HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA23221-
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
1·983 ANNUAL REPORT
BIG GAME STUDIES
VOLUME HI MOOSE'-UPSTREAM
Warren B.Ballard
Jackson S.Whitman
Nancy G.Tankersle.y
,',Lawrence D.Aumiller
Pauline Hessing
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
Submitted to the Alaska Power Authority
April 1984
DOCUMENT No.2322
,...
-
-
TK
111'1..)
.5~
A~Lf
nl!),J~11
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
1983 ANNUAL REPORT
BIG GAME STUDIES
VOLUME I I I.MOOSE -UPSTREAM
Warren B.Ballard
Jackson S.Whi tman
Nancy G.Tankersley
Lawrence D.Aumiller
Pauline Hessing
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
submi tted to t.he
Alaska Power Authori ty
April,1984
ARLIS
Alaska Resources
Library &Information Services
Anchorage,Alaska
....
-
-
-
.....
.-
-
-
ANY QOES'f:IOHS OR COMMEN'fS CONCERNING
THIS REPORT SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO
THE ALASXA POWER ADTBOR:ITY
StJSl:DA PROJECT 0Pl"1:0
-
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 I,1980
to June 30,1982,were intended to provide information needed to
support a FERC 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 began in order to provide additional information during
the anticipated 2 to 3 year period between application and final
FERC approval of the liceI;lse.Belukha whales were added to the
species being studied.In these annual or final reports,we are
narrowing the focus of our studies to evaluate specific impact
mechanisms,quantify impacts and evaluate mi tigation measures.
This is the second 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 J this report is not intended
as a complete assessment of the impacts of the Susi tna Hydro-
electric Proj ect on the selected wildlife species.
The information and conclusions contained in these reports are
i.ncomplete 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 I I.
Volume I II.
Volume IV.
Volume V.
Volume VI.
Volume VI I.
Volume VI r I.
Volume IX.
Big Game Summary Report
Moose -Downstream
Moose -Upstream
Caribou
Wolf
Black Bear and Brown Bear
Wolverine
Dall Sheep
Belukha Whale
ii
-
.....
.....
.-
-
-
SUMMARY
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.An estimated 279 and 252 moose occupied the
47,000 acre burn area in 1982 and 1983,respectively .
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 II.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
crossings 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
impacted by the project,while the secondary zone was c.omprised
of moose which overlapped home ranges of moose occupying the
primary zone.Population estimates based on earlier censuses
ranged from approximately 1,900 to 2,600 moose which could be
directly impacted by the project.A census of the area in fall
1983 provided a moose population estimate of 2,836 ±301.Moose
occupied the impoundment areas more during the months of March-
May than other time periods.Two hundred and ninety and 580
moose were estimated to inhabit the Watana impoundment area in
spring 1982 and 1983,respectively.Moose usage of the Watana
Impoundment zone was greatest during the month of March.
iii
-
.-
Habi tat use 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 .
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.Comparison of projected moose
population estimates based on modeling to those based on a 1983
census suggest that the model adequately represents moose popu-
lations dynamics under pre-project conditions.Eventually the
model will be used to test hypotheses concerning the impacts of-Susi tna Hydroelectric development on moose.
A summary of project impacts on moose and ways they may affect
basic population parameters are presented.
-
-
iv
.....
-
....
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
INTRODUCTION
STUDY AREA
SECTION I.PROPOSED EXPERIMENTAL BURN
Introduction
Methods
Results
SECTION II.HOME RANGE,DISTRIBUTION AND MOVEMENTS
OF MOOSE .
Radio-collaring Moose
Home Range Size
River Crossings
Zone of Impact .,.
Winter Use of Impact Zone
Watana Impoundment
Devil Canyon Impoundment
Predictions of Severe Winters
Recruitment .
SECTION III.HABITAT USE ....
Page
iii
viii
.xiii
1
2
2
2
3
4
5
5
5
7
7
9
9
11
11
13
13
Vegetation/Habitat Selection .
Use of Various Elevations,Slopes,
Watana Impoundment . . .
Devil Canyon Impoundment
v
and Aspects
13
14
16
17
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd)
Page
-
SECTION IV.MOOSE POPULATION MODELING
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
18
18
19
20
21
21
23
25
25
26
28
31
SECTION V.IMPACT MECHANISMS.. . . . . . . . . ...34
SECTION VI.MITIGATION.. . . . . . . . . . . . ...34
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...35
,~
-
LITERATURE CITED
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
APPENDIX D
vi
97
100
104
140
141
-
-
-
--
APPENDIX E
APPENDIX F
APPENDIX G
APPENDIX H
APPENDIX I
APPENDIX J
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd)
vii
Page
142
143
144
145
146
147
..-
~,
Table 1.
Table 2 .
Table 3.
Table 4.
Table 5.·
LIST OF TABLES
Statistics associated with capture and
radio-collaring of 10 adult cow moose
in April and July 1982 within the pro-
posed controlled burn area . . . . . . .
Results of moose census in GMU-13
proposed burn areal 24-25
March 1982 . . . .
Moose census results from the GMU-13
proposed burn areal 25 and 26
March 1983 . ......
Statistics associated with recapturing
radio-collared moose in the Susitna
Hydroelectric Project Area of south-
central Alaska during October
1982 . . . . .
Susitna River crossings l and calf pro-
duction 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
Page
36
37
38
39
41
....
-
-
.-
-
.-
Table 6 .
Table 7.
Table 8 .
Table 9.
LIST OF TABLES (cont'd)
Moose census results from survey during
4-9 November 1983 and population estimate
for the Moose Primary Impact Zone . . . . .
Area of moose habitat and moose population
estimates for 3 moose impact zones
associated with development of the
Susitna Hydroelectric Project
Snow survey data and calculations of
winter severity index near the middle
Susitna River,Alaska,from 1974 through
February 1984 . ....
Availability and moose utilization of
19 habitat types in the Susitna River
Study Area from April 1980 through
September 1981 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Page
49
50
51
52
-
,~
Table 10.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.. . . . . . . .....
ix
53
LIST OF TABLES (cont I d)
Table 11.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 . . . . . . . . . .
Page
54
Table 12.Mortality rates due to winter
starvation of radio-collared
calf and yearling moose in the
Nelchina and Susitna Riv~r
Basins,1977-1982 55
Table 13.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 southcentral Alaska
from 1976-1982 . . . .
Table 14.Summary of moose census data and sub-
sequent population estimates for the
Susitna River Study Area,November
1983 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
x
56
57
-
-
Table 15.
Table 16.
LIST OF TABLES ('cont'd)
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 . . . . . . . . . . . .
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 . . . .
Page
58
60
Table 17.Susitna Hydroelectric Project actions
and their potential effect on moose
numbers,distribution and habitat in
the Susitna River Study area ....
Table 18.Potential impacts of Susitna Hydroelectric
development on annual moose population
parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
xi
62
63
....
-
-
-
Fig.1.
Fig.2.
Fig.3.
Fig.4.
Fig.5.
LIST OF FIGURES
Boundaries of proposed control burn
area in GMU-13 of southcentral
Al aska ...
Timing of initiation of moose crossing
of the Susitna 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-qollared 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 south-
central Alaska ..... . . . . . . . .
Proportion of time spent below 2200'
elevation by radio-collared moose from
March 1981 to December 1983 in the middle
Susitna River Basin,
Alaska . . . . . . .
xii
Page
65
66
67
68
69
....
.....
Fig.6.
Fig.7.
Fig.8.
Fig.9.
Fig.10.
LIST OF FIGURES (cont I d)
Winter severity index calculations from
the middle Susitna River Basin,Alaska,
1973-74 through 1982-83,based upon snow
depths between 28 January and 2 March at 4
snow stations . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mean monthly elevations occupied by 74
radio-collared moose from October 1976
through May 1982 in the primary impact
zone of the Susitna project .....
Year-round elevational usage by radio-
collared moose in relatic;m to availability
in the primary impact zone of the proposed
Watana impoundment 1976-1982 . . . . . . . .
Use of various elevations by radio-collared
moose in relation to availability during
January -May in the primary impact zone
along the Susitna River near Watana Creek,
Alaska from 1976-1982 ... . . . . . . . .
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
xiii
Page
70
71
72
73
74
~\
.-
-,;
I
-
-
Fig.11.
Fig.12.
Fig.13.
Fig.14.
LIST OF FIGURES (cont'd)
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
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
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 . . . . . . . . . . .
Use of 9 aspects by radio-collared
moose from 1976-1982 in relation
to availability in the primary
impact zone along the Susitna River
near Devil Canyon,Alaska . . . . .
xiv
Page
75
76
77
78
-I
-
Fig.15.
Fig.16.
LIST OF FIGURE,S (cont'd)
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
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 southcentra1 Alaska ....
Page
79
80
r-
Fig.17.Schematic diagram of Event 1 (birth)
~for the Susitna River moose model ···..81
Fig.18.Schematic diagram of Events 2
and 8 (early spring and winter
mortality)for the Susitna River,.,.,
moose model .. . .· · ··· · ·
.82
-~Fig.19.Schematic diagram of Events 3,
4 and 9 (wolf predation)for the
Susitna River moose model · ···· ··.83
Fig.20.Schematic diagram of Events 5"'-
and 6 (brown bear and black bear
predation)for the Susitna River
moose model .. ... ..···· · ·
84
,....xv
,....
-
Fig.21.
Fig.22.
Fig.23.
Fig.24.
Fig.25.
LIST OF FIGURES (cont I d)
Schematic diagram of Event 7
(hunting mortality)for the
Susitna River moose model .
November moose population esti-
mates as derived from modeling
versus composition counts for
the Susitna River Study Area
of southcentral Alaska,1975-1986
Fall moose population trends
derived from modeling using
annual composition count.data
for initial population size
for the Susitna River Study
Area,1975-1991 . . . . . .
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 . . . . .
Percent yearling bulls in moose
populations each fall as determined
from modeling versus composition
counts for the Susitna River Study
Area,1975-1982 . . .
xvi
Page
85
86
87
88
89
-
-
-
-
-
-
-I
Fig.26.
Fig.27.
Fig.28
Fig.29.
Fig.30.
LIST OF FIGURES (cont'd)
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 . . . .......
Annual percentyealring bull moose
mortality due to several mortality
factors as determined from modeling
the Susitna River Study Area in
southcentral Alaska,1975-1981 . . . . .
Annual adult moose morta~ity rates
by cause as determined from mcdeling
the Susitna River Study Area moose
population in southcentral Alaska,
1975-1981
Fall moose population estimates as
derived from modeling versus annual
composition counts for GMU-13 of
southcentral Alaska,1975-1986 .
Estimated annual rates of calf
mortality from predation and
winter kill determined from
modeling the GMU-13 moose
population of southcentral
Alaska,1975-1981
xvii
Page
90
91
92
93
94
-
-
-
.....
.....
-
.-
Fig.31.
Fig.32.
LI ST OF FIGURES (cont'd)
Annual GMU-13 adult moose
mortality rates £rom 4 factors
estimated from modeling,1975-
1981 . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Annual fall moose and wolf
population trends between
GMU-13 and the Susitna River
Study Area of southcentral
Alaska,1975-1981 . . , . . . . . . ... .
xviii
Page
95
96
--~---------------------...".,.""""''''''''''''"'''''"'-~====-------------
"""'
-
-
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 (Alees alees)are one of the more important
wildlife species which could be seriously impacted by hydro-
electric development.Phase I moose studies (Ballard et 01.
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 r:efinement of the information
gathered during Phase I studies.The principal objectives of
Phase I I studies during FY83 were 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
andhabi tat which will be altered by construction of the
Susitna Hydroelectric Project during winter and early
spring.
(3)To determine changes in moose use of an area before and
after a prescribed burn.
(4)To evaluate moose use of potential mitigation lands.
(5)To develop a habitat-based assessment of the current value
of lands that will be lost or altered to moose.
1
,~
As a result of studies in FY83 ,project objectives were modified
as follows for FY84:
(1)To determine the number of moose inhabiting the primary
impact zone.
(2)To determine habitat selectivity of
the upstream primary impact zone
Hydroelectric proj ect.
moose inhabiting
of the Susitna
-
-
-
(3)To determine the causes and rates of moose calf
mortality.
This report updates the findings presented in the Final Phase I
report (Ballard et al.1982)with additional data collected from
mid-August 1981 through December 1983.Because the information
contained in this report treats ,only portions of continuing
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).
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
2
.....
.-
....
,.....
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 burn 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.Al though the proposed
burn will undoubtedly eventually improve moose winter range,the
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 temporarily 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 densi ty.
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 programs a~e presented in
I
Table 1.Moose immobilized during summer generally required 13
mg etorphine hydrochloride (00-99)in combination with 300 mg
xylazine hydrochloride (Rompun).As anticipated,these doses
were higher than those normally used to immobilize moose during
3
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 nutri tional stress.
The proposed burn was divided into 9 units and censused on 24 and
25 March 1982 and on 25-26 March 1983 using methods described by
Gasaway et al.(1982)in an effort to determine winter moose
densi ty prior to burning.
RESULTS
Preliminary movement analyses from 10 radio-collared moose
suggest that 3 separate populations utilize the proposed burn
area;(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 fall;and (3)the area is also inhabited by a
year-round resident population.
During the 1982 census,a total of 167 moose in 139 mi 2 were
counted (Table 2).These were observed from fixed-wing aircraft
at an intensity of 5.2 min.jmi 2 •Based upon an intensive
resurvey of 1 area which was randomly selected,we estimated that
approximately 40%of the moose present had not been counted.
Therefore,'the corrected March preburn moose population estimate
in 1982 was 279 moose for a density of 2.0 moosejmi 2 •Results of
the 1983 census of the proposed burn area are presented in
Table 3.Estimates between years were comparable;279 moose in
1982 and ,252 in 1983 ..Although more moose were actually observed
in 1983 than in 1982 the 1983 sightability correction factor was
much lower (1.29 in 1983 versus 1.67 in 1982).
4
-
....
A prescription for the burn was prepared and the burn was
originally scheduled to occur in August 1982.However,because
of weather conditions not conducive to burning,the experiment
has been postponed twice and is now scheduled for 1984.
SECTION I I.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 4).Induction time ranged from 7 to 61 minutes,
averaging 26.1 minutes.Drug dosages reported herein are the
largest ever used on Unit 13 moos~.We suspect that the larger
doses were necessary bec~use 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.
HOME 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 December
1983.Considerable variation in size was noted for both seasonal
and total home range sizes.Some of the variation may be
attributed to an insufficient number of locations.
5
-
.-
Comparison of total home range size with numbers of locations for
both calf and adult moose suggested considerable variation
between individuals.Although weak correlations may exist,
individual examination of the larger individual home ranges
suggests two explanations.Larger range sizes ()700 kIn 2)for
some calves were due to their dispersal away from the cow's home
range.Therefore,subtraction of the area occupied while with
the cow will reduce the size of the area and make them comparable
wi th nondi spersing calf home ranges.However,for adults the
larger <>1,100 kJn2)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 =It's 623,635,
639, 664,668,696,707, 708,and 722 in Ballard et ale 1982).
During these periods,except during migration,moose appear to
move farther and more frequently than during other seasons.An
additional reason for the large size of some home ranges was that
the method used included high,m!=:>untainous areas (~4,OOO 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
Copper River).
6
-
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
(Table 5).During January,February,May,and September 1982,
49%of the river crossings were initiated (Fig.2).There did
not appear to be any consi stent season for individual moose to
cross the river but thi s was probably the result of relatively
infrequent monitoring.Undoubtedly the frequency of river
crossings by moose is much greater than what our data suggest.
Addi tional crossings were observed in 1983 but these were not
included in this report.
ZONE OF IMPACT
Radio-collared moose which either ~easonally or on a year-round
basis occupy areas to be directly altered by operation and main-
tenance of both the Watana and Devi 1 Canyon Impoundments were
used to delineate an area where moose would be directly impacted.
Home range polygons were determined for each moose which utilizes
either 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).Home range polygons were computed
by connecting outermost point locations (Mohr 1947)and only for
those moose which had an excess of 4 location points.Similarly,
secondary and tertiary zones of impact were determined by using
the outer edges of moose home 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.Data now being collected concerning range
conditions should facilitate a more comprehensive overview of the
predicted competition which we assume will result from
inundation.
7
.-
.....
The primary impact zone was censused in fall 1983 using quadrant
sampling techniques (Gasaway et ~.1982)in an effort to refine
earlier moose population estimates.Boundaries of individual
sample areas were identical to those used during the fall 1980
census and therefore the area censused did not conform exactly to
the boundaries of the impact zone which were based on movements
of radio-collared moose.Table 6 summarizes the results of the
fall 1983 census of the primary moose impact zone.Average moose
densi ties in the area ranged from 0.6 moose/mi 2 in low density
stratum to 3.5 moose/mi 2 in high density areas.The total fall
population was estimated at 2,836 ±301 moose.
Table 7 compares 4 separate population estimates (3 based on 1980
census data and 1 based on 1983 census data)of the numbers of
moose occupying the primary impact zone.The first method was
similar to the preliminary analysis provided by Ballard et al.
(1982).The proportion of radio-co;Llared moose occurring wi thin
the impoundment zone was compared ~o the total number of radio-
collared moose wi thin the 1980 census boundary and was then
extrapolated to the total population estimate.Although such an
estimate (1,913 moose)could have potentially been biased because
of capture location,over half of the radio-collared moose
included in the method were captured for other studies,and thus
were located away from the project area.Therefore any biases
should have been minimized.Method 2 applied the average moose
densi ty estimate derived from censusing moose count areas 7 and
14 during fall 1980 (see Ballard et al.1982)to the amount of
moose habitat contained within the primary zone.Method 3
utilized the actual count area boundaries used for the 1980
census.Each count area had been stratified into one of 4 moose
densi ties (none,low,medium,and high)and its area had been
determined.The moose density estimates for each stratum in 1980
were then applied to the amount of each type occurring within the
primary zone.Method 4 consisted of the actual 1983 census
estimate.
8
....
-
The most recent census provided the largest estimate of moose
occupying the impact zone.This was not particularly surprising
since moose modeling exercises (see Moose Population Modeling)
suggest the moose population has increased since 1980.Also the
earlier estimates were based on extrapolations of 1980 census
data and not direct counts of the area.
Using methods similar to those of method =lt2 we have estimated
that there are approximately 23,000 moose in GMU-13.Therefore,
over 10%of the moose in the Unit could be impacted by the
proposal proj ect.
WINTER USE OF THE IMPACT ZONE
Winter locations of moose found within the impact zone (Fig.4)
were used to delineate the approximate boundaries of an area
which should be intensively census.ed during severe winter con-
di tion,s in future years.
Because moose appeared to concentrate in the Watana impoundment
area during March in both 1982 and 1983,an attempt was made to
census the Watana impoundment area out to 1/4 mile from the
2,200 ft.high pool level.The 1982 census was conducted on
25 March and the 1983 census was conducted on 28 March.Con-
ditions for both censuses were poor due to complete but old snow
cover,overcast light conditions,and moderate air turbulence.
No census was conducted in the Devil Canyon area during 1982.
Watana Impoundment
A total of 4.4 (2.73 min/mi 2 )and 6.6 (4.09 min/mi 2 )hours were
spent surveying 96.8 mi 2 of habitat (river water area excluded)
in the proposed Watana Impoundment area during 1982 and 1983 I
respecti vely.A sightabi Ii ty correction factor obtained from
censusing the proposed Alphabet Hills burn area (Fig.1)in 1982
was utilized which resulted in a population estimate of 290 moose
9
-
-
in 1982.The latter estimate was 7 times greater than the number
of moose which were estimated within the same area in March 1981
(Ballard et al.1982).However,in 1983 3.4 mi 2 of the Impound-
ment area was randomly selected and recensused at an intensity of
12 minutes/mi 2 in an effort to estimate the number of moose
mi ssed during the less intensive survey.The more intensive
search research resulted in a sightability correction factor of
2.6 which when applied to the numbers of moose observed during
the less intensive count (161 moose)provided a total 1983 popu-
lation estimate of 580 moose.The relatively high correction
factor in 1983 was also substantiated by our observing only 2 of
7 radio-collared moose known to be present in the impoundment
area during the count.
From 14 February through 24 May 1983,30 radio-collared moose
which have a history of utilizing the impoundment areas during
some portions of the year (Ballar:-d et al.1982)were located
twice weekly to determine habitat use and to estimate the
proportion of time these moose utilized the area to be inundated.
By 25 January 1983,20%of the intensively monitored moose were
in the impoundments.Use of the impoundment areas increased in
March when 10 of the intensively monitored moose were in the
impoundment zone.Use declined after March and by mid-May only
7-10%of the moose were located wi thin the impoundment.Based
upon the March 1983 moose population estimate of 580 moose and
the proportion of radio-collared moose actually in the
impoundment zone we estimate that 193-278 moose were below high
pool level.
Annual moose usage by month of the Watana impoundment zone from
1981-1983 is depicted in Figure 5.During March of each year,33
to 48%of the locations of radio-collared moose were in areas
which would be inundated by the Watana impoundment (Fig.5).
10
-
.....
-
-
-
Devi 1 Canyon Impoundment
On 31 March 1983 a total of 2.1 hours (4.1 minjmi 2 )was spent
censusing a 30 mi 2 area within ~of the high pool level of the
Devils Canyon Impoundment.A total of 14 moose were observed.A
1.7 mi 2 area was recounted at an intensity of 12.4 minjmi 2 in an
effort to generate a sightabili ty correction factor.No addi-
tional moose were recounted,however only 1 of 2 radio-collared
moose known to be wi thin the area was observed during the less
intensive count.Even if half the moose were missed however,the
counts indicate that the Devil Canyon Impoundment area is poorer
moose habitat than that found in the Watana Impoundment.Only 2
moose were observed in a similar census of the area in March 1981
(Ballard et 01.1982).
PREDICTION OF SEVERE WINTERS
Because moose have not been monitored during a truly severe
winter and because we believe this is necessary to fully assess
impacts of the proposed project,we have attempted to develop the
capabili ty to predict winter severity in early winter.These
predictions will be used to determine when special studies should
be initiated to determine the importance of the project area to
moose during a severe winter.
To explore the feasibility of developing an index as to the
relative severity of winter conditions in the middle Susi tna
River Basin,snow survey data from spring 1974 to present were
analyzed.Before 1981,snow course sites were limited to only 8
areas.Fifteen additional survey sites were added after this.
However,because historical data were lacking from these new
sites,only data from the original 8 survey sites were investi-
gated and used for this analysis.
11
-
.-
-
-
-
Four of the 8 snow course sites were selected for analysis based
upon their proximity to the moose study area,giving a fairly
representative overview of the snowfall pattern.From these
data,a method was developed for indexing the relative severity
of past winters,and,more importantly,for predicting by early
March,what the current years relative severi ty would be.
In terms of moose being victims of winter-kill,we have assumed
that the amount of snow cover during spring (March-May)is more
important that early-and mid-winter snow depths.We also
assumed that the main factor leading to malnouri shment among
moose is snow depth,and that it is influenced only negligibly by
water content of the snow,temperatures,etc.Therefore,only
cumulative snow depths for the 4 stations were considered.
The 4 snow courses considered most representative in predicting
winter severity were:(1)Fog Lakep,(2)Square Lake (prior to
1982 known as Oshetna Lake),(3)Monahan Flats,and (4)Lake
Louise.In developing a winter severity index (WSI)the 2 snow
depth readings which were recorded from 28 January through 2
April were added together from each of the 4 snow stations,and
divided by the number of snow stations reporting (in most cases,
4).This yielded the average 2 month cumulative snow depth,
which was synonymous wi th the WSI (Table 8).
With the available data,we felt that it was possible to deline-
ate 3 categories of winters,i.e.,mild,moderate,and severe.
Obviously,because snow does not accumulate in discreet,separ-
able units but rather as a continuum,it was a subjective deter-
mination as to where the break-points were between the 3 cate-
gories.However,an idea of relative severity can be gathered by
comparing the WSI wi th other data.For instance,the winter of
78-79 was considered relatively severe in terms of snow depths by
Eide and Ballard (1982)and observations of calf moose deaths
(Ballard and Gardner 1980).Ballard (pers.corom.)also thought
12
-
-
--
-
.-
-
-
-
that the winter of 74-75 may have been relatively severe based
upon moose calf survival the following summer and early fall.Of
the years included in this analysis,these 2 years did have the
deepest snow.
By the methods outlined above,a winter can be classed as severe
when the WSI is 25.0 or greater.A WSI of 17.0 or less was
classified as mi ld,and WSI values between 17.1 and 24.9 were
moderate (Fig.6).
RECRUITMENT
No attempt was made to measure productivity of radio-collared cow
moose during either 1982 or 1983,however,productivity appeared
comparable to earlier studies (Ballard et at.1982a,b).Mor-
tality (approximately 71%)of calves continued at a relatively
high level (Table 5)and was similar to earlier years where most
losses were attributable to predation by brown bears (Ballard
etat.1980;1981;1982a,b).
SECTION I I I.HABITAT 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.).Thi s included only moose occupying the
primary impact zone (Fig.3).Habitat types were identified
according to Viereck and Dyrness IS (1980)level I I classifi-
cation.
13
.....
-
-
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.
Because 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.
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 availability by moose both
year-round and in spring:woodland black spruce,open black
spruce,closed mixed forest and woodland white spruce (Table 9).
Willow habitat types 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
availabili ty 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-
abi Ii ty.Generally,the remaining vegetation type s not Ii sted
above were used in proportion to their abundance.Because
corrected 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
preliminary.
14
--------_._-
-
.-
i
.....
USE OF VARIOUS ELEVATIONS,SLOPES AND ASPECTS
Methods
The availability of various elevations,slopes,and aspects to
moose within-the primary impact zone was assessed by recording
these variables at the intersection of section lines on 1:63,360
scale topographic maps (U.S.G.S.) .Moose usage was determined
from radio locations plotted on topographic maps.Moose loca-
tions in the impact zone and the availability data were divided
into those associated with each impoundment area.Elevations
were determined by extrapolating between contour lines to the
nearest 50 ft.interval.To assess the 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 =0°to 10°with contour
line intervals exceeding 0.19 inch,gentle =11°to 30°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.
Results
There was considerable variation in the monthly and annual
elevations occupied by radio-collared moose in the primary impact
zone (Table 10).Generally,moose _in the proj ect area move to
higher elevations in October,presumabA~to breed,and then
depending on snow conditions,begin moving downward reaching the
lowest elevations occupied during the year from January through
May (Fig.7).Moose appear to be driven to lower elevations in
15
.,.,.,
-
-
,...
winter by heavy snowfall;however,it appears that in average or
mild 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 elevations 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.
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 II).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 1975
through May 1982 were at or less than 2,300 ft.elevation.
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.8).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 1,501-2,000,and 2,201-2,800 ft.were
used more than expected (P<O.OS),reflecting the downward
movement of moose during these seasons (Fig.9).Elevations in
excess of 3,001 ft.were used less than expected (P<O.OS)during
winter and spring seasons.
16
.-
"""
Similarly,slope usage by moose was not random (P<0.05),X2 =
24.5).Flat slopes were used less than expected (P<0.05)while
moderate slopes were used more than expected (P<0.05),both
year-round and from January to May (Fig.10).Gentle slopes were
used in proportion to their availability (P<0.05).
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.11).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 ~,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
(Figs.12 and 13).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-
we~t facing slopes more than expected (P<0.05)based upon avail-
abili ty (Fig.14)..North facing slopes were used less than
expected (P<0.05),while all other slope categories were used in
proportion to their occurrence.
Both year-round and during January to May flat slopes (Fig.15)
were used less than expected (P<0.05)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<0.05),but
year-round they were used more than expected (P<0.05).
17
.-
-
-
-
~-
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 is 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 01.1981 a,b),that area was used as the basis for this par...;
ticu1ar model.Boundaries of the area were previously described
by Ballard et aJ.(1981a).Briefly,the boundaries are the
Alaska Range on the north,Brushkana and Deadman Creeks on the
west,Susitna River on the south ~nd the Maclaren River on the
east.Although thi s area extends beyond thf:impact zone s,we
believe that the biological characteristics of the area are
representative of the project area.Also,an attempt was made to
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 aJ.In Prep.).
These population models start with an estimate of population
size I and sex and age structure I and proceed through an annual
cycle of reproduction and mortality factors which for these
models are termed "Events"(Fig.16).Population estimates are
calculated for each year at calving and subsequently the popu-
lation declines as mortali ty factors act on the population.
18
.....
,....
POPULATION ESTIMATES
Population Size
The starting 1975 population size estimate (X)for each model was
derived from the following formula:
X =(A)(B)
C
Where A is the number of moose observed/hour 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
observed/hour during the 1980 autumn composition counts which
were conducted immediately before the census.We assumed that
the numbers of moose observedjhour during fall composition counts
reflected annual changes in moose density.Variable B was
estimated 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 01.(1979).Moose density esti-
mates derived during the census in 1980 were used as the basis
for grossly estimating numbers of moose within the Susitna Study
Area and within GMU 13 from 1975-1981.The actual moose popula-
tion estimate in fall 1980 and more recently in 1983 were used as
a check for the population size generated by the project model.
It was assumed that for the model to be valid,both the fall 1980
and 1983 population estimates derived from the model should fall
wi thin the confidence interval of the 1983 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,and high).The strati-
fication was based upon a combination of distribution and numbers
of moose observed during composition counts conducted from
19
--
-
-
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 about
23,000 moose for fall 1980.The GMU 13 model was modi fied so
that the fall 1980 and 1983 population size generated by the
model would conform with 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
previous year I s estimate of reproduction and mortality.In the
case of year 1 (1975)the sex ratio was determined by the fall
moose composition count and back calculated to correspond with
population size at calving (Fig.~7).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 al.1982 a,b and Gasaway pers.corom.).Also,because prelim-
inary runs revealed that in both models,populations declined to
extinction,initial estimates of numbers of yearlings were
doubled.Estimates of yearlings based upon composition counts
were drastically underestimated,probably because they were
incorrectly aged as adults.
Pregnancy rates of cow moose were determined from rectal pal-
pation of captured animals in 1976,1977,and 1980 (VanBallen-
berghe 1978;Ballard and Taylor 1980;and Ballard et al.1982).
Al though some minor variations in rates was noted,we assumed
that 88%of the sexually mature cows (~2 yr age)were pregnant
each year.
20
""""
-
Estimates of moose productivity were determined during calf
collaring programs from 1977-79 (Ballard et al.1980;1981)and
were estimated at 135 calves/lOa pregnant cows or 1.19 calves/
adul t cow.Producti vi ty of 2-year-olds was estimated at 0.29
calves/cow (from Blood 1974).For the models,we assumed that
productivity remained constant each year (which was probably not
the case).In fact,in that portion of the Susi tna River Study
Area where brown bears were transplanted,there was a significant
(p eO.01)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 MORTALITY (EXCLUDING PREDATION)
Following birth,both calf and adult mortality estimates
(Fig.18)were subtracted from the population.Immediately after
birth,6%of the calves were assumed to die from natural factors
other than wolf (Can;s lupus)and bear predation such as still-
birth,drownings,and other accidents (from Ballard et al.1981).
EVENTS 3,4,9 -WOLF PREDATION
Estimates of annual moose mortality due to wolf predation f,or
each model were divided into 3 time periods to correspond with
pup production,human exploitation and natural mortality,and
changes in diet composition (Fig.19).The time periods were as
follows:#1)15 May-15 July (Event 3);#2)15 July-1 November
(Event 4);and #3)1 November-1S May (Event 9).Period #1
encompasses the wolf denning period and represents the annual low
21
.....
in the wolf population.Because pups are quite small and totally
dependent on the alpha female for nouri shment during thi s time
period,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,
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 ~.(In
Prep.)for the Susitna River Study Area while the GMU 13 esti-
mates were derived from Tables 22 and 30 (op.cit.)
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~.(1978).The analyses indicated
that 91%of the biomass of prey consumed by wolves from 15 May-IS
July was compri sed of ungulates,with calf and adult moose
comprising 35%and 47%,respectively,of the total biomass
consumed.Estimates of percent biomass of calf and adult moose
consumed by wolves during Periods 2 (15 July-1 November)and 3
(1 November-IS May)were determined from kills observed while
monitoring radio-marked packs.The estimates for the study were
di vided 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-IS May {Period 3)calf and adult
moose comprised 18%and 73%,respectively,of the bioma0s.
During Period 2 from 1979-1981,percent biomass of adult moose
declined to 73%,while the percent of calf moose remained
22
....,
!
....
....
-,
constant.Percent biomass declined to 17%and 68%calf and adult
moose,respectively;during Period 3 from 1979-1981.The esti-
mated biomass of calf and adult moose killed by wolves during
each time period per year was extrapolated from wolf population
estimates for each period multiplied 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 wolves
consumed 7.1 kgs prey/wolf/day (Table 20 op.cit.).Estimates of
percent biomass by prey species were then multiplied to derive
estimated biomass.For each time period,the number of moose
killed was estimated by dividing the average weight of each age
class for each period derived from literature and field studies
into the estimated biomass.The wolf daily consumption rate used
is relatively high in relation to that reported in the literature
and thus we consider the estimates of number of moose killed per
year to be inflated.
EVENT 5 -BROWN BEAR PREDATION
Predation rates of brown bear (Ursus arctos)on both adult and
calf moose were derived from observations of kills during daily
relocation flights of 23 adult radio-collared bears (Ballard
et al.1981 and Table 35 from Ballard et al.In Prep.).The
relocation flights were done between 15 May-IS July,the period
of most brown bear predation on moose (Ballard et al 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 Susitna study Area and GMU 13
(derived from Miller and Ballard '982).No information was
available on annual bear population fluctuations so for these
models we assumed a stable population from 1975-1981 (Fig.20).
23
-
l"-
I,
..-
""'"I
--
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 partia;J..ly 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
adults/bear/day,for 60 days).At higher levels of calf produc-
tion than the 1977 and 1978 levels,we assumed that the numbers
preyed upon remained constant.At lower levels of calf pro-
duction,we assumed that a linear relationship existed between
percent calves taken by bears and calves produced.During 1979
only,we reduced brown bear predat~on 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 (Mi ller and Ballard 1982b).
Preliminary runs of the project model suggested that our esti-
mates of bear predation on adults were also t,oo high.The
original kill estimates meant that an excess of 20%annual adult
moo~e 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
adult moose kills for 5-6 days,periodic relocation of bears
could tend to overestimate kill rates,similar to overestimation
of wolf ki 11 rates (Fuller and Keith 1980).Possibly the 23
adult radio-collared bears had kill 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.
24
....
-
-
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
variations in both brown bear density and predation on calves
occur within the unit.Consequently,both the number of bears
and predation rates were subjectively adjusted downwards to 708
adul t bears preying on calf and adult moose at a rate of 0.10
calves/bear/day and 0.01 adult moosejbear/day during 15 May-15
July.
EVENT 6 -BLACK BEAR PREDAT I ON
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 wer~cons~dered an insignificant source
of mortality within the Susitna 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.20).
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.012/bear/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 subjectively reduced to a population of 1,000 black bears
preying on moose at 0.003 calvesjbear/day and 0.001 adults/bear/
day for 60 days following birth.
25
-
EVENT 7 -HUNTER HARVEST
Annual hunting mortality,which during this study affected bulls
only,was determined for each year of study from "mandatory
harvest reports"(Fig.21).Harvest reports from successful and
unsuccessful moose hunters,are required by law in GMU 13,
however,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 deter-
mined by extrapolating 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 esti,mating the number of yearlings killed,
a1 though some measurements were,undoubtedly false.Antler
measurements of ~30 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.
We subjectively estimated crippling loss,unreported harvest,and
poaching at 15%of the estimated harvest.
The annual hunting mortality rate for adult bulls was estimated
at 25%based on radio-collar data (N =28).
EVENT 8 -WINTER MORTALITY (EXCLUDING PREDATION)
Estimates of winter mortality in the model (Fig.18)were sub-
tracted from the estimated number of moose present each November
-following hunter harvest.The rnagni tude of winter mortality
26
-
(usually by starvation)was initially estimated from radio-
collared moose by methods described by Hayne (1978)and Gasaway
et aJ.(1983).Winter mortality was calculated as fo·llows (from
Gasaway et aJ.1983):
a
Percent mortality =
b
where a =number of winter mortali ties of radio-collared moose
b =estimated number of collared animal months
--
b estimated as follows:(c)(d)
e
Where:c =mean #months collars transmitting (excluding dead
moose)
d =total #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 12).
For modeling,it was assumed that during mild winters (1975-76
through 1977-78 and 1979-1980)calf mortality was 6%_Winter
1978-79 was considered relatively severe (Eide and Ballard 1982)
with high rates of calf mortality during late winter (Table 12).
These higher rates for males and female calves were used for
1978-89 in the models.For yearling females,we uti lized the
calculated rate of 2.4%i and for yearling bulls we utilized the
calculated mortality rate of 6%(Table 12).Even though the
yearling bull mortality rate was attributable to hunting,which
theoretically would have been ille0al,it was used because bulls
usually suffer proportionately larger natural mortality than
females and we suspected the calculated rate was low.
27
....
-
Annual winter mortality rates for adult cows varied from 0 to
5.6%during 1976-1982 (Table 13).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 mortality but not for adults.
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
mortality was subjectively estimated at 7.2%.
PROJECT POPULATION MODEL ANALYSES
Population Size Estimates
Between 1975 and 1981,estimates qerived from fall composition
counts and the model suggest that the area's moose population
increased (Fig.22).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.22)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.23).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
composi tior 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
28
moose observed/hour 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
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.
To provide verification for the moose model,the area was cen-
sused again in fall 1983 using the same methods used in 1980.We
assumed that if the model adequately reflected the population
dynamics of moose then the projected fall 1983 moose population
estimate should coincide closely with that provided by the
census.Table 14 summarizes count data and the subsequent moose
population estimate for the upper Susi tna River Basin.Appen-
dicies C through J provide count data and population estimates
for individual count areas and compare statistics derived from
routine composition counts with those obtained from q~adrant
sampling.Count area 12 was censused for management reasons and
thse data are included merely for reference.Comparison of Table
14 with_f~gure 22 indicates that the projected fall moose popula-
tion estimate based on modeling (approximately 2900)falls within
the 90%confidence interval (2491-3101)provided by the census.
An even closer fit occurs when the model is modified by assuming
an additional 15%hunting mortality due to crippling loss and
unreported harvest.Because these estimates are nearly identical
to those estimated for the primary impact zone (Table 6),the
model appears to reflect the population dynamics of moose under
pre-project conditions.
Future modeling will involve incorporation of carrying capacity
estimates derived from vegetation studies and analysis of various....
levels of proj ect impacts on moose.
29
Sex and Age Structure
Comparison 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.24).Even though composi-
tion 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 exi sting data suggest (Gasaway et at.1982;Ballard
et at.1982).The discrepancy occurs because cow:calf pairs are
often segregated from larger groups of moose and have a lower
probabili ty of being observed wi th ei ther survey method.
Also,the model suggests that both survey estimates tend to
underestimate the proportions of yearling bulls (Fig.25)and
cows present in the population.This could Jccur 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
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
mort~lity factor during the study period.Because of the manner
in which brown bear mortality was calculated,the numbers of
30
.....
r-
I
.-
.....
calves killed by bears each year varied (Fig.26)but the actual
percentage 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 15).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
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.
Yearling Mortali ty
Trends in yearling moose r.lortali ty were simi lar to those of
calves,except the magni tude of the mortality was substantially
less (Table 15).From 197~-79,hunting mortality (assuming that
half of the bull harvest was comprised of yearlings)was the
largest source of overall mortality (Fig.27)even though only
affecting males.Beginning with the 1980 season,yearlings were
theoretically protected by antler regui'"ations_and,ther.efore,0
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.
31
-
-
..
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 dependent on availabili ty (Fig.28).
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 Susitna
River study Area (16.8%).However,the population declined
between 1975-76 and 1976-77 and again in 1978-79 (Table 16).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 pop~lation estimate derived from
composition counts,particularly for 1975 and 1976 (Fig.29).
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.30).Except during the
severe winter of 1978-79,wolf predation was the second most
important cause of calf mortality (Fig.30).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 year,reaching a low of 7.0%during 1981-82.Calf mortality
studies conducted in 1977 and 1978 suggested that 3%of the calf
32
.....
~....
mortalities during the first 6 weeks following birth were attri-
butable to wolf predation (Ballard et ale 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 Mortali ty
Wolf predation on adult moose in the GMU 13 also declined during
the study period (Fig.31),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.
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 ~~lf dens1ties (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 ale 1981).Al though 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 areap increased
(Fig.32).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
33
."",
~
I
.-
I
-
areas,it would be expected that the sex-age ratios would fluc-
tuate similarly.Ai 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.
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
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 n9ticeable that wolf predation
was a much more important source of moose mortality than what it
actually represents on a population basi s.
SECTION V.IMPACT MECHANISMS
Table 17 summarizes the major structural features associated with
the construction and operation .of th.e.Susi tna Hydroelectric
Project 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 18).Based upon this assessment,
the proposed project will affect the population dynamics 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 9P Zone of
Impact)we estimated that based upon numbers of radid,-collared
moose utilizing the impoundment areas in relation to the 1980
census,from 1900 to 2600 moose could be directly impacted by
34
-
-
-
",,,,,
-
construction and operation of the Watana and Devil Canyon
impoundments.These estimates comprised 8 to 11%of the total
numbers of moose occurring in GMU-13.Including moose which
could be secondarily impacted by the project through increased
competition from displaced moose,etc.,approximately 45%of the
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,Sterling
Miller,Dennis McAllister,Enid Goodwin,Raymond Kramer,SuzAnne
Miller,Steve Albert,Danny Anctil,Tammy Otto,John Westlund,
Craig Gardner,Kathy Adler,Susan La~ler and Penny Miles.To all
we express our appreciation.
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.
35
J )1 -J 1 I »J i I 1 J J I
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 Number Sex Capture Location #Color L.R.Yrs.(Mas.)and No.(cm) (cm) (cm)(cm)Condition Drug Dosage Time
(min)
120712 8037 F 7/19/82 Big bend 9543 White ear tags --Cm ---.----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
Rompun
w 120761 F 4/08/82 Burn area 9540 White 16995 4 (l0)No 282 84 83m----5
I
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 5
120764 --.F 4/08/82 Burn area 9544 White 16854 at least No.305 70 --168 6
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 (l8)
3 cc M-99
120775 --F 7/20/82 Burn W.of 11867 White 15992/15986 --em 282 ,8,0 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
3 cc M-99 left hip (l4)
120777 --F 7/20/82 Burn area 11866 White 15987/15989 --No 274 In 75 190 9 --(lU
1 1 1 1 J --I -1 ']1 j )i i
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 Imi 2 )(min)mi2 No.Moose MOose/ml 2 No.Hoose MOoselml 2.
91 16.8 89 5.3 1 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
94 18.9 76 4.0 3 0.2 5 0.3
w 14.4 4.7 ~0.4 8-....]95 68 0.6
79 15.4 83 5.4 51 3.3 '85 5.5
80 14.5 80 5.5 26 1.8 43 3.0
81 13.1 62 4.7 10 0.8 11 1.3
82 ~112 ~28 -h!.-47 .2:l....
Total 138.7 715 46.8 167 11.3 279 18.7
Mean x 5.2 1.3 2.0
!I Sigbtabi1ity index generated by randomly selecting southeast quarter of Unit surveying at 12 min/mi 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 sightabi1ity index (1.67).
I 1 J ]1 )]j I ]~1 I J I
Table 3.Moose census results from the GMU-13 proposed bum area,25 and 26 March,1983.
Area Survey Time Minutes
Sample Unit (mt 2 )(min.)per mile
Observed
No.moose Moose/ml 2
Total estimated1numbero·f moose
No.moose MOose/mi 2
79 21.8 105 4.8 37 1.70 47.6 2.18
80 14.5 72 5.0 26 1.79 33.5 2.31
81 13.1 69 5.3 10 0.76 12.9 0.98
82 20.8 104 5.0 40 1.92 51.5 2.48
91 16.8 85 5.1 12 0.71 15.5 0.92
92 14.2 61 4.3 15 1.06 19.3 1.36
93 10.6 53 5.0 31 2.92 39.9 3.76
94 18.9 100 5.3 18 0.95 23.2 1.23
95 14.4 70 4.9 7 0.49 9.0 0.63
TOTALS 145.1 719 196 252.4
x 4.96 1.35 1.74
1 Determined by mUltiplying total number of moose by sightabi1ity correction factor (1.29).w
00
1 ·---1
I ]J 1 I i 1 1 ]I 1 1 j
Table 4.Statistics associated with recapturing radio-collared moose in the Susitna Hydroelectric Project Study Area of southcentra1 Alaska during
October 1982.
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.(cm)(em)Condition Drug Dosage Time (min)
120617 6406 F 10/12/82 Tsusena Creek 12425 White 15877/15876 ----No 8 20 ec M-99 (21)
120622 6407 F 10/12/82 Clark Creek 12424 White None 13 (4)No ~20 cc M-99 (47)
3 cc M-99,
1 cc Rompun
"120623 5527 F 10/09/82 Middle 12430 Y-50 16252/16253 9 (4)C (l).----9
Brushkana Creek
120624 6393 F 10/14/82 Upper lia tana 12422 White'16922/16923 11 (4)------7 10 cc M-99 Rt.shoulder (19)
Creek 5 cc M-99,
w 3 cc Rompun
\t)
120629 6434 F 10/12/82 ---12415 White 16907/16906 4 (4)--------10 cc M-99 (36)
3 ec M-99,
2 cc Rompun
120630 6438 _F 10/12/82 Tsusena Creek 12423 White 16108/16109 7 (4)--------20 cc M-99 Rump (50)
3 cc M-99,
1 cc Rompun
3 cc M-99,
1 ee Rompun
120634 6436 F 10/12/82 Stephan Lake 12428 White 16912/16913 13 (4)------8 10 cc M-99 (61)
3 ce M-99,
2 cc Rompun
3 cc M-99,
2 ec Rompun
120635 6433 F 10/12/82 Stephan Lake 12438 White 16162/16161 ----------8 10 cc M-99 Left rump (44)
3 cc M-99,Rt.baek
2 cc Rompun
3 cc M-99,Rt.rear
1 cc Rompun
120636 6448 F 10/15/82 Kosina Creek 12420 White 16165/16166 5 (4)--------10 cc M-99 Left shoulder (13)
5 cc Rompun,
3 ec Rompun
120637 6437 F 10/16/82 Tsitsi Lake 12427 White 16170/16169 ----------7 15 cc M-99,(13)
3 cc Rompun
120639 6444 F 10/15/82 Tsitsi Lake 12435 White 16891/16892 5 (4)No ----8 15 cc M-99,(41)
3 cc Rompun
5 ec M-99,
3 cc Rompun
1 -1 J -I I )1 1 )1 J J -J 1 1 )
Table 4.(cont1d)
New Old Radio Visual Metal Hith 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.(cm)(cm)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 Rompun
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
0
120645 6451 F 10/14/82 Upper Butte 12418 White 15945/15944 11 (4)No ----7.5 10 cc M-99 right shoulder (17)
5 cc M-99,
3 cc Rompun
120648 6462 F 10/15/82 Coal Creek 12416 White 15940/15941 5 (4)No --IS cc M-99 left shoulder (13)
3 cc Rompun
5 cc M-99,neck
3 cc Rompun
120649 6463 F 10/14/82 Clarence Lake 12433 White 16172/16171 ----No 5 10 cc M-99 left rump (13)
5 ce 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
120652 6464 F 10/14/82 Clarence Creek 12417 White 16152/16151 14 (4)Cll)----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 cc M-99,right rump
1 cc Rompun
5 ce M-99,
3 cc 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-99,1,eft sid,e
3 cc Rompun
5 cc M-99,left shoulder
3 cc Rompun
1 1 J 1 J I J ]1 1 1 I j ]~
Table 5.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~ca1f groups.
#Occasions Dates of Date,First Dates When
Moose Sex-#Times Crossed River (bserved It Calves Calves Last #Calves It Calves
It Age Year Located Susitna River Crossings Hith Calves (bserved (bserved 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 7/1/81
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 S/1O-6/1 6/1 1 7/1 1 0
6/1-711
~10/2-10/27
t-'10/27-11/18
11/18-12/9
1982 14 2 S/12-S/24 5/24 1 5/24 1 0
9/27-10/30
120620 F-A 1980 2 ---------- ----Dead 4/22/80
120621 F-A 1980 1 --------------Lost collar
120622 F-A 1980 18 0 --0 0
1981 13 0 --0 0
1982 IS 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 --S/2S 1 6/26 1 0
1981 11 4 9/16~1O/S S/29 1 ~-~-0
10/S-1O/28
10/28-11/17
1982 "13 2 l/S-2/'J.--0
2/2-2/24
120625 F-A 1980 6 0 --0 0 ------Dead 6/26/80
"
-,
I I I I I 1 J J 1 1 j -1 '1 I
1 "1 J J 1 J .~I -)1 J -J )1 J 1 1 j
-]1 1 J -1 J ~\1 1 i ]J 1 I 1 I 1
Table 5.(cant 'd)
#Occasions Dates of Date First Dates Wben
Moose Sex-#Times Crossed River Observed #Ca1vel:l Calves Last #Calves #Calves
#Age Year Located Susitna Riv~r Crossings With Calves «.bserved «.bserved 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 2/82,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
.c:.120649 F-A'1980 14 0 --5/25 1 5/25 1 1
.c:.1981 15 0 --0 0
1982 13 0 --0 0
120650 F-A 1980 16 0 --5/27 1 ----1
1981 16 0 --0 0
1982 13 0 --6/10 1 --0 1
120651 F-A 1980 13 0 --0 0 ----Dead 1/9/81
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
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
J 1 ,]-j J j j 1 )I 1
Table 5.(cont'd)
#Occasions Dates of Date First Dates Wh~n
Moose Sex-#Times Crossed River Observed #Calves Calves Last #Calves #Calves
#Age Year Located Susitna River Crossings With Calves Observed Observed 0,test Surviving Misc.Notes
120662 F~A 1980 10 0 -~0 0
1981 11 0 --7/28~9/9 1 --0 1
1982 12 0 --0 0
120663 1980 10 0 --0 0
1981 12 0 --Q 6/27-7/28 1 --0 1
1982 10 1 1/11-2/24 5/1 1 --0 1
120664 F-A 1980 11 0 --0 0
1981 1 0 --0 0
1982
il:>o F-A 1981 0 0U112066610--0
1982 6 0 --0 0
120667 M-A 1981 12 0
1982 6 0
120668 ~I F-A 1981 13 0 --------1 0
1982 12 0 --6/8 1 --0 1
120669 fit F-C 1981 12 0
120670C F-C 1981 14 0 ~-----------Lost radio contact
5/22
120671 J./F-A 1981 11 0
1982 10 0 11 7/28 '1 0 0 1
120672 11 M-C 1981 11 0
1982 15 0
120673 ~I F-A 1981 3 0 -- ----------Lost collar
120674 ~I M-C 1981 12 0
1982 11 2 ,1/5-2/2
2/2-2/24
5/6-6/8
-J J J -11
I j 1 1 -I I ]1 -)-,1
'.t J _J I J -j J I D I J
Table 5.(cont'd)
It Occasions Dates of Date First Dates When
Moose Sex-#Times Crossed River Observed It Calves Calves Last It Calves It Calves
It Age Year Located Susitna River Crossings With Calves Observed Observe4 Lost Surviving Misc.Notes
120684 13/F_A 1981 13 0
1982 11 5 1/4-2/1 6/8 1 7/28 1 0
6/8-7/28
7/28-10/30
10/30-11/16
11116-12/4
120685 .!!IF-C 1981 10 0
h82 13 3 5/10-5/28 0 0
5/28-6/1
120686 15/F_C
611-7/27
tl:>o 1981 12 2 7/22-9/9
-..I 9/21-10/1
1982 13 0 --7/27 1 7/27 1 0
120687 161 1981 11 0 --5/26 1 --0 1
1982 9 0 --0 0
120688 F-A 1981 12 0
1982 8 0 --0 0
120689 16/F_C 1981 11 0
1982 10 0 --0 0
120690 131 M-C 1981 11 0
'1982 10 0
120691 15/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
I 1 I -]J )]]J J J 'I 1 J I
Table 5.(cont1d)
#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
-
120693.!1/F-c 1981 12 3 4/15-5/26
5/26-6/24
10/1-10/27
1982 10 3 12/81-1/82 0 0
2/24-3/23
3/23-5/5
120694 !!!/F-A 1981 13 0 ----------I
1982 14 0 --6/8 1 6/8 1 0
120695 17/F-A 1981 9 3 7/18-7/28 --------I
,j:>,7/28-9/9
00 9/17-10/2
1982 13 2 6/8-8/10 0 0
8/18-10/26
120696 17/M-C 1981 9 1 7/18-7/22
1982 10 2 3/13-5/12 0 0
5/24-6/8
120697 F-A 1981 11 0
1982 11 4 1/5-2/24 0 0
2/24-3/23
4/14-5/5
6/8-7/28
J I ].._J 1 ])»J J 1 i I
Table 6.Moose census results from 4-9 November 1983 and subsequent population estimate for the primary
impact zone.
Medium LOwDensityStratumHigh
Sample NO.Area Sample No.Area Sample No.----xrea
Unit Moose (Mi 2 )Unit Moose (MP)Unit Moose (Mi 2 )
30 67 19.6 48 43 13.9 41 25 8.1
51 55 13.2 45 24 17.7 3 9 11.3
42 80 8.7 6 27 11.2 9 4 13.5
36 32 13.5 4 2 10.0 21 3 12.3
27 41 15.9 5.37 14.9 10 2 12.9
18 42 13.1 28 35 21.5 32 10 11.2
34 29 14.7 29 18 11.6 150 3 10.8
53 69 9.8 22 12 110.9 154 7 11.9
135 9 11.9 13 32 16.3 125 3 11.8
139 30 12.5 11 12 12.5 133 7 11.0
168 72 13.7 39 76 11.6 130 12 12.4..,.140 38 12.9 123 12 19.9 158 10 10.0
\0 184 41 11.6 129 30 9.7 205 2 10.0
131 25 11.8 202 0 15.9
172 19 13.7 56 10 15.1
177 18 11.0 '88 0 11.8
204 8 15.5 60 18 13.1
170 18 14.1 203 5 11.3
58 33 24.0 187 12 13.8
153 29 13.3
190 14 11.4
Totals 13 605 171.1 21 524 296.5 19 142 228.2
Total
Number
Sample
Units
in area 19 45 58
Area of
each stratum 248.9 602.3 704.8
Moose densityl
stratum 3.536 1.767 .622
Moose
Pop.Est.1
Stratum 880 1064 439
Total Moose Population Estimate -90%CI -2383 (2130-2636)
Sightability Correction Factor =1.19
Corrected Total Moose Population Estimate -2836 (2535 -3137)
2836 ±301 (10.6%)
I~
<!'i"'!
I
,.".,
Table 7.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,Alaska.
Mi 2 of lU 2 of Moose Population Estimates1
Nonmoose Moose Radio MethOd Method Method Method
Mi 2 Nabitat Habitat Collared Moose 1 2 3 4
Primary
Zone 1,378 124 1,254 68 1,913 2,633 2,265 2,836
Secondary
Zone 1,750 261 1,489 50 3,765
Tertiary
Zone 2,258 161 2,097 53 4,1.42
1 For description of methods see text.
50
'I 1 -J I ]]]]1 1 I 1
Table 8.Snow survey data and calculations of a winter severity index near the middle Susitna River,
Alaska,1974 through February 1984.
Year -1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984
FOG LAKES
Jan.15 33 14 28 17 24*29*11 15 21*19
Feb.20 29 18 27 17 27 32 14 22 23 22
Mar.24 30 22 32 18 35 32 20 30 24
SQUARE LAKE
Jan.14 19 12 17 16 20*1~*16 28 22*13
Feb.21 22 13 20 17 23 17 18 30 25 15
Mar 20 25 16 25 18 25 18 22 32 26
U1 MONAHAN FLATS
I-'
Jan.17 36 22 30 28 32*25*24 20 30*28
Feb.22 36 25 32 30 35 28 31 19 33 36
Mar.22 40 32 42 32 41 30 32 23 33
LAKE LOUISE
Jan.14 23 12 18 20 19*17*12*16 17*17
Feb.25 24 13 21 22 23 21 14 19 20 21
Mar.25 27 19 29 28 24 15 20 21
OVERALL AVERAGE
Jan.15.0 27.8 15 23.25 20.25 23.8 21.5 15.8 19.8 22.5 19.25
Jan.-Feb.WSI 18.5 27.8 16.1 24.1 20.9 25.4 23.0 17.5 21.1 23.9 21.4
Jan.-Mar.WSI 19.9 28.7 18.2 26.8 21.3 27.7 24.0 19.1·22.8 24.6
*extrapo1ated estimates
I"""'
I 52
1 1 })~j -j
Table 10.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
######
Month i Range (Moose)i Range (Moose)i Range (Moose)i Range (Moose)i 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 (U)25~4 4200 (13)2590 3400 (48)
~Aug.2100 2200 1800 1900
w 2856 3900 (14)2856 4000 (13)2592 3300 (31)2435 3050 (24)
Sept.2200 1800 1450
2631 3400 (12)2800 --(l)2620 3300 (30)2566 4100 (49)
Oct.3000-2000 2100 1800 1450
33333600 (6)2786 3200 (14)3024 3900 (111 3700 --(l)2850 3700 (29)2797 4550 (49)
Nov.2400-1900 1450 1900 2100 1950
2700 3200 .(5)2821 3600 (111 2658 3600 (10)2350 2800 (l)2902 3600 (29)2725 3850 (47)
Dec.2400-1600 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)2575 3600 (8)2689 3400 (15)2515 4300 (42)
Feb.2300-1800 2600 HOO 1400
2578 2800 (5)2770 3600 (10)2667 2800 (3)2512 3500 (25)2485 3600 (44)
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-i500~1500-1375
2476 3600 (1S)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 (1~)---- --
2387 3400 (28)2565 3400 (46)2480 3500 (43)
J J 1 __I ]]1 1 !I 1
Table 11.Radio-collared moose locations occurring at or below 2300 ft.elevation in relation to total number of locations by'month and year for
moose occupying in the Susitna Hydroelectric Project primary impact zone from 1976 through May 1982.
June July Aug.Sept.Oct.Nov.Dec.Jan.Feb.Mar.April May Totals
1976-71
N --------0(6)0(7)0(12)1(6)0(9)1(24)9 (21)11(23)22(108)
%--------0 0 0 16.7 0 4.2 42.9 47.8 20.4
1977-78
N 6(57)1 (20)1 (16)--1(4)1(4)--0(4)2 (10)2 (6)5 (10)4(21)23 (172)
%10.5 5.0 6.3 --7.1 7.1 --0 20.0 33.3 50.0 19.0 13.4
1978-79
N 8 (44)4 (11)6(18)2 (20)1(7)1 (13)3UO)2 (8)0(3)1(8)3 (7)--31(159)
%18.2 36.4 33.3 10.0 5.9 7.7 30.0 25.0 0 12.5 42.9 --19.5VI
.po
1979-80
N 0(1)----oU)OU)1(2)--------24 (49)28(66)53 (120)
%0 ----0 0 50.0 ---- ----49.0 42.4 44.2,
1980-81
N 20(71.)7(8)8(60)10(46)9 (82)3 (42)0(16)3 (22)3 (25)30(87)6 (38)9 (50)108 (557)
%28.2 38.9 13.3 21.7 11.0 7.1 0 13.6 12.0 34.5 15.8 18.0 19.4
1981-82
N 5(29)18(70)5 (24)19(95)6 (89)8(53)8 (44)12 (44)22 (73)18(46)8 (47)16(58)145(672)
%17.2 25.7 20.8 20.0 6.7 15.1 18.2 27.3 30.1 39.1 17.0 27.6 21.6
Totals
N 39(202)30 (119)20(18)31(162)17(209)14(131)11(82)18(84)27(120)52(71)55(172)68(218)382(1788)
%19.3 25.2 16.9 19.1 8.1 10.7 13.4 21.4 22.5 30.4 32.0 31.2 21.4
J j 1 --]]i ]I -I j I
lJl
lJl
Table 12.Mortality rates due to winter starvation of radio-collared calf and yearling moose in the
Nelchina and Susitna River Basins,1977-1982.
Calves Yearlings
11 1978-79 ,!I 1979-80 :Y1977-78 11
1979-80 -1980-81
1980-81 1981-82
Sex F M F R F M
It mortalities 1 1 3 8 1 2 ,!I
it mos.collars 5.0 5.6 2.6 2.7 9.9 10.5
transmitting (excluding
mortali ties)
Total It radio-collared 25 26 41 .26 50 37
moose (including
mortali ties)
Time interval 7 7 5 5 12 12
(II mos.)
'&mortality 5.6 4.8 14.1 57.1 2.4 6.2
1/Mild winters21
'!I Severe winters
Both mortalities from hunting
1 1 j ]J -]I J I ']a .1 j ':j I
Table 13.Mortality rates of adult (>2 y.r.)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 1980~8l 1981-82 Total
#Mortalities 0 1 1 1 2 4 9
x mos.collars
transmitting (excluding
mortali ties)5.5 11.5 10.6 6.0 10.0 10.4 24.1
VI Total #.radio-collared
0-moose (including
mortalities)36 42 45 52 80 82 126
Time Interval
(#mos.)12 12 12 12 12 12 12
.\Mortality 0 2.5 2.5 3.9 3.0 5.6 3.6
--I 1 I 1 1 1 1 j I J J 1 ]
Table 14.Moose census data and subsequent population estimate for tbe Susitna
River Study area,November 1983..
Density stratum HIgh MedIum LOw
Sample No.Area Sample No.Area Sample No.,Area
Unit Moose (Mi 2 )Unit Moose (Mi 2 )Unit Moose (M1 2 )
30 .67 19.6 48 43 13.9 41 25 8.1
51 55 13.2 45 24 17.7 3 9 11.3
I
42 80 8.7 6 27 11.2 9 4 13.5
36 32 13.5 4 2 10.0 21 3 12.3
I 27 41 15.9 5 37 14.9 10 2 12.9I'18 42 13.1 28 35 la.s 32 10 11.2
34 29 14.7 2?18 11.6 14 0 20.6
4 48 17.8 22 12 10.9 18 1 17.2
1 49 19.0 13 32 16.3 19 3 19.1
9 64 22.2 11 12 12.5 16 0 10.8
12 57 19.3 39 76 11.6 10 0 8.3
17 39 21.5 7 15 15.0 8 7 17.4
LI1 13 71 14.5 12 9 22.2 18 0 7.1
~14 25 15.0 6 47 22.5 5 4 14.7
1 72 9.6 8 33 20.1 16 2 19.7
25 13 23.9 3 7 20.0
11 24 11.6
9 3 12.1
19 20 9.9
15 74 13.5
6 55 13.7
2 6 13.9
Totals 15 771 237.6 22 617 330.5 16 77 224.2
Total
Number
Sample
Units 20 43 36
Area of
each stratum 320.5 606.5 515.2
Moose density /
stratum 3.245 1.867 .343
Moose
Pop.Est.1
Stratum 1040 1132 177
Total Moose PopulatIon EStimate -90%C1 -2349 (2093 -2608)
Siqhtability Correction Factor =1.19
Corrected Total Moose Population Estimate -2795 (2491 -3101)
2795 ~306 (11.0%)
])-I 1 ]i 1 1 J i J J i J -1 I I
Table 15.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.
1 1 1 1 "1 J "'I l 1 I 1 -I 1
Table 15.(cont I d).
YeaI!'1979-80 ---1980-81
Age Class Calves Yrlgs.Adults Total Calves Vrlgs.Adults Total
Sex:M F M F M F BOtIl M F M F M F Jrotil
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 91 693 391 391 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
Winter Kill 25 25 1 5 11 49 116 18 18 21 8 5 49 119
,
iJl Subtotal 401 401 98 36 141 221 1298 529 529 66 53 175 224 1576
,\,()\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 BOfJl
Spring Population Est.814 814 267 267 456 1621 4239
Mortality
Early Spring 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
%of Population 66.8 66.8 16.5 13.1 46.7 14.4 38.1
I ~1 J J I J 1 ~l I 1
.'Table 16 •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 YrIgs.Adults Total Calves Yrlgs.Adults Total
M F M F M F sotn M F M F M F §)£h.
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 Half Predation 486 486 11 11 13 123 1130 535 535 33 33 11 98 1245
Summer Holf Predation 209 209 57 57 66 615 1213 156 156 III III 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
Hinter Holf Predation 299 ·299 80 80 92 865 1715 250 250 176 176 59 526 1437
Hinter Kill 233 233 36 23 27 375 927 141 141 160 73 23 328 866
0'1 Subtotal 3874 3874 607 236 631 2682 11904 3631 3631 1016 563 554 1796 11191
0 %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
1977-78 .1978-79
Calves Yrlgs.Adults Total Calves YrIgs.Adults Total
M F M F M F M F M F M F M F BOtll
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 Half Predation 333 333 12 12 18 67 775 247 247 9 9 14 49 575
Summer Holf 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 2124 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
Hinter Holf Predation 190 190 78 78 116 440 1092 173 173 70 70 115 390 991
Hinter 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
~l I ~l J -)J I 1 1 ,
..,
1980-81
Calves Yrlgs.Mults Total
M F M F M F BOth
5958 5958 2555 2555 2833 11509 31418
337 337 0 0 0 0 674
258 285 11 11 12 50 600
123 123 57 57 65 258 683
2124 2124 111 ,111 126 501 5097
90 90 8 8 9 35 240
0 0 0 0 557 0 557
106 106 51 51 58 231 603
180 180 142 56 76 383 1017
3218 3218 380 294 903 1458 9471
54.0 54.0 14.9 11.5 31.3 12.7 30.1
Table 17.Susitna Hydroelectric Project actions and their potential effect on moose
numbers,distribution and habitat in the Susitna River Area.
....
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-s1Jllllller range.
Temporary avoidance of adjacent hahi tat.
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 sUDDller habitat improvement.
Potential for increased cOlDlllercial 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 lce shelving.
Increased mortality crossing mud flats.
Unstable slopes causing habitat loss.
Crowding on adj!iCent habitat.
Increased human access.
Decreased vegetation productivity on adjacent lands
due to climatic changes •
Table 18.Potential impacts of Susitna Hydroelectric development on annual moose population parameters.
-
Moose Populat~on
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 mortali ty 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 overbrowsingi 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 ovemrowsing of moose habitat and increased
mortality result 10 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:Illcreased predation on calf and adult moose dUe to
abnormal conditions of moose and reduced vigor of adults and
calves from poor nutrition and.increased winter severity.
Bear productivity and survival increase responding to increased
availability of prey.Results 10 increases in bear predation on
moose and drives moose population lower.Bears I 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.
63
-
.!G'II\iI,
.-
-
Moose Population
Parameters
HWlter 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 occupyinq new habitat
areas not previously occupied.Depresses bull:cow ratios,
possibly leadinq to decreased productivity.
Probable that harvests will be limited by requlations;however,
dispersal of moose from impoWldment areas could temporarily
increase and cause temporary increase in numbers of available
moose elseWhere in GMU 13.Ul timately,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 I loss of habitat,icinq
on vegetation,increased snow depths and delayed.sprinq green-up.
Accidents increase from open water,ice shelvinq,and unstable
reservoir ice.
Concentrated wolf and moose populations on winter ranqe result in
increases in surplus killing by wolves.Moose more vulnerable
due to increased snow depths,lower availability of foraqe,
poorer quality and quantity of remaininq foraqe.
In addition,traditional escape routes no longer available due to
ice shelving and Wlstable ice conditions.Increased availability
of prey result in wolf population increase.Time laq 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 "stabilize"at lower
levels..
64
=g
..:
-c•e•CI•C
GI
2
•e
~
s
GI•..•c
~
~
'0..
Cou
"•"oa,o..a,.-o
•.!..
,!
C
:Io
CD
-o
'"..
ai .
.lC•.!<
'!-cou
~-~o..lQ
C\j
..-..v·.......,...
1:'.!.
'iiI1:.
jle;,.
~•I.
\.
\.
)
".
I
t.
'\
'-.
".
~\
~.:1e;,.
i\z ..
zlw·;{
\.
\
.....
-
......
"...,
....en
z
0-...
-<
>.-a:
w
ct)
CD
0
&I.
0
~
f""'1
-
14
MONTH RIVER .CROSSING INITIATED
FIgure 2.Timing of Initiation of moo.e C!ro ••lnQ of the Sualtna Rlyer aboye Devil Canyon.
AIa.ka frOm AprU 1980 throuQh December'1982.
66
Q
•-=~e
~:-oe
=o
i
'a
~••.ca
•oe-o..a.
s·.._.
ge..o.;.
~1-~c<-••:t-"--"'=.e
;j-..:t
00--.-
:0
~(IJe--.--05
e.ecceoe
..~
~:eC=-=2••'a.1i=•eCD
::-c..-
-01'aagca
g-
el
e4:1
:i:~..-e-ee
1:0
a.'::0:
eO
.0;:e
e~~eC..;~me;o
t'i~
~~=•Ill'";:'0.
.
I
~.
\
'-.
".
~\
~.:1
CD'i\z ..zJ
lU·i!
\.
\
-r l-II
CJ l-
I-e
CJ a.CJ
<~e
a.Q.
~>-~
~
>-e >-
~Q ~
e z e
~0 j::
CJa:w a:
a.III
GO l-
I Irm~-
..
-
67
.-
....
"""
.5
(II
G
GIl..
JI:
l:I
::Io..
JI:-......•...
Eo..-'-•"0o
E
"-..•~g
Io;;•..
0:
•c
S••..••••.a ..o •
~.!oc...-2~,,=c _
.!
e~
.0
:a -..-..a 0••~C••...·m~..••-,>-=...:5=.-:a
-GO
0 ..c-.!~;:1
.a"-c=.~.
Qc:
.~.~
~I
::I •
SJI:
....-
68
)-1 1 J J J i 1 1 J j )1 1
60-~-
...
40i /\---11e10
0 --11e~
N -1lea
N
VI
z
0 -\-t-30 \<\>\UJ
-J \
0'UJ \1.0
t-\
<20 \I
\
C/)\IZ\\I0\"\-I-"/t-""/
\J
<10 \/.//>\/a:\.-/
UJ -
C/)
m
0
0 I "AN I FI:I:I I MAR I APR I MAY I JUN I JUI
MONTH
Figure 5.Proportion of time 17 radio-collared moo.e were located below 2200'e'evatlon,who.e home range
Included the Impoundment lone during March 1981 to Decem~er 1983.
1 ]]J ]...J ·--1 i 1 1 J 1 J
Figura I.Wlntar ••v.rlt~Ind~.c.'cu'••'o",from the ,"Iddl.aueltnt RI~er 'e"n,AI.aka,.1878-'"'hrough 1812-83.ba ••d upon
.now depth.betwe.n al Januar~end a ".rch at ..anow ataUon ••
./
/'
1877-78
Ut78-78
.-1878-80
1880-81
1881-82
-av.r-.g.
••••••1878-77
,.,--_..
'.\:(•••.••, •·0.,..
• 0
\..'.
.....................:".-........•0""••':--;.~--
~~:.-\r.~~.....
~:'/••\w• •• •••••••••~.••..•
•••••••••••••••••,:/
\;'/y.,.•
3400
3300
3200-t-3100~-
Z 3000
0
to-2900
<
>2800w
..J
w 2700
w
CJ
<2600
cr
W 2500>
<
2400
2300
2200
-
MONTH
Flow.7 ~M....1II0ftthty .'."at'on.occUC'ied by 74 radlo-co.lued moo••fro.Octob.r 1978 througb
May 1..2 1ft tile prllWUY Impact zone of th.Su.ltlla project.
-
71
1 J I J J J -.1 j J 1 1 J
0--'1 I I J'~
20
I/)
Z 18
0
~lSi .I I CJ 41Y8l1abli ..~0',Ievatlon (n ..(l6·4)
..,Ievatlonal uuu.br moot ••
>v.ar~round (n.168 )'
a:1.
W
UJ
In 12
---J
N 0
lL 10
0
w 8
CJ
c(
8t-
Z
W ..
0
a:
w 2I
Q.
'"RAN G E
o F ELEVATIONS
Figure 8.V.ar-roun(j .Inallonal unu'bv radlo-collar.d moo ..In rtlallCj»ft to Iv.llability In the prlmarv Impact Jon.0'Ihe propoud
Walan.Impoundmenl.UI18-U~8a.
-1 I 1 1 --l :-1 J -,)1 1 1.-I
-"I l
20
o 'I fZ'K1
o F
Flgur.8.U••o.varlou.elevallon.by radlo-Gollared moa.e In r.laCian 10 availability during January-May In the primary Impaal zona along
Ih.Bu.,lna Rlvar near Walena Cr.ek,Alaeka 'rom 1878-1882.
D av.iI.billty of .'op.(n a78)'
MODERATE
>300
GENTLE
11°-300-
rrrrm alop age by lItoo.....
llllW ,en=181)'
0 ..........--
Fl.AT
~-1ctt
-~
co
z
.....0-~
<
~,>cr 40
w
""'"(I)
ID,
0
II.30
0
III.....CJ
C 20~
Z
w
()
£r
W 10a..
-
-
S LOP E
""'10.uae of tttr...'ope claaame.tlona by radlo-collarad moo..In relatiOft to
.........Ity In the prlntary Impect zona alOtItI'the Su.ttna RI..n..r Waten.~..k,
~_.frOM 187&-1882.
74
J -,1 1 I ,I
IRB..'P.OI untie b»,'-00"•
..»'''''''round (n;1113)
o "'allabllll»,.,""'01 (n;(88)
UD.ot y.a ...b~..oo ...
"u-M n en:;'68)
FLATNWw
[[ill]
8E I 8 I 8W·
ASP E C T
E
al
ao
(I)
;z
1&0-....
e(1.
>a:
w 14
(I)......InV1
o 12
La.
0 10
w
CJ 8
c(....
;z •w
0
a:•w
Q.a
0
/'I N I NE
flgur'11.V.ar-round and ..alOnal u••o'Ilop,IIP,QI.by radlo-collar.d moo"'"r.latlon to availability In the primary ImpaGt .one
.Iong the aUlltna Rlv,r near Watana Cr,'".Alitka 'Jom 1110-1882...
1 I J t "1 I J ~l
10
....
:I
II...
C»
11),...
iIoo•••
-<.•e-c•••~c _..-......
0-D"
11:0 -:I :I =A!.:;
....1:0
;I....II.•
~O _
~..
• C
....0'•
'C ...
0'
:I
PERCENTAGE Of OBSERVATIONS
:--J
0\
P'~
§~i~_~i;~I§~!!!li~N.I§lil~llliS~.$!!lil
ELEVATION RANGE (FEET)
1-~
Dayallablllty of-.layatloR (na482)
[[I]."vatlonal l.I.aQa by moo.a.
8.--Jaft-May (n =11tl)
·
e·--
·
4--
..
I I"-
2·--
l"-·
I"-
0-""r-
-
""!--
8--....
·-
8-•
·
4-.
·
I"'""
~
I"'""2'--.....
I"'""
:
i
I"--,
iI
I-t
I ,"-n~r.;.I-1:1 .-.-.-.....-...-.-.-.....-..",~I"I !Iii fir I !II~I I 1 I I I I &1 I I I I I
1
20
1
UJ
Z
0 1...
<>
~
W 1-CD
CD
0
iL.1
0
W
CJ
<
~
Z
w
0
a:
w
~
..-
I
FI1Iure 1a.u_of .,arto_.....~by rllclio-eo''''M mOo ..front Jallury-May In ,..••tlan to
ayailllblflty In the prim.".__t zona alo""tlla sattn.Riwer "....0..,11 Canyan.Ala.k.frolll
187..1882.
7-7
..
1 1 }i }»-I ~
fLATNWw
o .v ....bUl•.,0'IIP.,C'.n,,102)
•~.Ptci .,••ga bW moo ••,~.er-round (..~ll.2)
0l1lD IIP.ol u.ega bv lIloo.a,J."-....v (n:ut).
8W
.,
8
ASPECT
8E
22
20
(/)
Z 180-l-
e(18
>
a::
w 14
(/)
......In
00 0 12
1L
0 10
W
CJ 8e(
I-
Z •W
0
a::..w
0-
2
0
N I HE I'.E
Fig'....14.U..of nln.IIp.cl.bV radlo-collar.d moo ••fro",1tn.-18aa In r.letlon to .v.ll.bIDtv In th.prlmtrW Impact Ion.,h)Ag Iht ,
8~.ltn.Rlv.r ",.r D'VII O~nVQn.AI ••k•.
-
GENTLE
11°--300
S LOP E
FLAT
0°-_10°
O....I11\0!---
70 o ..."blllty of ...(n=501)
,.,.,.
•slope UNa-by moo...
~(n=294)m .Iope u••ge by moo...
,.-......,en=1.
en
Z
0
~
~-e 50>
cr
~w
CD
CD
0
~
~0
W'
CJ
<
~
Z 20
W
0
cr
W 10
CL,....
Flowe t a......of ttwee .....ctuaHtcatIcIM by radlo-ool...ect IItOOM In -relation to
J ..........blllty 1ft til.prllll.ry '",p.ct zone .Jong til.Su.ltn.Rlv.r.AI ••k.
n ••r D.vll Canyon fro.1878-1882.
.....
....
-
,....
-
Pre-calving moose
.population estimate
-
~
Event 1 -Reproduction .
!
Event 2 -Early spring and summer
mortality (excluding predation)
1
Event 3 -Spring wolf predation
(15 May -15 July)
1
Event 4 -Summer wolf predation ...
(15 July -1 Nov.)..
~
Event 5 -Brown bear predation
~
EveIJ.t 6 -Black Dear predation
1
Event 7 -Hunter harvest
-~
.Event 8 -Winter mortality
(excluding predation)
l
Event 9 -Winter wolf predation
(1 Nov.-15 May)
Fig.16 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.
8.0·
Proportion Males
,.....
-
Yearling
Females
Yearling Fecundity Rate ,...;;::a......,
Newborn
Calves
Male
Calves
Proportion Females,.,..Adult Fecundity
Adult
Females
Input Variables:
(1)Fecundity
(2)Fecundity
(3)Sex Ratio
Rate for Yearlings
Rate for Adults
at Birth
Female
Calves
Fig.17 Schematic diagram of'Event 1 (reproduction)for.
the moose model.
81
r-
I
-
"""
Number of
Moose by ><
sex and age
Mortality Rate Number of
by sex Deaths by
and age .sex and age
..
.....
.-
-
Fig.18
.Input Variables:
(1)Mortality Rate for each sex and age group .
Schematic diagram of Events 2 and 8 (early spring
and winter mortality)for the moose model.
82
-
Number
of
Wolves x Consumption
rate per
wolf per day
Total kgs wolf
consumption
x Number of
Days of
Wolf Predation
propo~~~~.Yea:lingSand Adults
Average
Weight of
Calf
Number of
Calves killed
Average'
Weight of
Yearlings and
Adults
Number of
Yearlings and
Adults killed
-
Input Variables:
(1)Number of Wolves
(2)Consumption Rate of Wolves
(3)Number of Days of Wolf Predation
(4)Proportion of Wolf Kill Consisting of Calves
(5)Uroportion of Wolf Kill Consisting of Yearlings and Adults
(6)Average Weight of Calves
(7)Average Weight of Yearlings and Adults
-
E'ig.19-Schematic diagram of Events.3,4 and 9 (wolf
predation)for the moose model.
83
_.
Maximum Bear
Consumption
Rate per Bear
per Day on
calves
Maximum Bear
Consumption Ra~e
per Bear per D~y
on Yearlings and
Adults
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
0 t 2000 a 2000-
calves Yearlings plus Adults.-It
-
Adjusted Adjusted
Consumption Consumption
Rate on Calves Rate on Yearlings.-and Adults-
Number of Bears ,
--.
If
Number of Calves Number of Days ~Number of Year-
Killed Bear Predation lings &Adults
Killed
-,
-
.....
....
....
Fig.20 Schematic diagram of Everits 5 and 6 (brown bear
and black bear predation)for the moose model.
84--.
.....
Number of
Moose by
sex and age
minus
Number of
Moose Harvested
by sex and age
--
Input Variables:
(1)Number of Moose Harvested by sex and age
Fig.21 Schematic diagram of Event 7 (hunting mortality)
for the moose model.
85
.....
~
I
I
ai'..
Z
::I'o
g
zo
I
I
I
I
"I"
-"00••Mod.'
- -11100••ob ••r ••d/hour of
Go ..po.ltlon counta
-••tl.at.b •••d IIpon annuat
numb.,of moo••ob ••r ••d/hollr
of Gompo.ltlon count.In r ••atlon
to 1'80 Go.poattlon Gount .nd
G~naua
YEA R
frl ••~22~No •••b••moo ••populat'on ••t'mat••••d.,I••d frolll mod.llng v.r.u.
Gompo ••t'on count.for th.Sueltn.RI ....'Stud,Ar.a of aouthe.ntr••Ala.k.a.
11T&-1188..
86
.-
•N-•
~\at .=-at
\-.!-\•
\-=\II.-,,0,II.,\,,,~,
\-\:5\,
\o.
\,0
\,-";-..\•.\,-,,
I •
"
,~..,,,-.I-I I:,,-,~.I:\0,I"I
Q.I-I I:,\:.l .!.,",I a:=\,"•~,0
\..,t <II.
~er-"'\I 0\:l t I w GI
"ii'.'J I.->~.
\~
,I I:
~,I:••-\..,If I CIl:I .~,.50>0 \"I I •~I ~
I:.I.!'\.w CIl-•I I .=-\:3 t ....>ell I 'aI
Q...J,I 0•.\..I a:E..0''."I I I------.0,"l 3'I1:.1:'I:1:.e I:
~:I ~~::I :I •:,..I ~-0 0 o·0 0 0
0 0-0 0'0 0 ~\'t I (
'aI_.:!0,•~••...••0·'•:a \:"I->................•~,~:.;
CIt •CIt at at-•0 .:1 ".,CItE.5 •'1---_._..-\,'.
~:..
I rl -..--•01 ''aI,J.-\:'f-I:'.....-..~at•\~,•--\~II I:'-o·
\l\\-.-o.,-~<C..'~,
~:,\Q,=-o~-'11.=-'.aa
~r,.o.o.
Ii=••1:.-.•...-.....•.~-::aa-.0 CD ••0 ....('II 0 ...t::
~....~-Q ..
-0
( 9 a N v 9 n'o H .1 )39 0 0 V4 :I 0 t::I 3 a V4 n N 110-
87.
1 '.I J
80
I I I 1 1 ,]-]1.I I
en
:t
CD
0
CD 0
0
0.......
CI)
w
>
-J
-<
0
60
..0
30
20
10
.",..//"-/~--
//....//--_//---
//'/-
./;""
.//
/'
-Modal
--oompo.ltlOn oount.
0'1 I _ I . I .•.I I I I I
figure If.i.Umltad moo ..oal';oow 'Itlo.derived 'rom mod,lIng vert ...all':oow ,.Uo.oblllnid
',om annuli oompo.ltlon aounl.In Ih lIu.Unl River Study Are ••·Ufl-lell.
..
I
/.
I
I
I
I
I'/
I "/
"I"/I "I
I
I
I
I
~
-mode'
--compoallloll count a
~I \
I ~.
I
I
I-__I
-_I
--I._~
-...
a:
4(
w
>
-
-
0-...-+---+0---+----1----1---+----1---10---10
YEAR
Flgure'25.Percent y.arllng bull.In moo.e population••ach fan ••determined from
..odellng venua co..po.ltlon counta for the Sualtn.River Study Are••1975-1982.
89
-J 1 1 -I
_/------....-.-..__.--
19811980
-brown b.a,predation
-wol'pr,datlon
- -llVlnt.r kill
-----------------
1979
/'/,.
/'
/'
/'
/'
1978197119781976
60-w
CJ
c(....z 40w
0
0:
1 \0
~
0 -30>I---'.c(....
0:o 20
::i
w
(J)
a
0::i ·10
u.
-'.c(
0
0
YEA R
Flgur,21.Annuli ,.t••0'GI"",00"mortallt"du.to pr'd,tiqn ~nd winter kll~••dltermln,d 'rom mod,lIng
.the IUlltna RI".,Study Ar ••11100 ••POPUlltiOft,1816-1881.
19811980
.0:
o 0
c •
• 0
o •. .
o 0··o·o·o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o.
o
o
o
o···o
o
o
,0
o.'o
o
o.
o
o
o
o
o.
o.
o
o
o
o ,-·o·o..··o·o
o
0'
o.
o.
•o···~~-~--.-...,0'"~""./:.
,-""0,/:
wi'0·o··o
o................
19791978
YEA R
1977
•••00 hunting
brown bear predation
-wolf predation
winter kill .
o...
o
o
o
o..
o.
o.....-.......•c
o
o
o•.
o..'.........
o.........
o....
·0 •
·0 •-.....--0 •
fl.._-....-.......
2
01 ............--~~--....---+----+---.....--.....----119751976
18
-w
CJ 18<
I-
Z
W
0a::14
W
l:L......
>12I-_.
....Ii.<....
0:::
0 10
2'
w.
tD
0
0
2
CJz-....I 8a::<w
>
""'"r
-
-
-
FIgur.270 Annual percent yearlln4 bull moo.e mortaJlty due to .eve,.a'mortality,
factora aa det_mlned front mod.lln~the Su.'tna River Study Area In .outhcentra'
A'a."a.1875-1981.
91
-
-2
-
1
r-
10
II-_•••••••••••••.•
..
hunting
brown bear predation
wolf predation
wlnt.r kill
............................----.-.-------
...
···••••
•
•./...-"'"-...............
-----.-_~."..,............-..-
3
5
8_.
W
C-'
c(
J-
Z 7
LU
(,)
l:C
W
~_e
>...._.
..I
c(....
l:Co
2
w
CDoo
2
....
..I
::)
Q
<
.....
-
-
-
....
-
O.........----!----+----....--~~---+-...1'!"'·9.....8-0-+----+1975 1978 1977 1978 1979 1981
yeA R
"gur.28.Annual adult moo••mortality rat ••by cau ••••d.termln.d from modeUng
the s.a.Una Alv.r Study Ar••moo ••population In southe.ntra'Ai•••••187~-1881.
92
.-.
•...-c :=-
:I o,c
0 .c::I
"0 .....0
e -a,0
.c e,C
.0 :-'0•.0:..-
"-e_
ce ..-0 00 .a-•-Q 0 0.Ii Q,•.,e.'-0 .0
0 :0 00"
0 Oc 0_a QO Eo
I j
\
\
\
\
\-
\
\
\
/
/
I
I
\.
\
\
\
\
\
\
I
I
I
I
o
ClI
CSONYSnOH.l)3S00W:l0 Y3SWnN
~---1:---+----+---1---+---
000 ~0 0 0
•••ft ~•
a:
ol(
w
>
ee•C!J..o.'..-C
::t
0"o
C
~-..o.
too..::t
C
C•-:I-e..•.'at
C=-."oa
Iio·..--.
-a 0.co
.:-la--..I••"....ca.-••.~••••§~-.-.~
c:c:
0'.;"0.,.c:--:1:=
Qog,--eo3.,
o·s:::
-c.:a....c••cae
OIl..Q...
:lc
Q-~2
S.lNnOO NOl.llSOdWOO :10 ynOH/03AY3SS0 3S00.,:10 l::I3SWnN
93
1 J J 1 ~l 1 ]J ]1 OJ
\
\
.'\
\\..-------------
t.O
~
-W
CJ-<I-
Z
Woa:w
Q.-
>-
!::::
..J-<I-a:o
:i
w
C/)oo
::E
u.
..J
c(o
40
80
20
10
j'
1
1
1
I
I
I__J------------
1\
I \"\1 \
\
\
.-.-brown bear predation
-wolf preda'~"
- -win ••,kll
I
I
\
I
I
I
0'1 I I I I I I I
1876 1878 .'~77 1878
YEA R
1878 1880 1881
,Igur.aO.I;:.U......dannu.1 ,at••o'oa"...ort..lltr 'fe-m pr,d.tlop .~cj Wlnt.,kill d.....ptln.d 'ro......od.llng the Glm.
Manaa.mlnt U"lt 1:t moo ..populallon of loutholnt,.1 AI ••ka.181O-1881~.
i 1 1
14
1 1 )-I )1 J J )I 1 1
~
U1
,...
UJ
CJ
01(
I-
Z
UJo
0:
LUa.-
)-,
I--'-1
01(
t-o:
"0
::t
LUenoo
2
I-
..J
:lo
c(
12
10
8
8
•
2
•••••huntklu
,&VQwn ~Ir pre.tlon
-w.Q1,predation
- -winter kill
---..".-.....--...~---...--__--:'T_-~~u ....-~----;...a..:.•••.........T ••••••~•••••••••••••••----------.....-.....-------
'O~1976 1 1878 I 1877 11'878'I 1878 11980't 1881 ,I
YEA R
flg~r.11.Annu,l O.m,U.n.u.....n.Unl.11 .duet moo ..mor ••IIt",.t,.from four '"otor...tlm.led frorn
modelJnu.18115-1881..
96
~
.....J
•••••-I-~-r--I--r--I--r--I--r--I
GAME MANAGEMENT UNIT 18 WOLVES
GAME MANAGEMENT UNIT 13 MOOSE (THOUSANDS)
•»••o 0 000
-r-t---r-t--r-t---r-I
SUSITNASTUDY AREA MOOSE (THOUSANDS)
'-'"
~
-
~
-
..,.)
.....
.....i
,--
....
-
,.
•oo
•o
•oo
•oo
•o
•oo
•o•o
•oo
SUSITNA STUDY AREA WOLVES
-C>.....
Oil /1
I
-'I /-I
CD ,....:10
I,
-I I IC>\.......\
i:
~I "'-/1
I
I
~I III ~/~I
\
oG)eG)\c:~C 'I:
~I ~·c~c \--=.,=.,\e.e.CD··.·\- -
cE c:.1 \A'OAOoc-oc 0 \~I ·c '.>->...
\......• •\••
E 1 \c c-cc•-••
>.
"IE
•c:...
o·-.•10.o •
c->:=.•=:Ie--..-
=It -,-.
>=."11
.0'
~o
~.•-c e
.,.:1
.•A
I--..,0.=~"0
"c;--0-
:I-..••:I
Go•
IF•--••:I
G)••B•c:,to(
e
:I-m
CI•!I >•=-c :D=;;-••:I
A-:r•
0c
~-=•
2<-..
e--cc.oc
...J
-
LITERATURE CITED
Ballard,W.B.and K.P.Taylor.1980.Upper Susitna Valley
moose population study.Alaska Dept.Fish and Game.P-R
Proj.Final Rep.,W-17-9,W-17-10,and W-17-11.102 pp.
and C.L.Gardner.1980.Nelchina yearling moose
mortality study.Alaska Dept.Fish and Game.P-R Proj.
Rept.,W-17-11 and W-21-1,22 pp.
S.D.Miller,and T.H.Spraker.1980.Moose calf
mortality 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.Nel-
china Basin Wolf Studies.Alaska Dept.Fish and Game.P-R
Proj.Final Rep.,W-17-9 and W-17-10.201pp.
_______,C.L.Gardner,
Susitna Hydroelectric
Game Studies,Vol.V,
Anchorage ..220pp.
J.H.Westlund,and J.R.Dau.1982a.
Project.Phase I Final Report,Big
Wolf.Alaska Dept.Fish and Game,
.....
,C.L.Gardner,and S.D.Miller.1982b.Ne1china-------
Yearling Moose Mortality Study.Alaska Dept.Fish and Game.
I
P-R Proj.Final Rep.,W-21-1 and W-21-2.37pp.
,R.O.Stephenson,S.D.Miller,K.B.schnei1fr,and
S.H.Eide.In Prep.Ecological studies of timbetilli wolves
and predator-prey relationships in southcentra1 lliiA1aska.
IWild1.Monogr..:!
97
-----~--_._---,,-~~_._-----------------------
-Blood,D.A.1974.Variation in reproduction and productivity
of an enclosed herd of moose (Alees alees).Trans.Int.
Congr.Game Biol.XI:59-66.
Eide,S.and W.
killing of
96:87-88.
B.Ballard.
caribou by
1982.
gray
Apparent case
wolves.Can.
of surplus
Field-Nat.
-Floyd,T.J.,L.D.Mech,and P.A.Jordan.1978.
scat content to prey c;onsumed.J.Wildl.
528-532.
Relating wolf
Manage.42 (3):
.....
Fuller,T.K.and L.B.Keith.1980.Wolf population dynamics
and prey relationships in northeastern Alberta.J.Wi Idl.
Mgmt.44:583-602 .
Gasaway,W.C.1978.Moose survey procedures development.
Alaska Dept.Fish and Game.P-R Proj.Rep.47pp.
....
__________-,S.J.Harbo,and S.D.Dubois.
procedures development.Alaska Dept.
Proj.Rept.87pp.
__________,S.D.Dubois,and S.J.Harbo.
Procedures Development.Alaska Dept.
Proj.Final Rept.66pp.
1979.Moose survey
Fi sh and Game.P-R
1982.Moose Survey
Fish and Game.P-R
....
.....
__________,R.Stephenson,J.Davis,P.Shepherd,and o.Burris .
1983.Inter-relationships of moose,man,wolves and al ter-
nate prey in Interior Alaska.Wildl.Mongr.No.84.50pp.
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.,Univ.of Pittsburg,Pittsburg.
98
Miller,S.D.and W.B.Ballard.1982a.Homing of transplanted
Alaskan brown bears.J.WildI.Manage.46:869-876.
and 1982b.Density and biomass estimates
for an interior Alaskan brown bear Ursus arctos population.
Can.Field Nat.:96 (4):448-454.
Mohr,C.o.1947.Table of equivalent populations of North
American small mammals.Am.MidI.Nat.37 (1):223-249.
Taylor,K.P.and W.B.Ballard.1979.Moose
habitat use along the Susitna River near
Alaska.Proc.N.Am.Moose Conf.Workshop,
169-186pp.
movement sand
Devi 1 Canyon,
Kenai,Alaska.
VanBallenberghe,V.
Trans-Alaskan
Fish and Game.
1978.Final report on the effects of the
Pipeline on moose movements.Alaska Dept.
44pp.
Viereck,L.A.and C.R.Dyrness.1980.A preliminary classifi-
cation system for vegetation in Alaska.U.S.For.Serv.,
Gen.Tech.Rept.PNW-106,38pp.
99
--I ---1 !)1 )1
Appendix A.Seasonal and total home range sizes of individual radio-co11ared moose studied in the Ne1china and upper Susitna River Basins of
southcentra1 Alaska from October 1976 through early June 1982.
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 a mi a-km 2 .roTa km a mP 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 ~2.2 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 7.50
0 395 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-Ca,lf 11/79-6/81 8 ----56.~21.7 86.7 33.5 22.2 13.8
408 M-Calf 11/79-5/81 9 ----9.4 3.6 48.0 18.5 19.2 11.9
670 M-Calf 3/81-6182 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-Calf 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 K-Calf 3/81-6/82 18 70.0 41.7 137.5 21.4
696 M-Calf 5/81-6/82 15 191.8 440.7 579.0 64.0
667 M-2 yr.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 9.0
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 8.2 5.1
1 I )1 J ]J - 1
~J j !1 -1 )
Appendix A.(cont'd)
Moose Sex-Age·Period Total #SUBDDer ~Unte-r--Total Maximum
10#at Capture Monitored locations Home Range 1/Home Range 1/Home Range 2/length of range
(mo.I yr)km 2 mi 2-km 2 mi 2-km 2 mi'%km mt
--
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 '172.6 66.6 25.5 15.9
306 F-Calf 4/79-12/81 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 28.2 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.?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 --'T-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 15.70--.....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-C'\lf 11/79-5/81 8 ----95.8 37.0 95.8 37.0 21.4 13.3
669 F-Calf 3/81-12/81 12 305.2 ,--391.5 668.9 44.4
678 F-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 3/81-6182 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.10/76-9/78 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 l2 69.3 60.9 88.9 14.7
618 F-13 yr.3/77-5/79
4tao-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.8/78-12/78
4/80-6/82 25 1507.2 815.8 1703.4 63.0
624 F-10 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 fJ.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-10 yr.3/77-4/77
4/80-10/81 27 50.5 73.8 130.8 21.0
1 ]]J j 1 J 1 -J
Appendix A.(cont Id)
Moose Sex-Age PE;!rlod Total #Summer Winter Total MaxlmUlD
10#at Capture Monitored locations Home Range 1/Home Range 1/Home Range 2/length of range
(mo.,yr)km 1 mi 2-km 2 mi 2-km 2 mi 2-km 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-Adu1t 4/80-6/82 36 115.4 92.8 149.8 25.5
644 F-Adu1t 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
0 649 F-Adult 4/80-6/82 36 36.8 108.7 115.2 16.8
N 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
4/80-:"/81 23 47.3 18.3 42.6 16.5 70.9 H.4 13.4 8.3
652 F-13 yr.4/80-6/82 36 177.0 71.7 177.0 27.0
653 F-13 yr 4/80-6/82 37 55.6 I'178.7 198.1 26.3
654 F-9 yr.4/80-6/82 33 68.3 82.7 122.5 17.8
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 5.8
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-Adult 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-Adu1t 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.3/77-11/78 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.10/76-5/79 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-Adu1t 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.10/76-3/79 32 99.2 38.3 334.9 129.3 352.5 136.1 33.1 20.6
706 F-Adu1t 10/76-4/79 42 157.1 60.7 93.6 36.1 185~2 71.5 21.8 13.6
__J __1 -~]J ]'j -'~I J
Appendix A.(cont'd)
Moose Sex-Age Period Total #Summer Hinter Total MaXImum
10#at Capture "MQnitQJed ..,,~~locations Home Range 1/Home Range 1/Home Range 21 length of range
(mo.,yr)km 2 mi 2-km 2 mi 2-km 2 mP-km mi
--
707 F-7 yr.10/76-3/79 43 344.5 133.0 516.6 199.5 657.4 253.8 52.9 32.9
708 F-8 yr.10/76-4/79 39 252.1 97.3 136.8 52.8 454.1 175.4 50.0 31.0
709 F-4 yr.10/76-3/79 29 361.3 139.5 111.2 42.9 390.0 150.6 30.4 18.9
710 ,F-6 yr.10/76-10/77 16 39.8 15.4 33.0 12.8 57.7 23.0 13.5 8.4
711 F-7 yr.10/76-3/79 31 143.4 55.4 48.3 18.6 l41.0 48.3 17.9 11.1
712 F-7 hr.10/76-10/78 38 628.7 242.7 20.7 8.0 717~2 276.9 61.1 38.0
713 F-9 yr.10/76-5/78 23 42.6 16.5 41.9 20.0 81.1 31.3 13.5 8.4
714 F-7 hr.10/76-10/78 40 268.9 103.8 246.8 95.3 411.3 158.8 33.6 20.9
715 F-Adult 10/76-4/78 21 46.2 17.8 15.0 5.8 59.9 23.1 15.7 9.7
716 F-Adu1t 10/76-3/79 31 118.3 45.7 32.0 12.3 149.5 57.7 24.9 15.4
717 F-4 yr.10/76-4/79 '30 287.5 111.0 224.5 86.7 377.4 145.7 33.6 20.8
718 F-7 yr.3/77-5/79 26 544.6 210.3 143.9 55.6 544.6 210.3 39.1 24.3
719 F-4 yr.3/77-4/79 35 96.7'37.3 14.0 5.4 104.8 40.5 16.5 10.2
720 F-12 yr.3/77-2/79 35 565 21.8 73.6 28.4 106.7 41.2 14.9 9.3......721 F-3 yr.3/77-3/79 25 48.2 18.6 101.2 39.1 173.0 66.8 19.7 12.20w722F-13 yr.3/77-3/79 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 28.11 11.1 64.2 24.8 12.0 7.5
724 F-13 yr.3/77-1/79 38 163.7 63.2 214.0 83.0 271.3 104.7 34.8 21.6
725 F-4 yr.3/77-10/79 33 1139.1 439.8 725.4 280.1 2269.0 876.1 169.4 105.2
728 F-Adult 3/77-5/79 28 197.7 76.3 12.9 5.0 236.7 91.4 35.5 22.1
729 F-7 yr.3/77-6/79 38 122.0 47.1 81.8.31.2 172.1 66.4 26.8 16.7
730 F-11 yr.3/77-3/79 28 47.4 18.3 64.1 24.8 121.7 47.0 19.8 12.3
731 F-Adu1t 3/77-4/79 35 42.0 16.2 37.9 14.6 63.3 24.4 15.1 9.4
732 F-lO yr.3/77-3/79 25 32.1 12.4 41.0 15.8 76.1 29.4 16.9 10.5
733 F-3 yr.3/77-3/79 26 49.9 19.3 35.0 13.5 99.4 38.4 14.8 9.8
735 F-16 yr.8/78-3/79 8 10.5 4.1 18.4 7.1 37.7 14.5 14.4 9.0
736 F-Adu1t 10/77-2/79 8 -- --
21.3 8.2 64.9 25.1 29.1 18.1
737 F-Adult 10/77-11/79 6 --------72.7 28.1 23.7 14.7
739 F-Adu1t 10/77-2/79 8 16.0 6.2 18.9 7.3 53.4 20.6 12.5 7.7
740 F-Adult lO/77-10/78 9 12.3 4.8 8.2 3.2 32.1 12.4 8.9 5.5
741 F-Adult 8/78-4/79 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,Auqust,September,and October;winter =months of Novemb~r,
December,January,February,March and April.
21 Not determined if 4 or less observations.t·
-APPENDIX B.Comparison of annual horne ranges of selected
radio-collared adult moose from 1976-1982 in GMU-13
of southcentral Alaska.
104
-
-
Yr.
80
81
11617
Home Range
Size (km2 )
3,456
7,972
If
Location
22
15
105
Area of overlap -3,224 km~
....
.-
11
1/618
Yr.
77
78
79
80
Home Range
Size (km2 )
6,061
2,615
2,615
1,854
13
12
5
12
ea of 77-78 overlap -1,786 km 2
ea of 78-79 overlap -2,614 km 2
ea of 79-80 overlap -983 km 2
106
-
-
-
-
.-
~
11619-Home Range .II
Yr.Size (km 2 )Location
80 9,593 16
81 13,770 16
Area of 80-81 overlap a
6,198 km 2
-
107
~,
IF622
-
Home Ran~e IF IiYr.Size (Ian )Location \-i
\
80 9,367 20 \
81 6,373 14 \
\
Area of \
-
-
....
.....
108
-
r-
I
....
-
11623~
Home Range II
!""'"Yr.Size (lan2 )Location
78 305 5
80 17 9 057 10
81 54 9 451 6
Area of 78-80 overlap ..--
Area of 8D-81 overlap ..5 9 894 lan 2
.....
109
"""
~
fl628
.....
Home Ran~e II
Yr.Size (km )Location
80 8,093 16
81 25,668 15
Area of 80-81 overlap ..7.238 km 2
110
.-
,,
Home Range II
~Yr.Size (km 2 )Location
'80 4,209 16
81 .6,940 14
~
Area of 80-81 overlap =3,493 km 2
III
11630.....
Home Range Ij
~Yr.Size (km2 )Location
80 1,122 17 .
81 4,244 15
Area of 80-81 overlap.1,091 1an 2
~
112
/1631
,~\Home Ran~e /1
\Yr.LocationSize(lan )
80 9,494 15
81 182 7
of 80-81 overlap •181 lan 2
-
113
-
-
Home Ran~e /I
Yr.Size (laD )Location
80 .8,912 15
81 15,894 15
Area of 80-81 overlap ..8,243 km2
114
1/635
Yr.
80
81
Home Range
Size (1an 2 )
6~205
29,244
II
Location
19
14
115
Area of 80-81 overlap =6,143 km 2
-
.•..il...!....f ;e ...
-
116
",.,
....
11637
Home Ran~e
Yr.Size (km )
:~
80 4,837 18
81 17,835 .14
~
km 2Areaof80-81 overlap =4,018
117
.....
""'"
-
Home Range II
Yr.Size (1an 2 )Location
80 20,471 18
81 40,773 13-.Area q£80-81 overlap =11;888 1an 2
118
\
~
11640-Home Range #
Yr.Size (km 2 )Location
80 3,120 16
81 19,728 13
Area of 80-81 overlap •3,118 km 2
......
119
120
\
I"""
,
1"'"
Home Range /1
Yr.Size (km2 )Location
SO 12,666 20
Sl 10,106 14
".,.
Area of S0-81 overlap ,.7,988 lan 2
-i
.....
-
-
-
.-
-
1'642
.-Rome Ran~e I'!!.:.Size (km )Location
80 8,094 15-81 11,809 14
Area of 80-81 overlap -4,169 km,2
.~
....,.
-
121
-
.....
"'"'!
-
tF643
Home Ran~e IF
Yr.Size (kIn )Location
80 10,030 19
81 5,979 12..-
Area of 80-81 over~ap ,.4,960 km2
-
122
--
-
.-
-
Yr.
Home Ran~e
Size (lem )
80 11,186 15
81 12,018 15
82 1,997 4
Area of 80-81 overlap s 9.616 km 2
Area of 81-82 overlap s 1.940 km 2
123
.....
~1/645
Home Ra~e 1/
Yr.Size (kIn )Location
80 7,949 15
~81 011,788 15
Area of 80-81 overlap •4,018 km 2
- 0
124
~
11647
Home Ran~e II.
Yr.Size (km )Location.
80 6,975 21
F'"81 25 t 907 13
Area of 80-81 overlap ..4,770 km 2
r
125
....
-I
tl648
Home Ran~e tF
Yr.Size (km.)Location
80 12,930 17
81 16,522 15
Area of 80-81 overlap -8,608 km.2
126
.-/1649
Home Range /1
~Yr.Size (km2 )Location
80 1,567 18-81 10~971 15
Area of 80-81:overlap a 1,532 km 2
~
127
---------_.........._-------------=--------_...:...._---
·....
1#650
.......
Home Range IF
--Yr.Size (km2 )Location
~80 37,010 21
81 39,954 15
Area of 80-81 overlap -27,704 km 2
.-
128
/
....
F'"
11651
Home Ran~e II
Yr.Size (kIn )Location
78 5,001 9
80 3,521 13
"'"'Area of 78-80 overlap :a 1,877 km 2
.-
....
-
129
....
....
....
-....
/;652
P""Home Range I;
Yr.Size (1an 2 )Location
80 13,141 20.-81 4,058 13-
Area of 80-81;overla.p "'"3,633 km 2
130
~,
....
\
i,
i
\
\
\
.-
Home Ran~e II
Yr.Size (km )Location
.-80 4,505 18
81 16,679 14
82 397 4
~Area of 80-81 overlap =3,413 km 2
Area of 81-82 overlap =294 kIIl 2
~
....
.iiijlllllIJl ,
131
11654
Yr.
Home Ran~e
Size (km )
II
Location
\
\
\
80-
132
80
81
6,067 16
9,528 14
of 80-81 overlap •-4,031 km 2
11655
Home Range II
Yr.Si.ze (km2 )Location
80 4,552 17.....81 16,585 14
Area of 80-81 overlap ,.3,031 1an,2.....
133
.....
1/662
~Home Range II
Yr.Size (kml )Location
77 1,108 9
78 1,480 6
80 2,475 12
81 3,663 13....
Area of 77-78 over"lap -68 km 2
Area of 78-80 overlap ..177 km 2 .
~Area of 80-81 overlap ..2,033 km 2
134
-j -:'4
11664
.....
Home Ran~e II
.....Yr.Size (lem )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 overl~p •18,81.6 km 2
,Area of 78-80 overlap •1,309 km 2
.....(i
135
-
F"'
I
.....
""""!i
°1;679
Home Range
Yr.Size (lan2 )
80 108
81 13,204
Ii
Location
4
13
Area of 80-81 overlap.102 km.2
__.1..•3£~
136
....
11685
'"-_..-,
Home Ran~e II '-..
"Yr.Size (lan )Location.-
81 164,187 12
82 20,842 5-
Area of 81-82 overlap •a km 2
\
\
137
._------------~-_.._--------------------------.......;.......;-----
-
....
!
138
11726-Home Ran~e /;
Yr.Size (Ian )Location
r-
'7.7 24,445 9
78 33,112 16
Area 77-78 overlap ,.11,191 Ian2
,-
139
~
I
J J -]])I I 1 J l i J 1
Total Moose Population Estimate -90~CI -504 (452 -556)
Sightability Correction Factor =1.19 ' . .
Corrected Total Moose Population Estimate -600 (538 -662)
600 ±62 (10.3\)
J )J 1 i j }j ]]
Appendix D.Moose census data and population estimate from Moose Composition,Count Area 6,November 1983.
Density Stratum High Medium Low
Sample No.Area Sample No.Area Sample No.Area
Unit Moos\i!(Mi 2 )Unit Moose (Mi 2 )Unit Moose (Mi 2 )
4 48 17.8 7 15 15.0 14 0 20.6
1 49 19.0 12 9 22.2 18 1 17.2
9 64 22.2 6 47 22.5 19 3 19.1
8 33 20.1 16 0 10.8
25 13 23.9
Totals 3 161 59.0 5 117 103.7 4 4 67.7
Total
Number
Samp1~
Units 7 10 9
Area of
each stratum HO.5 .173.6 165.3
Moose density/
I-'stratum 2.729 1.128 .059
~
I-'Moose
Pop.Est./
stratum 356 196 10
'l'otal-Moose-popula.tlon-EStiillate-;;'-90\eI -562 H83 -640)
Sightabi1ity Correction Factor =1.19
Corrected Total Moose Population Estimate -669 (575 -762)
669 ±93 (13.9\)
J )J _1 J ---1 --)1 ]
Appendix E.Moose census data and population estimate for Moose CQmposition Count Area 7,November 1983.
Density stratum Hiqh Medium LOw
Sample No.Area Sample No.Area Sample No.Area
Unit Moose (Hi 2 )Unit Moose (Mi 2 )Unit Moose (Mi 2 )
30 67 19.6 48 43 13.9 41 25 8.1
51 55 13.2 45 24 17.7 3 9 11.3
42 80 8.7 6 27 11.2 9 4 13.5
36 32 13.5 4 2 10.0 21 3 12.3
27 41 15.9 5 37 14.9 10 2 12.9
18 42 13.1 28 35 21.5 32 10 11.2
34 29 14.7 29 18 11.6
22 12 10.9
13 32 16.3
11 12 12.5
39 76 11.6
Totals 7 346 98.7 11 318 152.1 6 53 69.3
Total
Number
Sample
Units 8 26 20
I-'
01>-Area of
N each stratum 110.1 344.1 245.9
Moose density/
stratum 3.506 2.091 .765
Moose
Pop.Est./
stratum 386 719 188
Total Moose Population Estimate -90\CI -1293 (1060 -1527)
Sightabi1ity Correction Factor =1.19
Corrected Total Moose Population Estimate -1539 (1261 -1817)
1539 ±278 (18.1%)
·-))j ))]J 1 L
Appendix F.Hoose census data and population estimate for Hoose Composition Count Area 12,November 1983.
Density Stratum LOw Medium High
Sample No.Area Sample No.Area Sample No.Area
Unit Moose (Hi 2 )Unit Hoose (Hi 2 )Unit Hoose (Hi 2 )
Total SU
per Stratum 28 4 3
~17 19.3
4 12 20.4
6 8 21.2
11 0 19.5
19 4 16.6
24 9 15.2
25 7 17.6
27 8 14.8
31 0 16.3
32 '0 19.5
34 0 19.4
Sample
Total 11 65 199.8
Total Area
per stratum 499.4
.....
~
w
r =
T =
V{r)=
V(T)=
0.325
162
0.0054
1350
8
10
22
23
4
24
19
26
24
93
18.7
21.2
18.5
18.6
77.0
77.0
1.208
93
0.0000o.
12
14
26
3
77
53
U
174
18.6
19.5
17.1
55.2
55.2
3.152
174
0.0000o.
Count Area 12 totals 429 T
1350 V(T)
1.740 Un-I)
493 CI H366CIL14.9\
J i 1 j -J I -·1 I 1
I-'
,j::o
,j::o
Appendix G.Summary of moose census data and population estimate for the Composition Count Areas 3,6,7 and
12 and the primary moose impact zone within GMU-13,November 1983.
Density Stratum High --Heaium--------r;Qw
Sample No.Area Sample No.Area Sample No.Area
Unit Hoose (Mi 2 )Unit Hoose (Mi 2 )Unit Hoose (Mi 2 )
30 67 19.6 48 43 --U:g-41 25 8.1
51 55 13.2 45 24 17.7 3 9 11.3
42 80 8.7 6 27 11.2 9 4 13.5
36 32 13.5 4 2 10.0 21 3 12.3
27 41 15.9 5 37 14.9 10 2 12.9
18 42 13.1 28 35 21,S 32 10 11.2
34 29 14.7 29 18 11.6 150 3 10.8
53 69 9.8 22 12 10.9 154 7 11.9
135 9 11.9 13 32 16.3 125 3 11.8
139 30 12.5 11 12 12.5 133 7 11.0
168 72 13.7 39 76 11.6 130 12 12.4
140 38 12.9 123 12 19.9 158 10 10.0
184 41 11.6 129 30 9.7 205 2 10.0
12 57 19.3 131 25 11.8 202 0 15.9
17 39 21.5 172 19 13.7 56 10 15.1
13 71 14.5 177 18 11.0 88 0 11.8
14 25 15.0 204 8 15.5 60 18 13.1
1 72 9.6 170 18 14.1 203 5 11.3
4 48 17.8 58 33 24.0 187 12 13.8
1 49 19.0 153 29 13.3 10 0 8.3
9 64 22.2 190 14 11.4 8 7 17.4
12 77 18.6 11 24 11.6 18 0 7.1
14 53 19.5 9 3 12.1 5 4 14.7
26 44 17.1 19 20 9.9 16 2 19.7
15 74 13.5 3 7 20.0
.6 55 13.7 14 0 20.6
2 6 13.9 18 1 17.2
7 15 15.0 19 3 19.1
12 9 22.2 16 0 10.8
6 47 22.5 2 17 19.3
8 33 20.1 412 20.4
25 13 23.9 6 8 21.2
8 24 18.7 11 0 19.5
10 19 21.2 19 4,16.6
22 26 18.5 24 9 15.2
23 24 18.6 .25 7 17.6
27 8 14.8
31 0 16.3
32 0 19.5
34 0 19.4
TOtals 24 1204 365.2 36 916 551.9 40 231 582.9
Total Number
Sample Units 34 6.6 102
Area of each stratum 514.5 941.7 1473.5
Moose density/stratum 3.297 1.660 .396
M/?ose Pop.Est./stratum 1696 1563 ----sBl
TOtal Moose Populati~fiiiate -90\~-384rl3562 -4TID
Sightabi1ity Corr~ction Factor =1.19
Corrected Total Moose Population Estimate -4573 (4239 -4908)
4573 ±335 (7.3\)
1 J -]J I~~--J )I -I 1 1 1 i -I •
Appendix H.Moose counts in areas surveyed at intensities of 3 versus 12 minutes/mi 3 in GMU-13,
November 1983.
High Stratum Totals Correction
Survey Area -12-12 12-26 135 7-36 3-12 Factor
1st count 23 2 5 18 49 97 1.10
Intensive Count 24 2 13 18 50 107
.Medium Stratum
Survey Area -12-10 12-8 190 12-22 12-23 172 177 7-6 153 129 3-6
1st Count 0 11 0 6 5 5 17 17 9 0 21 0 91 1.29
Intensive Count 0 11 0 7 8 5 20 28 13 0 21 4 117
Low Stratum
Survey Area 202 3-5 12-11 7-9 60 12-24
1st Count 0 0 0 2 9 0 11 1.18
Intensive Count 0 0 0 2 11 0 13
Totals
1st Count 199 1.19
I-'Intensive Count 237
•J:>,
U1
]j I J 1 j 1 1 1 -J )I )1
Appendix I.Moose sex and age classification from quadrat sampling methods and routine composition counts in selected moose count areas in GMU-13,
October -November 1983.
Bulls Cows Unid.
Type Sex
of Spikes 30-40-50-Total ~!?!?Total Total Lone Total &Total Count
Area Count Date &Forks ~29 39 49 59 60+rf w/O w/1 w/2 !?Adults Calves Calves Age Sample Time (hr.)
Moose
Impact
Zone
minus
CA-7 census 11/4-9 22 18 34 16 13 3 106 300 62 8 370 476 0 78 0 554 21.4
CA-3 census 11/3-4 16 28 25 11 5 2 87 232 55 11 298 385 0 77 0 462 12.4
compo count 11/5-6 20 30 13 6 4 0 73 225 68 12 305 378 0 92 0 470 6.8
CA-6 census 11/4-6 20 10 6 0 1 0 37 114 60 3 177 214 1 67 1 282 10.5
compo count 10/26-27 14 19 16 8 2 0 59 195 74 7 276 335 0 S8 0 423 8.6
CA-7 census 11/4-9 25 24 20 16 4 0 89 344 128 9 481 570 1 147 0 717 19.7
compo count 11/2-10 16 26 24 16 5 1 88 354 156 7 517 605 1 171 0 776 16.1
~CA-12 census 11/S-16 42 163 60 2 225 267 1 65 0 332
Il:>o compo count 11/S-9 17 2 5 2 0 0 26 103 22 1 126 152 0 24 0 176 12.40'1
--J I
Appendix J.Moose sex and age composition from quadrat sampling and routine composition counts in selected moose count
areas of GMU-13,October ~November 1983.
Total Yrl.-----yr'l:-------Calves Inc1iience
Males Males Males Calves/per 100 of twins/Calf Animals
Type of per 100 per 100 %in 100 females 100 females %in per Total
Area Survey Date females females herd cows 2 yr.w/calves herd hour Sample
---1 1 1
Moose
Impact
Zone
excluding
CA~7 census
11/4-6 20.9
10/26-27 21.4
11/4-9 18.5
11/2-1017.0
11/8~16 18.7
11/8-9 20.6
.......
.r:.
..,j
CA-3
CA-6
CA-7
CA-12
census
compo
count
census
compo
count
census
compo
count
census
compo
count
11/4-9
11/3-4
11/5-6
28.7
29.2
23.9
10.8
14.8
16.4
17.0
12.0
10.2
8.1
12.0
15.1
7.2
9.5
10.6
10.7
7.8
6.8
5.4
8.1
10.8
21.1
25.8
30.2
37.9
31.9
30.6
33.1
28.9
19.0
23.6
30.3
36.1
45.6
36.2
34.0
36.0
32.8
22.4
11.4
16.7
15.0
4.8
8.6
6.6
4.3
3.2
4.3
14.1
16.7
19.6
23.8
20.8
20.5
22.0
19.6
13.6
25.9
37.3
69.1
26.9
49.2
36.4
48.2
8.5
14.2
554
462
470
282
423
717
776
332
176