HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA409SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
BIG GAME STUDIES
Volume III MOOSE -UPSTREAM
Warren B.Ballard
Jackson S.Whitman
Nancy G.Tankersley
Lawrence D.Aumiller
Pauline Hessing
TK.ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
1425
.88 Submitted to·the Alaska Power Authority
B54
no.409 Apr i I 19 8 3
.~
J
,~
:~
T/\
)~2;
;;{~
\
(55''1
no.tfo1
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
PHASE II PROGRESS REPORT
April,1983
BIG GAME STUDIES
VOLUME I I I.MOOSE -UPSTREAM
Warren B.Ballard
Jackson S.Whitman
Nancy G.Tankersley
Lawrence D"Aumi ller
Pauline Hessing
ARLIS
L "b Alaska Resources
I r~&Information Services
chorage,Alaska
PREFACE"
In early 1980,the Alaska Department of Fish and Game contracted
with the Alaska Power Authority to collect information useful in
assessing the impacts of the proposed Susitna Hydroelectric
.Project on moose,caribou,wolf,wolverine,black bear,brown
bear and Dall sheep.
The studies were broken into phases which conformed to the
anticipated licensing schedule.Phase I studies,January 1,1980
to June 30,1982,were intended to provide information needed to
support a PERC license application.This included general
studies of wildlife populations to determine how each species
used the area and identify potential impact mechanisms.Phase II
studies continued to prov-ide additional information during the
anticipated 2 to 3 year period between application and"final PERC
approval of the license.Belukha whales were added to the
species being studied.During Phase I I,we are narrowing the
focus of our studies to evaluate specific impact mechanisms,
quantify.impacts and evaluate mi tigation measures.
This is the first annual report of ongoing Phase II studies.In
some cases,obj ectives of Phase I were continued to provide a
more complete data base.Therefore,this report is not intended
as a complete assessment of the impacts of the Susi tna Hydr~
electric Proj ect on the selected wildlife species.
The information and conclusions contained in these reports are
incomplete and preliminary in nature and subject to change with
further study.Therefore,information contained in these reports
is not to be quoted or used in any publication without the
wri tten permission of the authors.
The reports are organized into the following 9 volumes:
Volume I.
Volume II.
Volume III.
Volume IV.
Volume V.
Volume VI.
Volume VII.
Volume VI I I.
Volume IX ..
Big Game Summary Report
Moose -Downstream
Moose -Upstream
Caribou
Wolf
Black Bear and Brown Bear
Wolverine
Dall Sheep
Belukha Whale
ARLIS
Alaska Resources
Library &Information Services
Anchorage,Alaska
SUMMARY
Preliminary analyses of movements of 10 adult cow moose radio-
collared in a proposed experimental burn area near the Alphabet
Hill revealed the presence of 3 subpopulations occupying the
area--2 wintering and 1 resident.From an intensive aerial
c~nsus of the proposed burn and adjacent area during March 1982,
an estimated 279 moose occupied the 47,000 acres.
In fall 1982,22 adult radio-collared moose wi thin the Susi tna
Hydroelectric Study area were recaptured and recollared in an
effort to continue movement and habitat use studies during
Phase I I.·Home range sizes and movements of moose during the
reporting period were presented.During 1982,20 radio-collared
moose crossed the Susitna River in the vicinity of the impound-
ments a minimum'of 42 occasions.Forty-nine percent of the cros-
sings were initiated during the month of January,February,May
and September.
Based upon locations of radio-collared moose which utilize the
impoundment,boundaries of impact zones were delineated.Zones
were classified as primary,secondary,and tertiary.The primary
zone included radio-collared moose which would be directly
..~.
ii
~I
1JI1R!,.
.....
-.
""'"
--
"""
impacted by the project,while the secondary zone was comprised
of moose which overlapped home ranges of moose occupying the
primary zone.Population estimates ranged from approximately
1,900 to 2,600 moose which could be directly impacted by the
project.Moose occupied the impoundment areas more during the
months of March-May than other time periods.Two hundred and
ninety moose were estimated to inhabit the WB.tana impoundment
area from an aerial census on 25 March 1982.
Habitat use of radio-collared"moose was assessed by overlapping
moose locations on preliminary vegetation maps.In relation to
availability,moose preferred woodland black spruce,open black
spruce,closed mixed forest,and woodland white spruce types.
Lakes,rock,sedge-grass tundra,sedge-shrub tundra and mat-
cushion tundra were not preferred.
For the Watana impoundment area on a year-round basis,elevations
ranging from 2001-2200 and 2401-3000 ft.were used more by
radio-collared moose while elevations ranging from 1201-1400 and
in excess of 3200 ft.were used significantly less,in relation
to availability.During winter and spring,elevations ranging
from 1601-2000 and 2201-2800 ft.were used more than expected.
Use of slopes and aspects were not random.
iii
During the reporting period a moose population dynamics model was
developed and tested in an effort to predict population trends
under preproject conditions.Components of the preliminary model
are presented and discussed.Eventually the model will be used
to test hypotheses concerning the impacts of Susi tna Hydro-
electric development on moose.
A summary of project impacts on moose and ways they may affect
basic population parameters are presented.
iv
~:
-
~,
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY.. . .
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES.
INTRODUCTION
STUDY AREA .
ii
.viii
·xii
1
2
SECTION I.PROPOSED EXPERIMENTAL BURN 3
· . 9
·.12
.13
.14
·.27
.29Recruitment.
Radio-collaring Moose .
Home Range Size
River Crossings
Zone of Impact.
Winter Use of Watana Impoundment.
Introduction.~3
Methods . . . .5
Results 7
,~
SECTION II.HOME RANGE,DISTRIBUTION AND MOVEMENTS
OF MOOSE... . . .. ... . . . .·.9
v
.-~
.---------------------"-----_._--------,---~.----_._---
. I I
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd)
SECTION III.HABITAT USE 31
VegetationjHabitat Selection ...
Use of Var~ous Elevations,Slopes,and ~spects
Watana Impoundment
Devil Canyon Impoundment.
31
34
39
. .42
SECTION IV.MOOSE POPULATION MODELING 48
Introduction
Population Estimates
Event 1 -Reproduction
Event 2 -Early Spring and Summer Mortality
(Excluding Predation).
Events 3,4,9 -Wolf Predation.
Event 5 -Brown Bear Predation
Event 6 -Black Bear Predation
Event 7 -Hunter Harvest .
Event 8 -Winter Mortality (Excluding Predation)
Project Population Model Analyses.
GMU 13 Population Model Analyses .
vi
48
50
53
.55
57
60
64
65
67
71
83
-TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd)
SECTION V.IMPACT MECHANISMS . . . . . . " . . . . . .93
SECTION VI.MITIGATION...... . . . . . . . . . . . .97·
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .97
LITERATURE CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .98
-
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .102
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .106
vii
. I I
LI ST OF TABLES
Table 1.Statistics associated with capture
and radio-collaring of 10 adult
cow moose in April and July_1982
within the~proposed controlled
burn area.
Table 2.Results of moose census in GMU-13
proposed burn area,24-25 March
. 6
~,
1982 ..~.. 8
Table 3.Statistics associated with recapturing
radio-collared moose in the Susitna
Hydroelectric Project Area of south-
central Alaska during October 1982 .
Table 4.Susitna River crossings,and calf
production and mortality of 75 radio-
collared moose studied from 11 April
1980 through December 1982 in the upper
Susitna River Basin of southcentral
Alaska .
viii
.10
.16
-
....
-
-
--.
LIST OF TABLES
Table 5.Area of moose .habi tat (less than
4,000 ft.elevation)and moose
population estimates for 3 moose
impact zones associated with
development of the Susitna Hydro-
electric Project .
Table 6.Distribution of moose in 4 areas
of the proposed Watana impoundment
on the Susitna River,Alaska
observed during a census 25
March 1982 .
Table 7.Availability of 19 habitat types
and moose utilization of them in
the Susitna River Study Area
from April 1980 through September
1981
ix
.26
.30
.33
LIST OF TABLES
Table 8.Average monthly elevations for
74 radiocollared moose studied
intermittently from October
1976 through May 1982 in the
primary impact zone of the
Susitna project
Table 9.Radio-collared moose locations
at or below 2,300 ft.elevation
in relation to total number of
locations by month and year for
moose occupying the.Susitna
Hydroelectric Project primary
impact zone from 1976 through
May 1982 . .
Table 10.Mortality rates due to winter
starvation of radio-collared
calf and yearling moose in the
Nelchina and Susitna River
Basins,1977-1982.
x
.36
.38
.68
-
.....
-
-
LI ST OF TABLES
Table 11.-Mortality rates of adult (~2 yrs.)
radio-collared cow moose due to
winter starvation and unidentified
mortality in the Nelchina and
Susitna River Basins of south-
central Alaska from 1976-1982 ..
Table 12.Estimates .of spring moose
population size,and causes and
magnitude of mortality by sex
and age class as determined from
modeling the Susitna River Study
Area moose population from 1975-76
to 1981-82
Table 13.Estimates of spring moose
population size,·and causes
and magnitude of mortality by
sex and age class as determined
from modeling the moose population
in GMU-13 of southcentral Alaska
from 1975-76 to 1981-1982.
xi
.70
.79
.85
I I
LIST OF TABLES
Table 14.Susitna Hydroelectric Project
actions and their potential
effect on ~oose numbers,dis-
tribution and habitat in the
Susitna River Study area
Table 15.Potential impacts of Susitna
Hydroelectric development on
annual moose population ~,
parameters .
xii
.94
.95
-
.....
Fig.1.
Fig.2.
Fig.3.
Fig.4.
LIST OF FIGURES
Boundaries of proposed control
burn area in GMU-13 of south-
central Alaska.
Timing of initiation of mOO$e
crossing of theSusitna River
above Devil Canyon,Alaska from
April 1980 through December 1982.
Boundaries of primary,secondary,
and tertiary zones of impact for
the Susitna Hydroelectric Project
based upon movements of radio-
collared moose from 1976-1982 in
GMU-13 of southcentral Alaska
Distribution of winter (January,
February and March)observations
of radio-collared moose from 1977
through 1982 in the Nelchina and
upper Susitna River Basins of
southcentral Alaska
xii
.4
·15
·24
·28
Fig.7.
LIST OF FIGURES
Use of various elevations by radio-
collared moose in relation to avail-
ability during January -May in the
primary impact zone along the Susitna
River near Watana Creek,Alaska from
1976-1982.
xiii
.41
-
-
~,
~.
LIST OF FIGURES
~.
Fig.8.
Fig.9.
Use of 3 slope classifications by
radio-collared moose in relation
to availability in the primary impact
zone along the Susitna River near
Watana Creek,Alaska from 1976-1982.
Year-round and seasonal use of slope
aspects by radio-collared moose in
relation to availibility in the primary
impact zone along the Susitna River near
Watana Creek,Alaska from 1976-1982.
.4;3
.44
-
Fig.10.Year-round use of various elevations
by radio-collared moose in relation to
availability in the primary impact'zone
along the Susitna River near Devil
Canyon,Alaska from 1976-1982.
Fig.11.Use of various elevations by radio-
collared moose from January-May in
relation to availability in the primary
impact zone along the Susitna River near
Devil Canyon,Alaska from 1976-1982.
xiv
.45
.46
- ----_.~~_._--------_.._--
I I
LIST OF cFIGURES
Fig.12.Use of 9 aspects by radio-Gollared
moose from 1976-1982 in relation
to availability in the primary
impact zone along the Susitna River
near Devil Canyon,Alaska..
Fig.13.Use of 3 slope classifications by
radio-collared moose in relation to
their availability in the primary
impact zone along the Susitna River,
Alaska near Devil Canyon from
1976-1982.
Fig.14.Timing and sequence of factors used
in model to determine the annual
population dynamics of moose in the
Susitna River Study Area and the entire
GMU 13 in southcentral Alaska..
Fig.15.Schematic diagram of event 1 (birth)
for the Susitna River moose model.
xv
.47
.49
.51
.54
-
....,
-
,-
LIST OF FIGURES
Fig.16.Schematic diagram of events 2
and 8 (early spring and winter
mortality)for the Susitna River
moose model......
Fig.17.Schematic diagram of events 3,
4 and 9(wolf predation)for the
Susitna River moose model ....
Fig.18.Schematic diagram of events 5
and 6 (brown bear and black bear
predation)for the Susitna River
moose model..
.,.. ..56
..58
.62
-
Fig.19.Schematic diagram of event 7
(hunting mortality)for the
Susitna River moose model 66
Fig.20.November moose population esti-
mates as derived from modeling
versus composition counts for
the Susitna River Study Area
of southcentral Alaska,1975-1986.
xvi
. . . .72
I I
LIST OF FIGURES
Fig.21.Fall moose population trends
derived from modeling using
annu~l composition count data
for initial population size
for the Susitna River Study
Area,1975-1991 ..
Fig.22.Estimated moose calf:cow ratios
derived from modeling versus
calf:cow ratios obtained from
annual composition counts in
the Susitna River Study Area,
1975-1982 ..
Fig.23.Percent yearling bulls in moose
populations each fall as determined
from modeling versus composition
counts for the Susitna River Study
Area,1975-1982.
xvii
.73
.75
.76
-
-,
-,
-
LIST OF FIGURES
Fig.24.Annual rates of calf moose mortality
due to predation and winter kill as
determined from modeling the Susitna
River Study Area moose population,
1975-1981.. . .. . . . . . .78
-
Fig.25.Annual percent yealring bull moose
mortality due to several mortality
factors as determined from modeling
the Susitna River Study Area in
southcentral Alaska,1975-1981 82
Fig.26.Annual adult moose mortality rates
by cause as determined from modeling
the Susitna River Study Area moose-
population in southcentral.Alaska,
Fig.27.
1975-1981.
Fall moose population estimates as
derived from modeling versus annual
composition counts for ~MU-13 of
southcentral Alaska,1975-1986
xviii
. . . . . ..84
. ..87
.II
~,
LIST OF FIGURES -,.
Fig.30.Annual fall moose and wolf
population trends between
GMU-13 and the Susitna River
Study Area of southcentral
Alaska,1975-1981 92
Fig.28.Estimated annual rates of calf
mortality from predation and
winter kill determined from
modeling the GMU-13 moose
population of southcentral
Alaska,1975-1981 88
......
-
-
-
...90
Annual GMU-13 adult moose
mortality rates from 4 factors
estimated from modeling,1975-
1981 . . . . . . . . . .
Fig.29.
xix
INTRODUCTION
Moose in the vicinity of a proposed hydroelectric project on the
mainstem of the Susitna River have been under study for a number
of years (Taylor and Ballard 1979).However,studies concerning
the impacts of this project-on moose did not begin in earnest
until 1980.Moose (Alces alces)are one of the more important
wildlife species.which could be seriously impacted by hydro-
electric development.Phase I moose studies (Ballard et al.
1981i 1982)were directed at determining how moose use the area
in and around the two proposed .impoundments,determining the
approximate number of moose using the area,and identifying
potential impact mechanisms.
Phase I I moose studies were initiated in January 1982.These
studies were designed to provide refinement of the information
gathered during Phase I studies.The principal obj ectives of
Phase I I studies are as follows:
(1)To delineate a zone of impact of the Susitna Hydroelectric
Proj ect on moose.
(2)To determine the number of moose using the zone of impact
and habitat which will be altered by construction of the
Susitna Hydroelectric Project during winter and early
.spring.
1
~,
-"";
,-
(3)To determine changes in moose use of an area before and
after a prescribed burn.
(4)To evaluate.moose use of potentia-l mitigation lands.
(S)To develop a.habitat-based assessment of the current value
of lands that wi 11 be lost or altered to moose.
This report updates some of the findings presented in the Final
Phase I report (Ballard et al.1982)with additional data col-
;-lected from mid-August 1981 to early June 1982.Because the
information contained in this repor~treats only portions of con-
tinuing studies,it should not be used in scientific technical
publications without the written approval of the investigators.
STUDY AREA
Study area boundaries are within Game Management Unit 13 (GMU 13)
and contain the middle and upper Susi tna basins.More exact
boundaries were previously described (Ballard et al.1982).
2
SECTION I.PROPOSED EXPERIMENTAL BURN
Introduction
Controlled burning has been frequently mentioned as a potential
tool which could be used by game managers to increase the numbers
of moose on lands adjacent to or distant from the project area in
an attempt to mitigate losses associated with Susi tna Hydro-
electric development.Although most biologists would concur that
fire management can be used to retard or set back plant succes-
sion to maintain optimum moose habitat,information is needed to
formulate a prescription which would provide the quickest and
greatest benefits for moose.The magnitude and degree to which a
moose population will respond to fire management is poorly under-
stood.
Late in Phase I studies,the Bureau of Land Management in cooper-
ation with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game,proposed and
began planning an experimental burn to improve moose habitat.·
The proposed controlled bu~n area (47,000 acres)is located just
south of the Alphabet Hills (Fig.1).Although the proposed burn
area had been identified as important moose winter range,base-
line data concerning type and intensity of use,population size,
and vegetation composition was lacking.Although the proposed
burn will undoubtedly e~entually improve moose winter range,the
3
-
-
-
l.1 j 1",)},l I ,1"
~
./
('.
GLENN HIGHWAY ./..---.--........----._.--.....-
I~.'-\~
<~.,,~
.0
)"1-."/.'.~~·~·~·~·~p.x.on.
~
(I.
__?len.~I~!!..!._._.-\1
./..~~
.'-'-'~~.
NORTH
o 25 50 ml
I I ~
Figure 1.Boundaries of proposed control burn area In Game Management Ul'Jlt 13 of southcentral Alaska.>
timing of the burn will occur late enough in the year so that no
regrowth of vegetation will occur.Therefore in the short term
(1 winter)the burn has the potential to be detrimental to moose
because winter range may be t~mporarily destroyed.
Methods
To provide a basis for assessing the utility and efficiency of
controlled burning as a mitigation measure,an attempt was made
to begin acquiring baseline information in 1982 concerning num-
bers of moose using the area,season of use,movement patterns,
and winter moose density.
During April and July 1982 a total of 10 adult cow moose were
captured and radio-collared within the proposed burn area.
Statistics associated with the tagging pr09rams are presented in
Table 1.Moose immobilized during summer generally required 13
mg etorphine hydrochloride (M-99)in combination with 300 mg
xylazine hydrochloride (Rompun).As anticipated,these doses
were higher than those normally used to immobil·ize moose during
fall and spring (10 cc etorphine).Higher drug doses during
summer and fall are usually necessary because moose are generally
in better physical condition,than after the winter-spring period
of nutritional stress.
5
-
-
-,
-
1 .cL J .....L ..1 1 )1 ]
....,...
Table 1.Statistics associated with capture and radio-collaring of 10 adult cow moose in April and July 1982 within the proposed controlled burn area.
New Old Radio Visual Metal With Total Hind Head Heart Placement &
Accession Collar Date of Collar Collar Ear Tag Age Calf Length Foot Length Girth Induction
Number Nulllber Sex Capture Location #Color L.R.Yrs.(Mos.)and No.(cm)(cm)(cm) (cm)Condition Drug Dosage Time
(min)
120712 8037 F 7/19/82 Big bend 9543 White ear tags --C (1)--------6 9 cc M-99,1 cc left leg (49)
Maclaren missing Rompun
3 cc M-99 left rump
9 cc M-99,1 cc left rump
i Rompun
120761 --F 4/08/82 Burn area 9540 White 16995 4 (10)No 282 84 --83 5
120762 --F 4/08/82 Burn area 9538 White 16948/15928 4 (10)No 298 83 --193 5
120763 --F 4/08/82 Burn area 9541 White 4 (10)No 282 83 70 193 50"
120764 --F 4/08/82 Burn area 9544 White 16854 at least No 305 70 --168 6
I 4 (10)
120765 --F 4/08/82 Burn area 9539 White 16338/16934 14 (10)No 288 --79 208 6
120774 --F 7/19/82 Burn W.of 11864 White No --------8 10 cc M-99,1 cc left side
Kelly Lake Rompun (18)
3 cc M-99
120775 --F 7/20/82 Burn W.of 11867 White 15992/15986 --C (1)282 80 79 198 8 9 cc M-99,1 cc left hip
Kelly Lake Rompun
3 cc M-99 left hip
120776 --F 7/20/82 Burn S.of 11865 White 15997/15990 --No 267 76 70 173 7 9 cc M-99,1 cc left hip
Kelly Lake Rompun
~cc M-99 left hip (14)
120777 --F 7/20/82 Burn area 11866 White 15987/15989 --No 274 81 75 190 9 --(11)
Results
Al though no data were available for this report,preliminary
movement analyses from 10 radio-collared moose suggest that
3 separate populations utilize the proposed burn areai (1)one
population winters in the area and spends summer and early fall
north of the Alphabet Hills and the Denali Highway;(2)another
subpopulation also winters in the area but migrates to the
Oshetna River area where they remain through spring,summer,and
falli and (3)The area is also inhabited by a year-round resident
population.
During the census,a total of 167 moose in 139 mi 2 were counted
(Table 2).These were observed from fixed-wing aircraft at an
intensi ty of 5.2 min.jmi 2.Based upon an intensive resurvey of
1 area which was randomly selected,we estimated that approxi-
mately 40%of the moose present had not been counted.Therefore,
the corrected March prebu:r:n moose population estimate was 279
moose for a density of 2.0 moosejmi 2.Di stribution of observed
moose were also recorded and are on file at the Glennallen ADF&G
office.
7
-
""""',
-
~l
-
-
1 1 1 1.I J )j,j ]
Table 2.Results of moose census in GMU-13 proposed burn area,24 and 25 March 1982.
Sample Area Time Mini Observed Total estimated number moose !I
Unit (mi 2 )(min)mi 2 No.Moose Moose/mi 2 No.Moose Moose/mi 2
91 16.8 89 5.3 7 0.4 12 0.7
92 14.2 77 5.4 21 1.5 35 2.5
93 10.6 68 6.4 16 1.5 27 2.5 I
94 18.9 76 i 4.0 3 0.2 5 0.3
95 14.4 68 4.7 5 0.4 8 0.6
79 15.4 83 5.4 51 3.3 .85 5.5
<Xl 80 14.5 80 5.5 26 1.8 43 3.0
81 13.1 62 4.7 10 0.8 17 1.3
82 20.8 112 j 5.4 28 1.4 47 2.3
Total 138.7 715 46.8 167 11.3 279 18.7
Mean x 5.2 1.3 2.0
Y Sightabi1ity index generated by randomly selecting southeast quarter of unit surveying at 12 min/m1 2 .'
An additional 2 moose were observed and thus approximately 40%of moose were not observed at survey
intensity of 5.2 min/mi 2 •Estimated number of moose =3 observed x sightabi11ty index (1.67).
Ii
A prescription for the burn was prepared and the burn was sched-
uled to occur in August 1982.However,because of weather con-
ditions not conducive to burning,the experiment was rescheduled
for 1983.
SECTION II.HOME RANGE,DISTRIBUTION AND MOVEMENTS OF MOOSE
Radio-collaring Moose
Twenty-two adult moose originally captured in 1980 for Phase I
studies were recollared in October 1982 to insure continued radio
contact for Phase II studies.Moose captured in fall 1982
required an average of 18.5 cc etorphine hydrochloride (M-99)and
360 mg xylazine hydrochloride (Rompun)for successful immobili-
zation (Table 3).Induction time ranged from 7 to 61 minutes,
averaging 26.1 minutes.Drug dosages reported herein are the
largest ever used on Unit 13 moose.We suspect that the larger
doses were necessary because the moose were in excellent physical
condi tion for thi s time of year.Between -mid-August 1981 and
early June 1982,62 radio-collared moose were located on 727
occasions.Including recently captured animals,radio-collared
moose were located an average of 1.3 occasions/month.
9
-
-
~1
-
-
1 B 1 J:l.1 )J
Table ,3.(cont'd)
New Old Radio Visual Metal With Total Hind Placement '"
Accession Collar Date Collar Collar Ear Tag Age Calf Length Foot Induction
Number Number Sex Capture Location #Color L.R.Yrs.(Mos.)and No.(em)(em)Condition,Drug Dosage Time (min)
120640 6440 F 10/15/82 Kosina Creek 12412 White 16160/16159 6 (4)------7 10 cc M-99 (17)
120642 6445 M 10/12/82 Fog Creek 12432 White 15915/16903-5 (4)--297 82 7 10 cc M-99 left flank (7)
3 cc M-99,left flank
2 cc ¥ompun
120643 6447 F 10/12/82 Fog Lakes 12431 White 16918/16919 ----No ----8 10 cc M-99 left hind leg (7)
3 cc M-99,mid rump
2 cc Rompun
120644 6452 F 10/12/82 Fog Creek 12429 White 15947/15946 ----No --10 cc M-99 left rump (22)
2 cc Rompun
120645 6451 F 10/14/82 Upper Butte i 12418 White 15945/15944 11 (4)No -.--7.5 10 cc M-99 right shoulder (17)
5 cc M-99,
3 cc Rompun
f-'
f-'120p48 6462 F 10/15/82 Coal Creek 12416 White 15940/15941 5 (4)No --15 ec M-99 left shoulder (13)
3 cc Rompun
5 cc M-99,neck
3 cc Rompun
:'1
120649 6463 F 10/14/82 Clarence La*12433 White 16172/16171 ----No 5 10 cc M-99 left rump (13)
5 cc M-99,left shoulder
3 cc Rompun
120650 6467,F 10/15/82 Coal Creek 12414 White 15827/15826 5 (4)C(l)------10 cc M-99 left shoulder (13)
5 cc M-99,
3 cc Rompun
12'0652 6464 F 10/14/82 Clarence Creek 12411 White 16152/16151 14 (4)C(l)----7 10 cc M-99 left leg (14)
5 cc M-99,left flank
3 cc Rompun
120653 6450 F 10/14/82 Clarence Creek 12421 White 16105/16104 14 (4)No ----9 10 cc M-99 right rump (30)
3 co M-99,right rump
1 cc Rompun
5 cc M-99,
3 ce Rompun
120654 6400 F 10/14/82 Clarence Creek 12419 White 16842/16841 10 (4)No ----8 10 cc M-99 left rump ()
5 cc M-99,left side
3 cc Rompun
5 cc M-99,'left shoulder
3 cc Rompun
,,J ~I I t J l I ~J I 'I j l ,,
,~
.......
Horne Range Size
Appendix A summarizes seasonal and total horne range·sizes of
radio-collared moose studied in the Nelchina and upper Susi tna
River Basins from October 1976 through early June 1982.No addi-
tional subpopulations or new movement corridors were detected
from data collected between mid-August 1981 to early June 1982.
Considerable variation in size was noted for both seasonal and
total horne range sizes.Some of the variation may be attributed
to ~n insufficient number of locations.
Comparison of total ~ome range size with numbers of locations for
both calf and adult moose suggested considerable variation be-
tween individuals.Although weak correlations may exist,indivi-
dual examination of the larger individual horne range suggests two
explanations.Larger ·range sizes ()700 km 2 )for some calves were
due to their di spersalaway from the cow's horne range.There-
fore,subtraction of the area occupied while with the cow will
reduce the size of the area and make them ·comparable with non-
di spersing calf horne ranges.However,for adults the larger
<>1,100 km 2
)home ranges were primarily the result of movements
during the rut (Sept.-Nov.)and/or movements in April away from
wintering areas (see Appendix A moose #'s 623,635,639, 664,
668, 696, 707,708,and 722 for examples in Ballard et al.1982).
During these periods,except during migration,moose appear to
;0-
r
move farther and more frequently
12
than during other
-
seasons.An additional reason for the large size·of some home
ranges was that the method used included high,mountainous areas
(~4,000 .ft.elevation)which are rarely used.
Appendix B compares the annual home range sizes for individual
moose for which more than one year's data exist.Although most
moose obviously utilize the same core area,the specific size of
the area may vary considerably each year.Reasons for these
annual differences may be numerous but we offer the following as
the most likely explanations:.Some migrating moose do not move
each year depending upon weather conditions;some areas are only
used during critical periods (for example,see one-time movement
of moose 664 during severe winter 1978-79);our rate of moni-
toring radio-collared moose was not always sufficient to detect
occupation of areas utilized for short periods of time;some
unknown annual proportion of the moose population colonizes new
areas and subsequently occupies different home ranges (for
example,see permanent movement of moose 725 to area east of the
Coppe r Ri ver).
River Crossings
-
-During 1982,20·radio-collared moose crossed the Susitna River in
the area of the proposed impoundments on 42 occasions bringing ...,.,
the total number of documented crossings since April 1980 to 82 -
13 -
,....
(Table 4).During January,February,May,and September 49%of
the river crossings were initiated (Fig.2).There did not
appear to be any consistent season for individual moose to cross
the river but this was probably the result of relatively infre-
quent monitoring.Undoubtedly the frequency of river crossings
by moose is much greater than what our data suggest.
Zone of Impact
Radio-collared moose which either seasonally or on a year-round
basis occupy areas to be directly altered by operation and main-
tenance of both the Watana and Devil Canyon Impoundments were
used to delineate an area where moose would be directly ~mpacted.
Horne range polygons were determined for each moose which utilizes
ei ther the impoundment or its facilities,and the outermost
borders of all polygons were used to delineate the border of the
primary impact zone (Fig.3).Horne range polygons were computed
by connecting outermost point locations (Mohr 1947)and only for
those moose whic4 had an excess of 4 location points.Similarly,
secondary and tertiary zones of impact were determined by using
the outer edges of moose horne range polygons which overlap moose
which will be directly impacted.The latter two zones were
delineated on the assumption that moose displaced from the
primary zone will compete with moose occupying the secondary and
tertiary zones.
14
14
1 1
10
en
z
~0...
<8 ~~
>
a:
w 7 ..".",en
CD
0 ..,
u.
0
~
~:
M 0 NTH R IV E R ,C R 0 S SIN GIN IT I ATE 0
Flgur.2.Timing of Initiation of mooee qroaelng of the Suaitna River above Devil Canyon,
Alaaka from April 1980 through December 1982.
15
,1 }j )l ).}j ....i 1 }I L
Table 4.Susitna River crossings,and calf production and mortality of 75 radio-collared moose studied from 11 April 1980 through December
1982 in the upper Susitna River Basin of southcentra1 Alaska.Superscripts with the same number indicate cow-calf groups.
#OCcasions Dates of Date First Dates When
Moose SeK-#Times Crossed River Observed #Calves Calves Last #Calves #Calves
#Age Year Located Susitna Ri.ver Crossings With Calves Observed Observed Lost Surviving Misc.Notes
120617 F-A 1980 20 0 --0 0
1981 14 0 --5/29 2 5/29 1 1
1982 16 0 --0 0
120618 F-A 1980 13 0 --0 0 ------Dead 7/1/8!.
1981 3 0 --5/29 1 5/29 1 0 Bear predation.
120619 F-A 1980 16 1 5/13-6/4 0 0
1981 14 5 5/10-6/1 6/1 1 7/1 1 0
6/1-7/1
10/2-10/27
10/27-11/18
11/18-12/9
1982 14 2 5/12-5/24 5/24 1 5/24 1 0
9/27-10/30
.-.120620 F-A 1980 2 --------------Dead 4/22/80'
Q)
120621 F-A 1980 1 j --------------Lost collar
120622 F-A 1980 18 0 --0 0
1981 13 o •--0 0
1982 15 0 --6/8 1 6/8 1 0
120623 F-A 1980 10 0 --0 0
1981 4 0 --10/?1 --0 1
1982 9 2 1/4-2/2 7/10 1 10/30 1 0
2/2-4/16
120624 F-A 1980 14 0 --5/25 1 6/26 1 0
1981 11 4 9/16-10/5 5/29 1 ----0
10/5-10/28
10/28-11/17
1982 13 2 1/5-2/2 --0
2/2-2/24
120625 F-A 1980 6 0 --0 0 ------Dead 6/26/80.
,J )}..1 •1 J I ."I }1 J !.1 J I
II 1 .'~L .r t 1 -]
Table 4.(cont'd)
#Occasions Dates of Date First Dates When
Moose Sex-#Times Crossed River Observed #Calves Calves Last #Calves #Calves
#Age Year Located Susitna River Crossings With Calves .Observed Observed Lost Surviving Misc.Notes
120636 F-A 1980 14 0 ----0
1981 12 0 --5/26 1 5/26 1 0
1982 13 0 --0 0
120637 ~/F-A 1980 16 0 --5/31 2 6/26 1 1
1981 13 0 --0 0
1982 13 0 --8/18 1 8/18 1
120638 F-A 1980 .13 0 --0 0
1981 7 0 --<1/1 1 7/1 1 0 Both cow and calf
killed by bear.
120639 F-A 1980 18 0 --7/14 1 7/14 1 0
1981 10 0 --0 0
1982 15 0 --0 0
120640 Y F-C 1980 13 0 --6/2 1 --0 1
1981 13 0 --<7/1 1 --0 1.....1982 13 0 --0 0():l
120641 1./F-A 1980 17 I 0 --5/31 2 6/26 1 1 Dead 5/82
1981 15 0 --6/1 1 6/1 1 0
1982 7 0 --0 0
120642 ,M-A 1980 14 0 --0 0
1981 12 0 --0 0
1982 16 0 --0 0
120643 F-A 1980 18 0 --0 0
1981 11 0 --5/29 1 5/29 1 0
1982 15 0 --0 0
120644 F-A 1980 14 0 --6/2 2 6/2 2 0
1981 13 0 --0 0
1982 18 0 --0 0
120645 F-A 1980 14 0 --5/25 2 6/6 2 0
1981 13 0 --5/22 1 5/22 1 0
1982 0 --0 0 ------
120646 F-A 1980 3 0 .------------Dead 5/30 from
collaring or
wolf predation.
-
\r
Table 4.(cont'd)
#Occasions Dates of Date First Dates When
Moose Sex-#Times Crossed River Observed #Calves Calves Last #Calves #Calves
#Age Year Located Susitna.River Crossings With Calves Observed Observed Lost Surviving Misc.Notes
120647 F-A 1980 18 2 5/25-5/27 0 0
5/27-5/31
1981 14 2 7/22-8/4 5/26 2 5/26 1 1
8/4-8/9 \
1982 4 1 2/1-2/24 ----------Dead 2/81,apparent
winter kill.
120648 F-A 1980 14 0 --6/27 1 1 0 1
1981 14 0 --5/26 1 5/26 1 0
1982 13 0 --7/28 1 1 0
120649 F-A 1980 14 j 0 --5/25 1 5/25 1 1
1981 15 0 --0 0
1982 13 0 --0 0
120650 F-A 1980 16 0 --5/27 1 ----I
1981 16 0 --0 0
1982 13 0 --6/10 1 --0 1.......
\0 120651 F-A 1980 13 0 0 Dead 1/9/81.I 0 ------
1981 1 0 ------------Wolf Predation.
120652 F-A 1980 16 0 --6/2 2 6/2 2 0
1981 14 0 --0 0
1982 12 0 --6/10 2 6/10 1 1
120653 F-A 1980 14 0 --5/27 2 5/27 2 0
1
1981 14 0 --0 0
1982 16 3 3/13-4/13 0 0
6/10-7/27
8/13-10/8
120654 F-A 1980 14 0 --0 0
1981 12 0 --0 0
1982 14 1 2/1-2/24 0 0
120655 F-A 1980 14 0 --0 0
1981 12 2 9/8-9/16 0 0
9/16-10/28
1982 8 2 12/7-1/5 0 0
1/5-211 Dead 6/82.
120656 F-A 1980 16 0 --6/27 2 6/27 1 1
1981 2 0 --0 0
1982
I •J I •,)J I ..J )I ,~)J ~I J f,.]I
]l J ..J
Table 4.(cont'd)
#Occasions Dates of Date First Dates When
Moose Sex-#Times Crossed River Observed #Calves Calves Last #Calves #Calves
#Age Year Located Susitna River Crossings With Calves Observed Observed Lost Surviving Misc.Notes
--
120675 'Ef M-C 1981 13 0
1982 11 1
12~676 Y M-C 1981 13 2 9/16-10/1
10/1-10/27
1982 12 2 2/24-3/13 0 0
4/15-5/1
120677 1:./M-C 1981 13 2 8/4-9/10
9/10-10/1
1982 12 0
120678 Y F-C 1981 13 0
1982 12 0 --0 0
120679 ~/F-C 1981 14 0
1982 2 0 ------------Dead 2/82.Apparent
N winter kill.
I-'
120680 lO/F_Y 1981 11 .0
1982 12 I 0 --0 0 \
120681 ll/F-C
,
1981 5 0
1982
120682 M-A 1981 6 0
1982
120683 12/F_A 1981 13 2 4/15-5/26 6/24 1 ----1
5/26-6/24
1982 11 0 --6/8 1 6/8 1 0
J 1 ,I J J J !!)I I j I I 1 1 ,1
J j J
Table 4.(cont'd)
#Occasions Dates of Date First Dates When
Moose Sex-#Times Crossed River Observed #Calves Calves Last #Calves #Calves
#Age Year Located Susitna River Crossings With Calves Observed Observed Lost Surviving Misc.Notes
120684 13/F-A 1981 13 0
1982 11 S 1/4-2/1 6/8 1 7/28 1 0
6/8-7/28
7/28-10/30
10/30-11/16
11/16-12/4
12068S 14/F_C 1981 10 0
1982 13 3 5/10-S/28 0 0
5/28-6/1
120686 lS/F-C j 6/1-7/27
1981 12 2 7/22-9/9
9/21-10/1
1982 13 0 --7/27 1 7/27 1 0
120687 16/1981 11 0 --5/26 1 --O.1
1982 9 0 --0 0
N
N 120688 F-A 1981 12 0
1982 8 I 0 --0 0
120689 16/F_C 1981 11 0
1982 10 0 --0 0
120690 13/M-C 1981 11 0
1982 10 0
120691 lS/F_A 1981 12 0
1982 11 2 1/4-2/1
2/1-2/24
120692 14/F_C 1981 11 0 --6/24 1 --0 1
1982
J I J J J I !~I ,.I j J I J !J j J
1 ..:.I ...];
n~..._
\~$",
\
Glennallen I~._.-.-.~)
.~.
Q
"9 2~50,ml
I~•C'"'s{';
.~
.0.)'f.
~~~~~.~.,.~-----~~.~._.o/'...1 .~
.Pa.lon.
./
~.
GLENN HIGHWAY ./..-..........---.-.--'.."..-..--.
8ft PRIMARY IMPACT
~SECONDARY IMPACT
~TERTIARY IMPACT
N
./:'
Figure S.Boundarle.of primary••econdary and tertiary zone.of Impact for the SUlltna Hydroelectric Project ba.ed upon movemente
of radio-collared moo.e from 1978-1982,1n Game Management Unit 13 of .outhcentral Ala.ka.
\!
,....
extrapolated to the total population estimate.Although such an
The proportion of radio-collared moose occurring within the
Numbers of moose occurring wi thin the primary impact zone were
ofnumbertotalthetocomparedwaszone
estimated by 3 methods (Table 5).The first method was similar
to the preliminary analysis provided by Ballard et al.(1982)..-,
impoundment
radio-collared moose within the 1980 census boundary and was then
estimate (1,913 moose)could potentially be biased because of
capture location,over half of the radio-collared moose included
in the method were captured for other studies,and thus were ......
estimate derived from censusing moose count areas 7 and 14 during
and associated square miles of fall habitat for moose which come
low,medium,and high)and its area had been determined.The
Each count
Method 2 applied the average moose density
..
moose density estimates for each stratum were then applied to the
amount of each type occurring within the primary zone.Densities
area had been stratified into one of 4 moose densities (none,
in contact with the Watana impoundment were estimated as follows:_
actual count area boundaries used for the census.
habitat contained within the primary zone.Method 3 utilized the
located away from the project area.Therefore any biases should
fall 1980 (see Ballard et 01.1982)to the amount of moose
be minimized.
High density at 3.7 moose/mi 2 =203 mi 2 ,moderate density at 1.8
moose/mi 2 =315 mi 2 ,and low density at 1.1 moose/mi 2 =445 mi 2 •
25
.";
Table 5.Area of moose habitat (less than 4,000 ft.elevation)and mOose population
estimates for 3 moose impact zones associated with development of the
Susitna Hydroelectric Project.
MP of Mi 2 of Moose Population Estimates
Nomoose Moose #'s Radio Method Method Method
Mi 2 Nabitat Habitat Collared Moose 1 2 3
Primary
Zone 1,378 124 1,254 68 1,913 2,633 2,265
Secondary
Zone 1,750 261 1,489 50 3,765
Tertiary
Zone 2,258 161 2,097 53 4,742
26
I I
Winter Use of Watana Impoundment
be directly affected by the Devil Canyon development.
.habi tat for the Devil Canyon impoundment were classified as
-
Using these estimates,450 moose would
follows:12 mi 2 at high density,146 mi 2 at moderate density and
According to this assessment approximately 1,800 moose would be
directly impacted by the Watana impoundment and its associated
development.Similarly,densities and square miles of fall 1980
\
137 mi 2 at low density.
Methods
27
census was conducted in the Devil Canyon area.
which should be intensively censused during severe winter con-
Conditionslevel.The census was conducted on 25 March 1982.
overcast light conditions I and moderate air turbulence.No
for the census were poor due to complete but old snow cover,
impoundment are a out to 1/4 mi I e from the 2,200 ft.hi gh poo 1
Because moose appeared to concentrate in the Watana impoundment
area during March 1982,an attempt was made·to census the Watana
di tions in future years.
were used to delineate the approximate boundaries of an area
Winter locations of moose found within the impact zone (Fig.4)
&:.
Q:so..
&:.-
Eo..-
......
G)..
.E
CII
CD
G)..
II
IIIooe
"II..
.!
'0u
Io:;•..-o
•co;:•>..
II
J.i0-:
~.!uc...-:If-"ccII
.~e;
.0
:J III..-.,Q 0
II IIIILc
:he...~m
c·"
•II-,>-a:...~c
.E~
:.:J
_0)
o ..
C·IIoa.-a.;:r
,Q"E~
.!!•
Q c:c•u.-II II...Z
:r II!if&:.
IL-
28
Ii
Results
A total of 4.4 hours were spent surveying 96.8 mi 2 of habitat
(river water area excluded)during which 174 moose were observed
(Table 6).Because of the relatively low sampling intensity
(2.73 minjmi 2 )and poor surveying conditions,certainly not all
moose-present were observed.We utilized the observability cor-
rection factor obtained from censusing the proposed burn area to
provide a minimum estimate of the moose not observed.This
resulted in a minimum population estimate of 290 moose (3 moosej
mi 2)utilizing the impoundment area on 25 March 1982.This
latter estimate was 7 times greater than the number of moose
estimated to occupy the area in March 1981.(Ballard et al.
1982).
Recruitment
Although no attempt was made to measure productivity of radio-
collared cow moose during 1982,productivity appeared comparable
to earlier studies (Ballard et al.1981,1982).However,mor-
tali ty(approximately 71%)of calves continued at a relatively
high level (Table 4)and was similar to earlier years where most
losses were attributable to predation by brown bears (Ballard
et al.1980i 1981i 1982).
29
....
....
,~
'"""
Table 6.Distribution of moose in 4 areas of the proposed Watana impoundment
on the"Susitna River,Alaska observed during an aerial census on
25 March 1982.
Area #of Moose
Adults Calves Unknown Total Moose
Upstream end to Goose Creek 26 9 35
Goose Creek to Jay Creek 55 17 6 78
Jay Creek to Watana Creek 28 5 6 39
Watana Creek to downstream end 13 5 4 22
Totals 122 36 16 "174
30
1\
SECTION I I I.LAND USE
Vegetation/Habitat Selection
Methods
Use of 19 habitat types around the proposed Devil Canyon and
Watana impoundments was determined by overlaying locations of
radio-collared moose onto portions of the 1:63,360 scale vege-
tation maps provided by Palmer Agricultural Experimental Station
(Subtask 7.12,1982).This included only moose occupying the
primary impact zone (Fig.3).Habitat types were identified
according to Viereck and Dyrness 's (1980)level I I classifi-
cation.
Two methods were used for determining habitat use:(1)Only
moose locations within the borders of a specific type were
tallied and locations on ecotone areas (borders of mapped vege-
tation types)were excluded;and (2)locations on ecotone areas
(borders)were added to the specific types which were used.Be-
cause availability of these habitat types had been calculated in
the Subtask 7.12 1982 report for a greater area than just near
the impoundments (Gold Creek to the Maclaren River)we had to
determine habitat availability for this smaller area of concern.
31
-
Availability of each habitat type was determined by overlaying a
grid (mesh =.01 mi 2 )on the vegetation maps and randomly
selecting grid points.The habitat type or types wi thin each
selected grid intersect was tallied.All moose locations within
the mapped areas were included.
Results
Based on a preliminary assessment,the following habitat types
were preferred in relation to their:availabili ty by moose both
year-round and in spring:woodland black spruce,open black
spruce,closed mixed forest and woodland white spruce (Table 7).
Willow habitat tYI:>es were preferred-when ecotones were included
but were not selected out of proportion to their availability
when ecotones were excluded.During spring,willow habitat types
were used proportionally less than their availability.Also,low
shrub habitat types were used year-round in excess of their
availability when ecotone areas were excluded.'Lakes,rock,
sedge-grass tundra,sedge-shrub tundra,and mat-cushion tundra
were generally used less than expected based upon their avail-
abili ty.Generally,the remaining vegetation types not listed
above were used in proportion to their abundance.Because cor-
rected updated vegetation maps are currently in preparation and
only moose locations obtained from April 1980 to September 1981
were included,all conclusions based upon this analysis are pre-
liminary.
32
II
-
Table 7.Availability of 19 habitat types and moose utilization of them in the
Susitna River Study Area from April 1980 through September 1981.
~
All locations Spring Locations
Ecotones Ecotones Ecotones
excluded included included
%%%%
Habitat Type Available Use X2 Use X 2 Use X2
Low shrub 21.0 25.9 4.2*23.6 2.0 24.5 1.4
Mat-cushion tundra 12.5 0.7 52.5*2.3 65.1*3.0 18.2*1""'"'
Birch 11.1 9.9 0.5 11.9 0.3 10.7 2.9
Woodland black spruce 9.7 19.8 31.1*17.5 28.6*15.0 6.2*
Open black spruce 6.1 13.8 27.4*12.6 28.5*12.0 11.1*
Open tall shrub 5.7 3.3 4.1*3.8 3.8 4.7 0.4
Sedgegrass tundra 5.4 1.5 12.0*1.7 18.5 2.6 3.5
Closed mixed forest 5.0 8.1 5.9*8.9 12.9*12.0 17.4*
Woodland white spruce 4.3 9.0 14.7*7.9 12.8*7.3 4.1*
Sedge shrub tundra 3.9 0.2 15.6*0.3 26.2*
Open mixed forest 3.6 2.6 0.9 2.2 3.4 2.1 1.3
Open white spruce 2.3 2.2 0.03 2.6 0.1 1.7 0.4
Closed tall shrub 2.2 1.1 2.2 1.3 2.4 2.6 0.1
Rock 2.0 0 9.2*0 15.9*
Lake 1.8 0.4 4.3*0.3 9.7*
Willow 1.1 0.7 0.7 2.2 4.0*0.9 11.4*-.
Closed birch forest 0.9 0.4 0.9 0.4 1.9 0.9 0.3
Open birch forest 0.8 0.2 1.6 0.4 1.2
Wet sedge grass tundra 0.6 0 2.8 0.4 0.5
Totals 100.0 99.8 190.7*100.3 237.8*100.0 64.0*
N 1450 455 784 233
grid moose moose moose
points locations locations locations -*Use significantly different (1'<0.051 than expected,based on habitat
availability.
""'"
....,
33
Methods
were determined by extrapolating between contour lines to the
Use of·Various Elevations,Slopes and Aspects
Elevations
Moose usage was determinedscaletopographicmaps(U.S.G.S.).
into those associated with each impoundment area.
tions in the impact zone and the availability data were divided
from radio locations plotted on topographic maps.Moose loca-
these variables at the intersection of section lines on 1:63,360
moose wi thin the primary impact zone was assessed by recording
The availability of various elevations,slopes,and aspects to
nearest 50 ft.interval.To assess ~he importance of the area to
be inundated and also lands immediately adjacent to the impound-
ments which are most likely to be altered from such things as
project facilities,changes in microclimate,changes in plant
phenology,we determined the proportion of moose locations within
the primary impact zone occurring at or below 2,300 ft.Slopes
were classified into 3 categories:flat =OQ to 10 0 with contour
line intervals exceeding 0.19 inch,gentle =11 0 to 30 0 with
contour line intervals ranging from 0.03 to 0.19 inch,and
..--moderate =~300 with contour line intervals less than 0.03
inches.Aspect was classified as flat,or 1 of 8 compass
directions,from the direction of a line perpendicular to the
contour lines through the moose location point.
34
I j
~!
Results
There was considerable variation in the monthly and annual eleva-
tions occupied by radio-collared moose in the primary impact zone
(Table 8).Generally,moose in the project area move to higher
elevations in October,presumably to breed,and then depending on
snow conditions,begin moving downward reaching the lowest eleva-
tions occupied during the year from January through May (Fig.5).
Moose appear to be driven to lower elevations in winter by heavy
snowfall i however,we suspect that in average or mi ld winters,
temperature inversions and high winds make foraging and traveling
easier at higher elevations.Consequently,moose may occupy
relatively high areas in winter and spring depending on snow
depths,temperatures,and other factors.Moose occupy lower ele-
vations in late spring 'and early summer during calving.This may
be related to earlier snow melt,earlier growth of spring forage,
and perhaps increased cover requirements during calving.
-
1l!P'i,
The monthly importance of elevations at or below 2,300 ft.to -
moose within the primary impact zone was quite variable between
years except during winter and spring months.Use during at
least 1 month each winter and spring exceeded 30%of the loca-
tions (Table 9).As expected,use of the impoundment zone by
moose was lowest during the months of October through December.
Overall,21.4%of all moose locations collected from October 1976
through May 1982 were at or less than 2,300 ft.elevation.
35
1 J 1 j
Table 8.Average monthly elevations for 74 radio-collared moose studied intermittently from October 1976 through May 1982 in the primary impact zone of the
Susitna project.
1976~77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82
i i i ###
Month x Range (Moose)it Range (Moose)it Range (Moose)it Range (Moose)x Range (Moose)x Range (Moose)
June 1800-1300 1600 1725
2548 3800 (12)2575 3900 (12)2800 --(1)2454 3650 (32)2710 3800 (29)
July 2200-1600 2000 1500
2930 4000 (14)2455 3600 (11)2514 4200 (13)2590 3400 (48)
Aug~2100·2200 1800 1900
2856 3900 (14)2856 4000 (13)2592 3300 (31)2435 3050 (24)
t
Sept.2200 1800 1450
2631 3400 (12)2800 --11l 2620 3300 (30)2566 4100 (49)
Oct.3000-2000 2100 1800 1450
w 3333 3600 (6)2786 3200 (14)3024 3900 (11)3700 --(l)2850 3700 (29)2797 4550 (49)a-
Nov.2400-1900 1450 1900 2100 1950
2700 3200 (5)2821 3600 (III 2658 3600 (10)2350 2800 11l 2902 3600 (29)2725 3850 (47)
Dec.2400-I 1600 2800 1975
2708 3500 (6)------2620 3600 (10)3044 3750 (16)2731 4100 (43)
Jan.2000-2300 1900 1800 1650
2233 3400 (6)2525 2800 (4)2~75 3600 (8)2689 3400 (15)2515 4300 (42)
Feb.2300-1800 2600 1400 1400
2578 2800 (5)2770 3600 (10)2667 2800 (3)2512 3500 (25)2485 3600 (~4)
March 2200-2200-2200-1700-1600-
2850 3600 (14)2550 2900 (4)2713 3400 (8)2396 3300 (48)2461 3500 (43)
April 1800-1900-2100-1500-1500-1375
2476 3600 (15)2490 3800 (10)2543 3200 (7)2327 3300 (30)2583 3500 (36)2503 4100 (42)
May 1400-1900-1400-1400-1975-
2452 3800 (13)2471 2800 (13)------2387 3400 (28)2565 3400 (46)2480 3500 (43)
I!
-
-
1lit77-78
1978-79
1979-.80
1880-81 _
1981-82
---av.rag.
••••••1978-77 -.
...\~~---·.\.,_..'.
\..
• °
\..-'......-'................~..-.·......·..."••:---:'.~....-."""-.....
••••~...0~l <.'j
~:\,.
••• •••• •~.••••...-
•••••••••••••••••\:/
\;../y.
\.••
. I /-...//,;'..'".....-'\I
"'J
2400
3200
3300
3400
2300
_2200---+----t...........+---+-~~-~I__-+_......_+_-_+--+_-_+_-_+_--
Z 3000
o
;::2900
<
~2800
...J
W 2700
W
C'<2600
a:
~2500
-<
-
::.3100-
MONTH
FI.....5.M....Monthly .I•.,atlon.occupied by 74 rad~onared moo••fro..Octob.r 1878 througlt
May 1882 In the prlt'llary Impact zone of tlta·Su.ltna proj.ct.""'"
)j 1 ).l..J l
•
.~
.-
Ii
Watana Impoundment
Elevations ranging from 2,001-2,200 and 2,401-3,000 ft.within
the primary impact zone of the Watana impoundment were used more
than expected (P<O.OS)based upon availability,while elevations
from 1,201-1,400 ft.and in excess of 3,204 ft.were used less
(P<O.OS)than expected (Fig.6).Elevations ranging from 1,401-
2,000,2,201-2,400,and 3,001-3,200 ft.were used in proportion
to their availability (P)O.OS).During winter and spring,
elevations ranging from 1,601-2,000,and 2,201-2,800 ft.were
used more than expected (P<O.OS),reflecting the downward
movement of moose during these seasons (Fig.·7).Elevations in
excess of 3,001 ft.were used less than expected (P<O.OS)during
winter and spring seasons.
Similarly,slope usage by moose was not random (P<O.OS),
X2 =24.S).Flat slopes were used less than expected (P<O.OS)
while moderate slopes were used more than expected (P<O.OS),both
year-round and from January to May (Fig.8):Gentle slopes were
used in proportion to their availability (P<O.OS).
39
-
j j I,~'1.!
o •I r I
20
enz 18
0
~18i ~I .'
L:l.v.lI.ltIUtr of .I.vatlon (n-81i4)
..,ltv.Uon.1 u""tbi "00",
>1t.,..,ouncl (n _tie )..
0::1 ..
W
enm 12
0
U-10
~0'0
W 8 •.................................................-
CJ
c(
6t-
·z
W ..
0
a:
w 2
Q.
'R A N G E o F ELEVATIONS
Figure e.Vt.r-round tl.vat'onl'u..gt br r.cllo-coll.'td moo ..In ,•••tlon to .van.blllty In the prlmerr impact nnt of tht propo ••d
Wat,n.ImpOllndmtnt,1870-Ut8a..
o F
20
Q 'I ,.,
18 _-
~181 J I
CJ ;avall,blilty ~f el.vatlon Cn.864)
...It.vatlonal u.ag.·..r moo ••,Jan-Uay (n.847)
..
t-
4(14>
a:
w
U)12
m
.JO-~1°1 I I I I •......
W 8
(!)
4(...8Z
w
0 na:..
w
Q.I-
2
J
Flgur.7.U••of varloua Ilevationa by radlo-collar.d moo ••In r.la"on to avallabUlty during January-May In the primary Impact zone along
the Sualtna River nlar Watana Cre.k.Ala.ka from 1878-1882.
I I I I J J J )I )!I I I J .J )J
-~-i
South slopes were used more than expected (X 2 =21.65,P<0.05)
while flat slopes were used less than expected (X 2 =22.9,
P<0.05)(Fig.9).All other aspect categories were used in pro-
portion to their availability (P>0.05).A similar situation also
existed during winter and spring months (X 2 =63.97,P<0.005)
except that southwest slopes were used more than expected
(P<0 .05,X 2 =4.05 ) .
Devil Canyon
Elevations ranging from 1,601 to 2,400 ft.were used relatively
more by moose both year-round and during January to May (P<0.05),
while those in excess of 2,800 ft were used either significantly
less than expected (P<0.05)or in proportion to their occurrence
(Frgs.10 and 11).However,area with elevations to be inundated
by the Devil Canyon impoundment were used in proportion to their
availability (P>0.05).
Moose occupying the Devil Canyon area used both south and south-
west facing slopes more than expected (P<0.05)based upon avail-
abili ty (Fig.12).North facing slopes were used less than
expected (P<0.05),while all other slope categories were used in
proporti on to thei r occurrence.
42
I~
MODERATE
>300
o avanablllty of slop.en 978)
rrrrm .101'.u.age by m.oo •••
IJJJlJj Jan-May (n=89H
•.
:'..101'.u.ag.by moo.••~
.y.ar·round en=1820)
0--......--
FLAT
Oo~1~
80
t/)
Z 50
0-...
<
>
_.
a:40
W
~-·CD
0 .'30 -&I..
0
W -CJ
-<20...~,
Z
W
()
~cr
W 10~-
S LOP E
FIgure a.U..of trtr...Iope cla....lcatlon.by radlo-collared moo••In relation to
avaUabli1ly In the primary Impact zone along the Su.llna River near Watans Creek.
Ala.ka from 1978·1982.
43
}1
D .nlll.blUt,of ••p.ct (n=888)'
a.p.ot u.aa'by "'00".
,••r-round (n =1583)
I.p.ot u'.a'by "'00".~.n-M.,(n:eaal
2~
~O
(/)
z
0 18-l-
e(·18
>
a:
w 14
(/)
m
0 12
.j>-
.j>-&L
0 10
W
CJ a
e(
I-
Z ..
W
0
a:.of
ILl
0..
2
0
N NE E 8&I 8 I 8W·
A 'S PEe T
111
ITIJII]
W·NW FLAT
..Flaur.8.Yelr-round Ind ••••0n.1 u••of .Iop•••p.ot.b,rldlo-coll.r.d moo ..In r.latlon to avan.bllll,In th.prlmar,Imp.ct zone
along th.Su.ltnl River near W.tan.Cr.ek.Ali.h from 1178-1882..
,I:
22
-
Davallablllty of elevation (n =482)
P.I!!!l!R elevatlonal usage by moose,
..year-round (n =298)
2
24
18
20
w
CJ 10
~
I-
Z
W
(J 8
a:
w
Q.
C1J
Z
o
-18...
~
>a:
w 1·4
C1J
CD
o
u..12
o
45
20
-----~-~_I§~~~~I~I~lili~~~iliS~••i~~.1
ELEVATION RANGE (FEET)
-~
..
I
D .availability of elavatlon (n=482)
IIIIID alavatlonal usaga by moosa.
-.Jan-May (n =118)
I-
--
-
--
--
--
I-
i-
~
-I--
-
l-
I
-
100-
-I-r""!"
I-100-
i
-l-
I--
I
,
.,
j--,
I
I I-I-I
I
I-100-
I
'I I,---,
! '
!-,...II I,I'I
i I !!
!i i .~~'I
i III,II ~..Ii I I
I i I
II
I
I
i III!i II I I j II-t I :I I I-nl-tl
ISI§81~ijl ---,8 81 ---------I§I~I !I:-1 iisl :1ilfil~I il 21 I r I I I
a
18
18
en
z
0 ·14
t-
CC.
>a:
w 12
en
ED
0
La.10
0
W
CJ 8
CC
t-
Z
w·
..-0 8
a:
W
.-.a..
4·
..-
2
.1"""1
Figura 11.U..of varloua elavatlona by radlo-collarad moo.a from January-May In relation to
availability In the primary Impact zona along the Sultna River near DevH Canyon.Alaaka from
1878-1882.
46
;~
o av.lablUty of ••p.ct (n c I02),
•..p.ct u'.a'by moo ••,
y.ar-round (n"'2~2),
nrrm .'P.ct u.aa'by moo.e.
lllI.LjJ Jan-M.y en ..112)
SE 8
ASPECT
SW w NW FLAT'
Flaw.12.U••of nln •••p.ctl by r.dlo-collarad moo ..from 1871-18••'"ral.tlon to avall.bliity In the primary Impact Ion••Iona the
e".Iln.Rlv.,....r DevU Canyon.AI.aka.'
I 1 ,I I .I ]I ~I ,;J I 1 J J l I ]
Both year-round and during January to May flat slopes (Fig.13)
were used less than expected (p<O.Os)while moderate slopes were
used more than expected (p)0 .05).During January to May gentle
slopes were used in proportion to their occurrence (p<O.Os),but
year-round they were used more than expected (P <0 .05).
SECTION IV.MOOSE POPULATION MODELING
Introduction
In an attempt to identify additional mechanisms of project impact
and to quantify impacts previously identified by Ballard et al.
(1982),a multidisciplinary model -i s currently being developed
for moose.This segment of the report presents our progress in
developing a satisfactory moose population model for pre-project
conditions.Because longer,more intense moose population
studies to assess the impacts of predation on moose were pre-
viously conducted in an adj acent portion of GMU 13 (Ballard et
I
al.1981 a,b),that area was used as the-basis for this par-
ticular model.Boundaries of the area were previously described
by Ballard et al.(1981a).Briefly,the boundaries are the
~.
Alaska Range on the north,Brushkana and Deadman Creeks on the
west,Susitna River on the south and the Maclaren River on the
east.Although this area extends beyond the impact zones,we
believe that the biological characteristics of the area are
representative of the project area.Also,an attempt was made to
48
I I
~.
-
MODERATE
>3cf
GENTLE
1,0-300
S LOP E
FLAoT_
0°_10°·
O...Aoo!......--
-
70 D a.aII8blllty Of.~(n=501)
III .~Iop.u.ag.by moo...-yeu-round (n=284)
ITIIIIJ .Iop.u ••g.by moo...
Jan-M.y (n =120)en ...~
80Z
0 ~i,
~
4(50>
a:
w ~
CIJ
CD
~-
0
~
0
30
w'""'"C'
4(-~
Z 20
w -()
a:
w 10 ~
a.
~,
Flgur.13.ua.of ttl,..slope c....lflcationa by r.dIo-coUand 1ItOO..In rel.tIon to
~th.1r av.llabllity In the prl",.ry Imp.ct zona along the Sualtna Rlv.r.AI••k.
n ••r D.vll Canyon fro.1878-1982•
.49
model the entire GMU 13 moose population as well,in an effort to
provide a comparison to the Susitna model and allow assessment of
the percentage of the GMU 13 moose population to be impacted by
the project.Both models will be published elsewhere (Ballard et
ale In Prep.).
These population models start with an estimate of population
size,and sex and age structure,and proceed through an annual
cycle of reproduction and mortality factors which for these
models are termed "events"(Fig.14).Population estimates are
calculated for each year at calving and subsequently the popu-
lation declines as mortali ty factors act on the population.
Population Estimates
Population Size
The starting 1975 population size estimate (X)for each model was
derived from the following formula:
-X =(A)(By
C
Where A is the number of moose observedjhour during the 1975
autumn composition counts;B is the 1980 area population estimate
for either the study area or GMU 13;and C is the number of moose
observedjhour during the 1980 autumn composition counts which
50
Pre-calving moose
population estimate
~
Event 1 -Reproduction
+
Event 2 -Early spring and summer
mortality (excluding predation)
i
Event 3 -Spring wolf predation
(15 May -15 July)
!
Event 4 -Summer wolf predation
(15 July - 1 Nov.)
+
Event 5 -Brown bear predation
~
Event 6 -Black bear predation
~
Event 7 -Hunter harvest
t
Event 8 -Winter mortality
(excluding predation)
~
"-Event 9 -Winter wolf predation
(1 Nov.-15 May)
~-
-
""'"
"""
Fig.14.Timing and sequence of factors used in the models to
determine the annual population dynamics of moose
in the Susitna River Study Area and the entire
GMU 13 in southcentral Alaska.
-51
~,
-
were conducted immediately before the census.We assumed that
the numbers of moose observed/hour during fall composition counts
reflected annual changes in moose density.Variable B was esti-
mated from a census during November 1980.Approximately 8,142
km 2 of GMU 13,which included all of the 7,262 km 2 wolf removal
area,were stratified and censused to determine the number of
moose,using quadrat sampling techniques described by Gasaway
(1978)and Gasaway et al.(1979).Moose density estimates
derived during the census in 1980 were used as the basis for
grossly estimating numbers of moose within'the Susitna Study Area
and wi thin GMU 13 from 1975-1981.The actual moose population
estimate in fall 1980 was used as a check for the population size
generated by the proj ect model.It was assumed that for the
model to be valid,the fall 1980 population estimate derived from
the model should closely coincide wi th the census estimate.
A different approach was used for the GMU 13 model.Those por-
tions of GMU 13 not censused in 1980 were stratified into 4
density categories (none,low,moderate,an~high).The strati-
fication was based upon a combination of distribution and numbers
of moose observed during composition counts conducted from
1975-1981,and the knowledge of 5 biologists with experience in
this area (more than 24 man-years).Density estimates for the 4
categories derived from sampling were then applied to the non-
sampled ,area to arrive at a GMU 13 population estimate of 23,000
52
I I I
moose for fall 1980.The GMU 13 model was modified so that the
fall 1980 population size generated by the model would conform
wi th the estimate derived from censusing and stratification.
Event 1 -Reproduction and Sex and Age Structure
The sex ratio of calves at birth was assumed to be 50:50 while-
the sex ratio of yearlings and adults was determined by the pre-
vious year's estimate of reproduction and mortality.In the case
of year 1 (1975)the sex ratio was determined by the fall moose
composi tion count and back calculated to correspond with popu-
lation size at calving (Fig.15).All age classifications were
directly extrapolated from the count data except for the percent
of calves in the herd.This was adjusted upward by 5%because
calves are often located away from large groups of moose and are
usually underestimated in-composition counts (Ballard et ale 1982
a,b and Gasaway pers.comm.).Also,because preliminary runs
revealed that in both models,populations declined to extinction,
initial estimates of numbers of yearlings were doubled.Esti-
mates of yearlings based upon composition counts were drastically
underestimated,probably because they were incorrected aged as
adults.
Pregnancy rates of cow moose were determined from recta-l pal-
pation of captured animals in 1976,1977,and 1980 (VanBallen-
berghe 1978;Ballard and Taylor 1980;and Ballard et a1.1982).
53
-
-
-
--
-
i"~•.
Adult Fecundity Rate
Male
Calves
Female
Calves
Proportion Females
Proportion Males
Newborn
Calves
Adult
Females
Yearling Fecundity Rate
Yearling
Females
54
Schematic diagram of Event 1 (reproduction)for
the moose model.
Fig.15.
Input Variables:
(1)Fecundity
(2)Fecundity
(3)Sex Ratio
Rate for Yearlings
Rate for Adults
at Birth
Although some minor variations in rates was noted,we assumed
that 88%of the sexually mature cows (~2 yr age)were pregnant
each year.
Estimates of moose productivity were determined during calf col-
laring programs from 1977-79 (Ballard et al.1980;1981)and were
estimated at 135 calves/100 pregnant"cows or 1.19 calves/adult
cow.Productivity of 2-year-olds was estimated at 0.29 calves/
cow (from Blood 1974).For the models,we assumed that product-
ivity remained constant each year (which was probably not the
case).In fact,in that portion of the Susitna River Study Area
where"brown bears were transplanted,there was a significant
(P<O.Ol)negative relationship between the preceding winter's
snow depth and the following fall's calf:cow ratio (Ballard et
al.1980),suggesting that some fluctuations in productivity
occur due to winter severity.However,because of large vari-
ations in snow depth between drainages,and because calf survival
has been significantly increased by predator reduction programs
following severe winters,we were unable to modify productivity
estimates based on available data.
Event 2 -Early Spring and Summer Mortali ty (Excluding Predation)
Following birth,both calf and adult mortality estimates
(Fig.16)were subtracted from the population.Immediately after
birth,6%of the calves were assumed to die from natural factors
55
...
-
-
-
....
Number of
Moose by ><
sex and age
Mortality Rate ..Number of
by sex Deaths by
and age sex and age
-!
-Fig.16.
Input Variables:
(1)Mortality Rate for each sex and age group
Schematic diagram of Events 2 and B (early spring
and winter mortality)for the moose model.
56
•I I
-
other than wolf and bear predation such as stillbirthl drownings l
and other accidents (from Ballard et al.1981).
Events 3 1 4 1 9 _.Wolf Predation
Estimates of annual moose mortality due to wolf predation for
each model were divided into 3 time periods to correspond·with
pup production l human exploitation and natural mortality 1 and
changes in diet composition (Fig.17).The time periods were as
-
follows:#1)15 May-1S July (Event 3);#2)15 July-l November
(Event 4);and #3)1 November-IS May (Event 9).Period #1 encom-
passes the wolf denning period and represents the annual low in
dependent on the alpha female for nourishment during this time
the wolf population.Because pups are quite small and totally
period l no food consumption was allocated for them.Period #2
encompassed the post-denning period and represents the highest
level of the wolf population (adults plus pups prior to hunting ~
and trapping season)during the year.For this latter time period
we assumed that pups had similar food requirements as adults.
Period #3 encompassed both the populations's highest level during
the year (prior to hunting and trapping season)but also the
lowest level (post hunting and trapping season).Consequently 1
we used the mid-point between the two population estimates to
provide an average number of wolves for the winter.Wolf popu-
lation levels were derived from Table 30 from Ballard et al.In
Prep.for the Susitna River study Area while the GMU 13 estimates
were derived from Tables 22 and 30 (2£.cit.)-
57
propo~~~Yearlings and Adults
Average
Weight of
Yearlings and
Adults
Number
of
Wolves
Average
Weight of
Calf .
x Consumption
rate per
wolf per day
.Total kgs wolf
consumption
x Number of
Days of
Wolf Predation
Number of
Calves \killed
.Number of
Yearlings and
Adults killed
Input Variables:
(1)Number of Wolves
(2)Consumption Rate of Wolves
(3)Number of Days of v~olf Predation
(4)Proportion of Wolf Kill Consisting of Calves
(5)Proportion of Wolf Kill Consisting of Yearlings and Adults
(6)Average Weight of Calves
(7)Average Weight of Yearlings and Adults
Fig.17.Schematic diagram of Events 3,4 and 9 (wolf.
predation)for the moose model.
58
Estimates of percent biomass of moose consumed by wolves for
Period 1 were based entirely on scat analyses according to
methods described by Floyd et al.(1978).The analyses indicated
that 91%of the biomass of prey consumed by wolves from 15 May-
15 July was compri sed of ungulates,with calf and adult moose
comprising 35%and 47%,respectively,of the total biomass con-
sumed.Estimates of percent biomass of calf and adult moose con-
sumed by wolves during Periods 2 (15 July-l November)and 3
(1 November-15 May)were determined from kills observed while
monitoring radio-marked packs.The estimates for the study were
divided into 2 time periods to correspond with the increased
importance of caribou as wolf prey from 1979-1981.From 1975-
1978 we estimated that from 15 July-1 November (Period 2)calf
and adult moose comprised 12%and 78%,respectively,of the prey
biomass,while from 1 November-15 May (Period 3)calf and adult
moose comprised 18%and 73%,respectively,of the biomass.
During Period 2 from 1979-1981,percent biomass of adult moose
declined to 73%,while the percent of calf moose remained con-
stant.Percent biomass declined to 17%and 68%calf and adult
moose,respectively,during Period 3 from 1979-1981.
The estimated biomass of calf and adult moose killed by wolves
during each time period per year was extrapolated from wolf popu-
lation estimates for each period mu1 tiplied by the numbers of
days in each period multiplied by the estimates of wolf daily
consumption rates.For all 3 time periods,it was assumed that
59
-
...
Event 5 -Brown Bear Predation
literature and thus we consider the estimates of number of moose
Predation rates of brown bear on bOth adult and calf moose were
The relocation flightsInPrep.).
moose killed was estimated by dividing the average weight of each
age class for each period derived from literature and field
rate used is relatively high in "relation to that reported in the
mates of percent biomass by prey species were then multiplied to
wolves consumed 7.1 kgs prey/wolf/day (Table 20 £E.cit.).Esti-
studies into the estimated biomass.The wolf daily consumption
derived from observations of kills during daily relocation
deri ve estimated biomass.For each time period,the number of
Table 35 from Ballard et ale
flights of 23 adult radio-collared bears (Ballard et ale 1981 and
"killed per year to be inflated.
were done between 15 May-15 July,the period of most brown bear
predation on moose (Ballard et ale 1981).Kill rates of adult
moose were calculated by assuming that all adult moose killed by
the 23 radioed bears between 15 May to 15 July were observed
(N=28),and after this time no adult moose were killed.Observed
rates of calf moose killed were 1 calf/9.4 days/adult bear.
These kill rates were extrapolated to the adult bear population
estimates for the Susi tna Study Area and GMU 13 (derived from
60
Ii
Miller and Ballard 1982}.No information was available on annual
bear population fluctuations so for th~se models we assumed a
stable population from 1975-1981 (Fig.18).
Preliminary runs of the model indicated that kill rates of calf
moose were too high.It seems more likely that estimates of bear
kill rates on calf moose would be underestimated even from daily
relocation flights because many bears remained on calf kills less
than 24 hours (Ballard,unpub.data).Therefore,we modified
the estimates of calf kill rate by assuming that the magnitude of
bear predation was partially dependent on the density of moose
calves.'For the study area model,it was assumed that bears
preyed upon 50%of the estimated number of calves produced for
1977 and 1978.This was based upon estimates derived from·moose
composi tion counts (0.14 calves/bear/day for 60 days and 0.02
adul tsjbear/day,for 60 days).At higher levels of calf pro-
duction than the 1977 and 1978 levels,we assumed that the
numbers preyed upon remained constant.At lower levels of calf
production,we assumed that a linear relationship existed between
percent calves taken by bears and calves produced.During 1979
only,we reduced brown bear predation on calves to 0.10 calves/
bear/day to correspond with removal of 47 transplanted bears from
the Susitna Study Area for a 2-month period in late spring and
early summer (Miller and Ballard 1983).
61
-
.....
-.
.....
Adjusted
Consumption
Rate on Calves
Adjusted
Consumption
Rate on Yearlings
and Adults
Maximum Bear
Consumption Rate
per Bear per Day
on Yearlings and
Adults
I 2000tYearlings plus Adults
o
Number of Bears
2000
calves!o
Maximum Bear
Consumption
Rate per Bear
per Day on
calves
Input:.Var~ables:
(1)Maximum Consumption Rate on Calves
(2)Maximum Consumption Rate on Yearlings and Adults
(3)Number of Bears
(4)Number of Days of Bear Consumption
Number of Calves
Killed
"-Number of Days
Bear Predation
Number of Year-
lings &Adults
Killed
Fig.18..Schematic diagram of Events 5 and 6 (brown bear
and black bear predation)for the moose model.
62
Preliminary runs of the project model suggested that our esti-
mates of bear predation on adults were also too high.The
original kill estimates meant that an excess of 20%annual adult
moose mortality occurred from brown bear predation alone.Such
estimates,compared with all of the other mortality factors were
obviously greatly exaggerated.Because many bears remain with
adul t moose kills for 5-6 days,periodic relocation of beats
could tend to overestimate kill rates,similar to overestimation
of wolf kill rates (Fuller and Keith 1980).However,most of
our data were collected during contiguous daily flights and
because individual carcasses and bears could usually be identi-
fied,the rates should not have been greatly exaggerated.Pos-
sibly the 23 adult radio-collared bears had ki 11 rates greater
than the rest of the bear population,but we have no evidence to
support this idea.Predation estimates on adult moose were
modified in a similar way to those for calf moose except that we
assumed that at the 1977 and 1978 moose population estimates
brown bears were responsible for 7%adult mortali ty.
Preliminary runs of the GMU 13 model suggested that the estimates
of bear predation derived for the Susitna area were also too high
for the entire unit.This was not unexpected since we originally
applied bear density estimates obtained for the Susi tna area
(Miller and Ballard 1982b)to the entire unit.Undoubtedly vari-
ations in both brown bear density and predation on calves occur
wi thin the unit.Consequently,both the number of bears and
63
~.
'""'"
"""'.
-
-
~,
predation rates were subjectively adjusted downwards to 708 adult
bears preying on calf and adult moose at a rate of 0.10 calves/
bear/day and 0.01 adult moosejbear/day during 1S May-1S July.
Event 6 -Black Bear Predation
Although black bears (Ursus americanus)occur in GMU 13 and they
have been observed preying on moose (Ballard and Miller,unpub.
data),they were rare and were considered an insignificant source
of mortality wi thin the Susi tna River Study Area.However,
because black bears were quite numerous in other portions of
.GMU 13,they were incorporated into the GMU 13 model (Fig.18).
~"
Based on existing density estimates and observed rates of pre-
dation from one portion of the unit,we originally estimated that
1,650 black bears occur in the Unit and that they were preying on
calf and adult moose at a rate of 0.021 and O.012jbear/day,
respectively.Similar to brown bear predation rates,preliminary
runs suggested that perhaps both the population estimates and the
predation rates for black bear were too high.Consequently,they
were subj ectively reduced to a population of 1,000 black bears
preying on moose at 0.003 calvesjbear/day and 0.001 adultsjbear/
day for 60 days following birth.
64
Event 7 -Hunter Harvest
Annual hunting mortality,which during this study affected bulls
only,was determined for each year of study from "mandatory har-
vest reports"(Fig.19).Harvest reports from successful and
unsuccessful moose hunters are required by law in GMU 13,how-
ever,this is not enforced and compliance is less than 100%.To
encourage moose hunters to report results of their hunt,reminder
letters are sent to all those who took a harvest ticket but did
not report their hunt results.Because no reminder letters were
sent in 1980,the harvest for that year was determined by extra-
polating from return and non-return reports in previous years to
reports returned in 1980.
Antler measurements on harvest reports since 1978 provided a
basis for grossly estimating the number of yearlings killed,
although some measurements were undoubtedly false.Antler
measurements of :So30 inches were considered to be yearlings or
younger.Beginning in 1980,only bulls with'antler spreads of 36
inches or at least 3 brow tines were legal for harvest.For the
1978 and 1979 hunting seasons 55.4%of the measured moose had
antlers of 30"or less,therefore we assumed that annually from
1975-1979 half of the harvest was comprised of yearling bulls.
The annual hunting mortality rate for adult bulls was estimated
at 25%based on radio-collar data (N =28).
65
......
~,
-
Input Variables:
(1)Number of Moose Harvested by sex and age
Number of
Moose by
sex and age
minus
Number of
Moose Harvested
by sex and age
Fig.19.Schematic diagram of Event 7 (hunting mortality)
for the moose model.
66
iii
a
(from Gasaway et al.In Press):
Event 8 -Winter Mortali ty(Excluding Predation)
~,The magnitude of winter mortality
Winter mortality was calculated as follows(In Press).
b =estimated number of collared animal months
Percent mortality =
(usually by starvation)was initially estimated from radio-
following hunter harvest.
tracted from the estimated number of moose present each November
collared moose by methods described by Hayne (1978)and Gasaway
Estimates of winter mortality in the model (Fig.16)were sub-
where a =number of winter mortalities of radio-collared moose
et al.
b estimated as follows:(c)(d)
e
Where:c =mean i months collars transmitting (excluding dead
moose)
d =total i radio-collared moose (including dead moose)
-
e =time interval for annual mortali ty.
Winter mortality data was available from 1977-1981 for calf
moose and from 1979-1982 for yearling moose (Table 10).
....
67
!
Table 10.Mortality rates due to winter starvation of radio-collared calf and yearling moose in the
Nelchina and Susitna Rive~Basins,1977-1982.
1979-80 Y
1980-81
1981-82
Yearlings
0'
00
Sex
#mortalities
it mos.collars
transmitting (excluding
mortalities)
Total #radio-collared
moose (including
mortali ties)
Time interval
(#mos.)
%mortality
i/Mild winters3~Severe winters
Both mortalities'from hunting
1977-78 f~
1979-80 -
1980-81
F M
1 1
5.0 5.6
25 26
7 7
5.6 4.8
calves
1978-79 ~/
F M
3 8
2.6 2.7
41 26
5 5
14.1 57.1
F
1
9.9
50
12
2.4
K
2 ~/
10.5
37
12
6.2
,I
For modeling,it was assumed that during mild winters (1975-76
through 1977-78 and 1979-1980)calf mortality wap 6%.Winter
1978-79 was considered relatively severe (Eide and Ballard 1982)
with high rates of calf mortality during late winter (Table 10).
These higher rates for males and female calves were used for
1978-89 in the models.For yearling females,we utilized the
calculated rate of 2.4%;and for yearling bulls we utilized the
calculated mortality rate of 6%(Table 10).Even though the
yearling bull mortality rate was attributable to hunting,which
theoretically would have been illegal,it was used because bulls
usually suffer proportionately larger natural mortality than
females and we suspected the calculated rate was low.
Annual winter mortality rates for adult cows varied from 0 to
5.6%during 1976-1982 (Table 11).Overall the winter mortality
rate was estimated at 3.6%and this was used for each year of the
study.Apparently the winter of 1978-79 was severe enough to
cause significant increases in calf mortali ty but not for adul ts.
It was assumed that during mild winters adult bulls suffered
rates of winter mortality identical to that of cows (3.6%).
During severe winters,we assumed that adult bulls would suffer
higher rates of mortality than cows,so the 1978-79 winter mor-
tali ty was subj ecti vely estimated at 7 _2%_
69
1 j ~
Table 11.Mortality rates of adult (>2 yr.)radio-collared cow moose due to winter starvation and unidentified
mortality in the Nelchina and Susitna River Basins of southcentral Alaska from 1976-1982.
Year 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 Total
#Mortalities 0 1 1 1 2 4 9
x mos.collars
transmitting (excluding
mortalities)5.5 11.5 10.6 6.0 10.0 10.4 24.1
Total #radio-collared
moose (including
mortal Hies)36 42 45 52 80 82 126
Time Interval
(#mos.)12 12 12 12 12 12 12
"-.l %Mortality 0 2.5 2.5 3.9 3.0 5.6 3.60
Project ~opulation Model Analyses
Population Size Estimates
Between 1975 and 1981,estimates derived from fall composition
counts and the model suggest that the area's moose population
increased (Fig.20).The model indicates that the fall moose
population increased by 24%,while population estimates based on
the composition counts indicated a much larger increase of.101%.
Projected population estimates beyond May 1981 (Fig.20)assume
that all mortality factors remain identical to those of 1980-81.
Each year's independent moose population estimate based upon
composition counts were compared to those generated by the model
(Fig.21).From this comparison,it becomes quite evident that
the annual population estimates based on composition counts were
not accurate.Using both the 1975 and 1976 data with documented
levels of productivity and mortality,the population eventually
becomes extinct.Based upon the 1980 census estimate and the
composition of the population at that time,no winter mortality
could have occurred for the moose population to have increased up
to the 1981 or 1982 estimates based on the composition counts.
Because this is highly unlikely,it suggests that the number of
moose observedjhour in composition counts is probably not an
accurate·index of change in annual moose density.Also,it
suggests that the relationship between moose observed per.hour in
71
Figure 20.Novembe,moo••population ••tlmat••••d.rlv.d fro",mode.llng v.rau.
compo.ltlon count.for the Su.Una River Study Ar.a of .0utheentr.1 Alaaka.
1875-1888.
I
I
I
I
'"I""'-I
-..00 ••mod.l
- -..oo.e ob.erv.d/hour of
cOMpo.ition count..
_-••U ...t.ba ••d upon annuaa
nUMb.r of MOO ••'ob••,.,.d/hour
of compo.itlon count.In r.latlon
to 1880 co",po.iUon count and
c.n.u.
YEA R
.72
3800
(IJ
to-
Z
;:)
0
()
Z
0
to-.W-(IJ
C'I)000a..:I:I
070T II.().0
I&.I a:
0 801 w
a:I ID
:3 :I
0 I ;:)
%SOt z'
"aaIww..
>40 1 ca:I :Iw
(IJ I to-
~30t
C'I)
w.
w I
(IJ 1
0 20
o I
2 I
L1..10 t
o I
a:w
m
:I
~z
12-0
C
Z
c(
0'
::::>
0
J:
t--
W
......0w
0
0
::!
u.
0
a:
w
m
:E
::::>
z
10
8
e
4
2
-1811 count
t87'count
_.-.1877 count
--U7'count
te78 count
te80 count
•••••••model
........Individual c'ompa.IJtlon count.
/
./../
./
/
/'
/'/'",'"......,...'"
./',,,,,,,'".-.-",.~,
.....~.-....-----.-.-....:.-.-.-.-.....---.-;;-.-;-;
_•••••~AU.·-_.....
......:.........__•••UL"~••L ..U.L....~-.U~LU.U••.......~....................."'------------.-'------=~----------------------------
---'--------
or 1 1 .1 1 1 1 I.1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4un
SU R V E Y YEA R
I•
Figure 2 t.Fan moo ..population trendl derived 'rom modeling ullnl annual compolltlon count data 'or Inltlll population eln
for theSualtna River Study Are~1 1870-U81.1 1 J J..~I.I I .JI ]]I I J J I
--.----,------.
composition counts versus population estimates obtained from
censusing may be quite variable from year to year.All other
population estimates suggested an increasing population trend
al though the rates of increase were qui te different.
Sex and Age Structure
Compari son of several sex-age parameters between the model and
composi tion counts suggests that at least three sex-age clas-
sifications are underestimated during composition counts·.
Calf:cow ratios as estimated from the model were higher than
those obtained from composition counts (Fig.22).Even though
composition count ratios were adjusted upward based upon observed
differences between composition surveys and census data,the
model suggests that the discrepancy between these 2 counts may be
larger than existing data suggest (Gasaway et al.1982;Ballard
et ale 1982).The discrepancy occurs because cow:calf pairs are
J.~....
often segregated from larger groups of moose·and have a lower
probabili ty of being observed wi th either survey method.
Also,the model suggests that both survey estimates tend to
underestimate the proportions of yearling bulls (Fig.23)and
cows present in the population.This could occur for at least 3
reasons:(1)counts are often made following hunting mortality,
so that usually an unknown proportion of yearling bulls has been
removed and remains unaccounted for;(2)an unknown proportion of
74
80
en
;:
0
0
0
.......0L11.........
CI)
w
>
...J
'I(
0
60
40
30
20
10
/""......,,/'.....-",'-..../...../....---",'"---
",/........./--
,/,/
,/
-mode'
--oompolillon count.
I
I
I
I
I
1875
Figure 22.Eltlmated moo ..calf:cow ratlol derived 'rom modeling verlUl calf:cow ratlol obtained
'rom annual compollllon counh In the SUlltna River Study Area,18711-1882.
]I i !I .1 J I .1 I I I !I ,I I )
.~
-model
--compo.ltlon count •
10
12
,-#.8 I
~/
/
(J)/
/...J /..I I'
:)I "
/
/a:I e I ,/
'\
I ""CJ .1z/~II
...J I I
Q:I I
-c /I
w ---I I
>-_I
--I-"""-.
1
...j
..J...
O-.......,.---I---+--~~-...,.---+----+---+--.-..t
YEA R
Flgur.23.Perc.nt yearling bull.In moo••populatlona each fall aa determined from
modeling verau.compo.itlon count.for the Sualtna River Study Area,1875-1982.
76
iii
the yearling bulls cannot be identified from fixed-wing aircraft
because antlers are comprised of either buttons or short spikes,
and (3)during the 1975 and 1976 composition surveys the criteria
utilized for estimating ages of yearling bulls were not accurate
according to antler configuration data (Gasaway,pers.comm.).
Because the proportion of yearling females is based upon the
estimates of yearling males,this sex-age class would also be
underestimated.
Calf Mortali ty
Predation by brown bears was the single most important calf mor-
tality factor during the study period.Because of the manner in
which brown bear mortality was calculated,the numbers of calves
killed by bears each year varied (Fig.24)but the actual per-
centage of calves killed remained constant each year except in
1979 when bears were temporarily transplanted from the area.
Calf mortality attributable to wolf predation declined from 9.1%
in 1975 to 4.1%in 1978 (Table 12 ) .This suggests that during
the years that wolves were experimentally killed (1976-78)calf
survival increased slightly.Following termination of wolf
control and repopulation of the area by wolves,calf mortality
attributable to wolf predation increased and slightly exceeded
precontrol levels by 1981.During the same period,starvation
77
J ·~c
:'
j
--brown bear predation
-wolf predation
--winter kll
/-----------.....--------
/"
/'
/'
/'
/'
/',--~---...------~----
19'75 1978 1977 1878
YEA R
1979 1980 1981
Fliur.24 •.Annual rat••of oalf moo ..mortality due to pr.datlon and wlnt.r kill a.determined from modeling
the Sualtna Rlv.r Study Ar.a mOGl.population,1111-1881.
Table 12.Estimates of spring moose population size,and causes and magnitude of mortality by sex and age class as determined from modeling the
Susitna River Study Area moose population from 1975-76 to 1981-82.
Year 1975-76 1976-77
Age.Class Calves Yr1gs.Adults Total Calves Yrlgs.Adults --r-6ta1
Sex M F M F M F Both M F M F M F Both
Spring Population Est.8ll 8n 274 274 93 1365 3628 699 699 272 272 197 1349 3488
Mortality
Early Spring and Summer 48 48 0 0 0 0 96 41 41 0 0 0 0 82
Spring Wolf Predation 36 36 .2 2 1 8 85 21 21 1 1 1 4 49
Summer Wolf Predation 18 18 9 9 3 46 103 10 10 5 5 4 24 58
Brown Bear Predation 399 399 19 19 7 96 939 343 343 18 18 13 91 826
Hunting 0 0 51 0 52 .0 103 0 0 41 0 42 0 83
Winter Wolf Predation 20 20 10 10 4 52 ll6 13 13 6 6 4 31 73
Winter Kill 18 18 II 5 1 43 60 17 17 2 5 c 4 44 89
Subtotal 539 539 102 45 68 245 1502 445 445 67 35 68 194 1254
%of Population 66.5 66.5 37.2 16.4 73.1 17.9 41.4 63.7 63.7 24.6 12.9 34.5 14.4 36.0
Year 1977-78 1978-79......,Age Class Calves Yrlgs.Adults Total Calves Yrlgs.Adults Total\0
Sex M F M F M F Both M F M F M F Both
Spring Population Est.721 721 254 254 318 1392 3660 753 753 272 272 396 1437 3883
Mortality
Early Spring and Summer 43 43 0 0 0 0 86 45 45 .0 0 0 0 90
Spring Wolf Predation 17 17 1 1 1 4 41 15 15 1 1 1 3 36
Summer Wolf Predation 7 7 3 3 4 18 42 6 6 3 3 4 14 36
Brown Bear Predation 354 354 16 16 20 88 848 370 370 16 16 23 85 880
Hunting 0 0 52 0 52 0 104 0 0 74 0 74 0 148
Winter Wolf Predation 10 10 4 4 5 24 57 10 10 4 4 6 23 57
Winter Kill 18 18 10 5 8 46 105 181 44 17 16 21 48 317
Subtotal 449 449 86 29 90 180 1283 627 490 ll5 30 129 173 1564
%of Population 62.3 62.3 33.9 11.4 28.3 12.9 35.1 83.3 65.1 42.3 1l.0 32.6 12.0 40.3
J I )!J ~I J j J 1 1 )i .J J ~I J
J l'1
Table 12.(cont'd)
Year 1979-80 1980-81
Age Class Calves Yrlgs.Adults Total Calves Yrlgs.Adults Total
Sex M F M F M F Both .M F M I F M F Both
Spring Population Est.787 787 126 263 424 1506 3893 796 796 386 386 311 1512 4187,
Mortality
Early Spring and Summer 47 47 0 0 0 0 94 47 47 0 0 0 0 94
Spring Wolf Predation 21 21 0 1 1 4 48 32 32 2 2 1 6 75
Summer Wolf Predation 14 14 3 6 9 33 79 18 18 9 9 8 37 99
Brown Bear Predation 276 276 8 16 26 91 693 39i 391 21 21 17 82 923
Hunting 0 0 82 0 82 0 164 0 0 0 0 134 0 134
Winter Wolf Predation 18 18 4 8 12 44 104 23 23 13 13 10 50 132
mnter Kill .25 25 1 5 11 49 116 18 18 21 8 5 49 119
Subtotal 401 401 98 36 141 221 1298 529 529 66 53 175 224 1576
'I;of Population 51.0 51.0 77.8 13.7 '·33.3 14.7 33.3 66.5 66.5 17.1 13.7 56.3 14.8 37.6
Year 1981-82
Age Class Calves Yrlgs.Adults Total
Sex M F M F M F Both
Spring Population Est.814 814 267 267 456 1621 4239Q:l Mortality0EarlySpring and Summer 48 48 0 0 0 0 96
Spring Wolf Predation 40 40 1 1 2 . 8
92
Summer Wolf Predation 18 18 7 7 11 40 101
Brown Bear Predation 400 400 14 14 25 87 940
Hunting 0 0 0 0 153 0 153
Winter Wolf Predation 20 20 .8 8 13 46 115
Winter Kill 18 18 14 5 9 53 117
Subtotal 544 544 44 35 213 234 1614
'I;of Population 66.8 66.8 16.5 13.1 46.7 14.4 38.1
I
1
j
.)
accounted for 1.9-3.2%of the total calf mortality except during
the winter of 1978-79.This was considered a moderately severe
winter,and at least 14.9%of the calves died of starvation.
Yearl1.ng Mortali ty
Trends in yearling moose mortality were similar to those of
calves,except the magnitude of the mortality was substantially
less (Table 12).From 1975-79,hunting mortality (assuming that
half of the bull harvest was comprised of yearlings)was the
largest source of overall mortality (Fig.25)even though only
affecting males.Beginning with the 1980 season,yearlings were
theoreticj;l.lly protected by antler regulations and,therefore,
hunting mortality declined to insignificant levels.Mortality
attributable to wolf predation declined from 7.6%in 1975 to a
low of 3%while wolf control was in effect.Following termina-
tion of wolf control,yearling mortality attributable to wolf
predation increased.Yearling mortality attributable to brown
bears declined during the study period primarily because the
model assumed a stable bear population and the moose population
was increasing.Winter mortality (starvation)was quite variable
even during mild winters.The highest winter mortality occurred
during the severe winter of 1978-79.
81
-
""",
··········o·•··.
······o··········o
·······
··
o··o·----------.,..-
'-;'
/
\;'
\,,/
o
o·······o···o·o
o············o··o•o
o
o..
..'.o 0......... ..••........................
o.
o
0-
o-.o
o
o.
o.....••.
o
o........
o
o
o.............
hunting
brown bear predation
-wolf predation -
winter kill
.'.'.......
....
2
a
I
..
18
20
22
18
14
10
12>...-~
4(
t-a:o
:I
w
(/Joo
:I
CJz-~a:<w>
1
1981o---...~~...-+o-~~+----+----+--......-+----+----41975 1978 1977 1978 1979 1980
YEA R
Flgur.25.Annual percent yearling bull moo.e mortality due to .everal mortality
tactora a.det_mlned tram modeUng the Sualtna River Study Are.In aouthcentral
Alaaka.1875-1881..-
82
Adul t Mortali ty
Trends in adult mortality were quite similar to those of year-
lings because for both types of predation it was assumed that the
sex-age class of kills was d"ependent on availability (Fig.26).
GMU 13 Population Model Analyses
Population Size Estimates
The 1975-82 GMU 13 post-calving moose population trend (15.8%
increase)was similar in many respects to that of the Susi tna
River Study Area (16.8%).powever,the population declined
between 1975-76 and 1976-77 and again in 1978-79 (Table 13).The
largest increases occurred between 1979-80 (7.5%)and 1980-81
(9.9%).The estimated fall population size based on the model
differed considerably from the population estimate derived from
composi tion counts,particularly for 1975 and 1976 (Fig.27).
This was believed due to underestimation of both yearlings and
calves during composi tion counts.
Calf Mortality
Brown bear predation was responsible for more calf mortality than
wolf predation or winter mortality (Fig.28).Except during the
severe winter of 1978-79,wolf predation was the second most
83
,~
-
"""
-10
9
..•..
hunting
brown be.,predation
wolf predation
winter kin
8-W
1 CJ
j c(
t-t-
Z 7w
()
~
W
Q.e~
>....-.J
c(5
t-
~
0
2
w 4
rn
0
0
~
t-3
.J
::J
Q
<2
.....
I
1
···......
...
•.......
•.---._----....... .........,
................
...
.....
.......
.......
.......,----.----------
0---+--~----+----+---~t-----+----+---......-----419751978 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981
Y E A·R
Figur.28.Annual adult moo••mortality rat••by eau ••a.d.t.rmlned from modeling
the Sualtna River Study Area moo.e population In 8outheentr.1 AI••ka.1975-1981.
84
Table 13.Estimates of spring moose population size,and causes and magnitude of mortality by sex and age class as determined from modeling the moose
population in GMU 13 of southcentral Alaska from 1975-76 to 1981-82.
1975-76 1976-77
Calves Yrlgs.Mults Total Calves YrIgs.Adults ,Total
M F M F M F Both M F M F M F Bci£fi':""
Spring Population Est.7230 7230 1098 1098 1269 11822 29807 5598 5598 3356 3356 1129 10062 29099
Mortality
Early Spring and Summer 433 433 0 0 0 0 866 335 335 0 0 0 0 670
Spring Wolf Predation 486 486 11 11 13 123 1130 535 535 33 33 11 98 1245
Summer Wolf Predation 209 209 57 57 66 615 1213 156 156 111 111 37 333 904
Brown Bear Predation 2124 2124 61 61 70 658 5098 2124 2124 159 159 54 477 5097
Black Bear Predation 90 90 4 4 5 46 239 90 90 11 11 4 34 240
Hunting 0 0 358 0 358 0 716 0 0 366 0 366 0 732
Winter Wolf Predation 299 299 80 80 92 865 1715 250 250 176 176 59 526 1437
Winter Kill 233 233 36 23 27 375 927 141 141 160 73 23 328 866
Subtotal 3874 3874 607 236 631 2682 11904 3631 3631 1016 563 554 1796 11191
%of Population 53.6 53.6 55.3 21.5 49.7 22.6 39.9 64.9 64.9 30.3 16.8 49.1 17.9 38.5
00 1977-78 1978-79VI
Calves Yrlgs.Adults Total Calves Yr1gs.Adults Total
M F M F M F M F M F M F M F Both
Spring Population Est.5322 5322 1657 1967 2915 11059 28552 5751 5751 1972 1972 3231 10930 29607
Mortality
Early Spring and Summer 319 319 0 0 0 0 638 345 345 0 0 0 0 69
Spring Wolf Predation 333 333 12 12 18 67 775 247 247 9 9 14 49 575
Summer Wolf Predation 157 157 65 65 97 368 909 128 128 53 53 87 294 743
Brown Bear Predation 2124 2124 93 93 138 525 5097 2124 21,24 93 93 152 513 5099
Black Bear Predation 90 90 7 7 10 37 241 90 90 7 7 11 36 241
Hunting 0 0 428 0 428 0 856 0 0 432 0 432 0 864
Winter Wolf Predation 190 190 78 78 116 440 1092 173 173 70 70 115 390 991
Winter Kill 137 137 81 42 80 362 839 1608 397 137 43 182 361 2728
Subtotal 3350 3350 764 297 887 1799 10447 4652 4652 801 275 993 1643 11868
%of Population 62.9 62.9 38.8 15.1 30.4 16.3 36.6 80.9 60.9 40.6 13.9 30.7 15.0 40.5
'"
I I i ]J !t 1 I J I j I i ~J t !,
)....1 J J )J 1-·1 ]-_.]--J ...~J B
Table 13.(cont'dl
1979-80 1980-81
Calves Yr1gs.Adults Total Calves Yr1gs.Adults Total
M F M F M F If<illI M F M F M F If<illI
Spring Population Est.5571 5571 1036 2247 3409 10984 29218 5958 5958 2555 2555 2833 11509 31418
Mortality
Early Spring and Summer 346 346 0 0 0 0 692 337 337 0 0 0 0 674
Spring Wolf Predation 281 281 5 12 18 57 654 258 285 11 11 12 50 600
Summer Wolf Predation 88 88 18 40 61 195 .490 123 123 57 57 65 258 683
Brown Bear Predation 2124 2124 50 108 164 528 5098 2124 2124 111 .111 126 501 5097
Black Bear Predation 90 90 4 8 12 37 241 90 90 8 8 9 35 240
Hunting 0 0 500 0 500 0 1000 0 0 0 0 557 0 557
Winter Wolf Predation 117 117 25 55 83 267 664 106 106 51 51 58 231 603
Winter Kill 170 170 27 49 95 366 877 180 180 142 56 76 383 1017
Subtotal 3216 3216 629 272 933 1450 9716 3218 3218 380 294 903 1458 9471
%of Population 55.7 55.7 60.7 12.1 27.4 13.2 33.3 54.0 54.0 14.9 11.5 31.3 12.7 30.1
·1
I·.1
1981-82 I
Calves Yr1gs.Adults Total I
M F M F M F Both
.Spring Population Est.6307 6307 2720 2720 4155 12312 34521
Mortality
(Xl Early Spring and Summer 378 378 0 0 0 0 756
0\Spring Wolf Predation 218 218 9 9 13 40 507
Summer Wolf Predation 97 97 43 43 66 195 541
Brown Bear Predation 2124 2124 105 105 161 477 5096
Black Bear Predation 90 90 7 7 11 34 239
Hunting 0 0 0 0 794 0 794
Winter Wolf Predation 123 123 56 56 86 255 699
Winter Kill 204 204 153 61 111 416 1149
Subtotal 3234 3234 373 281 1242 1417 9781
%of Population 51.3 51.3 13.7 10.3 29.9 U.S 28.3
10
en
I-z
:)
0o 80-,-80
Z I -0 I en
I-a-en I Zo50-OIl(so
a.I en
:I I:)o 0
o 1::C
LL.I-
0401 -40
a:::I-W:)
0 I ~00 ::I:,
-J ....~0a30:2 30
~I LL.a:::I 0W
en I a:::
CD 20-W 20oICD
W 1:1enJg1Z
:2 tOI to
LL.I0
a:1w
CD 0::E
J
Z
............,,'--,./.......,,"--~,......-,,",..........
-moo ••mod.1
--poplliation ba ..d
on oompo.ltlon count.
--moo ••ob.en.d/hour
of compo.ltlon count.
YEA R
Figure 21.FI"moo ••population ••tlmat ••a.d.rlv.d 'rom modeling ,.rau.Innllil compo.ltlon count.for Oame
Manlgement Unit '3 of ,ollthc.nt'll AI ••ka."15-'88e~.
J I ,~J ~J J !'I,,.1 I !~1 ~!J
l·J-...'.'."'f:g-..__...I ~1--"-'-.~'J _,i:i I
CXl
CXl
-W
(!)«t-
Z
Woa:w
Q.->-t-
:::i«t-a:o
::E
wrnoo
::E
u.
-I«o
40
30
20
10 I
/
/
I
I
/__J----.-._--.-._---
/\
/ \
/\
/ \
\
\
--brown beer predatton
-wolf predation
--wlnterk.
\\.
\
\~------~-----
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0'1 I I I I I I I
1975 1878 1877 1878
YEA R
1878 1980 1981
Figur.21.E.tlmat.d .annua'rat..01 oalf mortalltr from predation and winter kill determln.d from mod.llng the Oame
Management Unl.18 moo ..population of louthe.ntral Ala.ka,1811-1111.
important cause of calf mortality (Fig ~28).Mortality of calf
moose was higher in the·GMU 13 than in the wolf control area,
particularly in 1976-77 when wolves preyed upon 17.3%of the
estimated numbers of calves produced.As wolf densities declined
in the unit,primarily from hunting and trapping activities,the
estimated percentage of calves preyed upon by wolves declined
each yeari reaching a low of 7.0%during 1981-82.Calf mortality
studies conducted in 1977 and 1978 suggested that 3%of the calf
mortalities during the first 6 weeks following birth were attri-
butable to wolf predation (Ballard et al.·1981).Independent
modeling estimates suggested that calf mortality attributable to
wolf predation ranged from 4.3 to 6.3%during the same years.
Therefore,both approaches suggested that wolf predation on
newborn moose calves was a secondary source of calf mortali ty.
Adul t Mortality
Wolf predation on adult moose in the GMU 13 also declined during
the study period (Fig.29),ranging from 13.5%in 1975 to 4.0%in
1981.The decline in wolf-related adult mortality was due to a
decrease in the wolf population and concurrent increases in the
moose population.Similarly,percent annual adult mortality from
brown bear predation also declined (5.5 to 4.8%>but this was
primarily the result of increases in the moose population since
we assumed that bear populations were stable during the study.
89
--
-
~l
}-l·.:..-,
14
l····~·J--..c-..J......-.1--=j-~.1 1
.....,.,..........,.,..,.,.,.,.----...---.........
.••••••~_....-,.•.....a-:,-----:-r ......-----.........,.~......................----------------..........
-w
CJ
-<.-zw
0a:w
0--
>.--...I
c(
'0 .-0 a:
0
~
W
tn
0o·
~.-
...I
::)
C
-<
12
10
a
8
4
2
•••••I1untkIg
brown bear predation
wolf predation
winter kJl
.........
'/
I
I
I
.,
I
0'"1878 r 1878·I 1877 I 1878 I 1978 r 1980·r 1981 I
YEA R
Figur.21.Annual Oam.Management Unit "adult moo ..mortallt,rat••from four factor...tlmated from
mod.Jlng.117&-11'''.
During the study,adult mortality attributable to hunting
increased primarily because of changes in hunting regulations in
1980 which placed all harvest pressure on adult bulls only.
Wolf Predation
Earlier analyses of the effects of decreased wolf densities (from
wolf control)on moose calf survival suggested that no signifi-
cant increases had occurred because ratios of various sex and age
classifications had fluctuated similarly between control and non-
control areas (Ballard et al.1981).Although the reductions in
wolf density were substantially larger in the wolf control area,
wolf densities in both the wolf control area and GMU 13 decreased
from 1975 levels,while moose populations in both areas increased
(Fig.30).Reductions in both calf mortality from 9-17%annual
mortality to 4-7%,and adult moose mortality from 8-10%to 3-4%
annual mortality probably contributed to the increases in the
moose populations.Because wolf densities declined in both
areas,it would be expected that the sex-age ratios would fluc-
tuate similarly.Al though wolf predation was not the primary
source of moose mortality,its reduction in combination with
several mild winters appears to have allowed both moose popu-
lations to increase.Substantially larger increases could
probably be anticipated'if the level of bear predation was also
reduced.
91
""'"
-
-
-
l~,l }I J.".;,,"-,l~-l~'--.-.l·J 1 :.)
19811980
- -GMU #t3 moo I.
....-eUlltna etudy Ar.a moo ••
-GMU #13 wolv.1
-SUlltna Study Ar.a wolv ••
19791978
YEA R
...-......------------------'-'-_............-
40
rIJ
W
>..J 10o
~
Cwa:
C
>-10
Q::»
t-
rIJ
Cz
!:to
rIJ
:)
rIJ
tOO
aoo
500
200
..00
5-
I_ L
_rIJ 1
rIJ Q
Q 'z.1 rIJ
Z "0-ce..w
ce I rIJ I>rIJ ::»..J
::»L O L O°:I:it~It Iw
:30l-~a.1'~
'rIJ 1 °1 z°L O L::»o :I t-
:I I C 1 z
w ~w
:20l-C •..1 ~
z I >-1 ~:)Lg L~
~I t;I 2
W 1C.l W
~,to...L Z t ~~It:Ie»
C rIJ
Z L::»L
ce I rIJ2 I
~oj I I 1.1 I I I I~'197l1 '19t1l 1977 ,I I I
\D
N
Figure 30.Annual taU moo ..and wolf population trend I betwe.n Game Management Unit tl and th.eulltna River Study
Area of loutheentral Ala.ka,tI7e-1111.
From 1 November through 15 May each year,mortality of moose from -
wolf predation is relatively high on a superficial basis but on a
population level is relatively minor.For example,in both the
experimental area and GMU 13 wolf predation accounted for 6.5 and
7.7%mortality,respectively,of the calves present on 1 November
1975.However,of the total calves produced,this source of
i
I
mortality represented only 2.3 and 4.1%respectively.From this
comparison,it would be easy to conclude from flights made during
winter when wolf kills are most noticeable that wolf predation
was a much more important source of moose mortality than what it
actually represents on a population basis.
SECTION V.IMPACT MECHANISMS
Table 14 summarizes the major structural features associated with
the construction and operation of the Susitna Hydroelectric Pro-
ject and a description of their potential impact on moose.In an
effort to assess the effects of these impacts on moose,they were
related to the basic components of the moose model described in
the previous section (Table 15).Based upon this assessment,the
proposed project will affect the population dynarqics of upper
Susitna moose and their predators.The exact magnitude of these
effects,however,will require refinement as studies proceed and
actual operation is commenced.Earlier (see section on Zone of
Impact)we estimated that based upon numbers of radio-collared
moose utilizing the impoundment areas in relation to the 1980
93
-
-
_.
-
Table 14.Susitna Hydroelectric Project actions and their potential effect on moose
numbers,distribution and habitat in the Susitna River Area.
1
1
Project Action
'Construction and operation
of dams (staging zone,
camps,and structures)
Spoil sites
Borrow areas
Reservoir clearing
Permanent village facilities
Main and accessory roads and
railroads.
Airstrips
Transmission line construction,
access and operation
Fill and operation of
impoundments
Environmental Effect
Loss of winter range.
Avoidance of adjacent winter range.
Loss of SPring-summer range.
Avoidance of spring-summer range.
Possible impedence to migration.
Temporary loss of winter-summer range.
Temporary avoidance of adjacent habitat.
Permanent and temporary loss of winter habitat.
Permanent and temporary loss of spring-summer habitat.
Temporary avoidance of-habitat.
Loss of habitat.
Temporary avoidance of adjacent areas.
Loss of habitat.
Avoidance of adjacent areas.
Loss of habitat.
Permanent and temporary avoidance (disturbance)
of adjacent habitat.
Mortality from collisions.
Increased human-related mortality (hunting,
defense of life,etc.).
Increased commercial and recreational development
on adjacent lands.
Loss of habitat.
Temporary avoidance (disturbance)of adjacent areas.
Increased human access and human-related mortality.
Temporary avoidance of habitat.
Increased access.
Temporary loss of habitat.
Eventual summer habitat improvement.
Potential for increased commercial and recreational
development
Permanent inundation of winter range.
Permanent inundation of spring-summer range.
Increased snow depths on adjacent area.
Increased snow drifting on adjacent areas.
Icing on vegetation due to open-water.
Impedence of movements due to open water during
subfreezing temperatures.
Increased mortality from attempting to cross thin ice.
Impedence of movements and increased mortality due
to ice shelving.
Increased mortality crossing mud flats.
Unstable slopes causing habitat loss.
Crowding on adjacent habitat.
Increased human access.
Decreased vegetation productivity on adjacent lands
due to climatic changes.
94
Table 15.Potential impacts of Susitna Hydroelectric development on annual moose population parameters.
Moose Population
Parameters
Reproduction
Early spring and summer
mortality
(excluding predation)
Spring wolf predation
Summer wolf predation
Brown bear predation
Black bear predation
Projected Impact of Project Events
Decline in reproduction due to lower population size resulting
from increases in winter mortality,accidental mortality,
hunting and predator mortality from abnormal concentration of
moose and predator.
Decreased productivity resulting from decreased vigor because of
increased snow depths,decreased quality and quantity of forage
from weather,icing,and overbrowsing;increased disturbance
(both human and predator),and delayed spring green up.
Increase in still births due to reduced vigor of cows.
Increases in drowning and accidental deaths.
Increase in incidence of disease and pneumonia from delayed
greenup,poor nutrition,and more severe weather conditions.
Temporary increases in numbers of wolves may be influenced by
increased availability of prey leading to increased fecundity,
double denning and greater pup survival.Results in increased
predation on both calf and adult moose because of abnormal
concentrations of moose and their reduced health following
winter.
Short term severe overbrowsing of moose habitat and increased
mortality result in lower moose moose densities.
Lack of rapid wolf population response to lower moose numbers
intensifies effects of predation and lowers moose population
further.Eventually results in lower numbers of predators and
prey which "stabilize"at low level.
Similar to above.
Temporary increases in density of bears due to decreased
availability of south facing slopes and forced concentrations.
Result:Increased predation on calf and adult moose due to
abnormal condi tions of moose and reduced vigor of adul ts and
calves from poor nutrition and increased winter severity.
Bear productivity and survival increase responding to increased
availability of prey.Results in increases in bear predation on
moose and drives moose population lower.Bears'ability to
utilize alternate food source maintains abnormal densities of
bears for long period and decreases moose population further.
Ultimately both bear population and moose population stabilize
at lower level.
Short term:
Bears lose den sites and for short period prey
intensively on moose before population declines.
Long term:
Due to decline in black bear population this source of mortality
declines.
95
,~
~,
Ji!W!i:
1
1
~.
J
.-
Table 15.(cont'd)
Moose Population
Parameters
Hunter harvest
Winter mortality
Winter wolf predation
Projected Impact of Project Events
Potential increase in harvest due to improved access and
increased vulnerability caused by moose occupying new habitat
areas not previously occupied.Depresses bulf:cow ratios,
possibly leading to decreased productivity.
Probable that harvests will be limited by regulations;however,
dispersal of moose from impoundment areas could temporarily
increase and cause temporary increase in numbers of available
moose elsewhere in GMU 13.Ultimately,however,declines in
population size will reduce dispersals and reduce numbers of
moose available for harvest.
Winter mortality from starvation increases due to overbrowsed
range in areas adjacent to impoundments,loss of habitat,icing
on vegetation,increasn:1 cnow depths and delayed spring
green-up..
Accidents increase from open water,ice shelving,and unstable
reservoir ice.
Concentrated wolf and moose populations on winter range result in
increases in surplus killing by wolves.Moose more vulnerable
due to increased snow depths,lower availability of forage,
poorer quality and quantity of remaining forage.
In addition,traditional escape routes no longer available due to
ice shelving and unstable ice conditions.Increased avail-
ability of prey result in wolf population increase.Time lag in
response of wolf population to decreased moose density further
depresses moose population.Eventually wolf population declines
and adjusts to lower moose density.Both populations "stabi-
lize"at lower levels •
96
I I
-
census l from 1900 to 2600 moose could be directly impacted by
c·onstruction and operation of the Watana and Devil Canyon im--~
competition from displaced moose,etc.1 approximately 45%of the
poundments.These estimates compri sed 8 to 11%of the total
could be secondarily impacted by the project through.increased
Including moose whichnumbersofmooseoccurringinGMU-13.
GMU-13 moose population could be affected to varying degrees by _
the proposed projects.Moose modeling efforts currently underway
will be adapted to incorporate anticipated effects of the project
on the individual components of the moose population.
SECTION VI.MITIGATION
Current investigation is focused on an experimental burn to -,
improve moose habi tat described in Section I.
"..,
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS -
A large number of ADF&G employees participated and contributed to
our study efforts .They included Karl Schneider l Sterling
.Miller I Dennis McAllister I Enid Goodwin l SuzAnne Miller I Steve -
AlbertI Danny Anctil,Tammy Otto,John Westlund l Craig Gardner l
Kathy Adler,Susan Lawler and Penny Miles.To all we express our
appreciation.
97
~I
-
Karl Schneider continually contributed to the study with sugges-
tions for improving study design and by making numerous sugges-
tions to improve the quality of this report.SuzAnne Miller
advised on statistical procedures and provided the figures for
the moose model.Carol Riedner prepared the final figures.
LITERATURE CITED
Ballard,W.B.and K.P.Taylor.1980.Upper Susi tna Valley
moose population study.·Alaska Dept.Fish and Game.P-R
~Proj.Final Rep.,W-17-9,W-17-10,and W-17-11.102pp.
S.D.Miller,and T.H.Spraker.1980.Moose calf
mortali ty study.Alaska Dept.Fish and Game.P-R Proj.
Final Rep.,W-17-9,W-17-10,W-17-11,and W-21-1.123pp.
_____,T.H.Spraker,and K.P.Taylor.1981a.Causes of
neonatal moose calf mortality in southcentral Alaska.J.
Wildl.Manage.45(2):335-342.
R.O.Stephenson,and T.H.Spraker.1981b.
Nelchina Basin Wolf Studies.Alaska Dept.Fish and Game.
P-R Proj.Final Rep.,W-17-9 and W-17-10.201pp.
98
I I
__~,C.L.Gardner,J.H.Westlund,and J.R.Dau.1982a.
Big Game Studies,Vol.V,Wolf.Alaska Dept.Fish and Game
Spec.Rept.to Al aska Power Au thor i ty .22 Opp.
C.L.Gardner,and S.D.Miller.1982b.Nelchina
Yearling Moose Mortality Study.Alaska Dept.Fish and Game.
P-R Proj.Final Rep.,W-21-1 and W-21-2.37pp.
___________,R.O.Stephenson,S.D.Miller,K.B.Schneider,and
S.H.Eide.In Prep.Ecological studies of timber wolves
and predator-prey relationships in southcentral Alaska.
Wi ldl.Monogr.
..".
-
~-
Eide,S.and W.B.Ballard.1982.Apparent case of surplus
killing of caribou by gray wolves.Can.Field-Nat.96:87-
88.
Floyd,T.J.,L.D.Mech,and P.A.Jordan.1978.Relating wolf
scat content to prey consumed.J.Wildl.Manage.42(3):
528-532.
Alaska Dept.Fish and Game.P-R Proj.Rep.47pp.
,
.~
j
]Gasaway,W.C.1978.Moose survey procedures development.
-
S.J.Harbo,and S.D.Dubois."1979.Moose survey
procedures development.Alaska Dept.Fish and Game.
Prdj.Rept.87pp.
99
P-R ~'I
-
-
S.D.Dubois,and S.J.Harbo.1982.Moose Survey
Procedures Development.Alaska Dept.Fish and Game..P-R
Proj.Final Rept.66pp.
___________,R.Stephenson,J.Davis,P.Shepherd,and O.Burris.
1983.Inter-relationships of moose,man,wolves and alter-
nate prey in Interior Alaska.Wildl.Mongr.In Press.
Hayne,D.W.1978.Experimental designs and statistical analy-
sis in small mammal population studies.Pages 3-10 in A.P.
Snyder,ed.Populations of small mammals under natural con-
ditions.Vol.5,Spec.PubL Ser.,Rymatuning Lab.of
Ecol.,Uni v.of Pi ttsburg,Pittsburg.
Miller,S.D.arid W.B.Ballard.1982.Homing of transplanted
Alaskan brown bears.J.Wildl.Manage.46:869-876.
and 1983.Density and biomass estimates
for an interior Alaskan brown bear population.Can.
Field Nat.:In Press.
Mohr,C.O.1947.Table of equivalent populations of North
American small mammals.Am.MidI.Nat.37 (1):223-249.
100
,I'
Taylor,K.P.and W.B.Ballard.1979.Moose movements and
habi tat use along the Susi tna River near Devi 1 Canyon,
Alaska.Proc.N.Am.Moose Conf.Workshop,Kenai,Alaska.
Final report on the effects of the
I
1I. J
i
1
169-186pp.
VanBallenberghe,V.
Trans-Alaskan
Fi sh and Game.
1978.
Pipeline
44pp.
on moose movements.Alaska Dept.
-
,~-
j
'·1'!.
ij
.~
J
"-!
j
t.1
j
Viereck,L.A.and C.R.Dyrness.1980.A preliminary classi£i-
cation system for vegetation in Alaska.U.S.For.Serv.,
Gen.Tech.Rept.PNW-106,38pp.
101
-
-
-
}--~).......,~".1-:--1-l-~"··,l j
Appendix A.Seasonal and total home range sizes of individual radio~co11ared moose s~udied in the Ne1china and upper Susitna River Basins of
southcentra1 Alaska from October 1976 through early June 1982.
Moose Sele-Age Period Total #Swnmer Winter Total MaxImum
IDIt at Capture Monitored locations Home Range 11 Home Range 1/Home Range 2/length of range
(mo.,yr)km a mP-km a mP km l mIl km mi
~
249 M-Calf 3/79-5/81 10 ----128.0 49.4 232.5 89.8 23.7 14.7
268 M-Calf 3/79~3/80 7 ----45.9 17.7 150.8 58.2 20.8 13.0
271 M-Calf 3/79-8/80 8 159.4 61.5 70.6 27.3 1252.9 483.8 60.8 37.8
294 M-Calf 4/79-5/81 9 32.2 12.4 322.9 124.7 537.6 207.6 88.5 55.0
301 M-Calf 4/79-5/81 7 ----151.3 58.4 163.9 63.3 32.9 20.5
375 M-Calf 11/79-5/81 8 ----14.9 5.8 285.4 110.2 37.4 23.3
376 M-Calf 11/79-5/81 7 ----186.8 82.1 358.5 138.4 56.3 35.0
379 M-Calf 11/79-5/81 7 ----177.5 68.5 177.5 68.5 25.1 15.6
381 M-Calf 11/79-5/81 8 ----2.0 0.8 3.8 1.5 5.1 3.1
382 M-Calf 11/79-5/81 8 ----138.3 53.4 138.3 53.4 18.0 11.2
388 M-Calf 11/79-5/81 9 ----438.0 169.1 583.5 225.3 50.2 31.2
·391 M Calf 11/79~6/81 8 ----79.2 30.6 108.8 42.0 33.6.20.9
392 M-Calf 11/79-5/81 8 ----72.7 28.1 134.2 51.8 36.4 22.6
393 M-Calf 11/79-3/81 7 ----.37.0 14.3 37.0 14.3 12.1 7.5.395 M-Calf 11/79-5/81 7 ----103.3 40.0 256.8 99.2 41.1 25.5
396 M-Calf 11/79-6/81 8 ----35.2 13.6 44.4 16.0 16.0 10.0
398 M-Calf 11/79-9/81 9 -- --
74.4 28.7 85.2 32.9 21.4 13.3
399 M-Calf 11/79-12/80 7 ----78.6 30.3 78.6 30.3 15.1 9.4
400 M-Calf 11/79-6/81 9 ----46.9 18.1 64.5 24.9 15.2 9.4
......402 M-Calf 11/79-6/81 8 ----56.3 21.7 86.7 33.5 22.2 13.8 \
0 408 M-Calf 11/79-5/81 9 -- --
9.4 3.6 48.0 18.5 19.2 11.9
,
N 670 M-Calf 3/81-6/82 4 --------16.9 7.9
672 M-Calf 3/81-6/82 20 168.9 --790.7 --1001.1 --51.0
674 M-Calf 3/81-6/82 22 694.8 --305.4 --1112.1 --69.2
675 M-Calf 3/81-6/82 18 324.7 48.4 411.2 44.1
676 M-Ca1£3/81-6/82 20 424.2 207.7 542.0 50.2
677 M-Calf 3/81-4/82 17 409.4 211.9 512.0 33.3
690 M-Calf 3/81-6/82 18 70.0 41.7 137.5 21.4
696 M-Calf 5/81-6/82 115 191.8 440.7 579.0 64.0
667 M-2 '1r.3/81~6/82 18 261.7 48.7 261.7 19.4
626 M-5 yr.4/80-8/81 19 91.1 35.2 21.0 8.1 91.1 35.2 16.2 10.1
627 M-4 yr.4/80-9/80 12 50.7 19.6 ----127.6 49.3 22.4 13.9
642 M-4 yr.4/80-5/82 34 148.0 118.5 214.1 21.5
682 M-Adult 3/81-5/81 5 ----5.5 2.1 75.7 29.2 14.4 ~.O
225 F-Calf 3/79-11/80 7 ----43.3 16.7 43.3 16.7 19.3 12.0
262 F-Calf 3/79-11/81 8 36.7 14.2 --189.7 73.3 26.5 16.4
264 F-Calf 3/79-5/81 11 58.9 22.7 153.1 59.1 174.2 67.3 23.4 14.5
269 F-Calf 3/79-5/81 13 40.2 15.5 70.6 27.3 166.2 64.2 29.6 18.4
274 F-Calf 3/79-7/79 5 --------97.0 37.5 37.0 23.0
290 F-Calf 4/79-5/81 11 75.6 29.2 846.2 326.7 1833.5 708.0 131.0 .81.4
291 F-Calf 4/79-5/81 9 12.5 4.8 136.3 52.6 155.0 59.8 20.4 12.7
293 F-Calf 4/79-5/81 9 .2.3 0.9 161.5 62.4 161.6 62.4 40.5 25.2
297 F-Calf 4/79-5/81 9 18.8 7.3 191.1 73.8 213.9 82.6 37.2 23.1
298 F-Calf 4/79-5/81 9 10.7 4.1 37.5 14.5 186.9 72.2 48.4 30.1
299 F-Calf 4/79-5/81 8 12.7 4.9 82.5 31.8 136.2 52.6 30.8 19.2
300 F-Calf 4/79-5/81 8 3.2 1.2 .----16.1 6.2 B.2 5.1
.~~~~.--._._-_.~-_.•.__._.~_..~---~
Appendix A.(cont'd)
Moose Sex-Age Period'Total #Summer Hinter Total Maximum
10#at Capture Monitored locations Home Range 1/Home Range 1/Home Range 2/length of range
(mo.,yrl km z mi z-km z mi z-km z Dli~km mi
--
302 F-Calf 4/79-5/81 10 258.5 99.8 91.7 35.4 462.6 178.6 54.9 34.1
303 F-Calf 4/79-5/81 9 99.4 38.4 22.5 8.7 152.5 58.9 19.8 12.3
305 F-Calf 4/79-3/81 9 5.3 2.0 162.0 62.5 17.2.6 66.6 25.5 15.9 .
306 F-Calf 4/79""12181 8 ----227.2 87.7 312.1 120.5 32.3 20.1
307 F-Calf 4/79-5/81 8 7.2 2.8 96.3 37.2 201.7 77.9 58.8 36.2
308 F-Calf 4/79-5/81 7 13.5 5.2 ----73.0 ~8.2 20.5 12.7
377 F-Calf 11/79-6/81 8 ----221.8 .85.6 224.4 86.6 33.2 .20.6
378 F-Calf 11/79-5/81 8 ----223.2 86.2 225.1 86.9 33.2 20.6
380 F-Calf 11/79-5/81 8 ----112.5 43.5 183.9 71.0 36.7 22.8
383 F-Calf 11/79-7/80 5 ----26.9 10.4 85.0 32.8 23.2 .14.4
384 F-Calf 11/79-5/81 8 ----37.9 14.6 83.5 32.3 31.6 19.6
386 F-Calf 11/79-5/81 8 ----186.9 72.1 257.1 99.3 68.8 42.7
387 F-Calf 11/79-5/81 9 ----96.8 37.4 112.1 43.3 28.7 17.8
389 F-Calf 11/79-5/81 7 ----161.1 62.2 206.7 79.8 27.6 17.1
390 F-Calf 11/79-5/81 8 ----131.2 50.7 143.8 55.5 25.2 15.7
394 F-Calf 11/79-5/81 6 ----88.7 34.2 169.8 65.6 26.4 16.4
397 F-Calf 11/79-9/81 8 ----7.5 2.9 34.4 13.3 16.3 10.1
403 F-Calf 11/79-5/81 8 -- --
,156.3 60.4 167.1 64.5 23.5 14.5
404 F-Calf 11/79-5/81 10 ----34.9 13.5 47.8 18.2 15.7 9.8
406 F-Calf 11/79-6/81 9 -- --119.4 46.1 121.1 46.8 26.2 16.3
......407 F-Calf 11/79-5/81 8 ----95.8 37.0 95.8 37.0 21.4 13.3
a 669 F-Calf 3/81-12181 12 305.2 --391.5 668.9 44.4w678F-Calf 3/81-6/82 20 185.1 132.1 430.9 41.9
679 F-Calf 3/81-2/82 16 .92.1 39.2 132.6 20.2
681 F-Calf 3/81-4/81 4 4.3 4.3 3.9
685 F-Calf 3/81-6/82 19 458.5 3247.5 3979.3 107.8
686 F-Calf 3/81-6/82 19 549.2 22.8 549.2 54.6
689 F-Calf 3/81-5/82 15 142.8 149.1 443.0 62.4
693 F-Calf 3/81-6/82 17 148.3 53.1 433.6 33.8
246 F-2 yr.3/79-8/79 6 5.9 2.3 ----15.9 6.1 8.4 5.3
633 F-2 yr.4/80-6/80 5 --------3.6 1.4 9.2 5.7
680 F-2 yr.3/81-8/81 5 ----2.6 1.0 7.8 3.0 5.7 3.6
701 F-2 yr.10176-9/78 32 914.3 353.0 638.7 246.6 1321.8 510.4 66.6 41.4
726 F-2 yr.3/77-4/79 28 409.4 158.1 237.3 91.6 539.0 208.1 47.2 29.3
617 F-Adult 4/80-6/82 42 69.3 60.9 88.9 14.7
618 F-13 yr.3/77-5/79
4/80-7/81 47 78.4 30.3 59.6 23.0 112.4 43.4 22.8 14.2
619 .F-9 yr.4/80-6/82 37 162.5 202.3 237.9 45.7
622 F-12 yr.4/80-6/82 38 156.4 68.9 171.3 22.0
623 F-8 yr.8178-12178
4/80-6/82 25 1507.2 815.8 1703.4 63.0
624 F-lO yr.4/80-5/82 32 303.9 155.8 370.9 45.6
625 F-13 yr.4/80-6/80 6 5.0 1.9 ----12.8 4.9 9.7 6.0
628 F-12 yr.4/80-6/72 36 101.9 281.2 312.7 51.3
629 F-3 yr.4/80-6/82 35 42.2 33.5 78.6 15.1
630 F-6 yr.4/80-6/82 36 117.7 9.1 131.9 29.8
631 F-I0 yr.3/77-4/77
4/80-10/81 27 50.5 73.8 130.8 21.0
J J )J •••••I .~1 I J J t J .~)I
)-.."~j-"~"-~l~-~}._--]
Appendix A.(cont'd)
Moose Sex-Age Period Total #Summer Winter Total MaxImum
1D #at Capture Monitored locations Home Range 11 Home Range 11 Home Range 2/length of range
(mo.,yr)km 1 mP-km 2 mP-km 1 mi~kIn mi
--
632 F-11 yr.4/80-9/80 14 40.7 15.7 ----48.6 18.8 16.3 10.1
634 F-12 yr.4/80-6/82 35 156.5 48.6 187.5 20.1
635 F-Adult 4/80-6/82 38 152'.1 242.9 475.7 43.4
636 F-4 yr.4/80-6/82 33 65.8 204.6 222.0 26.2
637 F-Adult 4/80-6/82 36 190.1 122.6 206.9 22.9
638 F-Adult 4/80-7/81 20 62.8 24.3 58.5 22.6 78.6 30.3 25.1 15.6
639 F-4 yr.4/80-6/82 36 386.9 553.2 700.8 46.2
640 F-5 yr.4/80-6/82 32 49.9 171.7 197.9 20.5
641 F-12 yr.4/80-5/82 38 121.8 127.2 163.4 18.0
643 F-Adult 4/80-6/82 36 115.4 92.8 149.8 25.5
,644 F-Adult '4/80-6/82 36 124.6 104.9 158.4 ,21.8
645 F-10 yr.4/80-6/82 34 49.8 180.6 241.6 25.3
647 F;...13 yr.4/80-3/82 35 108.8 200.3 299.9 28.1
648 F-4 yr.4/80-6/82 35 151.4 124.2 273.8 38.7
649 F-Adult 4/80-6/82'36 36.8 108.7 115.2 16.8
650 F-4 yr.4/80-6/82 39 317.8 193.2 550.2 50.5
651 F-6 .yr.8/78-3/79 I4/80-1/81 23 47.3 18.3 42.6 16.5 70.9 27.4 13.4 8.3
652 F-13 yr.4/80-6/82 36 177.0 71.7 177.0 27.0 "I
653 F-13 yr 4/80-6/82 37 55.6 178.7 198.1 26.3 I
654 F-9 yr.4/80-6/82 33 68.3 82.7 122.5 17.8 I
655 F-16 yr.4/80-6/82 34 114.7 61.7 187.7 20.6......656 F-13 yr.4/80-1/81 18 43.6 16.8 0.4 0.2 44.3 17.1 9.3 5.80
.j:-662 F-4 yr.3/77-10/77
6/80-6/82 46 63.0 49.3 69.6 13.6
663 F-8 yr:~10/76-4/79
8/80-6/82 76 428.3 318.4 515.0 42.2
664 F-Adu1t 10/76-4/79
6/80-4/82 56 73.1 28.2 2388.9 922.4 2910.5 1123.8 106.3 66.1
666 F-9 yr.3/81-10/81 10 50.5 ----100.1 17.1
668 F-8 yr.3/81-6/82 19 241.0 169.3 715.7 49.4
671 F-4 yr.3/81-6/82 18 81.2 240.8 542.7 46.6
683 F-9 yr.3/81-6/82 19 .59.3 28.4 68.8 14.0
684 F-8 yr.3/81-6/82 19 89.7 62.3 168.5 28.8
687 F-4 yr.3/81-5/82 17 212.0 52.3 493.0 50.4
688,F-Adult 3/81-5/82 18 124.7 41.1 222.1 35.9
691 F-9 yr.3/81-6/82 19 76.7 33.8 130.6 27.9
692 F-9 yr:.3/81-12/81 11 82.7 ----313.6 51.8 "
\
694 F-13 yr.3/81-6/82 19 22.9 48.5 ,96.0 20.2 ,
695 F-Adult 5/81-6/82 17 143.9 62.7 171.2 26.8
697 F-Adult 3/81-6/82 17 261.5 78.6 443.2 37.1
698 F-8 yr.3177-11/78 21 38.3 14.8 68.9.26.6 90.9 35.1 20.0 12.4
700 F-7 yr.10/76-11/77 21 880.6 340.0 627.1 242.1 1353.3 522.5 66.1 41.0
702 F-7 yr.10176-5/79 40 148.3 57.3 173.8 67.1 567.6 219.1 43.8 27.2
703 F-10 yr.10/76-3/79 30 193.1 74.5 93.5 36.1 261.6 101.0 24.1 15.0
704 F-Adult 10/76-4/79 22 151.2 58.4 121.7 47.0 283.6 109.5 29.8 18.5
705 F-9 yr.10/76-3179 32 99.2 38.3 334.9 129.3 352.5 136.1 33.1 20.6
706 F-Adult 10/76-4/79 42 157.1 60.7 93.6 36.1 185.2 71.5 21.8 13.6
Appendix A.(cont'd)
Moose Sex-Age Period Total #Summer Winter Total Maximum
10#at Capture Monitored locations Home Range 1/Home Range 1/Home Range 2/length of range
(mo.,yrl km l mi l -km l mP-km l mi'I Jcm mi
--
707 F-7 yr.10176-3179 43 344.5 133.0 516.6 199.5 657.4 253.8 52.9 32.9
7081 F-8 yr.10176-4179 39 252.1 97.3 136.8 52.8 454.1 175.4 50.0 31.0
709 "F-4 yr.10/76-3179 29 361.3 139.5 111.2 42.9 390.0 150.6 30.4 18.9
710 F-6 yr.10176-10/77 16 39.8 15.4 33.0 12.8 57.7 23.0 13.5 8.4
711 F-7 yr.10176-3/79 31 143.4 55.4 48.3 18.6 141.0 48.3 17.9 11.1
712 F-7 hr.10176-10178 38 628.7 242.7 20.7 8.0 717.2 276.9 61.1 38.0
713 F-9 yr..10/76-5178 23 42.6 16.5 41.9 20.0 81.1 31.3 13.5 8.4
714 F-7 hr.10176-10178 40 268.9 103.8 246.8 95.3 411.3 158.8 33.6 20.9,
715 F-Adult 10/76-4178 21 46.2 17.8 15.0 5.8 59.9 23.1 15.7 9.7
716 F-Adult 10/76-3179 31 118.3 45.7 32.0 12.3 149.5 57.7 24.9 15.4
717 F-4 yr.10176-4179 30 287.5 111,0 224.5 86.7 377.4 145.7 33.6 20.8
718 F-7 yr.3/77-5179 26 544.6 210.3 143.9 55.6 544.6 210.3 39.1 24.3
719 F-4 yr.3177-4179 35 96.7 37.3 14.0 5.4 104.8 40.5 16.5 10.2
720 F-12 yr.3/77-2179 35 565 21.8 73.6 28.4 106.7 41.2 14.9 9.3
721 F-3 yr.3/77-3179 25 48.2 18.6 101.2 39.1 173.0 66.8 19.7 12.2
722 F-13 yr.3/77'-3179 28 1131.3 436.8 155.8 60.2 1182.7 456.7 99.8 62.0
723 F-8 yr.3/77-4/80 28 53.1 20.5 28.7 11.1 64.2 24.8 12.0 7.5
724 F-13 yr.3/77-1179 38 163.7 63.2 214.0 83.0 271.3 104.7 34.8 21.6
I-'725 F-4 yr.3177-10179 33 1139.1 439.8 725.4 280.1 2269.0 876.1 169.4 105.2
0 728 F-Adult 3/77-5179 28 197.7 76.3 12.9 5.0 236.7 91.4 35.5 22.1
\JI 729 F-7 yr.3177-6179 38 122.0 47.1 81.8 31.2 172.1 66.4 26.8 16.7
730 F-11 yr.3/77-3179 28 47.4 18.3 64.1 24.8 121.7 47.0 19.8 12:3
731 F-Adult 3177-4179 35 42.0 16.2 37.9 14.6 63.3 24.4 15.1 9.4
732 F-10 yr.3/77-3179 25 32.1 12.4 41.0 15.8 76.1 29.4,16.9 10.5
733 F-3 yr.3177-3179 26 49.9 19.3 ,35.0 13.5 99.4 38.4 14.8 9.8
735 F-16 yr.8178-3179 8 10.5 4.1 18.4 7.1 37.7 14.5 14.4 9.0
736 F-Adu1t 10/77-2179 8 ----21.3 8.2 64.9 25.1 29.1 18.1
737 F-Adult 10177-11179 6 --------72.7 28.1 23.7 14.7
739 F-Adult 10177-2179 8 16.0 6.2 18.9 7.3 53.4 20.6 12.5 7.7
740 F-Adult 10177-10178 9 12.3 4.8 8.2 3.2 32.1 12.4 8~9 5.5
741 F-Adult 8178-4179 8 --------179.0 69.1 23.8 14.8
761 F-4 yr.4/82-6/82 6 --------344.6 --36.3
762 F-4 yr.4/82-6/82 6 --------142.5 --29.3
763 F-4 yr.4/82-6/82 8 12.2 ------41.9 --22.5
764 F-4 yr.4/82-6/82 9 57.8 --19.0 --106.4 --35.9
765 F-14 yr 4/82-6/82 8 18.7 --7.0 --89.9 --53.8
Y Not determined if 3 or less observations;summer =months of May,June,Ju1y,August,September,and October;winter =months of November,
December,January,February,March and April.
2/Not determined if 4 or less observations.
.1 J '.J ,I ,.'jt
•••)J ,~•I J J ),J J
I~
;
J
~
APPENDIX B
106
....._ ..c.
I!
107
~-
-
-,
Home Range 11/
Yr.Size (1an 2 )Location
80 3,456 22
81 7,972 15
Area of overlap 3,224 1an 2
,-"
-
J 11·
iF618
Home Range
Yr.Size (km 2 )
J
I 77 6 t 061 13I....78 2,615 1.3-
79 2,615 5
80 1,854 12
Area of 77;..78 overlap ...1,786 km 2'
Area of 78-79 overlap ...2,614 km 2
Area of 79-80 overlap ...983 km 2
108
'"""
109
IF619 -
Home Range IF
Yr.Size (lan 2 )Location
80 9 t 593 16
81 13 t 770 16
Area of 80-81 overlap =
6 t 198 km 2
~,
,~
.....-"'-
IJ622
Area of 80-81 overlap =0 4~638 lan 2
20
14
Ii
Location
9,367
6~373
Home Range
Size (lan2 )
80
81
Yr.
110
111
~',
-
i
;wi
.1
J
(1628
.,..-"'--
Yr.
80
81
Home Range
Size (km 2 )
8,093
25,668
(I
Location
16
15
112
Area of 80-81 overlap =7,238 km 2
113
~,
Home Range /I
Yr.Size (lan2 )Location
80-4,209 16
81 6.940 14
Area of 80-81 overlap =3,493 lan 2
Area of 80-81 overlap -1,091 km 2
!
I
,~.
,
j
"j
,JP'"'il!ll1.
-
11630
Yr.
80
81
Home Range
Size (~2)
1,122
4,244
II
Location
17
15
114
overlap •181 km 2
i .
I.,
\
j
I
1
I
.;1
115
//631
Yr •
80
81
Home Ran~e
Size ekm )
9,494
182
//
Location
15
7
-
/1635
Yr.
80
81
Home Range
Size (km 2 )
6,205
29,244
/1
Location
19
14
117
Area of 80-81 over lap =6,143 km 2
fi634
Yr.
80
81
Home .Ran~e
Size (kIn )
_8'9 912
15,894
Ii
Location
15
15 .
--,
Area of 80-81 overlap =8,243 km 2
116
.j
~.
I
\)""'.,
.P~
,-.'11636
Home Ran~e'/I
Yr.Size (lan )Location
80 6,584 15
81 11,960 13
Axea of 80-81 overlap =2,519 km 2
118
.".,
11637
Yr.
80
81
Home Range
Size (km 2 )
4,837
17,835
18
14
-
-
.....
Area of 80-81 overlap =4,018 km 2
119
Home Range IF
Yr.Size (km 2 )Location
80 20,471 18
-81 40,773 13
Area of 80-81 overlap =llj888 km 2
120 .
Area of 80--81 overlap a 3,118 km 2
-
16
13
1/
Location
3,120
19,728
Home ~nge
Size (km 2 )Yr.
80
81
1/640
"""\
-
121
Yr.
80
81
Home Range
Size Ckm 2 )
12,666
10,106
It
Location
20
14
Area of 80-81 overlap •7,988 km 2
122
':-',
123
11642
~
Home R.aIi~e II
Yr.Size (km )Location
80 8,094 15
81 11,809 14
Area of 80-81 overlap ,,.4,169 km 2 -"-
.~,
~'
11643
Home Range II
Yr.Size (lan 2 )Location
~.
80 10,030 19
81 5,979 12
Area of 80-81 overlap ..4-,960 km 2
;"'.....
124
._-----._------------
..$>..
-
~,
11645
~
Home Range II
Yr.Size (lan 2 )Location -80 7,949 15
81 11,788 15
4,018 lan 2 -Area of 80-81 overlap ""
-125
f/647
Home Ran~e If
Yr.·Size (km)Location
21
13
6,975
25,907
of 80-81 overlap =4,770 km 2
80
81
126
-,
.-"'f -11648
HOD;le Ran~e Ii "
Yr.Size (kIn )Location
80 12,930 17 -
81 16,522 15
Area of 80-81 overlap :II'8,608 1an 2 .~
127
-
-
-
.~
11649
.Home Range II.1
Yr.Size (km 2)Locationj
~
80 1,567 18
-,1 81 10,971 15j
,~.
km 2Areaaf·aO-8D overlap :::a 1,532
r~
128
Area of 80-81 overlap •27,704 km 2
-
21
15
II
.Location
37,010
39,954
Home Range
Size (1an 2 )
80
81
11650
~Yr.
·.1
-
-129 .-
-
.--
,.',
11651
Home Ran~e II
Yr.Size (Ian )Location
78 5,001 9
80 3,521 13
~
Area of 78-80 overlap ...1,877 1an 2
130
80-81 overlap -3,633 km 2
.--
I I I
131
1;652
Yr.
80
81
Rome Range
Size (km 2 )
13,141
4,058
1;
Location
20 .
13·
-
,..,
,~.
.-
,',~
Ij654
Home Ran~e.Ij
Yr.Size (km )Location
80·80 ,6,067 16
81 9,528 14
80-81 overlap •.4,031 km 2
81
132
~,
-
1/655
,fJi!I:"'",
Home Range /I
Yr.Size (km2 )Location _.
80 I 4,552 17
81 16,585 14
Area of 80-81 overlap -3,031 lqa2 ~
133
'/662
;Home Range 1/"
(~Yr.Size (km 2)Location
77 1~108 9
,I 78 1~480 6'•,,;.4 80 2~475 12
81 3,663 13
i,
j Area of 77-78 overlap 68 km 2,.,.,.,= '
Area of 78-80 overlap .-177 km 2 '
Area of 80-81 overlap =-2,033km2 ,
-
-
134
-
-
-
-
~,
-135
11664
Home Ran~e II
Yr.Size (km )Location
76 42,256 12 -~77 31,473 17
78 235,778 14
80 2,531 15
Area of 76-77 overlap =22,270 km 2
Area of 77-78 overlap =1.$,816 km 2
Area of 78-80 overlap -1,309 km 2 -,
"""
.~
r-
,Home Ran~e
Yr.Size (lan )
80 11,186 15
81 12,018 15
""'"82 1,997 4
Area of 80-81 overlap =9:616 lan 2
Area of 81-82 overlap ...1,940 km.2
"~
J.36
-
Home Range !I
Yr.Size (lan 2 )Location
"l
80 4,505 18
81 16,679 14
82 397 4
""""
Area of 80-81 overlap =3,413 lan 2
Area of 81-82 overlap =294 lan 2
.....
137
',""'------_......_-~--,----'---~--
{j679
Yr.
80
81
Home Range
Size (km 2 )
108
13,204
a,
II
Location
4
13
Area of 80-81 overlap =102 km 2
138
-1
I I I
...",
.~
11685
-Home Ra~e If
Yr.Size (km )Location
81 164~187 12
82 20~842 5
Area of 81-82 overlap '"o km 2 ~
139
.....
-
j
n01
Home Range Ij
Yr.Size (km 2 )Location
76 62,383 .9
77 60,384 .12
78 9,210 11
.·1
76-77 overlap ,.'26,572 km 2
"'""
Area
Area 77-78 overlap·4,534 km 2
140
11726 -,
Home Ran~e 11
Yr.Size (km )Location
n 24,445 9
~,
78 33,112 16
Area 77-78 overlap ...11,191 km 2 ~,
141
-
~-
-