area.
A straightforward Lincoln Index on these observations yields an
approximation of 61 bears in this area or 1 bear/4.1 km 2 .An
lI adjusted"index (Richer 1975)yields an estimate of 58 bears
(s.d.=19).These estimates should be viewed cautiously as there
are many possible sources of bias in the technique and it COvers
only a small portion of the study area at a season when bears
mi ght have concentrated in search of a 1oca 11y abundant food
source.Regardless,the density estimate of 4.1 km 2/bear
falls roughly at the mid·point of reported black bears densities
in North America (Table 13).Our subjective evaluation is that
further studies in the Susitna study area are more likely to
reveal that the above density approximation is too low rather
than too high,at least in the habitats where black bear density
is highest.
61
Table 13
Black bear population densities in various North American local-
ities (adapted from Modafferi 1978).
Source-Location
mi 2
'fer Bear
km 2
Per Bear
*(coastalMcIlroy(1972)Alaska population)0.1 0.3
..r-LiJJdzey and Meslow (1977)'Washington (an island population)0.3 0.8
Poelker and Hartwell (1973)Washington (mainland population)Q.7-1.0 1.8-2.6
Piekielek and Burton (1975)California 0.8-1.0 2.1-2.6
Beecham (1980)Idaho (Councial area)0.8 2.1
0.8-1.7 2.1-4.4
Idaho (Lowell area)
Jonkel and Cowan (1971)Montana (Bear Creek)
0.9 2.3
LeCount (1980)Arizona
Pelton and Burghardt (1976)Te~essee
Kemp (1972)Alberta
Modafferi (1978)Prince William Sound,Alaska
0.8 2.1
·0.5-1.0 1.3-2.6
1.0 2.6
1.2 3.1
.-Erickson and Petrides (1964)Michigan 3.4 8.8
Spencer (1955)
Clarke (1977)
*
Maine
New York (Adirondacks)
New York (Catskill)
New York (Allegany State Park)
5.6-
2.6
3.7
10.0
14.5
6.7
9.6
25.9
.....
Probably estimated during seasonal concentration .
.....,
,
-
r-,
3.2.6 -Needs for Further Study
A larger proportion of bear populations in the study areas must
be radio-collared in order to clearly establ ish seaso·nal use
patterns and more accurately estimate density.This process will
continue throughout the remainder of Phase I and into Phase II.
The most cost-effective time to capture bl ack bears is in early
August when black bears appear to be most visible and vulnerable
to capture.At this same time efforts should be made to mark
black bears in portions of the study area where bears appear to
be less dense,notably from Watana Creek upstream to the gaging
station at the Vee Canyon.This will provide a more complete
perspective of black bear populations and movements in the
vicinity of the whole impoundment-impact area.Brown bear
tagging efforts will be most effective in early spring
(April-May).
An effort is planned for August 1981 to directly and intensively
census areas of high black bear density and thereby to refine
Lincoln Index density estimates.
Black bear and brown bear dens will be visited and marked in the
winter of 1980/81 for subsequent studies of den site
characteristics.Radio collars will be replaced at this time for
some black bears,and some yearling black bears will be collared
with experimental expandable radio collars to document foci of
black bear dispersal.Both species will be intensively monitored
following emergence from dens in order to document suggested
intensive early spring usage of south-facing slopes along the
river.
Bear feces will be collected whenever encountered,and the
precise location where feces were found recorded.Feces will be
analyzed to evaluate seasonal food habits during Phase II if
funds are available.
63
--
-
--
..;-.
-
The apparent heavy utilization by black bears of riparian
habitats in the immedi ate vicinity of the Susitna River strongly
suggests that downstream bear studies may be needed in Phase II.
Under impoundment regulation procedures which would restrict
periodic flooding and result in corresponding vegetational
changes,the potenti al for downstream impacts on bears,
especially black bears,cannot be ignored.Seasonal selection
by bears for early successional,riparan habitats has been
reported for brown bears in Montana (Singer 1980),black bears in
Montana (Tisch 1961)and black bears in California (Kelleyhause
1980).
Continuity of data on the same animal throughout both phases of
the study is highly desirable.Radio collars placed on bears
duri ng 1980 have a maximum 1ife span of 24 months and cannot be
expected to 1 ast until the start of Phase II.Therefore,
recall ari ng for Phase II studies should be done during 1981.
These collars should be ordered by March 1981.
3.3 -Caribou
3.3.1 -Distribution and Movements
When field operations began in mid-April 1980 the main wintering
concentration of caribou was spread over an area extending west
and south from the Chistochina River to the Gakona River,along
the southern foothills of the Alphabet Hills and throughout the
Lake Louise Flat.Smaller numbers were also present in drainages
of the upper Nenana,Susitna and Talkeetna rivers and the
Chunilna Hills.During spring (20 April -20 May)two routes of
movements were primarily used;animals moved from the Lake Louise
Flat into the foothills of the Talkeetna Mountains in the
vicinity of the Oshetna River and caribou crossed the Susitna
River north to south in the area from the big bend of the Susitna
to Deadman Creek.
64
.~
,....
-
The majority of females (including 21 of 26 radio-collared females)
utilized the traditional calving grounds between the Oshetna River
and Kosina Creek in the northern foothills of the Talkeetna
Mountains.Twelve of the 21 radio-collared females were seen with
calves.The two females collared in the headwaters of Talkeetna
River remained there through ca 1vi ng (and through the study period
to date).One of these females reared a calf.Three of four
females collared in the upper Susitna-Nenana drainages remained
there through the calving period.Two of these females were known
to produce calves.The calving period appeared to be about the
same as previously reported,15 May to 10 June (Hemming 1971).
Since 1949,the first year for which records are available,
Nelchina caribou have utilized an area of about 1,000 square miles
in the northern Talkeetna Mountains for calving (Skoog 1968,
Heming 1971,Bos 1974).While the precise areas utilized have
varied,calving has taken place between Fog Lakes and the Little
Nelchina River between 3,000 and 4,500 feet elevation.The only
deviations have been during years with extremely heavy snow accumu-
lations when some calving took place during the migration to the
traditional calVing grounds (Skoog 1968,Lentfer 1965,Bos 1973).
The main summering concentration of Nelchina caribou occurred in
the northern and eastern slopes of the Talkeetna Mountains between
Tsisi Creek and Crooked Creek.The upper Oshetna and Little
Oshetna rivers appeared to be the center of the summer range.The
caribou generally ranged considerably higher in elevation than
during calving,primarily between 4,000 and 6,000 feet.One
radiO-COllared animal was found at 6,800 feet.Additional
summering caribou were found in the upper Talkeetna River,the
Chulitna Mountains and the Butte Lake-Brushkana Creek area.
Additionally,groups of sumnering bulls were found in the Jay
Creek-Coa 1 Creek area,the Cl earwa.ter Mountai ns,the Alphabet
Hills,the Chunilna Hills and the Amphitheater Mountains.Skoog
(l968)referred to additiona.l summer Ilbull pastures"in the upper
Nenana,Chickaloon and the Talkeetna river drainages.
65
-I""".
-
--
,.".,
,
Historically,the female-calf segment of the Nelchina herd has
primarily summered in two areas:the eastern Talkeetna Mountains
and across the Susitna River in the Brushkana~Butt"Deadman,
Watana,Jay and Coal creeks complex (Skoog 1968,Hemming 1971).
In 1960 and 1961 some females and calves summered in the Alphabet
Hills and Amphitheater Mountains (Skoog 1968).Postcalving and
summer movements of varying proportions of the female-calf
segment (ranging from 0-100%)from the calving grounds and summer
range in the Talkeetna Mountains across the Susitna River
occurred in most years between 1950 and 1973.Timing of major
movements ranged from mid-May through July.Crossings apparently
occurred between Deadman Creek and the big bend of the Sus itna.
In mid-to late August a portion of the main summering
concentrations moved out of the Talkeetna Mountains onto the
western portion of the lake Louise Flat and in some cases into
the Alphabet Hills.The exact routes of movement were not
determined;however,it seemed that while a few anima~s may have
crossed the Sus itna River in the area of the proposed Watana
impoundment,most probably moved onto the f1 at further to the
east.Through September the di stributi on remai ned rel ati vely
stable with the main herd divided between the northeastern
Talkeetna Mountains,the Lake louise Flat and the Alphabet
Hills.
During the rutting pause the llma in"Nelchina herd was found
almost exclusively on the lake louise Flat.Several hundred
an ima 1s were located an S1i de Mount a in in the southeastern corner
of the flat.The Talkeetna River and upper Susitna-Nenana
radio-collared animals were not relocated during the rut;
however,they were assumed to have remained in their normal
ranges as they were found there bath before and after the rut and
were not found with the main Nelchina herd.
66
-I
....
During early winter (2-5 December 1980,last survey)there were
two main groups:the 1argest group was spread from the Macl aren
River east through theAl phabet Hi 11 sand along the west fork of
the Gulkana River across the Richardson Highway and trans-Alaskan
pipel ine to the Chistochina River;the other group was in the
Slide Mountain-Little Nelchina River area.A few additional
caribou were scattered through the Lake Louise Flat.The upper
Susitna-Nenana and Talkeetna river groups remained in their
normal ranges.
Nelchina caribou have utilized numerous winter ranges during the
past 30 years ranging from upper Nenana-Yanert Fork drainages to
the Talkeetna River east to the Mentasta and Wrangell mountains
(Skoog 1968,Hemmi ng 1971).
3.3.2 -Subherds
Eide (1980)suspected that subherds with separate calving areas
existed in several areas of the Ne1china range.He based this
conjecture on reports of sighting of animals,including young
calves,in these locations during all seasons including the
calving period.Locations of these possible subherds were the
Watana Creek Hills (upper Susitna-Nenana drainages),the
Talkeetna River,Chuni lna Hi 11 s,Al aska Range and Gakona River.
Because of their proximity to the proposed hydroelectric
development and potential for increased isolation,radio collars
were placed on animals in three of the suspected subherds:
Talkeetna River,Chunilna Hills and upper Susitna-Nenana river
drainages.Because of the changeable nature of caribou movements
and the short duration of the study the results are preliminary
and may be interpreted differently when additional data are
avail abl e.
67
.,....,
3.3.2.1 -Talkeetna River
Two adult females and one adult male were collared in late April.
All remained in the area throughout the study period.One
collared female raised a calf.Several other females with calves
were seen.The bull sunmered in the Talkeetna Mountains west of
the main river but returned to the headwaters in the fall.The
tentative conclusion is that this is probably a legitimate
resident sub herd composed of approximately 400 animals.
3.3.2.2 -Chunilna Hills
One adult bull and one adult female were collared in late April.
The female died within a month after capture.The bull remained
in the Chunilna Hills through the fall.No sighting of females
and young were made during the calving period.Insufficient data
are available to speculate on subherd status.
3.3.2.3 -Upper Susitna-Nenana
Four adult females and one adult mal e were radio-col 1ared in
early May.One of the females migrated to the main Nelchina
calving area,summered in the Talkeetna Mountains,migrated back
through the upper Susitna-Nenana area in the fall and rejoined
the main Nelchina herd during the rut and early winter on the
Lake Louise Flat.The ather three females remained in the upper
Susitna-Nenana area throughout the study period,twa producing
calves.Other females with calves were seen.The bull sunmered
in the Cl earwater Mount a ins then joined the rna;n Ne 1ch;na herd
during the rut in the Lake Louise Flat.One of the main Nelchina
radio-collared adult bulls summered in the upper Susitna-Nenana
area before rejoining the main Nelchina herd an the Lake Louise
Flat during the rut.It seems likely that a resident subherd
68
....
--
"...
-
.-
-
-
-
of approximately 1,000 caribou exists in this area.However,the
situation is confounded by movements of animals from the main
Ne 1chi na herd through the area and by use of the area by
summering bulls and the main Nelchina herd.
3.3.3 -Population Size and Composition
Census activiti eswere conducted from 2-5 July 1980.
Reconnaissance flights showed that the post-calving female:calf
segment of the main Nelchina herd (including 19 of 20
radio-collared females considered to be main Nelchina animals)
was in an area of about 260 square miles in the southeastern
Talkeetna Mountains.The area was subdivided into three areas
based on geographical features and apparent composition of
animals.A total of 17,061 caribou were counted:9,771 in area
A,2,838 in area Band 4,907 in area C.Composition data from
the three areas (Table 14)indicated significant differences
(Chi-square ==143.15,P<O.OOl)in the proportions of males,
females and calves.The composition sampling effort was not
proportional to the numbers of caribou in each of the subareas,
therefore the data were weighted (Table 14)to provide the most
precise estimate of composition possible.An additional 244
caribou (including cows and calves)were found in peripheral
areas and were assumed to have the same compos it ion as the
wei ghted est imate.Therefore the post-cal ving aggregation
totaled 17,305 caribou with an estimated composition of 2,808
males 2.1 year,9,285 females >1 year and 5,212 calves.
Fall compos iti on data (Table 15)were collected on 14 October
1980 when the main Nelchina herd was distributed on the Lake
Louise Flat during the rut.The ratio of males ~1 year to 100
females 2.1 year was 61.9,the highest ever recorded for the
Nelchina herd.Whi le collecting the composition data it was
felt that sampling was probably biased towards males.Large
males were conspicuous.Also,concentrations of males usually
occurred as the back of groups where samp 1i ng began.Often the
69
-
-
-
.....
-
Table 14
Nelchina caribou post-calvin~sex and age composition data,
5 July 1980.
ti1l1 per calves per Calves Cows·Bulls
Area 100 FF 100 FE'N %N %N %
A 19.8 54.8 222 31.4 405 57.3 80 11.3
B 76.9 37.4 107 17.5 286 46.7 220 35.9
C 33.5 67.6 184 33.6 272 49.7 91 16.6
Weighted*30.2 56.1 30.1 53.7 16.2
*weighing was based on composition s~T.ples and numbers of caribou
counted (see text)in each of the subareas •
-I
Table 15-Nelchina caribou fall sex and age composition data,14 October 1980.
-.MM per Calves per Calves Cows Bulls
100 9 100 9 N %N %N %.-61.9 42.3 170 20.7 402 49.0 249 30.3
-
.-
-
-
-
-i
groups fragmented and animal s towards the front were not fully
sampled.An indication that the data may have been
representative or that observer bias has been consistent over
time was the nearly perfect fit (r 2=O.99)of this year's
ratio with the linear increase which has occurred since 1976.
Indeed an increase in the proportion of males would be expected
for a herd which is increasing and previously had a relatively
low proportion of males.
The estimated fall population was calculated as follows:
18,558~17,305 X 0.537 X 0.978 X (1+1.042),
where 17,305 =the number of animals in the post-calving
aggregation,0.537 =proportion of females in the post-calving
aggregation,0.978 =survival of females from the time of
post-calving counts until fall and consists of an estimated
2.2 percent hunter harvest,1.042 =ratio of bulls and calves
to females in the fall.The figure 18,558 is the fall
popul at i on estimate.
In recent times the Nelchina herd has increased from 37,000 in
1956 (Watson and Scott 1956)to 71,000+11,867 in 1962 (Siniff
and Skoog 1964)and then declined to about 8,000 in 1972 (Bos
1973,1975).Since that time the herd has appeared to increase
slowly to the present estimate of 18~558.
3.3.4 -Habitat Selection
Analyses of habitat use and selection are dependent on computer
programs and habitat mapping not yet available when this report
was prepared.Bos (1974)and Skoog (1968)remarked on habitat
characteristics of the Nelchina calving grounds:2,600 to 4,600
feet elevation,gently sloped,shrub birch,meadow,dwarf heath,
relatively low snow pack and early snow loss.Characteristics of
summering habitat include high elevation,wind exposure,
72
-
-
scattered patches of snow and ice,grass,sedge,willow,dwarf
birch and forbs {Skoog 1968,Herrming 1971).Suitable winter
habitat characteristics include snow depths <60 cm,ice crust
<3.8..;6.4 cm,irregular terrain,forestand/or shrub cover,
1 ichens,sedges,and windswept range (Hemming and Pegau 1970,
Skoog 1968).
3.3.5 -Planned Activities for Remainder of Phase I
Distribution and movement studies and habitat selection studies
will continue through Phase I with routine monitoring of radio-
collared caribou.Increased emphasis will be placed on more
frequent monitoring when animals are near the proposed
impoundment sites,i.e.15 April -15 June and 1 August ..1
October.To more preci sely evaluate subherd status at least two
females will be collared in the Chunilna Hills area and monitored
periodically,particularly during the calving period.
Radio-collared caribou in the Talkeetna River and upper
Susitna-Nenana subgroups will be monitored to better evaluate
their subherd status.Population size of the Nelchina herd will
again be estimated using the aerial photo-direct
count-extrapolation caribou census technique.
During field activities well-worn caribou trails were noted in
the vicinity of the proposed Watana impoundment.LeResche and
Linderman (1975)and Skoog (1968)both remarked on the value of
mapping caribou trail systems to document historical movement
patterns.Plans include mapping the trail systems in the
vicinity of the proposed impoundments to determine traditional
crossing sites.
73
-
-
-
3.4 -Dall Sheep
3.4.1 -Watana Hills
The Watana Hills were established as a population trend count
area in 1967 by ADF&G and have been counted seven times since
then.The 1980 count of 174 sheep is higher than the 7 year
average of 160 sheep (Table 16).If the low count of 76 sheep in
1974 is eHminated t the 6 year average is 175,suggesting that
population numbers have remained stable.Also,the percentage of
legal rams and lambs were similar.Some yearly variation is
expected in count data because·of differences in observers and
counting conditions and minor population fluctuations.
The distribution of sheep observed in the Watana Creek Hills
trend count area on 22 July indicated that sheep were generally
widespread and all were at elevations above 3000 feet.Sheep
distribution is likely to be more restricted during winter when
deep snow and ice make portions of their range inaccessible.We
would expect greater use of lower elevations,south facing slopes
and windswept areas during winter.A late February or early
March survey is planned to document winter distribution.
Several observations suggest significant use of habitat that may
be directly impacted by the Watana impoundment.Three sheep
observations reported in June 1980 were near the 2200 foot
elevation on Jay Creek.One group consisted of 23 animals or 13
percent of the number of sheep counted in July.Other
observations at the same time of year were near the 3000 foot
level.The significance of these sightings is not known,however
sheep often use mineral licks at that time of year.Some licks
profoundly influence sheep distribution and movements (Heimer
1973).Two other licks have been identified in the area,but
little is known of their use.Therefore,further investigation
of sheep use of Jay Creek is warranted.
74
,.....,
Table 16
Compilation of highest yearly counts completed in Watana Hills sheep trend
count area.
(~
..-
Legal
Rams *Lambs Total
%Legal
Rams
%
Lambs
1950 a Scott
1967 220 Nicho;J.s
'""",1968 183 26.6 Nichols Aug.
1973 10 40 176 5.6 22.7 McIlroy Aug.197?
1974 6 18 76 7.9 23.7 Harkness April.-1976 4 30 130 3.1 2'3.0 Eide Aug.
1977 4 33 152 2.6 21.7 Spraker July 11
~1978 5 34 189 2.6 18.0 Eide July 23
1980 9 42 174 5.1 24.1 Tobey July 22
*A legal ram ~s defined as "having a 3/4 .curl or greater horn.
~'
-
".,.
-
.~
.....,
3.4.2 -Mount Watana
An intensive search from Mt.Watana to Grebe Mountain resulted in
a total of eight sheep (l ram,7 unidentified)being observed.
While few historical data from this area exist,past observations
indicate that larger numbers of sheep sometimes occupy this area.
For example in 1977,34 sheep were seen on Mt.Watana.Numerous
observations have been made around Terrace Creek in recent years
and a few sheep have been harvested in that vicinity from this
area.Either sheep moved from the area or they were missed on
the 1980 survey.
The pattern of sheep distribution to the south of the survey area
suggests that sheep using the Mount Watana area may be part of a
larger Talkeetna Mountains population (AOF&G 1973).
3.4.3 -Portage ~TsusenaCreek
A total of 72 sheep (6 legal rams,12 lambs and 54 unidentified)
was counted in the Portage Creek and Tsusena Creek drai nages.
The only previous AOF&G survey in this area was a 1977 count of
91 sheep (8 legal rams,18 lambs,65 others).The 1977 survey
included the Jack River drainage which was not surveyed in 1980.
The sheep sighted were fairly high in the drainages and
relatively far from proposed impoundments.Sheep may concentrate
c10ser to the Sus itna Ri ver in wi nter and may occupy habitat
close to potential access routes.Therefore a winter
distribution survey of the area will be conducted.
3.4.4 -Hunter Use
The 1980 harvest within the Susitna sheep study area was 13
sheep.Eight of these were considered to be trophy quality with
horn lengths greater than 35 inches.Most of the harvest
occurred in the Watana Creek Hills.
76
-
.....
3.5 -Wolverine
From 10 April to 7 May 1980,five adult wolverine (4 males,1 female)
were captured and outfitted with radio call ars.Capture of additional
wolverine was precluded by poor tracking conditions caused by an early
spring breakup.One male (941)died 2 days after capture due to
capture related causes.Contact was lost with both 042 (fate unknown)
and 044 (probably dropped coll ar)after 16 August and 9 October,
respectively.Tagging locations and physical measurements are given in
Table 17 and data on drug action in Table 18.Since the Sernylan was
outdated,induction times of wolverine immobilized with this drug may
not be indicative of normal induction times.The two successful M-99
immobilizations suggest that M-99 may be an adequate substitute for
Sernylan (which is no longer available commercially).
3.5.1 -Movements and Habitat Selection
From April through December 1980,two wol veri ne were located on
86 occasions.Wolverines were visually sighted on 33 (38%)of
the 86 locations.Home ranges were determined for all four
wolverine,summer ranges for wolverines 042 and 044,and
spring-fall ranges for 040 and 043 (Table 19).
The spring-fall ranges of 399 and 272 km 2 for two adult males
are well below those for the Brooks Range,Alaska,where Magoun,
(1979)reported an average male had a home range of 615 km 2 .
Similarly Krott (1959)believed a male wolverine could have a
territory as large as 1,000 to 2,000 km 2 depending on food
supp ly and compet it i on from other spec i es.In contrast,
Hornocker (i n press)reported an average home range of 388
km 2 for males and 100 km 2 for females.Bjarvall (in
prep.)calculated home ranges for three lactating females (during
different years)in Sweden to range from 109-221 km 2 (mean =
170 km 2 )..These reported ranges were somewhat larger than
77
Table 17
Tagging location and physical measurements of wolverine captured in the
Susitna River Basin,1980.
-----~-~--""""'-~-------------
Acc~ssion
Number Date Location
Est.
Sex Age Weight
Body
Length.
-
Table 18
Drug type~dosage~and subsequent induction time for
\1/01 veri ne captured in the Sus i tna Ri ver.B~s;~,1980.
Induction Recovery
Time TimeAccession
Number"Date
wt.
Sex (kg)Age Drug Dosage (min.)(min.)
116040
116041
4/10/80 M
4/19/80 M
14.5
15.5
7-12
2-3
Sernylan
M-99
0.2Scc
2mg
36
4
-116042 4/19/80 F 9.5 2-3 Sernylan,0.2Scc 11 90
Rompun
,.......,116043 5/06/80 M 17.7 1-2 M-99 0.4cc 14 7
Romp un O.Sec
116044 5/07/80 M --M-99 O.4ee 12 2
Rornpun O.Sec
.-
:~Table 19
Summary of home range size for four radio-collared wolverine in the
Susitna River Basin,1980.
Accession
Number Sex Est.Age
Home
Range (km 2 )
Greatest
Length Across
Home Range (kIn)
040 M Adult 399 -spring-fall 35.5
042 F Adult 86 -summer 15.2
;~043 M Adult 272 _19.4spring-fall
044 M Adult 378 _summer 49.8
.,-..
r-I
Table 20
(omparison of annual wolverine harvests from 1962-63 through 1979-80
in Game Manage~ent Unit 13.
Year Harvest Year Harvest
1962-63 37*1972-73 140***
1963-64 32*1973-74 121***
1964-65 65*1974-75 96***
1965-66 102*1975-76 105***
1966-67 132*1976-77 85***
1967-68 86*1'977-78 58***
1968-69 No Data**1978-79 69***
1969-70 No Data**1979-80 57***
1970-71 No Data**
1971-72 75***
7:Harvest figures are from bounty records.
**The bounty was discontinued on wolverines during this
period,and no information on the harvest is available.
***Harvest figures are from sealing records.
"""
......
the home range of the lactating female 042 in this study,which
was 86 km 2 .Differences in observed home range size between
Brooks Range and Susitna basin wolverine may result f.rom
differences in sampling intensity.However,we would expect the
greater diversity and abundance of food items found in the
Sus itna bas into permit smaller home ranges.
All four collared wolverine showed a fidelity toward shrub (shrub
wi 11 ow and dwarf bi rch)domi nated habitats,such habitats
accounted for 54 percent (44 of 81)of the relocations.Using
the vegetation maps,the percent occurrence of each habitat in
the wolverine's home range will be calculated and inferences
about wolverine habitat selection will be determined.Also,it
wi 11 be very benefi ci al to characteri ze wo lveri ne habitat by
available prey species.Coordination between investigators of
the small mammal,the ungulate,and the predator studies will be
necessary to determine prey distribution.
In rel ation to topography,the four radio-coll ared wolveri ne
appeared to favor southerly and westerly slopes.There was some
evidence that the Susitna River formed a partial barrier to
wolverine movements during the ice free period.No track
sightings were observed on the main Susitna River,although we
di d not purposely search for them.There were on 1y three
occurrences of river crossing by radio-collared wolverine during
the entire study period.All crossings (two by 040,one by 044)
occurred during early spring,when the river was open but at
reduced flow.Home ranges of the three male wolverine appeared
to parallel the river as the greatest distance across their home
ranges runs from east to west.Also,only 9 percent (6 of 66)
locations were within 0.5 km of the river.Both Magoun (1979)
and Hornocker (op.cit.)indicated that rivers were not barriers
to wolverine movements.However~in both studies,rivers were
much smaller than the Susitna which can reach flows of 90,000 cfs
82
~.
during the summer (U.S.Army,Corps of Engineers 1975).The low
number of locations during the winter does not allow any
inferences about usages of the river when it is frozen.It is
known,however,that wolf ,packs in the study area use it as a
travel corridor (Ballard et al.1980).
Wolverine 043 also exhibited a gradual change in home range
usage.Between 6 May and 27 June 1980,11 of 14 observations
were east of Devil Creek.However,from 27 June to 4 December,
all observat ions we:e west of Devi 1 Creek and east of Portage
Creek.Without any knowledge of prey availability or
distribution of females,it is impossible to make any inferences
on the sh ift of home range preference of 043.Increased
mon i tori ng duri ng the next spri ng and summer may gi ve an
indication how these different areas fulfill 043's seasonal
requirements.
Wolverine 044 was collared on the Susitna River across from
Stephan Lake on 7 May 1980.By 13 June 1980,044 had moved
approximately 70 km to the vicinity of Kosina and Tsisi creek
drainages.It remained there until 26 August when it began
moving back toward Stephan Lake.On 7 October,044 was located 6
km east of Stephan Lake.Contact was lost after 8 October due to
a probable slipped collar.This extensive movement after
collaring went from a heavily timbered habitat to an upland shrub
and tundra habitat.We suspect that timing of movement may be
correlated with peak emergence of Arctic ground squirrels and
marmots,which are more abundant in these higher,more open
habitats.Ground squirrels and marmots are an important food
spec i es for wo 1veri ne in the Brooks Range (Magoun op.ci t.)and
northwestern Montana (Hornocker op.cit.).On several occasions
during the summer we observed wolverine with ground squirrel
kills.
83
....
-
-
--
-
3.5.2 -Ground Tracking
Ground tracking trips conducted in mid-May and early December
1980 indicated that wolverine were preying on small mall1Tlals.On
lS May,a fresh set of tracks of an unco 11 ared wo 1veri ne with in
043's home range was followed for approximately 5 km.Along this
route many ground squirrels were observed and four squirrel
tunnels had been excavated by the wolverine.There was no sign
of capture.The wolverine was followed predominantly through
alpine tundra and upland willow habitats.
On 1 December,wol veri ne tracks were fo 11 owed along the north
si decf Watana Creek through a white spruce-Sal i x habitat which
was interspersed with alder thickets corresponding with small
drainages.The tracks were followed for approximately S km.The
wolverine appeared to be hunting red squirrels.While in white
spruce (Picea glauca)habitat,the wolverine appeared to
investigate trees where squirrels had been present.He had
excavated two red squirrel middens.As the wolverine came to an
alder thicket,it crossed the thicket with no deviations,
suggesting lack of preference for this habitat type.No evidence
of a kill was observed.
3.5.3 -Carcass Collection and Analyses
Thirty-three carcasses were purchased from local trappers.
Morphometric measurements,age,sex,and reproductive condition
of the carcasses will be presented in the final report.
3.6 -Downstream Moose
On April 17,1980,during collaring operations only 10 moose nf the
scheduled 20 were radio-collared.At that late date and after a
reconnaissance flight revealed few moose on the Susitna River's flOOd-
plain,it was assumed that only lI res ident"moose remained.
84
,.~
-
...-
LeResche (1974)described three types of moose movement patterns.Type
A were those moose that only moved short distances between seasonal
ranges wi th 1itt 1e change in e 1ev at i on.Another name for th is type is
"resident ll
•Type B moose move medium distances between two seasonal
ranges with si gnifi cant differences in el evat ion between low wint.er and
high sUlTII1er-fall ranges.Moose of the Type C pattern move medium to
long distances between three distinct seasonal ranges and significantly
change altitude between low winter and high summer-fall ranges.
Much of the snow had melted by the April tagging operation,thereby
exposing moose forage at all elevati,ons.Moose activity along the
river had substantially decreased,and it was thought that the Type B
and C moose had left the river for higher elevations.As it turned
out,moose exhibiting all three types of migratory behavior were
collared.However,sample sizes were too small to fully assess
population identities along the lower Susitna River.Future collaring
efforts must have broader distribution on the wintering areas of the
river to ensure that all subpopulations of moose are sampled.
Of the ten moose originally radio-collared,three females have shed
their collars and one bull was 'killed during the September hunting
season.The collars were put loosely on some moose because of their
young age (mean age of the 10 collared moose was 3.5 years),sma1i size
and anticipated growth.When they shed their winter pelage,the
collars were loose enough to slip over their heads.In the future,the
collars will be fastened tighter and the design modified to make them
less slippery.
3.6.1 -Population Distribution
The number of coll ared moose,currently six,and of radio-
locations,131,though small,have been suffic;ent to show that
the downstream moose popul ation ;s made up of subpopul ations
quite different with regard to seasonal movements and habitat
use.Some individuals were virtually sedentary during the nine
85
months of observation~while others used distinctly different
seasonal ranges.It will remain in future work to establ ish the
relative proportion of the population in each subpopulation.
From moose wintering on the river below Talkeetna,it was learned
that some calve~summer,rut,and possibly winter in the flats
west of the Susitna;some calve,summer,rut and possibly winter
in the forest between the river and the mountains;while others
spend spring~summer,fall and possibly winter in the western
benche~and drainages of the Talkeetna Mountains.No specific
calv'ing areas were recorded,but several rutting areas were
documented.The latter were found deep into the creek and river
drainages of the Talkeetna Mountains and on the benchland near
timberline at the mouths of these canyons.Rutting bulls in the
lowl ands aggregated 1ess and were frequent ly alone or in small
groups of 2-4 moose.
Analysis of home range size,chronology of migration and
distances of migration at this time would not be meaningful
because of small sample sizes of observations.In general,the
home and seasonal range size was quite varied.Because there
were some "res ident ll (Type A)moose,home ranges were as small as
approximately 25 mi 2 .Seasonal ranges were often smaller.
Type C moose had home ranges as large as 90 mi 2 or more.The
timing and distances of migration were equally as varied.One
cow moved from her summering to rutting area in early August
while another did so in late September.The longest distance
traveled between summering and rutting areas was 40 miles.
Home range size and migration distances were likely intermediate
to those found for moose in other parts of Alaska or North
Amerka.Thi s was a function of phys iography where all 1 ife
requisites were available between an area just west of the
Susitna Ri ver eastward to the Tal keetna Mountain benches.Longer
moose movements were unnecessary.
86
-.....
-
-
-
3.6.2 -Use of Riverine Habitats
A census of moose on and near the river is planned for later this
winter.Rausch (1958)stated that the period of peak moose
abundance along the railroad between Houston and Talkeetna was
February and that movement from the footh ills to the rail road
tracks was a bas ic seasooa1 movement and was i ofl uenced but not
necessarily caused by deep snow.Therefore,the peak use of
rivedne habitat also will be in February or early March,and the
timing of the census should correspond to this moose use.
However,the magnitude of moose use of Susitna riparian habitats
may be correlated with the amount of snow cover.If the open
winter continues as it has in 1980-81,the degree of moose use
along the river may greatly underestimate that of a more Ilnormal"
wi nter snowf all.
Attempts to devise methods for determining moose use of the river
at seasons other than winter failed.Only general impressions
and not quantitative data could be stated.It was obvious from
boat trips up and down the river in late May and June that a fair
(quantity unKnown)number of cows calved on islands in the river.
Four cows with newborn calves were observed on the river and
tracks of several others were seen on mud banks of islands.
Islands in other areas were frequently used for calving because
they were relatively predator free (Stringham 1974).
Nothing has yet been done to determine summer use of the river.
The untimely theft of the project boat and motor precl uded access
to the river at that time.Flooding of much of the lowland areas
of the river in July likely caused moose to leave the floodplain
for higher ground adjacent to the river.
87
In fall it also appeared (from overfl ights but no quantitative
data)that moose did not remain on the river floodplain.However,
they were observed crossing the river by ADF&G bio109ists.Hunter
success along the river in September also indicated that moose
were either on or near the river in fall.Analysis of hunter
report data,however,is not f e as ib1e bec ause hunters are'ofte n
secretive about the exact location of their moose kills.
In summary,moose use of dpari an habitats along the lower
Susitna River is greatest in winter,particularly winters of deep
snow,is at least moderate during calving and during the fall,and
is of an unknown ·1 eve 1 in summer.
3.6.3 -Browse Utilization
The riparian zone was sampled by means of 12 transects containing
840 plots.On each plot containing woody plants available as
moose food,the amount available and degree of browsing,by
species,was determined.The greatest density of browse pl ants
(3.3 plants/m2 )occurred on abandoned agricultural fields.
The mean for all habitats was 1.4 plants/m2 .
Willow was of particular interest because of the general belief
that it is an important winter food for moose.Disturbed areas
supported a greater density of wi 11 ow than most other habitats,
suggest ing that natural or art ifici al di sturbances favor thi s
p1 ant.It was used rather heavi ly,with a mean rate of use of
36.5 percent of that avail ab 1e.
Compatable mean use of other shrubs was found to be:cottonwood-
16.2 percent;birch -26.9 percent;highbush cranberry -15.9
percent;rose -10.0 percent.This finding draws attention to
birch and suggests that this shrub merits more investigation in
the study region.Although it is not an important moose forage
plant on the river floodplain,it is well utilized on upland
site'S.
88
-
-
.....
.....
Much a1 der was observed while the browse transects were bei ng
conducted t and at no time was it consistently taken by moose,
although a few individual alders were browsed very heavily.In
most areas it was taken t if at all t only in small quantities.
These preliminary studies have shown that there is a great deal of
variability in the vegetational mosaic on and near the river,both
with regard to species composition and growth form.With further
investigation it should be possible to gain considerable insight
into the ecological processes controlling the dynamics of this
vegetational mosaic and so point the way toward potential
management for increased available moose forage.
3.7 -Upstream Moose
3.7.1.-Home Range
Moose move within a home range and often use different seasonal
home ranges.LeResche (1974)reported that seasonal home ranges
of moose were consistently small regardless of how far a moose
movE!dbetween seasons.Home ranges determined in the present
study were consistent ly larger than the 5-10 km 2 (2-4 mi 2 )
he reported (Table 21).Winter home ranges in the present study
range from 21 to 389 km 2 (8-150 mi 2 ).averaging 103
km 2 (39 mi 2 ),while summer home ranges varied from 8-210
km 2 (3-81 mi 2 )and averaged 72 km 2 (28 mi 2 ).
Total areas occupied by i ndivi dual moose (mi gratory and sedentary)
were quite large,ranging from 44 to 1373 km 2 (17-530 mi 2 )
and averaging 339 km 2 (131 mi 2 ).These latter figures
compare favorably with the total range given by Peterson (1955)
for Ontario moose,but are considerably larger than those reported
for Kenai Peninsula moose (Bailey et al.1978).
89
Table 21
Reported home range size,cows with calves (LeResche 1974).
Home Range Area
Local ity Season km 2 mi 2 Reference
-Montana 6 July 23 Sept 2.2 0.85 Knowlton 1960
Hyoming 6 June -15 Sept 5.1 1.97 McMillan 1954
"""Ontario 15 Aug.-31 Oct 6.0 2.32 DeVos 1956
Minnesota 11 June -22 Aug 5.9 2.28 Van Ball enberghe
and Peck 1971
Minnesota 15 May -1 Oct 15.4 5.95 Berg 1971
Minnesota 15 May -1 Oct 16.9 6.53 Berg 1971
Alaska 6 June -31 Oct 8.4 3.24 LeResche 1966
Alaska 24 May -1 Sept 16.8 6.49 This study
".,..
-
-
-
LeResche (1974)summarized studies indicating that cows with calves
have smaller home ranges for a short time following parturition than
.do cows alone.Th is a1sa appeared to be true in the present study.
The moose of the present study have tended to use the same seasonal
ranges from year to year,as others have found (Van Ball enberghe
1978).However,individuals occasionally changed seasonal ranges,
especially in winter.
3.7.2 -Plant Community Use
Plant communities within which moose were located,and the monthly
total of such observations,are given in Table 22.There is a rough
correspondence between the elevational distribution of plant
communities and the seasonal elevational preferences of moose.
3.7.3 -Population Identity
On the bas is of movement patterns of rad i o-co 11 ared moose,four
discrete populations of moose were identified,as follows:
3.7.3.1 -Clearwater Mountains Western -Alphabet Hills Population
This population apparently consists of a highly migratory segment
and a resident segment.Cows tagged in the Clearwater Mountains
were extremely migratory.Most occupied the area only during late
summer and fall."Ouri ng November these animals mi grated down the
Maclaren River and Clearwater Creek to the bottomlands along the
lower Maclaren River.Some moose wintered in the lower Maclaren
are!a where they shared winter range with other moose which resided
in the area year-round.Other Clearwater moose and some from the
Maclaren River continued migrating south.These moose either
followed the Susitna River or travelled through the Alphabet Hills
down Monsoon Lake Creek where they eventually wintered either in old
spruce burns on the south side of the Alphabet Hills or at the
mouths of the Oshetna and Tyone rivers.
91
~
I.
'"""'
~,
-
-
.....
.-
....
........
.....
-
3.7.3.2 -Upper Susitna River Population
Moose from this population generally were year-round residents of
the east,middle,and west forks of the Susitna River.Most made
relatively short movements,moving from higher elevations in
summer to lower elevations in winter.The mouths of Valdez and
Windy creeks and the junction of the forks of the Susitna River
received heavy moose usage through fall,winter,and early
spring.This population's movements appear to correspond closely
to the drainage patterns of the upper Susitna River.
3.7.3.3 -Upper Nenana-Brushkana Population
Moose from this population appear to be comprised of animals
residing in the tributary drainages of the upper Nenana.These
moose occupy the upper drainages in fall and summer but winter in
lowland areas where they share winter range with year-round
residents.Evidence suggests that some individuals may make
extensive fall migrations down the Nenana River.There appeared
to be a noticeable distinction between animals from this area and
those utilizing the upper Susitna River drainages.Obviously,
some exchange between these two populations occurs and,in fact,
they may not be separate populations .
3.7.3.4 -Susitna River Population
-
~,
.....
3.8 -Wolves-_.-
Data on wolf populations reported here is drawn from project reports on
Nelchina Basin Wolf Studies (Ballard and Spraker 1979,Stephenson
1978).Unless otherwise noted,this information pertains to the whale
of Game Management Unit 13.
3.8.1 -Packs and Pack Attributes
up through 30 June 1980,103 individual wolves had been radio-
collared in the study region.These were associated with
approximately 22 different packs.The radio-collared wolves were
relocated on 3,525 separate occasions,resulting in 6,927 wolf
sightings.Wolf territories were for the most part non-
overl apping,but there appeared to be changes in territory
boundaries from year to year.Territory sizes for 14 intensively
studied packs ranged from 268 to 864 mi 2 ,averaging 537
mi 2 .Territory size appeared to increase for larger packs
and for those packs in areas of low moose density.
3.8.2 -Relations to Prey
Radio-coll ared wolf packs were observed on 360 individual prey
kills,38 (10.6%)of which were also occupied by one or more
brown bear.Moose comprised 72 percent of the observed kills.
Calf and short-yearling moose comprised 20 percent of the total
kill.Wolves were preyi ng upon short and long-yearl i ng age
classes from January through July disproportionately to their
presence in the moose population.Moose calves 0-6 months of age
comprised only 6 percent of the kills .
94
-,
-
Four thousand two hundred and ninety food items were identified
in 3,624 wolf scats collected at den and rendezvous sites during
a five-year period.Overall,calf moose was the most frequently
identified food item (44%).Percent occurrence of various prey
itt".tns in wolf scats is generally related to prey abundance.
Occurrence of calf moose in scats was correl ated with subsequent
fa'il calf-cow ratios,suggesting that wolves were preying upon calf
moose in proportion to their abundance.Scat data were converted to
numbers of individual prey eaten which was then extrapol ated to GMU
13 spring wolf population estimates.This analysis suggested that
wolves in GMU 13 were preying upon from 434 to 1,013 moose calves
annually frornmid-May through mid-July.
One hundred twenty-fi ve moose and 25 c ari bou ki 11 s were exami ned
in situ to determine both cause of death and age and physical-.--
condition of prey taken by wolves.One instance of surplus
killing of caribou by wolves was reported.The fat reserves of
calf and Short-yearling moose killed by wolves were significantly
higher than those of calves dying from both accidental causes and
winter kill.The conclusion was that the wolves were preying upon
re'l atively heal thy calf and short-yearl ing moose.
To determine whether age bore any relation to causes of moOSE!
mortality,the mean age of the moose at time of tagging can be
considered a rough average for the population~and the two main
cl,asses of mortal ity ..wolf and winter -can be compared to it.
Tagged moose averaged about 7 years while wolf-killed roose were
between 14 and 15 years of age.These findi ngs suggest that wol ves
kill moOSE!that are past their prime but far from ancient.Analysis
of patterns for mild and severe winters showed that in mild winters
older moose were preyed upon more heavily while during a severe
winter wolves preyed upon adult moose of various ages in proportion
to their presence in the population.A severe winter,then,tips'
thl:moose-wolf relationship in favor of the wolf.
95
.-
-
-
-
-
.-
-
Wolf predation upon caribou appears to be rel ated to snowfall,since
most caribou predation was observed in a winter (1978-79)of heavy
snow.The cari bou taken were of both sexes and a range of ages,and
were generally in good physical condition.So as in 'the case of
moose,it appears that caribou are rendered more vulnerable to wolf
predation by heavy snow .
Quantification of wolf predation on moose,their principal winter
prey,was possible through analysis of detailed records for
representative packs.Table 23 summarizes this information for five
packs ranging in size from two to nine wolves.The pack of two killed
considerably more than they could consume,having over 16 kg (35 lb)
of food available to each of them daily.The other packs were all
quite similar in having 5-7 kg (11-15 lb)of food available per wolf
per day,with one ungulate kill every four or five days.An estimate
of the summer wolf predation on moose in Game Management Unit 13 is
given in Table 24.Assuming a daily consumption rate of 5.8 kg (12.8
lb)per wolf per day,it is calculated that the mid-May through
mid-July ki 11 of adult moose,over a five-year study period,varied
from 37 to 132,while the take of calves varied from 434 to 1013.
During the same period an annual average of 33 adult caribou,191 calf
caribou,168 beaver,361 muskrat,1100 snowshoe hare,208 squirrel,
and 4016 microtine rodents were consumed by the wolves of GMU 13.As
mi gMt be expected,there are major differences from year to year and
pack to pack in wolf diet within the Susitna basin.
3.8.3 -Population Studies
Wolf populations are at their annual high in the fall,when the pups
join the pack,and at their annual low in the spring,when the losses
due to mortality and dispersal have been felt.Trapping and shooting
by humans appears to be a significant source of mortality,as
evidenced by population increases in areas closed to these activities .
96
Table 23
Summary of predation statistics derived from intensive radio-monitoring
of the Susitna and Tyone wolf packs during.winters 1978-79 and 1979-80
in Game Management Unit 13 of southcentral Alaska.
Size of
wol f pack
Kgs of available
food/day/pack
Kgs of available
food/day/wolf
Days/ungulate
kill
9'60.1 6.7 3.6
8 38.9 4.9 4.9
r--7 36.9 5.3 4.2
4 22.9 5.7 4.0
2 32.8 16.4 8.3
-
-
Table 24
Estimated number of prey individuals consumed by Game r~anagement Unit 13
wolves for a 61 day period ranging from approximately mid-May through
mid-July 1975 through 1979 as extrapolated from wolf scat analysis and
wolf population estimates.
'-
-Prey
Assumed weight
(kg)of prey
(from Table 44)
Estimated number
of prey consumed by GMU 13 wolves based1!
upon consumption rate of 5.8 kgjwolf!day-
1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 Subtotal
-
.....
Adult moose
Calf moose
Adult caribou
Ca 1£ca ribou
Beaver
Hllskrat
Snowshoe hare
Squirrel
Microtine rodents
Totals
427.5 132 90 45 37 42 346
39.0 435 1013 829 490 434 3201
145.0 -;7?:-1 59 11 14 49 133
12.0 246 117 75 329 864
12.5 286 160 126 250 19 841
1.4 59 476 542 520 206 1803
1.8 2494 1163 551 571 722 5501
.5 498 190 116 26 830
.1 2490 5710 6420 2570 2890 20080
6491 9107 8757 4553 4691 33599
""'"
....
-
11 Estimated spring GMU 13 wolf population was as follows:1975 -235..,
1976 -269,1977 -165,1978 -121 1 1979 -136.
Y Adult and calf caribou combined.
.~
..1"'-
To determine wolf population densities in a biologically sound manner,
it is necessary to identify those portions of the landscape that are
not wolf habitat.In the present study it was establ ished that
glaciers and areas above 4000 ft.(1,219 m)were not frequented by
wolves.Estimates for various years,for the study region,vary from
37.6 -121.7 mi 2 per wolf (97-315.2 km 2 /wolf),a range that
spans many wolf population density estimates from parts of boreal
North America where wolves are subject to shooting and trapping.The
reported wolf density in Mt.McKinley National Park,where wolves are
protected,24-42~i2 per wolf (64-109 km 2 /wolf)(Haber 1968)
suggests that wolf densities would be greater if protected from man.
A relationship between habitat productivity and wolf population
density is suggested by the substantially higher wolf population
density estimates for temperate Minnesota and Ontario (Table 25).
99
Table 25
Summary of reported wolf densities for North America.
Wolf density Size of study area
<
60-120 155-311
,.,...65-124 3/168-321
"87-111(10-)225-287
88 228
120 311
~200 518
2979-4779
18,130
5004-11663
mi 2/wolf
10-10
10.6
12.9-55.2
17
24-42
25-40
_25-29
35
'37.6-121.7
40-83
50
50
58
7.8
11.9
17.9
18-26
20.2-35.7
23.8
26
26
27.5
33.3-142.9
44
62-109
65-104
65-75
91
97-315.2
104-215
130
130
151 .
.2
mJ.,
30
210
384
210
1,274
717
1,000
2,490
4,203
121-998
4,100
1,500
7,500
1150-1845
7,000
1932-4503
2,000
20,000
9,653
48,0000
3,600
4,200
593
,800
f("j,OOO
78
544
995
544
3,300
1,857
2,590
6,449
10,886
313-2584
10,619
3,885
19,42.5
5,180
51,800
25,000
1,243,200
9,324
10,878
1,536
4,662
282,310
Location of study area
Coronation lsI.,Alaska
Isle Royale,Michigan
NW Territories
Isle Royale,Michigan
Manitoba-Saskatchewan
Minnesota
Algonquin Park,Ontario
Minnesota
Minnesota
Beltram,lsI.St.For.,
Minnesota
Minnesota
Mt.McKinley Nat.Park
Alaska
SE Alaska
Kenai Peninsula,Alaska
Tanana Flats,Alaska
Nelchina Basin,Alaska
Saskatchewan
NcKinley Nat.Park,Alaska
Nelchina Basin Study area,
Alaska
NE Alberta
NW Territories
NC Brooks Range,Alaska
W.Canada
W.Canada
Baffin lsI.,Canada
Manitoba-Sasketchewan-
NW Territories
Source
Merriam 1964
Peterson 1976
Kuyt 1972
Mech 1966
Parker 197.3
VanBa11 enberghe
et al.1975
Pimlott et al.
1969
Olson 1938
Mech 1973
Fritts &Mech
In Press
Stenlund 1955
Haber 1968
Atwell et al.
1963
Pet.erson 1978
Stephenson 1977
This study
Ban.field 1951
Murie 1944
Rausch 1967
Fuller &Keith
1980
Kelsall 1957
Stephenson 1975
Cowan 1947
Carbyn 1974
Clark 1971
Parker 1973
r-l/
2/
~I-
Artificial situation -four wolves transplanted to Island.
Wolves concentrated on caribou wint.er range.
Maximum abundan~p on winter range.
......
4 -IMPACT ASSESSMENT
4.1 -~nstruction Impacts
4.1.1 -Watana Dam and Reservoir
The increase in human activity that will be necessitated by dam
construction will probably cause an avoidance reaction on the part of
brown bears,wolves,and wolverines.Other big game now using the
immediate operations areas will probably avoid it or be subject to
predation by humans.Some estimate of the magnitude of the habitat
loss for each species can probably be developed by a study of present
radio-marked individuals in relation to present sources of disturbance
within the study region.For example,it has already been noticed
that there have been no sightings of wolverines or of their tracks
within 10 km of Watana camp.
Flooding will inundate much of the forest habitat now used intensively
by black bears,the present black bear denning habitat,and a
substantial stretch of river-bottom now used by moose in winter.
Upland borrow areas,when they have been mined for gravel,will
represent areas of habitat lost.
At the time this study was designed it was assumed that the only
significant impact of the Susitna Hydroelectric Project on Dall sheep
would be from disturbance from construction activities,helicopter
traffic,etc.Such impacts could be moderated by avoiding areas used
by sheep or scheduling activities at seasons when sheep use of an area
w~s reduced.However.sightings of sheep along Jay Creek indicate a
possibility of direct loss of habitat .
The Portage -Tsusena Creek sheep are 1 ikely to be impacted only
by disturbance.With adequate data on seasonal distribution
serious disturbance probably can be avoided.The status of the
Mount Watana population is less clear.Limited data indicate that
101
.....
.....
-
-
-
.-
-
sheep occupied habitat close to the proposed Watana impoundment where
disturbance and perhaps even habitat loss could be problems,but this
distribution was not confirmed by the July 1980 survey.More
information is needed.
The Watana Creek Hills population appears to be the most
vulnerable of the three sheep populations.Its close proximity
to the Watana impoundment and possible access routes makes
disturbance a concern.The possibil ity of loss of seasonally
important habitat has been raised by si ghti ngs of sheep on Jay Creek
in June.The Watana Creek Hills population appears to be relatively
isolated from other sheep populations.If the population were reduced
below carrying capacity,recovery might be slower than it would be in
a less isolated population where immigration from unaffected areas is
more likely.
The scope of the Phase I sheep studies is not adequate to ful1y assess
the impact of habitat loss.An attempt will be made to further
docLlment the use of lower elevations along Jay Creek in spring of
1981,but if a special attraction such as a mineral lick occurs there,
expanded studies including ground observations and marking of animals
would be necessary to evaluate its use.
4.1.2 -Devil Canyon Dam and Reservoir
Preliminary observations of brown bear denning sites in the study area
suggest that the proposed impoundments would have little direct impact
on the availability of brown bear denning sites.Most brown bear den
sites found were well away from the river and at high elevations in
the foothills or mountains surrounding the Susitna River (Table 7).
The lowest den and that nearest to the ri ver was found at about 2200
feet elevation about 3 km from the Susitna River,above the height of
the Devil Canyon impoundment.It is likely that some brown bears den
in areas which would be directly flooded by the impoundments,but this
has not yet been documented.
102
-
-
'-
The Prairie Creek salmon run is now heavily used by brown bears.The
proximity of the Devil Canyon site,and associated roads and human
activity to brown bear travel routes makes a negative impact probable.
Preliminary conversations with sports fish biologists (AOF&G)
suggest that Prairie Creek salmon runs are unlikely to be
negatively affected by the proposed impoundments,however
specific salmon studies will not be completed for 5 years.
Assuming the proposed dams have no impact on the strength of the
salmon run in Prairie Creek,the main impact the proposed
construction might have on bear movements is a physical blocking
of seasonal movements to Prairie Creek.
It is unknown whether the bod i es of water in the proposed impoundments
would,in themselves,represent a significant barrier to bear
movements,however this possibil ity cannot be discounted.
Inclddit i on,the strangeness of mud banks.created by fl uctuat i ng
water levels (if such occur in mid summer)might represent an
equal or greater barrier,perceived or real,to ,bear movements
across the impoundments.Heavily traveled access roads to the
impoundments might also inhibit or block bear movements across
these roads;any access road built from the Parks Highway to the
Watana damsite would have to be crossed by some bears moving to
or from the Susitna River and Prairie Creek.Observations of
homing brown bears being deflected,both permanently and
temporarily,by large,strange river beds and highways have been
reported in Alaska (Miller and Ballard 1981).On the Alaska
Peninsula,Lee Glenn (ADF&G pers.comm.)has observed movements
of up to 50 km by bears enroute to McNeil River to fish for
salmon.In our 1980 studies,the farthest a Prairie Creek bear
(G293)was seen from Prairie Creek was approximately 100 km
northeast of Prairie Creek.
103
-
.....
..-
4.1.3 -Access Road
Construction of access roads will presumably have the effect of
causing large mammals to withdraw from the vicinity,or to be exposed
to predation by humans.It is probable that the magnitude of the
movement away from disturbance is related to the seasonal home range
size of the individual animal,those with larger home range sizes
moving farthest.Data now being obtained on radio-collared
individuals will be helpful for the development of analyses of this
avoidance phenomenon.
4.1.4 -Transmission Facilities
The effects due to construction,projected for access road above al so
pertain to transmission corridors.In both cases the lineal nature of
the di sturbance insures that it wi 11 cross the home ranges of a large
number of i ndi vi dual s.
4.2 -Operation Impacts
4.2.1 -Watana Dam and Reservoir
The seasonal pattern of filling and drawdown will affect the formation
of ice-shelves in winter and their persistence in early spring.The
probable consequences of this for the caribou that are now thought to
cross the Susitna River within the area of the projected impoundment
have been considered by Hanscomb and Ostercamp (1980).These authors
point out that the projected lowering of the impoundment level (based
on the Corp of Engineers plan)during the winter will be:December-
10 1
;January -30 1
;February -15';March -15 1
;April -10 1
;in May
the water rises 20'.They hypothesize a late April -early May
movement by the caribou toward their traditional calving grounds that
would necessitate a crossing of the drawn-down reservoir,with its
shelves and blocks of ice.They go on to say (pp.6-8):
104
"We suggest that an ice-covered shore that is steep.
contains cracks~or has the potential for caving under
the weight of caribou,may present a serious obstacle to
their crossing the reservoir.
. . . .Reali st ic assessment of the effects of ice
shelving requires consideration of both caribou behavior
and ice conditions.With regard to ice conditions,the
greatest need is for a realistic model of the formation,
growth.and decay of the reservoir ice cover.Some
questions that should be addressed are:What are the
shote conditions or slope values that may cause the
settling ice cover to break,leaving cracks in which
caribou could be injured or possibly trapped?What is
the timing of this sett1 ing,cracking,and snow ..cover
development that might mask the cracks?The thickness of
the settling ice cover will increase through the winter
but what will the thickness distribution be?Will the
wind keep the ice clear of snow?What are the maximum
slopes of clear ice and snow-covered ice that the caribou
can negotiate?How long will the ice-shelves remain
after breakup,and wi 11 caribou be forced to llegot i ate
melting (wet)ice shelves?"
"During the spring caribou migration,the reservoir
may sti 11 be frozen in the Jay Creek area,where the
caribou will be coming from the nDrth down a slope
between 40-60%slope.Probably the only problems the
caribou would have getting down this shore would be
falling into cracks formed as the ice sheets settle or
breaking through the areas where the ice has bridged the
gaps.The south bank has a slope that varies from 109%
to 9%,with much of the shore between 30-60%slope,so it
is possible the caribou would have trouble climbing out
an the south side."
105
-,'~
-
liThe breakup dates of Jay and Kosina Creeks would
a 1so be important.If these two creeks break up before
the caribou try to cross,there could be water flowing on
top of the reservoir ice,and melted areas formed at the
mouths of the creeks.An overflow,by itself,would
probably cause no problems unless it cut a channel
through the ice.Then the caribou might have trouble
climbing out on the floating ice cover after swimming or
\,alk ing.II
IIIn the Oshetna River area these same questions need
to be answered,but the situation is a 1 ittle different.
The slope on the north shore varies from 53.8%to 6.8%and
on the south shore from 35.9%to 6.8%,so both shores have
a more gradual slope than do those at Jay Creek.This
area may be affected by the breakup of the Tyone River as
well as the Oshetna River.For 3.7 miles (6 km)upstream
of the Osnetna River,the draw-down of the reservoir may
leave an ice sheet on the river bed and flood plain.When
the Tyone River breaks up,water will be flowing into this
ice-covered area.The actual effect is unknown but there
could be ice jams and/or ice chunks floating in the area
which would make it difficult or impossible for caribou to
cross.n
IIIn conclusion,it seems likely that the reservofr
will cause the caribou some problems,but the seriousness
of the problems cannot be realistically assessed until
more information has been gathered on caribou behavior
and on the ice conditions in the reservoir."
Although the ice conditions and caribou response discussed by
Hanscomband Ostercamp are as yet little understood,there is
some knowledge available on the general needs and movements of
caribou in the study region.According to Kenneth Pitcher,who
has been studying these caribou most recently,it is apparent
that impoundment result i ng from constructi on of the proposed
106
.....
.....
......
I""'"
!
,....,
!
Watana dam would intersect a major migratory route of the
Nelchina caribou herd.During the initial 8 months of the
'current study only moderate use of this migratory corridor has
occurred by radio-collared caribou (and presumably by all
Nelchina caribou).Four radio-collared animals have crossed the
proposed impoundment area a total of seven times.Five of the
cross i ngs were north to south whil e two were south to north.
Hi storieal reviews,however,i ndi cate movements of vi rtua lly the
entire female-calf segment of the herd across the proposed
impoundment area in many years.During most years between 1950
and 1973,all or many of the females crossed from the calving
grounds to slJlmner in the greater Deadman-Butte Lakes area (Skoog
1968,Hemming 1971,Bos 1974).Varying proportions of the herd
have wintered in upper Nenana-Susitna drainages in nearly all
years.Between 1957 and 1964 this area was the major wintering
area (Hemming 1971).Spring migration routes during those years
would have undoubtedly crossed the impoundment area.
Large scale movements of caribou across the proposed impoundment
area have not been recorded since about 1976 (Eide pers.comm.).
However,based on past movement patterns and the quantity of good
habitat avai 1able in the upper Nenana-Susitna area [Skoog (1968)
considered some of this area the most important habitat for
year-round use in the Nelchina Range]it seems inevitable that
caribou will again use the area in large numbers.Movements to
and from the calving grounds will again result in many caribou
crossing the Susitna River in the area of the proposed Watana
impoundment.
A possible reaction to the impoundment by caribou is complete
avoidance and refusal to even attempt crossing.Another possible
reacti on woul d be avoi dance by some components of the herd and
attempted crossing by other segments.Cameron at al.(1979)
documented avoidance of the trans-Alaska pipeline corridor by
females and calves during summer.They also suggested avoidance
107
-
by large groups,group fragmentation and/or decreased group
coalescence near the pipel ine corridor.Should animals attempt
to cross the impoundment,spring migration would appear to pose
the most serious problems.Pregnant females are often in the
poorest conditions of the annual cycle at this time (Skoog 1968)
and migratory barriers which normally could be easily
circumvented could become sources of mortality.Klein (1971)
suggested that when animals are in poor physical condition
seasonal migrations are easily disrupted.The potential for
injury or death to migrating caribou appears greater in spring
than during other periods.Skoog (1968)mentioned several
instances of injuries and death resulting from falls on or
through ice.Both Klein (1971)and Vilmo (1975)mention ice
shelving as a mortality factor of reindeer on reservoirs in
Scandinavi a.Spring breakup would probably occur during the
migration,in many years posing additiona·l hazards such as
ice floes,overflow and wet ice shelves.
Crossings during summer and fall when the reservoir would be ice
free appear to pose considerably less hazard.Caribou are
exce 11 ent swimmers and are known to cross much 1arger bod i es of
water than the proposed impoundment (Skoog 1968).Young calves
might have problems with this distance if migrations occurred
shortly after calving.Water crossings have been reported as
mortal ity factors but usually involved rivers rather than more
placid bodies of water such as a reservoir (Skoog 1968).
It seems likely that the Watana impoundment would tend to isolate
the northwestern portion of the Nelchina range (an area of about
4,000 mi 2 ).Historically this area has been heavily used .....as
both summer and winter range by Nelchina caribou.
108
"""
-
.....
The proximity of the Nelchina calving grounds to the proposed
Watana impoundments is of concern.According to Skoog (1968)the
calving ground is the "focal point"of a caribou herd.The
Nelchina herd has shown nearly complete fidelity to its calving
ground since records were available in about 1950.The calving
grounds are in one of the most remote and inaccessible regions
within the Nelchina range.Developments of the Susitna
Hydroelectric Project would change this.Expanded human access
and activity,which have been shown to adversely impact caribou
use of calving areas,would likely occur.Cameron et a1.(1979)
documented abandonment of a portion of the calving grounds of the
central Arctic herd concurrent with development of the Prudhoe
Bay oil fields.
Bergerud (1978)presents a somewhat different view and suggests
that caribou are quite adaptable and will adjust to human
construction and development.He states that the impacts of
human development and harassment have been overstated and no good
evidence ;s available indicating that development has caused
abandonment of ranges.However.he does state that calving areas
may be an except i on and shoul d be protected from both development
and di sturbance.
Another hypothetical interaction between the presence of the
impoundment and the associated biota is the possibil ity that the
impounded water will act as a heat sink to the extent that early
snows will fall as rain on the reservoir and its shores.
Depending on the magnitude of this effect,and the timing of
winter sno.wfall,it is possible.that there will be a shallow-snow
zone around the reservoir.This could be of significant benefit
to moose,both because of a greater avai 1 abi 1 ity of forage and
because of reduced wolf predation .
109
.....
'1""'"
-
Conversel~,the reservoir should be colder than the ambient
temperature in the spring,and so could have a delaying effect on
the .phenological development of nearby plant corrmunities.This
could reduce the amount of early spring forage available for
newly emerge<l brown and bl ack bears,as well as over-winteri ng
moose.
4.2.2 -Devil Canyon Dam and Reservoir
This impoundment does not appear to intercept major caribou
movements.Increased human activity,as with the Watana dam and
reservoir may be a source of impact on wi ldl He in the area,for
example,influencing movement of brown bears to the Prairie Creek
salmon run.
4.2.3 -Access Road
Development of access corridors such as roads would probably have
negative impacts on Nelchina caribou.An access route through
the Deadman,Watana,Butte creek drainages to the Denali Highway
would traverse a major migratory route through prime caribou
habitat.Roads and railroads have been implicated in obstructing
movements of caribou and reindeer (Klein 1971,Vilma 1975,
Cameron et al.1979).Nelchina caribou do continue to cross the
Richardson Highway,often in large numbers,and have done so
during many years since about 1960 (Hemming 1971).Several
studies (Miller and Gunn 1979,Calef et al.1976)have recorded
respons.es of caribou to aircraft disturbance and speculated on
deleterious impacts.Cows and calves were most responsive to
disturbance (Miller and Gunn 1979).Caribou showed increased
sensitivity during the rut and calving (Calef et al.1976).
110
-
Data on the deleterious effects of roads pertain mostly to
caribou because of the past interest in and studies of the Alaska
pipeline.But the other species of big game will also be
affected.From studies of big game in national parks,where
there is no hunting,and outside,where hunting is allowed,it
seems clear that animal s outside act as though they associ ate the
sound of automob il es with di sturbance,and keep cl ear of
travelled roads.This has the effect of reducing the habitat
available to them by the area from which they withdraw.In
addition,access roads facil itate the penetration of hunters in
larger numbers into regions hitherto inaccessible,further
increasing disturbance as well as mortality.
4.2.4 -Transmission Facilities
Electrical transmission lines have been reported to disrupt
movements of reindeer in Scandinavia (Klein 1971,Vilma 1975)
because of associated noises (hum)and because they are foreign
objects in otherwise familiar surroundings.If electrical
transmission 1ines are downstream from the proposed Watana dam
site they should have little impact on caribou as long as they
are routed near the ri ver.Few caribou occur in th i 5 area.
Other big game animals,however,occur in the downstream regions.
Their prob.able reaction to a noisy power line is not yet known.
Other impacts,bath pas it i ve and negat ive,may occur along the
transmi ssi on 1i ne route depend i ng upon the extent of vegetat ion
clearing required,and also the changes in habitat types.
4.2.5 Downstream Flow Regime
Since moose forage,particularly,is associated with the riparian
areas frequently disturbed by fluviatile processes,it would be
expected that a major change in downstream flow patterns would
influence downstream plant communities and,through them,
downstream moose populations.
111
.~
-
5 ~MITIGATION
There appear to be three general ways that the impact of the proposed
project could be reduced or mitigated:control of human activity;
sit ing of routes and work~areas;and p1 ant conmunity management.
5.1 ~Control of Human Activity
At present,the wildlife populations inhabiting the Susitna basin seem
to be minimally influenced by contact with humans.The proposed
project wou'ld bring much more human activity to the study area,with
some inevitable detrimental effect.But this effect wi 11 be least if
any human activity not essential to the project is kept to a minimum.
5.2 ~Sitins.
Preliminary studies of all wildlife populations have shown patterns of
habitat preference.While it is still too early to identify all the
most valuable parts of the overall landscape for the various big game
species,it ;s reasonable to expect that analyses of seasonal habitat
use will dernonstrate that some landscape units are more valuable than
others,seasonally,for most or all big game species.Assuming that
such information becomes available,it should be possible to take it
into consideration in the siting of routes and work~areas-,wherever a
range of choices exists.
5.3 ~Plant Community Management
The possible arenas for plant community management appear to exist,one
hypothetical,as yet,and the other obvious.The hypothetical
opportunity 1i es around the shores of the impoundments,and wi 11 exi st
112
.-
,.....
,."..
-
.....
if the presence of the impoundment creates a shallow-snow zone around
the shore.Then this zone could be considered for enhancement as
wildlife habitat.
The more evident opportunity lies downstream,where many opportunities
to manage plants for the benefit of big game,particularly moose,
exist.It would seem worthwhile to analyze the population ecology of
the downstream moose in greater detail than has been possible to date,
so as to identify the plant species and landscape units that would give
the best return on an investment in habitat enhancement.Further,the
secondary impacts of habitat enhancement measures on non-target pl ant
and animall species should be assessed as part of the study of habitat
management feasibility.
113
-6 -REFERENCES
*Alaska Department of Fish and Game.1970-1980.Annual Survey and
Inventory Reports,Caribou.Juneau,AK.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game.1973.Alaska's wildlife and
habitat Alaska Department Fish and Game~Anchorage.144pp +563
map:s .
*Atwell G.•P.Garceau,and R.A.Rausch.1963.Wolf investigations.
Ala:ska Fed.Aid Wildl.Rest.Proj.W6R3,Work Plan K.Juneau.28
pp.
*Baer,C.H.,R.E.Severson,and S.B.Lenhart.1978.Live capture
of coyotes from a helicopter with ketamine hydrochloride.J.
Wildl.,Manage.42(2):452-454.
Bailey,T.N.,A.W.Franzmann,P.D.Arneson,and J.L.David.1978.
Kenai Peninsula moose population identity study.Ak.Dept.Fish
and Game,P-R Proj.Final Rep.,W-17-3,5,6,7,8~and 9.84pp.
*Ballard,W.B.,and K.P.Taylor.1978.Upper Susitna River moose
population study.Alaska Dept.Fish and Game.Fed.Aid in
Wildl.Rest.Proj.Final Rep.,W-17-9 and 10,Job.1.20R.61
pp.
*Ballard,W.B.,and T.Spraker.1979.Unit 13 wolf studies.Alaska
Dept.Fish and Game.P-R Proj.Rep.,W-17-8,Jobs 14.8R,4.9R and
14.10R.90 pp.
*Ballard,W.8.,and K.P.Taylor.1980.Upper Susitna Valley moose
population study.Alaska Dept.Fish and Game.P-R Proj.Final
Rep.,W-17-9,W-17-10 and W-17-11 102 pp.
-*Cited in the text.114
.....
-
-
-
*Ballard,W.B.,S.D.Miller,and T.H.Spraker.1980.Moose calf
mortcllity study.Alaska Dept.Fish and Game,Final PR report on
proje!cts.W-17-9,W-17-lO,W-17-11,W-21-1,Job 1.23R.123 pp.
*Banfield,A.W.R.1951.Populations and movements of the
Saskatchewan timber wolf Canis lupus knighlii in Prince Albert
National Park,Saskatchewan,1947 to 1951.Wildl.Manage.Bull.
Ser.1,No.4.24pp.
Bedard,J.,E.S.Telfer,J.Peek,P.C.Lent,M.L.Wolfe,O.w.
Simkin,and R.W.Ritcey.eds.1974.Alces:moose ecology,
ecologie del orignal.Les Presses de l'universite Laal,Quebec.
*Beecham,~J.1980.Some population characteristics of two black bear
populations in Idaho.l!!.Bears--Their Biology and Management
(Martinka and McArthur,eds.)Bear Biology Assoc.Conf.Ser.No.
3:201-204.
Beecham,J.1980.Population characteristics,denning,and growth
patterns of black bear in Idaho.Ph.D.dissertation,Univ.of
Montana,Missoula.101 pp.
*Berg,W.G.1971.Habitat use,movements,and activity patterns of
moose in northwestern Minnesota.98 pp.(unpubl).
*Bergerud,A.T.1978.Caribou.Pages 83-10ll!!.J.L.Schmidt and O.
L.Gilbert,eds.Big Game of North America (Ecology and
Management).Stackpole Books,Harrisburg,PA.
Bishop,R.H.,and R.A.Rausch.1974.Moose population fluctuations
in Alaska,1950-1972.Naturaliste Can.,101:559-593.
*B05,G.N ..1973.Nelchina caribou report.Alaska Dept.Fish and Game
Fed.Aid.in Wildl.Rest.,Proj.W-17-4 and W-17-5.Juneau,AK.
25 pp.
115
-
*80s,G.N.1974.Nelchina and Mentasta caribou reports.Alaska Dept.
Fish and Game,Fed.Aid.in Wildl.Rest.,Proj.W-17-5 and
W-LZ~6.Juneau,AI<SOpp.
*80s,G.N.1975.A partial analysis of the current population status
of the Nelchina caribou herd.Pages 170-180 l!l J.R.Luick,P.
C.Lent,D.R.Klein,and R.G.White,eds.Proc.First lntl.
Reindeer/Caribou Symposium,Univ.of Alaska,Fairbanks,AK.551
pp.
Bray,O.E.,and V.G.Barnes,Jr.1967.A literature review on black
bear populations and activities.U.S.Nat.Park Servo and Colo.
Coop.Wildl.Res.Unit,Fort Collins,34pp.
*Bratlie,A.E.1968.An evaluation of the Matanuska and lower
Susitna Valley moose herds.Ak.Dept.Fish and Game,Anchorage,
AK.39pp.(Unpub 1).
*Calef,G.W.,E.A.DeBock,and G.M.Lortie.1976.The reaction of
bar:ren-ground caribou to aircraft.Arctic 29-201-212.
1974.Wolf predation and behavioural interactions with
other ungulates in an area of high prey diversity.Can.
Servo Rept.(unpub.),Edmonton.233pp.
-,
-
*Cameron,R.D.,K.R.Whitten,W.T.Smith,and
Caribou distribution and group composition
construction of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline.
Naturalist 93:155-162.
Carbyn,L.N.
elk and
Wildl.
D.D.Robey.1979.
associ ate<:l wi th
Canadian Field-
.....
*Chatelain,E.F.1951.Winter range problems of moose in the Susitna
Va11 ey.Proc.A1ask a Sc i.Conf.,2 :343-347 .
*Chate1ain,E.F.1952.Distribution and abundance of moose in
Alaska.Prot.Alaska Sci.Conf.,3:134-136 .
116
L~
*Clarke,K.R.S.1971.Food habits and behaviour of the tundra wolf
on central Baffin Island.Univ.Toronto.Ph.D.Thesis,223 pp.
*Clarke,S.1977.Report from New York ..!.!l The Black Bear in Modern
North America (Dale Burk,ed.),Proceedings of workshop on
Management Biology of North JJmerican Black Bear,Kalispell,
Montana:pp76-81.
Coady,J.W.1974.Influence of snow on behavior of moose.
Naturaliste Can.,101:417-436.
*Cowan,I.M.1947.The timber wolf in the Rocky Mountain National
Par'ks of Canada.Can.J.Res.250(5):139-174.
*Cowan,r.M.1972.The status and conservation of bears (Ursidae)of
the~world -1970 ...!!!.Bears--Their Biology and Management (S.
Herrero,ed.),IUCN Publ.New Series No.23:343-367.
Craighead,J.J.1979-1980.Grizzly bear habitat analysis.Section I
by Craighead and G.B.Scaggs (158 pp).Section II by Craighead
and J.S.Sumner (157 pp),Section III by Craighead (275 pp).
(mimeo).
Craighead,J.J.1980.A proposed delineation of critical grizzly
bear habitat in the Yellowstone region.Bear Biology Assoc.
Monograph Ser.No.1.20pp.
*Oavis,J.L.1978.History and current status of Alaska caribou
herds.Pages 1-8 ~D.R.Klein and R.G.White,ed.Parameters
of caribou population ecology in Alaska.Biologists papers of
the University ·of Alaska Special Report Number 3.
*Davis,J.L.,P.Valkenburg,and S.J.Harbo,Jr.1979.Refinement
of the aerial photo-direct count-extrapolation caribou census
technique.Alaska Department of Fish and Game,Fed.Aid in
Wildl.Rest ••Proj.101-17-11.Juneau,AK.23pp.
117
Didrickson,J.C.,D.Cornelius,
moose population studies.
W-17-8.pp 1-6.
and J.Reynolds.1977.Southcentral
AK.Dept.Fish and Game,P-R Proj.
"'"
......
.-
-
-
,....
-
*Oidrickson,J.C.,and K.P.Taylor.1978.Lower Susitna Valley
moose population identity study.AK.Dept.Fish and Game,P-R
Proj.W-17 -8 and W-17 -9.20pp.(mu It i1 i th).
*Ooerr,J.1979.Population dynamics and modeling of the Western
Arctic Caribou Herd with comparisons to other Alaskan Rangifer
populations.Unpubl.M.S.Thesis,Univ.of Alaska,Fairbanks.
341 pp •
Eddy,W.F.1977.A new convex hull algorithm for planar sets.ACM
Transactions on mathematical software.3(4):398-403.
EdwardS,R.G.and P.R.Co 1eman.1976.IVCALC-A FORTRAN subrout i ne
for calculating polygon-line intersections,and polygon-polygon
inte~rsections,Nmons,and relative differences.Oak Ridge
National Laboratory.27 pp.
*Eide,S.H.1980.Caribou Survey-Inventory Progress Report.Pages
31-34 In R.A.Hinman,ed.Annual Report of Survey-Inventory,
Activities.Alaska Oed.Aid in Wildl.Rest.Proj.W-17-11.
*Erickson,A.,and G.A.Petrides.1964.Population structure,
movements,and mortality of tagged bears in Michigan.pp.46-67
~The Black Bear in Michigan.Mich.State Univ.Agr.Expt.Stn.
Res.Bull.4.Mich.State Univ.
*Franzmann,A.W.,P.D.Arneson,R.E.LeResche,and J.L.Davis.
1971L Development and testing of new techniques for moose
management.Alaska Dept.Fish and Game.Fed.Aid in Wildl.
Rest.Proj.Final Rept.W-17-2,3,4,5,and 6.54pp.
118
-
*Fritts~S.Hq and L.D.Mech.In press.Dynamics,movements~and
feeding ecology of a newly-protected wolf population in
northwestern Minnesota.Wildl.Monogr.
-*Fuller,T.K.,and L.B.Keith.1980.
prey relationships in northeastern
44(3):583-602.
Wolf population dynamics and
Alberta.J.Wildl.Manage.
-
-
*Glenn,L..P.1967.Caribou report.Alaska Dept.Fish and Game,Fed.
Aid in Wildl.Rest.Proj.W-15-T-1,2.Juneau,AK.36 pp.
*Haber~fi.C.1968.The socio-structure and behavior of an Alaskan wolf
population.Unpubl.M.S.Thesis,Northern Michigan Univ.198 pp.
*Hanscom,J.T.~and T.E.Osterkamp 1980.Potential caribou-ice
problems in theWatana reservoir~Susitna Hydroelectric Project.
The Northern Engineer 12:4-8.
Harvey,~L J.and R.W.Barbour.1966.Home range of Microtus
ochrogaster as determined by a modified minimum area method.J.
Man~al.46(3):398-402.
Heimer,~1.E.1973.Dall sheep movements and mineral lick use.
Alcl.ska Fed.Aid Wildl.Rest.Final Rep.Juneau.
*Hemming,J.E.~and L.P.Glenn.1968.Caribou report.Alaska Dept.
Fish and Game~Fed.Aid in Wildl.Rest.,Proj.W-15-R-2.Juneau~
AK.41pp.
119
*Hemming,J.E.,and R.E.Pegau.1970.Caribou report.Alaska Dept.
Fish and Game,Fed.Aid in Wildl.Rest.,Proj.W-17-1,2.Juneau,
AK.42pp.
.-
-
-
*Hemming~J.E.,and L.P.
Dept.Fish and Game,
W-17-1.Juneau~AK.
Glenn.1969.Caribou report.Alaska
Fed.Aid in Wildl.Rest.,Proj.W-15-R-3 and
37pp .
*Hemming,J.E.1971.The distribution and movement patterns of
caribou in Alaska.Alaska Dept.Fish and Game.Wildl.Tech.
Bull.No.1.60 pp.
*Herrero,S.1972.Aspects of evolution and adaptation in American
black bears (Ursus americanus Pallas)and brown and grizzly bears
(Q.arctos Linne.)of North America.~Bears-their biology and
management (So Herrero,ed.).IUCN Publ.New Ser.23:221-231.
*Herrero,S.1977.Black bears:the Grizz1y'srep1acement?Pages
179-195.In The black bear in modern North America (D.Burk,
ed).Proceed.of the workshop.on the Management Biology of the
North American Black Bear,Kalispell,Montana.
,-*Hornocker,M.
Montana.-
G.1980.Ecology of the wolverine in northwestern
Can.Field Nat.In Press.
-
..-
Johnson,D.H.-1980.Comparison of usage and availability
measurements for evaluating resource preference.Ecology
61(1):65 ..71.
*Johnson,A.,and C.Lucier.1975.Hematoxylin "hot bath ll staining
techniques for aging by counts of tooth cementum annuli.Unpub1.
Rep.Al ask a Dept.Fish and Game,Anchorage.29 pp.
*Jonkel,C.J.,and I.MeT.Cowan.1971.The black bear in the
spruce-fir forest~Wi1d1.Monog.No.27.57pp.
*Kelleyhouse,D.G.1980.Habitat utilization by black bears in
northern California.l!l Bears-..Their Biology and Management
(Martinka and McArthur,eds.).Bear Biology Assoc.Conf.Ser.
No.3:221-227 .
*Ke1sall,J.P.1957.Continued barren-ground caribou studies.Can.
Wildl.Serv.,Wildl.Manage.Bull.Ser.1,No.12.148 pp.
120
-.
-
-
....
-I
-
*Kemp,G.A.1972.Black bear population dynamics at Cold Lake,
Alberta,1968-70.IUCN ~ew Ser.Publ.23:26-31.
*K1ein,D.R.1971.Reaction of reindeer to obstructions and
disturbance5.Science 173:343-398.
*Knowlton t F.F.1960.Food habits t movements and populations of
moose in the Gravelly Mountains,Montana.J.Wildl.Manage.,
24:162-170.
*Krott,P.1959.Der Vie1frass.Monographier der Wildsauget i ere
(Gottingen)13:1-159.
*Kuyt,E.1972.Food habits of wolves on barren-ground Caribou range.
Can.Wild1.Servo Rept.Ser.No.21.36pp.
*LeCount,A.L.1980.Some aspects of black bear ecology in the
Ari2:ona chaparral.~Bears--Their Biology and Management,Bear
Biology Assoc.Conf.Ser.No.3.175-179.
*Lentfer,J.1965.Caribou report.Alaska Dept.Fish and Game,Fed.
Aid in W;'dl.Rest.,Proj.W-6-5-5 and W-6-R-6.Juneau AK.
20pp.
Leopold,A.S.,and F.F.Darling.1953.Effects of land use on moose
and caribou in Alaska.Trans.N.Am.Wildl.Conf.18:553-562.
*LeResche,R.E.1974.Moose migrations in North America.
Naturaliste Can.,101:393-415.
*LeResche.R.E.,R.H.Bishop,and J.W.Coady.1974.Distribution
and habitats of moose in Alaska,Naturaliste Can.t 101:143-178.
*LeResche,R.E.,and S.A.Linderman.1975.Caribou trail systems in
northeastern Alaska.Arctic 28:54-61.
121
-
.-
.-
j
*lindseYt F.G.,and E.C.Meslow.1977.Population characteristics
of black bears on an island in Washington.J.Wildl.Manage.
41:408-412.
*McGowan t T.A.1966.Caribou report.Alaska Dept.Fish and Game,
Fed.Aid in Wildl.Rest.,Proj.W-6-R-6 and W-15-R-1.Juneau AK.
19pp.
*McIlroYt C.W.1972.Effects of hunting on black bears in Prince
Wil "r i am Sound.J.Wil d 1.Manage.36 :828-837 .
*McIlroy,C.1974.Moose survey-inventory progress report--1972,Game
Management Unit 13.pp 66-74.l!!.McKnight,D.E.(Ed.).Annual
replJrt of survey-inventory activities,Part II.Moose t caribou,
mar'ine mammals and goat.AK.Fed.Aid in Wildl.Rest.Rep.t
Proj.W-17-5.269 pp.
*Magoun t A.J.1979.Studies of wolverines an and adjacent to NPR-A./
Chapt.41.!!.Studies of Selected Wildlife and Fish and Their Use
of Habitats on and Adjacent to NPR-A 1977-78.U.S.Dept.of
Interior.
*Martinka,C.J.1974.Population characteristics of grizzly bears in
Glacier Nat.Park,Montana.J.Mammal.55:21-29 .
Martinka,C.J.,and K.L.McArthur (eds.).1980.Bears--Their
Biology and Management.Bear Biology Assoc.Conf.Ser.from
Fourth Int l.Conf.on Bear Research and Management,Kalispell,
Montana (1977).375 pp.
*Mech,l.D.1966.The wolves of Isle Royale.U.S.Nat1.Park Servo t
Fauna Ser.7.210 PP.
*Mech,L.D.1973.Wolf numbers in the Superior National Forest of
Minnesota.N.Cent.For.Exp.Stn.,St.Paul,Minnesota.10 pp.
122
-
*Mech,L.D.1974.Current techniques in the study of exclusive
wilderness carnivores.Proc.of XI Internat.Congress of game
Biol.315-322 pp.
*Merriam,H.R.1964.The wolves of Coronation Island.Proc.Alaska
Sci.Conf.15:27-32.
Metzgar,!L.H.1972.The measurement of home range shape.J.Wil dl .
Manage.36(2):643-645.
*Mi 11 er,F.L.,and A.Gunn.1979.Responses of Peary cari bou and
muskoxen to hel icopter harassment.Canadian Wil dl ife Service
Occasional Paper Number 40.90pp.
*Miller,S.D.,and W.B.Ballard.1980.Estimates of the density
structure and biomass of an interior Alaskan brown bear
population.Appendix V .!!!.Moose Calf Mortal ity Study (W.B.
Ballard,S.D.Miller,and T.H.Spraker).Final Report P-R
Projects W-17-9,W-17-10,W-17-11 and W-21-1,Job 1.23R.122pp.
*Modafferi,R.D.1978.Black bear management techniques development.
Alaska Dept.Fish and Game.Final P-R Proj.Rep.W-17-8 and
W-17-9,Job 17.1.76pp.
Mohr,C.O.and W.A.Stumpf.1966.Comparison of methods for
calculating areas of animal activity.J.Wildl.Manage.30(2):
293-303.
*Mundy,K.D.,and D.R.Flook.1973.Background for managing grizzly
bears in the National Parks of Canada.CWS Rep.Ser.No.22,
Ottawa.35 pp.
*Murie,A.1944.The wolves of Mount McKinley.U.S.Natl.Park
Serv.,Fauna Ser.5.238 pp.
123
*Nei1and,K.A.1972.Caribou disease studies.Alaska Dept.Fish and
Game,Fed.Aid in Wi1d1.Rest.Proj.W-17-2 and W-17-3.Juneau,
AK.42pp.
*Neilson,A.E.and W.M.Shaw.1967.A he1 icopter dart technique for
capturing moose.Proc.West.Assoc.Game and Fish Comm.
47:182-199.
Neu,C.W.,C.R.Byers,and J.M.Peek.A technique for analysis of
utilization--availability data,J.Wildl.Manage.38(3):541-545.
Oldemeyer,J.L.1974.Nutritive value of moose forage.Naturaliste
Can.,1010:217-226.
01 demeyer,J.L.,and W.L.Rege 1 in.
for estimating density of shrubs
Wild1.Manage.44(3):662-666.
1980.Comparison of 9 methods
and saplings in Alaska.J.
*Olson,S.F.1938.A study in predatory relationships with
particular reference to the wolf.Sci.Mont.66:323-336.
*p arker,G.R.1973.Oi stri but i on and dens i ties of wolves wi th in
bar'ren-ground caribou range in northern mainland Canada.J.
Mammal.54(?):341-348.
*Pearson,A.M.1975.The northern interior grizzly bear Ursus arctos
L.Canadi an Wil d 1.Ser.Rep.Seri es No.34.86 pp.
*Pegau,R.E.,and G.N.Bos.1972.Caribou report.Alaska Dept.
Fish and Game,Fed.Aid in Wildl.Rest.,Proj.W-17-2 and W-17-3.
Juneau,AK.32 pp.
*Pegau,R.E.,and J.E.Hemming.1972.Caribou report.Alaska Dept.
Fish and Game,Fed.Aid in Wi1dl.Rest.,Proj.W-17-2 and W-17-3.
Juneau,AK.221 pp.
124
."""'"*Pegau,R.E.,G.N.Bas,and K.A.Neil and .
Alaska Dept.Fish and Game,Fed.Aid in
W-17-4 and W-17-5.Juneau,AK.70 pp.
1973.Cari bou report.
Wil d1.Rest.,Proj.
-
Pelton,M.R.,J.W.Lentfer,and G.E.Folk (eds.).1976.Bears--
Their Biology and Management.IUNC Publ.New Series #40 for
Thi'rd Intl.Conf.on Bear Research and.Management.467 pp.
*Pelton,M.R.,and G.M.Burghardt.1976.Black Bears of The
Smokies.Natural History.54-63 pp.
*Piekielek,W.,and T.S.Burton.1975.A black bear population study
in Inorthern California.Calif.Fish and Game.61(1):4-25.
*Poelker,R.J.,and H.D.Hartwell.1973.Black bear of Washington,
Washington State Game Dept.Biol.Bul1.No.14.180 pp.
*Peterson,R.L.1955.North American moose.Univ.Toronto Press.
280 pp.
*Peterson.R.D.
popul ation
Parks.New
1976.The role of wolf predation in a lTIOose
decl ine.First Conf.on Scientific Res.in Nat.
Orleans,Louisiana (unpubl.).
-
*Peterson.R.O.1978.Wolf ecology and prey relationships on Isle
Royale.Natl.Park Servo Sci.Monogr.Ser.11.21 pp.
*Peterson,R.O.1980.
Peninsula,Alaska.
Wolf-moose investigation on the Kenai
Quarterly Rep.#15.Kenai Nat.Moose Range.
*Pimlott,O.H.,J.A.Shannon,and G.B.Kolensky.1969.The ecology
of the timber wolf in Algonquin Provincial Park.Ontario Dept.
lands and For.Res.Rept.(Wildl.)No.87.99 pp.
125
*Rausch,R.A.1958.
Susitna Valley.
Fed.Aid Wildl.
The problem of railroad-moose conflicts in the
Job.Completion Rep.,12,(1),Proj.W-3-R-12.
Restor.,Alaska Game Commission.
*Rausch,R.A.1959.Some aspects of population dynamics.of the
railbelt moose populations,Alaska.M.Sc.-Thesis,Univ.Alaska,
81 pp.
*Rausch,R.A.1967.
wolves,Alaska.
Some aspects of the population ecology of
Am.Zool.7:253-265.
*Rausch,R.A.1969.A summary of wolf studies in south-central
Alaska.1957-1968.Trans.N.Am.Wildl.and Nat.Resour.Conf.
34:117 -131.
*Rausch,R.A.1971.
Proj.W-17-1.
Moose Report.
pp.1-7.
AK.,Dept.Fi sh and Game,P-R
.-
I"""
I
-
*Rausch,.R.A.,and A.M.Person.1972.Notes on the wolverine in
Alaska and the Yukon Territory.J.Wildl.Manage.36:249-268.
*Rausch,R.A.,R.J.Somerville,and R.H.Bishop.1975.Moose
Management in Alaska.Naturaliste Can.,101:705-721.
*Reynolds,H.V.1976.·North slape grizzly bear studies.Alaska Fed.
Aid in Wi ldl.Rest.Proj.W-17-6 and W-17-7.14 pp.
*Reynolds,H.V.1980.North slope grizzly bear studies.Fed.Aid in
Wildl.Rest.Proj.W-17-11.65 pp.
Rogers,L.L.1977.Social relationships,movements,and population
dynamics of black bears in northeastern Minnesota.Ph.D.
Dissertation,Univ.Minnesota,Minneapolis.194 pp.
126
Scott,R.F.1956.Moose Surveys -Susitna and Copper River Valleys.
In:Quarterly Prog.Rep.,10(3).Fed.Aid.Wildl.Restor.,
Alaska Game Conmi ss ion.
*Shafer,E.L.,Jr.1963.
hardwood deer browse.
The twig-count method for measuring
J.Wildl.Manage.,27(3):428-437.
*Shepherd~P.E.K.1958.Food habits of railbelt moose.In:Job
Completion Rep.,12,(1)~Proj.W-3-R-12.Fed.Aid.Wildl.
Restor.,Alaska Game Corrmission.
*Singer,F.J.1978.Seasonal concentrations of grizzly bears,north
fork of the Flathead River,Montana.Canadian Field-Naturalist
92(3);283-286.
*Siniff,D.B.,and R.O.Skoog.1964.
using random stratified sampling.
28:319-4·01.
Aerial censusing of caribou
J.Wil dl.Manage.
*Skoog,R.O.
Alaska.
1968.Ecology of caribou (Rangifer tarandus granti)in
Ph.D.Thesis,Univ.of California,Berkeley,CA.699
-
pp.
*Spencer,D.L.,and E.F.Chatelain.1953.
management of the moose of southcentral
Wildl.Conf.8:539-552.
Progress in the
Alaska.Trans.N.Am
-
-
*Spencer,H.E.,Jr.1955.The black bear and its status in Maine.
Game Div.Bull.4,Main Dept.Inland Fisheries and Game.55 pp.
*Spraker,T.H.,W.B.Ballard,and S.D.Miller.1981.Brown bear
studies,Game Management Unit 13.Alaska Dept.Fish and Game,
Final P·R Proj.Rep.W-17-10 and W-17-11,Job.4.13R (In Press).
127
*Stenlund,M.H.1955.A field study of the timber wolf (Canis lupus)
on the Superior National Forest,Minnesota.Minn.Dept.Conser.
Tech.Bu 11.4.55 PP.
*Stephenson,R.O.1975.Wolf report.Alaska Dept.Fish and Game.
P-R Proj.Rept.,W-17-3 through W-17-7.18 pp.
*Stephenson,R.O.1977.Characteristics of exploited wolf
populations.Alaska Dept.Fish and Game.P-R Proj.Rept.,
W-IT~3 through W-17-8.17pp.
*Stephenson,R.O.1978.Unit 13 Wolf Studies.Vol.1.
Progress Report.Fed.Aid in Wildl.Restoration.
W-17-8,Jobs 14.8R,14.9R and 14.10R.
Project
Project
-Stringham,S.F.1974.Mother-infant relations in moose.Naturaliste
Can.,101:325-369.
Taylor,K.P.,and W.8.Ballard.1979.Moose movements and habitat
use along the Susitna River near Devils Canyon.Proc.15th N.
Am.~Ioose Conf.·and Workshop.Kenai,AK.pp.169-186.
*Tisch,E.L.1961.Seasonal food habits of the black bear in the
Whitefish Range of northwestern Montana.MS Thesis,Montana
State Univ.,Missoula.108 pp.
*Troyer,W.A.,and R.J.Hensel.1964.Structure and distribution of
a Kodiak bear population.J.Wildl.Manage.28:769-772.
*U.5.Army,Corps of Engineers.Alaska District.1975.Hydroelectric
powel'"and related purposes for the upper Susitna River Basin.
Interim Feasibility Rep.125 pp.
128
*VanBa11enberge,V.
Alaska Pipeline
44 pp.
-
-
-
U.S.Fish andWild1 He Service.1975.Southcentra1 railbelt area
uppl:r Susitna River Basin hydroelectric project two dam plan.
U.S.Dept.Interior,Anchorage,AK.25 pp.
1978.Final report on the effects of the Trans-
on moose movements.Alaska Dept.Fish &Game.
*VanBa11enberghe,V.,A.W.Erickson,and D.Byman.1975.Ecorogy of
the timber wolf in northeastern Minnesota.Wi1d1.Monogr.43.
43 pp.
*Viereck~L.A.,and C.R Dyrness.1980.A preliminary
classification system for vegetation of Alaska.U.S.Forest
Service,Gen~Tech.Rept.PNW-I06,38 pp.
*v ilmo ,L.1975.The Scandinavian viewpoint.Pages 4-9 .!.!!J.R.
Luick et a1.,ed.Proceedings of the First International
Reindeer and Caribou Symposium.Biological Papers of the
University fo Alaska Special Report No.1.
*Watson,G.W.,and R.F.Scott.1956.Aerial censusing of the
Ne1china caribou herd.Trans.N.Am.Wi1d1.Conf.21:499-510.
*Wo1ff,J.0.,and J.C.Za.sada.1979.Moose habitat and forest
succession on the Tanana River floodplain and Yukon-Tanana
upland.Kenai,AK.pp.213-244.
129
.-
I
I
....
-
.....
..-
-
7 ~AUTHORITIES CONTACTED
Throughout 1980,there was close coordination among members of the
ADF&G Susitna Project investigations,TES,and TES 1 s big game
consultant,R.Taber.In addition,the following were contacted by TES
in relation to the big game studies.
Susitna Hydroelectric Project Steering Committee
Anchorage,AK.
-July 17,1980:presentation by TES staff of entire
environmental program.
~December 23,1980;TES response to Steering Committee comments
on Bi g Game Impact Assessment and Miti gation Pl an Procedures
Manual .
130