HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA3193-
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
1984 ANNUAL REPORT
MOOSE UPSTREAM
Warren B.Ballard
Jackson S.Whi tman
Crai g L.Gardner
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
11<
141-5
.S £
g :5 if
1'/:b'.3 t q3
Submi tted to the
Alaska Power Authori ty
""'"'
October,1985
,..,.
-~_._---_....._----_.....-------,~--
Susitna File Copy
Fife #t./.3.3.S-
.....
PREFACE
In early 1980,the Alaska Department of Fish and Game contracted
with the Alaska Power Authority to collect information useful in
a~3sessing the impacts of the proposed Susi tna Hydroelectric
Project on moose,caribou,wolf,wolverine,black bear,brown
bear and Dall sheep.
The studies were broken into phases which conformed to the antici-
pated licensing schedule.Phase I studies,January 1,1980 to
June 30,1982,were intended to provide information needed to
support a FERC license application.This included general
-
s1tudies of wildlife populations to determine how each species
used the area and to iuen-cify potential impact mechani sms.
Phase II studies began in order to provide additional information
rnlring the anticipated 2 to 3 year period between application and
final FERC approval of the license.In these annual or final
reports,we are narrowing the focus of our studies to evaluate
specific impact mechanisms,quantify impacts and evaluate miti-
gation measures.
This is the third annual report of ongoing Phase II studies.In
some cases,obj ectives of Phase I were continued to provide a
more complete de;tta base.TIJ.erefore,this report is not intended
a complete assessment of the impacts of the Susi tna Hydro-
-I
-
-I
electric Project on the selected wildlife species.
Information and conclusions contained in these reports are
incomplete and preliminary in nature and subject to change with
further study.Therefore,information contained in these reports
is not to be quoted or used in any publication vii thout the
wri tten permission of the authors.
ii
SUMMARY
During late winter 1985,the proposed Bureau of Land Management
experimental burn was surveyed to estimate numbers of moose
u"tilizing the area prior to burning.Four hundred forty-three
-moose were estimated in the area in 1985.Similar counts in 1982
and 1983 were much lower;287 and 253 moose,resp,=,':""':ively.
Annual winter moose usage of the proposed burn area is highly
variable.
During this reporting period radio-collared moose were monitored
a"t low intensity in an effort to n~::.intain contact for proposed
Si:::vere winter studies.Nineteen moose were recollared in 1984.
A number of criteria were developed and described for refining
estimation of"moose annual and seasonal home ranges.
During late March 1985,a low intensity moose distribution survey
was conducted in the moose·primary impact zone in an effort to
identify wintering areas.Late winter distribution surveys (low
intensi ty)conducted in 1980 and 1985 were compared with fall
moose distributions in 1980 and 1983 (based on high intensi ty
River are lightly used by moose in the fall but are heavily used
in late winter.Wi thin the moose primary impact zone both the
-
-
surveys).Several areas immediately adjacent to the Susitna
iii
Watana and Devil Canyon impoundment areas were intensively
counted from fixed-wing aircraft in March 1985 to estimate
numbers of moose in those areas.A total of 295 and 22 moose
-
WE~re estimated for each impoundment area,respectively,From
1980 to 1985,winter estimates of the numbers of moose utilizing
the proposed Watana impoundment area during mild or moderate
winters has ranged from 42 to 580 moose whilE:-::he Devil Canyon
impoundment estimates have varied from 14 to 30 moose.A method
for predicting winter severity by January in the Vvatana impound-
ment area is described.
Causes of moose calf mortality in the impoundment areas were
s·tudied during late spring and summer 1984.The study was
conducted to determine the importance of black bear predation on
moose.Black bears will be impacted by the proposed projects and
if the population is reduced there may be potential benefits to
moose calf survival.Of 52 radio-collared calves only 15%
survived from birth to November.Brown bears killed 46%of the
calves while black bears and wolves killed 8%and 6%,respec-
tively.Black bears were a secondary source of moose calf
mortality.
-
"""
Three types of proj ect impacts are proposed and defined.
identified impacts to moose were categorized by impact type.
iv
All
Timing of when maximum impact from a particular impact mechanism
might occur is hypothesized and types of studies needed to refine
~
I
-
impact magni tude are proposed.
v
c •~~_,_--------------------------_
,.,..,
-
,....
-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
INTRODUCTION
STUDY AREA
SECTION I.PROPOSED EXPERIMENTAL BURN
Introduction and 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 the Impact Zone
Watana Impoundment
Devil Canyon Impoundment
Prediction of Severe Winters
SECTION III.HABITAT USE
Vegetation/Habitat Selection
Use of Elevations,Slopes and Aspects
SECTION IV.MOOSE POPULATION MODELING
vi
iii
viii
x
1
1
2
2
2
4
4
7
9
9
9
14
19
19
24
24
24
25
____"""'iiiNJii_,~~IIIi ·--~---;;-,..i---------------------
.....
-
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd)
SECTION V.MOOSE CALF MORTALITY STUDIES
Introduction
Methods
Results and Discussion
SECTIOU VI.IMPACT MECW\NISMS
SECTION VII.MITIGATION
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
LITERATURE CITED
vii
25
25
27
27
34
41
46
46
--..........----------------,--------·--'=FF--------..,...,.---------
-
Table 1.
Table 2.
Table 3.
Table 4.
LI ST OF TABLES
Comparison of March moose census data of
1982, 1983,and 1985 from the proposed
Alphabet Hills burn area,southcentral
Alaska.
Results of moose censuses conducted in
the Alphabet Hills burn area in 1982,
1983,and 1985,southcentral Alaska.
Relative winter moose densities in
March 1985 in 114 sample units of the
primary moose impact zone,Middle
Susitna River Basin,Alaska.
Comparison between years of Watana
Impoundment Zone winter moose censuses,
March 1981 through March 1985.
viii
5
6
11
17
'----.,~------------~_.------"""'F-..----------------------
-
-
-
Table 5.
Ta.ble 6.
Ta.ble 7.
Table 8.
LIST OF TABLES (cont'd)
Comparison between years of uc:il
Canyon Impoundment Zone winter moose
censuses,March 1981 through March
1985.
Parameters and fates of 52
instrumented calf moose from
the WatanajSusitna study area,
24 May to 1 November,1984
Preliminary summary of timing of
expected impacts of Susitna hydro-
electric development on moose and
actions and studies necessary to
refine magnitudes of impacts.
Summary of moose population
characteristics for proposed
mitigation areas for the Susitna
Hydroelectric Project.
ix
20
23
42
45
--""""-,~~._-----------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.Map of Alphabet Hi~ls burn area
sample units and moose estimates
(in parentheses)from 19 and 20
March 1985 moose census.3
-
Figure 2.Relative densities of moose as
determined from stratification
and census flights in November
1980 in the Primary Moose Impact Zone.12
-
"""
-
Figure 3.Relative densities of moose as
determined from a stratification
flight in March 1980 in portions
of the Primary Moose impact Zone.
Figure 4.Relative densities of moose as
determined from stratification
and census flights in November
1983 in the Primary Moose Impact Zone.
x
13
15
---_.--,--------------------------------------------
-
-
LIST OF FIGURES (cont'd)
Figure 5.Relative densities of moose as
determined from a stratification
survey in March 1985 in the Primary
Moose Impact Zone.
Figure 6.Winter Severi ty Index (v.1SI)in
the middle Susitna River Basin
from 1964 through 1985.
Figure 7.Fates of 52 radio-collared newborn
moose calves from late May through
early November 1984 along the
Susitna River near Watana Creek.
16
22
31
Figure 8.Timing of mortality in relation to
estimated calf age for 44 calves dying
between 25 May and 15 November 1984
along the Susitna River near Watana Creek.32
xi
LIST OF FIGURES (cont'd)
Figure 9.Relative proportion of mortality by
predator species of 32 predator-killed-
-
-
"""i
-
.-
moose calves duri~g late spring and
summer 1984 along the Susitna River
near Watana Creek.
xii
33
-----,-----------------..,..---------
INTRODUCTION
s"tudies,project objectives for FY85 were as follows:
,~
-
Ba.ckground
scribed by
and objectives of
Ballard et al.
Phase
(1984).
I and II studies were de-
As a result of earlier
.~.
-
-
-
(1)To determine the number of moose inhabiting the primary
impact zone .
(2)To determine habitat selectivity of moose inhabiting the
primary impact zone.
(.3)To determine causes and rates of moose calf mortali ty.
This report updates the findings of earlier reports and presents
addi i:ional data collected from January 1984 through mid-March
1985.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
Boundaries and descriptions of the study area were provided by
Ballard et al.(1984).
1
SECTION I.PROPOSED EXPERIMENTAL BURN
Introduction and Methods
Background and methods used for this portion of the study were
ident:ical to those presented by Ballard et al.(1984).-I
Results
During 1984 the 10 radio-collared moose were located on only a
few occasions.These data were placed on computer and added to
those collected in earlier segments.Final analyses will be
presented in next year's report depending upon avai labi li ty of
computer programmer and biometrical support.
On 19 and 20 March 1985,the number of moose ·,..-ithin a 145 mi 2
area encompassing the proposed Bureau of Land Management Alphabet
Hills Burn ~ere counted from fixed-wing aircraft at an average
survey intensity of 5.2 minutes per mi le 2.Areas wi thin five
....
subuni ts were intensively flown at approximately 12 minjmi 2 to
obtain a sightabili ty correction factor (SCF)which is used to
estimate total numbers of moose inhabi ting the area (Gasaway
et al.1981).A total of 308 moose were observed,and utilizing
an seF of 1.44 (46 moose observed at 12 minjmi 2 divided by 32
moose observed @5.2 rninjmi 2 for the same sample areas),an
estimate of 443 moose was derived (Figure 1).
2
--------!"""""'--------------=-ro----------------------
79
(112)
TyoneMountain~~
Figure 1.Map of Alphabet Hills burn area sample units and moose
estimates (in parentheses)from 19 and 20 March 1985 moose census.
------",----
\•../
-.
-
Identical counts were conducted in this area in 1982 and 1983
(Table 1).There was no (P >0.05)difference in average number
of moose observed between 1982 and 1983 (t-test).Average number
of moose observed in 1985 was greater than in 1983 (P <0.05).
Compari son of individual.estimates wi thin the nine sample units
suggested that areas which had relatively few moose in 1983 also
had low densities in 1985,while areas having relatively high
dE~nsities in 1983 (2-3 moosejmi 2)had high densi ties in 1985 (>5
moose/mi 2,Table 2).Reasons for the 75%increase in 1985
estimates are not known;SCFs were comparable,actual counting
candi tions and flight intensity were simi lar,and dates of the
two surveys were within 5 days of each other.Winter severity as
indicated by snow surveys conducted in the area by the Soil
Conse~rvation Service was not noticeably di fferent.Comparable
censuses conducted in the Watana and Devil Canyon impoundment
areas did not suggest this increase.Because moose censuses
refle~ct moose numbers for a limited period of time,such differ-
ences,may just reflect normal annual variation.
SECTION II.HOME R.lillGE,DISTRIBUTION AND MOVEMENTS OF MOOSE
Radio-collaring Moose
Nineteen moose originally captured in 1980 and 1981 were recol-
lared in March 1984 to insure radio contact when a severe winter
occurred.All moose were immobilized with Carfentanil (Franzmann
e'tal.1984).
4
Table 1.Comparison of moose total counts within the proposed Alphabet Hills burn
area in southcentral Alaska during March of 1982,1983,and 1985.
Survey Observed Sightability Corrected Estimate
Time Mini No.Moose Uncorrected Correction Estimated Corrected
Year Date!s (Min.)Mi 2 Observed Moose/mi 2 Factor No.Moose Moose/mi 2
1982 3/2l~705 4.9 167 1.2 1.72 287 2.0
b~
1983 3/25,26 719 5.0 196 1.4 1.29 253 1.7
1985 3/19,20 751 5.2 308 2.1 1.44 443 3.1
-
------'-----·-·----··--"9"1--------..,....--------..,-1------------------------
Table 2.Comparison of estimated number of moose among years
within individual sample units of the proposed Alphabet
Hills burn area in 1982,1983,and 1985,southcentral
Alaska.
Estimated Moose Numbers
Sample Area 1982 1983 1985
79 88 48 112
80 45 34 73
81 17 13 40
82 48 52 82-91 12 15 12
92 36 19 35
93 27 40 50
94 5 23 29
95 9 9 10
""..Total Estimate 287 253 443
___~~_"""""",,,,_$l'_~-'--------'-""""-"""'--------_"'F _
Home Range Size
No effort vIas made to update home range sizes described by
Ba.llard et al.(1984).Additional data collected during 1984-85
WE:re placed on computer file and will be reported in the final
rE:port.
During this reporting period,we analyzed movement data and
developed criteria for obj ecti vely estimating home range size.
The criteria should allow investigators to duplicate home range
polygrons.Preliminary criteria developed and tested thus far
are a.modification of Mohr's (1947)minimum home range method and
are as follows:
-
1.Seasonal,annual,and total home ranges are calculated.
a.Seasonal ranges are defined as follows.
1)Summer -May through August.
2)Winter -January through April.
Fall home ranges (September through December)are not
drawn separately,but are used in the total fall (all
years combined)and total annual home ranges.
7
---------...,-----------~---"~-------
c.When less than four point locations are present for any
one season,a home range for that particular season is
not calculated,but the data points are used in com-
puting total home ranges.
d.Borne ranges will include some points outside of a
particular season if there is a clear relationship with
earlier or later points.
2 ..Linee.::.-
except:
1 .
c '!1es connecting outermost point locations are used
-
a.When elevations above 3600 ft.(r-1SL)are transected,
the home range boundary follows that contour line.
b.When chronology of location data indicates an area is
not used,a concave polygon is used to exclude this
unused a:r:ea.
-
c.When macro-habitats with large areas possessing slopes
in excess of 30%are encountered,those steep areas are
excluded.
d.When outlying points are encountered,they should first
be checked for accuracy.If they are determined to be
-realistic,the polygon should be drawn from the closest
8
\~
e.
two perpendicular points to the outlier,reflecting
thi s narrow exploratory movement.
When a maj or drainage is encountered,and all point
locations are on one side,the home range boundary will
usually follow the drainage without crossing.However,
if crossings do occur,known fording areas are used to
include areas on the opposi te bank.
-
-
River Crossings
Crossings observed during 1983 and 1984 were computerized.These
data were not analyzed for this report.
Zone of Impact
The primary impact zone was described by Ball ard et al.(1984)
and no further analyses for delineating boundaries are necessary.
WintElr Use of the Impact Zone
Monitoring of radio-collared moose has indicated that during
March and April of mild or moderate winters,most moose are
relat:ive1y sedentary on the areas they have selected as winter
rangEls .Relative di stribution of Middle Basin moose was deter-
mined from 27-29 March 1985 in the Primary Impact Zone by
9
-
surveying from fixed-wing aircraft (PA-18 Super Cub).This type
of survey differs considerably from other types of counts and
censuses in that considerably less survey effort is used and no
population estimates can be deLived.A total of 2,092 minutes of
survElY effort (1.7 minutesjmi 2)was expended on the 1,254 mi 2
area.All moose observations were recorded on 1:63,360 scale
USGS topographical maps.Simi lar to fall censuses,we used the
winter distribution data to stratify observed moose into relative
density strata.No attempt has been made to estimate population
size in this large area during late winter,so only the relative
diffE~rences in densi ty are available.In-depth counts of the
actual impoundment areas are described under app:~spriate impound-
ment headings.Individual sample units were assigned a relative
density estimate of either high,medium or low (Table 3).Areas
over 4000 ft.elevation were assumed to have no moose,so were
not surveyed.
One other winter moose distribution survey was conducted in the
Middle·Susi tna River Basin in 1980,so some compari sons are
poss:i.ble between 1980 and 1985 distributions even tho:ugh bound-
aries of the two areas differed.Monitoring of instrumented
mOOSE~has shown that they usually inhabit different ranges in
summer and·winter,and comparison of density stratification maps
~etween fall censuses (with population estimate)and winter
distribution surveys (no population estimate)depicts these
diffE:rences (Figures 2 and 3 for comparison of fall 1980 wi th
10
.__"..,_-"'-.----.'-MG--_=_---------.---__
~.Table 3.Relative winter moose densities in March 1985 in 114 sample units of the
primary moose impact zone,Middle Susitna River Basin,Alaska.
-
-
Low Density
Sample Moose
Unit Observed
9 2
11 6
26 6
30 8
31 1
32 0
33 1
36 5
37 1
38 3
41 3
43 2
44 5
45 5
46 0
58 7
86 3
122 3
126 4
131 0
13.2 1
133 2
137 0
138 0
140 0
150 7
151 1
15.2 1
157 2
158 0
159 1
169 0
170 0
171 0
174 1
176 3
177 0
178 5
184 1
188 2
191 2
205 1
206 4
207 2
218 2
---z;s 103
Medium Density
Sample Moose
Unit Observed
7 14
10 16
12 18
13 8
15 9
16 19
18 8
24 14
27 18
29 17
34 14
35 14
39 10
40 21
49 14
54 11
55 19
56 19
57 11
72 20
76 13
88 11
89 13
104 11
125 9
127 10
129 13
130 12
134 5
135 14
136 5
154 15
155 12
156 8
160 10
161 10
172 5
173 10
175 8
185 13
187 6
189 6
190 6
204 7
219 6
220 13
L;:6 538
High Density
Sample Moose
Unit Observed
8 33
14 33
17 51
19 38
20 34
21 36
22 25
23 23
25 34
28 27
42 32
47 24
48 47
50 35
51 48
52 27
53 29
60 32
123 36
128 12
139 38
153 34
168 23
186 22
32.2 moose/S.U.
12-51
11.7 moose/S.U.
4-21
x =2.3 moose/S.U.
Range :=0-8,-;...,...,;----------....;.......;;;..;;;---------------.,;;;.;;;;......;;..;;-----
\
·-)-l
~over 4000 ft.
~I~ittil 1ow de ns i ty':::::~:::::Z
l1li medium density
.l1li hi gh dens ity
l l 1 j l
Figure 2.Relative densities of moose as determined from stratification and census flights in
November 1980 in the Primary Moose Impact Zone.
I
I
!
"1
J
~over 4000 ft.or not surveyed
r:::::::m .1:::;:::;:;:1 1ow de ns 1 ty
!'.'.'d.~•.l1li medium density
l1li high density
-}J })
Figure 3.Relative densities of moose as determined from a stratification flight in March 1980 in
portions of the Primary Moose Impact Zone.
winte:r 1980 distribution,and Figures 4 and 5 for comparison of
,
fall 1983 with winter 1985 distributions).Clearly,the greatest
distribution shift between fall and winter moose distributions
occurs in the Watana Creek-Fog Creek areas,the Watana Lake-Jay
Creek areas,and the big bend of the Susitna River.Relatively
low densities are found in these areas in fall,with a graphic
incre:ase in apparent densities in winter.Overall,the stra-
tifiE:d density maps display a shift from high elevations in fall
to lower elevations adjacent to the Susitna River in the winter,
mimicking the data gathered from telemetry investigations.
Watana Impoundment
On 20 and 21 March 1985,the Watana Impoundment Zone (below
2,200 ft.elevation plus an additional 0.25 mi adjacent area)was
'count:ed from a fixed-wing aircraft at a survey intensity of
4 . 5 mi njmi 2 •A total of 173 moose was observed.Three 5ub-
'~
segmemts were randomly selected and more intensive searches were
conducted.Following these 12.5 minjmi 2 .intensive searches,a
SCF of 1.703 was calculated (63 divided by 37),yielding a total
population estimate of 295 moose (Table 4).
In winters 1981,1982,1983,and 1985,similar types of moose
count:s were
Crable 4).
conducted within the Watana Impoundment Zone
Comparison of annual moose population estimates
reveals that late winter use during moderate or mild winters is
14
I
I
I.J\
~over 4000 ft.
'~111t~~low dens i tyr::::::::;:..
•medium density
'l1li high density
~}})1 J l
Figure 4.Relative densities of moose as determined from stratification and census flights in
November 1983 in the Primary Moose Impact Zone.
))}J }1 1 l )..~}
0 over 4000 ft.
m low densi ty
•medium density
•hi gh densi ty
G~
Figure 5.Relative densities of moose as determined from stratification survey in March 1985 in the
Primary t100se Impact Zone.
Table If.Comparison among years of moose counts conducted each March within
the Watana Impoundment Zone 1981 through 1985.
Survey Estimated
time No.moose no.Estimated
Year (min.)observed S.C.F.moose moose/mi 2
-1981 374 42 1.00 l/42 0.4
1982 264 174 1.67 290 2.9-1983 396 161 3.600 580 5.9
1984 NO SURVEY
~
1985 436 173 1.703 295 3.0
l/F~ver moose were observed on recount.
----""""'...,~------------------------------------------
highly variable.In 1981,only 42 moose were estimated in the
area.In 1982,an estimated 290 moose were within the impound-
ment zone.Because of the high SCF in 1983,the estimate was
doubled to 580 moose.In 1985,the calculated estimate was again
down to 295 animals.These data suggest that the numbers of
mOOSEl wi thin the impoundment zone are subj ect to high fluctu-
ations,perhaps in response to local snow conditions.Winter
moosEl densities in the impoundment zone during these relatively
moderate winters have fluctuated from 0.4 to 6.0 moosejmi 2.
Moose observability in the Watana impoundment zone is low because
of la.rge topographical variation and in many cases dense over-
story vegetation.As in previous years,count conditions in 1985
were poor because of lack of recent snowfall.However,because
telemetry studies have indicated that throughout the year the
largE~st numbers of moose occupy these lOTtier elevations in March,
the counts are conducted at that time.The calculated SCFs for
the lNatana counts are relatively higher than the Alphabet Hills
counts and those within other areas because of this low observ-
ability.For example,in 1983 only 2 of 7 instrumented moose
were observed,partially verifying the high SCF of 3.6.Simi-
larly,in 1985,only 2 of 8 instrumented animals were observed;
however,the SCF was much lower (1.7)suggesting that the seF in
18
-
1985 may be low.Based on this gross difference,we assume that
our 1985 moose estimate may be somewhat low.
Devi 1 Canyon Impoundment
The Devil Canyon impoundment zone was counted on 21 r1arch 1985
and ~~imilar to the Watana impoundment count,survey conditions
were poor.Moose observabi Ii ty in the count area was extremely
hampered by dense overstory vegetation.In 1983 and 1985,14 and
16 moose were observed,respectively.Intensive searches of
approximately 12 minjmi 2 were conducted,but in 1983,no addi-
tional moose were seen.In 1985,an SCF of 1.4 was calculated,
yielding an estimate of 22 moose in the area.Table 5 compares
Devil Canyon counts conducted during rvIarch of 1981,1983 and
1985.In comparison to the Watana Impoundment Zone,moose
densities are very low,yielding estimates from 0.5 to 1.0
moosejmi 2 •
Prediction of Severe Winters
In earlier reports based upon observed moose movements,we
hypot,hesized that more moose would utilize the impoundment zones
durin,g severe winters when deep snows would force them into lower
elevations (Ballard et al.1982,1983,1984).In recent years we
proposed a method of determining the relative severity of pre-
.,....
I
!
vious winters (Ballard et al.
19
1984).However,this method
"'i'",
~
i
i
i
T
i
Table 5.Comparison among years of moose counts conducted each March
within the Devil Canyon Impoundment Zone from 1981 through 1985.
could only be used for graphically presenting the relative
severi ty of any particular winter after that winter occurred.
The Winter Severity Index (W.S.I.)was based upon a summary of
monthly snow depths from January through March collected by the
Soil Conservation Service,(S.C.S.)(Figure 6).
,.,...
During the winter of 1984-85,we developed a method for pre-
dicting relative winter severity in the impoundment area by
1 February rather than waiting until early April.Increased
accuracy can be obtained by 1 March.The following is a synopsis
of the methodology used for predicting relative winter severi ty:
.-1.Four S.C.S.snow stations are used in the analysis.These
include Lake Louise,Square Lake,Fog Lakes and Monahan
Flats.
I I .January Prediction
1.
2.
End of month (Jan.28 to 2 Feb.)snow depths for the
four stations are added together and averaged:
Based on the previous 22 years'data,a predicted
W.S.I.is calculated.
A.Average of January snow depths from four stations
x 1.14.
21
---------------------------_._._---------------------
Q
Cl
Z
33-.----,------,---.---.,-----,,----.......,--
32
31
30 -I---f--
29
28 -1---
27
26
25 +-----l--
24
23
22 -1---
21 4--
20 -1-------r-(
19 --:-----1--t I I!--..("_....;.-----1
18 --r ---+----r -r-------+-------·I ---·-r----·-r---·-i--·-·-r-----l
17.-1---'--=$-."----I -~r.·--"I-·--l----~--r--~--T"------·["--·------l"..".-"."".---1
16 +--·--r----~---------i---t----r------j-------t--·----r"----T"--..~i~=8 l--rt-f-1=-t-~-FEf==lj
62 66 70 74 78 82 86
YEARS
Figure 6.Winter Severity Index (1451)fin the middle Susitna River Basin
from 1964 through 1985.
/'
"-"-,,,------------------------""'--
3.95%confidence limi ts arE:placed around that predic-
tion.For example,for winter 1985 the lower limit is
1.14 -0.04.=1.10,while the upper limit is 1.14 +
0.04.=1.18.
I I I.January -February Prediction.
1.End of month (Jan.28 - 2 Feb.and Feb.26 -Mar.2)
are added together and averaged.
-
2.Based on previous 22 years'data (1964-1985),a pre-
dicted W.S.I.is calculated.
A.Average January and February snow depths from four
stations x 1.05.
3.95%confidence limits are placed around that predic-
tion.For example,in 1985 the lower limit is 1.05 -
0.02 =1.03,while the upper limit is 1.05 +0.02
1.07.
We have hypothesized that habitat use by moose is different
depending upon severity of the winter.To test this hypothesis,
moni toring of instrumented moose and winter censuses must be
conducted during a severe winter.
23
By 1 February,the winter
severity prediction capabilities now enable us to prioritize 0ur
moni toring schedule at the onset of a severe winter to better
document the different habi tat utilization by the moose.
SECTION I I I.·HABITAT USE
Vegetation/Habitat Selection
Use of 19 habitat types by moose which was based on preliminary
vegetation maps was presented by Ballard et al.(1984).No
further analyses were conducted durin<;j thi s reporting period;
however,designs for future analyses were developed and planned
for final reports in FY86.Addi tional moose observations were
added to computer fi les and the final analyses depends upon
completion of final vegetation maps and eventual digitization of
final results.
Use of Elevations,Slopes and Aspects
.,A.Preliminary analyses were presented by Ballard et al.(1984).
Moose observations obtained in 1984 and 1985 were added to
computer files and no further analyses will occur until the final
report.
-
24
"""
.-
-
.....
-
SECTION IV.MOOSE POPULATION MODELING
Preliminary design of the moose population model which depicts
moose population dynamics prior to the project was presented by
Ballard et al.(1984).Additional modifications.·are necessary
because of findings described in the next section entitled
Section V.-Moose Calf Mortality Studies.Other modi£ications
may become necessary as addi tional dai:a and ana.iyses dictate.
The population mode:!.should be viewed as a continuing dynamic
process.
SECTION V.MOOSE CALF MORTALITY STUDIES
Introduction
To assess the potential impacts of the proposed proj ect on the
dynamics of the study area's moose population,the population was
modeled to reflect pre-proj ect conditions (Ballard et al.1983,
1984).Portions of the data used to €lstimate moose population
parameters were either collected prior to initiation of Susitna
investigations in 1980 or were from oither areas of GMU-13.and
were assumed to represent conditions in the project area.One of
these basic assump-cions was that black bears constituted an
insignificant source of calf moose mortali.ty .
25
Recently both brown (U rsus arctas)and black bears (U rsus
american us )have been identified as important predators of moose
in North America (Franzmann et al.1980,Ballard et al.1981,
Ballard and Larsen,in press).Studie::i in GMU-13 in the late
1970s suggested that brown/grizzly bears were responsible for 79%
of calf moose mortali ties during summer (Ballard et al.1981).
Black bears were scarce in areas studied earlier.
In 1980,
that a
Susitna
Susitna Hydroelectric Feasibility Studies discovered
sizable black bear population existed in the middle
Basin (Miller 1984).Therefore,:":-lack bears could
potentially be a significant source of moose mortality in addi-
tion to brown bear and wolf (Canis lupus)predation.If correct,
the moose population model would have to be altered to properly
reflect pre-proj ect conditions.In other areas of North America
where bears have been identified as important predators of
F""
ungulates,only one bear.species was pr,esent,or when both have
been present,one has been present in low densi ties (Ballard
et al.1981,Franzmann et al.1980,Schlegel 1976,Larsen unpub.
data).Relative magnitude of predation has been loosely cor-
related with predator density.Therefore the opportunity existed
to investigate the relative importance of three predator species
on moose calf survival.Also,if black bears were a significant
source of calf moose mortality,it has been hypothesized that the
proposed project could result in an increase in calf survival
because of increased bear mortality due to flooding of bear dens .
....26
The purpose of this investigation was to determine whether black
bear predation on moose calves was a (~.::l important a mortality
factor as was predation by brown bears.We hypothesized that
because black bears were more numerous than brown bears,they
would be at least equally as important as a moose calf predator.
METHODS
Methods used for collaring and determining causes of calf mor-
tality were identical to those described by Ballard et al.(1979,
1981).Brown bear densities were estimated at 1/41 km 2 according
to methods described by Miller and Ballard (1982)while black
bear densities were estimated at 1/3.4 km 2 (Miller 1984).Wolf
densities averaged 1/361 km 2 (Ballard and Whitman,unpub.data).
All calves were collared in the project area between Jay Creek
and the mouth of Fog Creek below treeline.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Between 25 May and 1 June 1984,a total of 52 moose calves (29
males and 23 females)ranging in age from 1 to 10 days were
captured and radio-collared (Table 6).The observed twinning
rate was 63%,which was twice as high as that recorded from 1977
through 1979 (Ballard et al.1980).Of the 52 collared calves,
--
seven (13.5%)died as a result of capture (Fig.7).
27
In five of
Table 6.Parameters and fates of 52 instrumented calf moose from the Watana/Susitna study area,24 May 1984 to 1 November 1984.
Date Estimated
Accession Instru-Collar Freq-Weight Age %Marrow Serum Date of Cause of No.
Days No.mented S.N.uency Sex (lbs)(days)Fat %Hb PCV Collected Calf Sibling Status Death Death Alive
120778 5/26 18912 8.305 F 39 2 11.95 8.7 28 yes collared twin 120786 5/28 cow rejected 2
120779 5/26 18908 8.265 F 48 3-4 28.22 8.0 24 yes collared twin 120797 6/02 grizzly 7
120780 5/26 18915 8.334 M 43 ---------yes collared twin 120790 5/29 abandonment 3
120781 5/30 18897 8.095 F --5-6 41.78 ----no single calf 6/11 wolf 12
120782 5/27 18916 8.346 M --3 ----- --
no collared twin 120799 6/18 grizzly 22
120783 5/25 18911 8.296 M --2-3 -------no with unco11ared twin 6/26 unknown 32
120784 5/26 18902 8.185 F 25 1 -------no single calf
120785 5/29 18915 8.334 M --1-2 -------no single calf 6/08 wolf 10
120786 5/26 18917 8.356 M 41 2 41.90 8.3 27 yes collared twin 120778 5/31 grizzly 5
120787 5/26 18904 8.205 F -----------no single calf
120788 5/25 18916 8.346 M 54 7 ---11.5 38 yes collared twin 120793 5/26 grizzly 1
120789 5/25 18894 8.065 M 30 --41.44 ----no collared twin 120809 6/07 grizzly 13
120790 5/26 18907 8.255 F -- --
22.11 ----no collared twin 120780 5/26 cow rejected 0
120791 5/25 18892 8.045 M 29 1-2 ---8.7 30 yes collared twin 120800 5/25 cow rejected 0
120792 5/26 18899 8.135 F 36 3-4 -------yes collared twin 120804 5/27 grizzly 1
120793 5/25 18902 8.185 F --7 42.86 ----no collared twin 120788 5/26 drowned1/1
120794 5/26 18892 8.046 M 40 2 -------yes single calf
120795 5/27 18901 8.175 M 65 6-7 22.55 ----no with unco11ared twin 5/29 wolf 2
120796 5/26 18903 8.195 F 44 2 ---8.2 28 yes with unco11ared twin 6/01 black bear 6
120797 5/26 18893 8.055 M 46 3-4 28.64 -- --
no collared twin 120779 6/02 grizzly 7
120798 5/29 18890 8.025 F --3-4 -------no with unco11ared twin 6/15 grizzly 17
120799 5/27 18896 8.085 M 36 3 9.68 ----no collared twin 120782 5/27 cow rejected 0 G ':'.'I
120800 5/25 18891 8.036 M --1-2 36.47 ----yes collared twin 120791 6/03 grizzly 9 N1208015/28 18912 8.305 F --5 13.21 ----no with unco11ared twin 5/31 accidental 3
120802 5/27 18888 8.005 M --3-4 -----no with unco11ared twin
120803 5/25 18913 8.315 M 33 -----9.0 31 yes collared twin 120805 7/03 abandoned 39
120804 5/26 18890 8.025 F 34 3-4 25.25 7.5 26 yes collared twin 120792 5/27 grizzly 1
120805 5/25 18889 8.016 F -- --
32.34 ----no collared twin 120803 6/07 grizzly 13
[l l l (~(l L [t ([
Table 6.(continued)•
Date Estimated
Accession Instru-Collar Age %Marrow Serum Date of Cause of No.Day
No.mented S.N.Frequency Sex Weight (days)Fat %Hb PCV Collected Calf Sibling Status Death Death Alive
120806 5/29 18898 8.105 M 90 8-9 29.98 -- --
no with unco11ared twin 5/30 grizzly 1
120807 5/25 18914 8.325 M 48 4 ---10.5 34 yes collared twin 120810
120808 5/30 18901 8.175 F --I 19.60 -- --
no single calf 6/03 grizzly 4
120809 5/25 18898 8.105 M 34 --8.63 10.0 39 yes collared twin 120789 5/27 cow rejected 2
120810 5/25 18909 8.276 M 54 4 11.65 10.7 33 yes collared twin 120807 6/17 black bear 23
120811 5/25 18905 8.215 M 35 1 55.58 11.5 41 yes collared twin 120819 6/05 grizzly 11
120812 5/25 18906 8.246 M 50 --26.61 6.5 22 yes single calf 6/03 grizzly 9
120813 5/25 18888 8.005 M --1-2 -------no collared twin 120818 5/26 grizzly 1
120814 5/25 18896 8.085 M --2-3 23.48 ----no single calf 5/26 drowned 1
120815 5/25 18910 8.285 M ----42.11 ----.no single calf 6/21 grizzly 27
120816 5/24 18900 8.145 F --3 ----- --
no single calf 6/14 black bear 21
120817 5/27 18907 8.255 M -----------no with unco11ared twin
120818 5/25 18901 8.175 M 31 1-2 10.52 ----no collared twin 120813 5/26 grizzly 1
120819 5/25 18897 8.095 M 33 1 11.08 ----no collared twin 120811 5/29 grizzly 4
120820 5/24 18895 8.076 F --3 -------no single calf
120821 5/27 18898 8.105 F --5-6 24.02 ----no collared twin 120824 5/29 grizzly 2
120822 5/27 18899 8.135 F --4-5 20.79 ----no single calf 5/29 black bear 2
120823 5/27 18896 8.085 M --5-6 -------no single calf 6/04 drowned 8
120824 5/27 18890 8.025 F --5-6 27.00 -- --
no collared twin 120821 5/29 grizzly 2
120825 5/31 18899 8.135 F --7-10 -------no single calf 6/18 grizzly 18
120826 6/01 18912 8.306 F --2 -------no collared twin 120827 6/15 grizzly 14
120827 6/01 18917 8.356 M --2 16.48 ----no collared twin 120826 6/02 coyote 1
120832 5/30 18899 8.135 F --5-7 16.67 ----no with unco11ared twin 5/31 grizzly 1
120834 5/30 18898 8.105 F --3-4 -------no with unco11ared twin
1/Possibly complicated by either being stepped on by cow or killed by grizzly bear.
[l [t [(t [[t (t I [[t
seven project-induced mortalities the cow returned to the radio-
collared calf and stomped it to death,while the remaining two
mortali ties the cow did not return and the calves apparently
starved.Al though the rate of project-induced mortali ty was
similar to that observed in 1977 and 1978 (11.1 and 9.3%,respec-
tively)all of the earlier mortalities were the results of
abandonment (Ballard et ale 1979)rather than stomping by the
cow.We are unable to explain the reasons for this type of
mortali ty,although it appeared related to odor of the collar
and/or the calf from capture.
Of the 52 radio-collared calves,only 15%survived from birth to
early November (Fig.7).The largest source of mortality was due
to predation by brown bears.Brown bears killed 46%of the
calves,while black bears and wolves killed 8 and 6%of the
calves,resp~ctively.All other natural mortality factors such
as drowning,coyote,(Canis latrans)predation,etc.accounted
\
for approximately 12%.Mortality from all causes was 85%.Ex-
eluding project-related mortalities (N =7),total natural mor-
tality (37 of 45)was 82%.
Timing of natural mortality in 1984 (Fig.8)was similar to
earlier studies with virtually all occurring during the six weeks
following birth (Ballard et ale 1981).In earlier studies pre-
dation accounted for 86%of the natural mortalities.Predation
in this study also accounted for 86%of the mortality.However,
30
UNKNOWN CAUSE (1.a.)
ACCIDENTAL (1.8.)
ABANDONED (3.U)
DROWNED (5.S->
COYOTE (1.8.)
WOLF (s.s.)
BLACt<SEAR (7.7JC)
GRIZZLY BEAR (48.2X)
Figure 7.Fates of 52 radio-collared newborn moose calves from late
May through early November 1984 along the Susitna River near Watana Creek.
-----_..---------_._------------------_.__..=_.•--_.-----
-
--
-
"z
i£cr::
:::l
U
Uo
til
::I:~o
I.L.o
ll::wm
~
:::l
Z
3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21
RR RR R 1 Rf1~r1H n /:-1HHHU~I rl~[,j/),";;;,.;1 I'1,,1 I ,.,!h~M~H (!~II riM ~Ij i"'Yl 1i iYI i j i f 'Yi J iii J I tY,iii It I j I j i J~\i
2:1 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41
AGE (DAYS)
Figure 8.Timing of mortality in relation to estimated calf age for
44 calves dying between 25 May and 15 November 1984 along the Susitna
River near Watana Creek.
____________.,..,_w_----
-
COYOTE (3.1 X)
WOLF (8.4.)-t"__
BlACK BEAR (12.&X)
GRIZZLY BEAR (7S.OX)
Figure 9.Relative proportion of mortality by predator species of 32
predator-killed moose calves during late spring and summer 1984 along
the Susitna River near Watana Creek.
brown bears accounted for 65%of the mortality rather than 79%as
in earlier studies where black bears were scarce or in very low
densi ty.Of predator-related mortalities,however,brown bear
predation continued to be the largest source of predator mor-
tality (Fig.9,75%in 1984 vs.91%in 1977-78).Black bears
were the second most important predator followed by wolves.
Based upon this study we reject the original hypothesis that
p~~jation by black bears was as important a mortality factor as
was brown bear predation.However,because 8%of the calves were
killed by black bears,the moose model presented by Ballard
et al.(1984)should be slightly modified to reflect the impor-
tance of black bear predation in the study area.
SECT I ON I V . I MP ACT MECHAN ISMS
Preliminary assessment of the types of impacts on moose resulting
from development of a two-dam hydroelectric project on the
Susi tna River were presented by Ballard et al.(1984,1985).
-
To aid in guiding the assessment of project impacts,
that the following definitions of importance be
assessing and quantifying impacts:
34
we propose
used for
(1)Important Impacts (I.I.)-Impacts which individually or in
summation have high probability that a measurable change in
moose population size or productivity will occur as a result
of the proj ect according to literature and available evi-
dence.
~,
(2)Potentially Important Impacts (P.I.)Impacts which
individually or in summation have the potential to measur-
ably alter moose population size or productivity as a result
of the project,but which ei ther lack sufficient evidence
(li terature)or may be difficult to quanti tati vely assess
.;"-'cl.i vidually.
(3)Not Important Impacts (N.I.)Impacts which based on
available literature and evidence have a low probability of
al tering moose population size or producti vi ty.
The above definitions should be used for ranking impacts.
Their use recognizes that impacts 'which can alter wi Idlife
population sizes or producti vi ty a.re most likely to be of
importance to consumptive users (e.g.,hunters,trappers)
and nonconsumpti ve users (e.g.,backpackers,photographers)
of wi Idlife resources and to the management obj ectives of
agencies wi th jurisdiction over thosE=resources.
35
Based upon the above definitions of impact,we believe the
follovTing types of impacts deserve special recognition.
Type of impact is also noted.
-Important Impacts:
(I.I.-1)Permanent habitat loss due t.O the impoundments and
other permanent facilities will have an adverse impact on
moose populations.
......
-
(I.I.-2)Displacement of moose during reservoir fi lling years
and alteration of movements between winter and summer
range after project completion could increase predation
rates,possibly driving moose populations to low levels
which may be maintained there by continued predation.
Adverse impact.
( I . I .-3 )Open water and/or
block access to
ice shelving in the impoundments may
traditional calving and wintering
areas.Adverse impact.
(1.1.-4)Alteration of moose habitat downstream of Devil Canyon
will occur due to altered seasonal and annual flow
regimes of the Susi tna River.Adverse impact.
36
---------------------------------_.__._-,-
(I.I.-5)Open water downstream may restrict movements across the
river and to island wintering areas,and attempted
crossing of open river areas may lead to mortality.
Adverse impact.
(1.1.-6)Ice shelving,open water and thin ice during winter,or
floating debris will cause a direct mortality to moose
-a ttempting to cross the impoundment.Adverse impact .
.-
(1.1.-7)Increase in mortality will occur due to train and
automobile collisions caused by increases in traffic
level s.Adverse impact.
"""
(1.I.-8)Snow drifts may impede movements south and southwest of
the reservoir and reduce the value of the Fog Lakes
area as "winter range"Adverse impact.
(I.I.-9)Drifted snow along railroad a.nd road access corridors
and roadway berms may impede movements of moose and/or
subj ect them to higher risk of colli sion mortali ty.
Adverse impact.
(I .I .-10)Clearing of vegetation in
reduce carrying capacity
impact.
37
the impoundment area will
prior to fi lling.Adverse
---------,._..,,-----......,---------------...,,--,-------------------------
,..,.
(1.1.-11)Increases in mortality of moose may occur du~to
hunting and poaching.Adverse impact.
(1.1.-12)Temporary loss of winter habitat will occur on borrow
si tes.Adverse impact.
(I.I.-13)Permanent loss and alteration of moose habi tat wi 11
occur as a result of access corridor construction,
maintenance,and use.Adverse impact.
(1.1.-14)Habitat quality for moose will improve along the
transmission line corridor because vegetation will be
,~
maintained in early successional stages.
impact.
Potenti ally Important Impacts:
Beneficial
(P.I.-1)Local climatic changes resulting from the impoundments,
including increased summer rainfall,increased winds,
cooler summer temperatures,increased early winter
I""'"
~-
snowfall,hoar frost deposition on vegetation in
winter,delayed spring plant phenology,and changes in
plant species composition,may reduce habitat carrying
capaci ty for moose.Adverse impact.
38
._----------------------
(P.I.-2)Open and warmer water in downstream areas may alter
plant phenology and affect spring forage and cover for
moose.Adverse impact.
~,
,~
(P.I.-3)Habitat quality may temporarily decrease near the
reservoir as a result of locally high densities of
moose di spersing from inundated areas.Adverse impact.
CP.I.-4)Drifting snow from the frozen impoundment surface may
preclude use of a band of unknown width of winter
browse along the impoundment shore.Adverse impact.
(P.I.-5)Delayed melting of snow drif·ts in a band of unknown
width along both impoundment shores and the "'::rans-
mission corridor may reduce availability of spring
forage.Adverse impact.
(P.I.-6)Loss of moose habitat due to erosion of impoundment
shores will continue following flooding.Adverse
impact.
(P.I.-7)Drifting snow in the transmission line corridor may
preclude use of winter browse.Adverse impact.
(P.l.-8)Vegetation icing (hoar frost)downstream may render
some browse unavailable and metabolic demands of moose
may increase.Adverse impact.
39
(P.I.-9)Accidental fires resulting from human acti vi ties may
I"'",
temporarily renew some
impact.
Not Important Impacts:
moose habitat.Beneficial
(N.I.-I)Alteration of moose distribution may occur due to
corridor traffic and di sturbance.Not important.
(N.I.-2)Prior to filling,clearcut areas in the impoundment may
inhibit movements due to slash piles and human distur-
bance.Not important.
-
(N.I.-3)
(N.r.-4)
(N.r.-S)
Impeded drainage caused by road berms may alter moose
habitat as a result of flooding of forest or shrubland
areas.Not important.
Increase in ground-based human activity (road traffic,
village activities,dam construction)may preclude use
of some areas by moose,particularly sensitive areas
such as calving sites and winter habitat.Not impor-
tanto
Increase in aircraft overfligh-ts may stress animals or
preclude use of some areas.Not important.
40
--
(N.I.-6)Increase in disturbance over the entire basin may occur
due to increased human recreational activities.Not
important.
Table 7 estimates the timing of when identified and potential
impact mechani sms are hypothesized to occur as a result of the
proj ect.Also included are the general types of monitoring
programs which we believe will be necessary to refine predicted
impacts to allow adjustment of mi tigat:ion efforts.Because of
the difficulty of precisely indentifying and measuring the path
of individual impact mechanisms,quantification will require in
several instances that several mechanisms be combined and
measured with.a combination of methods providing estimate of loss
or benefit.For example,all habitat loss impact mechanisms will
be combined and refinement of losses wi 11 occur through compar-
ison of pre-and post-impoundment moose censuses.
SECTION VI I.MITIGATION
Current investigations have focused on evaluating experimental
burning as a method of improving moose habitat for compensation.
During the reporting period project personnel have participated
in planning procedures aimed at refinin.g needed data for evalu-
ating the potential of certain areas to ser,le as sites for
mitigation of project losses.Table 8 summarizes moose population
characteristics of several proposed moose mitigation areas.No
further refinement is possible at this time.
41
Table 7.Preliminary summary of timing of expected impacts of Susitna hydroelectric development on moose and
actions and studies necessary to refine magnitudes of impacts.
Impact Predicted dates Predicted dates by
LD.Predicted dates occurrence which maximum impact
II of occurrence first observable likely to occur
1.1.-1 Construction and 1st winter 5 years after initial
operation operation
1.1.-2 Construction and 1st winter 5 years after initial
operation operation
Actions or monitoring
necessary to refine
quantifications of impacts
Replication of 1980 and 1983
moose population census
Wolf and bear predation rates study,
Calf mortality study,
Adequate sample of radio-collared
adult moose
1.1.-3
1.1.-4
1.1.-5
I.1.-6
1.1.-7
Post impoundment
Fill and operation
Operation
Fill and operation
Construction and
regular use of
access routes
1st winter of 10 years after initial
fill fill
5 years 25 years
1st winter 10 years
Initiation of 5 years
fill
1st winter Continual
Monitor radio-collared adult
moose during winter and migration.
Plant species composition,and
browse production studies
Monitor radio-collared adult moose
Monitor radio-collared adult moose
Record number and frequency of
collisions
1.1.-8 Operation 1st winter of
fill
1st severe winter Monitor radio-collared adult moose
i L .((I i i L [I (l.I i 4 IlL__
Table 7.
Impact
1.D.
1/
1.1.-9
1.1.-10
1.1.-11
I.1.-12
1.1.-13
1.1.-14
P.I.-1
P.I.-2
P.1.-3
(cont'd).
Predicted dates
of occurrence
Construction and use
of access routes
Construction
Construction and
operation
Construction
Construction and
maintenance
Construction and
maintenance
Operation
Operation
At fill
Fill and operation
Predicted dates
occurrence
first observable
1st winter
1st year
1st year
1st year
1st year
3-5 years
1st winter
1st year
At initiation
of fill
1st winter
Predicted dates by
which maximum impact
likely to occur
Continual
Pre-impoundment
Continual
5 years
5 years
Continual
10 years
25 years
25 years
1st severe winter
Actions or monitoring
necessary to refine
quantificatons of impacts
Record number and frequency
of collisions
Monitor radio-collared adult moose
Increased law enforcement effort
Monitor radio-collared adult moose
distribution surveys
Replication of 1980 and 1983
moose population census
Browse production studies
Replication of 1980 and 1983
moose population census
Browse production studies
Monitor radio-collared adult
and browse use studies
Map snow drifts and monitor
radio-collared adult moose
r l l ((I (t ({I
Table 7.(cont'd)
Impact
1.D.
II
P.1.-4
P.1.-5
P.1.-6
P.I.-7
P.1.-8
Predicted dates
of occurrence
Operation
Operation
Operation
Operation
Unknown
Predicted dates
occurrence
first observable
1st winter
5 years
1st winter
1st winter
5 years
Predicted dates by
which maximum impact
likely to occur
1st severe winter
10-20 years
1st severe winter
20 years
25 years
Actions or monitoring
necessary to refine
quantifications of impacts
Map drifts.conduct moose
distribution surveys and browse
availability studies
Monitor erosion and browse studies
Map snow drifts
Browse availability study
Map burn and if appropriate,
t_([([(I (I l ,
~~~((
Table 8.Summary of moose
Is the area
a known
Area wintering area?
---
2 Yes
4 Yes
6 Yes
6a Yes
7 Yes
8 Yes
population characteristics for proposed mitigation areas for the Susitna Hydroelectric Project.
Is moose pop.
limited by winter If not limited
Population forage during During severe by forage,what
trend mild winters? winters?limits population?
9
10
11
?
Yes
Yes
If so,can
boundaries be
further defined?
No
Yes
No
Yes
Possibly
Yes
?
Yes
Yes
How many moose
sub-pop.utilize
area?
One II stable or
declining 2 N0 3 ?
slowly
Two 1/increasing 2 N0 3 ?
Three 1/increasing 2 N0 3 ?
Three II increasing 2 N0 3 ?
slowly
At least three II increasing 2 N0 3 Yes 41
?increasing 2 ?Yes 41
????
At least two II increasing 2 N0 3 ?
Several or more II declining 2 ??
Bear &wolf predation ~I
Bear &wolf predation ~I
Bear &wolf predation ~I
Bear &wolf predation ~I
Bear &wolf predation ~I
Mortality from bear
predation is quite high
(calf mortality studies)
Possibly Subjected to
heavy levels of bear
predation
Bear &wolf predation 51
Possibly subjected to
heavy levels of bear
predation
12 ???decl ining 2 ??
13 Yes Possibly At least three II increasing 2 N03 ?
II Source:Telemetry studies
"21 Source:Moose composition counts
"31 Source:Telemetry and blood serum studies
11 Source:Yearling mortality studies
51 Source:Calf mortality and wolf telemetry studies
Because area supports
high bear &wolf numbers
may be limited by
predation
Probably limited by
predation
(wolf studies)
[t ([l ((!l L t
-
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Sterling Miller and Dennis McAllister participated in
several aspects of the project.Kathleen Adler provided clerical
and bookkeeping services.Susan Lawler provided typing support.
LITERATURE CITED
Ballard,W.B.and T.H.Spraker.1979.Unit 13 wolf studies.
Alaska Dept.Fish and Game.£-R Proj.FinQ:Rept.,W-17-8,
Jobs 14.8R,14.9R and 14.lOR.90pp.
Ballard,W.B.,S.D.Miller,and T.H.
calf mortality study.Alaska Dep"t.
Proj.Final Rept.,W-17-9,W-17-10,
123pp.
Spraker.
Fish and
W-17-11,
1980.Moose
Game.P-R
and W-21-1.
-
Ballard,W.B.,T.H.Spraker,anq K.P.Taylor.1980.Causes
of neonatal moose calf mortality in southcentral Alaska.
J.Wild.Manage.45(2):335-342.
Ballard,W.B.,C.L.Gardner,J.H.Westlund,and J.R.Dau.
1982.Susitna Hydroelectric Project.Phase I Final Report,
Big Game Studies,Vol.III,Moose.Alaska Dept.Fish and
Game,Anchorage.220pp.
46
Ballard,W.B.,J.S.Whitman,L.D.Aumiller,and P.Hessing.
1983.Susitna Hydroelectric Project.Phase II Progress
Report,Vol.III,Moose-Upstream.61pp.
Ballard,W.B.,J.S.Whitman,and N.G.Tankersley.1985.
Impact mechanisms of hydroelectric development on moose in
North America.Swedish Wildlif"e Review.Proc.2nd
Internat.Moose Symposi:':':.l:In press.
Ballard,W.B.and D.Larsen.1985.Implications of predator-
prey relationships to moose management.Swedish Wildlife
Review.Proc.2nd Internat.Moose Symposium:In press.
Franzmann,A.W.,C.C.Schwartz,and R.o.Peterson.1980.
Causes of summer moose calf mortality on the Kenai
Peninsula.J.\-lildl.Manage.44:764-768.
Franzmann,A.W.,C.C.Schwartz,D.C.Johnson,J.B.Faro,and
1984.Alces 21:In press.....,
.-
W.B.Ballard .Immobilization of moose wi th carfentanil.
Gasaway,W.C.,S.J.Dubois,and S.J.Harbo.1982.Moose
survey procedures development.Alaska Dept.Fish and Game.
P-R Proj.Final Rept.66pp.
Miller,S.D.1984.Susitna Hydroelectric Project Final Phase
---'
I I Report.Vol.VI.Black Bear and Brown Bear.200pp.
47
Miller,S.D.and W.B.Ballard.1982 .Densi ty 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
F.merican small mammals.Am.Midl.Nat.37(1):223-249.
Schlegel,M.1976.Factors affecting calf elk survival in
northcentral Idaho.A progress report.Froc.56th Ann.
Conf.W.Assoc.State Game and Fish Comm.pp342-355 .
.-
I
-
48
-~"'ij--------------------..------,-------------------