HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA3497~
,
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FINAL REPORT
BIG GAME STUDIES
VOL.VI BLACK BEAR AND BROWN BEAR
Sterling D.Miller
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
333 Raspberry Road
Anchorage,A~99518-1599
Submitted to the Alaska Power Authority
August 1987
Portions of this report are in the process of being published.
Persons wishing to cite this report in technical publications
are asked to check with the author for permission prior to
submission of their papers.
ARtIS
AtASK""RESOURCES
biI1R.i\t\Y.%;INFORMATION SBRVJCf.S
~l~Q C $:'r.~T"SiJ'TIl'E 100 i
~~~~~"AJLA'mA ~
7"'v.
f /\
t?
!)
1.SUMMARY OF RESULTS
This study describes the brown bear (Ursus arctos)and black
bear (Ursus americanus)populations in the area that would be
influenced by a large 2-dam hydroelectric project on the
Susitna River in southcentral Alaska.These darns would
inundate an area of 185 km 2 along an approximately l20-km-Iong
stretch of river.Estimates of levels of impact are offered
where data are adequate to make such estimates.Primary
emphasis in this study was to provide baseline data on bear
populations prior to project construction.This data could be
compared with post-project populations to provide definitive
answers on levels of impacts.Most data were based on
periodic relocations of radio-marked bears.
This study was conducted in 2 phas~s.During the first phase
it was learned that the Watana Impoundment would likely have a
much greater impact on populations of bears than would the
Devils Canyon Impoundment.Correspondingly,subsequent
efforts emphasized the Watana project area an4 relatively few
data"were obtained on the Devils Canyon Impoundment impact
area in the second phase of studies.
1.A.Brown Bear Results
The area of the proposed'project is inhabited py a large popu-
lation of brown bears.A population density of 2.79 bears/IOO
km 2 was estimated based on capture-recapture techniques
developed during the course of this study.For brown bears,
the size of the impoundment-impact area was "estimated to be
12,127 km 2 •This area included the area within 1 mean brown
bear horne range diameter"from the Susitna River.
Extrapolation of the density estimate to this area provided an
estimate of the number of brown bears that would be affected
by the proposed project.This estimate was 327 bears
(95%CI =295-386).
Bear use of the impoundment area was analyzed using 3
impoundment proximity zones:1)within the area that would be
flooded;2)from the shoreline of the proposed impoundment to
a distance of 1 mile;and 3)from 1-5 miles from the impound-
ment shoreline.Brown bears used the area that would be
inundated by the p;r-oposed Watana Impoundment over twice as
f~equently as expected under the null hypothesis that use
occurred in proportion to the area of this zone.'This
selection was evident for males and for females not
accompanied by cubs of the year.Females accompanied by
newborn cubs showed selection against the area that would be
inundated by the Watana Impoundment.Use of the impoundment
zone was most pronounced during June.Selection was also
ARLIS
Alaska Resources
Library &Infonnation SeTVlces
Anchorage,Alaska
i
that would be inundated by the Devils
However,compared with the Watana
that would be inundated by the Devils
small and overall influence would be
shown for the area
Canyon Impoundment.
Impoundment,the area
Canyon Impoundment is
less.
Data on use of impoundment proximity zones formed the basis
for my estimate that annual carrying capacity for 43 brown
bears would be eliminated due to inundation of habitat by
impoundments.
Brown bears,at least in populations that are subject to
hunting,tend to develop avoidance reactions to human
presence.This avoidance reaction and barriers to movements
associated with the impoundments and access roads are expected
to result in additional losses of habitat availability for
brown bears in the study ~rea.No estimates of the level of
such losses are made here.However,the data on pre-project
brown bear movements collected in this study provide the basis
for making such estimates following completion of post-project
studies.
The only anadromous fish stream in the study area was clearly
identified as a seasonally critical habitat area for brown
bears.Prairie Creek,a .small tributary of the Talkeetna
River,contains·the highest concentration of sp,awning.king
salmon (Onchorhynchus tshawytscha)in the tipper Cook Inlet
area.Salmon are easily caught by bears in this shallow creek
and brown bear movements to this stream were documented from
an area of more than 15,000 km2..Most bear use of Prairie
Creek occurred in July and early August.The proportion of
marked.Su-Hydro bears .fishing for salmon in Prairie Creek
varied from 13%to 38%in different years.In 1984 and 1985
50-60 bears were estimated to be using the creek at 1 time.
The total number of different bears using Prairie Creek at
some time during the salmon run was larger than this by some
unknown amount.It is anticipated that"disturbance
displacement of brown bears from Prairie Creek will result
from increased human access to the stream from access roads to
and across the impoundments.The level of this disturbance-
displacement can range from slight to complete,depending on
the limitations that are placed on human uses of the Prairie
Creek area.Some of the limitations needed to assure
continued brown bear use of Prairie Creek are under the
control of the hydro-project developers.The·most effective
of these limitations would be to prevent access to the south
side of the Susi tna River in the vicinity of the Watana dam
site.If Prairie Creek salmon resources··were to become
unavailable to project-area bears,a loss of annual carrying
capacity for about 41 bears might result.
ii----_......._---------------_....~-----_.......-----_.-..---~_.---
Reductions in annual carrying capacity for bears would likely
be expressed through reductions in bear densities and reduc-
tions in reproductive rates.For this reason baseline data on
pre-project reproductive rates were described.Separation of
mother and offspring occurred when offspring were in their 3rd
year of life (2.0+years old).Mean reproductive interval was
at least 3.8 years.Mean age of first litter production for
femal~s was 5.5 years (4-8).More bears (44%)produced first
litters at age 6 than at any other age.Litter size averaged
2.1 cubs (1-4),1.7 yearlings (1-3),and 1.7 2-year-olds(1-3).
Cub mortality was 37.7%and yearling mortality was 21.6%.
Mean home range size was 1022 km 2 :1941 km 2 for males and 501
km 2 for females.A few bears made identifiable movements to
caribou calving areas.Subadult males typically disperse from
maternal home ranges at age 2 or 3,while subadul t females
typically do not disperse.
Annual brown bear harvests by hunters in the project area
averaged 32 bears/year during 1983~1985.Hunter harvests are
increasing in this area,a probable consequence of increased
hunter effort resulting from liberalized seasons and"bag
limits.
Brown bears·are effective predators on moose calves in the
study area.No differences in predation rates between
different sex and age groups were detected except that females
accompanied by newborn calves had lower predation rates
(P <0.05).During intensive monitoring we saw radio-marked
bears on calf moose kills every 11.8 consecutive observation
days .This figure led"to an estimate of 3.6 moose calves
killed by an average.adult brown bear during the spring.
Brown bears typically denned at high elevations away from the
impoundment zone.Availability "of physically acceptable
denning sites was not thought to be a limiting factor in this
area.However,there was a tendency for individual bears to
den in the same general area in successive years.Displace-
ment of these individuals to denning areas of uncertain
acceptability could result in additional mortalities or
stress.Such displacement is most likely to result from
disturbance occurring on the access road between the Denali
Highway and the Watana Dam site.This portion of the access
road runs through good brown bear denning habitat.Further
displacement could result from equipment working in winter in
those borrow areas that are located away from the river near
good denning habitat.
1.B.Black Bear Results
Black bears were known to occur in the project area when this
project started but the population turned out to be larger
than anticipated.Correspondingly,study plans were modified
iii
to incorporate black bears~The black bear population in the
vicinity of the proposed project can be characterized as
typical of a population occurring in marginal habitat:
unstable in numbers from year to year with probable periodic
declines due to failure of key food crops (notably berries in
this area),and low productivity.Black bear habitat is
better and bears are more abundant downstream from the
proposed impoundments.The population in the area of the
impoundments is an upstream extension of the downstream
population.This population lives in an increasingly narrow
finger of acceptable black bear habitat which follows the
course of the Susitna River from Devils Canyon-to near the
upper limits of the upper impoundment.Studies downstream
from the proposed impoundments were also conducted to evaluate
the hypothesis that anticipated reductions in salmon-spawning
habitat resulting from dam-induced changes in water flow
regimes would impact downstream bears_
In the vicinity of the proposed impoundments black bear
habitat is largely confin~d to spruce-forest areas along the
river,and to adjacent shrub-lands.The size of this area,
determined from movements of radio-marked bears,'is 1191 km 2 •
A black bear density estimate of 8.97 bears/lOa km 2 was
obtained in a portion of this area,and extrapolated to the
whole area to obtain a population estimate of 107 black bea~s
(95%CI =93-122)in the project area during spring 1985.The
population at the time this estimate was made'(spring 1985)
was thought to be below maximum carrying capacity.At this
time the population may have been recovering from a decline
caused by ~n apparent berry-crop failure in summer 1981.
Black bears living in the vicinity of the Watana ,Impoundment
selected for the area that would be inundated by this impound-
ment.This preference was pa,rticu'larly evident in May and
June when 52%and 46%,r'espectively,of all locations of
radio-marked bears were within the area that would be flooded
by the impoundment.The population of bears in the vicinity
of the Watana Impoundment was estimated to be 59 bears.In
the vicinity of the Watana Impoundment,loss of annual carry-
ing capacity for 26 bears was estimated.This loss would
result from inundation.Other factors,when combined with
this loss of habitat though inundation,led me to conclude
that that a resident black b€ar population could probably not
survive in the vicinity of the proposed Watana Impoundment.
Transient black bears from downstream areas would probably
continue to use the area seasonally.
Selectivity for the lower (Devils Canyon)impoundment was much
less pronounced.This was because the lower impoundment would
have more black bear habitat remaining above the proposed
iv
·.
impoundment shoreline.Only 3%of point locations of radio-
marked black bears were within the area that would be flooded
by the Devils Canyon Impoundment;an additional 43%were
within 1 mile of the impoundment shoreline.Under the
assumptions used in this analysis,the Devils Canyon
Impoundment would result in loss of annual carrying capacity,
through inundation,for only 2 black bears.
Downstream from the impoundment area,black bears were found
to frequent the vicinity of sloughs used by spawning salmon.
Analysis of bear scats collected along these sloughs during
late summer revealed that salmon remains were infrequent and
that devil's club (Oplopanax horridus)berries were prevalent.
Based on these results,impacts on black bear populations
resulting from reduced availability of salmon could not be
predicted.Such impacts may occur however (especially dur~ng
years when berry crops fail),if salmon are an important
buffer food.
Reproductive rates for study-area black bears were low
compared with rates from the Kenai Peninsula,the only other
.area in Alaska where comparable data are available.Mean
litter size was 2.1 cubs (1-4)and 1.9 yearlings (~-3).
Offspring mqrtali ty during the first season out of dens was
35~and appeared higher in the upstream study area (47%)than
in the downstream area (6%).Such mortalities are very-rare
on the'Kenai Penins'U;La where yearling bea'rs weigh signifi-
cantly more than in the Su-Hydro area..Intervals between
successive production of litters averaged at least 2.7 years.
Mean age at first litter production was 6.4 years (5-8);about
half of the bears produced their first litters at age 7.
Reported hunter harvests of black bears in.the study area
averaged 13 bears/year during 1973-1985.Black bear harvests
in the upstream study area are thought to be stable and low
because of difficulty of access.This situation will change
when roads are built to the impoundment area and after use of
the impoundment itself,by hunters in boats,begins.
Currently,relatively few hunters are thought to be willing to
pay for a fly-in hunt for black bear.
Home ranges of black bears,averaged 134.6 km 2 ,251.5 km 2 for
males,and 67.1 km 2 for females.Black bears tended to remain
in the immediate vicinity of the Susitna River during most
seasons except late summer when berries were ripening.At
this time bears tended to move into shrub-land habitats
adjacent to the forested habitats along the river to forage
for ripening berries,primarily blueberries (Vaccinium
uliginosum).During years of berry crop failure late-summer
movements for some bears are much more extensive and suggest
the importance of this food source.
v
--------~.._,---
Predation rates for black bear,recorded during periods of
intensive monitoring in the spring,were 2 kills/lOa consecu-
tive observation days.This rate is lower than observed for
brown bears.At this predation rate each adult black bear in
the impoundment study area would kill an average of 0.7 moose
calves/year.
Unlike brown bear dens,dens of black bears were located in
the immediate vicinity of the Susitna River.Over half of the
black bear dens in the vicinity of the proposed Watana
Impoundment would be inundated by the proposed project
compared with 3.3%of the dens in the vicinity of the Devils
Canyon Impoundment.Reuse of den sites was common in the
study area.This and other observations suggest that
competi tion for good den sites may be occurring at existing
black bear densities.
vi
2.TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.Summary of Results.....................................i
I.A.Brown Bear Results...............................i
1.B.Black Bear Results .....•............•..•••.•••.•.iii
2.Table of Contents.~...•................................1
3 •Lis t 0 f Tab 1e 5 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •:• • • • • •3
4.List of Fig,ures .........•.•.'...........................6
5.Introduction.. • . • . • . . . . • . • . . . . . . . . . . . • • . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.A.Project Background ••.••••••.•.•••••....•.........8
5.A.1.Organization and Objectives •.••••.•..•••.•8
5.A.2.Hydro Project Design ..•.••••.••.•••••••.••9
5.B.Methods •••••••••••••-.. • .••• . •••• • • • . • • • •••• • • • • • • 9
S.C.Acknowledgments ••••.•••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••11
6 .The Study Areas................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...12
6.A.Upstream Brown Bear Study Area •..••.•.•••••.••.••12
6.B.Upstream Black Bear Study Area •••.•.•••.•••..••••13
6.C.Downstream Black Bear Study Area ••••••••.........13
7 .Brown Bear Results.....................................14
7.A.Number of Bears in Impoundment Impact Zone .•••••.14
7.B.Use of Impoundment Impact Zones by
Brown Bears......................................14
7.B.l.Use by Season,Sex,Age,and .
Reproductive Status •••••••.•••••..•••••••.14
7.B.1.a.Watana Impoundment .••••••••.•••••...15
7.B.1.b.Devils Canyon Impoundment ••.•.......16
7.B.2.Prediction of Impacts ••••.••.••••••••.•.•.16
7.B.3.Mitigative Measures .••••..•••••••..••••••.18
7.C.Disturbance-Displacement from Remaining
Hab i tat.• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •.•18
7.D.
7.E.
7.F.
7.G.
7.C.1.Impoundments,Access Roads,and
Accidental"Mortalities.• • • • • • • . • • . . • • • . •.•19
7.C.2.Levels and Impact and Mitigation
Measures •••••••••.•••••••••.••••••.••.•.•.•.•.21
Brown Bear Use of Prairie Creek
Fish Area •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••o
•••••••••22
7.D.1.Level and Time of Use ..........•••~~••..•.22
7.D.2.Potential Impact of Project on Brown
Bear Use of Prairie Creek ••••,•.•••••••••••24
7.D.3.Level of Impact on Brown Bear •.•.•••••.•••25
7.D.4.Potential Mitigation Efforts .•.•••••••.•••26
Downstream Impacts,Brown Bears ••••••.•••...•..•.27
Cumulative Impacts,Brown Bears •••••..•.•••••.••.28
Brown Bear Biology .••...•...•.•.•.....•.•••.•.•.•29
7.G.1.Brown Bear Producti vi ty.. . . . . . . • • • • . • • . •••29
7.G.1.a.Litter Size and Offspring
Mortality ••••......•.•.••.•.•••.•.•.•30
7.G.l.b.Reproductive Interval ..•••••.•.••••••32
7.G.l.c.Age at First Reproduction ••••...•••••34
7.G.2.Sources of Brown Bear Mortality ..........•35
7.G.3.Brown Bear Movements......................36
7 •G•3 •a.Home Range Si ze • • • • • . . . • •••• • • . . . . •••36
7.G.3.b.Movements to Hunting and
Fishing Areas~.•.•.•...•••••...•.•.•.36
areas.• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • . • • • •.•36
7.G.3.c.Brown Bear DispersaL •.••.•..•...••.•38
7.G.4.Brown Bear Predation on Ungulates .••••••.•39
1
7.G.5.Brown Bear Denning Ecology •...•••••...••.•41
7.G.5.a.Den Entrance and Emergence Dates •••••42
7.G.5.b.Characteristics of Dens •.••••••••••.•43
8.Black Bear Results 44
8.A.Numbers of Black Bears in Impoundment
8.B.
8.D.
8.C.
8.E.
8.F.
8 .G.
Impact Zone ~.. . . . . . . . . . . ...44
Black Bear Use of Impoundment Proximity Zones •••.45
8.B.l.Levels and Seasons of Use •.•..••••..•.••••45
8.B.2.Prediction 0 f Impacts.....................46
8.B.3.Mi tiga'tion measures.......................47
Other Impacts ...·.................................47
8.C.1.Berry-Foraging Areas..• • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • •••47
8.C.2.Blockage of Movements •••••••.••.••••••••••48
8.C.3.Mitigative Measures .•••••••••••••••..•.•••49
Interspecific Effects .•••••••••••••••••••••••••••50
8.D•1.Moose and Brown Bears.....................50
8.D.2.Humans/Bear Interactions •••••••.•..••.••••50
Downstream Impacts on Black Bears ••.••••....•••••51
Cumulative Impacts,Black Bears •••••••••••.•••••.53
Background Information on Black Bear Biology •••••53
8.G.l.Black Bear Productivity ••••.••••.•...••••53
8.G.l.a.Litter Size and Offspring
Mortal i ty.. . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . . . . . . . ...54
8.G.l.b.Reproductive Interval ••..•••••.•.•...55
8.G.l.c.Age at First Reproduction •..•••••••••57
8.G.2.Sources of Black Bear Mortality •..••••••••58
8.G.3.Black Bear Movements •••••~••.•.•..•••..••.59
8 •G•3 •a.Home Range Si ze •••'.• • • . . • • • • • • . . • • •••59
8.G.3.b.Seasonal Movements •••••.••.•.••••.•••59
8.G.3.c.Dispersal From Study Area •••••••.••••60
8.G.4.Black Bear Food Habits....................60
,8.G.4:a.Predation Rates •••••••••••••••.••••••60
8.G.4.b.Annual Variation in Berries ••..•••••.61
8.G.4.c.Scat Analyses •..........•' ·62
8.G.5.Black Bear Denning Ecology •••••.••••••••..62
9.Bear Density and Population Estimatiori ••..•••.••.•••••.63
10.Berry Abundance and Canopy Coverage ••..~·••••••••••.•..•65
11.References·Cited... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...67
12.Appendices .:.....................74
Appendix 1.Abstract:A Comparison of Denning
Ecology of Three Black Bear
Populations in Alaska ••••..•••••••••••••••74
Appendix 2.Abstract:Black and Brown Bear
Density Estimates Using Modified
Capture-Recapture Techniques in Alaska •..•75
Appendix 3.Abstract:Characteristics of
Nonsport Brown Bear Deaths in Alaska •.••..76
Appendix 4.Abstract:Differentiation of Brown
and Black Bear Scats:An Evaluation
of Bile Acid Detection by Thin Layer
Chromatography ..,.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...77
Appendix 5.Data Component Descriptions and
Coding Sch~mes Black and Brown Bears •.•...78
13 .Tab Ie s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...83
14.Figures 228
2
3.LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.
Table 2.
Table 3.
Table 4.
Table 5.
Table 6.
Table 7.
Table 8.
Table 9.
Table 10.
Table 11.
Table 12.
Table 13.
Table 14.
Table 15.
Table 16.
Brown bear capture histories,1980-1985 ..••..••••83
Black bear capture histories,1980-1985 ••••••••••87
Brown bear proximity analysis,Watana •••••••.••••91
Brown bear proximity analysis,Watana males ••.•••92
Brown bear proximity analysis,Watana females ••••93
Brown bear proximity analysis,Watana females
wi t'h newborn cubs................................94
Brown bear selectivity for impoundment
proximity zones by reproductive status,
both impoundments 95
Brown bear selectivity for impoundment
proximity zones,Devils Canyon •..•••••.•.....••..96
Brown bear proximity analysis for spring
data,impoundments and sexes lumped ••••....••••..97
Number of brown bear crossings of
Susitna River 98
Brown bear use of Prairie Creek ..••••..•...•..-••.101
Estimated number of brown bears using .
Prairie Creek,1984 ·104
Brown,bear population estimation results
on Prairie Creek in 1985 •.•.•••••••••.•..•.••••••105
Estimated number of brown bears using
Prairie Creek in 1985 ....•.•••.••••••.•.•...••.•.106
Brown bear.litter size for cub litters .••.••......107
Brown bear litter size for yearling
litters ................................•.........110
Table 17.Brown bear litter size for litters
of 2-year-olds 113
Table 18.Brown bear reproductive life history •............114
Table -19.Summary of mortalities from brown
bear litters 119
Table 20.Morphometries of brown bear newborns .••.•........120
Table 21.Morphometries of brown bear year1ings ..•.......•.121
Table 22.Summary of brown bear reproductive
intervals :122
Table 23.Summary of brown bear age at first
reproduction -123
Table 24.Brown bear harvests in'study area.~....••....•...124
Table 25.Status of brown bears first marked
in 1978 _.....•........................125
Table 26.Status of brown bears first marked
in 1979 0 •••126
Table 27.Status of brown bears marked during
Su-Hydro studies 127
Table 28.Summary of hunter kills of marked
brown bears 130
Table 29.Apparent natural mortalities of
black and brown bears ......•.....................131
Table 30.Brown bear annual home range sizes .•...•...•...•.132
3
Table 31.
Table 32.
Table 33.
Table 34.
Table 35.
Table 36.
Table 37.
Table 38.
Table 39.
Table 40.
Table 41.
Table 42.
Table 43.
Table 44.
Table 45.
Table 46.
Table 47.
Table 48.
Table 49.
Table 50.
Table 51.
Table 52.
Table 53.
Table 54.
Table 55.
Table 56.
Table 57.
Table 58.
Table 59.
Table 60.
Table 61.
Table 62.
Table 63.
Table 64.
Table 65.
Table 66.
Table 67.
Mean brown bear home range size by
sex and reproductive status •.........•....••.....137
Brown bear predation rates during
intensive monitoring periods in spring .........••138
Brown bear predation rates during
intensive monitoring in summer 1984 •.•.••.......•142
Brown bear predation rates,by sex and age ••••...144
Den entrance and emergence dates,1980-81 •..•••••147
Den entrance and emergence dates,1981-82 •..•..•.148
Den entrance and emergence dates,1982-83 .....••.149
Den entrance and emergence dates,1983-84 .•••.••.150
Den entrance and emergence dates,1984-85 .•.•....151
Brown bear den characteristics ••...••.•...•.•••.•152
Brown bear den elevations •.•••••••......•.•.....•157
Distances between brown bear den sites
in successive years .............................•158
Black bear proximity analysis,Watana ...••.•.....160
Black bear proximity analysis,
Devils Canyon ........................•...........161
Black bear proximity analysis,by
individual ID,both impoundments lumped •.........162
No.black bear crossings of Susitna River 164
Bear scat contents,1980-1982 .•..........••••..•.167
Bear scat contents,1983 .••••....•...••••...•••..168
Bear scat contents,1984 •.••.••••....•..•........170
Salmon ahl~ndance in sloughs,1981.-1984 •.....•.~..172
Ranking of ·salmon abundance ·and bear
use in sloughs,1983 .•••.••••••~••••••.••••••.•••174
Ranking of salmon abundance and
bear use in sloughs,1984 ........••.........••..•175
Summary of black bear cub litter size data •...•..176
Summary of black bear yearling litter sizes .....•180
Black bear cub morphometrics ...•••.•...........•.182
Black bear yearling morphometrics •.•••...•.......184
Summary of black bear cub mortalities ...•••..•...185
Black bear reproductive histories .............•..186
Summary of black bear reproductive
intervals 190
Summary of black bear age at first
reproduction d+ata a.a ••••••••••••••••••••••191
Black bear hunter kills ..•...•...•...•••.•....•..192
Status of marked·black bears,by year
of capture 193
Status of marked black bears,by
study area 196
Black bear home range size •••••••••••••...•...••.201
Black bear home ranges,by sex and age •••.....•..207
Black bear predation rates during
intensive monitoring •••.•..•.•.•.•.•.•...••.•....208
Subjective characterization of berry
abundance in different years •••.....•....•..•..••209
4
Table 68.
Table 69.
Table 70.
Table 71.
Table 72.
Table 73.
Table 74.
Table 75.
Table 76.
Black bear den entrance and emergence,
winter of 1980-1981 ...•...•.•.•••••.•......•...•.211
Black bear den entrance and emergence,
winter of 1981-1982 •..•.••••..••.•..•..•.•....•••212
Black bear den entrance and emergence,
winter of 1982-1983 ••••••.•••••..•.•.••••.•••.•.•213
Black bear den entrance and emergence,
winter of 1983-1984 •.••.•••••.••...•.•••••...••••214
Black bear den entrance and emergence,
winter of 1984-1985 •••••••••.••....•..•••...•..••215
Characteristics of black bear dens ••••••....•••••216
History of den use for individual
black bears 222
History of den use for individual dens 224
Daily search effort during 1985
population estimate ....•.........•••.........••..227
5
4.LIST OF FIGURES
4=##
Figure 1-
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
Figure 5.
Figure 6.
Figure 7.
Figure 8 .
Figure 9.
Figure 10.
Figure 11-
Figure 12.
Figure 13.
Figure 14.
Figure 15.
Figure 16.
Figure 17.
Figure 18.
Figure 19.
Figure 20.
Figure 21-
Figure 22.
Figure 23.
Figure 24.
Figure 25.
Figure 26.
Figure 27.
Figure 28.
Locations of places named in text 228
Brown bear capture locations 229
Point locations for brown bears in
the downstream study area,1980-1984 230
Brown bear study area •...................•..•...231
Capture locations for black bears in
the upstream study area ....•.....•..............232
Point locations for brown bears in
the downstream study area,1980-1984 .•.•........233
Black bear study area ...................•.......234
Capture locations for black bears in
the dOwnstream study area •..•...............•...235
Point locations for radio-marked black
bears in the downstream study area,
1982-1984 ~236
Illustration of impoundment proximity
polygons 237
Percent of brown bear point locations
in each of 4 Watana Dam impoundment
proximity zones by month .......•................238
Composite home ranges of brown bears
using Prairie Creek 239
Movements of radio-marked brown bears
at Prairie Creek 240
Daily point locat1ons of marked and
unmarked brown bears at Prairie Creek .......••..241
Human habitations in the vicinity of
Prairie Creek 242
Geographical locations of brown bear
sport harvest areas ....•............•.••........243'
Annual variation in mean black bear
home range size .."244
Movement of brown bear 331 to
caribou calving area 245
Dispersal of subadult brown bear 342a ..........•246
Dispersal of subadult brown bear
siblings 392 and 391 ............••.•............247
Dispersal of subadult brown bear 389 .••••.......248
Dispersal of subadult brown bear 386 .••••..•....249
Annual variations in snow depth,
1980-1985 at 4 survey stations .............••~..250
Aspects of brown bear dens ••....•...........•.••251
Aspects of brown bear dens,based
on reproductive status ........•.••..............252
Brown bear den site locations,upstream 253
Brown bear den site locations,downstream 254
Percent of black bear point locations
in each of 4 impoundment proximity
zones,by month 255
6
Figure 29.Upstream movement of black bear
321 in 1981 256
Figure 30.Upstream movement of black bear
318 in 19 81 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...257
Figure 31.Upstream movement of black bear
342 in 1981 258
Fig'ure 32.Downstream movement of black bear
343 in 1981 259
Fig'ure 33.Downstream movement of black bear
324 in 1981 260
Figure 34.Annual variation in black bear
home range size 261
Figure 35.Black bear den site locations in
upstream area 262
Figure 36.Black bear den site locations in
downstream area 263
Figure 37(a&b).Aspects of black bear dens ..•.•............264
Figure 38.Search area quadrats used for density
est ima te s.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26 6
Figure 39.Brown bear distribution relative
to density estimation area ...•..••......•••..•..267
Figure 40(a,b,c).Ripeness phenology of 3
berry species 268
Figure 41.Canopy coverage for blu~berries in
the Watana and Devils Canyon Impoundment
zones and above 2200 feet elevation .•.•••..•....270
Figrure 42.Canopy coverage-for crowberries in
the Watana and Devils Canyon Impoundment
zones and above 2200 feet elevation .•••.•.......271
Fi9ure 43.Canopy coverage for lowbush
cranberries in the Watana and Devils
Canyon Impoundment zones and above 22·00
feet elevation 272
Fi<:rure 44.Canopy coverage for Equisetum spp.
in the Watana and Devils Canyon
Impoundment zones and above 2200 feet
elevation 273
Figure 45.Berry abundance data for blueberries
in the Watana and Devils Canyon
Impoundment zones and above 2200 feet
elevation 274
Figure 46.Berry abundance data for crowberries
berries in the Watana and Devils Canyon
Impoundment zones and above 2200 feet
elevation 275
Fi~fure 47.Berry abundance data for lowbush
cranberries in the Watana and
Devils Canyon Impoundment zones and
above 2200 feet elevation .•••••••••.•••••.•..•••276
7
i
l
5.INTRODUCTION
5.A.Project Background
5.A.1.Organization and Objectives
This is the final report for black bear (Ursus americanus)and
brown bear (Ursus arctos)studies conducted by the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game,Division of Game,under contract
to the Alaska Power Authority as part of impact assessment
stu.dies for the proposed Susitna Hydroelectric Project.Field
stu.dies were conducted from 1980 through 1985 ~analysis was
conducted in 1986.The originally stated objectives of these
stu.dies were:
To determine the distribution and abundance of black and
brown/grizzly bears in the vicinity of proposed
impoundment areas~
to determine seasonal ranges,including denning areas,
and movement patterns of bears~and
andblackbyusehabitattodetermineseasonal
brown/grizzly bears.
The!se objectives were modified and others added during the
course of study as information accumulated.
A 2-phase plan of study was developed to meet the project
objectives.The first phase (1980 and 1981)was designed to
provide an overview of bear movements in the study area ..This
overview was intended to identify the bear .uses of the
impoundment vicinity that were most likely to be aff·ected by
project construction and to result in impacts ort·bear
populations.One progress.report (Miller and McAllister 1981)
and 1 summary report (Miller and McAllister 1982~describing
Phase I studies were prepared.Continuation studies during
Phase II (1982-spring 1985)were designed to quantify the most
si9nificant impacts on bears during Phase I.These results
were reported in 2 progress reports (Miller 1984 and Miller
1985a)and in this final report.This report summarizes all
pertinent information collected during the project.Publica-
tion of additional analyses of peripheral information
c61lected during this project are planned.This analysis will
include analyses of habitat selection by bears.These
analyses were not completed for this report because proj ect
funding was terminated just as habitat-type mapping became
available..
During Phase I of this project the proposed Watana Dam was
identified as having a relatively large·potential for affect-
ing bear populations,compared with the Devils Canyon Dam
8
------,-------------..,.....-----,---------------......,.-------
(Miller and McAllister 1982).For this reason Phase II
studies concentrated on bear populations in the vicinity of
the Watana Dam.My plan of study did not include considera-
tion of a project design that included only th~Devils Canyon
dam and such analyses are not included here.
Prediction of project impacts is a very inexact science and
little published work is available.Typically,impact
assessment studies do not have a follow-up phase designed to
evaluate the accuracy of the predictions that are made.In
this project,commitments for such follow-up work were made.
Correspondingly,my emphasis was to document,using replicable
study designs,the current bear numbers and use patterns of
the impact area.With this information available,post-
construction studies could then quantify actual impacts and
test the predictions.I have attempted to predict project
impacts whenever some reasonable basis for such predictions
could be derived.These predictions should be considered
hypotheses that need to be tested by post-construction
studies.These predictions are also offered as an aid in
mitigation planning.
At the time this final report was in preparation it appeared
that the construction phase of the proposed project would not
soon,and may never,occur.Correspondingly,post-
construction studies designed to evaluate the impact predic-
tions may never result.
5.A.2.Hydro Project Design
This study was designed to evaluate impacts on bears of a
proposed 2-dam project on the Susitna River.The"lower"dam,a
concrete arch at Devils Canyon,would have a normal maximum
operating level of 1,445 feet above mean "sea level (MSL)
(maximum =1466 feet,minimum =1,405 feet).The length of
the impoundment would be 41.94 km (26 miles)and it would have
a surface area of 31.58 km~(7,800 acres)at normal maximum
operating level (NMOL).The upper impoundment,an earth/
rockfill dam at the Watana Dam site,would have a normal
maximum operating level of 2,185 feet above MSL (maximum =
2,202 and minimum =2,054 feet).This impoundment would have
a length of 77.42 km (48 miles)and an area at NMOL of 153.85
km~(38,000 acres).The NMOLs for each dam are illustrated in
Fig.1 and in other figures in this report where appropriate.
Place names used in this report are also illustrated in
Fig.1.
5.B.Methods
Only general methods will be described here.Specific methods
pertinent to each investigated ~opic are described along with
the results.
9
Bears were captured with immobilization darts fired from a
helicopter.Most bears were immobilized with etorphine (M99)
but some were immobilized with Phencyclidine hydrochloride
(Sernalyn)or Ketamine hydrochloride (Vetelar)and xylazine
(Rompun)mixtures.Bears <1.0 year old were captured by hand
and.were not darted.Most bears were captured early in the
year (April-June),but some were captured in August,at which
time many bears were in relatively open habitats feeding on
berries.Some black bears were immobilized in winter dens to
allow replacement of collars and to make cub counts.
During 1980 through 1985,97 different brown bears were
captured.The total number of captures was 151,and 6 of
these captures (4.0%)resulted in inadvertent capture-related
bea.r mortalities.An additional 3-4 newborn cubs were
aba.ndoned and lost,probably as a result of our capture
activities ..Capture histories of all brown bears are
pre:sented in Table 1.
During 1978 and 1979,studies in areas adjacent to th~
Su-·Hydro area were conducted on wolves,bears,moose and
vegetation.Where pertinent,references to these results are
USE!d t()supplement data collected during the course of this
study.
-D~ring 1980 through.1985,110 different black bears were
captured.The total number of.captures was 17-1,arid 7 of
thE~se captures (4.1%)resulted in inadvertent capture-related
beaLr mortality.Black bear capture histories are presented
in Table 2.
All bears were marked with ear tags and lip tattoos.Bears
judged to have completed 80%or more of their growth.were
fit:ted with radio collars (Telonics Inc.,Mesa Arizona).
Radio-marked bears were periodically tracked with fixed-wing
aircraft (usually a Cessna 180 or a Super Cub)and locations
of bears were recorded on 1:63,3"60 scale (l inch =1 mile)
USGS maps.
In general,monitoring frequency during periods when bears
were out of dens was every 7-10 days depending on weather
conditions.For specialized studies ,monitoring frequencies
for individual bears were as frequent as twice daily.These
spE!cialized studies included density-estimation techniques
(spring 1985),predation studies (springs of 1981 and 1984),
and estimates of bear numbers at Prairie Creek (summers of
1904 and 1985).
Point locations were digitized and analyzed using geoprocess-
in9 software on a Data General computer system.Much of this
analysi-s was done on the computer system maintained by the
10·__~_77 '-·_,---,_""'1..,_
&4
Department of Natural Resources.Descriptive information
associated with each radiotelemetry point location was used to
sort these data and produce plots and figures.Codes and
formats associated with this descriptive information are
provided in Appendix S of this report.
s.C.Acknowledgments
Many individuals contributed to this project.Of primary
importance was Dennis McAllister (ADF&G)who was of invaluable
assistance in all portions of the project,especially the
field work.My supervisor,Karl Schneider,also made many
valuable contributions.Many ADF&G employees made valuable
contributions to many different aspects of the project
including:Bill Taylor,Warren Ballard,Jack Whitman,Earl
Becker,Al Franzman,Charles Schwartz,Craig Gardiner,Enid
Goodwin,Mark Chihuly,SuzAnne Miller,Bob Tobey,Sterling
Eide,Dan Timm,Herman Griese,John Westlund,Roger Smith,Jim
Faro,Paul Arneson,Jim Lieb,Earl Becker,Ted Spraker,Larry
Van Daele,Danny Anctil,Harry Reynolds,Phil Mieczynski,Jim
Dau,Becky Strauch,Tammy Otto,Carol Reidner,Patsy Martin,
Ray Kramer,Nancy Graves,Nancy Tankersley,Steve Albert,Ron
Modafferi,Lee Glenn,Lee Miller,Ken Pitcher,Dave Holderman,
Tina Cunning,·Greg Bos,Polly Hessing,Bob Cassell,Larry
Aumiller,Paul Smith,Kent Bovee,Jon Lewis,Carolyn Crouch,
Gail Roberson,Susan Lawler,and Penny Miles.Granville Cooey
(Harza-Ebasco)was always of great assistance in accomplishing
what needed to be done.Earl Becker and Bill Steigers
collected data for me on abundance of berries and berry
bushes.Steve Peterson and Barbara Townsend reviewed an
earlier draft of this manuscript and offered many helpful
s'uggestions.Craig and Vern Lofstedt (Kenai Air Alaska)flew
'the helicopter during most of the tagging portions of this
work and several pilots for Air Logistics or ERA helicopters
flew helicopters at other times.Many different pilots flew
fixed-wing aircraft during tracking or tagging operations,
including:Monte Hauke ~nd Larry Rogers (Kenai Air),Al and
Jerry Lee (Lee's Air Taxi),Harley and Chuck McMahan (McMahan
Flying Service),Don Deering (Deering Air Taxi),Ken Bunch
(Sportsman's Flying Service)and Charlie Allen.My sincere
thanks to all pilots for their safe and efficient flying.
Mike Mayberry and Dan Funselmier (Fish and wildlife Protec-
tion)assisted in tagging during 1981.Bruce Barrett and his
staff,who were conducting Su-Hydro fisheries studies,were of
great help in providing logistic support during the downstream
scat collection portions of this study.Special thanks are
due to Senator Rick Halford for permitting us to use his
airstrip at Susitna Lodge to store our aviation fuel,and for
providing accommodations at Susitna Lodge.The Denali Mining
Co.and Adventures Unlimited also assisted in fuel storage and
11
accommodations.Dick Taber (University of Washington),Robin
Sener (LGL and Associates),Randy Fairbanks (Harza Ebasco)and
Richard Flemming (APA)also assisted in various ways.No
doubt I have forgotten to mention others who also assisted.
I offer these people my apologies and my thanks.
G.THE STUDY AREAS
The area in which bears would be affected by the proposed
impoundments was defined as the study area.The size of this
area was determined from data collected in this study.The
size of this area is an important parameter,as the number of
bears that would be affected by the impoundment was estimated
by applying a density estima~e,obtained in a portion of this
area,to the whole area.
G.A.Upstream brown bear study area
The ini tial capture locations of 53 brown bears that were
fitted with radio transmitters is illustrated in Fig.2.
These bears were captured in an area of 2,170 km 2 centered
approximately at the confluence of the Susitna River and
Watana Creek.Movements of these bears,as determined by
telemetry (2901 points during 1980-1985),incorporated an area
totaling 13,912 km 2 (excluding dispersals and atypically large
movements to den sites)(Fig.3).
The area illustrated in Fig.3 is'l estimate of the size of
the impact area of the proposed impoundments.Another
estimate was obtained using the average home .range size.
Standard minimum home range grids (Mohr 1947)were used to
calculate home range sizes for individual bears and for bears
according to sex and reproductive status categories.Mean
total home range sizes for males and females were 1941 and 501
km2.respectively,(Section 7.G.3,this report).Circles of
this size would have diameters of 49.7 and 25.3 km,
respectively.The mean of these 2 diameters was 37.5 km.We
defined the area in which brown bears would be affected by the
proposed project as the area within 37.5 km on either side of
the Susitna River,from the Devils Canyon dam site to the
confluence of the Susitna and Oshetna Rivers.This area
totaled 12,127 km2.(Fig.4),a value only slightly lower than
the area,mentioned above,that was occupied by radio-marked
bears (Fig.3).Use of an equivalent home range criterion for
each of the impoundments,considered separately,yielded an
impact area of 9,452 km2.for the Watana Impoundment,7,121 km 2
for the Devils Canyon Impoundment,and 4,425 km2.common to
both impoundments (Fig.4).
Errors are associated with any method of identifying the area
in which impacts on bear populations would result.The biases
in the method used here result in a conservative estimate of
12
____,•--'-'--------"_-------......,----------------•.,..1------
the affected area's size.This is because home ranges are not
circular,as assumed,but are ellipses with (typically)
longitudinal axes perpendicular to the river.These
longitudinal axes connect spring habitats along the Susitna
River with denning habitats in the mountains away from the
river.
6.B.Upstream Black Bear Study Area
The upstream black bear study area was relatively easy to
define based on relocations of radio-marked individuals.
This is because black bear habitat is largely restricted to
the immediate vicinity of the Susitna River and its major
tributaries such as'Watana and Tsusena Creeks (Fig.5).The
initial capture locations of 32 bears that were radio-collared
.incorporated an area of 1,120 km 2 (Fig.5).Subsequent radio
locations (N =2195)of these bears (excluding dispersers)
incorporated an area of 2,950 km 2 (Fig.6).,This area is an
overestimate of the amount of black bear habitat in the study
area as the convex polygon method of delineating home ranges
incorporates areas where radio-marked black bears were never
located (Fig.6).
Black bear habitat in the study area was more precisely
de'fined using locations of all bears spotted (N =282)and
radio-tracked (N =2,273)during the period 1980-1984.These
points were plotted (1:63,360 scale)and a line was manually
drawn around them such that all points were included except
those considered to represent erratic movements (N =54 for
radio locations and 27 for locations of non-radioed bears).
This area totaled 1,191 km 2 (Fig.7).
6.C.Downstream Black Bear Study Area
The area downstream from Devils.Canyon was defined as the
downstream study area.Bears were studied in this area to
determine what impacts anticipated project-related reductions
in salmon spawning habitats (especially sloughs)would have on
bear populations.Capture locations for 22 downstream black
bears that were radio-collared incorporated an area of 250 km 2
(Fig.8).Subsequent relocations (N =616)of these bears
incorporated an area of 1,949 km 2 (Fig.9).This area was
defined as the downstream black bear study area.Unlike the
upstream black bear study area,most of the area incorporated
in the polygon illustrated in Fig.9 is black bear habitat.
Bears that moved between upstream and downstream areas were
not included for the purposes of defining these study areas.
13
7.BROWN BEAR RESULTS
7.A.Number of Bears in Impoundment Impact Zones
In Section 9 of this report I derive an estimate of the number
of bears in the impoundment impact zone (Fig.4).This
estimate is based on extrapolation to brown bear habitat in
the impoundment impact zone,from a density estimate (2.97
bears/100 km 2 )obtained in part of this zone.Th€95%
confidence interval for this density estimate is similarly
extrapolated to the impact zone without modifications designed
to reflect·the extrapolation.The resulting estimate for the
number of brown bears in the impoundment impact zone was 327
(295-386).I estimate that 68%of these bears were 2.0 years
old or older (Miller et ale in press,Appendix 2).This is a
larger number of bears than I estimated in previous .reports
(e.g.,Miller and McAllister 1982).This difference is
primarily the result of estimates being based on lower bear
densities (2.44 bears/100 km 2 )estimated in 1979 in an
adjacent study area (Miller et ale 1982).
7.B.Use of Impoundment Impact Zones by Brown Bears
7.B.1.Use by season,sex,age,and r~productive status
Miller and McAllister (1982:58-60)provided a preliminary
assessment of brown bear use of impoundment area proximity
zones:that 'analysis was combined with data collected
subsequently (1980-1984)for the analysis presented here.
Three zones were identified for each impoundment area:within
the!area that would be flooded by the proposed impoundments
(zone 1),within 1 mile of the normal maximum operating level
(N~[OL)shoreline of the proposed impoundments (zone 2),and
from 1 to 5 miles ·from the NMOL shoreline of the proposed
impoundments (zone 3).An illustration of these impoundment
impact zones is presented in Fig.10.Data collected farther
than 5 miles from the NMOL shoreline of the proposed
impoundments ("zone 4")are also reported but not included in
thE!analysis.A vertical north-south line was drawn to
separate the 5-mile polygons of each impoundment which would,
otherwise,have overlapped.
The purpose of this analysis was to determine whether bears
were selecting for the impoundment area and,if so,at which
periods of the year selection occurred.Chi-square analyses
were used to make this determination under the null hypothesis
that the number of point locations found in each of these 3
zones was in the same proportion as the area in each zone.
N01:all assumptions of the Chi-square analyses were met
bec:ause multiple observations were made of the same bear so
the data points were not independent of each other.Seasons
considered included "spr ing"(April 1-June 30)and the rest of
the year.Data collected in 1980 through 1984 are analyzed.
14
==pI>
7.B.1.a.Watana Impoundment
In the Watana Impoundment area,brown bear use of the 3
impoundment zones was significantly different than expected
for all months lumped and in the spring (Table 3).Use of the
impoundment zone was over twice the expected values (Table 3).
No significant variations from expected values were observed
during the period July I-March 31 (Table 3).
Brown bear males also used the 3 Watana Impoundment zones
significantly differently than was expected under the null
hypothesis (Table 4).In all months and in both periods,use
of the impoundment zone was higher than expected values (Table
4)•
Brown bear females also used the 3 impoundment zones of the
Watana Impoundment differently than expected under the null
hypothesis (Table 5).This difference was significant for all
months lumped and in the spring period,but did not differ
from expected values during the July 1-March 31 period
(Table 5).
When a similar analysis was done for brown bear females with
cubs-of-the-year,no significant variations from expected
values were observed for all periods lumped,or for either of
the two time periods (Table 6).This is because these bears.
tend to stay at higher elevations,well away from the impound-
ment "area,during years when they have newborn cubs.I
suspect that this behavioral trait is designed to reduce
predation on their cubs,by other brown bears (especially
adult males)that are concentrated in lower-elevation habitats
early in the year.To test this hypothesis'I compared the.use
of these 3 impoundment zones (both impoundments lumped),
during years when the same set of females had cubs-of-the-year
with the years when they did not (Table 7).During years when
they had newborn cubs these bears utilized these 3 zones
differently than during years when they did not have newborn
cubs;use of the impoundment zone was less than expected when
these females had cubs (Table 7).
The proportion of time spent in the actual impoundment zone
was highest during the period 1-15 June for all bears (18.4%,
Table 3),and for female bears (25.5%,Table 5).The
impoundment zone was most heavily used by males during the
last 2 weeks of June (23.2%,Table 4)..
The percent of point locations in each proximity zone in each
month is illustrated in Fig.11 for the Watana and Devils
Canyon impoundment areas.Comparison of these 2 impoundments
illustrates the greater degree of selectivity for the Watana
Impoundment zone than for the Devils Canyon Impoundment zone
(Fig.11).
15
7.B.l.a.Devils Canyon Impoundment
Similar analyses were conducted for observations within the 3
proximi ty zones of the Devils Canyon Impoundment but because
of the smaller sample of point-locations in this area and
because of the much smaller area that is anticipated to be
flooded by the Devils Canyon Impoundment,analyses by season
were not possible.Use of these 3 zones (all months lumped)
was significantly different for females without cubs-of-the-
year and for all bears li.lnlped.Use was not significantly
different for males (Table 8).The·most significant devia-
tions from expected values were observed in zone 3,which was
used more than expected.Zone 1,the impoundment area,was
also used more than expected (Table 8).However,because zone
1 ~vas so small in area,it had only slight use altogether
(Table 8).
7.B.2.Prediction of impacts
The above analysis demonstrates that the area to be flooded by
th€~proposed Watana Impoundment,as well as the area within 1
mile of the impoundment shoreline,is important habitat to
brown bears.Use of this habitat is especially intense during
the spring,but is significant throughout the year as well..
Conversion of this evident selectivity to estimates of impacts
on the brown bear population when impoundment area habitats
are no longer available is not straightforward.I suspect the
impact on brown bear populations will be expressed through
reductions in bear product"ivi ty and in population dens i ty.
Such reductions from existing population levels might not
occur or might be dampened in magnitude if there currently ~s
substantial excess carrying capacity which is not being used
by bears and that could be substituted for the habitat"that
would be lost to the impoundment.Such substitutions would
have to be available during the same season.Loss of
important spring habitats where bears are foraging for roots
and new spring growth,for example,would likely not be fully
compensated for by increases (that might result from
mi1:.igation efforts for example),in late summer food sources
(e.g.,salmon or berries).Even if the current population is
below carrying capacity,proj ect-related losses of carrying
"capacity need to be considered in mitigation planning.These
losses can be considered loss of bear habitat potential.
ThE~conceptual model I used to estimate impacts from the point
location data includes the following assumptions:
1.The proportion of point locations found in a geographic
zone represents a corresponding proportion of the bears'
total energy budget acquired from resources found in that
16
-------...-...~--"'"'---,----~--------------
zone (this assumption will lead to an underestimate of
the importance of the zone in cases where positive
selection for that zone is occurring).
2.Substi tute resources are not available (in cases where
the population is below carrying capacity this assumption
will overestimate the impact of loss of the geographic
zone).
3.Loss of resources that are especially heavily used during
1 season of the year cannot be made up through extra use,
at other seasons,of resources available in other zones
(this assumption,also,will probably yield an overesti-
mate of impact).
4.Impact on habitat carrying capacity can be expressed by
summing the impacts on individuals (determined in #1).
5.Radio-marked bears in this study are representative of
the population estimated to use the impoundment impact
area (Section 7-A of this report).
6.Reduction in carrying capacity would result only from
flooding of the impoundment area;no reduction wOllld
result from displacement to habitats along the shoreline
of the impoundment (this assumption would certainly
result in an underestimate of impoundment impacts).
Data obtained in this study were analyzed under these
assumptions.Nine radio;..marked males and 25 radio-marked
females averaged 13.3%of point locations during the spring
period in the impoundment zone;an additional 17.0%,of point
locations were wi thin 1 mile of the impoundment shoreline
(Table 9).If,as previously estimated,the'impoundment
impact zone includes 327 brown bears and 13.3%of the carrying
capacity for this population will be eliminated,a decline in
carrying capacity for an estimated 43 bears would be expected
from habitat inundation under the above-listed assumptions.
Because some substitution of resources would undoubtedly
occur,I expect that this estimated impact is more likely to
be an overestimate than an underestimate of the project IS
impact resulting from inundation of habitat.This expectation
is supported by the observation that 14 of the radio-marked
bears (41%)had no point locations in the impoundment-impact
area (Table 9).Nine of these bears (26%)had no locations
within the I-mile proximity zone either (Table 9).Although
these bears may have used these zones without being detected,
it is probable that these data indicate availability of spring
food resources outside of the immediate impoundment impact
area.
17
7.B.3.Mitigative Measures
Potential measures to mitigate for loss of spring foraging
habitats resulting from inundation include:
1.Increasing the abundance of foods used in the spring in
substitute areas~
2.substitution of foods utilized during other seasons for
losses of spring carrying capacity~and
3.indirect mitigation (e.g.,bear habitat protection
elsewhere or transference of mitigation values to other
species).
It is uncertain .if measure #2 would be efficacious.Implemen-
tation of either measure 1 or 2 would be experimental as
little is known about how to accomplish increases in bear
habitat carrying capacity (Proceedings--Grizzly Bear Habitat
Symposium,Missoula,Montana,1985,Intermountain Research
.Station,Ogden,Utah,General Tech.Report INT-207 252pp.).
7.C.Disturbance-Displacement from Remaining Habitat
The degree to which brown bears are compatible with increased
human presence is not completely clear.In most areas.it
appears that brown bears will tolerate the proximity of humans
better than humans will tolerate the presence of brown bears.
In large National Parks,like Denali National Park,where
grizzlies are not hunted and special efforts are made to
accommodate grizzly bear needs,bears remain abundant
regardless of high levels of human use.More typically,
how'ever,increasing human activity in an area correlates with
declines in grizzly numbers (Herrero 1985~Pulliainen 1972 and
1982;Horejsi 1986;Horejsi,in press~Elgmork 1983).
Pulliainen (in press)observed that the population of bears in
Finland declined as human populations and impacts increased.
However,the decline was followed by an increase in absolute
numbers resulting from immigration from Russia.Mattson et
al.(in press)documented a retreat of'grizzlies,,especially
females,from roads and developments in Yellowstone National
Park.Archibald et al.(in press)also 'documented avoidance
by adult female grizzly bears following logging development of
an area.
Some of these declines result from humans killing bears in
both sport and nonsport circumstances.Increased killing by
sport hunters is a direct consequence of improvements in
accessibility and interest in hunting;increased killing in
nonsport circumstances results from intolerance or inability
of humans 'to coexist with bears (Miller and Chihuly,in
18
------~-------------""""'"'1'''-
press).In addition,I suspect there is strong selective
pressure for bears in populations that are heavily hunted,to
learn to avoid man.Bears that fail to learn this behavior at
an early age are easier prey for hunters.If this theory is
correct,then increased human presence in the project area
will result in abandonment of the area by adult bears that are
displaced as a result of intolerance of people.This
abandonment may also occur in areas where bears are not hunted
(see Jope 1983),but is probably more evident in areas like
the project area where bear hunting occurs.Young bears that
have not learned this avoidance behavior may be especially
vulnerable to nonselective hunting effort (Bunnell and Tai t
1980).
Al though most bear biologists would agree that disturbance
displacement occurs,there is little direct quantitative
documentation.The number of visitors to the bears'fishing
area at McNeil River State Game Sanctuary is limited.This
limitation is based on observations that too many visitors
resulted in fewer bears visiting the portion of the sanctuary
where bears were most concentrated (Faro and Eide 1974).In
their·preliminary assessment of the effects of construction of
the Terror Lake Hydroelectric project on movements of Kodiak
bears,Smith and 'Van Daele (1985)observed short-term shifts
of activity areas of individual brown bears,away from
construction sites~These.authors observed no major movements
away from construction activities and 1 bear"denned within 0.4
km of an access road.Bear problems resulting from
contractors'inadequate disposal of garbage were observed in
this Kodiak study (Smith and Van Daele 1985).
7.C.l.Impoundments,access roads,and accidental mortalities
Al though bears swim readily'and are known to swim across
impoundments,movements across the impoundment will probably
be restrained,to some degree,compared with movements bears
currently make across the rOiver.Simpson (1986:21)studied
movements of grizzly bears in the vicinity of the Revelstoke
Reservoir in British Columbia and noted that "grizzlies would
cross a river but not the reservoir."At .Revelstoke,Richard
L.Bonar (April 18,1985,interview transcribed by Bill
Steigers of the Susitna Project Group of LGL)noted "the
radio-collared bears [both species]haven't crossed as often
as they did'before the water came up."
Although some impact is probable,it is impossible to guess
how much movements across the river will be restrained by the
Susitna impoundments.In this study we concentrated on
documenting how frequent crossings were during the
preconstruct ion phase so comparisons could be made during a
post-construction study.Such comparisons will permit more
accurate predictions of effects in future impact assessment
studies.
19
The number of river crossings for each radio-marked bear in
each year with >5 non-den observations varied from 0 to 10
(Table 10).Clearly,the number of documented river crossings
is directly related to frequency of observation,so the number
of observations is also provided in Table 10.For the purpose
of this analysis a "bear-year"was defined as a year in which
we obtained more than 5 radio-locations of a radio-marked bear
away from its den site.For males,crossings were observed
for 27 of 32 bear-years (84.4%);for females crossings were
observed for 38 of 77 bear-years (49.4%)(Table 10).Of 658
point locations for males,98 (14.9%)had a documented
crossing of the Susitna River after the preceding location
(Table 10).Of 1,668 point locations for females,152 (9.1%)
had a documented crossing of "the Susitna River after the
preceding location (Table 10).No doubt these values were
larger for males than for females because males had larger
home ranges and,as a result,the home ranges of a higher
proportion of males incorporated both sides of the river.
Movements of bears living north of the river to the Prairie
Creek salmon fishing area could be restrained by the
impoundment and associated facilities.
In addition to inhibiting 'movements across the reservoir,
movements up and down the river would likely be restricted to
some degree by inundation of tributaries.These tributaries,
such as Watana Creek (Fig.1),can be easily crossed at
present.
Increased human activity in the vicinity of the impoundment
would also likely act to displace bears from habitats along
the reservoir shoreline.This disturbance would be greatest
in the vicinity of communities established to house
construction and operation workers.
Disturbance would also be significant in the vicinity of
recreational facilities established as outlined in the
recreational plan.The objective of these facilities is to
provide increased recreation opportunities for as many people
as possible.I suspect this objective is inimical to
maintaining the present population of adult brown bears in the
project area.The area affected by the proposed recreation
plan is much larger than the area that would be directly
affected by impoundments and construction facilities.
Ant.icipated recreational developments and trails are expected
to be built many miles away from the darn sites,reservoirs,
and access roads.
The proposed route of the access road (Fig.1)is in heavily
used brown bear habitat along most of its length from the
Denali Highway to the Devils Canyon dam site.This route
would bisect the home ranges of many brown bears.Miller and
Ballard (1982b)noted that movements of transplanted brown
20
bears appeared to be inhibited by roads and it is probable
that the access road would also modify normal bear movements
in the impoundment area.Smith and Van Daele (1985)observed
little displacement of brown bear by traffic on roads built
for construction of the Terror Lake hydroelectric project.
Increased human presence in brown bear habitat is likely to
result in additional mortalities of bears through killing of
nuisance or dangerous bears (Miller and Chihuly,in press,
Appendix 3)and accidents.Such mortalities and problems were
observed for both species of bears during construction of the
trans-Alaska oil pipeline (Follmann and Hechtel,in press).
Many of these problems resulted from feeding of bears and from
inadequate garbage disposal (Follmann and Bechtel,in press).
During construction of the Terror Lake hydroelectric project
on .Kodiak Island no.mortalities from these causes were
documented but bear problems resulting from inadequate garbage
disposal were observed (Smith and Van Daele 1985).
7.C.2.Levels of impact and mitigation measures
Maximum estimated level of impact from disturbance displace-
ment was estimated .in the same manner as loss of carrying
capacity due to inundation.For this purpose it was assumed
that "all carrying capacity in the zone from the proposed
impoundment shoreline to a distance of 1 mile (Zone 2 in the
proximity analysis)would become unavailable to brown bears as
a result of disturbance displacement.Point locations in this
zone totaled 17%of all point locations (Table 9).For the
brown bear population estimate of 327 in the .impoundment area,
a loss of 17%of carrying capacity would result in an
estimated decline of carrying capacity for 60 brown bears.
This estimate is subject to the same qualifications outlined
above for loss of carrying capac i t:y due to inundation.In..
addition;I suspect that loss of c~rrying capacity due to
disturbance displacement would be proportionately less than
loss of carrying capacity due to inundation~more bears could
coexist with disturbance than could obtain forage from flooded
habitats.
The most effective mitigation measures designed to minimize
losses of habitat due to disturbance displacement will be
those that restrict human activities and facilities to the
smallest possible area.Concentration of construction
facili ties and human habitations will have this effect,as
will minimizing the area in which access by the public will be
facilitated.Disturbance-displacement of brown bears in the
area between Kosina Creek and Prairie Creek can be minimized,
for example,if public access by road to the south side of the
Susitna River is not provided and if recreation facilities in
this area are not built.Strict enforcement of state
21
regulations regarding feeding of wildlife and disposal of
garbage will also help reduce incidence of bear problems and
killing of bears that have become nuisances.
7.D.Brown Bear Use of Prairie Creek Fishing Area
7.D.1.Level and-time of use
Each year many brown bears in the Su-Hydro study area move in
July and August to Prairie Creek,a tributary of the Talkeetna
River that runs out of Stephan Lake.The purpose of these
movements is'to fish for king salmon (Oncorhynchus
tshawxtscha)which run in this small creek at this time.
Sport fisheries biologists with the Department of Fish and
Game report that Prairie Creek supports the most concentrated
king salmon spawning area in the upper Cook,Inlet region
(Larry Engle,pers.commun.).Salmon are relatively easy for
bears to catch in Prairie Creek compared with larger rivers
like the Gulkana.
Radio-marked brown bears have been documented moving from an
are~a of 15,300 km 2 to utilize Prairie Creek salmon resources
(Fig.12).For just radio-marked males the area was 15,285
km 2 ,for just females it was 3,300 km 2 •.The actual area of
att:raction to brown bears is larger than this because these
data are biased as a result of tagging radio-marked bears only
in the Su-Hydro study area which ·is north and east of Prairie
Cre~ek.Bears moving'to Prairie Creek from south and west
directions would have had no chance of being radio-marked in
this study.One radio-marked bear (G407)moved to Prairie
Cre!ekto fish for salmon from upper Gold Creek (downstream
from Devils Canyon)at a time when pink and chum·salmon
.(0.gorbuscha and o.ketal were abundant and much closer in
lO\'irer Gold Creek.This movement may indicate that the king
sal.mon in Prairie Creek may be preferred over salmon resources
elsewhere.
The!proportion of radio-marked Su-Hydro study area bears that
have been documented moving to Prairie Creek to fish for
sal.mon has ranged from 13%in 1981 (a year when little
monitoring was done as a result of poor flying conditions)to
38~;in 1984·(Table 11).This proportion appears higher for
radio-marked males (50%in 1984,excluding dispersers)than
for radio-marked females (33%in 1984)(Table 11).
In summer 1984 and 1985,efforts were made to estimate the
number of bears at Prairie Creek at 1 time during the salmon
run.This number is difficult to determine from direct counts
because of dense vegetation along the banks of Prairie Creek.
Thi.s vegetation makes it very difficult to spot the bears from
the air as bears need only to move a few feet from the creek
22
to be well hidden from sight in alders.Correspondingly,we
attempted to census the bears in this area using the ratio of
radio-marked to unmarked bears spotted during intensive search
efforts along the length of the creek between upper Murder
Lake and the Talkeetna River.The search area was a strip
of about 1 km on each side of Prairie Creek and about 0.5 km
on each side of salmon-carrying tributaries of Prairie Creek.
Marked bears that were spotted were identified by their radio
frequencies but radio-tracking gear was not utilized in
finding the bears during the search effort.The search
pattern flown was a circular one overlapping Prairie Creek
from both sides and following the tributaries on both sides of
Prairie Creek to the limit of salmon spawning.Subsequent to
the search effort,radio-tracking gear was utilized to
determine how many radio-marked bears were present in the area
previously searched.These surveys were flown by.experienced
bear spotters in both years:pilot Al Lee (Lee's Air Taxi)in
1984 and Harley McMahan in 1985.I was present as spotter and
radio-tracker both years.
Results of flights on 29 July and 1 August 1984 are presented
in Table 12.On 29 July an estimate of 48 bears (95%
confidence interval =12-180)was obtained;on 1 August an
estimate of 33 bears (95%confidence interval =10-62 bears)
was obtained (Table 12).These estimates include only bears
that were not accompanied by their mothers (or bears at least
2.0 years old).An estimate including these subadults would
be 30-40%"higher,or about 44-65 bears.The large confidence
intervals of this estimate result from a low number of marked
bears being present in the search area when the census was
conducted (only 4-5,Table 12).
Equivalent data were collected in mid summer 1985 (23-27 July)
during replicated morning and evening flights in a Piper Super
Cub (PA 18),for a total of 8 counts.On 6 August another
flight.was conducted in a Cessna 180 flown by Larry Rogers
(Kenai Air Alaska)with Randy Fairbanks,Richard Fleming,and
me as observers.This flight was incomplete at the lower end
of Prairie Creek because of fuel shortage.The 6 August
flight was poorest in terms of visibility because of the
larger airplane and increased number of observers~however,it
may"have provided the best estimate because of the larger
number of marked bears that were present (Table .13).
Summarized results of these 9 flights are presented in
Table 14.
The data in Table 26C were used to calculate 9 separate
Petersen Indices.These estimates varied from 27 to 107 bears
and averaged 51 bears.The 95%confidence interval for this
average was +22 bears or 43.7%.Another estimate was obtained
using the bear-days estimator (Miller et al.,in press,see
23
"
Appendix 2).Using this estimator,the estimate for the
average number of bears present in the search area was 59 with
a 95%CI of +23 bears (Table 14).These estimates include
subadults.
The estimates from 1984 and 1985 both indicate that an average
of 50-60 brown bears used Prairie Creek at any 1 time.
Because some bears were just out of the search area
and because bears come and go from Prairie Creek,the total
number of different individual~that use Prairie Creek during
the salmon-spawning period (1 July-15 August)is higher than
this estimate by some unknown amount.My guess is that 70-120
different brown bears may use Prairie Creek salmon resources
at some time during the king salmon run.
The areas occupied by 6 radio-marked brown bears during the
period 23 July-6 August 1985 are illustrated in Fig.13.
These 6 bears moved an average of 2.4 km between successive
locations during this period (range =0.2-7.4 km).The mean
distance between points 24 hours apart was 3.3 km (range =
0.4-7.9 km).Only points on the periphery of these movements
are illustrated in Fig.13.Locations of all bears spotted
between 23 July and 6 August are illustrated in Fig.14.
I believe that most bears that utilize Prairie Creek are
offspring of females that used Prairie Creek.However ,my
sam.ple of marked subadu1ts is too small to demonstrate this.
Some bears that live near Prairie Creek (e.g.,female 299 in
the Fog Lakes area)do not go there,while others travel from
great distances (e.g.,female'407 from upper Gold Creek).
Some bears find out about Prairie Creek on their own.Male
382 was .weaned in 1983,at age 2,from a mother that did not
use Prairie Creek (313).This subadu1t male stayed near his
maternal 'home range (centered on Tsusena Butte)in 1983 and
1984,but in 1985 he dispersed south and fished along lower
Prairie Creek.This bear shed his drop-off collar at Prairie
Creek in August 1985 and his subsequent movements are unknown.
7.D.2.Potential impacts of project on brown bear use of
Prairie Creek
The amount of disturbance which will occur in the Prairie
Creek area is uncertain,as are the relative impacts of
different levels of disturbance on bears.Increasing levels
of disturbance through increased recreational use of the area
are currently evident and likely to continue regardless of
whether the dam is built.If the dam is built,however,the
improved access to the area will result in greatly accelerated
disturbance impacts.There is a real potential that this
disturbance will become so great that bears may be excluded
altogether from this habitat.This has nearly happened
24
____...,'~_taili ~_------------_----------------..,F-.....--------
elsewhere in Alaska;for example,along sections of the Kenai
and Russian Rivers that are currently heavily utilized by
humans during salmon runs.
Our work at Prairie Creek was designed to estimate the number
of bears using Prairie Creek during the salmon run.I also
wanted to provide the baseline data needed to document the
anticipated decline in.bear use of Prairie Creek,which will
occur if the impoundment is built and the Prairie Creek area
is developed.This documentation will result from replicated
surveys flown subsequent to construction.These surveys
should reveal whether development has resulted in the antici-
pated exclusion of many brown bears from this resource.In
order to assist in this documentation,the human habitations
present in 1985 in the Prairie Creek-Stephan Lake area are
documented in Fig.15.Many of these habitations were built
in recent years and it is clear that human presence and impact
in this area is increasing.
The exclusion of brown bears from Prairie Creek will result,
in part,from increased numbers of non-sport brown bear kills
by the increased number of recreational users who will have
access to the area subsequent to construction of access routes
from the Denali Highway to and across the impoundment.More
important,however,will be the effects of disturbance
exclusion wherein brown bears will abandon the area because of
the·anticipated large increase there in numbers of humans.
Increased disturbance-displacement will result from increased
recreational use of the Prairie Creek area by boaters
(especially those floating down Prairie Creek from Stephan
Lake),fishermen,hikers,and other recreational activities,
as well as from increased industrial activities (m~ning,·
"logging,tourist lodges,etc.).These activities will
increase markedly in the Prairie Creek area onc~public access
is provided by means of the proposed access road·to the
project area.Disturbance to the Prairie Creek area can be
minimized if public access by roads crossing t~e Watana dam
site is not allowed.
All of these activities are not inherently incompatible with
bears.In Katmai National Monument,tourism and recreational
activities coexist with many salmon-fishing brown bears at
Brooks Camp (B.Gilbert and K.Jope,pers.commun.).One
important difference between Brooks Camp and the Susitna
project area is that bears are protected from hunting in
national parks.Where hunting is legal,bears likely develop
a more wary reaction to human presence.
7.0.3.Level of impact on brown bear
The worst-case scenario is used here to estimate impacts of
the project on brown bears using Prairie Creek.Research
subsequent to the project will likely reveal less of an
25
impact,but at this time,I have no realistic method of
est,imating how much less this could be.The worst-case
scenario is that 100-120 brown bears use Prairie Creek salmon
resources annually and that the project and related
disturbances will accelerate development of the Prairie Creek
area until bears are completely excluded from Prairie Creek,
the only salmon stream with readily catchable fish that is
available in the study area around the Watana Impoundment.
Absence of this food resource would likely act to reduce bear
density in this area and to lower the reproductive rates of
remaining bears (see Section 7.G.1,this report).No estimate
of how much lower reproductive rates might be is offered here;
this would probably be expressed as a longer reproductive
int;erva1.
Assuming that all of the difference in bear density between
the Su-Hydro study'area (2.79/100 km 2 )and the upper Susitna
River study area (2.44/100 km 2 )(Miller and Ballard 1982a)
results from availability of Prairie Creek salmon,a reduction
in density of about 0.35 bears/100 km 2 is indicated.In the
Su-,Hydro study area of 11,704 km 2 this would mean an estimated
elimination of average annual carrying capacity potential for
41 bears.By these calculations 59%of the estimated 100
bears currently using Prairie Creek salmon resources would
find ~cceptab1e alternatives to these resources.
This model of impact levels is'certainly simplistic as,.among
other things,there are.no data indicating bears are currently
at carrying capacity.If bears are currently below carrying
capacity,reduction in availability of any single food
resource would have less impact on the existing population.
HOlrirever,this estimate provides a reasonable starting place
for mitigation planning.
7.D.4.Potential mitigation efforts
Prairie Creek is the clearest example o·f a critical habitat
for brown bears that I found in the vicinity of the proposed
hydroelectric project.As such,protection of this area from
the impacts discussed above offers an obvious opportunity to
mitigate for losses of brown bear habitat that will occiur as a
result of the project.This mitigation could be achieved if
th€~.area surrounding Prairie Creek were obtained by the State
and put into an appropriate land-use designation such as a
state game refuge.This protection would not result in any
abs~olute increase in numbers of brown bears in the study area.
Protection of Prairie Creek as a salmon fishing area for bears
probably would,however,help maintain larger populations of
bears than would be able to exist in this area without such
protection of this habitat.As this is the only kind of
mit:igation that is likely to be effective for the losses that
26
'--,------------~....,..i--
the project would cause to brown bear populations in the study
area,protection of Prairie Creek as a food source for
salmon-fishing brown bears should receive the attention of
mitigation planners.The factors necessary to adequately
protect Prairie Creek from exclusion impacts include:
1.Restrictions on human use (including float traffic on
Prairie Creek)between 1 July and 15 August,at least;
and
2.Minimal human development and impacts in the larger area
surrounding Prairie Creek,such as the Fog Lakes area.
It is noteworthy that the recreational plan currently under
consideration as part of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission.license application would most likely be
incompatible with either of these requirements.Among
other things it is highly questionable whether,for
example,there would be any point in protecting Prairie
Creek as a state game refuge or critical habitat area if road
access to the south side of the Susitna River is provided as a
result of the project.Such access would almost certainly
result in levels of increased human use of the Prairie Creek
area.This increased"use would,in my view,result in reduced
brown bear use of the area and the degree of reduction would
,be directly related to.the lev~l of disturb~nce.
7.E.Downstream Impacts,Brown Bears
During this study little emphasis was given to brown bear
populations downstream from the Devils Canyon Dam site.As
part of"downstream black bear studies (Section BE,this
report)·and from observations of "3 radio-marked brown -bears,
however,some insights into potential sources of impact in
this area were gained.
Brown bear populations occur along the Susi tna River to its
mouth on Cook Inlet.It is my impression that these
populations become progressively less dense downstream from
the Devils Canyon Dam site.Brown bear tracks along the
salmon-spawning sloughs off the Susitna River were very
common,especially above the confluence with the Indian River.
I expect most of this use was by locally residing bears,
because except for 1 dispersing subadult (342),no brown bears
radio-marked upstream from Devils Canyon moved downstream
during this study.Such downstream movements might become
evident if upstream bears were displaced from Prairie Creek
(Section 7D,this report).
The project's major downstream impact on brown bears would
likely'result from the anticipated reduced availability of
salmon in these sloughs.Estimates of the levels of salmon
27
reduction that would occur are not available.Correspond-
ingly,much speculation on potential secondary impacts on
bears is not warranted.It is noteworthy,however,that there
has been a dramatic increase in the resident human population
in the area between Devils Canyon and Talkeetna in recent
years;most of this increase is the result of state land
disposals in the area.I expect that the effect of this human
presence on bear populations in the downstream area will be
many times greater than effects resulting from construction of
the impoundments.These human-caused impacts would be the
result of increased sport and non-sport kills and disturbance
displacement.
7.F.Cumulative Impacts,Brown Bear
The proposed pJ:oject's cumulative .effects on brown bears may
be greater than the sum of individual effects.This is
because impact mechanisms that would have little or no impact
considered separately may act synergistically and,in total,
produ~e significant impacts.Methodology to identify and
quantify such cumulative impacts on brown bears has been
described by Christensen (1985),Young (1985),Winn and Barber
(1985),and Weaver et ale (1985).An effort to conduct
similar cumulative effects analyses should be accomplished as
part of environmental impact assessments undertaken for the
.Susitna Hydroelectric Project.In this report only some
examples of such impacts will be discussed.
Adequate high-quality food is probably the single most
important life requisite for bears of both species.This is
because bears have only 5-7 months of activity.During this
time bears must obtain the energy reserves needed to reproduce
and to sustain themselves in their dens.If a pregnant female
does not attain a sufficient threshold of condition to permit
successful rearing of a litter of cubs prior to den entrance,
then she should not invest energy in gestation and lactation.
In such cases implantation of the embryo into the uterus may
not occur and the female will "try again"the following year.
Energy budgets of bears have not been adequately studied,but
it is reasonable to assume that super-abundance of foods in 1
season cannot completely compensate for substandard foods in
another season.In such a model,superabundance of late
summer foods (berries and salmon for example)would not
compensate for loss of early spring foods (through inundation
by impoundments,for example).In similar fashion,reduced
availability of early spring foods combined with reduced qual-
ity or availability of late summer foods (loss of Prairie
Creek salmon or blockage of travel corridors to berry feeding
areas,for example)would likely have synergistic effects on
bear numbers.The net impact would be greater than the sum of
the individual parts.
28
~~~I"·!Cm"".;.lii'llm~-------~----------'"'"1"~ij----------------------
In preceding sections I made estimates of carrying capacity
losses that might result from various impact mechanisms.Loss
of bear habitat carrying capacity would cause reductions in
the existing bear populations only if these populations are
currently at or above carrying capacity of the habitat.If
not,these estimates represent losses in carrying capacity
potential.Carrying capacity isa useful theoretical concept
but techniques to evaluate it are lacking for most species.
Densi ty can be a direct estimate of carrying capacity,as
existing density must be at or below carrying capacity unless
the population is declining,or about to decline,as a result
of lack of resources.
I do not know how to measure bear carrying capacity in the
Su-Hydro area or elsewhere but I can subjectively evaluate
where ~he existing population is relative to its theoretical
carrying capacity based·on density,reproduction,and
resource-availability comparisons with other areas.Brown
bear density and reproductive rates are high in the Su-Hydro
area compared with other interior Alaskan areas (Miller and
Ballard 1982a;Miller et al.,in press,Appendix 2;and
Section 7.G.1 of this report).The most obvious difference in
resource availability between the Su-Hydro area and other
interior Alaskan areas is the seasonal availability,to many
bears,of'salmon in Prairie Creek.
The high productivity of the existing Su-Hydro bear population
indicates that this population is certainly not above the
habi tat 1 s carrying capacity.At present the primary factor
that could cause existing bear populations.to be below
carrying capacity in the Su-Hydro area is hunting.Since 1980
liberalized seasons and bag limits in Unit 13 have resulted in
increased bear·harvests in the study area and elsewhere in
Uni t 13 (Section 7.G.2 of this report)'.It is probable that
these increased harvests have reduced bear population density
in the study area below levels that existed prior to 1980.If
this is true,excess carrying capacity may exist which could
buffer the existing population from project-related reductions
in carrying capacity.
7.G.Brown Bear Biology
7.G.1.Brown bear productivity
Along with changes in bear numbers and density,I suspect that
reductions in food supply that'would result from the project
would cause changes in productivity.Currently this
population appears to be one of the most productive that has
been documented.The primary factor in this high productivity
is the short reproductive interval;females were never
observed to keep their offspring with them longer than 2.8
29
yea.rs.This leads,commonly,to a reproductive interval of 3
yea.rs.In no case during this study did a female enter a
winter den with 2-year-01d offspring.In Denali National
Park,7%of litters (5 of 69)of 2-year-olds remained with
the~ir mothers another year (Murie 1981).Entering dens with
2-y'ear-01d or older offspring is common for brown bears in
other areas (Bunnell and Tait 1981;Reynolds and Hechte1 1976,
1984,and 1985),including areas where bears live in
apparently much more productive habitats such as Kodiak Island
(Smith and Van Daele 1985 and 1986,Barnes 1985)and the
Alaska Peninsula (Glenn et a1.1976).
Data on productivity are provided in this section to provide
the baseline data needed to measure changes if the proposed
project is completed.No estimates of project-caused changes
in productivity are offered.I suspect an increase in
reproductive interval and age at first reproduction would be
thE!parameters most likely to be affected.In a study just
north of the Alaska Range from our study area,Reynolds and
Hechtel (1985)found that some females entered dens with
2-year-old offspring.Their study area is equivalent in many
respects to our study area except that salmon are unavailable
in their area.Salmon are available to some Su-Hydro study
area bears at Prairie Creek (Section 7.C.2 this report).
7.G.1.a.Litter Size and Offspring Mortality
Thi.rty-eight litters·of newborn cubs that were observed
following their emergence from dens averaged 2.1 cubs
(range =1-4)(Table 15).These data exclude project-related
mortali tie-s.Twenty-two of 59 cubs were lost before they
emE!rged from their dens in the following year (37-.7%-
mortality)(Table 15).The mortality rates for newborn brown
bears observed in this study were near the upper limit for the
studies reviewed by Bunnell and Tait (1985),at 30%-40%.
Higrher mortality rates have been found in southeast Alaska
(Schoen,pers.commun.).
Causes of mortality were investigated using expandable drop-
off transmitter collars (Strathearn et ale 1984).These
transmi tters were on very slow pulse when active (17 pu1ses/
minute or "ppm"),speeding up to about 45 ppm on inactive
mode.This pulse rate was acceptable because as long as these
cubs were with their mother and on active mode,the mothers'
collars could be used for radio-tracking.These collars were
placed on 6 cubs in 3 litters in 1983 (females 281,283 and
299)and on 7 cubs in 4 litters in 1984 (females 340, 337,
423,and 281).Seven of these 13 cubs survived to their
yearling year (46%mortality).Cause of death for 5 cubs was
det:ermined to be predation by unknown brown bears.Cause of
death for the remaining 2 cubs was not determined as the
30
bodies could not be found when their radio-signals
disappeared.I suspect that these cubs were either drowned
and swept downriver during river crossings or that they were
preyed upon and their transmitters destroyed.In one of these
cases of unknown cause of mortality,the lost cub was markedly
the smallest cub in a litter of 4 (with female 423);the other
3 cubs survived.
It is noteworthy that 4 of the lost radio-marked cubs were
with female 281 who had litters of 2 newborns in 1983 and in
1984.In both years this female left her high-elevation den
site and -moved to lower elevations along the Susi tna River
early in the year,following the typical pattern for bears not
accompanied by newborn cubs.In both years she lost her cubs
(3 to brown bear predation,1 to cause unknown)within days of
moving to lower elevations (cubs were lost on 1 June in 1983
and on about 28 May 1984).This was a young female that had
her first litter in 1983.In 1985 she had another litter of 2
and followed the same pattern of moving to lower elevations;
this time she lost one of her cubs between 5 June and 26 June;
the other survived through September 1986.
An additional 2 cubs were radio-marked with female 388 in
1984.This capture resulted in a capture-induced separation
which ended in the death of the cubs despite 3 efforts we made
to reunite this family.Separation occurred on 16 May and
reunion efforts occurred on -18,23 and 24 May.In the first
effort we herded the female toward the cubs with a helicopter.
In the second we air-dropped the cubs about 10 feet from a
helicopter near the female.In the third effort we
immobilized the female with Sernylan and released the cubs
nearby i the cubs began to nurse immediately.At this last
effort 1 cub had a nose full of porcupine quills which we
pulled.One cub died on 29 May,most likely of starvation.
Nearby feces of the other cub were full of overwintered
Empetrum berries.The other cub survived until mid-June at
least;its 901lar was picked up on 23 June but no sign of the
cub was found nearby.This collar was unexpanded,evidence
indicating the cub was killed by a predator rather than having
shed the collar.On other occasions reunion efforts like
those described above were successful.The lack of success in
this case may have resulted .from the delay in attempting the
reunion;the female may have physiologically changed from.a
lactating mode to an estrous mode.She was seen with another
large bear on 3 June and with a known male on 7 June and she
had cubs again the following year.
Thirty-six litters of yearling cubs observed following
emergence from dens averaged 1.7 offspring (range =1-3)
(Table 16).Eight of 37 yearlings (21.6%)were lost before
their mothers emerged from their dens in the following year
31
(Table 16).I suspect most or all of these were mortalities
but.it is possible that some.of the yearlings defined as
"lost"may have separated from their radio-marked mothers as
yearlings.None of the bears defined as "lost"as yearlings
have subsequently appeared in the hunter harvest.
Implant transmitters were surgically implanted in 6 yearlings
(in 3 litters)in an effort to determine causes of mortality.
Only 1 of these bears died before transmitter failure the
following year;the body of this'bear could not be found to
determine the cause of death as a fox carried the transmitter
away from the carcass (determined from tooth marks on the
tra.nsmitter).Causes of yearling mortality are largely
unknown,but Dean et al.(1986)documented 2 instances in
Denali National Park where yearlings were killed by adult
.males.
Twenty litters of 2-year-01d offspring averaged 1.7 offspring
(ra.nge =1-3)(Table 17).All but 1 of these litters
separated from their mothers prior to den entrance the
following fall.Female 337 may prove to be an exception,as
she still had her 2-year-olds when last seen on 24 September
1986 (Table 17).Separation from the mother at age 2 was
d,ef:ined as "weaning.11
Reproductive histories of individual
Table 18.A summary of losses of cubs
Iit:ters is given by year in Table 19.
and yearlings handled in this study are
21.
~.G.1.b.R~productive Interval
females are given in
and yearlings in these
Measurements of cubs
given in Tables 20 and
The~re are numerous ways to calculate reproductive interval.
The!interval between successive production of litters of
ne~rborn cubs is not a good statistic.because complete loss of
a litter of cubs would frequently yield an interval of 1 year-.
Inclusion of such intervals in a calculation of mean
reproductive interval would underestimate the interval that is
needed to calculate population growth rate.The best interval
to use would be the interval between successive successful
separations (l1weaningsl1)of offspring from their mothers;
hO\'irever this method requires many years of data.Reproductive
histories for individual radio-marked female brown bears are
given in Table 22.Reproductive status of bears was deter-
mined during visual observation of radio-located fem~les.
Reynolds and Hechtel (1985)defined reproductive interval as
the!period between successful breeding (as evidenced by cub
production the following year)and the next successful
separation of mother and offspring (l1weaningl1).Their method
32
___________------~___r---------'------.----------
provides intervals that are 1 year longer than the one used in
this study.I defined reproductive interval as the interval
between production of a litter (as evidenced by observation of
that litter following emergence from the den)and the pext
successful weaning of a litter.This interval definition will
be shorter than that used by Reynolds and Hechtel (1985),as
our definition does not include years of apparent conception
failure unless these'instances occurred subsequent to a
successful weaning.With my definition I was able to include
intervals for those females initially captured in the spring
and accompanied by yearling offspring (back-dated to the year
these yearlings were born)~these intervals will be biased
toward short intervals as litters could have been lost prior
to the litter first observed as yearlings.We defined
successful separation as occurring when 2-year-olds separated
from their mothers after den exit (no cases of females
entering dens with 2-year-old offspring were observed although
female 337 still had her 2-year-old offspring with her in
September 1986).
Following this definition I observed 17 reproductive
intervals~14 of these were 3 years (Table 22).The year in
which 1 capture-related loss of a cub litter occurred (388 in
1984 [Table 22])was not counted.Intervals of longer than 3
years were observed in 3 cases.In all of these,intermediate
littera were completely lost in the year of their birth or in
the following year (Table 22).Of these intervals,1 was 4
years,1 was 5 years,and 1 was 6 years.The mean reproduc-
tive interval for these 17.cases was 3.4 years (Table 22).
This estimate of mean reproductive interval is an underesti-
mat.e as it is biased·toward 3-year intervals,the minimum
possible in natural conditions (Bunnell and Tait 1985).This
bias·results from shortness of the study period,losses of
radio-marked bears,and back-dating from litters first
observed as yearlings.For example,5 females would have had
intervals >3 years.These intervals were not counted because
a complete interval,according to the above definition,was
not obtained.Failure to complete these intervals resulted
because the study ended,because the bear was shot by a
hunter,or because the radio transmitter failed before the
interval was completed.These incomplete intervals resulted
from complete loss of a litter;the intervals would have been
at least 4-7 years in different cases (Table 22).If the
minimum values for these incomplete intervals are included,
the estimated mean interval for 17 complete and 5 incomplete
intervals would be 3.8 years (Table 22).This is still an
underestimate as minimum possible values were used for
incomplete intervals (396,for example,lost litters of
newborns in 1984 and 1985,and was alone in 1986;the minimum
interval of 6 years was obtained for her by assuming she will
have cubs in 1987 and will successfully wean this litter in
1989).
33
Other methods of calculating reproductive interval are
possible.The interval from birth of a litter which was
successfully weaned and birth of the next litter was observed
for 3 cases (312,337,and 420)~all of these intervals were 3
years (Table 18).The interval between successful weaning o.f
1 litter and successful weaning of the next litter was
observed in 1 case (337)~in another case (388)this interval
should be completed in·1987.In both cases the interval was
(or will be)3 years (Table 18).As above,these intervals
are biased toward the short intervals by the limited period of
study.
7.G.1.c.Age at First Reproduction
Ages used in calculating age at first reproduction were
estimated from counting cementum lines in a sectioned and
sta.ined premolar extracted during tagging.Some error in
these estimates (probably nonsystematic)is likely.Age at
first successful breeding is 1 year less than the age at first
litter production.
As with reproductive interval,age at first reproduction
(defined as production of a litter'seen at emergence from
natal den,not as breeding activity)can be calculated in
different ways.The best way is to annually observe bears
from immaturity through the time they are seen with·litters.
This is difficult because:1)Rroblems e!x.ist with attaching
transmi tters to subadul ts ~.2)it requires long-term studies ~
and 3)it requires not utilizing data from other sources.
Four bears aged as subadul ts when originally captured were
followed to production of their first litter~all first
produced cubs at age 6 (Table 18).Another bear in this·
category (407 at age 8)produced no litters I could see when
she was age 4 through age 7 (Table 23).The earliest 407
could produce a litter would be in 1987 when she will be age
8.For these 5 bears,mean age at first reproduction
(including 407)averaged 6.4 years (Table 23)".
Young adults accompanied by cub,yearling,or 2-year-old
offspring when first captured,can be back-dated to determine
their mother's age at the time that litter was born (data in
Table 22).With these data there is no way of knowing for
certain.whether a litter was previously produced and lost.
This source of error would yield overestimates of age of first
litter production.Using such back-dated data,I calculated
that 4 bears produced their first observed litters at age 4~4
at age 5~4 at age 6;and 1 at age 7 (Table 23).For these 13
bears,apparent age at first reproduction averaged 5.2 years.
These data were back-dated from newborn cub litters (N =4),
from yearling litters (N =7),and from litters with
2-year-old offspring (N =2)(Table 23).No back-dating of
34
_____lii,~~__--,__---·----r__-----,-----------
litters to determine mothers'age when the litter was born was
included for bears aged ~8 years old when first captured.
Such bears had a high likelihood of having had litters prior
to the one they had when first captured.
When these two data sets are combined,an estimate of 5.5
years was obtained for average age of females producing first
litters (N =18 female brown bears;range 4-8)(Table 23).
This is not the same as mean age at first reproduction,as
this statistic is based on the proportion wi thin each age
class producting first litters.The frequency distribution
for these combined data shows that age 6 is the most common
age for production of first litter (44 %)(Table 23).
7.G.2.Sources of brown bear mortality
The Su-Hydro study area is in Game Management Unit 13.Since
1980 brown bear hunting regulations have been liberalized in
GMU 13 in an effort to increase bear harvests,and thereby,to
accelerate moose population growth.These changes have
increased reported bear harvests in the study area to an
average of 32 bears/year in 1983-85 compared with 14.3 in the
period 1978-80 (Table 24).In Table 24,harvests in the
Su-Hydro study area are ,compared with harvests in the Denali
Hignway areas used for comparison.The locations of the areas
used in these comparisons are illustrated in Fig.,16.
Harvests along the Denali Highway have been 'relatively
constant since 1980 although harvests have doubled ,in the
Su-Hydro area (Table 24).
Frequency with which marked bears are taken by hunters is an
index to harvest effort.Data on hunter kills of bears marked
during the'period 1978-1986 are presented in Tables 25-27,and
summarized in Table 28.Percentage values in Tables 25-27 are
underestimates because there are unrecorded natural mortali-
ties of marked bears and because some marked bears are not
recognized as marked during the sealing process.The percen-
tage values are not harvest rates of the whole population
because cub and yearling bears which compose a large propor-
tion of the bear population were not considered,part of the
marked population.
The minimum percentage of marked bears shot in a year in the
Su-Hydro area varied from 3%to 15%(Table 28).This is an
underestimate because it assumes no natural mortalities or
failure to recognize marks when bears are sealed.A more
probable estimate,based on bears known to be alive and
including bears suspected (not just known)to have been shot,
was 4%-22%(Table 27).Frequency with which marked bears are
shot has increased in recent years (Table 27).This is in
line with increasing harvests of bears in the study area as
discussed above (Table 24).
35
Three cases of apparent natural mortalities of adult
radio-marked brown bears were observed during the course of
thi.s study.These instances are described in Table 29.
Mortality rates for subadu1t brown bears are discussed in
Section 7.G.1.a of this report.
7.G.3.Brown bear movements
7.G.3.a.Home range size
Home range was calculated using the standard minimum grid
described by Mohr (1947).Data for individual bears in
individual years and for all years lumped are given in Table
30;these data are summarized by sex;age and reproductive
status in Table 31.When years are lumped for individuals
wit:h more than 1 year's data,home ranges averaged 1,022 km 2
(1941 km 2 for males and 50,1 km 2 for females)(Table 31).Home
range variances determined by standard minimum grids were
large (Table 31).Males I home ranges varied little between
years while home ranges for females without newborn cubs
varied moie (Fig.17)•.
7.G.3.b.Movements to hunting and fishing areas
Peak of caribou calving occurs 20-25 May for the Ne1china
herp,but calves can be born through 15 June.The main
caribou calving area used by Ne1china caribou during the
period of this study was between Kosina Creek'and the Oshetna
River (Pitcher,in press).This area is southeast of the
largest part of the Watana Impoundment and outside the home
ranges of most radio-marked bears.For this reason,movements
of bears·to the caribou.calving area at the time caribou
calves are available can reasonably be interpreted as
movements motivated by intent to prey on caribou calves.
Mur ie (1981 :173)noted .that although gr iz z 1 ies co-qld catch
some calves,"•••[I]noted no special movement of bears into
a calving area for the purpose of preying on calves."Murie
suggested that such movements could occur for some bears in
circumstances where calving is concentrated.Reynolds and
Garner (in press)noted such movements on Alaska's north
slope.Histories of individual bears that made such movements
are given below.
Brown be·ar female 340 (age 3 in 1981 when first captured)was
int:ensively monitored in spring 1981.Until 14 June,she
lived in the Deadman Creek-Watana Creek area~on 15-16 June
she moved to the Clarence Lake area and then returned.This
movement was not classified as related to caribou predation
because it occurred 2-3 weeks after the peak of caribou
calving.In late May 1982 this bear moved into the Kosina
Creek calving area,returning by 9 June.Between 15 May and
36
23 May 1983,this bear was twice located in caribou calving
areas on lower Kosina Creek In 1984 this bear had newborn
cubs and was again intensively monitored in the spring
(starting 28 May),but no movements to caribou calving areas
were documented.In 1985,with yearling offspring,she was in
the caribou calving areas on 23 May (no locations were made
between 16 May and 23 May).On 24 May 1986 this bear (without
offspring)was again located on Gilbert Creek in the midst of
the caribou calving area,and although a kill was not seen,
blood was seen on the snow near her.Except dur ing the
caribou calving period,this bear was never found south of an
east-west line through Watana Mountain.I conclude that this
bear regularly,probably annually,moved to caribou calving
areas to prey on caribou.
Female brown bear 331,age 6 when captured in 19 81 with two
2-year-old offspring,weaned her young after 15 May.She was
next seen on 15 June in the upper Oshetna River country where
.she remained until the end of June when she returned to her
normal home range along Tsusena Creek (Fig.18).This bear
made no similar movements in spring 1982 although she left her
home range after 29 June and in mid-August was found dead on
Tsisi Creek,of unknown causes.I considered the movement in
1981 a movement to the caribou calving grounds.
Male 280;age 5 in 1980,was originally captured in the upper
Kosina caribou calving grounds in early May 1980.Subse-
quently,most of its movements were between Tsisi Creek and
upper Watana Creek except on 16 May,1983,when it moved to
the caribou calving area around Gilbert Creek,and in early
June 1984,when it was around Clarence Lake.I considered
these movements probable forays into the caribou calving area.
Movements into caribou calving areas (less clearly motivated
by predation)were made by bears 293,38~,384,and 299.
These bears all had year-round home ranges near or overlapping
the caribou calving area.
There are only a few instances of clearly defined movements to
caribou calving grounds in the Su-Hydro study area.When such
movements occurred,bears typically spent little time in these
calving areas.These data suggest that the impoundments'
blockage of bear movements to caribou calving areas is likely
-to have little impact on bear nutrition.It is possible that
Su-Hydro area bears are little motivated to move very far to
caribou calving grounds because numerous moose calves are
equally good prey and these can be found within their annual
home ranges (Section 7.G.4,this report).
37
7.G.3.Brown bear dispersal
The pattern for brown bears in the Su-Hydro.area is for
subadult males to disperse from maternal horne ranges as 2-or
3-year-olds.Female subadul ts typically set up home ranges
wi thin their maternal horne ranges.Subadult dispersal was
studied using drop-off radio collars and surgically implanted
transmitters.
One male (342)dispersed as a 2-year-old from the Watana dam
site to the Kashwitna River in 1981 (Fig.19).This dispersal
was in a southwesterly direction and covered,in a direct line
measurement,a distance of about 120 Jan.In subsequent years
this bear gradually worked his way back toward the study area
and was last found on Prairie Creek in July 1984.
Two 2-year-old sibling males (391 and 392)dispersed about 70
km in a northeasterly direction from their maternal horne range
following weaning in spring 1983.They stayed together until
just prior to den entrance.Another bear thought to be a
female sibling of these bears (393)remained near her maternal
home range (Fig.20).
A different pattern was found for 2 male 2-year~old siblings
in spring 1983.One male (389)dispersed about 80 km in an
easterly direction following weaning while the other (390)
remained wi thin the maternal,horne range at least until the
following spring (Fig.21).
Another 2-year-old male (386)dispersed in a northerly
.direction from its maternal horne range in spring 1983.The
dispersal distance was approximately 52 km (Fig.22).
These movements suggest that·the Su-Hydro study area is a
source of recruits through emigration to surrounding areas.
The:re is evidence as well that subadul ts from surrounding
are!as immigrate to the Su-Hydro area.Male 214 was originally
tagrged as a 2-year-old during earlier studies in 1978.The
tagrging location was north of the Denali Highway on Valdez
Creek.In spring 1980 this bear was recaptured near Clarence
Creek (between Vee Canyon and Jay Creek).A similar pattern
was observed for'female 273,originally captured and
transplanted from north of the Denali Highway in 1979 as a
3-year-old.This bear returned to its capture site (Miller
and Ballard 1982b),but was recaptured in the middle of the
Su-Hydro study area in 1985.
I suspect that reduction of brown bear carrying capacity in
thE~Su-Hydro area will likely decrease the number of emigrants
available for dispersal to surrounding areas as a result of
IQ\l7ered productivity.I also suspect that survivorship of
38
'$---'---'--.....",.-.-----
immigrants to the Su-Hydro area will be lowered as a result of
the anticipated decline in carrying capacity resulting from
the proposed project.
7.G.4.Brown bear predation on ungulates
Earlier studies have shown that brown bears are significant
predators on newborn calves in Game Management Unit 13
(Ballard et al.1981 and 1985).Black bears were also shown
to be important predators on moose calves on the Kenai
Peninsula (Franzmann et al.1980).Just north of the Alaska
Range,in Unit 20,wolf predation was shown to limit predation
in a system where bears are rare (Gasaway et ala 1983,Ballard
and Larson,in press).Previous studies on predation by bears
have not been conducted in an area,such as the Su-Hydro
location,where each of these 3 predator species is abunpant.
Our predation studies were initiated in an effort to better
understand the dynamics of predation on moose in a system that
includes all 3 predators.The information obtained can be
used to test hypotheses about the effects,on predators and on
prey,of impoundment-related impacts which alter predator-prey
ratios.
Brown bear predation on ungulates was evaluated by intensive
moni toring of radio-marked bears.Intensive monitoring was
conducted on 21 May-23 June 1981 (Miller and McAllister 1982),
on 28 May-7 June 1984,and on .29 May-1 August 1984 (Miller
1985a).Monitoring was done once per day except during 29 May
through 7 June 1984 when bears were monitored twice per day.
Coordinated studies of causes of mortality of radio-marked
moose.calves were conducted in spring 1984 (Ballard et al.
1985).These studies were similar to those conducted in.1978
and 1979 near the headwaters of the Susitna River and
elsewhere in Game Management Unit 13 (Ballard et ala 1981).
Papers on these data are in preparation (Ballard and Miller,
in prep.,and .Ballard et al.,in prep.).
Results from intensive monitoring of brown bears during spring
studies are presented in Table 32.For the purposes of these
analyses,"consecutive observation days"summed all days in
periods of >2 consecutive days when a radio-marked bear was
seen at least once.
In 1978 spring predation rates were 1 kill/4.9 consecutive
observation days or 1 moose calf kill/8.4 consecutive observa-
tion days (Table 32)(Ballard et al.,in prep.).In our
spring 1981 and 1984 studies,observed kills were less
frequent:1 kill/7.5 consecutive observation days and 1 moose
calf kill/11.8 consecutive observation days (Table 32).Rates
of loss of radio-marked moose calves to brown bear predation
was similar in the 1977-1978 Unit 13 studies and in the 1984
39
Su-Hydro studies (Ballard et ale 1985).In both studies preda-
tion accounted for 86%of natural mortalities,with brown
bears responsible for 65%of mortalities in 1984 and 79%in
the earlier studies (Ballard et ale 1985).Of predator-
related mortalities,brown bears accounted for 75%in 1984
compared with 91%in 1977-78 (Ballard et ale 1985).
Unlike these earlier studies,the Su-Hydro studies were
undertaken in an area where black bears were abundant.Here
black bears accounted for 12.5%of predator-related deaths in
1984 (Ballard et ale 1985).In 1984,then,black and brown
bears were responsible for 87.5%of predator-related deaths,
almost equal to the 1977-78 figure of 91%.In both studies
moose calf losses were largely confined to the 6 weeks
following birth.In the Su-Hydro studies,predation was much
lOYlr~r during late July through August,1984 (Table 33).
In the 1978 studies significant differences could not be
det,ected between bear predation rates (on ungulates),based on
sex or reproductive status categories,but it was suspected
that female bears accompanied by offspring older than 1.0
years could have higher predation rates than other bears
(Spraker et ale 1981).Predation rates (all known and
probable kills of ungulates throughout a year)based on all
visu~l observations during radio-tracking (except those at den
sit,es)for radio-marked bears from 1978 through 1985 are
presented in Table '34.For these analyses the presence of a
bear on a kill was assumed to reflect predation.This
assumption is biased to the degree that bears usurp kills made
by other species,or other bears,'or scavenge natural
mortalities.
Chi-square anaiyses indicate no differences between sex and
reproductive status groups in the 1978 studies (P <0.10).No
differences in observed predation rates were observed between
males and females in 1978,in 1981 and ,1984 combined,or in
com~ined results (P >0.10).Neither were there significant
differences in predation rates between females with yearling
offspring and females without offspring (includes those with
2-year-olds in early spring)in either study or in combined
results (P >0.10).In combined data from these 2 studies,
females with newborn cubs had lower predation rates than
ei t~her feI!lales without offspring or females with yearling
offspring (P <0.05).In the Su-Hydro data ("area 1"),
females with newborn offspring had significantly lower
predation rates than females with yearlings (P <0.05)but not
lO"lrer than rates for females without offspring (P >0.05).
These analyses support the conclusions that females with
newborn cubs tend to have lower predation rates on'ungulates
(moose and caribou)than other bears,and that all other brown
bear categories,based on sex or reproductive status,have
40
____.,__---...,..._"f'-----_
similar predation rates.Similar analyses were done for
observations of brown bears on moose calf kills (Table 34).
Again,there were no differences between male and female
predation rates (P >0.10)or between females with yearlings
and females without offspring (P >0.05).Females with
newborn cubs,again,had'lower predation rates than either
single females or females with yearling offspring (P <0.05).
The lower predation rates observed for females with newborn
cubs probably reflect the geographic separation of this group
from prey concentrations (see Section 7.B,this report).
Females with newborn cubs tend to remain at higher elevations
near their den sites for 3-8 weeks longer than other bears
(including years when the same females have older offspring or
no offspring).Moose calve at lower elevations where they are
available to bears that move down in the spring in the typical
pattern,but not to the bears that remain at higher
elevations.This behavior pattern by females with newborn
cubs may minimize predation on cubs by other bears;some
females,such as 281 and 396,which did not follow this
pattern,had especially high rates of cub loss (Section 7.G.l,
this report).
During intensive monitoring in spring 1981 and 1984 we saw
radio-marked brown bears on 25.5 moose calf kills during·a
total of 302 consecutive observation-days (Table 32)(half
kills resuit from joint occupancy,with another predator,of a
kill site).This provides a minimum estimate of predation
rate (1 calf ki11/11.8 consecutive observation days)because
unobserved kills could easily'occur 'between observations and
because kills cannot always be seen or identified.
RegardLess,this estimate can be combined with other,data to
estimate the total number of moose calves killed by brown
bears in the study area.
If all predation on moose calves occurred during a 6-week
period in the spring,at an average rate of 1 ki11/11.8 1 days,
an average bear would kill 3.6 calves.If,as estimated in
Section 7.A of this report,there are 327 brown bears in the
impoundment impact zone and 32%of these are cubs and
yearlings (Miller et a1.,in press),then there are about 222
brown bears age 2 or older in the study area.At the above
predation rate these bears would kill 799 moose calves/year.
Similar estimates were independently derived from models of
moose populations (Ballard et a1.,1984).
7.G.5.Brown bear denning ecology
Den sites of radio-marked brown bears were located during
winters of 1980-81 through 1984-85.Dens were initially
located from fixed-wing aircraft and most dens were visited on
the ground in Mayor June following bears"emergence from
41
dens.During these visits dens were measured,and slope,
aspect,and other characteristics recorded when possible.
These measurements have been described by Schwartz et al.(in
press)•Dens were frequently collapsed when visited in the
spring1 .interior measurements were impossible in these cases.
In some cases where dens were collapsed,the den site was not
physically visited and slope,aspect,and elevation were
recorded from a helicopter hovering at the den site.Some
data were also collected from dens made by bears that were not
radio-marked~these dens were spotted during aerial tracking
fli,ghts.
7.G.5.a.Den entrance and emergence dates
Entrance and emergence dates were estimated from the radio
telemetry data in 3 ways.,For entrance dates,the last time a
bear was seen outside its den was considered the minimum
(earliest)entrance date and the first time a bear was found
in its den was considered the maximum (latest)possible
entrance date.The midpoint between these 2 dates was
considered'the "most likely"entrance date for use in
calculating means.Similar procedures were followed for den
exit dates.The maximum period a bear spent in its den was
the period between its minimum entrance date and maximum exit
dabe~the minimum period was that between its maximum entrance
date and minimum exit date.The midpoint for period spent in
the den was that period between the "most likely"entrance .and
exit dates.Data on entrance and exit dates for each
radio-marked bear for each year of the study are provided in
Tables 35-39.
Based on most likely dates,the earliest den entrance was 24
September (pregnant female 313 in 1980)and the latest was 10
November (male 400 in 1984).The average most likely entrance
date varied from 6 to 18 October in different years (Tables
35-39).
The earliest den exit date based on "most likely"calculations
was 11 April (for downstream females 379 and 403 in 1984)and
the latest exit date was 28 May (for female 388 with newborn.
cubs in 1985).The average most likely exit date varied from
23 .April in 1980 to 10 May in 1985.Heavy spring snowfall was
thought to.delay den exit for brown bears in spring 1985.
Available data on snow conditions are based on once-a-month
readings of 4 snow stations in the impoundment vicinity by th-
e U.S.Soil Conservation Service.These data (illustrated in
Fig.23)are inadequate to document the abnormally late and
heavy snow conditions in spring 1985 but these conditions were
evident to me.
42
Using the most likely dates for den entrance and emergence,
average number of days spent in dens varied from 187 in
1980-81 to 214 in 1981-82 (Tables 35-39).Using these most
likely dates,I calculated the average time spent in dens for
74 bear-years during the study to be 201 days (S.D.=16.6).
7.G.5.b.Characteristics of dens
Measurements,and other characteristics of 96 brown bear dens
for which some data are available,are presented in Table 40.
Only 2 dens were in natural cavities and one of these was
partially excavated.Dug dens totaled 75;undetermined cavity
types totaled 19 (Table 40).Dug dens predominated in dens on
Kodiak Island examined by Lentfer et ale (1972),and natural
cavity dens were more common in parts of southeastern Alaska
(Schoen et al.,in.press)and northern Alaska (Reynolds et ale
1976).
Brown bear den sites were found on all aspects,but dens on
south aspects were approximately twice as common as on any
other aspect (Fig.24).South aspects seemed to be more
strongly selected by females who were pregnant at den entrance
than for females who were not,or for males (Fig.25).
No brow~bear den sites were found in the area that would be
inundated by either of the proposed impoundments.Elevations
of den sites in the upstream study area ranged from 2010 to
5330 feet (Table 41).The lowest den site would have been
inundated if it had been in the vicinity of the Watana
Impoundment but it was in the vicinity of the lower,Devils
Canyon,impoundment.This den site,that of pregnant female
396,was so atypical for a brown bear that I initially thought
it represented a shed collar or dead bear rather than a den
site.This female lost her litter of newborn cubs shortly
after emergence from this den.Den sites were lower in the
downstream study area (Table 41)where higher elevations were
not as available to bears..
Locations of den sites in upstream and downstream study areas
are illustrated in Fig.26 and Fig.27.The impoundment
itself will likely have little impact on brown bear denning
habi tat but winter activities along the access road,borrow
sites,and other construction areas that occur in brown bear
denning habitat could disturb denning bears.Reynolds et ale
(in press)observed responses in denning bears to disturbances
within 1.6 km and suggested rerouting aircraft and other
disturbances away from known den sites during denning.I
found no evidence that availability of denning habitat was a
limiting factor for brown bears in the study area.Bears may
be able to find adequate den sites away from the source of
disturbance..If disturbance causes bears to abandon dens
43
after the period of den entrance,however,these bears may
find it very difficult to find and dig dens in alternative
areas when the soils are frozen.
Most bears showed a tendency to den in the same general
location year after year but considerable variation was
observed.Den sites used in different years by the same
individual were separated by a mean distance of 3.8 miles
(Table 42).One bear,male 400,moved from his spring home
range near Watana Creek to den sites north of the Denali
Highway on the upper McLaren River in 3 successive winters.
There could be strong selective pressures on bears to return
to areas that are known,based on previous experience,to be
good denning areas,rather than risk denni:ng in an area with
equivalent characteristics but where an individual had no
previous experience.Good sites are those where wind currents
assure that the den entrance will be well-sealed with deep
snow and where soil and permafrost characteristics are such
that dug dens are unlikely to collapse during the winter.
8.Black Bear Results
8 .A..Number of black bears in impoundment impact zone
In part 9 of this report I derived an estimate of the number
of beal;'s in the impoundment impact zone.This estimate was
based on extrapolation to black bear habitat in the entire
zone from a density estimate (8.97 bears/lOa km 2 )-obtained in
part of this zone.The 95%confidence interval for this
density estimate was similarly extrapolated to the impact zone
without modifications designed to reflect the extrapolation.
The·area defined as black bear habitat (1191 km 2 )was
determined by drawing a line around point locations of
radio-marked bears (Section 6.B of this report)".The
resulting estimate was 107 black bears (95%CI =93-122).I
est.imated that 35%of these bears were cubs and yearlings
(Mi.11er et a1.,in press;see Appendix 2).This estimate was
lower than earlier estimates I made for this area based on a
rough density estimate of 24 bears/lOa km 2 (Miller and
.MclU1ister 1982),perhaps because the population declined
significantly during the course of this study.This decline
may have resulted from the poor berry crop in 1981 (Miller
198:3,1984,and 1985a).
Because the impact zones of each impoundment overlap,over
half of the estimated population in the 2-impoundment area
would be in the impact zone of either impoundment considered
separately.However,it is difficult to estimate the size of
thei zone of overlap.In order to divide the whole study area
int~o impact areas for each impoundment a line between the
impoundments was drawn.This was a north-south line through
44
the confluence of Tsusena Creek and the Susitna River (this
location is about 2.5 miles downstream from the Watana dam
site).Within the area defined as black bear habitat (Fig.
7),the area east of this line (658 km 2 )was defined as the
area inhabited by the Watana Dam population of black bears,
and the area west of this line (533 km 2 ),as the area
inhabited by the Devils Canyon population.At the above-
estimated density the Watana Dam population would then have
had 59 black bears (51-67),and the Devils Canyon population
48 (42-55).
8.B.Black Bear Use of Impoundment Proximity Zones
8.B.l.Levels and seasons of use
Black bear use of nested zones of proximity to the Devils
Canyon and Watana Impoundments was analyzed using the same
methods and procedures previously discussed for brown bears
(see Section 7.B of this report and Miller and McAllister
1982)•In this analysis relocations of radio-marked bears
were allocated to 1 of 4 zones:within the area that would be
flooded (zone 1),from the impoundment high water line to
1 mile from this line (zone 2),from 1 to 5 miles from the
high water line (zone 3),and more than 5 miles from the high
water line (zone·4).Use of these 4 zones for each month for
the impoundment zones of each proposed impoundment is
illustrated in F~g.28.Monthly percentage use of the area to
be flooded (zone 1)is higher for the Watana Impoundment zone
than for the Devils Canyon zone (Fig.28).
Black bear use of the areas that would be inundated "by the
Watana Impoundment was highly significant when compared with
~he adjacent zone or the 2 ad1acent zones (Table 43).
Overall,42%of the observations of radio-marked black bears
made in the vicinity of the Watana Impoundment were in the
area that would be inundated by that dam (Tahle 43).This
percentage value was highest in May and June (52%and 46%,
respectively),the same time period when brown bear use of the
impoundment area was highest (Fig.11).No doubt at this time
the black bears and brown bears are using the same spring food
resources that are available earliest on the south-facing
slopes along the Susitna River and its tributaries:carrion,
newly-emerged plants,overwintered berries,and moose calves.
This same pattern is not evident for the Devils Canyon
Impoundment.This is probably because of the very small area
that would be inundated by this impoundment (only 3.3%of the
area within 5 miles of the Susitna River along the section of
the river that would be inundated by the Devils Canyon
Impoundment)(Table 44).In the spring period when the Devils
Canyon Impoundment zone is most used (May I-June 30),observed
45
use was lower than expected values for zone 1,for the
comparison between zones 1 and 2 (Table 44).In the area
around the Devils Canyon Impoundment the distribution of
acc,eptable black bear habitat is much wider than farther
ups'tream and as a result,dependence of bears on the habitat
in the immediate vicinity of the river is less in the lower
portion of the study area.
8.B.2.Prediction of impacts
Reductions in black bear populations,resulting from habitat
loss,were estimated for black bears in the same manner as for
brown bears (see Section 7.B.2)•Rather than using just
spring data,however,data on annual use were used for the
black bear analysis because less seasonal variation in use of
the impoundment zone was evident for black bears than for
brown bears (Figs.11 and 28).
Radiotelemetry data for 17 male and 14 female black bears
using the Watana Impoundment impact area show that 43%of all
point locations were within the zone that would be inundated;
an additional 36%were within 1 mile of the impoundment
shoreline (Table 45).Under the assumptions used for these
analyses (Section 7.B.2),I estimate that the'carrying
capacity for the estimated Watana population of 59 black bears
wou.ld be reduced by 43%due to habitat inundation;this is a
.reduction of 26 bears.
Radiotelemetry data for 9 male and 10 female black bears using
the:Devils Canyon Impoundment impact area show that only 3%of
point locations were within the zone that would be inundated,
and an additional 43 %were wi thin 1 mile of the impoundment
shoreline ,(Figure 45).Under the assumptions used in this
analysis,the carrying capacity of Devils Canyon's estimated
population of 48 black bears would be reduced by 3%due to
habitat inundation,this is a reduction from existing numbers,
of only 2 bears (existing numbers are not necessarily at
carrying capacity,however).
Considering both impoundments together,30%of point locations
were wi thin the area that would be inundated by one 0 f the
impoundments (Table 45).Using this value,.I estimated that
thE~carrying capacity of the whole study area's population of
107 black bears would be reduced by 32 bears.This estimate
is close to'that obtained by summing the values for each
impoundment separately (28 bears).
Of the 31 bears used for the Watana Impoundment analysis,24
(77%)had point locations within the area that would be
inundated by the proposed impoundment (Table 45).Of the 19
bears used for the Devils Canyon Impoundment analysis,8 (42%)
46
___~II!!IWim~~_.--.OM _._--------
had point locations within the area that would be inundated bv
this impoundment (Table 45).These data,may indicate that
inundation by the impoundments could result in a more severe
decline in availability of bear habitat than I estimated above
(using the proportion of point locations in the impoundment
zone)•
8.B.3.Mitigation measures
As with
loss of
limited.
brown bears,potential measures to mitigate
black bear habitat resulting from inundation
Possibilities include:
for
are
1.Increasing the abundance of foods used by black bears
throughout the year;or
2.Indirect mitigation (out-of-kind substitution of other
benefits for the resources,for bears,that are lost as a
result of the project).
One of the reasons black bears may utilize so little of the
habitat available in the study area,compared with brown
bears,may be competitive exclusion of black bears by brown,
bears.To the degree that this is a factor,the anticipated
reduction in brown bear numbers through habitat loss and
displacement disturbance may make more habitat available for
black bears.Although this is possible,I consider it
unlikely,as in most cases,I suspect that black bears'
recogni tion of acceptable black bear habitat is genetically
based (most black bears are unlikely to venture into more open
areas even if brown bears are not present)•
Prairie Creek may be an exception to this rule.Black bears
make only slight utilization of Prairie Creek salmon
resources.This is probably because of competitive exclusion
by the many brown bears utilizing the area.If,as antici-
pated (see Section 7.D of this report),brown bear use of
Prairie Creek greatly declines because of displacement distur-
bance caused by humans,I would expect that black bears would
exhibit increased utilization of Prairie Creek.This is
because black'bears are more tolerant of humans than brown
bears are and because humans are more tolerant of black bears
than they are of brown bears.Prairie Creek is in a forested
area that,except for the presence of brown bears,seems to be
good habitat for black bears.
8.C.Other Impacts
8.C.1.Berry-foraging areas
In the 6-8 weeks prior to denning,berries constitute a highly
important source of food for bears.Berries are highly
47
dig'estible and easily converted to fat (Bunnell and Hamilton
1983;Bunnell,in press)and therefore they are particularly
appropriate foods for the period of hyperphagia prior to den
ent,rance (Nelson et al.,in press).In the upstream study
are:a the most abundant and important·berry for bears of both
species is probably blueberry (Vaccinium uliginosum).Lowbush
cranberry (V.vitis-idaea)is also abundant in the upstream
study area.-In the downstream area devils club (Oplopanax
horridus)is heavily utilized (Section 8.E of this report).
Based on scats collected in the early spring,overwintered
berries (especially crowberries,Empetrum nigrum)appear to be
important foods in spring as ",ell (Sections 8.E and 8.G.4).
During August,movements of black bears become more extensive
and many bears travel to habitats little utilized at other
times .of the year.These habitats are the semi-open
shrublands adjacent to the spruce forests.
During years of berry crop failure,such as in 1981,movements
of some bears may become much more extensive and include
utilization of very open habitats distant from forests that
are:more typically utilized by brown bears (Section 8.G.3,
this report).
The limited data we gathered during 1982-1984 on berry
abundance in these shrub lands is consistent with a hypothesis
that blueberries are m6re abundant in this habitat than in the
adj acent spruce forest where bears spend most of their time
during the rest of the year (Section 8.G.4.b).Information on
abundance of berries and berry-producing bushes ·is presented
in Section 10 of this report.
These shrubland sites used in late summer by black bears
foraging for berries are the favored sites for construction
camps,borrow areas,and permanent residences.The area
bet.ween Tsusena Creek and Deadman Creek will be especially
heavily affected by these activities as this is a highly
favored foraging area for black bears during late summer.
Although black bears are not as prone to disturbance displace-
ment resulting from these activities as brown bears,it is
likely that black bears will come into conflict with man in
the:se sites.
8.C.2.Blockage of movements
As discussed previously for brown bears (Section 7.C),black
bea.rs swim readily and are known to swim across impoundments.
Movements across the reservoir will probably be restrained to
some degree,relative to movements bears currently make -across
the:river.Simpson (1986:21)studied movements of grizzly
48
--_...._~~---_......__..<--------------------------------------
bears in the vicinity of the Revelstoke Reservoir in British
Columbia and noted that llgrizzlies would cross a river but not
the reservoir."Relative to this same reservoir,Richard L.
Bonar (18 April,1985,interview transcribed by Bill Steigers
of the Susi tna Project Group of LGL)noted II •••the
radio-collared bears [both species]haven't crossed as often
as they did before the water came up."
Al though some impact is probable,it is impossible to guess
how much movements across the river will be restrained by the
Susitna impoundments.Movements across impoundments are not
the only movements that may be inhibited.Black bears
frequently make extensive seasonal movements both up and down
the river and,unlike brown bears,these movements occur
largely in and along the forested corridor of the Susi tna
River.Following flooding of the impoundment,such movements
will require crossing or circling around inundated tribu-
taries.The greatest barrier to these movements following
filling of the reservoir will be the large bay at what is now
Watana Creek.
In this study I concentrated on documenting frequency of
crossing so that these data from the preconstruction phase
could be compared with data collected during a post-
construction study.Such comparisons will permit more
accurate predictions of impacts in future impact assessment
studies.
The number of'river crossings for each radio-marked bear in
each year with >5 non-den observations·varied from 0 to 12
(Table 46).For purposes of this analysis,a "bear-yearn was
defined as a year in which a radio-marked bear received.more
than 5 radio locations (excluding observations at its den
site).For males,crossings were observed for 36 of 56
bear-years (64%);for females crossings were observed for 18
of 57 bear-years (32%)(Table 46).The average number of
crossings for males that crossed was 3.3;for females it was
3.8 crossings (data in Table 46).
8.C.3.Mitigative measures
The potential methods of mitigating for loss of berry foraging
areas,or for inhibition of movements resulting from impound-
ments are very limited.It would be advantageous to establish
facilities and communities in areas where they are not in the
middle of bear movement corridors.However,I doubt that
efforts to situate these facilities in areas where they are
distant from the river and,correspondingly,distant from
black bear transportation corridors,can be justified on the
basis of certainty that this effort would significantly
benefi t the black bear population remaining after the post-
impoundment period.This is because such relocation would
49
likely be very costly and because the black bear population in
thE~vicinity of the upper impoundment will probably be so
greatly reduced by other impoundment-related impacts that few
bears will be left to benefit.It is worth noting that most
black bear'movements up-and downstream occur on the north
side of the river.Correspondingly,facilities situated on
the south side are likely to have less impact than those on
thE~north side.
8.D.Interspecific Effects
8.D.1.Moose and brown bears
As with brown bears,it 'is difficult to estimate the effects
on black bears of project-caused changes in abundance of other
species.Nevertheless,such ~mpacts are likely to occur and
their probable direction can be reasonably predicted.
The predicted reductions in numbers of brown bears,as a
result of the project,could only be beneficial to·remnant
'black bear populations.Brown bears are suspected of killing
some black bears and attacks·have been documented in this area
(Miller 1985b).Also,I suspect that with reduced brown bear
populations,black bears would probably forage somewhat
further from forest:ed escape habitats.If this happened,it
would effectively'expand the amount of habitat available for
black bears.Conversely,black bears forced to move into more
open habitats as a result of flooding of current habitats
could be more exposed to predation from brown bears.
Reduction.of brown bears may increase the number of moose
calves available as prey to black bears.Black bears in the
Susitna area currently kill fewer moose calves than black
bears on the Kenai Peninsula (see Section 8.G.4 of this
report).In part,at least,this may be because brown bears
are much more abundant in the Susitna area than on the Kenai.
This possible increase in spring food supply would result only
if moose populations remained constant or increased.If moose
populations declined as a result of the project (Ballard et
al"1985),then more calves would not necessarily be available
to black bears regardless of reduced brown bear predation on
moose calves.
8~D.2.Human/bear interactions
Compared with brown bears,black bears are tolerant of human
presence (Herrero 1985).Correspondingly,I would expect much
less human-caused disturbance displacement to occur for black
bears than for brown bears.Because of this tolerance,
hm~ever,black bears are likely to thoroughly explore the
food-producing potential 'of the new human communities in the
impoundment area.In this way bears will inevitably come into
50
------------~-------------
conflict with man.Problems,including killing of nuisance
bears,can best be minimized by very careful handling of
garbage and other human foods and by strict enforcement of
regulations against feeding wildlife.The recommendations of
Bromley (1985)should be reviewed and followed during
construction and operation of the project to minimize these
conflicts.Especially in the vicinity of the Watana Impound-
ment,the amount of forested habitat that remains along the
fringe of the impoundment shoreline will be greatly reduced by
impoundment flooding.Black bears will be increasingly vulne-
rable to hunting by humans in the remaining forested habitat.
8.E.Downstream Impacts on Black Bears
Negative impacts on black bears downstream from the proposed
impoundments were anticipated during Phase I of this project
(Miller and McAllister 1982).I thought these impacts would
likely result primarily from reduced availability of salmon,
especially spawning salmon,in sloughs and tributaries between
Talkeetna and Devils Canyon and especially between Cllrry and
Devils Canyon (Miller and MCAllister 1982).Only rarely are
salmon able to swim upstream through Devils Canyon so
reduction of salmon is not a consideration in the upstream
study area.
I anticipated reductions of salmon in the downstream area
based on fisheries studies then occurri~g.as part ofSu-H~dro
investigations.No final report on these studies of project-·
related impacts on salmon in the Susi tna River is available.
Correspondingly,without a documented level of reduction of
salmon availability,I am unable to predict impacts on bears.
Given this lack of information ,it is fortunate in terms of
prediction of impact on bears,that the data I collected on
bear use of salmon in the downstream study area suggest salmon
availability is not as important as hypothesized earlier.
Studies of bears downstream from Devils Canyon began in 1982.
Addi tional bears were captured and marked in 1983.Radio-
tracking data on these bears revealed that most utilized the
slough and riparian areas along the main Susitna .River
especially heavily during the July-August period when salmon
were spawning in these areas (Miller 1983,1984,and 1985a).
Correspondingly,in 1982,1983,and 1984 I visited this area,
inspected the sloughs,and collected fresh bear scats.Most
scats collected in mid-August were found along the Susitna
River or sloughs along the Susitna in the zone between Curry
and Portage Creeks.Nomenclature of sloughs follows Su-Hydro
fisheries studies for the anadromous adult project.Analyses
of scats were made by Paul Smith following procedures outlined
by Smith (1984).Data on contents of the scats collected each
51
'"
year are presented in Tables 47-49.In most cases it was
impossible to differentiate between black bear and brown bear
scats;efforts to develop differentiation techniques were
unsuccessful (Appendix 4).Numbers of salmon counted in
sloughs and tributaries by Su-Hydro fisheries staff in each
year from 1981 through 1984 are presented in Table 50.
Fish were present in identifiable amounts in only 3 of 76
scats collected in the downstream study area.In 2 of these,
fish were present in trace amounts and in one it was present
in "category 2"amounts (6-25%of scat contents).The low
number of fish remains in these scats was puzzling to us as we
saw many fish that had been killed and partially eaten by
bears during our inspection of the downstream sloughs (Tables
51 and 52).Fame (1974)observed heavy use of salmon by black
bears in Prince William Sound,Alaska.I doubt that the
absence of salmon in the scats we analyzed resulted from lack
of ability to J:'ecognize salmon in scats due to differential
digestibility or other reasons.At McNeil River and along
Prairie Creek I have seen many scats from bears that have been
eating salmon and have noted that these are readily
identifiable based on superficial inspection.These scats
frequently contain bones,are diarrhetic,and have a distinc-
tive unpleasant smell.
By fa"r the most abundant item in the scats collected in the
downstream area in August was berries of devil's club
(QE1opanax horr idus)which occurred in 75 0 f the 76 scats.
Amount of scat represented by devils club was:trace (3%of
scats),6-25%(9%),26-50%(25%),51-75%(17%),and 76-100%(45%).
Devi1's club was not an abundant plant in the downstream area.
It occurred primarily in the zone "between the scoured riparian
flats and the adjacent forest.Farther upstream from Devils
Canyon,in the upstream study"area,this plant was rarely
found and seldom seen with berries.Based on available da~a
it appears that the July-August movements of black bears to
riparian areas (movements documented with telemetry data)were
more likely motivated by the presence of ripening devi1's club
ber~ies than by spawning salmon.On the Kenai Peninsula,
Schwartz et al.(l983a,1983b)have documented late summer
movements of black bears to hillsides of mature upland forests
containing devi1's club.In these summer feeding areas black
bear scats indicated bears were feeding almost exclusively on
devi1's club berries (Schwartz et a1.1983a &b).The
relative absence of devil's club in the upstream study area
may cause or contribute to this area's carrying capacity being
much lower,in average years,than in the downstream area or
in the Kenai Peninsula area studied by Schwartz.
Our data may not accurately represent the importance of salmon
to bears in the downstream study area.It is possible that
bear use of salmon in downstream sloughs was more prevalent in
52
----_.,----------------------------------_......_--------
July and early August than in late August when we collected
most of our scats.In late August it is possible that bears
switch from an earlier and greater dependence on salmon to
ripening berries.It is also possible that salmon are an
important buffer food source that is more heavily used in
years of berry-crop failure.Finally,bears may use both
salmon and berries in a daily cycle that makes it unlikely
that salmon-rich feces would be found at the salmon-spawning
areas.Based on available information,however,there is no
reason to conclude that reduction from salmon availability in
sloughs and tributaries downstream of the impoundment area
would impact carrying capacity for black bear populations in
this area.
8.F.Cumulative Impacts,Black Bears
For black bears,cumulative impacts'of the proposed project
may be greater than the sum of individual impacts.Metho-,
do logy ,to identify and quantify such cumulative impacts on
brown bears has been described by Christensen (1985),Young
(1985),Winn and Barber (1985),and Weaver et al.(1985).
No effort to conduct similar cumu'lative-effects analyses was
made as part of this report,but such an effort should be
undertaken as part o-f environmental impact assessments for the
Susitna hydroelectric project.I suspect that such analyses
would lead to the conclusion that the combination of habitat
destruction through inundation,reduced berry-foraging areas
because of construction sites and other facilities,reduced
availability of good den sites,increased disturbance ~nd
hunting in the remaining habitat,increased destruction of
"nuisance"bears,road kills on access routes,and other
factQrs,will,in total,result in the complete elimination of
th~black bear population in the vicinity of-the Watana
Impoundment.As discussed elsewhere in this report,I think
the upstream black bear population is only marginally secure
at present and may be subject to periodic wide fluctuations in
numbers,based on annual environmental differences.
Superimposi tion of additional sources of stress on such a
marginal population would likely result in complete loss of
the ability of the habitat to support black bears.
8.G.Background Information on Black Bear Biology
8.G.I.Black Bear Productivity
As for brown bear (Section 7.G.I),I suspect that the
impoundment will result in declines in availability of foods
currently utilized by black bears and that these declines will
be reflected in changes in bear numbers as well as in declines
in productivity.Changes in productivity are difficult to
53
&4
.'
predict,so my effort has concentrated,primarily,on
documenting existing levels of productivity so that changes
can be measured during post-impoundment studies.Currently,
the upstream population is less productive than a Kenai
Peninsula population of black bears intensively studied by
Schwartz et a1.(l983b).The major difference in these 2
areas is that cub mortality is much higher in the upper
Susitna.I suspect that the major difference in food supply
bet~ween the Kenai and upper Susi tna populations is that devils
club berries,important on the Kenai and lower Susitna River
in late summer,are essentially not available to black bears
in the impoundment area.I -also suspect that black bears in
the~upper Susi tna are highly dependent on blueberry crops and
have fewer buffer foods to turn to when blueberry crops fail
(Section 8.G.4.a,this report).
Reproductive data discussed in this section are derived
largely from observations of radio-marked bears.This source
of data is subject to sighting errors.Such errors were
especially likely in the downstream study area where heavy
vegetation frequently prevented visual observation of the bear
at the time it was radio-located.Reproductive status could
not be confirmed unless the bear was seen.Especially in the
early spring,newborn black bear cubs frequently hide in
tre~es when approached by radio-tracking aircraft.This made
sigrhting,and counting of cubs very difficult.These problems
are!,much more likely with the black bear data,than with the
brown bear data discussed earIier because brown bears were
more frequently in open country where they,and their
offspring,could be easily seen.
8.G.l.a~Litter Size and Offspring Mortality
Mean litter size at the time radio-marked females were first
obs:erved for 42 litters of newborn cubs was 2.1 (range =1-4)
(Table 53)and for 28 litters,of yearling offspring it was 1.9
(range =1-3)(Table 54).At time of first observation 74%of
lit:ters had 2 cubs;17%--3 cubs;7 %--1 cub;and 2%--4 cubs
(Table 53).Litter sizes were approximately equivalent on the
Kenai (1.9 for 15 litters of newborns,Schwartz et a1.1983).
Sex ratios of newborn cubs handled (N =44)was 76 males:100
females,and for 10 yearliFlgs the ratio was 100~100 (Tables 55
and 56).
In Su-Hydro studies,I defined as "mortalities"cases in which
a :Eemale was observed with newborn offspring (either in her
den or following emergence)but did not have the same number
of offspring at the time of entrance into her next den.For
60 newborn cubs in both the upstream and downstream study
arE~as,35%experienced such mortalities (Table 57).This
percentage was much higher in the upstream study area (47%
54
___GJllI~~~_m~__-------~----_~',---------------------
mortalities for 43 cubs)than in the downstream study area (6%
mortalities for 17 cubs)(Table 57).In Kenai Peninsula
studies,no mortalities were observed for 13 newborn cubs
between ages 0.3 (emergence)and 1.7 years (separation from
mother),but a third of 9 radio-marked yearlings died
(Schwartz et al.1983b).We had only 2 radio-marked yearlings
and one of these died during its yearling summer;the other
(329)survived into adulthood.
Schwartz et al.(1983a &b)provided weights for 16 yearlings
captured in dens or shortly after emergence in the period
February-June 1983 •.These bears ranged in weight from 29 to
126 lbs (mean =83 lbs.,S.D.=30 1bs).During the course of
my studies in the upstream black bear study area,I weighed 7
yearlings and estimated weights during handling for 3 more
during April through June of different years.These 10 bears
weighed an average of 24 1bs (range =14-33 lbs.,S.D.=7
lbs.)(Table 56).Although these data sets are of different
sizes and represent somewhat different periods they suggest
that Kenai Peninsula black bears are in much better condition
following their first summer than are upper Susi tna bears.
The high mortality of newborn black bear cubs in the upper
Susitna and the relatively slow growth rate of these cubs in
their first year of life most likely reflects relatively
poorer habitat and foraging conditions for black bears in the
upper Susitna compared with the Kenai Peninsula.Two of the
lightest Kenai yearlings (20 and 22 pounds--Schwartz et al.
1982)died of malnutr'itiori.as yearlings (Schwartz et al.
1983).
There are other factors which may contribute to high cub
mortality in the upstream Susitna area.Some black bear
mortali ty in the Su-Hydro area is probably caused by brown
bear predation.Brown bears are much less common in the Kenai
Peninsula area studied by Schwartz.It is also possible that
the Kenai Peninsula.area as well as the downstream Susi tna
study area have lower cub mortalities than the upstream
Susitna area because the proportion of adult male bears is
lower as a result of relatively high hunter effort.Bunnell
and Tait (1980)noted that hunting typically results in skewed
sex ratios and Young and Ruff (1982)observed apparent
increases in cub survivorship following-experimental reduction
of adult males in an Alberta black bear population.Tietje et
al.(l986)noted an instance of interspecific predation on
young black bears.
Measurements of newborn cubs are presented in Table 55.
8.G.1.b.Reproductive Interval
Methods of measuring reproductive interval were discussed in
Section 7.G.1 of this report.Following Reynolds and Hechtel
(1985)I defined reproductive interval as the period between
55
successful breeding (as evidenced by cub production the
following year)or successful weaning of a previous litter and
the next successful separation of mother and offspring
(n~reaning").Intervals based on females initially captured
with yearlings were not counted by back-dating this litter.I
considered it to be a successful separation if the .adul t
female was seen with those yearling offspring following
emergence from the den shared with her yearling offspring.
With this definition it is usually not possible to distinguish
bet:ween mortality experienced by yearlings 'while accompanied
by their mothers and "successful separation".Since in most
cases separation occurs relatively early,in Mayor June,this
source of error is probably small.Separation from yearling
offspring occurred in 23 cases (289 [3 cases],290,301 [2],
317 [2],321,327,349,354,363,364,369,375,376,378,402
[2JI,411 '[21,and 432)and from 2-year-old offspring in 2
cases (verified in den for female 161 and based on sightings
for female 405)(Table 58).
In some instances a female would separate from her yearling
offspring in the spring,during breeding season,but they
would apparently reunite later in the summer (sometimes just
before den entrance)•At least in cases where the female was
pregnant it appeared that the yearling and its mother would
noit den together following such a reunion (e.g.289 in 1984,
and 317 in 1985).In some cases,the female was apparently
not pregnant (had no newborn upon exit)but was seen with a
smaller bear (probably her 2-year-old offspring)at exit from
thl~den the following year (e.g.,317 in 1981,364 in 1984,
and 376 in 1984).In these cases I am uncertain whether the
bears denned together or whether they denned near each other.
Denning to"gether by unrelated bears has been recorded but is
rare (Schwartz et al.,in press).
Reproductive histories of individual females are presented in
Table 58.Reproductive intervals based on these histories are
summarized in Table 59.Counting only reproductive intervals
for which complete data were available (N =25),I found that
intervals ranged from 2 to 5 years and averaged 2.4 years for
bears in upstream and downstream areas combined (Table 59).
As previously mentioned for brown bears,using only complete
intervals underestimates the true reproductive interval.This
is because many intervals are incomplete and,in a short study
period,the incomplete.intervals tend to be those that are
longer than minimum length.If one assumes no more skipped
years or lost litters for the bears with currently incomplete
intervals (N =15),the calculated mean interval for these
bears averages 3.1 years (Table 59).When completed,some of
these intervals will be longer than the minimum value .For
example,9-year-old female 441 was alone when captured in
1985;she apparently bred in that year but did not have cu~s
56
w wms __~__~_
in 1986 (Table 58).If she has cubs in 1987 and weans these
in 1988,she will have had an interval of 3 years and this is
the value included for her "incomplete interval"(Table 59).
Combining available complete intervals and minimum values for
incomplete intervals (N =40)provides an average reproduc-
tive interval estimate of 2.7 years (range 1-5 years)(Table
59).Intervals appear equivalent in the downstream study area
(2.6 years,N =12)and upstream (2.7 years,N =28)study a-
reas (Table 59).Counting incomplete intervals,2-year
intervals were most cornmon (53%),followed by 3-year intervals
(33%),4-year intervals (10%),and 5-yearintervals (5%)
(Table 59).
Schwartz et al.(l983b)reported 1 interval of 2 years and 5
intervals of 3 years on the Kenai Peninsula.This yields an
av-erage interval of 2.8 years for his data.Schwartz did not
report incomplete intervals which would probably have raised
this average value.Based on available information I cannot
conclude that reproductive intervals were different in the
Kenai and Susitna studies.
8.G.1.c.Age at First Reproduction
In this study I defined "age at first reproduction"as the age
when the first observed litter was produced.This definition
will overestimate.actual age at production of first litter
when whole litters are lost before they are observed.Other
errors may be introduced through errors in aging based on
cementum lines.
Limited data are available for age at first reproduction
because few transmitters were placed on subadult bears.Black
bear 329,tagged as a yearling in 1981,still had not produced
a verified litter through 1986 when she was 6 years old (Table
58).She was seen with males during breeding seasons when she
was 3,4,and 5 years old (Table 58).The earliest this bear
could produce a litter is age 7 (in 1987).For all other,
bears,age at first reproduction is based on cementum age.
Bear 448 had no observed litters when it was either 6 or 7
years old (Table 58).If we assume no litter was produced
before she was captured at age 6,the earliest this bear could
produce a litter is at age 8 (in 1987).In the following
calculations bears 329 and 448 are assumed to produce first
litters in 1987 when they will be 7 and 8 years old
respectively..Summary data used in calculating age at first
reproduction are presented in Table 60.For 14 black bears
for which reasonable data are available (Table 60),mean age
at first reproduction was 6.4 years.Half of these bears
produced first litters at age 7 (Table 60).
57
On 'the Kenai Peninsula Schwartz et al.(1983b)found 6 females
that produced first litters at age 4 while 2 others had not
produced litters yet by ages 4 and 5.If we assume that these
last 2 females .produced cubs the following year,the mean age
at first reproduction was 4.4 years (range =4-6).Based on
these data,Kenai Peninsula black bears reach reproductive
maturi ty at a younger mean age than bears in my study area
(t =25.9,20 d.f.,P <0.001).This result could be
predicted from the slower growth rate of Su-Hydro bears as
indicated by lighter weights of yearlings in the Su-Hydro
area,discussed above.
8.G~2.Sources of black bear mortality
As for brown bears,hunter kills of black bears in the
Su-Hydro study area have generall~increased during the period
1973-85.Reported kills averaged 13 bears/year during this
period (Table 61).This is lower than the hunter kill of
brown bears which averaged 19/year in the same area during the
sam~period (Table 24).In the last 5 years (1981-1985)
hunters have killed an average of 14.6 black bears and 27.6
brown bears (Tables 24 and 61).·I suspect that at least some
of the increase in bear harvest in this area,especially for
black bears,resulted from augmented interes·t in and knowledge
of the area on the part of staff working on various projects
associated with the proposed Susitna hydroe'lectric dams.This
suspicion is based on personal knowledge of hunting.by such
staff.Increases in harvest are expected when formerly remote
areas are opened up by improved access or publicity of
available game.Additional increases can be expected if roads
to the dam sites are built.Under these circumstances
regulations may need to be adopted to prevent harvests of
bears and other wildlife from exceeding acceptable levels.
Because black bears inhabit the forested fringe along the
shores to the proposed impoundment,remnant black bear
populations in the impoundment area would be especially
vulnerable,in the very narrow post-impoundment fringe of
forested habitat,to hunters using boats on the reservoirs.
The proportion of the marked black bear population that is
taken by hunters is an index to the population exploitation
rat.e.These data are provided in Table 62.If both upstream
and downstream black bears are included,annual kill rates of
marked black bears ranged from 6%to 17%(Table 62).
Exploitation rates were higher in the downstream study area
than upstream from Devils Canyon (Table 63).This is probably
because downstream from Devils Canyon,bears can be hunted
easily from a river boat while upstream from Devils Canyon
access is primarily by float plane.Natural mortality of
radio-marked black bears during the study period was high
compared with that of brown·bears (Table 29).A total of 13
blaLck bears died,mostly from unknown causes (Table 29).I
58
-~----~-~-------
suspect a couple of these deaths may have resulted from
gunshot wounds.Available indications suggested that others
resulted from natural causes including predation by brown
bears (Table 29).The apparent high natural mortality of
adult bears in the upstream study area is another indication
suggesting that this area may be marginal habitat for black
bears.
8.G.3.Black bear movements
8.G.3.a.Home range size
As for brown bears,black bear horne ranges were calculated
using minimum home range polygons (Mohr 1947).In many cases
these horne ranges were not accurate representations of the
areas utilized by individuals.This was because black bears
were largely restricted to movements up and down the river,
but since the river does not run in a straight line,the
minimum horne range polygons include areas not utilized by
bears between river meanders.This point is illustrated in
Figures 29-33 for annual home ranges of 5 black bears.Home
ranges for individual bears in specific years,and for all
years combined,are presented in Table 64.Annual home ranges
for all bears averaged 134.6 km2i male home ranges (251.5 km 2 )
were larger than female home ranges (67.1)(t =13.1,121 d.f.
P <0.001).Home ranges of females in years they had newborn
cubs (69.2 km 2 )were not significantiy different from those of"
females in years they did not have cubs (77.3 km 2 )(t =0.05,
64 d.L,P >0.5)(Table 65).
Average male home range size varied little in different years
of the study except for the first year (Fig.34).The first
year had a lower aver-age because some bears were not captured
until August.Home range for females without newborn cubs was
larger in 1981 than in other years (Fig.34).In 1981 there
was an apparent failure of the berry crop which"probably
accounted for the larger home ranges in that year.
B.G.3.b.Seasonal movements
The basic seasonal pattern for black bear movements in the
study area is for black bears to remain in the forested
riparian zone along the river for denning and during spring
and early summer.When berries are ripening in late summer
and fall,black bear movements become more extensive in both
upstream and downstream directions.At this time black bears
may also venture out of the forested zone into the adj acent
shrub zone.
Variations in this pattern were observed in 1981 when,in
response to an apparent berry crop failure,bears moved much
more extensively in both upstream and downstream directions
59
(Figs.29-33).Most bears did not make equivalent movements
in other years but male 343 (Fig.32)continued to make
similar movements downstream each year in late summer.These
movements were probably motivated by increased availability
of devil's club berries downstream or,possibly,the
availability of salmon in downstream sloughs.
Another variation in this pattern was observed in spring 1985,
when black bears appeared to be more abundant at higher
elevations away from the Susitna River.I suspect this
difference was related to availability of overwintered
berries.Overwintered berries,especially crowberry (Empetrum
nigrum)are an important spring food for bears.Winter
1984-85 had little snow cover at lower elevations along the
river until February.I suspect that lack of snow cover
reduced overwinter survival of berries at lower elevations,
forc~ng some bears to forage at higher elevations distant from
the riparian forest.These areas are thought to be less
preferred by black-bears as they may be more vulnerable there
to attack by brown pears.
8.G.3.c.Dispersal from study area
Only 1 dispersal into or out of the study area was documented
for subadul t black bears.Li tile effort was made to obtain
such documentation by placing radio-transmitters on subadult
black bears.Only 1 yearling 'was radio-marked and survived
for more than 5 months;this bear (female 329)did not
disperse.Another male marked as a 2-year-old in the upstream
study area in 1980 (323)did not disperse and was shot by a
hunter in September,1983.A male marked in the upstream
study area (Clark Creek)in May 1980 did disperse.This bear,
307,was shot by a hunter 1 year later near Hurricane on the
Parks Highway .
.8.G.4.Black bear food habits
8.G.4.a.Predation rates
Black bears are known to be effective predators on moose
calves (Franzmann et al.1980)but,in 1 case at least,black
bears were observed to be inhibited,compared with brown
bears,in killing moose calves (Miller 1985b).In this case a
black bear watched'a cow moose with 2 newborn calves for over
24 hours without successfully attacking,but a brown bear
attacked and killed the calves as soon as it found them
(Miller 1985b).Simultaneous with intensive monitoring of
brown bears (Section 7.G.4.b this report),radio-marked black
bears were intensively monitored in 1981 and 1984 to estimate
predation rates (Table 66).During periods of intensive
monitoring in the spring,16 black bears were observed on 13
60
calf moose kills,1 adult caribou kill,and 1 probable kill
during a total of 460 visual sightings .This translates to
2.8 moose calf kills/100 visual sightings,4.1 kills of all
kinds/100 observation-days,and 5.4 kills (all kinds)/100
consecutive observation-days (Table 66).An "observation-day"
was defined as a day on which a bear was seen at least once
and a "consecutive observation-day"summed all periods of >2
consecutive observation-days.
This kill rate is about 25%of that observed for brown bears
(Section 7.G.4,this report).Brown bears were observed
during intensive monitoring at the same time on 16.5 kills/100
consecutive observation-days (Table 32),compared with 4.1 for
black bears.If one considers just moose calves,brown bears
were observed on 9.9 kills/100 consecutive observation-days
and black bears on 1.9 (Tables 66 and 32).
A kill rate of 2 calves/lOa consecutive observation-days
during a 5-week period when moose calves are most vulnerable
would result in an average estimated kill of 0.7 calves/bear/
year.In ~ection 8.A of this report I estimated black bear
populations in the impoundment impact area to be 107 bears.
If one assumed 35%of this population was cub and yearling
bears (Miller et al.,in press;Appendix 2),about 70 bears
were available to prey on moose calves.At 0.7 calf
kills/bear,these bears would kill about 50 calves/year in the
Su-Hydro study area.
These kill rates are minimum estimates because it is easy to
miss kills during radio-location flights.Regardless,it.
appears probable that at this low kill rate predation on moose
calves by adult black bears is unlikely to contribute
significantly to the spring nutrition needs of these black
bears.It may be a more significant source of nutrition for
some individuals that are particularly adept at killing
calves.For example,of the 13 calves observed killed,7
were killed by 2 of the 16 intensively monitored bears.
8.G.4.b.Annual variation in berry abundance
As discussed in Miller and McAllister (1982),a berry-crop
failure apparently occurred in summer 1981.I first suspected
a berry crop failure because movements of black bears in late
summer of that year appeared much more extensive than in 1980;
radio-locations in subsequent years verified that movements in
1981 were extensive.In late summer 1981,black bears made
atypical movements in both upstream and downstream directions.
These movements were discussed for each individual in Miller
and McAllister (1982:103)and are illustrated,for 4 bears,in
Figs.29-33).Observations on the ground in late summer 1981
provided subjective verification that berry crops were
61
exceptionally low in 1981 compared with other years of this
study (Table 67).Years during which these data were
collected were subjectively appraised as linear typical".for
the upstream study area.This is different from the preceding
year,1981,when berry crops in black bear habitat were
thought to have had a widespread failure (Table 67).
8.G.4.c.Scat analyses
Food-habits data based on scat analyses were of limited value
because few scats were collected in upstream areas,and
because of the difficulties in 'differentiating between black
and brown bear scats (Appendix 4).Most scats were collected
along sloughs and streams in the downstream study area in an
effort to evaluate the importance of salmon to bears in this
area (Section 8.E,this report).Scat data are presented in
Tables 47-49.
8.G.5.Black bear denning ecology
My data on the denning ecology of black bears have been
analyzed and contrasted with data from 2 other parts of south
central Alaska by Schwartz et ale (in press,see Appendix I).
Only those components of the black bear denning data that are
directly related to the proposed hydroelectric project will be
discussed in.this report.
Den entrance and emergence
bear in each year are given
were observed between males
entered dens earlier than
(Schwartz et al.,in press).
dates 'for each individual black
in Tables 68-72.No differences
and females but pregnant females
males or non-pregnant females
Locations of black bear dens in upstream ·and downstream study
areas are illustrated in Figs.35-36.Characteristics of
these dens are presented in Table 73 and the tendency to
prefer southern aspects is illustrated in Fig.37.History of
den use by individual bears is presented in Table 74 and by
individual dens in Table 75.These data demonstrate a high
rate of reuse of individual dens by bears in the upstream
Su-Hydro area compared with other study areas (Schwartz et
al.,in press)and suggest that good den sites may·be limited
in the upstream study area.
Forty-four different dens were found in the vicinity of the
Watana Impoundment:55%of these were dug,41%were in natural
cavities,and 2%were of unknown cavity type (Table 75).Of
these dens,55%would be flooded by the proposed impoundment
and 46%would not be flooded (Table 75).
62
Thirty different dens were found in the vicinity of the Devils
Canyon Impoundment;33%of these were dug,43%were in natural
cavities,and 7%were of unknown cavity type (Table 75).Of
these dens only 1 (3.3%)would be flooded by the proposed
impoundment (Table 75).
In the downstream study area 29 black bear dens were found.
Compared with the upstream area,fewer downstream dens were in
natural rock cavities and more were dug (Table 75).
These data suggest that the Watana Impoundment would probably
result in a reduction of acceptable denning sites·for black
bears resident in this area.This factor might become
limiting for black bear populations in this area if
populations remained at pre-impoundment levels.Since black
bears in the Watana Impoundment area are expected to decline
greatly in number based on reductions in habitat and carrying
capacity,it is likely that the population will actually be
limited by habitat shortage before the bears are limited by a
shortage of den sites.The Devils Canyon darn is likely to
have little impact through inundation on black bear denning
habitat.
Black bears den in the forested habitats along the Susitna
River in the vicinity of both the upper and lower impound-
ments.Pre-inundation clearing of forests in and adjacent to
the·proposed impoundment during the denning period would
probably result in disturbance ·of many black bears and addi-
tional mortalities,to some individuals,resulting from den
abandonment.If logging occurs during the denning period,as
anticipated,black bears should be radio-marked and monitored
prior to the clearing in order to document the impact of this
source of.disturbance.
9.BEAR DENSITY AND POPULATION ESTIMATION
Standardized methods for estimating bear numbers have not been
developed.Even in very intensively studied populations where
all bears are marked or radio-collared,it can be difficult to
convert these data to meaningful density estimates (Schwartz
et ale 1983a).
In this study I attempted to estimate black bear density using
Lincoln-Petersen Indices where radio-marked bears constituted
the marked sample .In summer 1982,when black bears were in
relatively open habitats feeding on berries,and in spring
1983,before leaf emergence restricted visability,I attempted
to estimate bear numbers using ratios of marked to unmarked
bears observed in a single flight.In these efforts the
number of marked bears present in the search area was
determined through radio-tracking flights before and after the
63
observation flight.Estimates with very large variance were
achieved with this procedure,probably because observability
was so low (see Miller 1984 for these results).
Work conducted in spring 1985 was designed to provide an
improved density estimate for both black and brown bears in
the Su-Hydro study area.This work was essentially a series
of replications,in a well-defined smaller area,of the
technique used in the 1982 and 1983 studies.Consecutive days
of search effort were combined to provide 'a series of
independent estimates over time and a single combined estimate
of the number of bears present in the search area during an
average day of the search period.This technique has been
published (Miller et al.,in press,see Appendix 2)and only
those site-specific details not included in this pUblication
will be repeat~d here.
The search area and quadrats used to allocate search effort
are illustrated in Fig.38;time spent actually searching in
each quadrat is presented in Table 76 (commuting time and time
spent circling bears prior to capture is excluded).We were
forced to base this census effort from Talkeetna which greatly
increased commuting time to the search area.Total fixed-wing
charter time wa~264 hours,twice the number of hours spent in
actual search (Table 76).Because this was a newly developed
technique some errors were made which should be avoided in
future applications.The most serious of these errors was
failure to search each quadrat on each day of the search
effort (Table 76).This was not considered a problem at the
time because I originally intended to combine'a number of
days'data to obtain an estimate for that period.If this had
been done the missed quad~ats on a single day would not have
been such a serious problem if all quadrats were searched
equally over the period.
The problem with combining days,however,is that one could
potentially have more marked bears seen during a period than
were "present"during that period (where presence for each
bear is a fraction equaling the proportion of time the marked
animal spent in the search area).In illustration,a marked
bear that was present half of the time in the period would be
counted as 0.5 marked bears present,but if seen one or more
times it would be counted as 1.0 marked bears seen.
This problem was eliminated through use of the bear-days
estimator described by Miller et ale (in press,Appendix 2).
This estimator provided a brown bear density estimate of 2.79
bears/100 km 2 (95%CI =2.52-3.30 bears/100 km 2 )and a black
bear density estimate of 8.97 bears/100 km 2 (95%CI =
7.74-10.21 bears/100 km 2 ).
64
These density estimates were extrapolated to the area
identified as that in which bears would be affected by the
proposed hydroelectric project.This extrapolation provided
an estimate of the number of bears that would be impacted by
the proposed project.Evidence based on relocations of
radio-marked brown bears during 1980 through 1984 illustrate
that all of the search area was brown bear habitat (Fig.40).
The density estimate for brown bears represented density in
habitats below 5,000 feet elevation;the amount of area below
5,000 feet elevation in the brown bear impact area was 11,704
km2 (12,127 minus 423 km2 above 5,000 feet elevation).For
just Devils Canyon the impact area was 6,833 km2 (7,120 minus
287 above 5,000 feet)while for just the Watana Impoundment
the area was 9,056 km2 (9,452 minus 398 above 5,000 feet).At
the density estimated above,the estimated number of bears in
the impoundment study area was 327 (95%CI =295-386).
The density estimate for black bears was extrapolated to the
area (1195 km2)identified as black bear habitat based on
radio-locations of marked bears and habitat considerations
(Figure 7),resulting in an estimate of 107 black bears in the
impoundment impact area (95%CI =93-122).Because of
overlaps of the impoundments'impact zones,over half of this
value would be wi thin the impact zone of either impoundment
considered separately!
The 1985 estimated population of 107 black bears may be less
than maximum carrying capacity of this habitat following a
series of good years for food crops.I suspect the poor berry
crop in 1981 resulted in a reduced black bear population in
this·area ,although there is little objective data available
to support this conclusion.I based my suspicion on less
frequent sightings'of black bears,in 1982 and subsequently,
than in 1980 and 1981.
10.BERRY ABUNDANCE AND CANOPY COVERAGE
Personnel conducting Su-Hydro studies designed to measure
moose forage biomass in the impoundment area (Becker and
Steigers 1986)simultaneously collected information on plants
producing berries eaten by bears,as well as on horsetail
(Equisetum spp.).The bear data were collected during
11 July-25 August 1986.Information was collected on
transects including randomly spaced plots of 1 square meter.
Transects were also identified as within willow (Salix spp.)
biomass strata and plots were identified as being within
vegetation types based on both vegetation mapping and
on-ground classifications at the time data were collected.
Transects were run from the Susitna River up to elevations of
3400 feet.Details of sampling schemes and mathematical
treatments of these data are presented by Becker and Stelgers
(1986).Data on canopy coverage of berry-producing plants (as
65
well as Equisetum),on berry abundance,and on berry ripeness
were collected for blueberry (Vaccinium uliginosum),crowberry
(Empetrum nigrum),and lowbush cranberry (also called
lingonberry)(Vaccinium vi tis-idaea).Six canopy-coverage
categories were used:Absent,trace-5%,6-25%,26-50%,
51-75%,and 76-100%.Four berry-abundance categories were
used:None,trace,5-20 berries,and ~20 berries.Five
ripeness classifications were also used to represent average
ripeness in each plot:green,starting,tart,sweet,and
past.The first 2 and last 2 categories were lumped in my
analysis of berry-ripening phenology.This analysis did not
take elevation,slope,or habitat types into consideration
(these factors may influence ripening phenology).For
analysis of ripeness,data were lumped into 6 intervals of
approximately 1 week each.
Data were weighted by willow biomass strata to reflect
differing sampling intensities in these strata,and were
analyzed to produce statistics on mean canopy,coverage and
berry abundance in each of 3 "populations"(within the flooded
zone for each impoundment and outside of this zone up to an
elevation of 3400 feet).This design was not optimal for
collection of data on bear foods because this objective was
incidental to the main purpose of ,the browse survey.I
gratefully acknowledge the'assistance of Earl,B.ecker (ADF&G)
and Bill Steigers (LGL)and their crew in collecting these
data;Earl Becker also assisted in the analysis of these data.
Phenology
In 1985,phenology of berry ripening was similar for blueberry
and crowberry;the incidence of green berries dropped rapidly
during the first week of August and the incidence of sweet
berries increasing rapidly during the third week of August
(Figs.40a &40b).For lowbush cranberry,this ripening
pattern was about 2 weeks delayed and few plots with ripe
berries were found during the 3rd week of August when the
study ended (Fig.40c).Since most black bears in this area
enter dens during the last week of September and first week in
October (Section B.G.5,this report),these data illustrate
that ripe berries are available to this population of black
bears for a period of qnly 4-6 weeks.
Abundance and Canopy Coverage
The estimated proportion of berries and berry bushes and the
standard error for this estimate (corrected for covariance
effects)was calculated according to the methods described by
Becker and Steigers (1984).These data are presented and
illustrated in Figures 41-47.-The estimated proportion was
converted to a whole number by multiplying by the number of
66
transects in each population (47 in the Devils Canyon vicinity
below 2200 feet elevation,165 in the Watana vicinity below
2200 feet,and 126 above 2200 feet).Following this
multiplica.tion,categories with <5 1I 0 bservations"were lumped
with the next lower category and Chi-square tests run.
Results of these Chi-square tests are given in Figures 41-47.
For blueberry abundance and canopy coverage,the null
hypothesis that the 3 populations were equivalent could not be
rejected (Figures 41 and 45).
The null hypothesis for crowberry canopy coverage (Fig.42).
By inspection of Fig.42 (lumping last 3 categories)it can be
seen that the area outside of the impoundment had fewer
crowberry bushes.These data are consistent with a hypothesis
that the impoundment area ~ay be especially important for
spring foraging by bears for overwintered crowberries.Sample
size was inadequate to say much about crowberry abundance,but
berries appeared more abundant in Population A (Watana
Impoundment)than in B (above 2200 feet elevation)and more
abundant in B than in D (Devils Canyon Zone).
Lowbush cranberry bushes were unequally distributed in the 3
populations,with more cover in populations Band D (Devils
Canyon and outside impoundments,respectively)than in A
(Watana Impoundment)(Fig.43).With reference to berry
abundance,Population B is the most pr'oductive".with A andD
having equivalent productivity.
For Equisetum canopy coverage the categories with >5%coverage
had to be lumped and the null hypothesis of equivalent
distribution of Equisetum in the 3 populations was rejected
(Fig.44).This resulted from greater frequency of categories
with >5%in the zone outside of the impoundments than within
the impoundment zone (Fig.44).
11.REFERENCES CITED
Archibald,R.,R.Ellis,and A.H.Hamilton.In press.
Responses of grizzly bears to logging truck traffic in
the Kimsquit River Valley,British Columbia.Int.Conf.
Bear Res.and Manage.7:(1986)~
Ballard,W.B.,S.D.Miller,and T.H.Spraker.1980.Moose
calf mortality study.Fed.Aid in Wildl.Res.Final
Rep.on Proj.W-17-9,W-17-10,W-17-11,and W-21-1.Job
17.23R.123pp.
Ballard,W.B.,T.H.Spraker,and K.P.Taylor.1981.
Causes of neonatal moose calf mortality in south-central
Alaska.J.Wildl.-Manage.45 (2):335-342.
67
Ballard,W.B.,S.D.Miller,and T.H.Spraker.1982.Home
range,daily movements,and reproductive biology of brown
bear in southcentral Alaska.Can.Field Nat.96:1-5.
Ballard,W.B.and D.G.Larson.In press.Implications of
predator prey relationships to moose management.Paper
presented 'at 2nd IntI.Moose Symp.,Uppsala,Sweden.
1085pp.
Ballard,W.B.,J.S.Whitman,and C.L.Gardner.1985.
Susitna Hydroelectric Project.Phase II Prog.Rep.,Big
Game Studies,Vol.VI.Moose Upstream.141pp.
Ballard,W.B.and S.D.Miller.In press.Effects Qf
reducing brown bear density on moose calf survival in
southcentral Alaska.Int.Congo Game BioI.18pp.
Ballard,W.B.,S.D.Miller,and J.S.Whitman.In press.
Brown and black b€ar predation rates on moose calves in
southcentral Alaska.Int.Congo Game BioI.18pp.
Barnes,V.G.,Jr.1985.Brown Bear Studies-1984.Progress
report,Alaska Wildlife Res.Project,Denver 'Wildlife
Research Center US Fish and Wildl.Service.38pp.
BeGker,E.F,.and,W.D.Steigeis,Jr.In prep.
biomass in the middle Susitna 'River Basin,
Susitna Hydroelectric Project Final Report
the Alaska Power Authority.(1986).
Moose forage
Alaska.
prepared for
Bromley,M.1985.Safety in bear country:A reference
manual.Dept.of Renewable Resources,Government of the
Northwest Territories.
Bunnell,F.L.In press.Food habit~of grizzly bears:
Synthesis,hypothesis and thesis.Int.Conf.Bear Res.
and Manage.6:(1983).
Bunnell,F.L.and T.Hamilton.1983.Forage digestibility
and f~tness in grizzly bears.Int.Conf.Bear Res.and
Manage.5:179-185.
Bunnell,F.E.and D.E.N.Tait.1980.
reality--Implications to management.
Res.and Manage.3:15-23.
Bears in models and
Int.Conf.Bear
Bunnell,F.E.and D.E.N.Tait.1981.Population dynamics
of Bears--implications.Pages 75-98 in Dynamics of Large
Mammal Populations (C.W.Fowler and T.D.Smith,eds.).
Wiley and Sons,NY.
68
W _lIlA<Ii
Bunnell,F.E.and D.E.N.Tait.1985.Mortality rates of
North American bears.Arctic 38:316-323.
Christensen,Alan G.1985.Cumulative effects analysis:
Origins,acceptance,and value to grizzly bear
management.Pages 213-216 in Proceedings-Grizzly Bear
Habitat Symposium,Missoula,Montana,April-May,1985,
USDA,Forest Service Intermountain Research Station
General Tech.Report INT-207.252pp.
Dean,F.C.,L.M.Darling,and A.G.Lierhaus.1986.
Observations of intraspecific killing by brown bears,
Ursus arctos.Canadian Field-Naturalist 100(2):208-211.
Elgmork,K.1983.Influence of holiday cabin concentrations
on the occurrence o~brown bears (Ursus arctos L.)in
south-central Norway.Acta.Zool.Fennica 174:161-162.
Fame,G.W.1974.
Creek,Alaska.
Black bear predation on salmon at Olsen
Z.Tierpsychol.35:23-38.
Faro,J.B.and S.H.Eide.1974.Management of McNeil River
State Game Sanctuary for nonconsumptive use of Alaskan
brown bears.Proc.West.Assoc.State Game and Fish
Corom.54:113-118.
Follmann,·E.H.and J.L.Hechtel.In press.
pipeline construction in the far north.
Res.and Manage.6:(1983)•
Bears and
IntI.·Conf.Bear
Franzmann,A.W.,C. C.Schwartz,and R.O.Peterson.1980.
Moose calf mortality in summer on the Kenai Peninsula,
Alaska,J.Wildl.Manage.44:764-768.
Gasaway,W.C.R.O.Stephenson,J.L.Davis,P.E.K.
Shepherd,and O.E.Burris.1983.Interrelationships of
wolves,prey,and man in interior Alaska.Wildl.Monog.
84.50pp.
Glenn,L.P.J.W.Lentfer,J.B.Faro,and L.H.Miller.
.1976.Reproductive biology of female brown bears (Ursus
arctos),McNeil River,Alaska.Int.Conf.Bear Res.and
Manage.3:381-390.
Herrero,S.1985.Bear attacks:Their causes and avoidance.
Nick Lyons Books,Winchester Press,Piscataway N.J.
287pp.
Horejsi,B.L.1986.Industrial and agricultural incursion
into grizzly bear habitat:The Alberta story.Pages
116-123 in Proceedings--Grizzly Bear Habitat Symposium,
Missoula,Montana,April 3D-May 2,1985,Intermountain
Research Sta.(Ogden,UT).General Tech.Report INT-207.
69
Horejsi,B.L.In press.Industrial and agricultural
incursions into grizzly bear (U.arctos)habitat in
Alberta,Canada.Intl.Conf.Bear Res.and Manage.
7:(1986).
Jope,K.L.McArthur.1983.
people:A hypothesis.
5:322-327.
Habituation of grizzly bears to
Int.Conf.Bear Res.and Manage.
Lentfer,J.W.,R.J.Hensel,L.H.Miller,L.P.Glenn,and
V.D.Berns.1972.Remarks on denning habits of Alaska
brown bears.Int.Conf.Bear Res.and Manage.2:125-132.
Nelson,R.A.,D.L.Steiger,and D.I.Beck.In press.
Physiology of hibernation in the bear.Int.Conf.Bear
Res.and Manage.6:(1983).
Mattson,D.J.,R. R.Knight and B.M.Blanchard.In press.
The effects of developments and primary roads on grizzly
bear in Yellowstone National Park.Int.Conf.Bear Res.
and Manage.7:(1986).
Miller,Sterling D.and Dennis C.McAllister.1981.Big Game
Studies,Volume VI.Black Bear and Brown Bear.Pages
7/1-7/56 in Environmental Studies Susitna Hydroelectric
Project Environmental Studies Annual Progress Report,Subtask
7.11..
Miller,Sterling D.and Dennis C.McAllister.1982.Susitna
Hydroelectric Project.Phase I Final Report,Big Game
Studies,yolo VI.Black Bear and Brown Bear.233pp.
Miller,Sterling D.1983.Susitna Hydroelectric Project.
Phase II Progress Report,Big Game Studies,Vol.VI.
Black Bear and Brown Bear.99pp.
Miller,Sterling D.1984.Susitna Hydroelectric Project.
Phase II Progress Report,Big Game Studies,Vol.VI.
Black Bear and Brown Bear.174pp.
Miller,Sterling D.1985a.Susitna Hydroelectric Project.
Phase II Progress Report,Big Game Studies,Vol.VI.
Black Bear and Brown Bear.141pp.
Miller,S.D.1985b.An observation of inter-and intra-
specific aggression involving brown bear,black bear,and
moose in southcentral Alaska.J.Mammalogy
66 (4):805-806.
Miller,Sterling D.and Warren
and biomass estimates for
Ursus arctos,population.
96(4):448-454.
B.Ballard.1982a.Density
an Interior Alaskan brown bear,
Canadian Field-Naturalist
70
Miller,Sterling D.and Warren B.Ballard.1982b.Homing of
transplanted Alaskan brown bears.J.Wildl:Manage.
46:869-876.
Miller,S.D.and M.A.Chihuly.In press.Characteristics
of nons port brown bear deaths in Alaska.Int.Conf.Bear
Res.and Manage.7:(1986,see Appendix 3,this report).
Miller,S.D.,E.F.Becker,and W.B.Ballard.In press.
Density estimates using modified capture-recapture
techniques for black and brown bear populations in
Alaska.Int.Conf.Bear Res.and Manage.7:(1986,see
Appendix 2,this report).
Mohr,C.O.1947.Table of equivalent populations of North
American small mammals.Am.MidI.Nat.37(1):223-249.
Murie,A.1981.The grizzlies of Mount McKinley.U.S.Dept.
of the Interior,Natl.Park Service,Scientific Monograph
Series No.14,U.S.Gov.Printing Office,Washington D.C.
251pp.
Pitcher,K.W.In press.Susitna Hydroelectric Project.
Final Report,Big Game Studies,Vol.IV.Caribou~
(1986).
Pulliainen,E.1972.Distrib.ution and population structure
of the bear (Ursus arctos L.)in Finland.Ann.Zool.
Finnici 9:199-207.
Pulliainen,E.In press.Expansion of the brown bears (Ursus
arctos)into Finland from the east.Int.Conf.Bear Res.
and Manage.6~(1983).
Pulliainen,E.1982.Experiences in the protection of the
large predators in Finland.Int.J.Stud.Anim.Prob.
3 (1):33-41.
Reynolds,H.V.,J.A.Curatolo,and R.Quimby.1976.
Denning ecology of grizzly bears in northeastern Alaska.
IntI.Conf.Bear Res.and Manage.3:403-409.
Reynolds,H.V.and J.L.Hechtel.1976.North slope grizzly
bear studies.Fed.Aid in Wildl.Rest.Final Rep.on
Proj.W-17-6 and W-17-7.Jobs 4.8R,4.9R,4.10R,and
4.11R.19pp.
Reynolds,H.V.and J.L.Hechtel.1984.Structure,status,
reproductive biology,movement,distribution,and habitat
utilization of a grizzly bear population.Fed.Aid in
Wildl.Rest.Final Rep.on Proj.W-21-1 and W-21-2,
W-22-1,and W-22-2.Job 4.14R.29pp.
71
..
Reynolds,H.V.and J.L.Hechtel.1985.Population
structure,reproductive biology,and movement patterns of
grizzly bears in the northcentral Alaska Range.Fed.Aid
in Wildl.Rest.Prog.Rep.on Proj.W-22-2.Job 4.16R.
29pp.
Reynolds,H.V.and G.W.Garner.In press.Patterns of
grizzly predation on caribou in northern Alaska.Int.
Conf.Bear Res.and Manage.7:(1986).
Reynolds,P.E.,H.V.Reynolds and E.H.Follmann.In press.
Effects of seismic surveys on denning grizzly bears in
northern Alaska.Intl.Conf.Bear Res.and Manage.
6:(1986)•
Schoen,J.W.,J ..W.Lentfer,and L.Beier.In press.
Differential distribution of brown bears on Admiralty
Island,Southeast Alaska:A preliminary assessment.
Int.Conf.Bear Res.and Manage.6:(1983).
Schoen,J.W.,L.R.Beier,and J.W.Lentfer.Denning
ecology of coastal brown bears on Admira1ity and
Chichagof Islands,Southeast Alaska.Int.Conf.Bear
Res.and Manage.7:In press.
SchMartz,C.C.,A.W.Franzmann,and D.C.Johnson.1982.
Black bear predation on moose.Fed.Aid in Wi1d1 •
Rest.Prog.Rep.on Proj~W-21-2.Job 17.3R.44pp.
Schwartz,C.C.,A.W.Franzmann,and D.C.Johnson.1983a~
Black bear predation on moose (bear ecology studies).-
Fed.Aid in Wi1d1.Rest.Final Rep.on Proj.W-17-10,
W-17-11,W-21-1,W-21-2,"and W-22-1.Job 17.3R.135pp.
Schwartz,C.C.,A.W.Franzmann,and D.C.Johnson.1983b.
Population ecology of the Kenai Peninsula black b~ar.
Fed.Aid in Wi1d1.Rest.Prog.Rep.on Proj.W-22-2.
Job 17.5R.27pp.
Schwartz,C.C.,S.D.Miller,and A.W.Franzmann.In press.
A comparison of denning ecology of three black bear
populations in Alaska.Int1.Conf.Bear Res.and Manage.
7:(1986,see Appendix 3 of this report).
Simpson,K.1986.Impacts of "a hydro-electric reservoir on
populations of caribou and grizzly bear in southern
British Columbia.Keystone Bio-Research Report for the
B.C.Ministry of Environment.Mimeo.40pp.
Smith,R.B.and L.J.Van Dae1e.1985.Terror Lake
Hydroelectric Project,Report on brown bear studies,
1984.Alaska Dep.of Fish and Game.Mimeo report to the
Alaska Power Authority.95pp.
72
___."'1Ill,~~""'l@1Pf"'w"m__~~--"""~~-~----_-------------
Smith,R.B.and L.J.Van Daele.1986.Terror Lake
Hydroelectric Project,Report on brown bear studies,
1985.Alaska Dept.of Fish and Game.Mimeo report to the
Alaska Power Authority.39pp.
Smith,P.A.1984.Kenai black bears and cranberries:Bear
food habits and densities.MS Thesis,Univ.of Alaska,
Fairbanks.l44pp.
Spraker,T.H.,W.B.Ballard,and S.D.Miller.1981.Game
Management Unit 13 Brown Bear Studies.Final Rep.Fed.
Aid in Wildl.Rest.Proj.W-17-l0,W-17-ll,and W-2l-l.
Job 4.l3R.57pp.
Strathearn,S.M.,J.S.Lotimer,and G.B.Kolenosky.1984.
An expanding break-away radio collar for black bear.J.
Wildl.Manage.48(3):939-942.
Tietje,W.D.,B.o.Pelchat,and R.L.Ruff.1986.
Cannibalism of denned black bears.J.Mammalogy
67 (4):762-766.
Weaver,J.,R.Escano,D.Mattson,T.Puchlerz,and D.
Despain.1985.A cumulative effects model for grizzly
bears in the Yellowstone ecosystem.Pages 234-246 in
Proceedings-Grizzly ~ear Habitat Symposium,Missoula,
Montana,April~May,1985,USDA,Forest Service
Intermountain Research Station General Tech.Report
INT-207.252pp.
Winn,D.S.and K.R.Barber.1985.Cartographic modeling:
A~ethod of cumulative effects appraisal.Pages 247-252
in Proceedings-Grizzly Bear Habitat Symposium,Missoula,
Montana,April-May,1985,USDA,Forest Service
Intermountain Research Station General Tech.Report
INT-207.252pp.
Young,B.F.nd R.L.Ruff.1982.Population dynamics and
movements of black bears in east central Alberta.J.
Wildl.Manage.46(4):845-860.
Young,D.L.1985.Cumulative effects analysis of grizzly
bear habitat on the Lewis and Clark National Forest.
Pages 217-221 in Proceedings-Grizzly Bear Habitat
Symposium,Missoula,Montana,April-May,1985,USDA,
Forest Service Intermountain Research Station General
Tech.Report INT-207.252pp.
73
Appendix 1.
A COMPARISON OF DENNING ECOLOGY OF THREE BLACK BEAR
POPULATIONS IN ALASKA
Char-les C.Schwartz,Alaska Department of Fish and Game,Box
3150,Soldotna,AK,99669.
Sterling D.Miller,Alaska Department of Fish and Game,333
Raspberry Road,Anchorage,99503.
Albert W.Franzmann,Alaska Department of Fish and Game,Box
3150,Soldotna,AK,99669.
Abstract:Between 1978-1985,denning ecology of the black
bea.r (Ursus americanus)was studied in the Kenai Peninsula,
the~Susi tna River basin,and Prince William Sound,Alaska.
All these populations are near the northern extension of their
range.In different years the mean number of days spent in
dens varied from 189 to 233 days;the maximum time spent in a
den by an .individual bear was 247 days.Timing of emergence
in the spring and entrance in the fall appeared most related
to time of year,and secondly,to weather,snow accumulation
and melt,and food availability.Bears in the more severe
cli.mate along the Susi tna .River entered dens almost 2 weeks
earlier and emerged later than bears on the warmer Kenai
Peninsula.Chronology of denning di ffered between pregnant
females and other sex and age groups ,but overlap occurred
wit:h all age and sex groups.Site selection,vegetation type,
and den type (cave,tree,excavated)varied between areas and
was related to winter weather conditions (rain vs.snow),soil
type (deep vs.shallow and rocky),and topography of the areas
(mountains vs.flats).Den morphometry was compared between
arE~as.Denning chronology was compared with that of other
black bear populations in North America and with current
thE~'ory on why bears den.
INT.CONF.BEAR RES.and MANAGE.7:000-000.'
74
----~'--_·_---------------------~----'1"'1-------~~-------.....--------
Appendix 2.
BLACK AND BROWN BEAR DENSITY ESTIMATES USING MODIFIED
CAPTURE-RECAPTURE TECHNIQUES IN ALASKA
Sterling D.Miller,Alaska Department of Fish and Game,333
Raspberry Rd.,Anchorage,AK.99518-1599.
Earl F.Becker,Alaska Department of Fish and Game,333
Raspberry Rd.,Anchorage,AK.99518-1599.
Warren B.Ballard,Alaska Department of Fish and Game,P.O.
Box 1148 Nome,AK.99762-1148.
Abstract:Population density estimates were obtained for
sympatric black bear (Ursus americanus)and brown bear (0.
arctos)populations inhabiting a search area of 1,325 km 2 in
south-central Alaska.Standard,capture-recapture population
estimation techniques were modified to correct for lack of
geographic closure based on daily locations of radio-marked
animals over a 7-day period.Calculated density estimates
were based on available habitat in the search area (1,317 km 2
for brown bears'and 531 km 2 for black bears).Calculated
density was 2.79 brown bears/100 km 2 (2.52-3.30 bears/100 km 2 )
and 8.97 black bears/100 km 2 (7.74-10.21 bears/100 km 2 ).
Calculated 95%confidence intervals were +13.7%of the
estimate for black bears and 9.9%to +18.5%of the estimate
for brown bears.Probabilities of capture based on calculated'
sightability indices were not equal in some ins'tances,so
confidence intervals should be interpreted cautiously.
Increasing the number of marked bears during the study period
resulted in altered brown bear estimates and smaller
confidence intervals,but because closure was a relatively
good assumption for black bears in our study area,had little
effect on black bear estimates or confidence intervals.When
telemetry data were used to correct input values for lack of
geographic closure,the Schnabel estimator and the mean of 7
separate daily estimates both yielded estimates close to our
results.We recommend our technique for additional testing as
a method to objectively compare bear densities between
different areas or between different times.These procedures
may also be appropriate for use with other species.
INT.CONF.BEAR RES.and MANAGE.7:000-DOO.
75
Appendix 3.
CHARACTERISTICS OF NONSPORT BROWN BEAR DEATHS IN ALASKA
Sterling D.Miller,Alaska Department of Fish and Game,333
Raspberry Rd.,Anchorage,AK 99518-1599.
Mark A.Chihu1y,Alaska Department of Fish and Game,333
Raspberry Rd.,Anchorage,AK 99518-1599.
Abstract:The sex,age,and other characteristics of 668
bro'wn bears (Ursus arctos)killed in nons port circumstances in
Alaska during the period 1970-85 were examined.These data
represent an unknown fraction of total nonsport kills as not
all kills were reported.Both sport harvests and nonsport
kills are increasing in Alaska.Nonsport harvests averaged
5.1 %of total sport and nonsport.kills.Areas with the
highest human density had the highest ratio of nonsport to
sport harvests.Nonsport harvests are most common during
periods when most people are in remote areas to hunt or fish.
Males predominate in the nonsport kills of younger bears and
females in the nonsport kills of older bears.Regulations and
other factors make adult male bears more vulnerable to sport
hunters than adult female bears.Partially as a'result,
nonsport kills contain more adult females than sport kills.
An analysis based on affidavits from 22-4 persons killing bears
revealed ·that bears w~re shot to avoid perceived danger (72%),
to protect property (21%),and to eliminate nuisances (7%).
INT.CONF.BEAR RES.and MANAGE.7:000-000.
76
Appendix 4.
Abstract of "Differentiation of Brown and Black Bear Scats:
An Evaluation of Bile Acid Detection by Thin Layer Chromato-
graphy"by Enid Goodwin,ADF&G (full text of report in
Appendix 1 of Miller 1984).
SUMMARY:A thin-layer chromatographic technique (TLC)for
separation and detection of fecal bile acids was evaluated for
use in differentiation of black bear scats from brown bear
scats.Fecal samples from 22 known black bears and 19 known
brown bears were tested.Bile samples from 4 black bears and
3 brown bears were also examined using TLC.Statistical
analysis of Rf values obtained from the fecal samples
indicated no significant difference between brown bear and
black bear chromatograms.The numbers of bile samples were
too small for statistical analysis,but indications of
possible differences were noted.Variations among individuals
within a specie~were documented,as were significant
variations within individuals.Variations were hypothesized
to be primarily caused by dietary influences on bile acid
production mechanisms.Pigment removal methods were also
evaluated.Alkaline distilled water was found to be effective
in removing berry pigments,while hexane was a preferred
solvent for removal of other types of plant pigments.
77
APPENDIX 5
Dat'~:1986
Susitna Hydroelectric Project Big Game Study
Data Component Descriptions and Coding Schemes
Black and Brown Bears
Alpha codes are left-justified,numeric codes are
right-justified.
1-Species:1 =moose
2 =sheep
3 =caribou
4 brown bear
5 =wolf
6 =black bear
7 =goat
8 =coyote
9 =wolverine
3-8.Individual ID:An integer number of up to six digits which will be
unique for the i?dividual animal·it represents within the project.
For Su-Hydro bears it is the tattoo number.If a bear is unmarked,
10=99.
9-12.Age (in years,no decimal).
13.Age code A (decimal age).
14.Sex code:M =Male,F =Female,blank =unknown.
15-17 .
18-23.
24-27.
Observation number:An integer number up to three digits which
uniquely identifies the sighting of an individual animal.The
value must be right-justified.
Date:Two-digit integer for each:month,day,and year,
respectively,each right-justified.
Time:Military time (by 24-hour clock),right-justified.
28.Visual:Was the individual actually sighted,or located only
by radio?
78
--_.,-_..._--------'----------------------
Actually sighted Radio located
H
(31/16 11 on
able to map with a high
degree of accuracy
1:63,360)
B =located only within
a broad range
(31/8"on 1:63,360)
M able to map with a moderate I =located within an
degree of accuracy intermediate range
L
e1/8"·on
able to map only to a low
degree of accuracy
1:63,360)
C =located within a
close range
Y =yes;level of mapping
accuracy not recorded
29.Activity:
N =no;not sighted,with
no record of accuracy
of radio relocation
R
S
T =
W=
X =
Y =
Z
A =
B =
D =
E
F =
H=
I =
J =
M
N =
agonistic
bedded
at den site
digging
feeding
hiding
in den
den of unmarked bear
mating
nursing
o other
P =apparent den
not seen)
running
standing
treed
walking
swimming
fishing
sitting
site (bear
42-45.
46.
Elevation:The elevation of the terrain upon which the animal
was sighted,expressed in feet;up to ·four digits.
Slope:A code for the range of slope of the terrain upon which
the animal was sighted.
F
G =
M =
S
flat (0°-10°)
gentle (11°-30°)
moderate (31°-60 0
)
steep (61 0
-90°)
R =w/in riverbank
48-49.Aspect:A code for the general direction of exposure of the
terrain upon which the animal was sighted:N,NW,E,SE,S,
SW,W,NW,or
F =flat
R ridgetop
G gully
the code is left-justified.
79
55-56.Number of young/age class:
specific age class,for as
sighted with (and directly
dual.Right-justified.
a young-of-the-year
1 yearlings
2 =2-year-olds
The number of young within a
many as two different age classes,
associated with)the reported indivi-
57-.58.
59-62.
63-65.
66-68.
69-71.
72.
74.
86.
Same as 55-56,used if more than 1 age class of young is·with
bear.
Group size:The total number of individuals (of the same
species)sighted within the group associated with the reported
individual.Always will be at least 1 unless bear not seen (in
this case leave,blank)•
Number of adult males:The total number of adult males (of the
same species)within the group sighted in association with the
reported individual.
Number of adult females:The total number of adult females (of
the same species)within the group sighted in association wit~
the reported individual.
Number of young:The total number of offspring (of the same
species)within the group sighted "in association with the
reported individual.
Other species:If another species with the individual,enter
the code for that species (see #1).
Status:
A =probably dead or shed
B =capture site of new bear or bear w/o functioning
transmitter
C =see comment (use for lIspecialll points)
D =known nonhunter mortality
F =probably subsequent collar failure
H =known hunter kill subsequently
S =known shed collar
U =uncollared,but marked bear
Species:A code for the species of a killed animal on which
the recorded predator was found.
B beaver
C =caribou
F =fish
H snowshoe
M =moose
80
S =small mammal
U =unidentified
a =other
87.Age class:A code for the estimated age of the prey.
o young-of-the-year
1 yearling
2 =2-year-old
3 =adult
4 =unknown
88.Sex:Sex of the prey animal.
M =Male
F =Eemale
U -Unknown
89.Killed by:A code for the species which actually killed the
prey,or how it was killed.
U =unknown W wolf
B =black bear V =wolverine
G =grizzly A =accidental
S =winter kill a =other
90.Freshness:
F =fresh
a old
Percent Consumed:lhe approximate percent of the prey that has
been consumed.
95-100.Habitat:
SPRUCE SHRUBLANDS TUNDRA
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Sparse-TALL
Mod.-TALL
Dense-TALL(rip.)
Sparse-MEDIUM
Mod.-MEDIUM
Dense-MEDIUM
Sparse-LOW
Sparse-LOW
Dense-LOW
10.Riparian willow
11.Upland willow
12.Willow/birch
16.Alder
OTHER
15.Marsh
17.Rock/ice/snow
22.Gravel bar
81
18.Sedge-grass
19.Alpine herbaceous
20.Shrub (d.birch)
21.Mat &Cushion
OTHER FOREST
13.Aspen
14.Ripar.hardwood
23.Mixed birch/spruce
24.Birch (trees)
B
C =
D =
E =
F =
G =
H =
I
J =
K =
L
M =
0
101.Movement:codes for suspected direction of bear movements,
inferred after the fact,based on best guess.
N =No specialized movements suspected
In seasonal activity area --caribou calving grounds
En route to or from caribou calving grounds
In season activity-area --salmon fishing area
En route to or from salmon fishing area
In seasonal activity area searching for food resources
that are scarce in that year within normal home range
(especially bad berry years)--summer feeding grounds
En route to or from above area
In seasonal activity area --denning behavior outside of
known nondenning range
En route to or from above denning area
In seasonal activity area --generalized early spring lowland
foraging
Suspected dispersal movements
Initial capture site or recapture site of nonradioed bear
At or en route to or from den site within normal home range
Movement outside normal area based on suspected reproductive
activity
102.Reproductive status codes
subsequent sightings.
Inferred after the fact,based on
A With newborn cubs
B =With yearling offspring
C With 2-year-old offspring
D With 3-year-old offspring
E =Presence or absence of offspring unknown-(had them previously
but not subsequently)
F =Probable or known estrous female or breeding male (usually
accompanied by another bear in the case of males)
G =Inactive,unknown or alone (cubs lost or weaned)
H Subadult
M Movement outside normal use based on suspected reproductive
activity
82
____,~_...m_"'__-w----------------""'"I'!--lF""'--'------
SMIL07/SM-la/p.2
I updated 11/86
Table 1.(continued)r Sex
Capture
Alie (years)Ear TagsTattootit.(pounds)Date Comments
(3088)#2 F 6.8 --8/6/81 ----recapture mortality
299#3 F 14.8 --8/6/81 1109/1110 collar replaced,recaptured 5/18/81
(293#2)M (4.8)--8/6/81 1115/1116 collar replaced,recaptured 5/18/83,shot spring '85
(294#2)M 11.8 ---8/6/81 ----recapture mortality
347 M 14.8 500'"8/6/81 (1234/1233)collar shed 9/81,recaptured 6/9/85
(342A#2)M 3.5 250'"5/25/82 1128/1221 collar replaced,died 7/84
(373)M 9.5 450'"6/11/82 -- --
no tattoo,w/G283 (F),collar shed 6/83
282#2 M 6.5 350'"6/11/82 5i9/~recapture of marked bear,shed collar,
recaptured 5/84 &6/86
(379)F (5.5)300'"6/11/82 1595/1585 w/2@C,downstream study,shot 9/85
(380)F 15.5 275'"6/12/82 (153.809)(1588/532)w/2@1,not captured,shot 9/83
381 F 3.5 200'"6/12/82 (151.513)533/1592 alone,recaptured 5/18/84 &6/86
313#3 F 12.5 300'"5/14/83 same w/2@1--
382 M 1.5 66 5/14/83 2135/2134 w/313 and 383,recaptured 5/18/84
(383)F 1.5 53 5/i4/83 (2490/2491)w/313 and 382,died unknown causes
283#3 F 15.5 --5/14/83 same w/cub #3,recaptured 6/86
(003)F 0.5 --5/14/83 (1360/1359)w/283,special cub collar,no tattoo,cub eaten
337#2 F 15.5 --5/14/83 same w/385@2
385 F 2.5 60 .5/14/83 (1695/1694)w/337,breakaway 58 collar,recaptured 6/85,
tags replaced
(312#2)F -13.5 350'"5/14/83 (1299/1300)W/386@2,died 5/16/84
co 386 M 2.5 200'"5/14/83 2146/2141 w/312,breakway 58 collar,dispersed
"..344#2 F 7.5 325'"5/14/83 same w/2@0,not captured
335#2 F 5.5 --5/14/83 same no radio in chopper
335#3 F 5.5 236 5/16/83 same alone,one year added to '81 age based on '83 tooth
388 F 14.5 450'"5/14/83 2478/2477 w/388 and 389@2,recaptured 5/16/84 &6/86
(389)M (2.5)135 5/14/83 2170/2171 w/388 and 390,breakaway 58 collar,died 10/83
390 M 2.5 125'"5/14/83 2148/2147 w/388 and 389,breakaway 58 collar shed
340#2 F 5.5 250*5/15/83 same recaptured 5/17/84,collar replaced 6/85
384 F 12.5 300'"5/15/83 2499/2500 w/391,392,393@2
(391)M 2.5 140'"5/15/83 (2078/2079)w/384 et al.,breakaway 58 collar,sbot 9/84
(392)M 2.5 140'"5/15/83 (2I11/2I10)w/384 et al.,breakaway 48 collar,shot 5/84
393 F 2.5 105 5/15/83 1589/1598 w/384 et al.,breakaway 48 collar
(293#3)M (6.5)439 5/15/83 same --,shot spring '85
(394)F 6.5 250*5/15/83 (1693/1692)w/cub #4,shot 9/84
(004)F 0.5 10 5/15/83 (1358/1357)w/394-cbewed on,no tattoo,died later
(395)F 3.5 175'"5/15/83 (2415/2416)alone,regular 68 collar,sbot 9/4/83
281#3 F 6.5 325'"5/15/83 same w/2@0 (#5 and #6),recollared 5/17/84
(005)M 0.5 8.5 5/15/83 (1350/134)w/28l,expandable cub collar,no tattoo,eaten
(006)F 0.5 8.3 5/15/83 (1346/1345)w/28l,expandable cub collar,no tattoo,eaten
280#3 M 8.5 482 5/16/83 same recaptured 6/85
396 F 13.5 274 5/16/83 1685/1684 w/2@2 (397,398),recaptured 6/86
(397)F (2.5)132 5/16/83 (2493/2492)w/396,recaptured 6/4/85,sbot 9/85
(398)F (2.5)135'"5/16/83 210512TIi4 w/396,shot 6/86
399 M 9.5 600'"5/17/83 2087/2108 recaptured 5/15/84
400 M 20.5 542 5/17/83 2132/2133 recaptured 5/18/84
299#4 F 16.5 275'"5/18/83 same w/3@0,darted in den,recaptured 5/15/84
418 M 0.5 13*5/18/83 1347/1348 w/G299,special cub collar,sbed 10/83,old #7
419 M 0.5 13'"5/18/83 1342/1343 w/G299,special cub collar,old #8
(417)M 0.5 13'"5/18/83 (536/535)w/G299,special cub collar,shed 7/83,old #9
(continued on next pagel
SMIL07/SM-la/p.3
updated 11/86
Table 1.(continued)
Capture
Tattoo Sex Age (years)Wt.(pounds)Date Ear Tags Comments
(279#2)M 12.5 700*5/18/83 1653/1100 recapture,previous shed collar,recaptured 5/16/84
315#2 F 5.5 203 5/18/85 15288 same estrous,alone,just marked previously
403 F 6.5 275*5/18/83 1564/1565 w/2@0,not captured,downstream
407 F 4.5 220*5/19/83 2401/1543 alone,downstream,recaptured 6/85
299#5 F 17.5 308 5/15/84 same w/3@1,417-419
(417#2)M 1.5 94 5/15/84 sqme w/G299 &siblings,small implant,shot 5/86
418#2 M 1.5 86 5/15/84 12081 same w/G299 &siblings,large implant
419#2 M 1.5 84 5/15/84 12076 same w/G299 &siblings,small implant
399#2 M 10.5 662 5/15/84 same alone
388#2 F 15.5 400*5/16/84 same w/2c,replaced 6/86
(16)M 0.5 --5/16/84 (1389/1390)w/G388,capture-induced separation,died/shed 6/84
(17)F 0.5 00 5/16/84 (40/50)w/G388,capture induced separation,died 5/84
312#3 F 14.5 300*5/16/84 same w/3c,old and new radio failures,capture,mortality
,on 5/17/84
(279#3)M 13.5 800*5/16/84 same large implant,shot 9/84
281#4 F 7.5 350*5/17/84 same w/2c
(21)M 0.5 14 5/17/84 1386/1383 w/G281,drowned?
(22)M 0.5 14 5/17/84 (1385/1384)w/G281,killed by BrB
337#3 F 16.5 325 5/17/84 same w/2c,recaptured 6/85
08 F 0.5 12 5/17/84 1338/1337 w/337
09 F 0.5 12 5/17/84 1340/1339 w/337
co 340#3 F 6.5 375*5/17184 same w/2c,recaptured 6/85
U1 23 ?0.5 17 5/17/84 45/28 w/340,
24 ?0.5 14 5/17/84 1706 44/27 w/340
420 F 19.5 350*5/17/84 2'447/2057 w/2@1,one is 421
421 M 1.5 78 5/17/84 1644/2086 w/420 &uncaptured sibling,large implant,
female sibling,437,captured 6/85
422 M 4.5 205 5/18/84 2136/2137 alone near camp
381#2 F 5.5 263 5/18/84 same alone,color replaced on 6/86
400#2 M 21.5 600*5/18/84 same alone
382#2 M 2.5 148 5/18/84 same w/G3l3,old implant =8.110,breakaway,
picked up 6/86
423 F 21.5 300*5/18/84 none w/4c,drug problem,recaptured 6/86
25 M 0.5 7 5/18/84 39/32 smallest cub w/G423
F 0.5 --5/18/84 49/48 other sibling w/G413 not marked or sexed
425 F 8.5*--6/01/84 2486/2413 w/282 M,recaptured 6/86,3 teeth misplaced
282#3 M 8.5 --6/01/84 same w/425,recapture of shed collar,recaptured 6/86
342#3 M 5.6 --7/28/84 --capture mortality
(427)M (3.5)195 6/01/85 (1697/2113)rot-away canva~spacer used,shot 9/19
(398#2)F (4.5)200*6/01/85 same 396's offspring @2 in 1983,shot 6/86
314#2 F 7.5 285*6/01/85 same w/1@1 2-yr-old w/G313 on 5/80;had litter at age 6
(429)F (1.5*)104 6/01/85 (1514/1518)w/G3l4 breakaway collar,shot 9/86
341#2 F 10.5 --6/03/85 2174/1372 old collar failed prematurely added new tags to old
214#2 M 9.5 600*6/03/85 (1071/1649)previously shed collar,recaptured 5/86
437 F 2.5 175*6/03/85 .2082/2083 w/G421,probably sibling,rot-away collar
309/440 'M 17.5 700*6/04/85 2163/1523 old collar shed,tattoo 440 in upper left,break-away
(442)M (13.5)750*6/04/85 (1677/2117)"Harley"yellow flag in rt.ear,shot 9/86,eartags gone
443 'M A 400*6/04/85 2172/--red flag in right,blond
(397#2)F (4.5)300*.6/04/85 (1534/1597)estrous w/443,was w/G396 in 1983@2,shot 9/85
447 F 7.5 400*6/05/85 2430/2429 --,breakaway
347#2 M 18.5 650*6/09/85 2184/2181 orange flags in ears,old eartags gone
(continued on next page)
Sex
Capture
Tattoo Age (years)Nt.(pounds)Date Ear Tags Comments
(339/450 M (4.5)150*6/09/85 (1221/2130)originally captured in 1981 @Ow/G283,sexed as F,
#2)switched w/sex of sibling?Tattoos:450,shot 9/85
385#2 F 4.5 130*6/09/85 1507/1592 green flag on visual drop-off,old ear tags replaced
407#2 F 6.5 200*6/09/85 same alone drop-off feature added to collar
337#4 F 17.5 200*6/09/85 same·w/2@1--these have no collars
273 F 9.5 200*6/09/85 same age:3 in 1979,transported,returned,old collar
replaced
340#3 F 17.5 250*6/10/85 same replaced collar,w/2@1
280#4 M 10.5 400*6/10/85 same collar removed
388 #3 F 17.5 425*6/5/86 same w/2@1,not captured,collar replaced
335 #4 F 8.5 300*6/5/86 same/2481 w/l@2:G466,collar replaced
466 F 2.5 150*6/5/86 2097/2056 w/mother-335
396 #2 F 16.5 300*6/6/86 same estrous,collar replaced
381 #3 F 7.5 225*6/6/86 -'-/same w/2@1,not captured,collar replaced
214 #3 M 10.5 600*6/6/86 none/2062 collar removed
283 #4 F 18.5 300*6/6/86 same w/2@1,not captured,collar replaced
423 #2 F 22.5 275*6/6/86 1540/1541 w/3@2,not captured,collar replaced
425 #2 F A 250*6/6/86 same w2@1,not captured,last tooth pulled,color replaced
282 #4 M 10.5 550*6/6/86 2129/same alone,collar removed,neck bad
1
00
0'1
Table 1.(continued)
*Weight estimated,( )indicates shed collar or dead bear;.#recapture;-collar or mark replaced subsequently;'
last tattoo :425;last cub :#25.
SMIL07/SM-l/p.4
updated 11/86
SMIL01/SM-1a/p.5
updated 11/86
Table 2.Black bears captured in Susitna Dam Studies,as of Nov.1986
Capture
Tattoo Sex Age (years)~n.(pounds)_Date Ear Tags Comments
00
-J
(287)
(288)
289
(290)
(291)
(296)
(300)
(301)
(302)
(303)
(304)
(305)
(307)
310
(316)
317
(318)
(319)
(320)
321
(322)
(323)
(324)
(325)
(326)
(327)
328
(303#2)
329
318#2
(330)
(342B)
(343)
(346)
302#2
(290#2)
(304#2)
(325#2)
(303#2)
(287#2)
(348)
349
329#2
289#2
350
351
M
F
F
F
M
M
M
F
M
M
M
M
M
M
F
F
F
M
M
F
M
M
M
F
F
F
F
M
F
F
M
M
M
M
M
F
M
F
M
M
M
F
F
F
M
M
10.5
10.5
9.5
8.5
(3.5)
(l0.5)
(7.5)
(7.5)
8.5
(8.5)
10.5
(9.5)
2.5
2.5
(12.5)
7.8
5.8
3.8
(4.8)
10.8,
4.8
2.8
(5.8)
11.8
(5.8)
(5.8)
6.8
(8.8)
1.3
6.3
1.3
(5.5)
(5.5)
(9.5)
9.5,
9.8
11.8
12.8
(9.8)
11.8
9.8
4.8
2.3
11.3
1.3
1.3
225*
125*
130*
103
73
227
274
115
287
217
235
217
105
85
150*
133
126
174
200*
175*
154
122
190
164
125
118
150
260
15*
31
165
184
175*
300*
160+*
150*
250*
200*
300*
170*
29
112
14
16
5/1/80
5/1/80
5/2/80
5/2/80
5/2/80
5/3/80
5/4/80
5/4/80
5/4/80
5/4/80
5/4/80
5/5/80
5/5/80
5/6/80
5/7/80
8/18/80
8/18/80
8/18/80
8/18/80
8/18/80
8/19/80
8/18/80
8/19/80
8/18/80
8/19/80
8/19/80
8!i9/80
8/19/80
3/23/81
3/25/81
3/25/81
5/7/81
5/7/81
5/9/81
5/9/81
8/6/81
8/6/81
8/6/81
8/7/81
8/7/81
8/6/81
8/6/81
4/1/82
4/1/82
4/1/82
4/1/82
1083/1084
1095/1083
1103/1104
,1306/1305
1043/1044
1106/1105
(1055/1056)
~/1316
1123/1124
(1122/1121)
----
1195/1196
T046/1045
1194/1193
1243/1244
1087/1088
1200/1199
(1252/1251)
1191/1192
1247/1248
1246/1245
1266/1265
same
1276/1275
1206/1205
(1214/1213)
(1226/1184)
1257/1105
'1306/1279
1286/1316
1191/1192
(1055/1056)
(1083/1084)
1131/1132
1326/1325
same
same
514/513
516/515
shot on 9/8/82
w/2 ylgs,turgid,collar shed by 8/27/80
w/2 ylgs,turgid,had 3 cubs in 1981,see 4/82 recapture
w/2 ylgs,turgid,see 8/6/81 recapture
post-capture mortality
capture mortality
post-capture mortality
w/l ylg.,turgid,had 2 cubs in 1981,see 3/83 recapture,
shot 9/84
collar shed by 8/4/80,recaptured 5/9/81
shot 9/8/83
collar shed in 1982
shot by hunter 8/30/80
shot by hunter on 5/17/81
recaptured 6/85
w/l newborn &1 ylg.shot by hunter 8/28/80
w/2 cubs,see 3/83 recapture
w/1 cub,immobilized in den 3/81, 3/83,and 5/85
recaptures,shed 7/83
died summer 1981
shot by hunter 9/9/80
had 2 cubs in 1981,recaptured 5/15/83
W/324,collar shed in 80/81 den,see 5/26/82 recapture,
died 1982
see 3/83 recapture,shot 9/83
w/322,see 3/83 recapture,shot 9/84
collar shed in 80/81 den,see 8/6/81 recapture
w/2 cubs,shot by hunter 8/28/80
w/2 cubs,immobilized in den 3/81, 3/83,died 7/83
collar shed 81/82 den,recaptured 5/16/84
recapture,shot 9/8/83
w/327 and sibling,w/heavy collar,see 4/82 &3/83
recaptures
in den
w/318,died summer 1981
cinnamon color,shot on 9/15/81
alone,Devil Mountain,recaptured 5/16/83,died fall 1984
alone,see 3/83 recapture,died 6/84
alone,old collar previously shed
neck infected,collar not replaced
collar replaced,shed 6/82
second collar shed in 81/82 den
collar replaced,shot 9/8/83
collar replaced,shot on 9/8/82
alone,shot on 9/82
alone,see 3/83 recapture,shed 7/83,recaptured 5/16/84
recapture in den,see 3/83 recapture
recapture in den w/350 and 351
capture in den ,
capture in den,recaptured 6/4/85
(cont inuedC:ill next page)
,~
SMILOI/SM-la/p.6
updated 11/86
Table 2.(continued)
Capture
Tattoo Sex Age (years)Nt.(pounds)Date Ear Tags Comments
(352)M 2.5 100*5/26/82 --capture mortality
(353)M 1.5 29 5/26/82 --capture mortality of B30l 1s yearling
354 F 5.5 150*5/26/82 517/1600 w/2 cubs,recaptured 5/18/84
355 F 0.5 4*5/26/82 518/519.w/354,no tattoo
356 M 0.5 4*5/26/82 520/521 w/354,no tattoo
(357)M 4.5 113 5/26/82 501/1651 died winter 82/83
(322#2)M (6.5)90*5/27/82 1662/525 recapture,previous shed collar,died summer 182
(358)F (2.5)60*5/27/82 502/1656 recaptured 5/15/84,died 8/84
359 M 4.5 118 5/27/82 512/1655 recaptured 5/15/84
(360)M 7.5 250*5/27/82 511/1657 ----,collar shed 6/84
361 F 7.5 175*5/27/82 522/1596 see 3/83 recapture
362 F 2.5*40*5/27/82 503/504 no tattoo
363 F 4.5 120*5/27/82 505/1593
364 F 9.5 170*5/27/82 521/1591 missing since Sept.182,recaptured 5/18/84
(365)M 5.5 100*5/28/82 523/1626 downstream study,see 3/83 recapture-collar loosened,
died 9/83
(366)M 6.5 200*5/28/82 538/1627 downstream study,.shot on 8/5/82
(367)F 4.5 100*5/28/82 (524/1579)downstream study,shot,see below -4/16/83
recapture
(368)F 3.5 110*5/28/82 --capture mortality,downstream study
369 F 4.5 90*5/28/82 527/1578 downstream study -age based on '83 tooth,recaptured
00 4/83,4/84 tag shed 7/84 --
00 370 F 7.5 220*5/28/82 528/1577 downstream study,disappeared 5/83 (shot?)
(371)M 2.5 150*5/28/82 --capture mortality,downstream study
372 F 9.5 135*5/28/82 537/1576 downstream study,disappeared 8/83 (shot?)
(374)F 7.5 125*6/11/82 (530/1584)W/l@l,downstream study,recaptured 5/19/83,shot 9/83,
aged +1 ('83)
(375)F (9.5)160*6/11/82 (507/1630)w/3@1,downstream study,recaptured 5/19/83,age changed
(+4),shot 5/85
376 F 6.5 125*6/11/82 527/1587 w/l@l,downstream study,see 9/2/82 recapture
377 F 4.5 126 6/11/82 509/1659 ·downstream study,recaptured 5/19/83,age changed (-1)
378 F 6.5 175*6/11/82 510/1628 downstream study
376#2 F 6.7 160*9/2/82 530/1584 recapture,slough 8B,snare
(301#2)F (10.3)135 3/20/83 same w/2@0,recapture in den,collar shed 7/83,shot 9/84
317#2 F 10.3 --3/23/83 1547/1196 .w/2@0,recapture in den
(318#3)F 8.3 --3/23/83 same w/2@0,recapture in den,shed 7/83
(323#2)M (5.3)--3/21/83 (1696/1650)recapture in den,Mort Mason shot (?)9/83
(324#2)M 8.3 --3/22/83 (1661/1251)recapture in den,shot 9/84
329#3 F 3.3 56 3/22/83 same recapture in den,old collar loosened
(327#2)F 8.3 --3/23/83 same w/2@0,recapture in den,died summer 1983
(346#2)M 11.3 --3/21/83 same recapture in den,died 6/84
(349#2)F 6.3 --3/22/83 sqme w/2@0,recapture in den,shed 7/83
361#2 F 8.3 --3/21/83 same w/4@0,recapture in den,recaptured 4/84,2/85
(365#2)M 6.3 --3/23/83 same.recapture in den,collar loosened,died 9/83
(379)F 9.3 3/24/83 none w/3@O,captured in den #19,died 7/83
369#2 F 5.3 --4/14/83 same collar loosened in den,no cubs,recaptured 4/84
372#2 F 10.3 --4/15/83 same w/3@O,collar loosened in den
376#3 F 6.3 --4/16/83 same w/3@O,collar okay in den
370#2 F 8.3 --4/16/83 same w/2@0,collar loosened in den
(367#2)F 5.3 --4/16/83 same collar loosened in den,no cubs,shot July 1983
378#2 F 7.3 --4/16/83 same w/2@0 (not sexed or weighed),collar okay in den
(387)M (4.5)175*5/14/83 (2126/2127)--shot 9/85
(contlnued on next page)
Table 2.(continued)
SMILOl/SM-1a/p.7
updated 11/86
Tattoo
Capture
Sex AJl~(yea!s)Wt.(pounds)Date Ear Tags Comments
OJ
'-0
321#2
(343#2)
(401)
402
375#2
(374#2)
010
011
012
377#2
(404)
013
(405)
014
015
406
408
409
(410)
411
363#2
361#3
412#2
413#2
414#2
(360#2)
329#4
289#3
415
369#3
(358#2)
359#2
302#3
416
349#2
328#2
364#2
354#2
361#4
F
M
M
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
M
F
F
F
F
M
M
F
M
F
F
M
F
F
F
F
M
F
F
M
M
M
F
F
F
F
F
13.5
(7.5)
(3.5)
10.5
10.5
8.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
5.5
11.5
0.5
(17.5)
0.5
0.5
11.5
3.5
5.5
7.5
8.5
6.3
0.3
0.3
9.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
9.3
4.3
13.3
1.3
6.3
0.3
0.3
(4.5)
6.5
12.5
9.5
7.5
10.5
11.5
7.5
10.0
115
225*
96
130
120*
135*
10
180*
6.5
6.0
125*
160*
90*
120*
130*
6.0
6.8
30*
30*
19.5
75*
23.5
4.0
3.8
70
.131
350*
230*
72
110
108
108
140*
5/15/83
5/16/83
5/18/83
5/18/83
5/19/83
5/19/83
5/19/83
5/19/83
5/19/83
.5/19/83
5/19/83
5/19/83
5/19/83
5/19/83
5/19/83
5/19/83
5/19/83
5/19/83
5/19/83
5/19/83
4/6/84
4/6/84
4/6/84
4/6/84
4/6/84
4/6/84
4/6/84
4/7/84
4/7/84
4/7/84
4/7/84
4/8/84
4/8/84
4/8/84
5/15/84
5/15/84
5/15/84
5/15/84
5/16/84
5/16/84
5/18/84
5/18/84
2/25/85
same
same
(2103/2102)
2373/2372
same
(same)
1351/1352
1354/1353
1356/1355
same
2449/2450
2449/2450
(2418/2417)
1364/1366
1365/1366
2444/2445
2119/2120
1527/1526
(I 536/153 7 j
1548/1549
same
12/20
11/24
same
1678/2122
2476/2428
2439/2432
same
same
same
1582/1590
same
3/4
22/6
same
same
same
2064/2054
1326/1325
1246/1245
1591/526
1600/517
same
\cont inuea on nextpage)
had cubs (n=?),not captured
--died fall 1984
suspected shot,collar in lake by hunter's camp
W/3@l,not captured,downstream study
w/1@O,collar loosened,age changed +4 ('83 tooth),.
shot 5/85
w/3@O,all captured,old collar loosened,shot 9/83,
aged +1
w/374,no tattoo
w/374,no tattoo
w/3 74,rio tattoo
alone,collar replaced,neck infected,age changed -
1 ('83 tooth)
w/l@O,captured,downstream study,recaptured 3/85,
shot spring 1985
no tattoo,w/404,downstream study
W/2@O,both captured,downstream study.
w/405,downstream study,no tattoo
w/405,downstream study,no tattoo
W/2@O,not captured,downstream study
alone,Downstream study
alone,downstream study
w/2@0,not captured,downstream study,shot 7/19/83
w/2@1,not captured,downstream study
w/2@O,recaptured in den,replaced collar
w/363 in den,neck =190mm
w/363 in den,neck =192mm
·w/3@1,recaptured in den,collar good fit,replaced 2/85
w/361 in den,neck =285mm,25+lbs
w/36l in den,neck =286mm,25+lbs
w/361 in den,neck =263mm
recaptured in den,replaced collar,shed 6/84
recaptured in den #73,alone
W/1@l,recaptured in den,collar replaced,
recaptured 3/85
w/289 in den
W/2@O,recaptured in den,replaced collar,
ear tag 1578 found 7/84
w/369 in den
w/369 in den
sex changed,died 8/84
alone,collar replaced
old collar not working
(poor tooth age)
old collar previously shed,recaptured 2/85
old collar preViously shed
old collar not working
with cubs
w/3@2 in den,collar applied loosely
SMIL01/SM-la/p.8
updated 11/86
Table 2.(continued)
Tattoo
Capture
Sex Age (years)Wt.(pound.s;L_____Date Ear Tags Conunents
~o
412#3
413#3
414#3
349#3
001
289#4
328#3
002
003
004
404#2
005
006
007
(426)
428
430
431
310#2
432
434
433
(435)
436
438
439
441
351#2
444
445
(446)
448
318#4
449
451
M
F
F
F
M
F
F
M
M
F
F
M
M
F
M
M
M
F
M
F
F
M
M
M
F
M
F
M
M
M
F
F
F
M
F
2.0
2.0
2.0
8.0
0.0
14.3
11.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
13.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
(2.5)
5.5
9.5
11.5
7.5
6.5
1.5
3.5
(7.5)
2.5*
8.5
2.5*
9.5
4.5
3.5
8.5
5.5
6.5
10.5
6.5
2.5
80*
65*
55*
1.8
5.0
4.1
4.1
4.1*
4.1*
3.5*
75*
175*
285*
116
225*
124
33
68*
200*
40*
130*
40*
195
140
78
250*
99
100
165*
54
2/25/85
2/25/85
2/25/85
2/28/85
2/28/85
3/1/85
3/29/85
3/29/85
3/29/85
3/29/85
3/30/85
3/30/85
3/30/85
3/30/85
6/l/85
6/l/85
6/2/85
6/2/85
6/2/8'5
6/2/85
6/2/85
6/2/85
6/2/85
6/3/85
6/3/85
6/3/85
6/4/85
6/4/85
6/4/85
6/4/85
6/5/885
'6/5/85
6/5/85
6/9/85
6/10/85
same
same
same
same
same
same
same
2109/2167
(2093/2088)
1519/1520
2185/2183
1558/1557
1552/1572
1647/2081
2182/2186
--/2121
1516/1521
--/--
2361/2362
2169/2175
2154/2153
2068/2164
--/--
1544/1533
same
164,0/2188
2408/2484
w/361 in den,applied green visual dropoff
w/361 in den,applied red visual dropoff
w/361 in den,applied white visual dropoff
in den w/at least 2@0,collar loosened 1~
w/349,at least one sibling not handled
w/at ieast 2@0 in den,cubs not handled
w/3@0 in den,loosened collar 1~notches,rubbed
w/B328 and siblings
w/B328 and siblings
w/B328 and siblings
w/3@0 in den,collar fine,died (shot?)spring 1985,
coys dispatched
w/B404 and siblings
w/B404 and siblings
w/B404 and siblings
capture mortality
rot-away canvas spacer
rot-away canvas spacer,pulled off collar 1986
rot-away canvas spacer,
w/ylg.434
w/B432
----,shot 9/85
w/B364-mother?
w/B439 &uncaptured sibling
w/B438-and sibling,dart injured leg
old tags left in too (516/515)
dropoff visual collar
dropoff collar
capture mortality
break-away collar
w/2@1 (not captured),recapture,old collar shed
alone
alone
*Weight or age estimated;.( )shed or replaced collar ,or dead bear;#recapture;subsequently changed;last tattoo used =425;
last cub =25.--
SMILI2/SM-6/p.1
Table 3.Number of observations of radio-marked brown bears (older than 2.0
years)within nested proximity zones of the Watana Impoundment
(den-related activies are not included).
ZONE 1 ZONE 2 ZONE 3 ZONE 4
TIME PERIOD (impoundment)(shore-1 mile)(1-5 miles)(over 5 miles)TOTAL
1.April 1-30·6 1 8 9 24
2.May 1-15 12 8 19 69 108
3.May 16-31 31 27 65 108 231
4.June 1-15 70 67 154 89 380
5.June 16-30 45 35 104 69 253
6.July 1-15 6 8 39 37 90
7.July 16-31 4 14 61 42 121
8.August 1-15 4 11 41 44 100
9.August 16-
March 31 26 22 97 168 313
TOTALS 204 193 588 635 1620·
Area within zone
(km 2 )159.32 327.07 1233.51 --1720
%9.26 19.02 71.72 100.0
Value of Chi-Square test of the null hypothesis
equivalent to expected values based on the are~
ZONE 1 ZONE 2
Period obs.E(x)obs.E(x)
All months 204 91.2 193 187.4
April I-June 30 164 60.4 138 124.0
July I-March 31 40 30.8 55 63.3
*Reject null hypothesis,p.less than 0.10.
**Reject null hypothesis,p less than 0.05.
that use of each zone is
of each zone for:
ZONE 3
obs.E(x)X2 d.f.
588 706.4 160**2
350 467.6 209**2
238 238.8 3.9 2
91
...."....,--_.....................-_......._-_......._-_......-'~---------_......_---_......._--------
SMIL12/SM-6/p.2
Table I~.Number of observations of radio-marked male brown bears (older than
2.0 years)within nested proximity zones of the Watana Impoundment
(den-related activies are not included).
ZONE 1 ZONE 2 ZONE 3 ZONE 4
TIME Pl~RIOD (impoundment)(shore-1 mile)(1-5 miles)(over 5 miles)TOTAL
1.April 1-30 4 0 3 3 10
2.May 1-15 6 3 7 15 31
3.May 16-31 9 13 23 24 69
4.June 1-15 15 27 55 30 127
5.June 16-30 16 12 25 21 74
6.July 1-15 2 3 9 10 24
7.July 16-31 3 3 16 10 32
8.August 1-15 1 2 8 11 22
9.August 16-
Mia-rch 31 8 6 20 60 94
TOTALS 64 69 166 184 483
Area w:i thin zone
(km 2 )159.32 327.07 1233.51 1720
:r.9~26 19.02 71.72 100.0
Value of Chi-Square test of the null hypothesis that use of each zone is
equivalent to expected values based on the area of each zone for:
ZONE 1 ZONE 2 ZONE 3
Period obs.E(x)obs.E(x)obs.E(x)X2 d.f.
All months 64 27.7 69 56.9 166 214.4 61.1**2
April I-June 30 50 20.2 55 41.5 113 156.4 60.4**2
July I·-March 31 14 7.5 14 15.4 53 58.1 6.2**2
*Rleject null hypothesis,R less than 0.10'.
**Rleject null hypothesis,p less than 0.05.
92
____W;~__,_"""""'I...-----------,..;...---~--......-------------------
SMIL12/SM-6/p.3
Table 5.Number of observations of radio-marked female brown bears (older than
2.0 years)within nested proximity zones of the Watana Impoundment
(den-related activies are not included).
ZONE 1 ZONE 2 ZONE 3 ZONE 4
TIME PERIOD (impoundment)(shore-1 mile)(1-5 miles)(over 5 miles)TOTAL
1.April 1-30 2 1 5 6 14
2.May 1-15 6 5 13 42 66
3.May 16--31 22 14 26 67 129
4.June 1-15 53 27 81 47 208
5.June 16-30 24 24 62 36 146
6.July 1-15 4 4 23 20 51
7.July 16-31 -.1 9 37 22 69
8.August 1-15 3 7 25 26 61
9.August 16-"
March 31 21 14 55 86 176
TOTALS 136 105 327 352 920
Area within zone
(km 2 )159.32 327.07 1233.51 1720
%9.26 19.02.71.72 100.0
Value of Chi-Square test of the null hypothesis that use of each zone is
equivalent to expected values based on the area of each zone for:
ZONE 1 ZONE 2 ZONE 3
Period obs.E(x)obs.E(x)obs.E(x)X2 d.f.
All months 136 52.6 105 108.0 327 407.4 148**2
April I-June 30 107 33.8 71 69.4 187 261.8 180**2
July I-March 31 29 18.8 34 38.6 140 145.6 6.3**2
*Reject null hypothesis,p less than 0.10.
**Reject null hypothesis,p less than 0.05.
93
SMIL12/SM-6/p.4
Table 6.Number of observations of radio-marked female brown bears with coy (on
15 June)within nested proximity zones of the Watana Impoundment
(den-related activies are not included).
ZONE 1 ZONE 2 ZONE 3 ZONE 4
TIME PIERIOn (impoundment)(shore-1 mile)(1-5 miles)(over 5 miles)TOTAL
1.April 1-30 0 0 0 1 1
2.Ma:r 1-15 0 0 1 12 13
3.Ma:r 16-31 0 0 16 17 33
4.June 1-15 2 13 18 13 46
5.June 16-30 5 9 17 12 43
6.July 1-15 0 1 7 7 15
7.July 16-31 0 2 8 11 21
8.August 1-15 0 2 8 7 17
9.August 16-
M,arch 31 1 2 22 26 51
TOTALS 8 29 97 106 240
Area within zone
(kJ1Il2 )159.32 327.07 1233.51 1720
:r.9.26 19'.02 .71.72 100.0
Value of Chi-Square te~~of the null hypothesis that the use of each zone is
equivalent to expected values based on the area of each zone for:
ZONE 1 ZONE 2 ZONE 3
Period obs.E(x)obs.E(x)obs.E(x)X2 d.f-
All months 8 12.5 29 25.5 97 96.0 2.1 2
April I-June 30 7 7.5 22 15.4 52 58.1 3.5 2
~!x:......!:-March 31 1 4.9 7 '10.1 45 38.0 3.0 2
*Reject null hypothesis,p less than 0.10.
**Reject null hypothesis,p less than 0.05.
94
---,--,-,--......,.,------------_._.....,.--_........_--------------
SMIL12/SM:"6/p.5
Table 7.Chi-square test of null hypothesis that the proportion of observations
in impoundment proximity zones is the same,for a group of radio-marked
female brown bears,during years when they have cubs-of-the-year ("coy")
as during years when they do not.(Includes both impoundments,lumps years
1980-1984,cub status is on 15 June,and observation associated with
den-related activities are not included).
Females without coy Females with coy
No.of No.of Expected
observations %observations number of
observations*
Proximity Zone 1
(inundation area)59 18.7 8 30.1
Proximity Zone 2
(impoundment shore-58 18.4 32 29.4
line -1 mile)
Proximity Zone 3
(1-5 miles from 198 62.9 120 100.6
impoundment shore-
line)
Totals:315 100%160 160.1
Chi Square,2 d.f =20.2*
*significant,Pless than 0.01
BEARS INCLUDED:
Bear ID years without coy years with coy
283 80,82,83,84 81
299 80, 81,82,84 83
'312 80, 82,83 81,84
313 80,81,83,84 82
335 81,82,83 84
337 82,83 81,84
340 81,82,83 84
341 81 82
344 82 81,83
384 83 84
95
SMIL12/SM-6/p.6
Table 8.Number of observed and expected observations of radio-marked brown
bears (excluding females with coy and bears less than 2.0 years old)
within nested impoundment proximity zones of the Devils Canyon
Impoundment (den-related activities are not included).
ZONE 1 ZONE 2 ZONE 3 ZONE 4
TIME PERIOD (impoundment)(shore-1 mile)(1-5 miles)(over 5 miles)TOTAL
All males 4 17 38 107 166
All females 10 76 165 174 425
All females without
cubs-of-year 10 76 161 158 405
TOTALS
Area w'ithin zone
(km 2 )28.92 164.78 689.01 882.71
%3.28 18.67 78.06 100.0
Value 'of Chi-Square test of the null hypothes~s that the use of each zone is
equivalent to expected values based on the a~ea of each zone for:
ZONE 1 .ZONE 2 ZONE 3
Se~_ou~p,,----,-o-,-b_s-,-._E_(.:.,.x...:.)--'-ob~s.;;....--....,;E;;..(:..;,x.;.:;).;;...ob;;..s;;...;;....---:;;E;;..;(~x;..:.)X=--2 ..;;d;..;,•..::f..:.._
Males and females
wlo cubs (whole 14 10.0
year)
93 57.1 199 238.9 30.8**2
Males (whole
year)
Females w/o cubs
4
10
1.9
8.1
17 11.0
76 46.1
38 46.1
161 192.8
3.0
25.1**
2
2
*Reject null hypothesis,p less than 0.10.
**Reject null hypothesis,p less than 0.05.
96
'--.........---.-----"'1""1---------.......-------r---c--------------------
SMIL07!SM-20!p.16
Table 9.Number of brown bear point locations in each of 4
impoundment proximity zones from 1 April-15 June.
All years lumped and both impoundments lumped,
subadult dispersers and bears from downstream
study area are not included.
Bear
ID Sex Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 All Zones
279 M 1 1 8 26 36
280 M 13 8 23 7 51
282 M 1 2 13 4 20
293 M 1 a 1 7 9
294 M 1 3 1 1 6
382 M 11 12 3 5 31
399 M 2 4 15 11 32
400 M a 1 14 13 28
422 M 0 11 13 1 .25
All Males 30 42 91 75 238
%12.6 17.6 38.2 31.5 100
281 F 25 12 ?1 9 67
283 F 1 5 17 30 53
299 F 29 5 8 9 51
312 F 1 2 5 18 26
313 F 2 9 a 43 54
315 F a 5 6 a 11
331 F 1 2 2 6 11
334 F a a 10 11 21
335 F 0 a 12 32 44
337 F a 0 1 27 28
340 ·F 9 19 28 10 66
341 F 7 5 6 a 18
344 F a 2 9 8 19
379 F 0 a 0 9 9
381 F 5
8 15 4 32
384 F a 1 1 5 7
385 F a 0 0 14 14
388 F a a 12 17 29
394 F 2 6 7 0 15
395 F 2 a 3 1 6
396 F a 1 9 1 11
420 F 0 18 11 0 29
423 F a a 5 a 5
425 F 2 4 7 0 13
308 F 2 5 4 a 11
All Females 88 109 199 254 650
%13.5 16.8 30.6 39.1 100
ALL BEARS 118 151 290 329 888
%13.3 17.0 32.7 37.0 100
97
I SMIL07/SM-l/p.34
updated 9/86
I Table 10.Number of Susitna river crossings by radio-marked brown bears,1980-1984.Includes only years with >5 observations.
I
I Jr.l.n1.LUU
~ID canture (aae)1 All vears Comments
Males
389 1983 (2)- --1(16)-1(16)388's cub,died fall '83
390 1983 (2)- --0(10),-0(10)388's cub,missing 5/84
391 1983(2)---1(14)-1(14)384's cub
392 1983(2)- --0(14)-0(14)384's cub
393 1983(2)---4 (14),-4(14)384's cub,missing **
293 1980(3)2 (8)0(11)1 (12)2 CIO)-5(41)wide-ranging
214 '1980(4)0(11)----0(11)shed collar in '80
399 1983 (4)---4 (18)2 (52)6 (70)active
280 1980 (5)2 (9)10(23)3 (15)8 (15)5 (42)28 (104)active,missing 10/84
\Ll
00 282 1982(6)--6 (15)4 (18)6 (47)16 (80)active
279 1980(9)---3(19)4 (39)7 (58)shot (hunter)9/84
373 1982 (9)--3 (11)- -
3 (11)shed collar
294 1980(10)1(13)0(8)-- -
1 (21)recapture mortality
400 1983 (20)---1(13)6 (41)7 (54)active
342A@ 1981(2)-1 (7)0(15)2 (13)-3(35)capture mortality 7/84
382 1983 (1)- ---6 (58)6 (58)active
422 1984 (A)----10 (47)10 (47)active
Total males 5 (41)11 (49)13 (68)30 CI74)39(326)98 (658)
(continued)
Table 10.(cont'd)
~
SMIL07/SM-1/p.36
updated 9/86
Yr.initial No.of river croSSinas (No.of Observations***)
capture (age)1980 1981 19 2 1983 1984_All years Comments
1983(14)-- -
0+2 (15)
1982(15)--o 2(8)O(ll)y .
1983 (4)---0(16)
1982(5)--1*2 (18 )5Y1 (17)
1983(6)---1*2(18)
1984 (19)
1984 (A)
1984 (A)
i Bear 10
I
388
380
407 @
379 @
403 @
420
423
425
I-'
o
o
Total females
Total both sexes
@ =Downstream bears
Reprod.status
as of 31 May:
y =yr1g
+=2 yr old
8(75)
13 (1l6)
*=cub
34 (321)
45(370)
27 (222)
40(290)
36(350)
66(524)
0*2 (45)0(60)
0(19)
01l7)0(33)
4+1 (11)10(46)
6y1(16)7 (34)
6Y2 (60)6 (60)
2*4(23)2(23)
0(38)0(38)
47(700)152(1,668)
86(1,026)250(2,326)
active
shot
active
active
active
active
active
active
**
***
possible unreported hunter kill,collar failure,or emigration.
excludes observations at den sites.
SMIL09/SM-l!p.44
Table 11.Annual use of Prairie Ck.area by radio-collared brown bears during July and August king salmon
spawning period (1980-1985).Reproductive status reflects July data for females (c=newborn cubs).
Males (age in year
first captured)1980 1981**1982 1983 1984***1985****
214 @ 4 (80)
279 @ 9 (80)
280 @ 5 (80)
282 @ 4 (80)
293 @ 3 (80)
294 @ 10(80)
342a*@ 2 (81)
373 @ 9(82)
382 @ 2 (84)
386 @ 2(83)
389 @ 2(83)
390 @ 2(83)
391 @ 2(83)
392 @ 2(83)
399 @ 9(83)
400 @ 20(83)
422 @ A(84)
427 @ A(85)
no
ND(shed)
no
yes
yes
shed
ND
no
yes
yes
no
ND
no
yes
yes
-(dead)
no
yes
yes
no
yes
no
no
ND(shed)
no
no
no
no
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
(shed)
yes (dead)
no
dead
no collar
yes
Subtotals for
MALES:
No.using Prairie Ck.
(males)2 2 3 3 4 3
Total No.of collared
males 4 4 5 12 8 4
No.collared males
excluding subadult
dispersers 4 3 4 7 8 4
Subadult dispersers out
of study area
(Bear 10)342a 342a 342a,386,389,
391,392
%males using Prairie
Ck.(excludes dis-
persers)50 67 75 43 50 75
(continued on next page)
101
SMIL09/SM-1/p.45
Table 11.{cant.)
Females (age in year
first captured)1980 1981**1982 1983 1984***1985****
273 @ 9(85]
277 @ 10 (80)
281 @ 3 (80:1
283 @ 12 (80)
299 @ 13 (80)
30Sb @ 5(8ID)
312 @ 10(80)
313 @ 9(801
314 @ 7(85)
315 @ 2(80)
331 @ 6 (81)
334 @ 10(81)
335 @ 2 (81)
337 @ 13 (81)
340 @ 3 (81)
341 @ 6 (81)
344 @ 5 (81)
379*@ 5(82)
380 @ 15 (82)
381 @ 3(82)
384 @ 12 (83)
385 @ 2(83)
388 @ 14 (83)
393 @ 2 (83)
394 @6(83)
395 @ 3(83)
396 @ 13(83)
397 @ 4
398 @ 4
403*@ 6 (83)
407*@ 4(83)
420 @ 19 (84)
423 @ A(84)
425 @ A(84)
437 @ 2 (85)
447 @ A (85)
no,w/2c*no,w/1@1?*
yes,a1one*yes,alone*
yes,w/2@1
yes,w/3c
no,alone
(continued on next page)
102
no,alone
ND
no w/2e
yes,w/2e
missing
missing
no,alone
missing
no,w/2@1
no,w/2@1
no,w/2@1
no,alone
missing
no,alone*
no,w/2c
missing
no collar
no,w/2c
yes,alone
yes,alone
yes,alone
no,alone
yes,alone
yes,alone
yes,w/3/@1
no,w/2e
no,alone
no,alone
__.....__,,_...........----"'1'""""'-..,----.0....--:..._
SMIL09/SM-l/p.46
Table 11.(cont.)
Females (age in year
first captured)1980 1981**1982 1983 1984***1985****
Subtotals for ~
FEMALF.'3
No.using Prairie ek.
(females)2 a 2 6 7 7
Total No.of collared
females 7 13 13 22 21 21
%females using
Prairie Ck.29 a 15 27 33 33
TOTALS:
No.bears using
Prairie Ck.4 2 5 9 11 10
No.bears radio-collared
(excluding dispersing
males)11 16 17 29 29 25
%bears using
Prairie Ck.36 13**29 31 38 40
*Bear occurs in the downstre~study area
**Poor monitoring conditions in 1981
***Intensively monitored in 1984
****No routine monitoring,monitored only on 7/23-27 and 8/6 because of study termination
103
SMILI2/SM-6/p.9
Table 12.Results of brown bear census on Prairie Creek in 1984.Flights
started at 0800 hrs.and pilot Al Lee flew the plane.Bear IDs
are given in parentheses.Includes only bears older than 2.0.
Date of flight
Minutes spent on survey
Number of adult unmarked
brown bears seen
Number of marked
bears seen (M 2 )
Number of marked bears
present but not seen
Number of marked bears
in the general areas but
outside of search pattern
7/29
82
14
1 (399)
4 (407,282,
394,420)
3 (315,423,
396)
(~5%CI)
8/1
94
17
2 (399,407)
2 (420,394)
5 (282,315,423,
396,283)
.(95%CI)
Nl (#of marks present)=5 4
N2 (I;of bears seen)=15 19
M2 (II of marks seen)1 2
(N 1+1 )(N r+1 )
(M 2+1 .=N =48 (12-180)33 (10-62)
104
-----,.,..,.F"""_••~"'F"-_,_-------------------
SMIL07/SM-20/p.2
Table 14.Estimated average number of brown bears using
Prairie Creek during the salmon run in 1985
based on bear-days estimator.
Date
Cum. Cum. Cum.N*=Est.95%CI =
n 1 m2 n 2 No.bears +/-bears
7/23pm 4 1 10 4 1 10 26.50 21.80
7/24am 4 0 9 8 1 19 44.50 42.60
7/24pm 4 2 28 12 3 47 51.67 36.31
7/25am 4 3 29 16 6 76 46.50 23.69
7/25pm 4 1 21 20 7 97 51.25 25.34
7/26am 4 1 13 24 8 110 51.22 24.43
7/26pJ;ll 3 0 26 27 8 136 60.75 30.05
7/27am 4 1 13 31 9 149 59.88 28.40
8/06am 15 5 20 46 14 169 59.07 22.85
106
____,__,_~,-------------...,'--~i-----.-----------------
SMIL09/SM-1/p.31
Table 15.Summary of Nelchina Basin brown bear litter size data for cubs-of-the-year (based on spring
observations of radio-collared bears).
BEAR ID LITTER SIZE (COY)
(year-age)~(year)COMMENTS USABLE SUMMARY
I
f-1o
-...J
207 (1978.11)
213 (1978.10)
'231 (1979.13)
206 (1978 •.13)
313 (1981.10)
313 (1982.11)
312 (1981.11)
312 (1984.14)
283 (1981.13)
3 (1978)
2 (1979)
3 (1979)
3 (1979)
1 (1981)
2 (1982)
2 (1981)
3 (1984)
2 (1981)
When last seen on 10/7/78 had all 3 cubs
on 5/31/79.had only 1 ylg.which stayed
with her until last observation on 9/12/79
Lost apparent ylg.due to 1978 capture.
had newborns when transplanted in 1979.
lost these 8-16 days after release.bear
apparently died in study area after return
Turgid in 1978.bred.lost 2 of 3 cubs
by 6/11/79.survivor lived at least
until last observation on 8/3/79
(no exit data in 1980)
Lactating female with male in 1978.during
last observation prior to shedding collar
the cubs were not seen but undergrowth was
thick-(6/17/79)
Bear had a 2-year-old offspring in 1980.
lost cub (possible capture-related)
Both survived
Had a 2-year-old in 1980.lost 1 cub
by 6/18.other weaned in 1983
Capture-related losses (collared)
Weaned 2@2 in 1980.lost 1 cub by 9/1
other lost as ylg
(continued on next page)
2 of 3 lost
none-transplant
bias
2 of 3 lost
none
1 of 1 lost
(capture related?)
o of 2 lost
1 of 2 lost
none
1 of 2 lost
Table 15.(co~t'd)
BEAR ID LITTER SIZE (COY)
(year-age)(year)
283 (1983.15)1 (1983)
COMMENTS
Killed by brown bear by 5/17/83.cub was
collared
SMIL09/SM-l/p.32
USABLE SUMMARY
1 of 1 lost
.....
o
<Xl
283 (1985.17)
337 (1981.13)
337 (1984.16)
344 (1981,5)
344 (1983,7)
379 (1982,5)
341 (1981,6)
341 (1986.11)
299 (1980.13)
299 (1983,16)
281 (1983.6)
281 (1984,7)
2 (1985)
3 (1981)
2 (1984)
2 (1981)
2 (1983)
2 (1982)
2 (1982)"
1 (1986)
1 (1982)
3 (1983)
2 (1983)
2 (1984)
Both survived to den exit
Cubs and female reunited.1 cub lost in
81/82 den,other 2 survived to exit (1
weaned in 1983,other lost as ylg.)
Both survived to den exit.collared cubs
Both lost in '82 as yearlings
Lost 1 in early July -other survived
to den exit
Both survived
Survived until 7/15/82 when bear was lost
Survived to August at least
Bear weaned 2@2 in 1981.cub lost by 6/9/62
All cubs collared,alive to·den exit
Both killed by brown bear by 6/1/83,
cubs collared
Lost both in May.1 suspected killed by
brown bear.other unknown (accidental
drowning?).collared cubs
(continued on next page)
o of 2 lost
1 of 3 lost
o of 2 lost
o of 2 lost
1 of 2 lost
o of 2 lost
none
1 of 1 lost
o of 3 lost
2 of 2 lost
2 of 2 lost
SMIL09/SM-l/p.33
Table 15.(cont'd)
BEAR ID LITTER SIZE (COY)
(year-age)(yea--'!")_..COMMEN:.:.T::..:S=--~_
281 (1985,8)2 (1985)Lost 1 in June,other survived
USABLE SUMMARY
1 of 2 lost
......
o
\0
394 (1983,6)
403 (1983,6)
403 (1986,9)
384 (1984,13)
396 (1984,14)
335 (1984,6)
340 (1984,6)
388 (1984,15)
388 (1985,16)
423 (1984,21)
381 (1985,6)
396 (1985,16)
425 (1985,A)
447 (1986,8)
1 (1983)
2 (1983)
2 (1986)
2 (1984)
1 (1984)
2 (1984)
2 (1984)
2 (1984).
2 (1985)
4 (1984)
2 (1985)
2 (1985)
2 (1985)
2 (1986)
Lost (capture related?)by 5/16,bred
Lost 1 in Sept.,other ok to den exit
Survived to September at least
Lost in May
Both survived to den exit
Both survived to den.exit,collared cubs
Capture-related losses (collared)
Survived to den exit
One died in July (collared),others ok
to den exit
Survived to exit
Lost in June
Survived
1 of 1 lost
(capture related?)
1 of 2 lost
o of 2 lost
1 of 1 lost
o of 2 lost
o of 2 lost
none
o of 2 lost
1 of 4 lost
o of 2 lost
2 of 2 lost
o of 2 lost
420 (1986,A)2 (1986)
Summary
No.of cubs No.of litters
78 38
mean litter size (range)22 of 59 cubs lost in first year of life =37~%
(2 of.these possibly capture-related)
2.1 (1-4)
I
SMIL09/SM-l/p.34
.Table 16.Summary of Nelchina Basin brown bear litter size data for litters of yearlings (based on spring
observation of radio-collared bears).
BEAR ID LITTER SIZE (ylgs.)
(year-age).(year)COMMENTS SUMMARY
I-'
I-'
o
220 (1978.5)
221 (1978.8)
234 (1978.5)
240 (1979.5)
244 (1979,6)
251 (1979.10)
254 (1979.9)
261 (1979.7)
269 (1979.16)
274 (1979,11)
207 (1978,11)
231 (1978,12)
1 (1978)
2 (1978)
2(1978)
2 (1979)
1 (1979)
2 (1979)
2 (1979)
2 (1979)
2 (1979)
1 (1979)
1 (1979)
1 (1979)
Ylg.entered den and was weaned in 1979.bred
Survived,.weaned in 1979
Paxson dump bear.lost apparent ylgs.
between 6/23/78 and 8/4/78,reportedly
had cubs in August 1979.radio failed
Bear transplanted with ylgs ••not known
if ylgs .•survived to return to study
area,bear was alone on 7/18/80
Thin female transplanted with ylg.,
ylg.survived at least 21 days.female
bred,but alone in July and August 1980
Very large ylgs.lost 10-17 days after
transplant.bear had no cubs in 1980
(August)
Female died after transplant (ylgs.??)
Lost 1 ylg.between 1 and 7 days after
transplant,other survived at least until
Sept.,didn't return to study area
Transplanted,returned to study area with
female,no cubs on 9/29/80.shot in fall
1981 reportedly without cubs
Transplanted,no radio
Survived until 9/12/79
Survived until 8/79
~continued on next page)
o of 1 lost
o of 2 lost
none
none
none-transplant
bias
none-transplant
bias
none
none-transplant
bias
none,transplant
bias
none
O.of 1 lost
none
SMIL09/SM-1/p.35
Table 16.(cont'd)
BEAR ID LITTER SIZE (ylgs.)
(year-age)(year)COMMENTS SUMMARY
f-'
f-'
f-'
213 (1978.10)
277 (1980 ..10)
299 (1980.13)
299 (1984.17)
312 (1982.12)
281 (1986.9)
283 (1982.14)
283 (1986.18)
337 (1982.14)
337 (1985.17)
380 (1982.15)
344 (1982.6)
344 (1984.8)
313 (1983.12)
379 (1983.6)
1 (1978)
2 (1980)
2 (1980)
3 (1984)
1 (1982)
1 (1986)
1 (1982)
2 (1986)
2 (1982)
2 (1985)
2 (1982)
2 (1982)
1 (1984)
2 (1983)
2 (1983)
Apparent ylg.was not captured.had
cubs following year
Ylgs.visually aged.not captured.survived
to enter den.nd exit data as bear shed
collar in den
Both survived.weaned next year
Survived with internals to exit from den
Survived,weaned next year
Lost by 5/18/82
Lost 1 by 6/17/82.other survived
Survived to den exit
Both survived to den entrance.at
least 1 exited den and was weaned
Lost 1 by 6/17.other by 7/26/82
Lost 1 in May ..sibling lost year before
Lost 1 (surgery related?)by 6/2/83~
other survived thru October
Lost 1 in June-September period
1 of 1 lost
(capture related?)
o of 2 lost
o of 2 lost
o of 3 lost
o of 1 lost
1 of 1 lost
1 of 2 lost
o of 2 lost
o of 2 lost
. 2 of 2 lost
1 of 1 lost
o of 1 lost
1 of 2 lost
420 (1984.19)2 (1984)Survived to den exit
------(ContInuea on next-page)
o of 2 lost
SMIL09/SM-1/p.36
Table 16.(cont'd)
BEAR ID LITTER SIZE (ylgs.)
(year-age)(year)COMMENTS SUMMARY
314 (1985,7)1 (1985)Survived to den exit o of 1 lost
335 (1985,7)2 (1985)1 lost in June,other survived to exit 1 of 2 lost
340 (1985,7)2 (1985)Survived to October at least o of 2 lost (?)
381 (1986,7)2 (1986)
388 (1986,17)2 (1986)
403 (1984,7)1 (1984)Survived thru November at least o of 1 lost
423 (1985,22)3 (1985)All survived to den exit o of 3 lost
I-'
I-'
N 425 (1986,A)2 (1986)
Summary
No.of yearlings No.litters mean litter size (range)
62 36 1.7 (1-3)8 of 37 lost =21.6%
(1 loss possibly capture-related)
SMIL09/SM-1/p.37
Table 17.Summary of Nelchina Basin brown bear litter size data for litters of
2-year-olds (based on observations of radio-collared bears).
BEAR ID
(year-age)
204 (1978,7)
283 (1980,12)
312 (1980,10)
312 (1983,13)
313 (1980,9)
313 (1984,13)
220 (1978,5)
221 (1978,8)
269 (1979,16)
299 (1980,13)
337 (1983,15)
337 (1986,18)
384 (1983,12)
388 (1983,14)
396 (1983,13)
331 (1981,6)
379 (1984,7)
314 (1986,8)
420 (1985,20)
423 (1985,23)
2-year-old
LITTER SIZE
(year)
2 (1978)
2 (1980)
1 (1980)
1 (1983)
1 (1980)
1 (1984)
1 (1979)
2 (1979)
2?(1980)
2 .(1981)
1 (1983)
2 (1986)
3 (1983)
2 (1983)
2 (1983)
2 (1981)
1 (1984)
1 (1986).
2 (1985)
3 (1986)
COMMENTS
weaned by 6/19/78,bred
weaned in mid-June,bred,new litter next year
weaned right after capture in May,new litter
in 1981
weaned by 6/13,bred
weaned by May,bred,new litter in 1981
weaned in May,bred
weaned by 6/17,bred
weaned in 5/81,new litter in 1982
weaned by 5/15,bred
still with mother on 9/24/86
weaned by 6/13,one of these 3 may not have
been part of thii litter,bred
weaned by 6/13·,bred
weaned by 6/1,bred
weaned by 6/15,bred,no cubs in 1982,
died in 1982 (reason?)
apparently weaned cub (time?),bred
bear lost in May '86
weaned in May
3 @ 2 in June 1986
...
Summary
No.of 2-year-olds
34
No.of litters
20
113
Mean litter size (range)
1.7 (1-3)
•
Table 18.Brown bear offspring survivorship and weaning,GMU 13 studies,(excludes bears transplanted in 1979).
MOTHER'S 19 (Cige in YElar when first captured)
SM1L09/SM-l/p.11
updated 10/86
I--'
I--'
.t»
Year
1978
1979
1980
G207 (11 in 1978)
3 cubs,April-Oct.
1 ylg.,May-Sept.
2 ylgs.,lost in
78/79 den?
no data
G220 (5 in 1978)
1 ylg.,May-Oct.
in June and bred
1 @ 2,weaned in
June
no data
G221 (8 in 1978)
2 ylgs.,May-Oct.
2 @ 2 weaned
no data
(cont inued on next page)
G204 (7 in 1978)
2 @ 2 in May,weaned
no data
in May,
radio fa ilure
no data
G321 (12 in 1978)
bred
2 of 3 cubs lost
in June,1
survived
AprU-Sept.
no data
Table 18.(cont'd)
MeJrHER'S ID (age j.Il year wl1en first captured)
SMIL09/SM-l/p.12
updated 10/86
Year
1980
1981
1982
1983
G277 (10 in 1980)
2 @ 1 survived
Apr 11 thru August,
collar shed in
den
no data
no data
no data
G312 (10 in 1980)
weaned 1 @ 2 in
May,breeding
not observed
1 of 2 cubs lost
in June,other
survived May-
Oct.
yearling
survived
weaned 1 @ 2 in
June,bred,off-
spring;;G385,
transmitted
G299 (13 in 1980)
2 of 2 ylgs.
survived '
May-Oct.
weaned 2 @ 2 in
May and bred
lost 1 of 1 @ 0
in June
3 @ 0 survived
(w/collars)
G313 (9 in 1980)
weaned 1 @ 2 in
May,bred
1 @ 0 lost in
May (capture
related?)
2 @ 0 survived
1 @ 1 lost in
June (trans-
mitted inter-
nally),sibling
survived
G283 (13 in 1980)
weaned 2 @ 2 in
June,bred
1 of 2 cubs lost
in Aug.,other
survived
lost 1 @1 in
May,bred
lost 1 @ 0 in
May,bred,
lost cub had
transmitter
G281 (3 in 1980)
not estrous
estrous,bred
alone,bred
2 @ 0 lost in May
(bear predation),
not seen breeding
I--'
I--'1984 no dataU1
1985 no data
±
1986 no data
(to
Sept.)
w/2 @ O-bear
killed in May
3 @ 1 surv ived
(w/internals)
weaned 2-yr-olds
collar fa iled?
1 @ 2 weaned
in May,shot
alone,bred
2 @ 0,survived
2 @ 1,survived
2 @ 0 lost in
May,bred
2 @ 0,1 lost in
June,other
survived
1 @ 1,survived
[cont ibued on next pagel
Table 18.(cont'd)
MOTHER'S ID (age in year when first captured)
..
SMIL09/SM-l/p.13
updated 10/86
G331
Year (6 in 1981)
1981 2 @2 weaned
in May,bred
1982 no cubs,bred,
died in July
(reason?)
1983
1984
I-'1985
I-'
""
1986
(to
Sept.)
G334
(10 in 1981)
weaned 1 @2 in
May,bred,bear
missing since
Sept.
no data
no data
no data
no data
no data
G341
(6 in 1981)
alone,bred
in May
had 2 @ 0 thru
July,bear
missing
subsequently
no data
no data
alone
w/l @ 0
G337
(13 in 1981)
lost 1 @0 in
winter den,
2 survived
lost 1 @1 in
June,other
survived
weaned 1 @ 2 in
'May,bre~
w/2 @ 0,
collared,
both survived
w/2 @ 1,survived
w/2 @2 thru
Sept.
{continued on next paqel
G344
(6 in 1981)
2 @0 survived
lost 1 @1 in
May,lost other
in early July
2 @ 0,lost 1
by late June,
other survived
1 @ 1 lost in
May,bear lost
in JUly
G335
(3 in 1981)
weaned from mother
alone,bred
alone,bred
w/2 @ 0 thru
Oct.
2 @ 1,lost
in June
1 @ 2 weaned
G340
(3 in 1981)
alone
alone
alone,
w/2 @0,
survived
2 @ 1
survived
to den
entrance
alone,
assume
weaned
young
Table 18.(cont'd)
MarHER I S 10 (age in year when first captured)
SMIL09/SM-l/p.14
updated 10/86
Year
1982
1983
1984
G380 (15 in 1982)
2 @ 1 survived
unt 11 denn ing ,
one may have
died in den
at least 1 @ 2
weaned in May,
possibly both
shot in Sept.
G394 (6 in 1983)
no data
lost 1 @0 in May
(?capture-re1ated
possible?),bred
alone,shot
G384 (12 in 1983)
no data
weaned 2 or
3 @ 2 in June,
bred
w/2 @ 0 thru
Sept.,missing
G379 (5 in 1982)
2 @ 0 survived
1 of 2 survived,
lost 2 (June -
Sept.)
probably weaned
1 @ 2 after
May 23
G388(14 in 1983)
no data
weaned 2 @ 2,
w/2 @ 0,
capture-related
cub loss,bred
G381 (3 in 1982)
alone
alone,bred
alone,bred
I-'
I-'
-...J
1985
1986
(to
Sept.)
alone,shot
fc:ontinued on next pa-geJ
w/2 @ 0,survived
w/2 @ I,survived
w/2 c,survived
w/2 @ I,survived
Table 18.(cont'd)
"
SMIL09/SM-l/p~15
updated 10/86
MOXHER;S ID (age in year when first captured)
G396 G403 G407 G420 G423 G425 273 314
Year (13 in 1983)(6 in 1983)(4 in 1983)(19 in 1984)(20 in 1984)(A in 1984)(3 in 1979)(7 in 1985
1983 weaned 2 @2 in 2 @0 thru Aug.alone.no data no data no data
May,bred lost 1 in Sept.
1984 lost litter of w/l @1,lost alone w/2 @ 1,4 @ 0,one alone,bred
1 @0 in May,after April survived lost in
\
breeding?July,others
survived to
OCt.
1985 ·2 @0 lost in w/3 @ 0 alone weaned 2 in 3 @ 1 w/2 cubs,alone 1 @1
June May survived survived survived
1986 alone,bred --alone w/2 @ 0,both 3 @ 2 'iI/2 @ 1,lost alone 1 @ 2
I-'(to lost in weaned in June-July weanedI-'co Sept.)June in May in May-
June
SMILI0/8M-l/p.9
Table 19.Summary of known losses from brown bear litters of cubs and yearlings.Losses dated
from emergence in year indicated to emergence the following year.IDs of females
included are indicated in parentheses.
Year of emergence
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
(incomplete
data,to 5 Sept.)
TOTALS:
Excluding possible
capture-related deaths
and incomplete data:
Losses of cubs
2 of 3 lost (G207)
2 of 3 lost (2311D
no data
4**of 10 lost (G3l2,G3l3,G283,
G337,G344)
1***of 5 lost (G299,G313,G379)
6'of 11 lost (G283,G344,G299,
G281,0394,G403)
4 of 15 los~(281,337,335,340,
384###,396,423)
3 of 12 lost (283, 281,381,396
425,388)
2 of 8 lost (341,447,420,403
(upper Susinta study not
included)
24 of 67 lost =36%
18 of 50 lost 36%
Losses of yearlings
o of 3 lost (G221,G220)
o of 1 lost (G207##)
o of 4 lost (G299,G277*)
no data
4 of 8 lost (G312,G283,G337,
G344,G380****)
2 of 4 lost (G379,G313")
1 of 7 lost (299,344,403,""
and 420)
10f 10 lost (314,335,340,"',
423,337)
2 of 9 lost (281,381, 388,283,
425)
10 of 46 lost =22%
7 of 29 lost =24%
#Last observation on 8/3/79.
##Last Observation on 9/12/79.
###Last observation on 9/6184.
*G277 shed collar in den so family status in spring 1981 was not determined,assumed 2 off-
spring were alive at emergence in 1981.
**One lost cub may have been capture-related (from litter of f with G3l3).
***From litter of one with G299 (bears not handled).
****G380 had 2 yearlings thru den entrance in 1982,only one was verified with her in
spring 1983,but both were counted as surviving.
One lost cub may have been capture-related (from litter of 1 with G394).
,,
,.,
One ~f G313's yearlings died within 1 month of surgery to install internal transmitter
(other survived),assumed this death was not surgery-related.
Last observation in October.
119
----------_..................---......_-----------;..".,,--------------_._-------
SMIL09/SM-l/p.9
updated 9/86
Table 20.Morphometries of brown bear-cubs-of-the-year handled in GMU 13,1978-1986.
CUB MOTHER'S
ID ID
001 G213
002 G213
DATE
HANDLED
22 May 1979
22 May 1979
SEX WT(lbs)
M 10.0
M 10.0
COMMENTS
transplanted,see Spraker
et al.(1981)
G338
G339
G207
G207
G283
G283
27 May 1978
27 May 1978
6 May 1981
6 May 1981
M
F
M
F
12.0
12.0
12.0
13.0
see Spraker,et al.(1981)
ear tagged
ear tagged
Mover 10.0 neck=225mm,collared
Mover 10.0 neck=245mm,collared
Mover 10.0 neck=225mm,collared
G336 G313
003 G283
004 G394
005 G281
006 G281
418 G299
419 G299
417 G299
016 G388
017 G388
021 G281
022 G281
008 G337
009 G337
023 G340
024 G340
025 G423
G423
018 G312
019 G312
020 G312
G453
G453
G456
G460
G460
G461
6 May 1981
14 May 1983
15 May 1983
15 May 1983
15 May 1983
18 May 1983 (den)
18 May 1983 (den)
18 May 1983 (den)
16 May 1984
16 May 1984
17 May 1984
17 May 1984
17 May 1984
17 May 1984
17 May 1984
17 May 1984
18 May 1984
18 May 1984
16 May 1984
16 May 1984
16 May 1984
3 June 1986
3 June 1986
4 June 1986
4 June 1986
4 June 1986
5 June 1986
F
F
F
M
F-
M
F
M
M
F
F
?
?
M
F
F
M
M
F
F
M
M
F
M
10.0
8.5
8.3
13.5
14.0
13.5
12.3
1l.5
16.5
14.0
7.0
17.0
16.0
17.0
15.0
17.0
33.0
30.0
30.0
26.0
cub abandoned?,ear tagged
collared
neck=23Omm.ear tagged
collared
collared
collared,13~5 lbs (5/29/84)
collared
collared,neck =250mm
collared
collared,neck =220
collared.neck =230
collared
collared
collared,smallest of 4 in litter
not collared
collared
collared
collared
ear tagged
ear tagged
ear tagged
capture mortality
ear tagged
ear tagged
Totals:17 males and 14 females
120
'r --rr-----
SMIL09/SM-1/pg.10
updated 9/86
Table 21.Morphometries of brown bear yearlings handled in GMU 13,1978-1986.
YLG MOTHER'S DATE
ID ID HANDLED SEX WT(lbs)COMMENTS
G232 G234 23 June 1978 F 100 (est.)Spraker,et al.(1981)
G235 G234 23 June 1978 F 10O(est.)
G238 G240 23 May 1979 M 95 ·transplanted,see
G239 G240 23 May 1979 F 65 Ballard et al.1980
G245 G244 24 May 1979 F 46 transplanted,op cit.
G252 G251 27 May 1979 M 134 transplanted,op cit.
G253 G251 27 May 1979 M 139
G256 G254 27 May 1979 M 47 transplanted,op cit.
G257 G254 27 May 1979 M 47
G262 G261 2 June 1979 M 90 transplanted,op cit.
G263 G261 2 June 1979 M 87
G270 G269 6 June 1979 F 100 transplanted,op cit.
G271 G269 6 June 1979 F 95
G275 G274 7 June 1979 M 68 transplanted,op cit.
G297 G399 4 May 1980 M 65 tagged
G298 G399 4 May 1980 M 65 tagged
G382 G313 14 May 1983 M 66 implant transmitter
G383 G313 14 May 19"8"3 F 53 implant transmitter,died
G417 G299 15 May 1984 M 94 implant transmitter (small)
G418 G299 15 May 1984 M 86 implant transmitter (large)
G419 G299 15 May 1984 M 84 implant transmitter (small)
G421 G420 17 May 1984 M 78 sibling not captured,large
implant and breakaway.
G429 G314 1 June 1985 F 104 breakaway collar,shot Sep.86
G463 G462 5 June 1986 M ·90(est.)ear tagged
Totals:16 males and 8 females
121
SMIL07/SM-20/p.1
Table 22.Summary of reproductive intervals for brown bears by bear ID.
Based on data in Table 18,this report.Year of litter and
reason for intervals >2 years are indicated in parentheses-
"lost"means lost complete litter.
IDS OF BEARS WITH COMPLETE INTERVALS OF:
3 YEARS 4 YEARS
220(77)**335(84)313(82,1 lost)
221(77)**340(84)
314(84)**312(81)
380(81)**337a(81)
420(83)**337b(84)
379(82)388*(85)
423(84)381*(85)
5 YEARS
281(85,2 lost)
6 YEARS
283*(85,
1 19st @ age 1)
INCOMPLETE INTERVALS THAT WILL BE AT LEAST THE INDICATED LENGTH:
4 YEARS
420 (87,lost 1)
5 YEARS
403 (1 lost
@ age 1)
425(87,
skipped 1,
and lost
1 @ age 1)
6 YEARS
39.6 (87,lost 2
and skipped 1)
7 YEARS
344 (85.1ost
2 @ age 1)
*Will be a complete interval when 2-year-01ds are weaned in 1987
**Litter was first observed when composed of 1-year-01ds
SUMMARY:
AVERAGE REPRODUCTIVE INTERVAL
COMPLETE INTERVALS ONLY (N =17)
INCOMPLETE INTERVALS ONLY (N =5)
COMPLETE AND INCOMPLETE (N =22)
122
3.35
5.4
3.82
___,__.----"1"""""'-.:..-.----------.,..-------------------
SMIL07/SM-20/p.3
Table 23.Summary of age at first reproduction for Su-Hydro area
brown bears by bear ID.Based on first observed litter,
status in previous year is given in parentheses.
FIRST REPRODUCTION AT AGE:
4 YEARS 5 YEARS 6 YEARS 7 YEARS 8 YEARS
220**
234**
240**
331***
379*
344*
244**
204***
394*
403*
261**
314**
281/1
33511
381f1
34011
341**407 (alone prevo 4
litter expt.in '87)
Mean age based on long history (N =5)=
Mean age based on backdated litters (N =13)
Combined data (N =18)=
6.4
5.2
5.5
*Backdated based on 1st observation with newborn litter.
**Backdated based on 1st observation with litt~r of ylgs.
***Backdated based on Is~observation with litter of 2-year-olds.
1/Accurate value as no litter was observed in preceding 3 years.
123
SMIL07/SM-16/p.1
Table 24.B:t"own bear harvest data in 3 GMU 13 study areas.1962-85.
Core 1979 Area *Greater 1979 Area **Su-Hydro Area ***
No.No. No.Sex No.No.No.Sex No.No.No.Sex
Yea:.=r ...:l:~~;-_---=.F.;F_........:U:::..:n::..;k~wn:..::..::.:...-....:MM=i-__.:..F7F_----:U:..:n~k~wn:.;:.:.'-----=MM7 __.:..F~F--U.;;..n~k~wn---'-.-
62 1 0 0 4 1 0 5 3 0
63 2 2 0 2 5 0 8 8 0
64 2 0 1 2 0 6 7 0
65 3 3 0 3 3 0 8 9 0
66 2 1 1 5 3 1 6 7 0
67 1 3 0 2 4 0 6 5 0
68 0 4 0 3 5 0 6 4 0
69 1 1 0 5 1 0 5 0 0
70 1 0 0 3 1 1 3 3 0
71 4 0 0 5 2 0 5 11 0
72 3 1 0 4 3 0 8 1 0
73 1 0 0 5'1 0 6 2 0
74 4 2 0 5 7 0 5 6 b
75 7 5 1 12 10 1 3 8 2
76 1 4 1 4 6 2 8 12 1
77 4 0 . 0 6 1 05 1 0
78 7 2 0 8 5 0 10 4 1
79 7 3 0 10 3 0 7 6 0
80 4 3 1 8.7 2 9 4 2
81 7 1 0 7"3 0 13 9 0
82 2 7 0 8 12 0 15 6 0
83 3 3 0 11 5 0 12 13 1
84 . 6 5 0 14 11 2 15 14 1
85 7 3 0 14 6 0 19 19 1
Total -78 55 4 149 107 -9 193 ----r62 9
~:Includes Uniform Coding Areas 2500-2900 and 3100-3200 in 13E,0500-0800 in 13B,
..plus dump codes for:Susitna R.13B unknown.Susitna R.(N.of Forks 13B).Nenana R.
13E unknown.Denali Hwy.unknown 13E.Susitna R.(Butte Ck.to the Forks 13).
Susitna R.(N.of Forks 13).
**Includ,es Uniform Coding Areas 2500-2900 and 3100-3200 in 13E.0300-1300 and 1600
in 13B.plus above-listed dump codes and:Denali Hwy.unknown 13B.Denali Hwy.
unknown 13.
***Includ,es Uniform Coding Areas 1300-1400 and 1600-2500 in 13E.1500-1800 and 2100
in 13A.0100-0200 in 13B.and 0200-0300 in 14B.plus dump codes for:Susitna R.
13A unknown.Susitna R.Jay Ck-Butte Ck.13A.Tyone R./Ck.13A unknown.Susitna R.
13E unknown,Talkeetna R.13E unknown.Kosina Ck.13E unknown.Kosina Ck.13
unknown.Susitna R.(Jay Ck.-Butte Ck.,13).Talkeetna R.13 unknown.Talkeetna R.
Unit 14B unknown.
124
_______,,_.._---.---------.......-"F_-........--~-------.--.;-------
SMILlO/SM-21p.1
updated 10/86
Table 25.Status of brown bears first marked in 1978.(A=alive,T=transplanted in 1979,NR=no return,R=retumed,ND=no data available,F=shot in
fall season,Sp=shot in spring season).
Bear#Sex/age 1978 1979 1980 1981 ·1982 1983 1984 1985 1986
Upper Susitna EXpt.Area
209
212
217
219
218
214**
230
211
216
210/242
215
213
M/5 in 178
F/I0 in '78
Ml3 in 178
F/4 in 178
M/4 in 178
M/2 in 178
M/9 in 178
M/4 in '78
M/ll in '78
M/2 in 178
F/2 in 178
F/I0 in '78
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
T,NR
A
A
A
T,R
A
T,Shot-Sp
T,NR
T,NR
T,ND
T,NR
T*
A
A
Shot-F
A
Shot-F
A
NO
NO
NO
NO
Shot-F
A
A
A
NO
NO
NO
NO
Shot-F
Shot-F
A
NO
NO
NO
NO
A
NO
NO
ND
NO
A
NO
NO
NO
NO
A
NO
NO
NO
NO
A
NO
NO
NO
NO
Not Upper Susitna Expt.Area
205 M/4 in '78
206 F/13 in 178
201 M/I0 in '78
I--'202 F 18 in 178
~221 F/8 in '78
228 M/7 in 178
227 M/9 in '78
224 M/2 in '78
222 M/ll in '78
225 M/4 in '78
207 Fill in 178
208 F/12 in '78
220 F/5 in '78
234 F/5 in '78
200 MI7 in '78
204 F/7 in '78
231 F/12 in '78
Max.no.Bears
potentially alive in
year includes NO (M:F)
No.marked bears known
shot in year (M:F)
%of potentially alive
be~rs known shot in year
CUmulative %Imin.}of
marked bears shot (N=28)
A
A
A
Shot-F
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
29(16:13)
1(0:1)
3%
3%
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
NO
A
A
A
A
NO
NO
A
A
27*(16:11)
1(1:0)
4%
7%
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
26 (15:11)
2(2:0)
8%
14%
A
Shot-F
A
A
A
A
A
NO
NO
ND
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
.ND
24 (13:11)
2(1:1)
8%
21%
A
A
Shot-Sp
A
A
A
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
ND
NO
22 (12:10)
3(1:2)
14%
::12%
Shot-Sp
Shot-Sp
Shot-Sp
A
A
NO
NO
NO
ND
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
19(11:8)
3(3:0
16%
43%
Shot-F
Shot-Sp
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
ND
NO
NO
16(8:8)
2(2:0)
13%
50%
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
14(6:8)
o
o
50%
Shot-sp
Shot-sp
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
14 (6:8)
2(2:0)
14%
57%
Not included:
Subamllts @2 in 1978,=203,223 (all NO).
Subadults @l in 1978 =232 (ND).
*suspected mortality of 213 in 1979,not included as alivt;!in 1979 or subsequently.
**recaptured 4/80 and 6/85 in Su-Hydro area..
I
Table 26.
Bear 10
SMILI0/SM-2!p.2
updated 10/86
Status of brown bears first captured in 1979 (all were transplanted from upper Susitna drainage).(A-alive,NR=no return,R=returned,
ND=no data available,F=shot in fall season,SP=shot in sprin9 season).Does not include transplanted bears first captured in 1978
(see Table 13).NO in year of capture indicated bear was not collared or soon shed its collar and no subsequent data were collected.
Sex/age 1979 1980 ~9~!1982 1983 1984 1985 1986
M/3 in '79 Shot-F
M/8 in '79 A A A A Shot-F
M/2 in /79 A A Shot-F
M/4 in '79 A Shot-Sp
M/4 in '79 A Shot-Sp
F/18 in '79 A A Shot-F
F/l in '79 A Shot-F
M/9 in '79 A A A Shot-F
M/4 in '79 A A A A Shot-F
F/5 in '79 A,R A A A A Shot-Sp
F/3 in '79 A,R A A A A A
M/3 in '79 A,NO NO NO NO NO NO
M/5 in '79 A,NO NO NO tiD NO NO
M/21 in '79 A,NO NO NO NO NO NO
F/4 in '79 A,NO NO NO NO NO NO
F/4 in '79 A,NO NO NO NO NO NO
F/ll in '79 A,NO NO NO NO NO NO
M/4 in '79 A,NO NO NO NO NO NO
F/5 in '79 A,R NO NO NO NO NO
M/I0 in '79 A,R NO NO NO NO NO
F/6 in '79 A,R A NO NO NO NO
F/I0 in '79 A,R A NO NO NO NO
F/4 in '79 A,NR NO NO NO NO NO
F/7 in J 79 A,NR NO NO NO NO NO
246
247
243
265
268
269
270
272
260
240
273**
241
249
258
264
267
274
276
236
I-'237
N 244
0\251
248
261
Max.no.Bears
potentially alive
in year includes NO (M:F)24 (12:12)23(11:12)20 (9:11)18(8:10)
No.marked bears
known shot in year (M:F)1(1:0)3 (2:1)2 (1:1)1(1:0)
Known %of potentially alive
bears shot in ~4%13%10%6%
Cumulative %(min.)of
marked bears shot (N=24)4%17%25%29%
Not Included:
Subadults @2 in 1979 =259.
Subadults @1 in 1979 =275,262 or 263,256,257, 252,253,245,271,239,238.
**Recaptured in Su-Hydro area (6/85)..
17(7:10)
2(2:0)
12%
38%
14(4:10)
1(0:1)
7%
42%
A A
NO NO
NO NO
NO NO
NO NO
NO NO
NO NO
NO NO
NO NO
NO NO
NO NO
NO NO
NO NO
NO NO
13(4:9)13 (4:9)
0 0
0 0
42%42%
SMILI0/SM-2,p.3
updated 10/86
Table 27.Status of brown bears first marked during Su-Hydro studies,1980-1983.(A=alive,ND=no data available,F=shot in fall season,SP=shot
in spring season).NO in year of capture indicates bear was not collared or soon shed its collar and no subsequent data were collected.
Bear 10 Sex/age 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986
1980 captures
277 F/I0 in '80 A NO NO ND NO NO NO
279 M/9 in '80 A A A A Shot-F
280 MiS in '80 A A A A A A A
281 F/3 in '80 A A A A A A A
282 M/4 in '80 A A A A A A A
283 F/12 in '80 A A A A A A A
284 M/2 in 180 A Shot-Sp
286 M/3 in 180 A A A A Shot-F
292 F/3 in 180 NO NO NO ND NO NO NO
293 M/3 in '80 A A A A NO Shot-Sp
294 MIlO in '80 A Died in Aug.- ---
295 M/12 in '80 NO ND NO NO NO NO NO
299 FIB in '80 A A A A A NO NO
297 Mil in 180 A Shot-F
306 F/3 in 180 NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
308a M/6 in '80 A A A Shot-F
308b F/s in '80 A Died in Aug.
309 M/12 in '80 A A A A A A ND
1-'311 M/2 in 180 Shot-F
l\.)312 F/lO in '80 A A A A Oied-NS
-...l 313 F/9 in 180 A A A A A Shot-F
314 F/2 in '80 A A A A A A A
315 F/2 in '80 A A A A A A Shot-Sp
1981 captures
331 F/6 in 181 -A Died in Aug.
332 M/2 in 181 -A Shot-F
333 M/2 in '81 -Shot-F
334 F/I0 in '81 -Lost in Sept.-
shot?
335 F/2 in '81 -A A A A A A
337 FIB in '81 -A A A A A A
339 MID in 181 -Cub Ylg A A Shot-F
340 F/3 in '81 -A A A A A A
341 F/6 in 181 -A A A A A A
342a M/2 in '81 -A A A Died-NS
344 F/5 in 181 -A A A Lost Sept.-
shot?
347 M/14 in '81 -A A A A A ND
214***M/2 in '78 A A A A A A A
273***F/3 in '79 A A A A A A A
..
(continued)
I
I
SMILI0/SM-2,p.4
updat~d 10/86
Table 27.(cont'd)
Bear ID Sex/age 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986
1982 captures
379**F/5 in '82 A A A Shot-F
380 FilS in '82 A Shot-F
381 F/3 in '82 A A A A A
1983 captures
385 F/2 in '83 -A A A NO
386 M/2 in '83 -A Shot-Sp
388 F/14 in '83 -A A A A
389 M/2 in '83 -A,died Oct.
390 M/2 in '83 -A NO NO NO
384 F/12 in '83 -A Lost in
Sept.-
shot?
391 M/2 in '83 -A Shot-F
392 M/2 in '83 -A Shot-Sp
393 F/2 in '83 -A NO NO NO
394 F/6 in '83 -A Shot-F
395 F/3 in '83 -Shot-F
~396 F/B in '83 -A A A A
IV 397 F/2 in '83 -A A Shot-F
00 398 F/2 in '83 -A A A Shot-Sp
399 M/9 in '83 -A.A A NO
400 M/20 in '83 -A A A NO
403**F/6 in '83 -A A A A
407**F/4 in '83 -A A A A
1984 captures
420 F/19 in '84 - -
A A A
422 M/4in '84 --A Died-Sp
423 F/21 in '84 --A A A
425 F/A in '84 --A A A
382 F/2 in '84 --A A NO
417 M/l in '84 ---A Shot-Sp
1985 captures
427 M/3 in '85 ---A Shot-Sp
429 F/l in 'S5 ---A Shot-Sp
437 FI2 in '85 ---A A
442 M/13 in '85 ---A Shot-Sp
443 MIA in '85 ---A NO
447 F/7 in '85 ---A Shed collar
(continued)
Table 27.(cont'd)
Bear 10 Sex/age 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985
SMILI0/SM-2,p.5
updated 10/86
1986 (prelim.)
A.Max.no.marked bears
potentially alive in year,
includes NO.Excludes
tagging ·and natural
mortalities and
coyab=nd ylgs.(M:F)
B.No.KNOWN shot
in year (M:F)
Min.%known shot (B/A)
C.No.known shot plus
suspected (unreported)
shot in year (M:F)
Probable min.%shot (C/A)
D.No.bears known alive
(excludes NO,died,
lost,cubs or ylgs)
~
~Probable %shot (C/O)
Cumulative %shot (based on
bear-years available,
from row A and row C).
Not Included:
Subadu1ts @2 in1980:285;
1983:397 &398 both recaptured in 1985
Subadults @1 in 1980:298;
1983:383;
1984:421,418,419
25(14:11)32(15:18)30 (11:19)46(19:27)48(17:31)46(18:28)41 (13:28)
1(1:0)3(3:0)1(1:0)3 (1:2)6 (5:1)5(2:3)6(3:3)
4%9%3%7%13%11%15%
1(1.0)4(3.1)1(1:0)3(1:2)8(5:3)5(2:3)6(3:3)
4%13%3%7%17%11%12%
22 28 27 42 38 39 27
5%14%4%7%21%13%22%
4%9%6%7%8%12%
*G373 (M@9 in 1982)not included as it
shed collar and had no ear tags or tattoo,
so was not recognizable as a marked
bear subsequently.
**Downstream study area.
***Captured earlier as,part'of studies
outside of Su-Hydro area.
SMILI0/SM-l/p.6
updated 10/86
Table 29.Summary of apparent natural mortalities of radio-col~ared adult bears.Susitna Hydro
project.Includes black bears >1 year of age and brown bears >2 year of age.
ill
Bear ID
Black bears
B291
B300
B288
B319
B330
B357
B322
B327
B379
B365
B346
B343
B358
Brown bear
G331
G389
G422
Sex/age (at death),
reprod.status
M/3
M/7
F/I0 with 3c
M/4
M/l
M/4
M/6
F/8 with 2c
F/9 with 3c
M/6
M/12
M/8
M/4
F/7
M/2
M/7
Conunents
Died 2-28 July 1980,2 months after capture,cause of death unknown.
Died 6-14 May 1980,2-10 days after capture,cause of death unknown
but capture myopathy possible (M99/Rompun used,immobilization,and
recovery were apparently normal).
Not sure bear died but suspect that it did and collar was moved away
from carcass by predator.Probably died 22-27 August 1980,·6 months
after capture.
Died 29 July-4 August 1981,11 months after capture,cause unknown.
Died 17-24 August 1981,5 months after capture in den with mother and
sibling,apparently killed and eaten by predator.Radio-collared
female sibling survived (B329).
Died winter of 1981,6 months after capture,apparently killed by
another bear (species?)at or near its den and eaten.
Died 24-29 June 1982,4 weeks after recapture (was very skinny and
weighed an est.90 lbs.),cause unknown.
Died 20 June-l July 1983,4 months after recapture in den,killed by
predator (probably bear),but not eaten (cub defense?).
Died early July 1983 (?),3 months after recapture in den,canine
punctures in scapula,in brown bear habitat,lost cubs ea~lier.
Suspect was killed by brown bear.
Died October 1983 9 months after recapture in den.Scavenged (killed?)
by wolves.Guess may have been wounded by hunter (no evidence).Good
c;ondition.
Died in May 1984,eaten by unknown predator-suspect a brown bear.
Died in fall '84.Suspect may have been wounded by hunter,
but have no evidence.
Died summer '84,cause unknown,not disturbed.
Died 1-31 July 1982,14 months after capture,cause of death unknown,
had no cubs in 1982,but should have (weaned 2@2 in 1981).Bones not
scattered.Weighed 284 lbs.on 5/81 (large).
Died early October 1983.Cause undetermined.
Died June 1985.Cause undetermined,but suspect injuJ:"Y from moose
or another bear.Bear moved suddenly miles from home range
and was found dead 2 weeks later.
131
SMIL07/SM-20/p.4
Table 30.Brown bear home range sizes.Code 99 in year or age column indicates lumping of all years.Area 1 =
upstream,area 2 =downstream,sex 1 =male,sex 2 =female,code 1 for COY indicates bear had litter
of newborn cubs.
ID No.'Size
No.Area Sex Year Age Pts.Sq.Km.Period Comments COY
214 1 1 80 4 11 974.8 Apr-Sept Shed 10/80,recpt '85 0
214 1 1 99 99 18 976.2 1980,"85 No dens 0
279 1 1 83 12 20 1431.2 May-Oct Shed 6/80 0
279 1 1 84 13 40 1479.0 May-Sept Shot 9/84 0
279 1 1 99 99 62 2075.6 80,83 &84 0
280 1 1 80 5 .10 498.6 Apr-Sept 0
280 1 1 81 6 25 570.2 Apr-Oct 0
280 1 1 82 7 17 -376."1 May-Oct 0
280 1 1 83 8 17 687.3 Apr-Oct 0
......280 1 1 84 9 43 1177.0 Apr-Oct No den 0
w 280 1 1 99 99 115 2269.3 1980-85 0N
282 1 1 82 6 17 1534.5 Apr-Oct 0
282 1 1 83 7 21 2134.9 Apr-Oct 0
282 1 1 84 8 48 1761.9 Apr-Oct No den 0
282 1 1 99 99 103 2794.4 1982-85 0
293 1 1 80 3 8 1408.5 May-Oct No den 0
293 1 1 81 4 11 2727.0 Mav-Sept No dens 0
293 1 1 82 5 12 2577 .8 Jun-Aug No dens 0
293 1 1 83 6 10 2222.2 May-Sept No dens,shot 5/85 0
293 1 1 99 99 41 5923.5 1980-85 1980-1985,failed ±84 0
294 1 1 80 10 14 494.6 May-Oct 0
294 1 1 81 11 9 "143.3 May-Aug Died 8/81,CM 0
294 1 1 99 99 23 611.9 1980-81 0
373 1 1 82 9 11 605.9 Jun-Oct Shed 6/83 0
373 1 1 99 99 13 853.5 1982-83 0
382 1 1 84 2 60 611.6 May-Oct with g313 0
382 1 1 99 2 70 406.6 1984-85 shed 8/85 0
386 1 1 83 ?13 938.8 May-Oct Shot 5/84 0
386 1 1 99 2 13 938.8 1983 o1;lly w/g312 0
389 1 1 83 2 16 1953.6 May-Oct Died 10/83.??0
389 1 1 99 2 16 1953.6 1983 only w/g388 0
390 1 1 83 2 14 87.5 May-Oct 0
(continued on next page)
I
I SMIL07/SM-20/p.6
I Table 30.(cont'd)
ID i~o •SizeINo.Area Sex Year Age Pts.Sq.Km.Period Comments COY
I
299 1 2 82 15 21 191.3 Apr-Oct w/coy (lost 6/82)0,
299 1 2 83 16 24 223.9 Apr-Oct w/coy,survived 1
299 1 2 84 17 60 466.7 Apr-Oct w/ylgs,failed 4/85 0
299 1 2 99 99'141 949.4 1980-1985 0
312 1 2 80 10 13 157.0 May-Oct w/@2 0
312 1 2 81 11 24 181.7 Apr-Oct w/coy,survived 1
312 1 2 82 12 20 251.6 Apr-Oct w/ylgs 0
312 1 2 83 13 15 191.0 Apr-Sept w/@2,no den 0
312 1 2 99 99 74 457.9 1980-85 died 5/84 CM 0
313 1 2 80 9 14 81.5 MCl-y-Oct w/1@2 (g314)0
313 1 2 81 10 25 210.9 Apr-Oct w/coy(lost 5/81)0
313 1 2 82 11 22 128.3 Apr-Oct w/coy,survived 1
313 1 2 83 12 20 271.5 Apr-Oct w/ylg,survived 0I-'1 2 84 13 60 187.7 Apr-Sept shot 9~84 0w313
,l::o 313 1 2 99 99 141 455.0 1980-84 0
315 1 2 83 5 18 280.4 May-Oct 1st @2 in 80 0
315 1 2 84 6 24 222.7 May-Oct No den,no cubs 0
315 1 2 99 99 43 351.2 1983-84 failed 10/84 0
331 1 2 81 6 24 1281.7 May-Oct w/@2,died 7/82 0
331 1 2 99 99 34 1280·.7 1981-82 Natural mort.7/82 0
334 1 2 81 10 31 110.9 May-Sept w/@2,failed 9/81 0
334 1 2 99 10 31 110:9 1981 0
335 1 2 81 '~34 179.8 May-Oct alone 0
335 1 2 82 4 20 131.2 Apr-Oct 0
335 1 2 83 5 19 183.3 Apr-Oct 0
335 1 2 84 6 36 123.8 Apr-Oct w/2@O 1
335 1 2 99 99 118 431.3 1982-85 w/ylgs.in '85 0
337 1 2 81 13 19 269.6 May-Oct w/coy,survived 1
337 1 2 82 14 20 356.3 Apr-Oct w/ylg,survived 0
337 1 2 83 15 20 245.9 Apr-Oct w/@2 0
337 1 2 84 16 26 195.7 Apr-Oct w/coy,survived 1
337 1 2 99 99 94 545.4 1981-85 0
340 1 2 81 3 39 613.3 May-Oct alone 0
340 1 2 82 4 23 712.0 Apr-Oct alone 0
340 1 2 83 5 18 538.7 Apr-Oct alone 0
(continued on next page)
SMIL07/SM-20/p.7
Table 30.(cont'd)
ID No.Size
No.Area Sex Year Age Pts.Sq.Km.Period Comments COY
340 1 2 84 6 60 168.9 Apr-Oct w/2@O,survived 1
340 1 2 99 99 152 1040.0 1981-85 w/2@1 thru 85 0
341 1 2 81 6 28 888.7 May-Oct alone 0
341 1 2 99 99 44 903.9 1981-82,85 recaptured in '85 0
344 1 2 81 5 21 270.4 May-Oct w/coy,survived 1
344 1 2 82 6 22 400.9 Apr-Oct w/ylg(lost 7/82)0
344 1 2 83 7 18 287.0 Apr-Oct w/coy,survived 1
344 1 2 84 8 13 246.9 Apr-Sept w/ylg(lost 5/84)0
344 1 2 99 99 74 .615.4 1981-1984 missing 9/84 0
380 1 2 82 15 9 493.1 Jun-Oct w/ylg 0
380 1 2 83 16 12 450.0 Apr-Sept Shot 9/83 0
380 1 2 99 99 21 548.6 1982-83 shot 9/83 0
381 1 2 82 3 17 264 .•9 Jun-Oct alone 0.....381 1 2 83 4 18 250.6 Apr-Oct alonew 0
(JI 381 1 2 84 5 43 325.8 Apr-Oct alone 0
381 1 2 99 99 84 489.5 1982-85 coy survived '85 1
384 1 2 83 12 16 19'8.9 May-Oct w/@2 0
384 1 2 99 99 25 350.6 1983-84 failed 6/84 w/coy 0
385 1 2 83 2 16 253.3 May-Oct w/g337 0
385 1 2 84 3 19 196.8 Apr-Oct no den,failed 10/84 0
385 1 2 99 99 37 464.9 1983-85 spotted in 85 0
388 1 2 83 14 16 146.1 May-Oct w/@2 0
388 1 2 84 15 47 329.6 Apr-Oct w/coy (lost 5/84)0
388 1 2 99 99 73 403.6 1983-85 coy in 185,survived 0
393 1 2 83 2 14 155.7 May-Sept no den,lost 9/83 0
393 1 2 99 2 14 155.7 1983 only w/g384 &sibs 0
394 1 2 83 6 20 201.0 May-Oct w/coy (lost 5/83)0
394 1 2 84 7 25 151.2 Apr-Sept shot 9/84 0
394 .1 2 99 99 45 249.3 1983-84 shot 9/84 0
395 1 2 83 3 11 457.6 May-Aug no den,shot 8/83 0
395 1 2 99 99 11 457.6 1983 only no den,shot 8/83 0
396 1 2 83 13 16 253.6 May-Oct w/@2 0
396 1 2 84 14 23 252.9 Apr-Oct coy (lost 5/84)0
396 1 2 99 99 59 377.4 1983-84
420 1 2 84 19 61 737.9 Hay-Oct w/ylgs,survived 0
(continued on next page)
SM-7/SMILI2/p.1
Table 31.Mean brown bear home range size in the Su-Hydro study area by sex and reproductive
status categories.1980-1984.
No.Number of Points Home Range Size (km 2 )
Category Individuals Mean Max.Min.Mean S.D.Max.Min.
TOTAL HOME RANGE (Summation all years)
All bears 47 59.1 162 6 1021.6 1167.9 5923.5 87.5
All males 17 47.3 115 13 1941.0 '1541.5 5923.5 87.5
All females 30 65.8 162 6 500.6 275.8 1280.7 110.9
I-'ANNUAL HOME RANGES (all points in calendar year)",w
-....l All bears 106 23.7 84 6 ~80.5 635.0 3129.5 72.7
All males 32 22.8 84 8 1271.7 755.0 3129.5 87.5
All females 74 24.0 61 6 281.6 194.5 1281.7 72.7
Females 5.0+.
without coy 48 .24.2 61 6 300.5 215.2 1281.7 72.7
Females 5.0+.
with coy 13 25.8 60 18 189.0 62.6 94.3 287.0
*Standard minimum grid method (Mohr 1947).
SM1L07/SM-32/p.1
Table 32.Brown bear predation rates,by bear 10 based on intensive monitoring in spring in the Su-Hydro study area.Only kills made on a
consecutive observation day are listed.Area 1 =upstream,2 =downsteam,3 ='78 studies (Ballard et al.in prep).Sex 1 =male,
I
2 =female,Status 1 =alone or wj@2,2=w !coy,3 =W/@l,based on status on 15 June.If another bear or wolves also on kill,each
credited with 0.5 kills.Observation day =a day in which at least 1 visual observation was made.Consecutive observation day sums
all days,for periods of >2 consecutive days.Misc.kills include suspected and probable kills.
1
No.Ungulate No.
consee.No.No.No.agel Kills/'No.con
Bear Repro.obsv.-Missing moose adult Un ident.adult species Misc.Total 100 con ob days
ID Area Sex Age Year status days Period period calves moose moose caribou unk.kills kills ob_day-per kill
i 2 14.29 7.0020732117875/28-6/22 1 1
220 3 2 5 78 '3 16 5/28-6/22 1 1 2 12.50 8.00
221 3 2 8 78 3 15 5/28-6/22 5 1 6 40.00 2.50
204 3 2 7 78 1 13 5/28-6/22 2 1 3 23.08 4.33
202 3 2 8 78 1 18 5/28-6/22 5 1 6 33.33 3.00
206 3 2 13 78 1 18 5/28-6/22 1.5 0.5 2 11.11 9.00
208 3 2 12 78 1 21 5/28-6/22 8 2 1 11 52.38 1.91
209 3 2 4 78 1 14 5/28-6/22 1 1 7.14 14.00
212 3 2 10 78 1 6 5/28-6/22 0 0.00
213 3 2 10 78 1 8 5/28-6/22 1 1 12.50 8.00
219 3 2 4 78 1 5 5/28-6/22 0 0.00
231 3 2 12 78 1 11 5/28-6/22 0 0.00
201 3 1 10 78 1 11 5/28-6/22 0 0.00
1-205 3 1 ' 4 78 1 22 5/28-6/22 2.5 2.5 0.5 5.5 25.00 4.00
~11 3 1 4 78 1 6 5/28-6/22 0.5 0.5 8.33 12.00
17 3 1 3 78 1 11 5/28-6/22 1 1 1 3 27.27 3.67
222 3 1 11 78 1 9 5/28-6/22 0.5 .0.5 0.5 1.5 16.67 6.00
225 3 1 4 78 1 16 5/28-6/22 2 1 3 18.75 5.33
227 3 1 9 78 1 5 5/28-6/22 1 1 20.00 5.00
281 1 2 8 81 1 8 5/21-6/22 0 0.00
340 1 2 3 81 1 15 5/21-6/22 3 1 4 26.67 3.75
334 1 2 18 81 1 18 5/22-6/22 0 0.00
341 1 2 5 81 1 5 5/21-6/22 0 0.00
355 1 2 10 81 1 10 5/22-6/22 1 1 10.00 10.00
340 1 2 6 84 2 28 5/28-7/1 0.5 2 2.5 8.93 11.20
299 1 2 17 84 3 22 5/28-7/1 2 2 9.09 11.00
420 1 2 19 84 3 18 5/31-7/1 4 1 5 27.78 3.60
281 1 2 7 84 1 17 5/28-7/1 1 1 2 11.76 8.50
283 1 2 16 84 1 19 5/28-7/1 1 1 5.26 19.00
313 1 2 13 84 1 23 5/28-7/1 6.5 6.5 28.26 3.54
381 1 2 5 84 1 11 5/28-7/1 6/11-6/23 1 1 9.09 11.00
388 1 2 15 84 1 13 5/28-7/1 0 0.00 ERR
425 1 2 8 84 1 6 6/1-7/1 6/9'-6/15 0.5 0.5 8.33 12.00
279 1 1 13 84 1 12 5/28-6/12 0.5 0.5 4.17 24.00
280 1 1 9 84 1 11 5/28-7/1 6/il-6/22 2 2 18.18 5.50
282 1 1 8 84 1 11 6/1-7/1 6/9-6/14 1 0.5 2 3.5 31.82 3.14
382 1 1 2 84 1 16 5/28-7/1 2 2 12.50 8.00
399 1 1 10 84 1 15 5/28-6/25 2 2 13.33 7.50
400 1 1 21 84 1 9 5/30-7/1 6/19-6/22 1 1 11.11 9.00
422 1 1 4 84 1 15 5/28-7/1 '6/20-6/24 3 1 4 26.67 3.75
(eontinu~d on next page)
SMIL07!SM-32/p.2
,
Table 32.(cont'd)
No.Ungulate No.
consec.No.No.No.age!Kills!No.con
obsv.-moose adult Unident.adult species Misc.Total 100 con ob_days-
SUMMARY days calves moose moose caribou unk.kills kills ob_day-per kill
TorALS,all bears =534 53 16 2 1 8 8 88 16.48 6.07
No.of bear-years =40
Totals,males only =169 11.5 7 0 1 5 5 29.5 17.46 5.73
No.of bear-years =14
Totals,females only =365 41.5 9 2 0 3 3 58.5 16.03 6.24
No.of bear-years =26
Totals,females status 1 =259 29 6 1 0 2 2 40 15.44 6.48
No.bear-years =20
Totals,females status 2 =35 0.5 2 0 0 1 0 3.5 10.00 10.00
No.of bear-years =2
l-'
~otals,females status 3 =71 12 1 1 0 0 1 15 21.13 4.73
o.of bear-years =4
Totals,all bears area 1 =302 25.5 4 0 0 3 8 40.8 14.41 7.46
No.of bear-years =21
Totals,males area 1 =89 7.5 0.5 0 0 2 5 15 16.85 5.93
No.bear-years =7
Totals,females area 1 =213 18 3.5 0 0 1 3 25.5 H.97 8.35
No.bear-years =14
Totals,females area 1 &status 1 =145 11.5 1.5 0 0 1 2 16 11.03 9.06
No.bear-years =11
Totals,females area 1 &status 2 =28 0.5 2 0 0 0 0 2.5 8.93 H.20
No.of bear-years =1
Totals,females area 1 &status 3 =40 6 0 0 0 0 1 7 17.50 5.71
No.of bear-years =2
---------(continued on next page)
1
Table 32.(cont'd)
SMIL07/SM-32/p.3
No.Ungulate No.
consec.No.No.No.agel Kills/No.con
obsv.-moose adult Unident.adult species Misc.Total 100 con ob days-
SUMMARY days calves moose moose caribou unk.kills kills ob_day per kill
Totals,all bears area 3 =232 27.5 12 2 1 5 0 47.5 20.47 4.88
No.of bear-years =40
Totals,males area 3 =80 4 6.5 0 1 3 0 14.5 18.13 5.52
No.bear-years =7
Totals,females area 3 =152 23.5 5.5 2 0 2 0 33 21.71 4.61
No.bear-years =12
I-'
~talsi females area 3 &status 1 =114 17.5 4.5 1 0 1 0 24 21.05 4.75
o.bear-years =9
Totals,females area 3 &status 2 =7 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 14.29 7.00
No.of bear-years =
Totals,females area 3 &status 3 =31 6 1 ·1 0 0 0 8 20.00 5.00
No.of bear-years =2
(continued on next page)
SMIL07/SM-32/p.4
Table 32.(cont'd)
No.Ungulate No.
consee.No •.No.No.aqe/Kills/No.con
obsv.-moose adult Unident.adult species Misc.Total 100 con ob days-
SUMMARY days calves moose moose caribou unk.kills kills ob_day per kill
Totals,in 1981 =56 3 0 0 0 1 1 5 8.93 11.20
No.of bear-years =5
Totals,males in 1981 =0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
No.bear-years =0
Totals,females in 1981 =56 3 0 0 0 1 1 5 8.93 11.20
No.bear-years =5
Totals,FF in '81 w/status 1 56 3 0 0 0 1 1 5 8.93 11.20
No.bear-years =5
Totals,FF in '81 w/status 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
No.of bear-years =0
01:>0
Tbtals,FF in '81 w/status 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
No.of bear-years =0
Totals,all bears in 1984 =246 22.5 4 0 0 2 7 35.5 14.43 6.93
No.of bear-years =16
Totals,males tn 1984 =89 7.5 0.5 0 0 2 5 15 16.85 5.93
No.bear-years =7
Totals,females in 1984 =157 15 3.5 0 0 0 2 20.5 13.06 7.66
No.bear-years =9
Totals,FF in '84 w/status 1 28 8.5 1.5 0 0 0 1 11 39.29 2.55
No.bear-years =6
Totals,FF in '84 w/status 2 28 0.5 2 0 0 0 0 2.5 8.93 11.20
No.of bear-years =1
Totals,FF in '84 w/status .3 40 6 0 0 0 0 1 7 17.50 5.71
No.of bear-years =2
"
I SMIL12/SM-l/p.3
i Table 33.Results of intensive monitorinq of brown bear predation rates·durinq summer 1984.Bears were located once/day from 23 July
throuqh 1 Auqust,conditions permittinq.
Repro.No.of No·of No.of locations No.of visuals Total known or sus-
Bear 10 Sex Age status locations visuals (%)at salmon streams at salmon streams (%)pected kills of ungulates
MALES
282 M 8 --9 4 9 4 0
382 M 2 --5 1 0 0 0
280 M 9
~-4 1 0 0 0
399 M 10 --9 5 9 5 0
279 M 13 ~-6 3 6 3 0
400 M 21 --6 0 0 0 0
422 M A --6 5 0 0 1
I-'342 M 5 --5 1 5 1 0
tl:>o -----
r-J Subtotals for males 50 20(40.0%)29 13 (44.8%)1
FEMALES
381 F 5 alone 4 0 0 0 0
281 F 7 alone 6 0 ·0 0 0
313 F 13 alone 6 2 0 0 0
388 F 15 alone 4 1 0 0 0
283 F 16 alone 8 2 1 1 0
425 F A alone 6 2 0 0 0
315 F 6 alone 8 5 8 5 0
394 F 7 alone 8 1 8 1 0
396 F 15 alone 6 2 5 1 0
(continued)
SMIL12/SM-1/p.4
Table 33.(cont'd)
Repro.No.of No of No.of locations No.of locations Total known or sus-
Bear ID Sex 1lqe status locations (%)visuals (%)at salmon streams at salmon streams (%)pected kills of ungulates
407 F 6 alone 6 5 6 5 0
344 &385 F --alone 2 i 0 0 0
340 F 6 wl2@O 6 '6 0 0 0
423 F A 2/3@0 9 7 7 5 0
335 F 6 w/2@0 5 3 0 0 0
337 F 10 wl2@O 2 2 0 0 0
299 F 18 w/3@1 6 6 0 0 0
420 F A w/2@1 9 5 9 5 0
Subtotals for females 101 51 (50.5%)44 23(52.3%)0
~
~TOTALS FOR ALL BEARS 161 71 (44.1%)73 36(49.3%)1w
*Note that if the same ratio of kills to visuals observed in the spring (48:475)were present in the summer,then 7.2 kills would have
been observed during the.71 visual observations made.ExclUding the observations at salmon str~ams leaves only 35 visual observations
and 3.5 kills would have been expected with this number of observations using the ratio of kills:visual observations observed in the spring.
1I SMIL07/SM-34/Page 1 of 3
Table 34.Brown bear predation rates by different sex and age categories.All data,.1978-1984,are included.Status 1 =alone or with
2 year·olds status 2 =with cubs,and status 3 =with yearlings.Area 1 =Su-hydro studies and Area 3 =work in 1978 based on
Spraker et ale (1981).Den site observations are not included.
ALL BEARS
No.No.wlo
Visuals Visuals
%
Visuals
~--No.-----Wo.AiJel
moose adult adlt.spec.Probable Suspected Total Kills/l00
calves moose caribou Unknown kill kill Kills visuals
TOTALS,all bears -2188 852 72.0 68 42 9 26.5 10.5 12.5 168.5 7.70
No.of bear-years =156
Totals,males only =582 269 68.4 17.5 15 0 8 5 5 50.5 8.68
No.of bear-years =46
Totals,females only =1606 583 73.4 50.5 27 9 18.5 5.5 7.5 118 7.35
No.of bear years =110
Totals,females status 1 =978 424 69.8 32 18 7 9.5 2.5 6.5 75.5 7.72
No.bear-years =68....
,j::o.Totals,females status 2 =334 90 78.8 2.5 4 1 2
'3 0 12.5 3.74,j::o.No.of bear-years =23
Totals,females status 3 =294 69 81.0 16 5 1
7 0 I 30 10.20
No.of bear-years =19
(continued on next pagel
Table 34.(cont'd)
No.No.No.Agel
No.No.wlo %moose adult adlt.spec.
SO HYDRO ONLY Visuals Visuals Visuals calves moose caribou Unknown
SMIL07/SM-34/Paqe 2 of 3
Probable Suspected Total Kills/l00
kill kill Kills visuals
Totals,all bears area 1 =1632 691 70.3 40 18.5 6 17.5 6 8.5 96.5 5.91
No.of bear-years =118
Totals,males area 1 =404 218 65.0 11 3 0 5 3 3 25 6.19
No.bear-years =32
Totals,females area 1 =1228 473 72.2 29 15.5 6 12.5 3 5.5 71.5 5.82
No.bear-years =86
Totals,females area 1 &status 1 =716 383 65.2 17.5 9.5 5 6.5 0 4.5 43 6.01
No.bear-years =53
!ot.ls,females area 1 &status 2 =289 51 85.0 1.5 3 1 1 3 0 9.5 3.29
~.of bear-years =19
........
.c:.Totals,females area 1 &status 3 =223 39 85.1 10 3 0 5 0 1 19 8.52
U1 Ng.of bear-years =14
(continued on next page)
I
,SMIL07/SM-34/Page 3 of 3
Table 34.(cont'd)
1978 OOLY
No.No.v/o %
Visuals Visuals Visuals
No. No.NO:Agel
moose adult ad1t.spec.Probable Suspected Total Kills/100
calves moose caribou Unknown kill kill Kills visuals
Totals,all bears area 3 =483 67 87.8 28 23.5 3 9 4.5 4 72 -~9I
No.of bear-years =26
Totals,males area 3 =160 23 87.4 6.5 12 0 3 2 2 25.5 15.94
No.bear-years =10
Totals,females area 3 =323 44 88.0 21.5 11.5 3 6 2.5 2 46.5 14.40
No.bear-years =16
Totals,females area 3 &status 1 =226 25 90.0 14.5 8.5 2 3 2.5 2 32.5 14.38
No.bear-years =11
Totals,females area 3 &status 2 =32 16 66.7 1 1 0 1 0 0 3 9.38
No.of bear-years =2
I--'
~Totals,females area 3 &status 3 =65 3 95.6 6 2 1 2 0 0 11 16.92
'"No.of bear-years =3
SMIL07/SM-21p.2
updated 11/86
Table 35.Den entrance and emergence dates of radio-collared brown bears for the winter of 1980-81 ("S"is the standard deviation,but it
includes variability from the fluctuating time between observations,as well as variability in denning times).
Repro-
ductive
status 1980 Entrance 1981 Emergence Days In Den
Bear ID Sex at exit Min.Max.Mid.Min.Max.Mid.Min.MaX.Mid.
280 M 13 Oct 27 Oct 20 Oct 7 Apr 21 Apr 14 Apr 162 190 176
281 F w/o 13 Oct 27 oCt 20 Oct 7 Apr 21 Apr 14 Apr 162 190 176
283 F 2@0 9 Oct 27 Oct 18 Oct 30 Apr 5 May 2 May 185 208 197
294 M -27 Oct -21 Apr 30 Apr 26 Apr 176
299 F 2@2 13 Oct 27 Oct 20 Oct 7 Apr 21 Apr 14 Apr 162 190 176
308 F w/o 13 Oct 27 Oct 20 Oc;t 30 Apr 5 May 2 May 185 204 195
312 F 2@0 29 Sep --30 Apr 6 May 3 May
313 F 1@0 9 Sep 9 Oct 24 Sep 21 Apr 24 Apr 22 Apr 194 207 200.....
Ii::>277 F ?-27 Oct -NO NO NO-.J
MEAN bO'C£''ElE:T5""""1Et 19 APr ~~1'15 ~m
"S"13 6 11 11 7 9 13 9 12
n 7 8 6 8 8 8 7 6 6
SMIL07lSM-2!p.3
updated 11/86
Table 36.Den entrance and emergence dates of radio-collared brown bears for the winter of 1981-82 ("5"is the standard deviation,but it
includes variability from the fluctuating time between observations,as well as variability in denning times)
Repro-
ductive
status 1981 Entrimce 1982 Emergence Days In Den
Bear 10 Sex at exist Min.Max.Mid.Min.MaX.Mid. Min.Max.Mid.
280 M 22 Sep 1 Oct 27 Sep 19 Apr 6 May 28 Apr 200 226 213
281 F w/o 1 Oct 7 Oct 4 Oct 6 May 12 May 9 May 211 223 217
283 F 1@1 1 Oct 7 Oct 4 Oct 12 May 18 May 15 May 217 229 223
293 M 22 Sep 1 Jun
299 F 1@0 1 Oct 7 Oct 4 Oct 19 Apr 6 May 28 Apr 194 217 206
312 F 1@1 1 Oct 16 Oct 8 Oct 12 May 18 May 15 May 208 229 218
313 F 2@0 7 Oct 16 Oct 12 Oct 18 May 26 May 22 May 214 231 222
331 F w/o 7 Oct 16 Oct 12 Oct 6 May 12 May 9 May 202 217 210
335 F w/o 1 Oct 7 Oct 4 Oct 19 Apr 6 May 28 Apr 194 217 206
t-'337 F 2@1 1 Oct 7 Oct 4 Oct 18 May 26 May 22 May 223 237 23,0
.l::-
CXl 340 F w/o 7 Oct 16 Oct 12 Oct 19 Apr 6 May 28 Apr 185 211 198
341 F 2@0 1 Oct 7 Oct 4 Oct 12 May 18 May 15 May 217 229 223
342 M 30 Oct 19 Apr 4 May 26 Apr
344 F 2@1 7 Oct 16 Oct 12 Oct 19 Apr 6 May 28 Apr 185 211 198
MEAN -roct TI'Oct b'lJc'£l1iiiY I4"'l1aY ~204 2TI ill
"S"5 7 5 12 9 10 13 8 10
n 13 13 11 13 14 13 12 12 12
MCALL1/MC-7/p.2
update 11/86
Table 37.Den entrance and emergence dates ·of radio-collared brown bears for the winter of 1982-83 (1'5"is the standard deviation,but it
included variability from the fluctuating time between observations,as well as variability in denning times).
Repro-
ductive
status 1982 Entrance 1983 &lergence Days in Den
Bear 10 ~at exit .!!!!!:.-Max.Mid.Min.Max.Mid.Min.~Mid.
280 M 6 Oct 15 Oct 10 Oct 17 Apr 25 Apr 21 Apr 184 201 193
281 F 2@0 6 Oct 20 Oct 13 Oct 14 May 16 May 15 May 206 222 214
283 F 1@0 6 Oct 15 Oct 10 Oct 14 May 15 May 15 May 211 221 217
299 F 3@0 6 Oct 15 Oct 10 Oct 23 May 1 Jun 28 May 220 238 230
312 F 1@2 6 Oct 20 Oct 13 Oct 25 Apr 4 May 30 Apr 187 210 199
313 F 2@1 15 Oct 20 Oct 18 Oct 14 May 15 May 15 May 206 212 209
f-'
"'"335 F w/o 20 Sep 6 Oct 28 Sep 17 Apr 25 Apr 21 Apr 193 217 205
\0 337 F 1@2 20 Oct 15 NOv 2 Nov 10 May 14 Mciy 12 May 176 206 191
340 F w/o 6 Oct 15 Nov 26 Oct 25 Apr 4 May 30 Apr 161 210 186
344 F 2@0 20 Oct 15 Nov 2 Nov 14 May 15 May 15 May 180 207 194
282 M 20 Oct 15 nov 2 Nov 17 Apr 25 Apr 21 Apr 153 187 170
379 F 2@1 20 Oct 17 Nov 4 Nov 25 Apr 4 May 30 Apr 159 196 177
381 F w/o 6 Oct 15 Oct 10 Oct 17 Apr 25 Apr 21 Apr 184 201 193
380 F w/o N.D.N.O.N.O.10 May 19 May 15 May
342 M N.O.N.D.N.D.17 Apr 25 Apr 21 Apr
---------------MEAN 12 Oct 28 Oct 19 Oct 1 May 8 May 5 May 186 210 198
"S"7 16 12 13 11 12 21 13 17
n 13 13 13 15 15 15 13 13 13
SMIL12/SM~3/p.10
updated 11/86
Table 38.Brown bear den entrance and emergence dates,winter of 1983/84.
Repro-
ductive
status 1983 Entrance 1984 Emergence Days in Den
Bear ID ~at exit earliest latest mid.earliest ~mid.Min.Max.Mid.
G279 M 26 Sep 24 Oct 10 Oct 3 Apr 18 Apr 11 Apr 162 205 184
G280 M 5 Oct 25 Oct 15 Oct 18 Apr 30 Apr 24 Apr 176 208 192
G281 F 2@0 26 Sep 24 Oct 10 Oct 30 Apr 10 May 5 May 189 227 208
G282 M 5 Oct 24 Oct 15 Oct ;)Apr 7 Apr 5 Apr 162 215 189
G283 F wlo 26 Sep 5 Oct 1 Oct 18 Apr 10 May 29 Apr 196 227 212
G293 M 27 Sep*-- ------
G299 F 3@1 27 Sep*24 Oct*11 Oct*8 Apr 18 Apr 13 Apr 167 204 186
G313 F 1@2 5 Oct 24 Oct 15 Oct .30 Apr 10 May 5 May 189 218 204
G315 F wlo '26 Sep 24 Oct 10 Oct 18 Apr 30 Apr 24 Apr 177 217 197
G335 F 2@0 15 Sep 26 Sep 6 Oct 30 Apr 10 May 5 May 217 238 228
G337 F 2@0 5 Oct 24 Oct 15 Oct 30 Apr 10 May 5 May 189 218 204
G340 F 2@0 5 Oct 24 Oct 15 Oct 10 May 17 May 14 May 199 225 212
G342 M 26 Sep*14 Nov*21 Oct*30 Apr 10 May 5 May 168 227 197
G344 F 1@1 27 Sep*14 Nov*25 Oct*30 Apr 10 May 5 May 168 226 196
G379 F 1@2 24 Oct 14 Nov 25 Oct 3 Apr 18 Apr 11 Apr 141 177 159
~G381 F wlo 25 Oct*---18 Apr 30 Apr 24 Apr -188
Ul G384 F 2@0 5 Oct 25 Oct 15 Oct 10 May 28 May 19 May 198 236 217
0 G385 F wlo 26 Sep*24 Oct*10 Oct*30 Apr 10 May 5 May 189 227 208
G386 M 5 Oct 24 Oct 15 Oct ------
G388 F 2@0 26 Sep*15 Nov*21 Oct*30 Apr 10 May 5 May 167 227 197
G390 M 5 Oct 24 Oct 15 Oct 30 Apr 3 May 1 May 189 211 200
G391 M 5 Oct 24 Oct 15 Oct
G393 F ?27 Sep*
G394 F wlo 5 Oct 24 Oct 15 Oct 30 Apr 10 May 5 May 189 218 204
G396 F 1@0 27 Sep*25 Oct.11 Oct*18 Apr 30 Apr 24 Apr 176 216 196
G399 M 5 Oct 25 Oct 15 Oct 18 Apr 30 Apr 24 Apr 176 208 196
G400 M 27 Sep*24 Oct 11 Oct*18 Apr 10 May 24 Apr 177 226 202
G403 F 1@1 24 Oct 14·Nov 4 Nov·3 Apr 18 Apr 11 Apr 141 177 159
G407 F wlo - --18 Apr 30 Apr 24 Apr
G423 F 4@0 ---16 May 17 May 17 May
Mean 'T"OC£~IT"'UCt "!rAP?--nay ~T'7lr "Ti3"""m-
"5"7.8 10.9 7.1 12.0 11.2 11.4 18.0 16.2 15.7
n 18 18 18 26 26 26 23 24 23
*Not included in calculation of means
SMIL12/SM-3/p.9
updated 11/86
Table 39.Brown bear den entrance and emergence dates,winter of 1984/85.
Repro.
status 1984 Entrance 1985 &ergence Days in Den
Bear ID Sex at exit earliest latest Mid.earliest latest Mid.Min.Max.Mid.
G280 M 11 Oct (missing)
G281 F 2@0 11 Oct 24 Oct 18 Oct 23 May 1 June 28 May 211 233 222
G282 M 7,Nov 13 Nov 10 Nov(unconfirmed)11 Apri~18 April 14 April 149 162 156
G283 F 2@0 11 Oct 24 Oct 18 Oct 23 May 1 June 28 May 211 233 222
G299 F 3@2?1 Oct 11 Oct 6 Oct 18 April 30 April 24 April 189 211 200
G315 F ?11 Oct 24 Oct 18 Oct is (miss ing)----
G335 F 2@1 11 oct 24 Oct 18 oct 30 April·9 May 5 May 188 210 199
G337 F 2@1 11 Oct 24 Oct 18 Oct 16 May 23 May 20 May 204 224 214
G340 F 2@1 11 Oct 24 OCt 18 Oct 18 April 30 April 24 April 176 201 189
G379 F alone?1 Oct 11 Oct 6 Oct 9 May 16 May 13 May 210 227 219
G381 F 2@0 11 oct 24 Oct 18 oct 16 May 23 May 20 May 204 224 214
G388 F 2@0 11 Oct 24 Oct 18 Oct 23 May 1 June 28 May 211 233 222
G3%F 2@0 21 Sep 11 Oct 1 Oct (shed?)16 May 23 May 20 May 217 244 231
G399 M 11 Oct 24 Oct 18 Oct 18 April 30 April 24 April 176 201 189
G400 M 11 oct 24 Oct 18 oct 30 April 9 May 5 May 188 210 199
G403 F 1@2?7 Nov 13 Nov 10 Nov 9 May 16 May 13 May 177 190 199
I-'G382 M 11 oct 24 OCt 18 Oct 30 April 9 May 5 May 188 210 199
U1 G407 F alone 11 Oct 24 Oct 18 Oct 18 April 30 April 24 April 176 201 189
I-'G420 F 2@2 11 Oct 24 Oct 18 oct 30 April 9 May 5 May 188 210 199
G422 M 11 Oct 24 Oct 18 Oct 18 April 30 April 24 April 176 201 189
G423 F 3@1 11 oct 24 Oct 18 Oct 30 April 9 May 5 May 188 210 199
G425 F 2@0 11 Oct 24 Oct 18 Oct 23 May 2 June 28 May 211 233 222
Mean TfllC£"24OC£T8l'5ct 4 May 13 May 10 May ~"llT"""JITr'
"S"9.7 8.1 9.0 14.2 13.3 13.8 17.6 18.9 17.5
n 24 21 21 20 20 20 20 20 20
MCALL2/DMC·3/p.1
updated 2/86
Table 40.Characteristics of brown bear dens in the Susitna study area during winters of 1980/81,1981/1982,1982/1983, 1983/1984,and 1984/i985.
Den..~
l'IU.
Bear
ID No.
Age at Elevation Slope
Exit {Feet}(Degrees)
Aspect
{True N.>Veoetat1.on
ENTRANCE CHAMBER
Ht.Width Ln.Width Ht.
(em.)(em.)(em.)(em ..)(em.)
Total Previously
Length Used?
(em.)(Yes/No)COiiiiiients
FEMALES
With offspring (@ exit)
w/2 @O 14 G283 (sp.)13
G283 (wt.)13
37***?
89***G379
Collapsed
Collapsed
No Collapsed
No
Spring den,collapsed
No
,Collapsed/not visited
Collapsed/not Visited
Collapsed/not visited
No Collapsed
No Collapsed
No Collapsed
No
Collapsed
No Collapsed
No Spring den,collapsed
Collapsed
No Collapsed
No Collapsed
No Partially collapsed
No Spring den/collapsed
No Winter den
No Collapsed
No
No Spring den,collapsed
230
207
196
136
177
291
410
219
86 345
84**290
88
165
138
239 203 92
104
152 90
117 127
151 136 101 350
102 221
76**-
56 136
76
66
69 103 101
83
76 64
49 65
58 69
53**79
58
67 52
64
61
102**-
Willows
Tussock/lg.rocks 57 69
Willow,alder
Tundra/rock
Mosslrock slide
Tundra/rock
Willow,grass
Tundra
Tusso<;:k grass
Tussock/rock slide -
Tundra
Grass
Grass
Tundra
Alder
Alder,ferns
Alder
Tundra
Tundra
Tundra
Tundra,willows
34**
23**
40
93
145
252
210
166
192
213
153
182
201
202
138
220
118**
218
176
156
346'
189
336**
198
25
31
28
26
27
26
35
34
45
31
27
28
17
30
36
35**
45**
42
39
35**
33
45**
3900
3725
5150
4250
352.5
2075
4925
4575
4925
3950
4825
4760
4900
4660
1050
4575
4150
3975
3725
4750**
5150**
4900**
4575
1375
7
7
5
6
?
6
6
13
11
10
14
11
11
12
15
16
16
6
12
15
15
15
G344
G313
G277
G299
G341
G337
G331
G313
G312'
G312
G299
G344
G313
G299
G299
G283
G337
G337
G281
25
16
22
24
30
31
28
52
42
47
44
54
59
76
78
87***G379
104
107
105
1O~
103
w/2 @O
w/1 @O
w/3 @O
wl2 @O
w/2 @O
w/2 @l*
wl2 @2
w/2 @O
w/2 @O
w/l @1
w/2 @1
w/2 @O
w/l @O
w/2 @l
w/3 @O
w/3 @O
wl2 @l
w/2 @1
w/2 @1
w/1 @O
w/2 @O
w/1 @2
w/1 @2
.....
U1
N
lcontinued on next pagel
>,
MCALL2/DMC-3/p.3
updated 2/86
Table 40.(continued)
,ENTRANCE CHAMBER Total Previously
Den Bear Age at Elevation Slope Aspect Ht.Width Ln.Width Ht.Length Used?
No.ID No.Exit (Feet)(Degrees)(True N.)Vegetation (Clll.)(cm.)(cm.)(cm.)(cm.)(cm.)(Yes/No)Conunents
w/2 @O
w/o
163
23
G425
G28l 4
5330
4700
19
39
173
142
Tundra
Tussock/rock slide -
76
61 No
Collapsed
Collapsed
82 112 112 110 230
Not visited
Partially collapsed
Collapsed
Collapsed
Collapsed
Yes Collapsed
No
No
No
2243947
69
Willow,alder
Tundra
Alder
Tundra
Tundra62**
261
205
306**
358
354**
26
28
30**
32
45**
60**
5150
2330
3525
4350
4300
4500**
4950**5
5
4
6
4
3
4
G340
G335
G308b
G335
G340
G381
G381
5
79
46
56
III
106
122
w/o
w/o
w/o
w/o
w/o
w/o
w/o
w/o
~w/o
Ul
~MALES
131
189
1
G283
G407
G280 '
16
7
6
3450
2600**
3950
32
40**,
32
75
38**
158
Tundra/alder
Alders
Tundra/grass/rock 48 86 231 269 No
Collapsed
Not visited
Collapsed
94***G342
36***G342A
135 15415
29
60
G284?
G294
G280
3
11
13
7.
6
3990
2650
2375
4125
2525
23
30
31
26
26
216
146
288
210
299
Tundra/grass
Alder/grass
Alder
Grass,willow
Alder
56 83
52 80
38 71
66**74
81
157
86
'84
77 239
89 188
94 124
81 147
No
No
No
No
No
ID uncertain
Partially collapsed
Partially collapsed
Collapsed
Collapsed
86
110
123
132
166
G282
G280
G280
G279
G382
7
8
9
13
3
3200
3950**
2950
3625
4950**
33
26
40
40
50**
46
54
278
258
22**
Alder,willow
Grass,willow
Willow/tundra
Willow/tundra
Tundra
No Collapsed
Collapsed
Collapsed
Collapsed
Not visited
175 G422 7 3045 24 264 Alder 72 84 103 145 108 119 No Partially collapsed
(continued on next page)
MCALL2/DMC-3/p.4
updated 2/86
Table 40.(continued)
ENTRANCE CHAMBER Total Previously
Den Bear Age at Elevation Slope Aspect Ht.Width Ln.Width Ht.Length Used?
No.ID No.Exit (Feet)(Degrees)(True N.)Vegetation (cm.)(cm.)(cm.)(cm.)(cm.)(cm.)(Yes/No)Comments
DUG DENS
UNKNOWN SEX/ID
17 --3925 33 192 Willow 61 62 154 162 122 220 No
26 --4090 29 162 Willow/grass 73 65 -- -
171 No Partially collapsed
27 --4125 26 140 Willow/grass -58 --68 -No Partially collapsed
53 --4350 31 ,195 Grass ---- -
-No Collapsed
77 --4050 29 169 Tundra -61 - ---No Collapsed
NATURAL CAVITY -FEMALES
w/l @2 101***G380 16 3900 31 60 Tundra 54 112 132 143 109 290 -Slightly excavated
165 ----5215 36 170 Tundra 66**133**- -
-552 Yes Rock cave
UNKNOWN CAVITY TYPE -FEMALES
w/4 ~149 G423 3500**----Tundra --- -
-- -
Not located
.....w/l @l 155***G403 7 2450 --343 --- - -----Not located
U1
U1 w/o 137 G385 3 ------ --- --- ---Not located
w/o 139 G315 6 ----------- - ---Not located
w/o 148 G394 7 3000**--208**---------Not located
w/o 150 G407 6 ---------- --- --Not located
w/l yrl 41 G283 14 4000 26 161 ----- - - -
-Not visited
w/2 @2 48 G337 14 5050 45**253**--- --- -
- -
Not located
w/o 45 G281 5 4575**25 176 Grass --- - - - -
Not located
w/2 @O 177 G281 8 4600**--184**----- ----Not visited
unk.196 G315 7 2700**--270**---- --- --Not visited
w/o 199 G379***8 1600**--97**---------Not visited
w/2 @O 170 G381 6 ----186**Tundra ---- ---Not visited
w/o 178 G385 4 3000**--262**Alder -------Not visited
w/3 @l 183 G420 -3600**20**238**Tundra -------Collapsed/not
visited
<continued on next page)---_._--.._--_.
Elevation Slope hSpeCL
(Feet)(Degrees)(True N.)Vegetation
ENTRANCE CHAMBER Total Previously
'Ht.Width Ln.Width Ht.Length Used?
(cm.)(cm.)(cm.)(cm.)(cm.)(cm.),(Yes/No)Comments
I
I
Table 40.(continued)
I
Den n~~_Age atD~a.L
No.ID No.Exit
MALES
136 G399 10
I 151 G342 7
176 G282 9
I
197 G399 11
3400**
4250**
30**301**
125**
Alders
Tundra
;..
MCALL2/DMC-3/p.5
updated 2/86
Not located
Not located
Not visited
Not visited
.....
U1
0'1
*Entered den with 2 yearlings,shed collar in den so exit not observed.
**Approximate value
***Downstream
Dens No.14,16,22,24,30, 31,25, 28,23,5,1,15,29,17,26
27 are 1980/1981
Dens No.42, 44, 47,52, 54, 59,37,46,56,36,60,53,41, 48,
45 are 1981/1982
Dens No.76,78,87,89,101, 102,102;103,105,107, 108, 109,79,
106,Ill,94,86,110,77 are 1982/1983
Dens No.112, 117, 118, 119,120, 121,124,125, 133,134,135, 153,
122,131, 123, 132, 149,155,137,139,148,150,136,151
are 1983/84
Dens No.179, 194,161,164, 193,162, 182, 192,195,163, 189,166,
175,165,177, 196,199,170, 178,183,176,197 are 1984/1985
SMIL07/SM-20/p.15
Table 41.Brown bear den elevations by sex and reproductive status.
Includes some bears of unknown sex and reproductive status
in totals for all bears.
Mean
Elevation
(feet)N Maximum Minimum Std.Dev.
UPSTREAM STUDY AREA
Females w/COY 4221 29 5330 2010 695.3
Females w/o COY 4181 33 5240 2330 805.8
Females w/COY or YLG 4261 41 5330 2010 662.4
Females w/YLG or @2 4465 19 5240 3350 541.1
Single·females 3879 13 5150 2330 939.7
All females 4200 62 5330 2010 750.3
All males 3674 12 4950 2650 652.7
All bears 4128 80 5330 2010 738.6
DOWNSTREAM STUDY AREA
All bears 2100 10 3900 1050 817.2
157
SMIL10/SM-1/p.11
updated 9/86
Table 42.Distances between den sites (miles)used in different years by radio-collared brown bears.Based on
principal winter den,early spring dens not considered.
80/81 80/81 80/81 81/82 81/82 82/83 80/81 81/82 82/83 83/84
Bear to to to to to to to to to to
In Age 81/82 82/83 83/84 82/83 83/84 83/84 84/85 84/85 84/85 84/85 x s
FEMALES
G283 13 in'81 3.2 2.4 1.6 5.3 4.9 1.7 3.4 3.5 5.8 4.4 3.6 1.5
G313 10 in'81 4.1 4.4 3.4 6.7 1.0 5.7 ----4.2 2.0
G337 13 in'81 3.3 2.4 1.9 3.7 3.1 0.6 4.2 1.0 4.7 4.1 2.9 1.4
G344 5 in'81 3.1 1.5 3.8 1.6 1.2 2.5 ----2.3 1.0
G299 14 in'81 8.9 6.7 7.1 3.5 3.5 0.5 11.3 2.7 6.2 6.1 5.7 3.2
G281 4 in'81 1.9 1.7 1.7 0.2 0.2 0.1 2.7 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.3 0.9
G335 4 in'82 ---2.4 2.0 0.9 -1.4 1.5 1.9 1.7 0.5
I-"
U1 G340 4 in'82 ---0.3 17.7 17.6 -18.1 18.0 0.6 12.0 9.0
00
G312 11 in'81 2.1 0.6 -1.6 ------1.4 0.8
G379 6 in'83 ---- -
5.3 - -
5.3 0.5 3.7 2.8
G315 2 in'80 ---0.8
G381 3 in'82 --2.8 2.5 2.7
G388 14 in'83 ---0.8
G396 9 in'83 ---9.0
G403 4 in'83 ---2.2
G407 4 in'83 ---5.1
(FEMALES)-3.9 2.8 3.3 2.7 4.2 3.9 5.4·4.7 5.7 3.0 x(n=77)=3.8x =
s =2.3 2.1 2.1 2.3 5.7 5.5 4.0 6.6 5.3 2.6 s =4.0
Range =0.1-18.1
\Contlnuect)
SMILI2/SM~6/p.7
Table 43.Number of observations and percent (in parentheses)of radio-marked
black bears within nested impoundment proximity zones of the Watana
Impoundment (den-related activities are not included).
TIME PERIOD
ZONE 1 ZONE 2 ZONE 3 ZONE 4
(impoundment)(shore-l mile)(1-5 miles)(over 5 miles)TOTAL
24 (29}.34 (41)
1.April 1-30
2.May 1-15
3.May 16-31
4.June 1-15
5.June 16-30
6.July 1-15
7.July 16-31
8.August 1-15
9.August 16-31
10.Sept.1-15
6 (100)
31 (4.4)
84 (55)
142 (55)
74 (36)
25 (32)
50 (40)
40 (39)
37 (30)
o
31 (44)
55 (36)
69 (27)
79 (39)
30 (38)
46 (37)
41 (40)
44 (36)
o
8 (11)
13 (9)
43 (17)
49 (24)
23 (29)
28 (23)
22 (21)
40 (33)
23·(28)
a
o
o
6 (2)
3 (1)
1 (l)
o
o
2 (2)
2 (2)
6
70
152
260
205
79
124
103
123
83
1.1.Sept.16-
March 31
TOTALS
38 (38)40 (40)
551 (42)469 (36)
22 (22)
2TI (21)
o
14N
100
1305
Area w;i.thin zone
(km2 )159.32
9.29
327.07
19.02
1233.51
71.72
1719.00
100.0
Value of Chi-Square test of the null hypothesis that the use of each zone is
E!quivalent to expected values based on the area of each zone for:
ZONE 1
j~ll months,
3 zones
obs.E (x)
551 119.6
ZONE 2
obs.E(x)
469 245.6
ZONE 3
obs.E(x)
271 926.0 2,222**2
All months,
zones 1 &2 only 551 334.1 469 685.9 210**1
*Reject null hypothesis,p less than 0.10.
,t*Reject null hypothesis,p less than 0.05.
160
______----'""f""--------------AA-"4I""'"-_-------------------
SMIL12/SM-6/p.8
Table 44.Number of observat'ions and percent (in parentheses)of radio-marked
black bears within nested impoundment proximity zones of the Devil's
Canyon Impoundment (den-related activities are not included).
ZONE 1 ZONE 2 ZONE 3 ZONE 4
TIME PERIOD (impoundment)(shore-1 mile)(1-5 miles)(over 5 miles)TOTAL
1.April 1-30 0 1 0 0 1
2.May 1-15 2 33 16 2 53
3.May 16-31 2 43 43 0 88
4.June 1-15 8 70 86 0 164
5.June 16-30 3 45 75 2 125
6.July 1-15 0 21 29 1 51
7.July 16-31 0 13 33 1.47
8.August 1-15 0 17 17 2 36
9.August 16-31 2 18 26 2 48
10.Sept.1-15 1 13 13 3 30
11.Sept.16-
March 31 ..0 18 16 2 36
TOTALS 18 (3)292 (43)354 (52)15 (2)679
Area within zone
(km2 )28.92 164.78 689.01 882.71
%3.28 18.67 78.06 100.0
Value of Chi-Square test of the null hypothesis
equivalent to expected values based on the area
ZONE 1 ZONE 2
obs.E(x)obs.E(x)
All months,
3 zones 18 21.8 292 124.0
May I-June 30
3 zones 12 9.9 146 56.6
May I-June 30
2 zones 12 23_.6 146 134.4-
*Reject null hypothesis,p less than 0.10.
**Reject null hypothesis,p less than 0.05.
that the use of each zone is
of each zone for:
ZONE 3
obs.E(x)X2 d.f.
354 518.3 275**2
145 236.5 177**2
6.7**1
161
162
________....,..........._-"1'""1'-""""'1-------------------1
SMIL07/SM-20/p.19
Table 45.(cont'd)
BLACK BEARS-DEVILS CANYON IMPOUNDMENT ONLY
Bear In Sex Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Totals
287 M 1 16 14 1 32
303 M 11 29 40
304 M 4 12 16
319 M 8 6 14
324 M 23 19 7 49
348 M 4 5 9
359 M 2 4 6
401 M 4 31 11 46
416 M 2 11 22 3 38
All Males 7 110 122 11 250
%2.8 44.0 48.8 4.4
Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Totals
288 F 12 4 16
289 F 27 35 62
290 F 2 14 13 29
317 F 2 42 51 95
318 F 16 19 35
321 F 3 29 29 61
325 F 1 2 6 9
327 F 6".5 11
328 F 2 10 38 50
329 F 1 1 2
Devils Canyon
All Females 10 159 201 0 370
%2.7 43.0 54.3 0.0 100
Devils Canyon
ALL BEARS 17 269 323 11 620
%2.7 43.4 52.1 1.8 100
Both impoundments
All Males 185 303 285 22 795
%23.3 38.1 35.8 2.8 100
Both impoundments
All Females 380 429 303 3 1115
%34.1 38.5 27.2 0.3 100
Both impoundments
ALL BEARS 565 732 588 25 1910
%29.6 38.3 30.8 1.3 100
163
SMIL07/SM-l!p.37
Table 46.Number of Susitna River crossings by radio-marked black bears,1980-1984.
Yr.initial No.river crossings b~upstream bears
Bear ID capture (age)1980 1981 19~1983 1984 Comments
Males (upstream)
~1984 (A)-- --1 active
330 1981 (1)-0 ---318's cub,died fall '81
323 1980(2)2 4 2 3 --dead (in hunter's cabin)
358 1982(2)--0 2 0 natural mortality 7/84
319 1980(3)4 3 ---dead,9/81
401 1983(3)---2 8 active
291 1980(4)0 ----dead 8/80
322 1980(4)0 -1 --dead 6/82,(shed collar '81,recap '82)
320 1980(4)1 --- -
shot (hunterl 9180
357 1982 (4)--·4 - -
dead 3/83
359 1982(4)--0 0 8 active
I-'
0'1 387 1983(4)---0 0 activeII::-
324 1980(5)0 4 4 4 0 shot (hunter)9/84
342B 1981(5)-0 - --shot (hunter)9/81
343 1981(5)-3 3 2 4 active
300 1980(7)-----dead 5/80
360 1982 (7)--2 4 0 shed collar 4/84
302 1980 (8)0 12 2 -2 collar shed '80;recaptured but
radio failure in 1982
303.1980(8)2 0 0 0 -shot (hunter)9/83
305 1980(9)2 ----shot (hunter)8/80
346 1981(9)-2 4 8 0 natural mortality 5/84
348 1981(9)-2 1 --shot (hunter)9/82
287 1980 (10)0 2 2 --shot (hunter)9/82
304 1980(10)0 0 1 -.-shed collar 5/82
Total males 11 32 215 25 23
(upstream)
(continued)
SMIL07/SM-1/p.38
Table 46.(continued)
Yr.Initial No.river crossings ~upstream bears
Bear ID capture (age)1980 1981 198 1983 1984 Comments
Females (upstream)
329 1981(1)-2 2 5 10 327's cub
349 1981(4)-0 0 0 0 shed collar 7/83
363 1982(4)--0 0 0*2 active
379 1983(4)- --0 -dead;possibly killed by other bears
318 1980(5)0*1 0 0 0 -shed collar
326 1980(5)0 - ---shot
327 1980(5)1*2 8y1 7 1*2'-dead 7/83
354 1982(5)--0*2 0 0*2 active
328 1980(6)-0*2 0 -0 shed collar 1982,active
364 1982(6)--7 .:.6Y1 missing **9/82
301 1980 (7)2 0*2 0 --shed collar 8/83
I--'
0'\317 1980 (7)0*2 °y1 0 0*1 °y1 activeU1
361 1982 (7)--2 0*3 °Y3 active
290 1980(8)4*1 0 ---not recollared (infected neck)
289 1980(9)4 0*3 °y1 1*2 Sy1 active
288 1980(10)0*3 --- -
shed collar 9/80
321 1980 (10)0 2*2 0 0 0*1 active
325 1980(11)0 2 ---shed collar 1981,1982
316 1980(11)0 2 -- -
shed collar 1981,1982
Total females 11 14 i8 7 21
(upstream)
Total both sexes 22 46 44 32 44
(upstream)
<Continued)
SMIL07/SM-l!p.39
Table 46.(continued)
Yr.Initial "No.of river crossings by downstream bears
Bear ID capture (age)1982 1 83 1984 Comments
Males
(downstream)
408 1983(3)-0 2 active
365 1982 (5)0 0 -dead 9/83
366 1982(6)1 --shot 8/82
Total Males 1 0 2
Females
(downstream)
369 1982 (3)0 0 0*2 active
367 1982(4)0 0 -shot ("DLP")
377 1982(4)2 3 3 active,
409 1983(5)-0 0 active
376 1982(6)2yl 4*3 2Y3 active
378 1982(6)0 0*1 °y2 active
I-'
0'1 410 1983 (7)-0 -shot ("DLP"7/83)
0'1
374 1982 (7)0 0*3 -shot 9/83
370 1982 (7)0 0*2 -missing**
411 1983 (8)-2Y2 2*2 active
375 1982(9)5 4*1 3Y2 active
372 1982(9)0 0*2 -missing**
402 1983 (10)-2Y3 2 active
404 1983(11).
2*1 2 active-
406 1983(11)-0*2 °y2 missing 10/84
405 1983 (17)--0y;;!active
Total females
(downstream)9 17 14
Total both sexes
(downstream)10 17 16
**possible unreported hunter kill,collar failure,or emigration.
Reprod.status:*=cub of year y =yrlg.
SMIL02/Table 2/p.38
Table 47.Scat analyses of brown bear and black bear scats collected in the Su-Hydro study area,1980-1982.(Analyses done by Paul Smith,ADF&G,
Soldotna).Values are %volume (T=trace,2=6-25%,3=26-50%,4=51-75%,5=76-100%).
Date Species o~~-Sample
Collected bear Location No.Comments 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
5/26}S2 BK (B352)upstream 9 Capture site 5 T
5/27/82 BK (B363?)upstream 12 capture site 5 T T (ants)T
5/27/S2 BK (357)upstream 30 Capture site 3 2 2 T 4 (calf T (ants)T
hair?)
6/1/81 BK (B327)upstream 25 Den 5 2 T T
6/13/81 BK (B34S)upstream 14 Den 5 T
5/23/S1 ?upstream 5 Helms 5 T (1 fly)T
5/23/S1 ?upstream 6 Helms 5 T 5 T T T T
6/1/S1 ?upstream 19 Pickup 5 T (ants,
beetles)T
·6/6/79 ?upstream 39 Pickup 5 T
6/S/79 ?upstream 15 Helms 5 T (flies)T
6/S/S2 ?upstream 16 Helms 5 T T (flies)T
6/16/82 ?upstream 32 Pickup 5 T T T
6/19/82 ?upstream 37 Pickup 3 3 2 (ants)T
6/24/82 ?upstream 33 Pickup 5 2·hare T T
6/2S/S2 ?upstream 54 Helms 4 2
7/1/S2 ?upstream T 5 T T
7/1/S2 ?upstream 51 Pickup T 5 T T
7/1/81 ?upstream 2 Pickup 5 T T T?T T -I,IVi1/81 .?upstream 3 Pickup 5 T
~1/S1 ?upstream 1 Pickup 5 T
ih/S1 ?upstream 49 Pickup 3 3?T 3
7/1/81 ?upstream 47 Pickup 5 T (ants)T
5/24/79 BR (G245)upstream 46 Yearling T T T 5 (squirrel)
SUMMER -FALL Upstream
S/lS/S0 BK (B327)upstream 36 Capture T 5 T 2
8/1S/80 BK (32S)upstream 38 Capture 3.4 T 2
8/19/80 BK (B303)upstream 35 Capture 3 3 T 2
SUMMER -FALL -Sloughs
8/31/82 ?downstream 13 A 5 T
8/31/82 ?downstream 42 8B 2 3 3 T T
8/30/82 ?downstream 23 SA-8B T 5 T
8/30/82 ?downstream 8 88 T 5 T
S/31/82 ?downstream ;;)1 A 2 T 4 3
8/31/82 ?downstream 20 21 3 3 T 2 T
9/2/82 ?downstream 41 88 5 2
1-:-Equisetum spp.(horeseta11)5.QPlopanax horridus (Devils club)Atlimal matter Other
6.Arctostaphylos alpina (bearberrry)11.MOose
Berries 7.Vaccinium uliginosum (blueberry)12.Hare or ground squirrel 16.
8.Lichens 13.Feathers
2.Vacciniurn vitis-idaea (lowbush cranberry)9.Grasses or sedges 14.Fish
3.Viburnum edule lhighbush cranberry)10.Ledum sp.(Labrador tea)15.Insects
4.Qlipetrum nigrum (crowberry)
l SMILO'3/SM-4/p.1
Table 48.Analyses of brown bear and black bear scats collected in the Su-Hydro study area,1983.(Analyses done by Paul Smith,ADF&G,Soldotna).
Values are %volume (T~trace,2~6-25%,3~26-50%,4~51-75%,5~76-100%).
Date Species of Sample
Collected bear Place No.Comments 1 2 3 4 5 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ,n
.L::>
Summer -Fan -Sloughs
8/18/82 ?upstm 25 Steigers-84 2 5
ai20/83 ?upstm 27 Steigers-84 2 3 3
8/25/83 ?dstm 5 Slough 8A 5 2
8/25/83 ?dstm 7 Slough 8A T 5
8/25/83 ?dstm 8 Slough 8A 5
8/25/83 ?dstm 28 Slough 8A T 5 2
8/25/83 ?dstm 31 Slough 8A 4 2 T T
8/24/83 ?dstm 13 Slough 8B T 5 T T
8/24/83.?dstm 4 Slough 88 5 T T T
8/24/83 ?dstm 21 Slough 8B T 5 T
8/24/83 ?dstm 17 Slough 88 5 T T
8/24/83 ?dstm 30 Slough 8B T T 4 T T T
8/24/83 ?dstm 6 Slough 8B T 4 T 2
8/24/83 ?dstm 18 Slough 8B 3 T 2
8/24/83 ?dstm 9 Slough 8B 3 3 T
8/24/83 ?dstm 15 8B +nematode 3 3 3
8/25/83 ?dstm 14 Slough 8A 4 I T T T
8/25/83 ?dstm 22 Slough 8A T 2 2 5 T 2
8/25/83 ?dstm 3 Slough 11 5
8/26/83 BRB?dstm 43 Slough 20 3
8/26/83 BRB?dstm 33 Slough 21 5 T
8/26/83 BRB?dstm 29 Slough 21.T 5 T T
8/26/83 BRB?dstm 26 Slough 21 5
I--'8/26/83 ?dstm 24 Slough 21 3 3 2 T
0"1 8/26/83 ?dstm 16 McKenzie Ck.5 T T T T
00 8/25/83 ?dstm 19 Moose Ck.2 5 T T T
8/25/83 ?dstm 27 Moose Ck.5 T
8/25/83 ?dstm II Moose Ck.5
8/24/83 ?dstm 12 Slough 8 T T 5 T
8/25/83 ?dstm 23 Slough 8A T 5 T
8/25/83 ?dstm 20 Slough 8A 5
8/25/83 ?dstm 25 Slough AI T 3 3 T T T
8/18/83 ?upstm 42 Berry Plot #1 3 T T 2
8/18/83 ?upstm 44 Berry Plot #2 3 3 T T T T
8/18/83 ?upstm 45 Berry Plot #1 T 3 T T 3
8/18/83 ?upstm 46 Berry Plot #1 2 3 2
9/16/83 ?upstm 22 Steigers-84 2 2 4
Spring Samples
5/19/83 ?upstm 23 Steigers-84 5 T
5/19/83 BKB upstm 36 B404 2 5
5/31/83 ?upstm 24 Steigers-84 .:)3
5/19/83 ?upstm 26 Steigers-84 5
6/7/83 ?upstm 32 Forest area '.5
6/7/83 BKB upstm 34 B361 den 5 T 2
6/8/83 ?upstm 35 +nematodes 3 3
6/8/83 BKB upstm 40 B372 den 5
6/9/83 BKB upstm 10 B374 5
6/lD/83 BKB upstm 37 B358 den 2 2 2 T T T
6/9/83 ?dstm 38 Deadhorse Ck.5 T
(continued)
Table 48.(continued)
SMIL03/SM-4/p.2
1.misetum spp.(horseta1.l)
8.ichens
9.Grasses or sedges
19.Clover (Trifolium spp.)
Berries
I-'
0'\
1..0
2.
4.
5.
6.
7.
18.
17.
Vaccinium vitis-iadea (lowbush cranberry)
E1Ii;:etrum nAgrum (crowberry)on opanax orridus (devil's Club)
ctos1taPh11os alPini (bearberry)
Vacein urn u iginosut blueberry)
Streptopus amPiexifolius (watermelon berry)
Other berries
Sambucus racemosa (red elderberry)
OXycoceus microcarpus (bog cranberry)
Sorbus scopulina (Greene Mt.ashberry)
~rdia canadensis (soapberry)-#42
Comus canadensis (Comus berry)
vaccrnium ovalifolium (early blueberry)
Viburnum edule (highbush cranberry)
Ribes triste (red currant)
Animal Matter
11.Moose
12.Hare or ground
13.Feathers
14.Fish
15.Insects
squirrel,misc.
16.Other Misc.
,':
SMIL03/SM-4/p.3
Table 49.Analyses of brown bear and black bear scats collected in the Su-Hydro study area,1984.(Analyses done by Paul,Smith,ADF&G,Soldotna).
Values are %volume (T=trace,2=6-25%,3=26-50%,4=51-75%,5=76-100%).
Date species ot l::iaDlple
Collecteq.bear Place No.COllUllents 1 2 3 4 5 6
9 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Summer -Fall -Sloughs
8/3/84 ?upstm 6 1700'elev.2 2 T 4
8/5/84 ?upstm 19 Watana Camp 2 2 3 T 3
8/5/84 ?upstm 4 Watana Camp T 2 T 5
8/15/84 ?dstm 55 Lane Ck.4 2 2
8/15/84 ?dstm 60 SJough 8B 3 3 2
8/15/84 ?dstm 64 Portage Ck.S.5 T
8/15/84 ?dstm 65 McKensie Ck.5
5/15/84 ?dstm 66 Lane Ck •.5 T
8/16/84 ?dstm 28 Slough 28 5 T T
8/16/84 ?dstm 29 Slough :8A 4 T 2
8/16/84 ?dstm 30 Slough A 4 2 2
8/16/84 BKB dstm 31 Slough 9 3 T 3 2
8/16/84 ?dstm 32 Slough A 3 T 3 T
8/16/84 ?dstm 33 Slough A 3 3 2
8/16/84 ?dstm 34 Slough 11 3 T T T 3 T
8/16/84 ?dstm 35 Slough 8A 3 3
8/16/84 ?dstm 36 Slough 9A 5 T T
I-'8/16/84 ?dstm 37 Slough 11 4 T 2 2
.......8/16/84 ?dstm 38 Slough 11 4 2 208/16/84 ?dstm 39 Slough 9A T 5 T
8/16/84 ?dstm 40 Slough 21 2 2 2
T 2 2
8/16/84 ?dstm 41 Slough 21 2 2
T 2 2
8/16/84 ?dstm 42 Slough 21 3 2
8/16/84 ?dstm 43 Slough 21 2 3 2 T
8/16/84 ?dstm 44 Slough 21 5 T
8/16/84 ?dstm 45 4th July Ck.4 3 T
8/16/84 ?dstm 46 Slough 8A 4 T 2
8/16/84 ?dstm 47 Slough 11 2 5
8/16/84 ?dstm 48 Slough 8A T T 3 T
8/16/84 ?dstm 49 Slough 9A 3 3
8/16/84 ?dstm 50 Riverbank 3 3
8/16/84 ?dstm 51 Slough 8A T 3
8/16/84 ?dstm 52 Slough 8A 5 T 2
8/16/84 ?dstm 53 Slough 8A T 4 T 2
8/16/84 ?dstm 54 5th July Ck.5
8/16/84 ?dstm 56 5th July Ck.T 2 3 3
8/16/84 ?dstm 57 5th July Ck.3 2 2
8/16/84 ?dstm 58 5th July Ck.2 4
8/16/84 ?dstm 62 Slough 9 2 3 2
8/16/84 BKB dstm 61 Slough 8A 2 2 3 T
8/16/84 ?dstm 59 Slough A 5 T T
8/16/84 ?dstm 63 Slough 9 5
8/23/84 ?upstm 15 E.Fk.Watana 2 T 3 3
8/2::1/84 ?upstm 16 E.Fk.Watana 3 T 3 T 3
(continued on next page)
SMIL03/SM-4/p.4
Table 49.(cont'd)
Species of SampleDate
Collected bear Place No.Couunents 1 2 3 4 5 6 9 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
SPRING SAMPLES
5/15/84 BRB 299 upstm 7 Susitna 2 4 T
5/15/84 BRB 418 upstm 5 ylg w/299 5 T
5/15/84 BRB 417 upstm 11 ylg w/299 T 3 3 T
5/15/84 BRB 419 upstm 12 ylg wl299 5 T T
5/15/84 BRB 399 upstm 14 Susitna T 3 4
5/16/84 BRB 312 upstm 8 Stomach T T 5
5/16/84 BKB 349 upstm 1 Anal plug
5/18/84 BRB 422 upstm 9 On old moose
kill 2 2 4 T
5/27/84 BRB upstm 10 On calf kill T 2 5 T
5/27/84 BRB upstm 21 On calf kill 2 2 3 T
5/29/84 BRB cub upstm 3 Abandoned cub 3 2 T T 2
5/30/84 BRB upstm 17 On calf kill 2 5 T
5/31/84 BRB upstm 2 On calf kill 4 T 2 T
5/31/84 BRB upstm 13 On calf kill 5 2 T T
5/31/84 BRB upstm 18 On calf kill'2 2 2 3 3 T r'
"......6/20/84 BKB upstm 20 den of 8401 3 3 2 T T C'
-...J......
1.f1C!setum spp.(horsetail)
8.ichens
9.Grasses or sedges
19.Clover (Trifolium sPp.)
Berries
2.
4.
5.
6.
7.
18.
17.
Vaceinium vitis-ldaea (lowbush cranberry)
Emtetrum ni9rui (crowberry)
OD opanax orr dus (devil's Club)
ctosptaPh11os alpin!(bearberry)
Vaceinium u iginosum blUeberry).
Streptopus amplexifolius (watermelon berry)
Other berries
Sambucus racemosa (red elderberry)
OXycoccus m{croca~us (bog cranberry)
Sorbus scopulina reene Mt.ashberry)
~rdia canadensis (soapberry)-#42
Comus canadensis (Comus berry)
\TaCCIiiium ovaHfolium (early blueberry)
Viburnum edule lhighbush cranberry)
Ribes triste (red currant)
Animal Matter
11.Moose
12.Hare or ground squirrel,misc.
13.Feathers
14.Fish
15.Insects
16.Other Misc.
SMIL12!SM-3/p.2
Table 50.Salmon abundance in downstream sloughs and streams,1981-1984.
No.Adult Salmon Enumerated*
AREA .:.R:.:I.:.VER::.:..:.M:.:I=LE=-_........--=1~9.;;8.:.1.:.:;lN.:..*_*.:.l __-=19:.;8:,:2;..:(::,:N_"*-,I=--_.....:1:,:9.;:8.::,3.:;{N:.;.*_*..:.l__-.:.1,.:.9.:.84.:.(:.:,N:...*_*.:.-)
Slough 21
Slough 11
Slough 8A
Slough 20
Slough 9A
Moose Slough
Slough 8B
Slough 8C
Slough 17
Slough 15
Slough B
Slough 9
Slough 6A
Sloughs A &A'
Slough 8
Slough 9B
Slough 19
Slough 22
Ma instream
Zone 3
141.0
135.3
125.1
140.0
133.3
123.5
122.2
121.9
138.9
137.2
126.3
128.3
112.3
124.7
113.7
129.2
139.7
144.5
135.2
747 (5)
5483 (9)
1283 (5)
27 (2)
484 (6)
555 (5)
1 (1)
(0)
169 (7)
1 (1)
NA
380 (5)
27 (3)
437 (l0)
858 (5)
678 (7)
84 (6r
NA
NA
2424 (9)
4806 (11)
1804 (10)
220 (7)
146 (3)
115 (7)
190 (6)
105 (3)
29 (4)
178 (3)
225 (6)
911 (6)
101 (4)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
NA
NA
1904 (13)
5067 (23)
843 (20)
201 (20)
217 (3)
392 (15)
240 (6)
(0)
182 (8)
20 (5)
9(1)
1081 (9)
2 (1)
528 (16)
(0)
(0)
18 (6)
274 (4)
252 (2)
7197 (9)
9749 (8)
3054 (8)
695 (4)
574 (5)
405 (5)
1749 (8)
416 (5)
240 (4)
611 (1)
196 (5)
499 (3)
3 (l)
338 (5)
193 (6)
181 (3)
147 (7)
199 (3)
No data
2837 (9)
6160 (7)
384 (7)
118 (9)
636 (9)
10 (2)
2508 (11)
2832 (11)
407 (9)117.7
113.6
131.04thofJulyCk.
Little Portage
Ck.
Lane Ck
Slough 2 100.2 44 (5)0 103 (4)287 (9)
Indian R..i;;:ve~r::;*..,*;;;*,-...--1,.,3;"l85"'"."'2'6-----""""'I"235"'2'i'"""7(...,.7T"l---:6~7"'O~3--r(1'l""2""1,-...--7~9?58......,(...1.,.6...,--1....4""'89""8.......,(""9..--)
569 (7)
247 (6)
NA
Lower McKenzie
Ck.
116.2 97 (6)492 (6)46 (6)1067 (7)
;
'-.
5th of July Ck.
Skull Ck.
Portage Ck.
123.7
124.7
148.9
2 (1)
24 (3)
22 (1)
224 (4)
36 (4)
2238 (7)
24 (4)
1 (1)
4651 (13)
834 (5)
216 (3)
15319 (19)
(contInued on next page)
172
SMIL12!SM-3!p.3
Table 50.(cont'd)
AREA RIVER MILE 1981lN**)
No.Adult Salmon Enumerated*
198Z(N**}198~lN**)1984!N b )
Gash Ck.
Slash Ck.
Wh iskers Ck.
Jack Long Ck.
Deadhorse Ck
Upper McKenzie
Ck.
Chase Ck.
Gold Ck.
Sherman Ck.
111.6
111.2
101.4
144.5
120.9
116.7
106.9
136.7
130.8
258 (2)
NA
212 (7)
1 (l)
o
o
328 (8)
o
32 (4)
163 (3)
6 (l)
626 (5)
54 (7)
NA
24 (2)
332 (8)
37 (3)
40 (4)
35 (2)
2 (l)
273 (9)
19 (5)
NA
CO)
26 (5)
51 (3)
(0)
711 (7)
8 (2)
899 (11)
27 (3)
378 (2)
23 (3)
1523 (9)
83 (l)
126 (3)
*These data sum all live and dead fish (Chinook,Sockeye,Pink,Chum,and Coho Salmon)
recorded by Su-Hydro M personnel (ADF&G)during stream surveys.Different areas
were surveyed from 1 to 11 times during the year which contributes to variation
observed between areas and between years in this data,survey conditions also varied.
Note that the same fish would likely be recorded numerous times in replicate surveys.
**N is the number of surveys conducted where salmon were enumerated,surveys where no
salmon were seen are not counted.
***The portion of the Indian River evaluated by Fisheries personnel varied in 1981 and
1982.Most fish were found in 1982 in a tributary about ~mile up from the mouth
(Crowe,per.commun.)during our investig{ition of the Indian River we did not observe
this location.
173
SMIL07/SM-l/p.42
Table 51.]~anking of bear and salmon use of downstream sloughs and creeks on 24-25
August,1983.(O=lowest on scale of 0-10).
Slough No.
7
Index of
salmon presence
o
Index of
bear use
1
Comments
entrance into slough
blocked
Apparent use by radio-
collared individuals
8
8A
8B
Be
8D
A
AI
9
9B
9A
10
11
17
19
20
21
Lane Ck
Lower McKensie Ck
McKensie Ck
Portage Ck
Deadhorse Ck
Moose and Clear
Creeks
5th of July
4th of July
1
3
2
1
o
o
1
1
1
1
1
7
4
1
1
2
2
1
o
o
o
1
1
5
1
4
4
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
o
3
1
1
B376,B402
less bear sign than
last year flooded B378
and muddy
flooded
B404
B404,B411
flooded
BRB tracks
1 salmon eaten by a bear,
BRB tracks
about 20 pinks seen
few salmon
human trail along Ck to
homesite
B343
B374
lots of salmon at mouth of creek B405,B411
*Had been lots of rain and sloughs were very high and muddy,salmon were difficult to
spot in the sloughs.
.174.
--_....@j~-,------------------_._.........,-r"l.-......_------------------
SMIL07/SM-1/p.45
Table 52.Ranking of bear and salmon use of downstream sloughs and creeks on 15-16
August,1984.(O=lowest on scale of 0-10).
Index of Index of ap1arent use by radio-
Slough No.salmon presence bear use Comments co 1ared individuals
8 1 4
8A 8 6 some salmon eaten B404 t G379
8B 3 6
8e 1 2
8D 0 1
A 0 1 B343 t
A'4 1
9 3 2
9B 3 2 G379
9A 2 2 B409
10 ND ND B411
11 9 2
17 3 1
20 4 3
21 5 6 salmon eaten
Lane Ck 7 5 lots of Pinks.some eaten
Lower McKensie Ck 3 2
McKensie Ck 2 1
Portage Ck 3 2 some salmon eaten
Deadhorse Ck 2 2 entrance perched
Moose and Clear
Creeks 1 3
5th of July 8 7 B376
4th of July 7 8 many salmon eaten B405
175
SMIL09/SM-l/pg.25
updated 9/86
Table 53.Summary of black bear litter size data based on observations of bears
with litters of newborn cubs.
MOTHER'S In (age-year)LITTER SIZE
B289 (10 in spring '81)3
H289 (12 in spring '83)2
E,289 (14 in spring '85)2 (in den)
[2 at exit]
]1301 (8 in spring '81)2
E,301 (10 in spring '83)2 (in den)
[2 at exit]
B,317 (7 in summer '80)2 (summer)
COMMENTS
lost 1 in August,2 survived
lost 1 cub i~September,other
survived to den exit
both survived to yearling age
both survived to yearling age
survivorship undetermined,
female shed collar
initial capture in summer,both
survived to fall,cubs not seen
with bear at initial capture
EI317 (10 in '83)2 (in den)
[2 at exit]
EI317 (12 in spring '85)2 (in den)
[2 at exit]
EI318 (5 in summer '80)1 (summer)
EI318 (8 in '83)2 (den)
[2 at exit]
E,328 (7 in summer '81)2 (summer)
lost 1 in June,other survived
to den exit
1 survived to den entrance,1
lost in July
survived
both lost by 6/6/83 apparently,
shed collar
bred in 1980.Lost 1 by 7/29/81,
shed collar in den (not sure if
survived until exit)
E328 (11 in spring '85)3 (in den)
[3 at exit]
lost 6/6 -7/24
]1326 (5 in summer '80)2 (summer)bear shot in 1980,cubs may have
been adopted by B317
B321 (11 in spring '81)2 no cubs in summer 1980,both
cubs lost by 8J24/81,no litter
in '82,no litter verified in
1983 but may have lost a litter
early in 1983,bred in 1983
]1321 (14 in '84)2 lost 1 of 2 by 6/29,other
survived to den entrance
]1327 (5 in summer '80)2 (summer)both survived to yearling age
(continued on next page)
2 (den)cubs survived into June,female
[2 at exit]died in July
Ei327 (8 in '83)
Table 53.(contld)
MOTHERIS ID (age-year)
B349 (6 in spring 183)
B349 (8 in spring '85)
B354 (5 in '82)
B354 (7 in 184)
B354 (9 in '86)
B361 (8 in 183)
B370 (8 in '83)
B363 (6 in '84)
B364 (10 in 186)
B369*(6 in '84)
B372*(10 in '83)
B374*(7 in 183)
B375*(6 in '83)
B376*(5 in '83)
B377*(5 in 183)
B377 (6 in '84)
LITTER SIZE
2 (den)
[0 at exit?]
2 (in den)
[2 at exit]
2
2
2
4 (in den)
[3 at exit]
2 (in den)
[2 at exit]
2 (in den)
[2 at exit]
2
2 (in den)
[2 at exit]
3(in den)
[3 at exit]
3
2
3 (in den)
[3 at exit]
[1-2??J
NOT COUNTED
some (in den)
[0 at exit]
SMIL09/SM-1/pg.26
updated 9/86
COMMENTS
first litter,no cubs in summer
'81 or spring '82,cubs apparently
lost in ~ay '83,collar shed in
JU~y --no ylgs on 5/84
one survived to den entrance,
1 lost in August
both survived to den entrance,
at least 1 ylg at exit in '83
may have lost 1 by den entrance
date
both survived to den entrance
lost 1 in den prior to exit,
others survived to den exit in '84
bear missing after 5/23/83,cubs
alive at that time
None lost to den entrance
both survived to den entrance
none lost to den entrance
lost 1 in early July,others
survived to 7/20,female lost
in.September '83
think lost 2 in July,bear shot
in September 183
both survived to exit in '84
all survived to exit in '84
cubs may have been lost prior to
or during capture,cubs not seen
during capture but saw at least
1 cub 9 days earlier on 5/10/83
heard at least 1 cub in den,
none seen at exit
B377 (7 in '85)2 (in den)lost 1 in June,other in August-
[2 at exit]September
177
SMIL09/SM-1/pg.27
updated 9/86
Table 53.(cont'd)
MOTHER'S ID (age-year)
B378*(7 in '83)
B378*(9 in '85)
B379 (9 in 183)
B402*(12 in 185)
B404*(11 in '83)
B405*(17 in 183)
B406*(11 in 183)
B409*(?)(6 in '84)
B409*(8 in '86)
B410*(7 in '83)
B411*(9 in '84)
B438 (9 in '86)
LITTER SIZE
2(den)
[2 at exit]
1
3(den)
[2 at exit]
2 (in den)
[2 at exit]
1
2
2
?
[2(7)]
2
2
3
.178~
COMMENTS
both survived to '84 den exit
survived to den entrance
lost all cubs by 5/23/83,bred
again,died in July
both survived to den entrance
survived thru 7/20/83 at least,
not seen in '84
both survived to"den exit in '84
both survived to den exit in '84
not observed in '84
data not conclusive,not included
in means
both"survived thru June,bear
shot in July
status at entrance into '84 den
unknown
B438 probably shot by 9/5/86,cub
status unknown
___,~~"""--------------"'---'''''i'''''''-'rY-------------------
Table 53.(cont'd)
SMIL09/SM-1/pg.28
updated 9/86
Total number Number of Mean litter
of cubs litters size (range)Comments (includes)
90 42 2.1(1-4)all cub litters counted
at earliest observation
75 35 2.1(1-3)spring observations only
(w/o den data or summer
litters)
81 36 2.3 (1-4)earliest observation
excluding summer litters
44 19 2.3(2-4)observations in dens only
*Downstream study area
179
SMIL09/SM-l/page 29
updated 9/86
Table 54.Summary of black bear litter size data based on observations of bears
with litters of yearlings (age at exit from den).
MOTHER'S ID (age-year)LITTER SIZE
B288 (10 in 1980)3
COMMENTS
bred in 1980,ylgs with female
into August,shed collar in 1980
B290 (8 in 1980)
B289 (9 in 1980)
B289 (13 in 1984)
B289 (11 in 1982)
B289 (15 in 1986)
B301 (7 in 1980)
B301 (9 in 1982)
B317 (8 in 1981)
B317 (11 in 1984)
B318 (6 in 1981)
B318 (10 in 1985)
B327 (5 in 1981)
B349 (9 in 1986)
B354 (6 in 1983)
2
2
1
2 (in den)
2
1
2
2
1
1 (den)
2
2 (den)
1
1 (?)
weaned by 6/23/80,bred in 1981,
collar removed on 8/5/81 (neck
scarred)
weaned by 5/22/80,bred,3 cubs
in '81
with mom to September,bred in June
weaned by 6/9/82,bred,had 2
cubs in 1983
weaned by 7/9/86
weaned by 6/12/80,bred,had 2
cubs in 1981
weaned-by 6/17/82,bred,had 3
cubs in 1983
weaned by 6/18/81,bred,1 ylg
returned and was with female
until 9/9/81,no cubs in 1982
weaned in June,bred
ylg (B330)weaned by 5/29/81,
bred,ylg died by 8/24/81,no
(reason?)cubs in 1982,bred
again,2 cubs in 1983
B318 not located after 6/11/85
ylg B329 and sibling,sibling
weaned by 6/5/81,B329 by 6/21,
bred,no cubs in 1982,bred
again,cubs in 1983
at least 1 ylg exited den
(perhaps both?),weaned by
6/2/83
(continued on next page)
180
SMIL09/SM-l/page 30
updated 9/86
Table 54.(cont'd)
MOTHER'S ID (age-year)LITTER SIZE COMMENTS
B363 (8 in 1985)
B364 (8 in 1984)
B369*(7 in 1985)
B402*(10 in 1983)
B402*(13 in 1986)
B411*(8 in 1983)
B321 (15 in 1986)
B361 (9 in 1984)
B375*(11 in 1984)
B376*(8 in 1984)
B378*(8 in 1984)
B404*(12 in 1984)
B405*(18 in 1984)
B406*(12 in 1984)
B432 (6 in 1985)
2
3
2 (in den)
[2 at exit]
3
2
2
1
3
2
3
2
[?]
2
2
1
weaned by 9/4/85
2 weaned early,bred,still with
one in September
weaned in early July
weaned by September
weaned after 6/13
weaned by 6/27/85
entered den w/~,weaned at
age 2
weaned in June
weaned 2 in June,1 with mmn
in October
Not seen after June
'84 status not verified
with mom into August
weaned by September
weaned by 6/3/85
Total number ..
of ylgs.observed
54
number of
litters
28
mean litter size (range)
1.9(1-3)
comments
all litters with
ylgs.counted
*Downstream study area
~81
SMIL09/SM-i/p• 5
Table 55.Sex ratio and morphometrics of black bear cubs-of-year handled in the
Susitna Hydro Project.
CUB MOTHER'S DATE
ID ID HANDLED SEX WT(lbs)COMMENTS
355 B354 26 May 1982 F ear tags
356 B354 26 May 1982 M ear tags
B301 20 March 1983 (den)F 2.6
B301 20 March 1983 (den)F 2.5
B361 21 March 1983 (den)M 3.5
B361 21 March 1983 (den)F 3.8
B361 21 March 1983 (den)F 3.5
B361 21 March 1983 (den)F 2.8
B349 22 March 1983 (den)F 3.5
B349 22 March 1983 (den)F 3.4
B317 23 March 1983 (den)M 4.3 neck=175mm
B317 23 March 1983 (den)M 4.3 neck=180mm
B318 23 March 1983 (den)M 2.8
B31B 23 March 1983 (den)F 2.7
B327 23 March 1983 (den)M 5.3 n~ck=190mm
B327 23 March 1983 (den)F 4.5 neck=180mm
B379 24 March 1983 (den)M 2.8
B379 24 March 1983 (den)M 3.3
B379 24 Mar.ch 1983 (den)M 3.3
B3l2 15 April 1983 (den)F 3.7
B372 15 April 1983 (den)F 4.1
B372 15 April 1983 (den)M 4.5
B376 16 April 1983 (den)M 6.0 neck=19Omm
B376 16 April 1983 (den)F 5.5 neck=190mm
B376 16 April 1983 (den)F 5.8 neck=190mm
B370 16 April 1983 (den)F 7.5 neck=200mm
B370 16 April 1983 (den)F 7.0 neck=190mm
010 B374 19 May 1983 F neck=175mm,ear tags
011 ,B374 19 May 1983 F neck=20Omm,ear tags
012 B374 19 May 1983 F neck=195mm.ear tags
(continued on next page)
182
--=--------------------------,,...,----------------------
Table 55.(cont'd)
SMIL09/SM-1/p.6
CUB MOTHER'S DATE
ID ID HANDLED SEX WT(lbs)COMMENTS
013 B404 19 May 1983 F 10.0 neck=215mm,ear tags
014 B405 19 May 1983 F 6.5 neck=18Omm,ear tags
015 B405 19 May 1983 F 6.0 neck=175mm.ear tags
B363 6 April 1984 (den)M 6.0 neck=190mm
B363 6 April 1984 (den)M 6.8 neck=l92mm
B369 8 April 1984 (den)M 4.0
B369 8 April 1984 (den)F 3.8
B349 28 Feb.1985 (den)M 1.8 very small,eyes closed.
sibling not handled
B328 29 March 1985 (den)M 5.0
B328 29 March 1985 (den)M 4.1
B328 29 March 1985 (den)F 4.1
B404 30 March 1985 (den)M 4.1*
B404 30 March 1985 (den)M 4.1*
B404 30 March 1985 (den)F 3.5*
Totals:19 males and 25 females.In dens=18 males and 18 females.
*Estimated
183
SMIL09/SM-l/p.8
Table 56.Morphometries of black bear yearlings handled in the Susitna Hydro
project,1980-1985.
YLG MOTHER'S DATE
ID ID HANDLED SEX WT (lbs)COMMENTS
B329 B327 23 March 1981 (den)F 15 (est.)tagged and collared
B330 B318 25 March 1981 ,(den)M 31 tagged and collared
B350 B289 1 April 1982 (den)M 14 ear tagged
B351 B289 1 April 1982 (den)M 16 ear tagged
B353 B301 26 May 1982 M 29 with mother,capture
mortality
M12 B361 6 April 1984 (den)"M 30 (est.)
B413 B36r 6 April 1984 (den)F 30 (~st.)
B414 B361 6 April 1984 (den)F 19.5
B415 B289 7 April 1984 (den)F 23.5 Neck=299mm
B434 B432 2 June 1985 F 33
Totals::5 males and 5 females.
184
SMIL09/SM-1/p.41
updated 9/86
known losses of black bear cubs-of-the-year.Losses calculated during first season
(in dens or at emergence from dens as cubs to entrance into dens as cubs)
UpstreamstudLJirea____Down'stream study area Both areas
1 of 6 lost
35%lost
[5 of 8 lost]
[1 of 2 lost]
o of 2 lost
4 of 9 lost
7 of 14 lost
9 of 25 lost
o of 4 lost
21 of 60
[3 of 6 lost (372;374)]
[1 of ?lost (377)]
1 of 17 =6%lost
no data
o of 2 lost (369)
o of 3 lost (378;402)
no data
o of 0 lost
1 of 12 lost (375;376;
377**;378;405;406)
no data
[1 of 2 lost (354)]
[2 of 2 lost (318]
1 of 4 lost (321;363)
o of 2 lost (354)
no data
20 of 43 =47%lost
7 of 11 lost (289;317;
328;349;377)
o of 4 lost (354;364)
4 of 9 lost (289;301;
321;328)
8 of 13 lost (289;317;
361;349)
,Table 57.Summary of
out of den
Year
1980
1981
1982
1983 complete data
......1983 incomplete data*
CD
U1 1984 complete data
1984 incomplete data*
1985 complete data
1986 complete data***
TOTALS (all years)
*incomplete data resulted from not observing the family status of the bear before it entered its winter den;
shed collars;collar failures;or early hunter kills.Tabulated losses occurred prior to loss of the
female to these,causes.These are not included in totals.
**B377 may have lost 2 of 2 rather than the 1 of 1 tabulated in 1983;the initial litter size was not known
with certainty.
***B438 and B409 had inadequate data.
..
SMIL09/SM-l!p.16
Table 58.Reproductive histories of radio-marked female black bears.("Shed"refers to removal by bear of radio collar.)Bears were
in upstream study area unless otherwise indicated.
Year
1980
289 (9 in .'80)
w/2@1 weaned in May-bred
290 (8 in '80)
w/2@1 weane?in June
301 (7 in 'aD)
W/1@1 weaned in June
317 (7 in 'BO)
w/2@O in Aug.
......
00
0'1
1981 wf3@O,1 lost in AUg.alone,bred collar w/2@O,w/2@1,weaned in June,
removed bred,reunitd w/1@1 thru
Sept.
1982 weaned 2@1,May-~fie,bred ----.-w/2@l,weanedin June,no newborns-;Possf1:lly
bred w/1@2 into June,
1983 w72@1l,1 lost in SepC,w/2@O,shot in sept.w/2@O,1 lost--fn-June
1984 weaned 1@1 in May,bred,--wf1@1,weaned,June,
reunited June-Sept.bred,reunited
weaned in Sept.predenning
--wf2@O,1 lost in July,1985 w/2@O,survived other okay thru Sept.
at least
1986 w/2@l,weaned (date?)--alone in June
(continued on next page)
SMIL09/SM-1/p.17
Table 58.(cont'd)
318 321 325 327'328 32~---~--3"Sr----361 363
Year 5 in '80 10 in '80 11 in '80 5 in '80 6 in '80 1 in '81 4 in '81 5 in '82 7 in '82 4 in '82
1980 w/l@O
in Aug.
alone in
Aug.
alone in
Aug.
w/2@O in
in Aug.
alone in
Aug.
with
mother 327
1981 wll@l,w/2@O,alone,w/2@l w/2@O,-weaDea -alone
weaned in lost both shed in in den,1 lost in from 327
May,bred in Aug.next den 1 weaned July,other in June
in May,okay thru
other in Sept.,
June,bred coll'ar shed
1982 alone alone --alone,?alone alone li[2@O alone alone,
bred to den bred?
entrance
1983 w/2@O,think lost --w/2@O,?---alone,wj2@O,----w/1Ww74@Oalone,
suspect litter very mother bred?both lost weaned in den,bred
lost both early,bred died in in den in May,1 lost in
June,shed July bred den
I-'1984 [must have w/1@o -------alone;---aIOrie,------alone-w72@O,w73@1 w/2@O
00 had at (in July)bred bred?1 lost in not survived
-...J least 2@O Sept.weaned--
based on seen in den
1985]
1985 w/2@l in w71@l ----w73@O,all alone,-w72@O alone w73@2,w/2@1
June when weaned in lost in bred?in den,1 (June)weaned weaned,
reported June June-July lost in in June date?
Aug.
1986?alone ----alone ----alone w7I~--w72@O alone in alone,
weaned (Sept.),June bred
(date?)1 lost in
Sept.?
lCOriITmieilon next page)
I.
SMIL09/SM-1/p.18
Table 58...(cont'd)
Year
364
6 in 182
Downstream Downstream Downsfrlaam Downstream.Downstream Downstream Downstream Downstream Downstream Downstream
367 369 370 372 374 375 376 377 378 402
4 in '82 4 in 182 ,7 in 182 9 in 182 7 in 182 9 in '82 6 in '82 4 in '82 6 in '82 10 in '83
1982 alone,
bred,
collar
failed
alone alone alone alone,
bred
alone?w/3@1?alone?alone alone
1983 -[must have alone-alone wl2@~w/2@O,W/3@O,wl2@O,W/3@O alone?wl2@O,w/3@1,
had cubs shot failed failed 2 died in survived survived weaned
based on collar collar July,shot in June
1984]in fall
T981--wfl@l,--2@O ----.--wl2@l wl3@l,alone wl2@l,alone
weaned in in den .weaned weaned weaned
June-July,lost 1 in July in May,
bred,in Sept.reunited
reunited in July
w/l in Sept.and Sept.
~~""r""98""~""-----W-/""1""@"'2"""'in-----------W-/""1""@""1----------------------------s.....fi--o.,..t.......in---a::""l,..,o--n--e...?---,.."w7.,,2...,@...o...,---~w~7~i@"l'lo~,-----w:-l7""2""@~o--
June weaned spring 1 lost in survived
in June-.June,other
July in Ju1y-
Aug.
198-6-w/2@O,--alone:'--------alonealonealonew/2@1,
survived survived
thru Sept.
fcorilinued-on-riext page)
SMIL09/SM-l/p.19
Table 58.(cont'd)
Downstream Downstream Downstream Downstream Downsfream -oownstream
404 405 406 409 410 411
Year 11 in '83 17 in '83 11 in '83 5 in '83 7 in '83 8 in '83
1982
431
11 in '85
432
6 in '85
438
8 in '85
441
9 in '85
448
6 in '85
1983 w/l@Ow/2@O,w/2@O,alone?w/2@Ow/2@l,---...------
thru survived survived shot weaned
July,June-
then ??Aug.
1984 alone in w/2@1,w/2@I,alone?--wf2 c,
Aug.not weaned survived
weaned in June-
Aug.,collar
failed
1985 3@O in w/2@2,--w/2@ --w/2@1 --ma1:one,w/l@l,w/2@2?,alone,alone,
den,weaned age?bred weaned age??bred bred
......shot in in June,not used in June,
co spring shot bred
I.D
1986 -- --w/2@---------alone-----alone-in----aronein-w/3@O,alonealone
age?June .June shot bred
not used
SMIL07/SM-40/p.1
Table 59.Summary of reproductive intervals for black bears by bear 10.(*indicates
bear from downstream study area.Year of litter and reason for intervals >2
years are indicated in parentheses -"lost"means lost complete litter).
COMPLETE INTERVALS OF:
2 YEARS 3 YEARS 4 YEARS 5 ·YEARS
289 (81)363 (84)317 (83,skipped 1)318 (83,lost 2)321 (84,lost 1-2)
289 (83)364 (83)361 (83,weaned @2)349 (85,1 lost,1 skip)
289 (85)369*(84)402*(85,skipped 1)
301 (81)375*(83)405*(83,weaned @2)
317 (80)376*(83)
318 (SO)378*(83)
327 (SO)378*(85)
354 (S2)406*(S3)
354 (84)410*(84)
INCOMPLETE INTERVALS THAT WILL BE AT LEAST INDICATED LENGTH:
2 YEARS 3 YEARS 4 YEARS 5 YEARS
317 (85)327 (83,skipped)376*(87,skipped 2)328 (87,2 skips,1 lost)
328 (81)361 (87,skipped)377*(87,skipped 2)
354 (86)363 (S7,skipped)
364 (86,skipped)
431 (87,skipped)
432 (87,skipped)
441 (87,skipped)
44S (87,skipped)
411*(87,skipped)
AVERAGE REPRODUCTIVE INTERVAL,UPSTREAM AREA ONLY
COMPLETE INTERVALS ONLY (N =16)2.6
INCOMPLETE INTERVALS ONLY (N =12)2.9
COMPLETE AND INCOMPLETE(N =28)2.7
AVERAGE REPRODUCTIVE INTERVAL,DOWNSTREAM AREA ONLY
COMPLETE INTERVALS ONLY (N =9)2.2
INCOMPLETE INTERVALS ONLY (N =3)3.7
COMPLETE AND INCOMPLETE (N =12)2.6
AVERAGE REPRODUCTIVE INTERVAL,BOTH AREAS LUMPED
COMPLETE INTERVALS ONLY (N =25)2.4
INCOMPLETE INTERVALS ONLY (N =15)3.1
COMPLETE AND INCOMPLETE (N =40)2.7
190
~-------------------~-----------------------
SMIL07/sm-5
Table 60.Summary of age at first reproduction for Su-hydro area black bears by hear ID.Based on first observed
litter,status in previous year(s)is given in parentheses.
FIRST REPRODUCTION AT AGE:
5 YEARS 6 YEARS 7 YEARS 8 YEARS
327 (?)349 (alone prevo 2)377 (alone prevo 3)448 (alone prevo 2 expected '87)
354 (?)363 (alone prevo 2)409 (alone prevo 2)*361 (alone prevo 1)
432 (?)369 (alone prevo 2)329 (expected '87)*370 (alone prevo 1)
328 (alone prevo 1)*374 (alone prevo 1)
364 (alone prevo 1)
376(alone prevo 1)
.....378 (alone prev 0 1)
1.0 *41O(?).....*411(?)
*Not included in calculations of mean age at first reproduction as possible earlier litter could easily have
been missed.
SMIL07/SM-8G2/p.1
Table 61.Black bear hunter kills in the Su-hydro study area.
%in
Year Males Females Sex Unk.Total Spring
1973 14 6 2 22 0
1974 2 2 0
1975 6 2 2 10 0
1976 4 4 1 9 11
1977 1 1 2 50
1978 10 10 0
1979 8 4 12 17
1980 14 9 1 24 13
1981 10 4 2 16 31
1982 9 5 14 29
1983 5 5 10 20
1984 11 5 16 38
1985 11 5 1 17 29
192
___'~_/lIlIlI!_-;"""I'!"'"__"''''''_
SMIL07lSM-9/p.1
updated 10/86
Table 62.Status of black bears first marked during Su-Hydro studies,1980-1985.'(A=alive,ND=no data available,F=shot in fall season,
SP=shot in spring season).ND in year of capture indicates bear was not collared or soon shed its collar and no sUbsequent
data were collected.
Bear ID Sex/age 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986
1980 Captures
287 M/I0 in '80 A A Shot-F
288 F/I0 in '80 Shed/dead?'NO ND NO ND NO ND
289 F/9 in 180 A A A A A A A
290 F/8 in '80 Removed-F NO ND ND ND NO ND
301 F/7 in '80 A A A A Shot-F
302 M/8 in 180 A A A A A A ND
303 M/8 in '80 A A A Shot-F
304 M/I0 in '80 A A Shed NO ND NO NO
305 M/9 in 180 Shot-F
307 M/2 in 180 A Shot-Sp
310 M/2 in '80 A A A A A A*A
316 Ml2 in 180 Shot-Sp
317 F/7 in '80 A A A A A A A
318 F/5 in '80 A A A A A*A*ND
319 M/3 in 180 A Died-F
320 M/4 in 180 Shot-F
321 F/I0 in 180 A A A A A A A
322 M/4 in 180 A A Died-Sum
323 M/2 in '80 A A A Shot-F
324 M/5 in 180 A A A '"A Shot-F
.....325 F/ll in '80 A Shed in den NO NO NO NO NO
\0 326 F/5 in 180 Shot-Fw327F/5 in 180 A A,A Died-Sum
328 F/6 in '80 A A A A A A A
1981 Captures
329 F/l in 181 -Ylg A A A A A
330 M/l in '81 -Ylg,died-Sum
342 M/5 in 181 -Shot-F
343**M/5 in '81 -A A A Died-F
346 M/9 in '81 -A A A Died-Sp
348 M/9 in '81 -A Shot-F --
349 F/4 in 181 -A A A A A A
1982 Captures
350 M/l in '82 --Ylg
351 M/l in 182 --Ylg A A A*-Sp NO
354 F/5 in '82 --A A A A A
357 M/4 in '82 --Died winter
358 F/2 in 182 --A A Died-F
359 M/4 in '82 --A A A A A
360 M/7 in 182 --A A Shed-Sp NO NO
361 F/7 in 182 --A A A A A
362 F/2 in '82 --A-Sp NO ND NO NO
363 F/4 in 182 -,-A A A A A
364 F/9 in 182 --A A A A A
365**M/5 in '82 --A Died-F
----------_..-
(continued on next page)
SMIL07/SM-9/p.2
updated 10/86
Table 62.(cont'd)
~ear ID .SeX(IllW 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986
l~~~Lap~ures Icon~'Ql
366**M/6 in '82 -Shot-F
367**F/4 in '82 -A Shot-Sum
369**F/4 in '82 -A A A A A
370**F/7 in '82 -A ?Shot?-Sp
372**F/9 in 182 -A ?Shot?-F
374**F/7 in 182 -A Shot-F
375**F/9 in '82 -A A A Shot-F
376**F/6 in '82 -A A A A A
377**F/4 in 182 -A A A A A
378*F/6 in '82 -A A A A A
1983 Captures
379 F/9 in '83 --Died-Sum
387 M/4 in 183 --A A Shot-F
401 M/3 in '83 --A A A Shot?-Sp
402**FII0 in '83 --A A A A
404**Fill in '83 --A A Shot?-Sp
405**F/17 in '83 --A A Shot-F
406**Fill in '83 --A A NO NO
4·08**M/3 in '83 --A A A NO
409**F/5 in '83 --A A A A
I-'410**F/7 in 183 --Shot-Sum
1.0 411**F/8 in 183 --A A A A
~
1984 Captures
412 Mil in '84 ---Ylg w/361 NO-Weaned NO
413 Fll in 184 ---Ylg w/361 NO-Weaned NO
414 Fll in '84 ---Ylg w/361 NO-Weaned NO
415 Fll in 184 ---Ylg w/289-NO
416 M/9 in 184 ---A A NO
1985 Captures
428 M/5 in '85 ----A A
430 M/9 in 185 ----A NO
431 Fill in 185 ----A A
432 F/6 in '85 ----A A
434 Fll in 185 --- -
Ylg w/432-W NO
433 M/3 in 185 ----A NO
435 M/7 in 185 ----Shot-F
436 M/2 in '85 ----NO w/436-W NO
438 F/8 in 185 ----A Shot-F
441 F/9 in '85 ----A A
444 M/3 in 185 ----A NO
445 M/8 in '85 ----A NO
448 F/6 in 185 ----A A
449 M/6 in 185 ----A NO
451 F/2 in 185 ----A NO
(continued on next page)
291(M@3),296(M@10),300(M@7)
in 1982:
352(M@2),353(M@l),368**(F@3),371(M@2),2 coy w/B354
in 1983:
3 coy w/B374,1 coy w/B404,2 coy w/B405
in 1984:
2 coy w/B369
in 1985:
426(M@2),439(M@2 w/B438-hurt leg),B446(F@5),2 coy w/B349,
3 coy w/B328,3 coy w/B404
*Previous alive status based in part at least,on knowledge from this year.**Bear in downstream study area..
SMIL07/SM-9/p.3
updated 10/86
SMILIO/SM-2/p.8
updated 10/86
Table 63.Status of black bears marked during Su-Hydro studies,1980-1983.(A=alive,ND=no data,F=shot in fall season,Sp=shot in spring
season,S=Summer capture or mortality).
Bear ID Sex/Age 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986
Upstream Study Area
287 MIlO in '80 A A Shot-F
288 F/lO in '80 A(shed)NO NO NO NO NO NO
289 F/9 in '80 A A A A A A A
290 F/8 in '80 A A(remvd)NO ND NO NO ND
301 F/7 in '80 A A A A(shed)Shot-F
302 M/8 in '80 A A A A A A ND
303 M/8 in '80 A A A Shot-F
304 MIlO in '80 A A A(shed)ND ND NO NO
305 M/9 in '80 Shot-F
307 M/2 in '80 A Shot-Sp.
310 M/2 in '80 A A A A A A*A
316 FIl2 in '80 Shot-F
317 F/7 in '80 A-S A A A A A A
I-'318 F/5 in '80 A-S A A A*A*A NO
"0 319 M/3 in '80 A-S DiedCl\
320 M/4 in '80 Shot-F
321 F/I0 in '80 A-S 'A cubs A A A A A
322 M/4 in '80 A-S A Died
323 M/2 in '80 A-S A A Shot-F
324 Mis in '80 A-S A A A Shot-F
325 Fill in '80 A-S A Shed NO NO NO NO
326 F/5 in '80 Shot-F
327 F/5 in '80 A-S A A Died-S
328 F/6 in '80 A-S A A A A A A
329 F/l in '81 -Ylg.A A A A A
330 Mil in '80 -Ylg.died-S
342b Mis in '81 -Shot-F
346 M/9 in '81 -A A A Died
348 M/9 in '81 -A-S Shot-F
349 F/4 in '81 -A-S A A A A A
350 Mil in '82 --Ylg.
351 Mil in '82 --Ylg.A A A*ND
354 F/5 in '82 - -
A A A A A
357 M/4 in '82 --Died-W
358 M/2 in '82 --A A Died-F
359 M/4 in '82 - -
A A A A A.
(continued on next page)
Table 63.(cont'd)
Bear 10 Sex/Age 1981 1982 1~_~1984
Upstream Study Area (cont'd)
......
\0
-....J
360
361
362
363
364
379
387
401
412
413
414
416
428
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
438
441
444
445
448
449
451
M/7 in '82
F/7 in '82
F/2 in '82
F/4 in '82
F/9 in '82
F/9 in '83
F/4 in '83
M/3 in '83
Mil in '84
Fil in '84
F/l in '84
M/9 in '84
Mis in '85
M/9 in '85
Fill in '85
F/6 in '85
M/3 in '85
F/1 in '85
M/7 in '85
M/2 in '85
F/8 in '85
F/9 in '85
M/3 in '85
M/8 in '85
F/6 in '85
M/6 in '85
F/2 in '85
A
A
A:Sp.
A
A
A
A
NO
A
A
Oied-S
A
A
A
A
NO
A
A
A
A
Ylg.
Ylg.
Ylg.
A
SMIL10/SM-2/p.9
updated 10/86
1985 1986
NO NO
A A
NO NO
A A
A A--
Shot-F
A Shot?-Sp.
A NO
A NO
A NO
A A
A A
A NO
A A
A A
A NO
Ylg.
Shot-F
NO NO
A Shot-F
A A
A NO
A NO
A A
A NO
A NO
(continued on next page)
~
\.D
00
SMILI0/SM-2/p.10
updated 10/86
Table 63.(cont'd)
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986
Upstream subtotals
Maximum no.bears
potentially alive
(includes NO)in year
(excludes natural
mortal iUes)(M:F)24(12:12)24 (13:11)31(14:17)31(12:19)28(11:17)41 (17:24)39(16:21)
No.known shot (M:F)4 (2:2)2 (2:0)2(2:0)2 (2:0)2 (1:1)2(1:1)2(1:1)
No.additional bears
su~ected shot 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
%known or suspected shot 17%8%7%7%7%5%5%
(continued on next page)
SMILlO/SM-2/p.11
updated 10/86
Table 63.(cont'd)
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986
Downstream Stud~ea
343 M/S in '81 A A A Died-F
36S M/S in'82 -A Died-F
366 M/6 in '82 -Shot-F
367 F/4 in '82 -A Shot-Sum.
369 F/4 in '82 -A A A A A
370 F/7 in '82 -A (Shot?)-S
372 F/9 in '82 -A (Shot?)-F
374 F/7 in '82 -A Shot-F
37S F/S in '82 -A A A Shot-F
376 F/6 in '82 -A A A A A
377 F/S in '82 -A A .A A A
378 F/6 in '82 -A A A A A
402 F/l0 in 183 --A A A A
404 F/ll in '83 --A A Shot?-Sp.
l-'405 F/17 in 183 --A A Shot-F
~406 F/ll in '83 - -
A A NO ND~
408 M/3 in '83 --A A A NO
409 F/5in 183 --A A A A
410 F/7 in '83 - -
Shot-S
411 F/S in '83 --A A A A
Downstream subtotals
Max.no.bears potentially
alive (includes NO)in year
(excludes natural mortalities)(M:F)1(1:0)12(3:9)19(3:16)13(2:11)12 (1:11)9(1:10)
No.known shot (M:F)0 1(1:0)3 W:3)0 2 (0:2)0
No.additional bears
suspected shot (M:F)0 .0 2 (0:2)0 1(0:1)0
%known or suspected shot (M:F)-8%26%0 25%0
SMIL07/SM-20/p.9
Table 64.Black bear home range size.Code 99 in year or age column indicates lumping of all years.
Area 1 =upstream area,area 2 =downstream study areas;sex 1 =male,and 2 =female;
a =w/o cubs-of-the-year and 1 =with COY.
ID Age No.Points Size
No.Area Sex Year (yrs.)Locations Sq.Km.Period Comments COY
287 1 1 80 10 17 136.3 May-Oct w/o atypical den a
287 1 1 81 11 15 .268.2 Apr-Oct w/o ptypical den a
287 1 1 82 12 18 250.0 Apr-Sept shot 9/82 a
287 1 1 99 99 50 313.7 1980-82 a
302 1 1 81 9 36 325.7 Apr-Oct captured 5/80 a
302 1 1 82 10 11 51.1 Apr-Jul missing 7/82 a
302 1 1 84 11 42 351.6 May-Aug recaptured a
302 1 1 99 99 03 498.3 1980-85 a
303 1 1 80 8 15 94.9 May-Oct a
303 1 1 81 9 18 9'2.5 Apr-Oct a
303 1 1 82 10 .20 73.6 Apr-Oct a
""303 1 1 83 11 11 43.2 Apr-Sept shot 9/83 a
0 303 1 1 99 99 64 167.0 1980-83 a.....304 1 1 80 10 15 35.1 May-Sept w/o atypical den a
304 1 1 81 -11 18 40.8 Apr-Oct shed 7/82 a
304 1 1 99 99 39 138.7 1980-82 shed 7/82 a
305 1 1 80 9 9 47.9 May-Aug shot 8/80 a
305 1 1 99 9 9 47.9 1980 a
319 1 1 81 4 10 43.1 Apr-July captured 8/80 a
319 1 1 99 99 16 455.8 1980-1981 died 7/81 a
322 1 1 99 99 12 48.5 1980-82 shed=2,died 7/82 a
323 .1 1 81 3 19 382.9 Apr-Oct captured 8/80 a
323 1 1 82 4 20 1126.a .Apr-Oct a
323 1 1 83 5 17 1089.3 Apr-Sept shot 9/83 a
323 1 1 99 99 62 1514.3 1980-83t a
324 1 1 81 6 20 247.8 Apr-Oct captured 8/80 a
324 1 1 82 7 21 139.9 Apr-Oct a
324 1 1 83 8 17 170.2 Apr-Oct a
324 1 1 84 9 11 236.8 Apr-Sept shot 9/84 a
324 1 1 99 99 75 776.5 1980.:..1984 a
330 1 1 81 1 14 10.0 May-Oct died 7/81 a
330 1 1 99 99 14 10.0 1981,82 a
346 1 1 81 9 16 61.5 May-Oct a
(continued on next page)
I
I SMIL07/SM-20/p.12
I Table 64.(continued)
ID Age No.Points SizeINo.Area Sex Year (yrs.)Locations Sq.Km.Period COIlDBents COY
329 1 2 81 1 19 14.7 May-Oct 0
329 1 2 82 2 19 9.4 Apr-Oct 0
329 1 2 83 3 18 24.1 Apr-Oct 0
329 1 2 84 4 62 36.0 Apr-Oct 0
329 1 2 99 99 28 100.0 1981-85 never had coy 0
349 1 2 82 5 20 47.4 Apr-Oct captured 8/81 0
349 1 2 84 7 56 53.9 May-Oct recaptured,alone 0
349 1 2 99 99 00 '82.7 1981-85 shed 7/83 0
354 1 2 82 5 19 64.8 May-Oct w/2@0 1
354 .1 2 83 6 17 61.6 Apr-Oct 0
354 1 2 84 7 23 118.3 Apr-Oct w/coys,lost 6/84 0
354 1 2 99 99 63 140.9 1982-1985 0
358 1 2 82 2 17 10.7 May-Oct 0
358 1 2 83 3 17 53.2 Apr-Oct 0
358 1 2 84 4 43 57.5 Apr-Aug died 8/84 0
N 358 1 2 99 99 77 71.1 1982-84 00
~360 1 2 82 7 20 144.5 May-Oct 0
360 1 2 83 8 19 299.2 Apr-Pct 0
360 1 2 99 99 42 429.1 1982-84 0
361 1 2 82 7 18 87.9 May-Oct 0
361 1 2 83 8 16 59.9 Apr-Oct w/coy,survived 1
361 1 2 84 9 59 66.6 Apr-Oct w/@l all year 0
361 1 2 99 99 07 111.3 1982-1985 0
363 1 2 82 3 18 19.9 May-Oct 0
363 1 2 83 4 18 20.6 Apr-Oct 0
363 1 2 84 5 23 19.6 Apr-Oct w/2@0,survived 1
363 1 2 99 99 65 30.0 1982-85 no coy in 85 or 86 0
364 1 2 82 9 16 121.5 May-Sept lost 9/82 0
364 1 2 99 9 16 121.5 1982 0
367 2 2 82 4 17 17 .5 May:""Oct 0
367 2 2 99 99 26 17.7 1982-83 shot 7/83 0
369 2 2 82 4 19 10.2 May-Oct 0
369 2 2 83 5 20 26.0 Apr-Oct 0
369 2 2 84 6 12 20.0 Apr-Oct w/coy,survived 1
369 2 2 99 99 59 30.9 1982-85 0
(continued on next page)
l\,)
o
0'\
SM-7/SMIL12/p.2
Table 65.Black bear home range size by sex and age categories.(COY =cubs~of-year).
Category
No.
Individuals
Number of
radio-location points
Mean Max.Min.Mean
Home__Ra~ge Size (km 2 )*
S.D.Max.Min.
TOTAL HOME RANGE (Summation all years).
All bears 55 52.7 142 9 250.7 324.8 1514.3 7.4
All males 22 47.1 105 9 423.5 372.8 1514.3 10.0
All females 33 56.5 142 15 135.6 229.4 1095.7 7.4
N>ANNUAL HOME RANGES (all points in calendar year),~
All bears 123 20.9 62 9 134.6 212.8 1126.0 7.3
All males 45 20.9 59 9 251.5 250.8 1126.0 10.0
All females 78 :20.8 62 11 67.1 152.3 1036.4 7.3
Females 5.0+,
without coy 47 21.6 62 11 77 .3 163.5 1036.4 7.3
Females 5.0+,
with coy 19 17.2 23 12 69.2 171.0 771.0 9.8
*Standard minimum grid method.
.ASYNC/sm-3
I'
Table 66.Black bear predation rates during periods of intensive monitoring.Sex 1:male;2:female;status 1=alone or w/@2,2=w!coy,3=w/@lj.
based on status on 15 June.If another bear.or wolves also on kill,each credited With 0.5 kills.Consecutive observation day sums
all days,for periods of >2 consecutive days.Only spring data included,summer 1984 not included.Misc.kills include suspected and
I probable kills.
No.Consec.No.moose .........'"'"-I ...,...,..Repro.No.aolt.Misc.Total 1\.1.1.1.5/l.VV No.Con.00.days
Bear ID Sex age year Statg~__.Obsv.-d~s Period calves .caribou Kills Kills con.ob.day per kill
.289 2 13 84 3 25 5/28-7/1 0 0.00
302 1 12 84 1 14 5/29-7/1 3 3 21.43 4.67
317 2 11 84 3 27 5/28-7/1 0 0.00
328 2 10 84 1 22 5/28-7/1 0 0.00
329 2 4 84 1 17 5/28-7/1 1 1 5.88 17.00
349 2 7 84 1 21 5/28-7/1 0 0.00
358 2 4 84 1 12 5/28-7/1 0 0.00
359 1 6 84 1 23 5/28-7/1 1 1 4.35 23.00
361 2 9 84 3 19 5/28-7/1 0 0.00
364 2 11 84 1 23 5/28-7/1 1 1 4.35 23.00
387 1 5 84 1 17 5/28-7/1 1 1 5.88 17.00
401 1 4 84 1 15 5/28-7/1 0 0.00
416 1 9 84 1 23 5/28-711 0 0.00tv
0 302 1 9 81 1 13 5/21-6/22 0 0.00
00
342 1 5 81 1 15 5/21-6/22 1 1 2 13.33 7.50
TOTALS,all bears =286 7 1 1 9 3.15 31.78
No.of bear-years :15
Totals,males only =120 6 1 0 7 5.83 17.14
No.of bear-years =7
Totals,females only =166 1 0 1 2 1.20 83.00
No.of bear years =8
TotalS,females status 1 =95 1 0 1 2 2.11 47.50
No.bear-years =5
Totals,females status 3 =71 0 0 0 0 0.00
No.of bear-years :3
SMIL07/SM-1/p.40
Table 67.Subjective characterization of berry abundance in "the upstream study area since 1980.
No
\0
Year
1980
1981
1982
Characterization of
Berry Abundance
normal
very poor
slightly subaverage
Comments
No special effort was made to evaluate berry abundance,black
b~ars were very common in the shrub1ands adjacent to forested
habitats and in forested habitats.
Extensive unanticipated movements of radio-marked black bears
in late summer provided first clue that something was amiss.
On 'the ground ·inspection supported hypothesis that blue-
berries were very scarce.Bears were in very poor condition
the 'following spring in both upstream and downstream area.
Three marked black bears died (Table 34)in 1981 following
the summer berry failure.Bears were common in semi-open
shrub1ands.
Berry transects supported hypothesis that berries were more
abundant in shrub lands than in adjacent forests.Low repro-
ductive success evident in spring 1982 and bears tended to be
very skinny.In summer bears foraged in shrub lands but there
appeared to be many fewer bears in the study area than in
1980.Would have concluded a massive emigration in 1981
except that the marked bears that moved away had all
returned.Possibly there was an increased mortality rate
resulting from the 1981 berry failure.One marked bear died
in 1982 compared to 3 in the previous and following years.
Mortality could have been most marked on subadu1ts,only 2 of
these were radio-marked.
Table 67.(cont'd)
SMIL07/SM-l/p.41
I\J....
o
Year
1983
1984
1985
1986
Characterization of
Berry Abundance
above average
below average
Comments
Berry transects suggest more berries than in 1982,especially
crowberries and lowbush cranberries.Although not evident in
the transect dat~,it appeared that blueberries were locally
very abundant in forested habitats and bears did not have to,
and didn't,move into the shrubland habitat types to forage
for berries in late summer.Some black bears expected to
produce their first litters in 1983 failed to do so sug-
gesting delayed age of first reproduction may have resulted
from 1981 berry failure.Appeared to be many fewer bears
present than in 1980.Craig Gardner noted that along the
Denali highway "Berries were very abundant along the Denali
Hwy from Paxton to the McClaren River."
Berry transects support substantially fewer blueberries and
crowberries in upstream areas,about average in downstream
areas.Berries appeared to be very abundant in highly
locaiized pockets,more patchy than is typically the case.
Black bear movements appeared normal but some brown bears
made atypically large movements in fall 1984.Between Paxton
and the McClaren River,Craig Gardner (pers.comm.)reported
"Berries'were less abundant than in 1983 but more abundant
than in 1981,"
In the.vicinity of Watana Camp berries appeared to be
slightly below average in abundance.In more upstream
habitat they appeared to be slightly above average.Saw
nowhere 'where blueberries were really thick,pretty well
dispersed.Along the Denali Hwy both Craig Gardner and Jack
Whitman noted independently that berry crops "appeared to be
a bust"--very few were seen.
No data collected in study area.Along the Denali Highway on
8/10/86,Jack Whitman noted "I spent 3 days on west end of
Denali Highway.Walked many miles in vicinity of 25 mile,22
mile,and 15 mile.Excellent berry crop in all locations.
Best I've noted in 4 years."
SMIL07/SM-2!p.7
updated 11/86
Table 68.Den entrance and emergence dates of radio-collared black bears for the winter of 1980-81 ("S"is the standard deviation,but it
includes variability from the fluctuating time between observations,as well as variability in denning times).
Repro-
ductive
status 1!:!80 Entrance 1981 &\Mai~nce Days In Den
Bear 10 Sex at exit .Min.Max.Mid.Min.Mid.Min.Max.Mid.
287 M 9 Sept.29'Sept.19 Sept.30 Apr.5 May 2 May 213 238 212
289 F 3@0 9 Sept.29 Sept.19 Sept.5 May 15 May 10 May 221 248 235
290 F wlo 1 Oct.9 OCt.5 Oct.5 May 10 May 8 May 208 221 215
301 F 2@0 29 Sept.13 OCt.6 Oct.9 May 29 May 19 May 208 242 225
303 M 30 Apr .•5 May 2 May
304 M 5 May 10 May 8 May
317 F 2@1 9 Sept.29 Sept.19 Sept;..5 May 15 May 10 May 218 248 233
318 F 1@1 29 Sept.13 Oct.6 Oct.30 Apr.5 May 2 -May 199 218 209
IV 319 M 29 Sept.13 Oct.6 Oct.30 Apr.5 May 2 May 199 218 209.....
I-'321 F 2@0 9 Sept.29 Sept.19 Sept.10 May 15 May 12 May 223 248 236
322 M 9 Sept.13 Oct.26 Sept.
323 M 29 Sept.13 Oct.6 Oct.6 May 8 May 7 May 205 228 217
324 M 29 Sept.13 Oct.6 Oct..30 Apr.5 May 2 May 199 218 209
325 F wlo 29 Sept.9 Oct.4 Oct.
327 F I@l 9 Sept.29 Sept.19 Sept.a May 10 May 9 May 221 243 232
328 F 2@0 9 Sept.29 Sept.19 Sept.21 May 29 May 25 May 234 262 248
MALES 19 Sept.6 OCt.28 Sept.--nIaY InraY """'B"""'M'aY m TIb mliS"11 7 8 6 8 7 11 15 13
n 14 14 14 14 14 14 12 12 12
I SMIL07/SM-2!p.8
I
updated 11/86
I Table 69.Den entrance and emergence dates of radio-collared black bears for the winter of 1981-82 ("S"is the standard deviation,but it
includes variability from the fluctuating time between observations,as well as varlabi1ity in denning times).
I Repro-
ductive
status 1981 Entrance 1982 Emergence Days In Den
Bear ID Sex at exit Min.Max.Mid.~Max.Mid. Min.Max.!1&I 287 M 24 Aug.9 Sept.9 Sept.4 May 6 May 5 May 237 255 246
289 F 2@1 23 Sept.1 OCt.28 Sept.12 May 18 May 15 May 223 237 230
301 F 2@1 16 Sept.22 Sept.19 Sept.6 May 18 May 12 May 226 244 235
302 M 16 Sept.:n Sept.19 Sept.?6 May 6 May*232 229
303 M 16 Sept.22 Sept.19 Sept.12 May 18 May 15 May 232 244 238
304 M 16 Sept.1 OCt.24 Sept.6 May 12 May 9 May 217 238 228
317 F '11/0 9 Sept.16 Sept.12 Sept.12 May 18 May 15 May 238 251 244
318 F '11/0 16 Sept.22 Sept.19 Sept.18 May 26 May 22 May 238 252 245
321 F '11/0 16 Sept.22 Sept.19 Sept.6 May 12 May 9 May 226 238 232 J,'.'
I'V
I-'
I'V 323 M 22 Sept.1 OCt.27 Sept.6 May 12 May 9 May 217 232 224
324 M 1 OCt.7 OCt.4 OCt.4 May 6 May 5 May 209 217 213
327 F '11/0 16 Sept.22 Sept.19 Sept.12 May 18 May 15 May 232 244 238
329 F '11/0 22 Sept.1 OCt.27 Sept.12 May 18 May 15 May 223 238 230
343 M 16 Sept.22 Sept.19 Sept.12 May 18 May 15 May 232 244 238
346 M 9 Sept.16 Sept.12 Sept.?6 May 6 May*239 236
348 M 16 Sept.22 Sept.19 Sept 4 May 6 May 5 May 224 232
228
349 F '11/0 9 Sept.16 Sept.12 Sept.?6 May 6 May*239 236
325 F ?9 Sept.16 Sept.12 Sept.
328 F ?16 Sept.22 Sept.19 Sept.
MEAN 15 Sept.23 Sept.-19 Sept.9 May 13 May 11 May m m TIt
"5"8 7 6 4 6 5 9 9 8
n 19 19 19 14 17 17 14 17 17
*Dates were designated from a point value rather than a time period,because a more accurate mean emergence date was produced.
MCALLI/MC-7/p.1
updated 11/86
Table 70.Den entrance and emergence dates of radlo-collared black bears for the winter of 1982-83 ("S"ls the standard deviation,but it
includes variability from the fluctuating time between observations,as well as varlabllity in dennlng times).
Repro-
----~.~---------_."-
ductive
status 1982 Entrance 1983 Emergence Da£in Den
Bear ID Sex at exit Min.Max.Mid.Min.~Mid.MIn.x.Mid.
289 F 2@0 28 Sep 6 Oct 2 Oct 10 May 15 May 13 May 216 230 223
303 M 29 Sep 20 Oct 10 Oct 4 May 10 May 7 May 196 223 210
317 F 2@0 20 Sep 29 Sep 24 Sep 10 May 23 May 17 May 223 245 234
318 F 2@0 6 Oct 15 Oct 10 Oct 10 May 23 May 17 May 207 229 218
321 F wlo 205ep 29 Sep 24 Sep 10 May 15 May 13 May 223 237 230
323 M 6 Oct 15 Oct 10 Oct 25 Apr 4 May 30 Apr 192 210 201
324 M 295ep 6 Oct 2 Oct 25 Apr 4 May 30 Apr 201 217 209
327 F 2@0 6 Oct 15 Oct 10 Oct 4 May 10 May 7 May 201 216 209
329 F wlo 29 Sep 6 Oct 2 Oct 25 Apr 4 May 30 Apr 201 217 209
343 M 6 Oct 20 Oct 13 Oct 4 May 10 May 7 May 196 216 206
346 M 6 Oct 15 Oct 10 Oct 25 Apr 4 May 30 Apr 192 210 201
349 F wlo 29 Sep 6 Oct 2 Oct 10 May 18 Mar 14 May 216 231 224
354 F 1@1 6 Oct 15 Oct 10 Oct 10 May 23 May 17 May 207 229 218
357 M 6 Oct 15 Oct 10 Oct (BEAR KILLED DURING WINTER)
358 M 29 Sep 6 Oct 2 Oct 4 May 10 May 7 May 210 223 217
359 M 6 Oct 15 Oct 10 Oct 4 May 10 May 7 May 201 216 209
N 360 M 6 Oct 15 Oct 10 Oct 25 Apr 4 May 30 Apr 192 210 201
.....361 F 3@0 6 Oct 15 Oct 10 Oct 10 May 23 May 17 May 207 229 218
w 363 F wlo 6 Oct 15 Oct 10 Oct 25 Apr 4 May 30 Apr 192 210 201
365 M 6 Oct 20 Oct 13 Oct 25 Apr 4 May 30 Apr 187 210 199
367 F wlo 6 Oct 15 Oct 10 Oct 10 May 19 May 15 May 207 225 216
369 F wlo 6.Oct ·15 Oct 10 Oct 25 Apr 4 May 30 Apr 192 210 201
370 F 2@0 6 Oct 15 Oct 10 Oct 4 May 10 May 7 May 201 216 209
372 F 3@0 29 Sep 6 Oct 2 Oct 10 May 19 May 15 May 216 232 224
375 F 2@0 29 Sep 6 Oct 2 Oct 25 Apr 4 May 30 Apr 201 217 209
376 F 3@0 6 oct 15 Oct 10 Oct 25 Apr 4 May 30 Apr 192 210 201
377 F 1@0 29 Sep 6 Oct 2 Oct 4 May 10 May 7 May 210 223 217
378 F 2@0 20 Sep 29 Sep 24 Sep 4 May 10 May 7 May 217 232 225
379 F 3@0 N.D.N.D.N.D.4 May 10 May 7 May
301 F 2@0 N.D.N.D.N.D.4 May 10 May 7 May
374 F 3@0 N.D.N.D.N.D.10 May 19 May 15 May
MEAN """T"1Er rr-oct b""1fct :3 May !r'AaY -nray 1U1'TIl TI3'
"s"5 6 6 6 7 6 10 10 10
n 28 28 28 30 30 30 27 27 27
1
i SMILI2/SM-3/p.11
I updated 10/86
I
Table 71.8lack bear den entrance and emergence dates,winter of 1983/84.
Repro-
ductive
status 1983 Entrance 1984 &lergence Days in .Den
Bear ID Sex at exit earliest latest ~•earliest latest Mid.Min.Max.Mid •
8289 F 1@1 5 OCt 24'OCt 10 OCt 30 Apr 10 May 5 May 189 218 208
8317 F 1@1 26 Sep 5 Oct 1 Oct 30 Apr 10 May 5 May 208 227 217
8321 F 1@0 26 Sep 5 OCt 1 OCt 10 May 16 May 13 May 218 233 225
8324 M 15 Sep 27 Sep 21 Sep 30 Apr 10 May 5 May 216 238 227
8329 F w/o 5 OCt 24 Oct 15 Oct 18 Apr 30 Apr 24 Apr 177 208 192
8343 M 5 Oct 24 Oct 15 Oct 24 Apr 30 Apr 27 Apr 183 208 195
8346 M 16 Sep 27 Sep 22 Sep 18 Apr 10 May 29 Apr 204 237 220
8354 F 2@0 27 Sep 5 Oct 1 Oct 10 May 15 May 13 May 218 231 225N8358M5Oct24Oct15Oct30Apr10May5May189218203I-'
~8359 M 5 Oct 24 Oct 15 Oct 30 Apr 10 May 5 May 189 218 203
8360 M 5 Oct 24 Oct 15 Oct 7 Apr 18 Apr 13 Apr 166 196 181
8361 F 3@1 5 Oct 24 Oct 15 Oct 18 Apr 30 Apr 24 Apr 177 208 192
8363 F 2@0 5 Oct 24 Oct 15 Oct 30 Apr 10 May 5 May 189 218 203
8369 F 2@0 5 Oct 24 Oct 15 Oct.10 May 23 May 17 May 199 231 215
8375 F 2@1 26 Sep 5 OCt 1 Oct 18 Apr 30 Apr 24 Apr 196 217 206
8376 F 3@1 5 Oct 24 Oct 15 Oct 30 Apr 10 May 5 May 189 218 203
8377 F w/o 15 Sep 26 Sep 21 Sep 10 May 23 May 17 May 240 251 239
8378 F 2@1 5 Det 24 Oct 15 Oct 30 Apr 10 May 5 May 188 218 203
8387 M 5 Oct 25 Oct 15 Oct 30 Apr .10 May 5 May 189 218 203
840l M 5 Oct 24 Oct 15 Oct 7 Apr 18·Apr 13 Apr 166 196 181
8402 F w/o 26 Sep 5 Oct 1 Oct 30 Apr 10 May 5 May 208 224 217
8404 F ?26 Sep 5 Oct 1 Oct 10 May 23 May 17 May 218 240 229
8405 F 2@1 5 Oct 24 Oct 15 Oct 10 May 23 May 17 May 199 231 215
8406 F 2@1 5 Oct 25 Oct 15 Oct 18 Apr 30 Apr 24 Apr 176 208 192
8408 M 5 Oct 25 Oct 15 Oct 30 Apr 10 May 5 May 188 218 203
8409 F ?26 Sep 5 Oct 1 Oct 10 May 23 May 17 May 218 240 229
8411 F 2@0 5 Oct 24 Oct 15 Oct 10 May 23 May 17 May 199 231 215--Mean 2 Oct 16 Oct 8 Oct 29 Apr 10 May 4 May 196 222 209
liS"6.6 10.6 8.3 9.9 ,9.9 9.9 17.7 13.5 14.9
n 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27
SMIL12/SM-3/p.12
updated 10/86
Table 72.8lack bear den entrance and emergence dates,winter of 1984/85~
Repro-
ductive
status 1983 Entrance 1984 Emergence Days in Den
8ear ID Sex at exit earliest ~Mid.earliest ~Mid. Min.~Mid.
8289 F 2@0 1 Oct 11 Oct 6 Oct 23 May 1 June 28 May 224 243 234
8317 F 2@0 1 Oct 11 Oct 6 Oct 23 May 1 June 28 May 224 243 234
8321 F 1@1 1 Oct 11 Oct 6 Oct 9 May 16 May 13 May 210 227 219
8329 F w/o 11 Oct 24 Oct 18 Oct 9 May 16 May 13 May 197 217 207
8354 F w/o 1 Oct 11 Oct 6 Oct 23 May 4 June 29 May 224 246 235
8359 M 1 Oct 11 Oct 6 Oct 9 May 16 May 13 May 210 227 219
8361 F 3@2 11 Oct 24 Oct 18 Oct 9 May 16 May 13 May 197 217 207
8363*F 2@1 1 Oct 11 Oct 6 Oct 9 May 16 May 13 May 210 227 219
I\,)8369*F 1@1 11 Oct 24 Oct 18 Oct 9 May 16 May 13 May 197 217 207I-'
U1 8375*F ?11 Oct 24 Oct 18 Oct 23 May 31 May 27 May 211 232 221
8376*F w/o 11 Oct 24 Oct 18 Oct 9 May 16 May 13 May 197 217 207
8377*F 2@0 1 Oct 11 Oct 6 Oct 16 May 23 May 20 May 212 234 226
8378*F 1@0 21 Sep 1 Oct 26 Sep 23 May 5 June 30 May 234 257 246
8387 M 1 Oct 11 Oct 6 Oct 30 Apr .9 May 5 May 201 220 211
8401 M 1 Oct 24 Oct 13 Oct 30 Apr 9 May 5 May 189 220 204
8402*F 2@0 24 Oct 7 Nov 31 Oct 16 May 23 May 20 May 190 211 201
8404*F 3@0 11 Oct 24 Oct 18 Oct 16 May 23 May 20 May 204 224 214
8405*F 2@2 21 Sep 1 Oct 26 Sep 23 May 5 June 30 May 234 257 246
8408*M 11 Oct 24 Oct 18 Oct No effort
8409*F w/o 11 Oct 24 Oct 18 Oct 16 May-23 May 20 May 204 224 214
8411*F 2@1 1 Oct 11 Oct 6 Oct 16 May 23 May 20 May 212 234 226
8328 F 3@0 6 Sep 21 Sep 14 Sep 16 May 23 May 20 May 237 259 248
8349 F 2@0 1 Oct 11 Oct 6 Oct 16 May 23 May 20 May 212 234 226
8364 F w/o 21 Sep 1 Oct 26 Sep 23 May 3 June 28 May 234 255 244
8416 M 21 Sep 1 Oct 26 Sep 16 May 23 May 20 May 227 244 236
8302 M 1 Oct 24 Oct 13 Oct ..9 May 16 May 13 May 197 227 212
Mean 3 Oct 15 Oct 9 Oct 14 May 23 May 19 May 212 233 223
"s"9.5 10.5 9.9 7.0 8.1 7.5 14.6 14.3 14 •.5
n 28 27 27 25 25 25 25 25 25
*Downstream bear
,
SMIL07/SM-l/p.10
updated 11/85
Table 73.Characteristics of black bear dens in the Susitna study area during winters of 1980/1981,1981/1982, 1982/1983,1983/84,1984/85.
Den
No.
Bear Age at
ID No.Exit
Eleva-%Canopy
t ion Slope Aspect ****Tree
(feet)(Degrees)(TI1.le N)..Vegetation ~overage
ENTRANCE
Ht.Width
(em.)(em.)
CHAMBER
Ln~·--Wfdtli Ht.
(cm.)(cm.)(cm.)
Total Previously
Length Used?
(cm)(Yes/No)A B C
NATURAL CAVITIES
FEMALES w/offspring (at exit)
w/2 cubs 8 B32l 11
w/2@0###158***8289
172*B321
93sp.B374
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
2
2
2
4
2
1
3
3
2
3
4
4
Yes
Yes
Yes?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes?
Yes
229
610
212
117
327
390
180
328
480
1220
71
58
76
58
74
36
44
64
69
66
73
54
54
82
40
68
91
99
111
84
219
127
132
249
172
137
327
179
41
34
26
32
48 1220
39
54
50
42
81
32
93
33
79
55
57
43
41
49
38
41
40
22
64
o
o
o
o
50
30
o
10
15
90
60
Alder/Birch/Moss
Alder
Alder/Birch/Spruce·85
Alder
Alder
Alder/Willow
Alder/Grass
Shrub/Tundra
Shrub/Tundra
Alder/Birch
Alder/Birch
Alder/Birch
Spruce/D.Birch/Grass 10
Aspen/Willow/Alder 55
47
59
28
97
218
208
270
270
204
298
353
249
289
247
58
26
22
42
27
47
40
49
57
38
47
64
'42
40
875
2650
2075
2070
2825
2845
1950
1775
1825
1490
1875
3000
3140
2095
1960
5
7
6
7
7
8
8
7
8
13
11
15
10
9
B328
B328
B363
B411
8354
8354
8289
8328
19
32
73###B327
88###B375
92###B374
184
113
168
129
180
169
w/2 cubs
W/l@l
w/2@0
w/l@O
W/3@0
w/3@O
w/2@0
N
"W/l@l
0"1
w/2@1
w/2@1
W/l@l
2/3@0
w/2@1
FEMALES w/o offspring (at exit)
85*B377 6 2270
33
?collar
shed in den 6
115
8318
8325
8348
7
12
4
1890
1490
3125
47
41
30
38
127
1
178
189
Alder/Grass
Birch
Birch/Alder/Spruce
Shrub
10
o
50
20
51
49
106
43
27
33
69
100
146
76
74
73
62
55
80
654
113
475
Yes
Yes
Yes
3
2
2
No
No
144 B376 7 2075 23 185 Alder/Grass 30 53 43 189 96 75**433 Yes 3 No
185 8405 19 1985 18 105 Alder o 38 58 232 103 61 336 Yes 3
191*B375 12 1700 45 118 Alder 0
lcontinued on next page)
Table 73.(continued)
SMIL07/SM-l/p.11
updated 11/85
Den
No.
Bear Age at
10 No.Exit
Eleva-%Canopy
tion Slope Aspect***Tree
(feet)(Degrees)(True N)Vegetation Coverage
ENTRANCE
Hi.Width
(em.)(em.)
CHAMBER
Ln-.-Wfdlb~t.
(em.)(em.)(em.)
Total Previously
Length Used?
(em)(Yes/No)A B C
MALES
7#B287 11 1700 46 170 Cottonwood/Wil1ow/
Birch
50 62 44 122 89 42 Yes 2 No
13*B304*11
18*B322*5
911##B324
10#B303
6
8
2240
1690
4340
1840
30
50
24
53
88
48
52
158
Alder
WillOW/Alder/Aspen
Rock pile/Tundra
Alder/rock slide
o
o
o
38
93
34
36
137
108
70
82
45
94 869
Yes
Yes
?*
?*
3
1
No
No
No
Yes
###49***B323
272 Yes
318 .Yes
N
I-'......
51
66
95
157
96
98
100
156
167
173
B323
B343
B360
B401
B346
B359
B358
B408
B387
B359
4
5
7
8
4
11
5
3
4
6
7
1950
2370
1900
2150
1700
2200
1875
3450
3500
2435
30
60
48
41
42
30
30
39
43
204
168
300
153
202
198
58
283
317
196
Spruce/Birch
Spruce/Birch
Alders
Birch/Spruce
Birch/Spruce
Alder/Birch/Spruce
Birch/Spruce
Alder/Tundra
Alpine tundra
Birch
o
40
40
80
40
55
o
o
60
38
76
81
51
46
58
20
40
52
53
86
38
30
48
39
53
56
49
134
211
216
145
143
64
63
185
89
106
69
48
71
97
71
91
51
74
74
488
465
280
421
283
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes?
Yes
4
3
3
2
5
3
5
.3
4
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
UNKNOWN SEX 72 2370 30 168 Spruce/Birch o 41 23 58 89 1068**Yes 3 No
HOLLOW TREES
FEMALES (status at exit)
w/?@O 146 B377 6 650 o flat Cottonwood/Alder/Fern 90 36 89 Yes 3
w/2@1 154*B378 8 2200 218 Cottonwood/Alder/Birch -Unk.
w/o 145 B402 11 625 o flat Cottonwood/Alder/Fern 100 63
lCciliITm.ioo on-next page)
27 80 102 Yes 2
SMIL07/SM-1/p.12
updated 11/85
Table 73.(continued)
cBA
TotalCHA..'4BER Previously
Ln.Width Ht.Length Used?
(em.) (em.) (em.)(em)(Yes/No)
ENTRANCE
At.Width
(em.) (em.)
Eleva-%Canopy
tion Slope Aspect***Tree
(feet)(Degrees)(True N)Vegetation Coverage
Bear Age at
ID No.Exit
Den
No.
DUG DENS
FEMALES w/offspring (at exit)
w/2 cubs 2 B30l 8
w/3 cubs
w/2 ylgs
w/1 ylg
4#B289
11 8317
12 B3l8
10
8
6
2065
2000
2050
2725
34
18
36
24
191
211
86
122
Alder/Birch
Alder/Willow/Spruce
Alder
Dwarf Birch/Moss/
Tundra
90
70
o
o
49
39
27
24
43
72
41
42
97
142
93
95
92
127
93
84
51
55
78
40
151
290
128
145
Yes
No
No
No
3
1
3
5
No
No
Yes
Yes
70 B301
69 B317
74*B349
68*B318
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
4
2
2
4
5
4
2
3
3
2
3
4
3
4
3
3
2
Unk.
No
No
?
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
51
124
206
208
119
173
188
190
185
173
193
198
188
170
366
72
71
74
50**232**Unk.
76
72
58
41
66
43
80
98
60
60
116
91
127
114
147
122
125
110
130
206
160
119
107
136
203
76
76
84
190
114
123
142
150
117
119
163
58
79
59
38
56
51
45
59
38
43
74
69
69
43
66
33
22
38
30
27
36
30
38
46
43
o
20 ·28
20
25 "39
70
80
40
70
90
QO
90
40
90
o
90 41
Alder/Birch
Alder/Birch
Alder
Alder/Spruce
Alder/Birch
Willows/Alder
Alder
Cottonwood/Spruce
Alder/Spruce
Birch
Alder/Birch/Spruce 95 36
Alder/Birch
Alder/Birch/Spruce
Alder/Fern
Willow/Spruce/Alder
Spruce/Birch/Aspen
Alder/Birch
D.Birch/Willow/Spruce 25
50
19
28
212
19
227
245
130
273
350
360
298
190
151
291
199
122
9
5
21
38
17
35
26
24
35
43
32
31
24
13
24
24
34
2275
1425
2000
2375
1960
1750
1825
1975
1820
2400
3250
1225
2225
2375
1950
1550
2300
1300
6
4
6
6
8
9
6
6
9
10
8
10
10
14
18
12
B378
B36l
B372
B301
B289
B370
B361
B363
B376
B369
B405
91
50
21##B327
75
81
83
97*B354
84
90
114
143
138*B32l
127
141
w/2 ylgs
w/2 ylgs
w/2@0
w/2@0
"IV
'lJj2@0
w/2@0
w/4@0
w/2@0
w/2@0
w/3@0
w/2@0
w/3@0
w/2 @1
w/2@0
W/3@1
w/?@O
w/2@0
w/2@1
(continued on next page)
SMIL07/SM-1/p.13
updated 11/85
Table 73.(continued)
Den
No.
Bear Age at
ID No.Exit
E1eva-%Canopy
tion Slope Aspect***Tree
(feet)(Degrees)(True N)Vege~at10n _Coverage
ENTRANCE
Ht.Width
(cm.)(CJ!l.)
CHAMBER
tn.lolidth Ht.
(cm.) (cm.) (cm.)
Total Previously
Length Used?
(cm)(Yes/No)A B C
FEMALES.w/offspring (at exit)(continued)
w/3@2 160*B361 7 2440
w/1@2?
w/2@0
w/3@0
w/2@0
W/2@0
w/2@1
w/2@0
174 B364
181 B317
186 B404
187 B402
188*B377
198*B369
203*B289
12
12
13
12
7
7
14
2145
2055
1975
1910
1500
1100
1600
26
22
32
26
21
35
330
326
287
214
133
38
Alder
Spruce-Birch
Alder-Birch
Alder-Spruce
Alder
Alder
A~der-Birch
Spruce
o
40
20
10
o
o
33
50
27
38
39
59
67
63
110
152
193
130
113
133
91
98
73
78
72
54
183
152
193
134
No?
No?
No
Yes
No?
1
2
3
3
3
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No2
2
3
5
4
3
3
3
No·
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
124
160
104
165
193
150
152
220
71
79
55
53
81
57
63
6173
92
84
91
130
118
89
112**53**94**No
117
56
86
99
92
139
102
102
74
51
57
54
49
38
43
36
4329
24
36
30
39
35
34
36
32
25
10
90
80
90
100
o
10
70
Alder
Alder/Birch/Spruce
Alder/Spruce
Birch/Alder
Alder
Grass/Alder/Spruce
Alder
Alder/Fern
Dwarf Birch
28
78
177
184
207
321
153
105
323
8
7
22
21
21
21
26
31
30
1675
2250
2775
1410
2125
1475
2650
1725
1960
9
5
7
3
5
5
9
5
B369
B317
B349
B327
B329
B367
B411
43
55
58
67
80
82
99*B363
142
FEMALES w/o offspring (at exit)
~34 8321 12....
:.D
38*B343
ft:#ft:20***B323*80 166
MALES
35
39
57
B304
B348
B302
3
12
6
10
10
1950
1650
1200
1375
2025
71
36
39
43
41
176
79
313
240
236
Alder/Birch/Spruce
Birch
Birch/Alder/Spruce
Birch/Spruce
Spruce/Birch
25
60
20
40
53
35
57
55
25
147
62
91
63
217
100
116
94
76
173
172
138
36
183
101
454
660
530
188
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
3
2
?
1
2
No
Yes
Yes
71 B365 6 900**10**Alder/Birch/Spruce_- --=-...__--___......__--=-_-
(continued on next page)
tv
tv
I-'
Table 73.(continued)
*Actual den Site not found or too difficult to enter or collapsed.
**Approximate value.
A Subjective characterization of quality,I =highest and 5 =lowest.
B Will be flooded by Devil's Canyon impoundment?
C Will be flooded by Watana impoundment?
***Den not located first year known
but thought to be the same location as
subsequently found den.Den No.158=171.
****Mag.N+28°=True N.of hillside.
#Used by the same bear two consecutive winters.
##Used by the offspring during nat~l winter and SUbsequent winter.
###Used by different radio-collared bear during subsequent winter.
SMIL07/SM-l/p.15
updated 11/85
Dens No.8,19,6,7,9 10, 13,18,2,4,11,12,21,20,62,63,64
used during winter of 1980/1981.
Dens No.32,33,50,34,43,55,58,35, 38, 39,57,40,49,51,61,
65,7,9,10,4,21,used during winter of 1981/1982.
Dens No.73,88,92, 93,85,51,66,95,96,98,100,72,68,69,70,
74,75,81,83,84,90,91, 97,67,80,82,99,71,10,7,9,
19 used during winter 1982/1983.
Dens No.113, 129,20,lIS,144,49,146, 154,145,114,127,138, 141,
143,142,116,126,12~,140,152,156, 147,9,51,88,92,and
73 used during winter 1983/84.
Dens No.168,169,172,180, 184,(158),185,191, 167,173,160,174,
181,186,187,188,198,203,(159),202,190,(85),(49),(74),
used during winter 1984/85.
I
I
"
Table 74.(Continued)
MCALLI/MC-I0/p.2
1982/83 1983/84 1984/85
Bear No.Sex
Cavity **Cavity **Cavity
'rn>e Den#As soc Type__~en#As soc Type pc:!p#**As soc
w/1@2?
w/2c
w/3@0
w/o
w/o
w/2@1
376
377
378
379
387
401
402
~.
li.:.>404
N 405
408
411
416
364
F
F
F
F
M
M
F
F
F
M
F
M
F
Dug
Natural
Dug
Natural
91
85
90
19
w/3@0
w/o
w/2@0
w/3@0
Natural 144 w/o Nat.85 w/o?
Tree 146 w/?@O?Dug 188 w/2@0
Tree 154 w/2@1 Nat.190 w/l@O
Dead-------------------------------------------------------
Dug .116 w/o Nat.167
Natural 157w/o Nat.49
Tree 145 w/o Dug 187
Natural 92 w/o Dug 186
Dug 143 w/2@1 Nat.185
Natural 157 w/o Unk.201
Dug 142 w/2@0 Nat.184
Dug 202
Dug 174
**Associations are at time of emergence
***Den 158 was capture site of B289 (mother of 8329)in spring 1980.Den not flagged until winter
84/85,assumed was 79/80 den of 6289
MCALLI/MC-IO/p.1
Table 74.History of den use by individual radio-marked black bears,1980/81 -1984/85.
Bear No
1980/81 1981/82 1982/83 1983/84 1984/85
Cavity .**Cavity **Cavity **Cavity **Cavity **
Sex Type ~en#Ass~Type Deni As soc Type Den#As soc Type Den#As soc Type Den#Assoc
287
289
290
301
302
303
304
317
318
319
321
322
N 323N
LV 324
325
327
328
329
330
343
346
348
349
354
358
359
360
361
363
365
367
369
370
372
374
375
al 7
-4
63,64
-2
-57
al 10
al 13
-11
12
62
al 8
al 18
al 20
al 9
al 6
-21
al 19
-21
-12
.,
___..••."__.._JI1 C'l I::l
(continued)
I MCALLI!MC-9/p.1
I Table 75.History of use of individual black bear dens by radio-marked black bears,1980/81 -1984/85 (blanks indicate no data
I available,den'not revisited and no radio-marked bear there)."Flooded"means would be inundated by impoundment.
***84/85DenNo.Den Type Flooded Location 80/81 81/82 82/83 83/84
158 Dug Yes W [8289 in 79/80 spring w/2@I]Unk.80/81,81/82 ----8329 female
2 Dug Yes W 8301 female w/2@0 Vacant Vacant Vacant
4 Dug Yes W 8289 female w/3@0 8289 female w/2@1 Vacant Vacant Vacant
6 Nat No D 8325 female wlo
7 Nat No D 8287 male 8287 male 8321 female wlo
8 Nat No D 8321 female w/2@0
9**Nat No D 8324 male 8325 female wlo 8324 male 8324 male Vacant
10 Nat No D 8303 male 8303 male 8303 male Vacant
11 Dug No D 8317 female w/2@1 ---------------.-------
12 Dug No D 8318 female w/l@l Collapsed-----------------------------
(8330 male)
13 Nat No D 8304 male
18 Nat Yes W 8322 male
19 Nat No D 8328 female w/2@0 8379 female w/3@0
20 Nat Yes W 8323 male 8317 female Vacant
-.-~-.---~------~~w/l@1
21 Dug Yes W 8327 female w/8329@1 8329 female wlo Collapsed---------
32 Nat No D 8328 female w/l@1 Vacant Vacant
33 Nat No D 8318 female wlo
l\J 34 Dug No D 8321 female wlo
l\J 35 Dug No D 8304 male Vacant------------
4::-38 Dug No DS 8343 male Collapsed-------------------
39 Dug No DS 8348 male Vacant
40 -Yes D 8324 male
43 Dug No D 8317 female wlo
49 Nat Yes W 8323 male(?)8401 male
51*Nat No W 8346 male 8323 male 8346 male
50 Dug No W 8301 female w/2@1 Vacant Vacant
55 Dug No W 8349 female wlo
57 Dug Yes W 8302 male Vacant Vacant Vacant
58 Dug Yes W 8327 female wlo Vacant
61 Dug No W -Unmarked 8KB
62 -No D 8319 male
63 -No D 8390 female wlo
64 -No D 8390 female wlo
65 -Yes W 8329 female wlo
66 Nat No D 8343 male
67 Dug No.DS 8369 female wlo -------
68 Dug No D 8318 female w/2@0 Collapsed----
69 Dug No D 8317 female w/2@0
70 Dug No W 8301 female w/2@0 Vacant Vacant
71 Dug No DS B365 male
(continued on next pagel
MCALLI/MC-9/p.2
Table 75.(Continued)
***Den No.Den Type Flooded Location 80/81-81/82 82/83 83/84 84/85
72 Nat No W Unmarked 8KB
73 Nat Yes W 8327 female w/2@0 8329 Female W/l@l Vacant
74 Dug No W 8349 female w/2@0 8349
75 Dug No W 8361 female w/4@0
80 Dug Yes W B329 female w/o
81 Dug Yes W 8389 female w/2@0 Vacant
82 Dug No DS 8367 female w/o
83 .Dug No DS 8370 female w/2@0
84 Dug No DS B372 female w/3@0
85 Nat No DS 8377 female w/o B376
88 Nat No DS 8375 female w/2@0 8375 female w/2@1
90 Dug No DS 8378 female w/2@0
91 Dug No DS 8376 female w/3@0
92 Nat No OS 8374 female w/3@0 8404 female w/o
93 spring Nat No DS 8374 female w/3@0
95 Nat Yes W 8360 male Vacant
96 Nat Yes W 8346 male
97 Dug No W 8354 female w/l@l Collapsed--------------------------------
98 Nat Yes W 8359 male Vacant Vacant
99 Dug No W 8363 female w/o Collapsed--------------------------------
N 100 Nat No W 8358 male Collapsed--------------------------------
N 113 Nat No W 8354 female w/2@0
U1 114 Dug No W 8363 female w/2@0 Vacant
115 Nat No W 8358 female w/o
116 Dug No W 8387 male Collapsed------------
126 Dug No W 8359 male Collapsed------------
127 Dug Yes W .8361 female W/3@1 Vacant
128 Dug Yes W 8360 male
129 Nat Yes 1'1 8289 female w/l@l Vacant
157 Nat Yes W 8401 male
138 Dug No D 8321 female w/?@O Collapsed------------
140 -No DS 8406 female w/2@l
141 Dug No DS 8369 female w/2@0
142 Dug No DS 8411 female w/o
143 Dug No OS 8405 female w/2@1
144 Nat No DS 8376 female w/o
145 Tree No DS 8402 female w/o Vacant
tcontinued.on next page)
-_.._---_.
..•~
MCALLI/MC-9/p.3
Table 75.(Continued)
***80/81 -82/83 83/84DenNo.Den Type Flooded Location 84/85
146 Tree No DS B377 female w/?@O Vacant
147 ~-D B343 male
152 -No OS B409 female w/o
154 Tree No DS B378 female w/2@1
156 Nat No DS B408 J!lale
*Attempted initial denning location for B323, B346,&B360 in 1982/1983.B346 &B360 subsequently moved.**Attempted denning location for B324 &B325 in 1981/1982.B324 subseqUently moved.***W=Watana,D=Devils Canyon,DS=Downstream of impoundment zone.
SUMMARY OF TABLE:
103 dens identified to date throughout entire study area (reused dens counted only once).
51(49.5%)dug dens,40(38.8%)natural cavity dens,9(8.7%)unknown cavity type.3(2.9%)tree dens.
Not flooded 29(100.0%)
Downstream dens (Nd29)Watana dens (N=44)Devils Canyon dens (N=30)
N
N
0"1
Dug 24(54.5%)Dug 10(33.3%)
Natural 18(40.9%)Natural 13 (43.3%)
Unknown 2(4.5%)Unknown 7(23.3%i
Flooded 24(54.5%)Flooded 1(3.3%)
Not flooded 20(45.5%)Not flooded 28(93.3%)
Unknown 1 (3.3%)
Tree
Dug
Natural
Flooded
3 (10.3%)
17(58.6%)
9 (31.0%)
0(0.0%)
SMIL12/SM-5/p.1
Table 76.Daily search effort for each quadrat for the spring 1985 bear population estimate of the Su-Hydro study
area.Commuting and circling time not included.
For each day:
Search time (minutes)/Spotter Plane Number*
Quadrat Total Total Total
No.Mi 2 Km 2 6/1 6/2 6/3 6/4 6/5**6/9 .6/10 6/11 Minutes Min/mi 2 Min/km 2
1 56.52 146.38 (19)/2 132/2 93/2 100/2 233/1 (209)/1 (17)/1 156/2 959 17.0 6.6
2 63.64 142.89 --253/1 183/1 121/1 172/2 (90)/2 (72)/2 (93)/3 984 15.4 6.9
3 38.62 100.02 120/3 131/3 82/2 --175/2,3 --110/1 85/2 703 18.2 7.0
l'o.)4 49.30 127.67 106/1 89/1 96/1 .120/1 168/3 (4)/1 157/2 116/1 856 17.4 6.7l'o.)
.....j
5 55.17 142.89 49/1 167/3 138/2 120/3 --121/1 103/1 (10)/1 708 12 .8 5.0
6 33.76 87.42 148/2 79/2 93/1 149/2 (16)/2 (12)/2 180/3 (107)/1 784 23.2 9.0
8 64.72 167.62 214/3,2 (62)/3 173/1,J 174/3 --166/1 210/2 169/1 1168 18.1 7.0
9 83.29 215.71 118/2 104/1 --151/1 --211/2 (166)/1,3 (61)/3 811 9.7 3.8
10 75.10 194.50 96/1 (50)/2 (77)/2 148/2 (7)/2 120/2 217/1 --715 9.5 3.7
Total 520.12 1325.10 870 1,067 935 1.083 771 933 1,232 797 7,688 14.8 5.8
14.5 h 17.8 h 15.6 h 18.1 h 12.9 h 15.6 h 20.5 h 13.3 h 128.1 h
*Spotter Pilot # 1 =McMahan.#2 =Lee.# 3 =Deering
**Bad weather on 6/5/85 and on the 3 days following
()=partially done
I
N
N
00
!~)II,
NORTH
-".Tab
Scale 1:900000 Km.
o 45
I !J
Fi!Jur e 1..
...••'0-
•e
'"•o
~
Locations of places nam0d in text.
Lak.
,til·...
Q
NORTH ('\
~
'-"
~.-~l ~~~.~,l/~C-Y1<./~""\,
"
(
J~L,-
)~J.T alk ••tna,
\J~,;::;2.~",'r~.~~~~,
t
IV
IV
\0
Figure 2.Capture locations for 53 bro~n bears radio-
collared in the upstream study area.Polygon
incorporates an area of 2,169 km 2 ,females are
indicated with a hexagon,males with an asterisk.
80a'.1:1200000 Km.
o 80
I I
t)
t11
\~/l",
t\\\'~J'J
[,)@
"~"p
'"~J'"
e'~J •
\('
r.11<
>I'
1Il
';-o,il
.GJ
\
\
\
0)
'J
'J
",
\.''\
,fl
()r.>
!IIi
,~'\_--~-
J \'",L F'-,\..
j'.J
/
,r......J'f)'-.../-._"._/~.
_~._I~-1."._.
"f~)
If
-:>/
NORTH
N
Wa
o 10
!I
Figure 3.Point locations (N =:2,296)for radio-
marked brown bears captured in the downstream study
area,1980-1984.Polygon incorpor~tes an area of
13,912 km 2 ,females indicated with a hexagon,males
with an asterisk,1 cm :;;9 km.'Bears excluded are:
400,342a,386 (in 1983),379,.403,and 407.
80a ••1:100000 K ••
N
W
I-'
t
NORTH
~/
o eo,I
Figure 4.3rown bear study area.Illustrated polygons are :mea~hODe range diameter 137.5 km =midpoint
between average male and average Eemale home range diameter)around impoundment lones.Defined impoundment'
zone is between Devils Canyon and confluence of Oshetna and Suslena Rivers.Total a~ea of impoundllient zon~
=12,127 ~m:17,120 km 1 for Devils Canyon alone,9,452 km 2 f~r ~3tana alone I and 4,425 ~m2 in zene ct
overlap.Portion of each polygon that is above 5.000 feet elevation :ctefined as not bro'n bear hdbitdC!
is:26.12 km~for area excl~sive tc Jevils CanYG~,135,39 km 2 t:r ar~2 exclusjj2 Ie ~at~nar and 2S1.14 k!~
for ~verla;ZO[f betwe~n impoundments.T2ral bro~p ~ear hajiI~:in illipoundrrEnt inipact lOPE is 11 ,7C~k~2
{9,056 km z for ~~st Watana and 6,833 hili~fer j~st D~~iis Canyon:.
Soa'e 1:800000 KM.
I~).r---
_'-I ~---,~.~'~"'J'~~"i ......----~~
oJ!'«.,~----...j./-.~~:/~--V1-r'
\r'..f r'~f ~_~
i
/:;~\/
--::'~':>/~"'-~,t
NORTH
~
Q \
~'~.'c~)((
~I J (~/~~j\~
I
FigureS.Point locations (N =2;195)for radio-
marked brown bears captured in the downstream study
area,1980-1984.Polygon incorporates an area of
2,946 km 2 ,females in~icated with a hexagon,males
with an asterisk.
80ala 1:1200000 Km.
o eo
I r
~--,/--~
\
J
'\
.\"-t
~.
;;/)
,.-.rJ ,."~"J;//,.~.~
(/1 ..
J (/.~></''1.···
\/..//~I ~<',)._,,~_r-'\.~.\f .,L·",,~/.,f-jf'T ....;;';,}~.(r~~f'~
\J
").;--/
,
J /__~~__
./2 .~.~"
~'I/.r-\,t~,r.//'----.....,j ~r-____'-.
,Ii ),f-~----"-
.\~.)}-.r-.-....."'---~-
\i\'",f.'1..,""-',-
NO"TH
tv
W
W
Figure 6.Capture locations of 32 black bears radio-
collared in the upstream study area.Polygon-
in cor p or ate s an are a 0 f 1,11 7 kin 2,f em a J·e sin die a t:e d
wit h a hex ago n,III ale s wit han a ::;t e r i s k"1 c In c;o .1:1 kill.
Not included are:324,343,320,and the exclusively
downstream black bears.
Scale 1:1200000 Km.
o 80
I.I
>~
/
...
,../
(
'~l
L.~
C-
Ar.a Boundar,
('
{
(...!
."\
.,L._~
j".
,Lj ~......,
"\
\
.'~:
},.
i (
'--r\)\(
....,J '........\~._
I
"
'\
\
,'oJ.
(J
Wata"na Dam SIU
./'-./---~./J
/j.I
/I
.\
\\
\
\
\
j
/....
j
1.1
,.I
,)
"
,,.
J
,..
,/
/....)-_./
{
j
t
NORTH
.J'.'
tv
W
~
Scale 1:1528400 Km.
o 215,,,.,,
Figure 7,BliCk bear study area.Illustration i~cludci poioL locatio~s obtained during 1981-1984 :N=2273
for ratio-~arked bears [triangles]and 282 for bears without radio-marks [hexagons])and the spring 1985
census d1ea.Illustrated black bear scudy icea polygon Grawn arcana these po Dts ltij~s :195 11 2
inc~rporati~g all but 54 of the point l~ca(ions fer radic-~~rked Lears 6~d a1 LLt 2~~:~(~ljons cf non-
:1dio-ma~~tj b&5rs.
/'
/
Deyll.Canyon Dam Site
t
NORTH
Figure 8.Capture locations of 22
black bears radio-collared in the
downstream study area.Polygon
incorporates an area of 250 km 2 1
females indicated with a hexagon,
males with an asterisk.
Scaae 1:500000 Km.
i~~·iiiiiil!!!!!!!!!!!Iiiiiiiiiiii~!!!!!!!!!5iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil216
r,
)
~/
Figure 9.Point locations (N =
616)for radio-marked black bears
captured in the downstream study
area,1982-1984.Polygon
incorporates an area of 1949 km 2 ,
females indicated with a hexagon,
males with an asterisk.Bears
included are:365,366,367, 368,
369, 370,371,372,374,375,376,
377,378,402, 404, 405,406,408,
409,410,and 411.
Devil.Canyon Dam Site
Kill.
IS
I
8cale 1:500000
o
I
\?
(
NORTH
t
•
~36
Devil.Canyon Dam Site
'-
{
t
NORTH
Polygon
.,
~FIY.Mil.Po''''''
,(
.-J
r-,.
'r--/:"-r---:.~.--./r-=-',\.-.......-.
'----"-...~------
I\J
W
-..l
;'UI"O{1(]tooooo 420000 Hoooo t60000 480000
Figure 10.Illustration of proximity polygons that are 1 ~ile
and 5 miles ~rom the shoreline ot proposed Watand ctDd Devils
Canyon Impoundments.
BR.BEAR USE OF WATANA PROXIMllY ZONES
BY UONTH OF USE"N -'..,.REI..OCA11ONS10.......----------------------------,
6 •7 I •10-4 all
"Figure 11.Percent of brown bear point locations in each of 4 impoundment proximity zones,by month.All radio-
locations in 1980-1984 are included except for den site locations.Number of point locations for months 5 ,(May),6
lJuIle),7 (July),8 (Augustl,9 [Septemberl,and 10-4 (October through April)are,respectively:339,633,211,184,
159,and 92 for iatana iapoundlent zones'(above),and 104,174,125,90,68,and 30 for Devils Canyon Impoundment
zonl~s (belowl.BR.BEAR USE OF DEVILS CAN.PROX.ZONES
Sf MONTH OF USE"N -811 REI..OCA11ONS10..,....------------------'-----------.
6 •7 I •10-4 all
IZZl ZONE 1 ISSI ZONE 2 UONTH~
238
ZONE 3 ~ZONE ...
'----------"---.,..-.:-.---~-.---------........-'I'f"'-~....;.,.-------------_-.~,.i """""T!....:m;=:;tJ""
I\J
W
\.0
t
NORTH
~~
MALES-Thick Lin••
""FEMALES-Thin Lin••
~Figure 12.Composite illustrating total home
ranges lall years lumped)of radio-marked brown
Dears documented to have been at Prairie Creek
during July-August frem 1980 through 1985,
Tattoo numbers of female bears (thin lines)
included are:283,.308,315,380,394,407,42D,
42J I 396,397 and 391Y (total area of these ~ome
ranges =3,297 km 1 I.·T~ttoo numbers of male
~edrs (thick lines)included are:279 I 282,
m,294,3e2 1 399,342a,422,and W (teta}
,~t2a of these home raD,~es =:5,285 ~,<~I.!!Jtal
a~~ca ;)t CDnvex polY90n fCtTa~j by :d:l~d1:..iL~]
I,mdle home ranges =[5,298 km'!,
~~,,-------~~../~.~
~~J-(
e ••••1:.........
o 40,~
N
tl::-
C
t
NORTH
Figure 13.Movements around
Prairie Creek of 6 radio-marked
brown bears from 23 July through
6 August,1986.The following
bears are included:males
(indicated with thick lines)282
(*)and 382 (x);and females
(indicated with thin lines)420
(octagons),~98(triangles),
396(+),and 397 (diamonds).Only
points on perimeter of polygons
are illustrated.
80ale 1:125000 K ....
0&10
I P I
o &10
~,Ig
IEHI
I!>
I!l
IE
(J'+'
•....
~....•Q.~
l!>
Km.
~t
NORTH
Scale 1:125000
Figure 14.Point locations
of marked (h~xagons,N =49)
and unmarked (asterisks,N =
102)brown bears spotted or
radio-located at Prairie
Creek between 22 July and 7
August,1985.
IV
I$:lo
I-'
l!>
tv
~
tv
I ...•
Soa'.1:1215000 Km.
o 15I 'I
8
Figure 15.Locations in summer 1985 of
human habitations in the vicinity of
Prairie Creek.
Lak.
o
NORTH
.-H"...a"Habitation
>-
-0 "'"<U ""<I]......
""<I]
U><U
'"..<=:
<U .w....
""",....
0 '".w
""<I]
0 ..,
.~>.w ...
Cd «>
u ..<=:
0 .w.-.....-.0
«>0.
u '"-~..<=:...
P-'"'"'"...-0 "-
0>.w
0 ""-.-...,3t """'"0 -.-....u %"'".w ".~""a:•.--<..."'"0 ""0,'"0.",.....,Z\""...",II(0-<U-.-.0 .......0 ",
243
M~.lf •I>1\.~I:
N '"•'t-.....1\-"'~•~"+~-=II.;C
""~U C
"'"j ~•'"'"-~.~~.-•••••......
0(0(0(
•••to-to-..••"~~>t
•..%
I..•~•-•0 ••..
~
ANNUAL BROWN BEAR HOME RANGE SIZES
MALES,UPSTREAM AREA,N INDICATED
1..8
1 ..7
1 ..6
1..5
1..4
1..3
tf)1.20:::w~1.1
::::!:"O 101:
-10 0.9-Ill~:J
WO 0.8o:::i!=0.7<........
:Ja 0.6(f)
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
01.1
0
1980 1981 1982 1983
7
1984 ALL YEARS
Figure 17.Annual variation in lean hOle range size of radio-larked black bear tales and females (only
felales without newborn cubs inclu~edl.Number indicates sample size used in calculation of mean and
standarll deviation.
ANNUAL BROWN BEAR HOME RANGE SIZES
FEMALES,UPSTREAM AREA,N INDICATED
6100 -r----------------------------.,
SOO
9
tf)4000:::
W
ti
::::!:
0
-I 30052
l&J
0:::<:J
0 200tf)
'--
100
IZZJ SIZE(SQ.KM.)lSSI STD.DEV.
1980 1981 1982
YEAR(S)
244
1983 1984 ALL YEARS
i'
Figure 18.Illustration of movement of brown bear 331
to caribou calving area in spring of 1981.---
t
NORTH
.rown •••r G331
• D...a"•."'0
.......ry -........1"0
...J..IV -Dtt:.Mb.r."'0
)("."u.r,-.I .."••1 ••1
&July - D••••b.r.1"1
a ••I.:1 e ••_.10 ....ra
N
~
U1
to
oJ:>,
0'1
)(De,.alte,1810
...Janua,y -Jun.,1 ••0
....July -D.c ••"et.1 ••0
X January -.luna,1"1
~July -D.ce."er,1"1
acale:1 em.72150 .e'e,.
~
Figure 19.Dispersal in 1980 of subadult
male brown bear 342a from Watana dam site
to the Kashwitna River.
•"
t
NORTH
•
2.~
tv
~
-.J
Figure 20.Dispersal in 19B3 of 2-
year-old male brown bear siblings 392
and 391 from their maternal home range
i384l.Afemale sibling 1393)did not
disperse in that year.
WATANA IMPOUNDMENT
~
t
NORTH
80a ••1:120000
9 ,K
~P ••t .......,atlo •
..............'..a.....
N
~
00
Figure 21.Dispersal in 1983 of 2-year-old
male brown bear 389 from its maternal home
range (mother is 388).Male sibling 390
did not disperse in that year.
Po.t-••paratlon
/'dl.p.,..d ....1••_
•
80al.1:.....
o •K..,,
N
~
1.0
t
NORTH
.al••".prlno.sae
8cal.1:810000t .K~f
Figure 22.Dispersal in 19B}of 2-
year-old male brown bear 386 from its
maternal :312)hOLle range.
APRIL 1 SNOW DEPTHS.4 STATIONS
.IN SU-HYDRO VlCINIlY
eD .,...--------------------------,
so
"Ii'40•~
0
.£-E ~iO
C
~~~Oii
10
80 81 82 83 85
Figure 23.Annual snow depths on 1 April and 1 Kay during 1980 through 1985 at 4 snow survey stations in
the vicinity of the proposed impoundments.Data provided by·U.S.Soil Conservation Service,Snow Survey.
MAY 1 SNOW DEPTHS.4 STATIONS
IN SU-HYDRO VlCINI'TY.so ..,.'-------------------------
80
-•-10•~
0e
E ;50
c
~20zIn
10
0
80 81 82 83 .84 85
IZ2l YEAR
Fog [SSI DeviJ's t2222 Louise ~Monihon
250
--ilii\..,.........
Aspects of Brown Bear Dens
Includes +/-22.5 Degrees.true north
N
Ul
l-'
sw (14.6")
NW (6.7%)N (5.6 %)
~
E (10.1%)
5 (25.6%)
Figure 24.Aspects of 89 brown bear dens.Indicated direction
includes arc of ~22.5 degrees on either side.Aspects
corrected for magnetiC deviation from true north .
•
'..
9
8
"
status
4
5
2
7
3
o 1 IWA ~VA 1/~1/1~?1 1/l~1/I~1/1~/4 1/I ~d
6
aspect based on sex and
Includes +/-22.5 Degrees of Direction
10 I i
Den
Ul
Z
Wo
IJ...o
rrwm
::!!::>z(\,J
Ul
(\,J
N NE E SE s sw w NW
lZZI FF w/coy
,ASPECTIS:sI FF w/o ooy IZ::Zl Males
Figure 25.Aspects of brown bear depsbased on reproductive
status of 27 females with newborn cu~s (COY)at exit from den
cavities,30 females without newborn cubs at exit,and 12
males.Dens for 20 brown bears of unknown sex or reproductive
status are not included.Indicated direction includes arc of
±22.5 degrees on either ~ide.Aspects corrected for magnetic
deviation from true north ..
J-u _.~
-./".~.,E/~
~"~
)(
~c..~.r\._/_,-\
(
\...._.r--.~
"'--.-c~_.._.._/.,._.~_-'-...
\.~''-l
'L_
\
(f'/"t .,./,.JIV/~
(f
l.,-,,/~
~
)::1
<>
**~
(>~ltf\••~':~7:
I Cl
e
CI
To
/
itk
~'--..,..._,~---.-..---..
-['83
.J;i;:J<llf~72."'0 L,/~'-..-~-,.~.,::;./\~~............."-.."__.-2.............~..~.,_.\t=_._~.,Wat~~~m S~1 L\.~';r--~8~
*~':~j?,"-r,.~
1<1.t~/~
18J7 ...
//.~(-/;;
).(1<Il./1
*it
I
t
NORTH
j ..1/
~1/"'/
~j/'
,/
.J
tv
U1
LV
I ,
Figure 26.Location of den sites for radio-marked
brown bears in the Su-Hydro study area upstream f~om
the Devils Canyon dam site in springs of 1981
(triangles,N =9)I 1982 (squares with X,N =12),
1983 (squares with tails,N ~18)I 1984 (6-pointel}
stars,N =25)I and 1985 (*,N ~19).Diamonds ar~
for den sites of unmarked bears (N =8).
aoe_.1:100000
o II Km.
*
•••,.1 :3215000
.0 115Km.
-_iiI!liiiiI!!Iiiiil!!liiiil!!Iiiiiill!!!liiiil!!liiI!ds
Cr ••~
o
o
o
Figure 27.Location of den sites for radio-marked brown bears in the Su-hydro
study area downstream frem the Devils Canyon cam site in springs of :982 :squarss
witb enclosed X,}l =2),1983 (squares with tails,N =11),1984 (6-pointed stars.
N =9),ad 19&5 (t,N =10).
/
t
NORTH
J
1
d
BROWN EIEAR
254
BK.BEAR USE OF WATANA PROXfMI1Y ZONES
rtf IDmI ",UE.N -''''RELDCA'1'ICJte.,....-------------=-----.,;..-----------.....
a •7 ••10-4 aI
Figure 28.Percent of black bear point locations in each of 4 Vatana Dam ilpoundlent proximity zones,by lonth.
All radio-locations in 1980-1984 are includ~d except for den site locations.iUlber of point locations for months 5
(Kay),6 (June),7·(July},8 (August),9 (Septelberl,and 10-4 (October-Aprill are,respectively:222,465,203,
226,154,and 35 for Vatana iapoundlent zones and 141,289,98,84,58,and 9 for Devils Canyon ilpoundtent ·zo~es.
BK.BEAR USE OF DEVILS CAN.PROX.ZONES
I't UGN1tt OF ....N -m IIEI.OCAlIONS
IZZJ ZONE t
T-·--••.
lSSI ZGNE2 ~
255
ZCNE 3
-
ZGNE4
f
IV
U1
0'1
(l
•De..elte,1110
e D'...Ite,,.11
A Ja ..uary -June.".0
+July -Dece.ber.,••0
X January -June.,••,
~July -December.,,.,
Ical.:1 0 ••5150 "'.ter.
//
~
t
NORTH
Figure 29.Upstrea~movement of black bear 321
during poor berry summer of 1981.
~
)K De ..elte,1880 /~(Block B:O'B3'.t(!)De ..alte,1881
tv JII A January -June,1 ••0U1
--.J +.lui,.-DeceMber,1880 NORTH
X January -June,1981
~.lui,.-December,10.1
ecale:1 em-aelo meter.
Figure 30.Upstream movement of black b~ar 318 during
poor berry summer of 1981.
~'>•
t
NORTH
)I(D.n a"••,••0
(!)D.n alte.1 ••1
at.Jan ...rf -It••1"0
+J ..ly - D r.""
)("......ry -"e.1."
~J ..ly - D r.1'"
acal.:1 ••••••0 ••••,.
N
Ul
co
Figure 31.Upstream movement of black bear 342b
during poor berry summer of 1981.
NORTH
""""
•D ••aU ••'••0
o 0 ••alt ••,••,
A J .....rt -...n.,,••0
+.lui,-D.o••••r.",.
X J ......r'-Jun ••""
<).lui,- D••••••r.""
ao.I.:,c ••3700 ••'.r.
tN
U1
1.0
Figure 32.Downstream movement of black bear 343
during poor berry summer of 1981.
j\,0
r
•0'
tv
0'1
o
\w••••••••I".
)I D ••aU ••1 •••
• D ••all ••1 ••1.........,.-1'"
+,- ,.•••,
)(,.-"'••••1 ••1
•"."-,.1'"
•••••:t •••••••••••,.
Figure 33.Downstream movement of black bear 324
during poor berry summer of 1981.
ANNUAL BLACK BEAR HOME RANGE SIZES
MALES.UPSTREAM AREA.N INDICATED
400
350
300
en
m 250
~
9 2002
1&J
~150
aen
100
50
0
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 ALL YEAJltS
Figure 31.Annual variation in lean hOle range size of radio-larked broln bear I~les and felales (only
felales without nelborn cubs included).Rulber indicates salple size used in calculation of lean and
standard deviation..
ANNUAL'BLACK BEAR ,HOME RANGE SIZES
FEMALES.UPSTREAM AREA.N INDICATED
400
350
300
en
~250
~
9 2002
1&J
~150
aen
100
50
0
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 ALL YEARS
IZZI SIZE(SQ.KM.)
YEAR(S),._.lSSl STD.DEV.
261
I I
f
'""
....
Figure 35.Location of den sites of radio-
marked black bears in the Su-Hydro study area
upstream from the Devils Canyon dam site during
sp~ing of 1981 (triangles,N =16),1982
(squares with X,N =18),1983 (squares with
tails,N =21),1984 (6-pointed stars,N =12),
and 1985 (*,N =15).Diamonds are for den
sites of unmarked bears (N =3)_
~/
(~"~
;;~.,..~~
/~~.~
•••••':100000
o .1 K •.,,
....~,,-
,-._',-
--~_.(!
'''-_..'-~
~-,
(-,
1l ~.
\.."{
,j(\'
/~_/.
:1or«/\
\t
NORTH
N
CJ\
N
Scale 1:325000
o 11 K ......_---_..._....
,
\
j
/,..-
I
r'
('
)
(
t
NORTH
*
Figure 36.Location of den sites for radio-
marked black bears in the Su-Hydro study area
downstream of the Devils Canyon dam site in
spring of 1982 (squares with X,N =2)f 1983
(squares with tails,N =11),1984 (6-pcinted
stars,N =9)1 and 1985 (*,N =10).
;..1 /"I .".I'
t1 /'~/
\/
)/r~I /
..-./~Rive I~r/,;s~-'-~-<"~r~....na ..,,.---:.~':.{'-~"(f L~.~!f~CJ~/~/.--.zn"-Iroad/~:rr:1 .(~/D:.r¥
J ~...-*.Ii.r-'"./~:t::~/~!GOld Creek Devils Canyon Dam Site
/~~/..~.,.
lTf ~'\//~~,..'7/'*i('>~
'4--T::L.:'~'~,-~//
~.~~,~
263
r
.~,t ~~~
I
I
Aspect o~Black Bear Dens
......OftDln~
NE .E SE s sw w NW
IZZl DUG DENS .
ASPECTISSI...._..
Figure 37a.Aspects of black bear dens in 45 dug
cavities anq 36 natural rock cavities.Indicated
direction includes arc of +22.5 degrees on either
side.Aspects corrected for magnetic deviation from
true north.
.>:,-",~,..~..Aspect of Black Bear Dens
8aMd on ..and ~.~
10 I 'I
NWwswsSEE'HEN
2
7
a
;s 1>._
I 1/I)Vd J/'}~')VA 1/'~rM I<'?~Ir'?V4 1/'?V4 I<'?YA
...
•
"'
I
§
li
I
~z
tv
0'\
lJ1
tzzI FF wi eatS
ASPECTIS:SI ....W'_0IIt tQZ)Ualee
Figure 37b~Aspects of black bear dens for 27 females
with newborn cubs (COY)at exit from den cavities,30
females without newborn cubs at exit,and 24 males.
Indicated direction includes arc of +22.5 degrees on
either side.Aspects corrected for magnetic deviation
from true north'.
""~",'"'
....~
III ~I \11...~"".....,.
o 5 10 11 20 25I ' , ,,I
r.J
0'1
0'1
;,p.-
t
NORTH
Scale 1:275000 Km.
Figure 38.Search area quadrats used for spring 1985
bear density estimation.
,~-...
~-:.t<.)
CQ
-(Y">f~-_
T~__~~
":.::-
<:....:1
'"C0
""~.:..::
CO '""-.
~~
'-'-"U
C><>
~3
.~
I
I ....'"
';.r-l'
...j .....U~
.......
:;:J""~
.~:..L/.
c"':>
'-'.~
{J
(V
':;-~
.0>
..._"•.,Il
-('";J 'I.'c:
",'
'"-'(t"!(j)
n.)~
.(4 o"\J:
c::
<I>
.~
"-'::>1 .r;
1:'::':~
'r~~J
~'":.:J ~
"T1!,.---f
.
E
¥\
'",-
,
').;
;
i
I
I(.;
\
-,.:\
\
\
.,
0
0...
.,
lD
.,N
..:..,;
to
.;
..
~
po
~~•
.:-
.;
•
~
Co>
.,.;to 0
:f .,
••C
=
%
~a:o
Z·
.,
.,
267
BLUEBERRY RIPENESS
110
100 15
80
!>
~:10
I 70
10II 40A
~i 50
Q.-,a.<103:
It
20
4a
10
0
<1/18 7/18-21 7/22-31 8/1-7 8/8-18 8/18-24
Fiqure 40.Ripeness phenology (,of all ·plots read during period with berries in that category}for blueberry
(Fig.tOal,crowberry (Fig.4Gbl,andhigbbusb cranberry (Pig.40c).Suple sizes indicated on left of point for
green berries,on riqht of point for tart berries,and above point for ripe berries..
CROWBERRY RIPENESS
110..,...--------------------------,
100 .'.58 e---t!~'--
408
20
10
t..O+.__-i0.=::::+:.....__,-,.-__--,r--__--!
O-t
<1/18 7/18-21 7/22-31 8/1-7 8/8-18 8/18-24
0.\1£
t:l GREEN +TMI'~SWEE1'
268
LOWBUSH CRANBERRY RIPENESS
3 t31----B6-lDe--~S~.~/.~'\
359/\
110
100
10
I 10
70
~eo
B
fi aD
D.
E 40!
I(:so
20
10
0
40C
o o o
<1/18 7/18-21 7/22-31 8/1-7 8/8-18 8/11-24
DAlE
u GREEN +1Mr ~SWEET
Figure 40.Ripeness phenology.,'of all plots read during period lith berries in that ·categoryl for blueberry (Fig.
4vai r crowberry (Fig.40bl,and highbush cranberry (Fig.40el.Sample sizes indicated on left of point for green
berries.on right of point for tart berries,and above point for ripe berries.
269
*.i4
Figure 41.Canopy coverage for blueberries in each impoundment zone and
~above 2200 feet elevation.Chi square analysis was based on estimated prcportio~
in each class times the number of transects.Last two classes were lumped.
Covera,ge
Class
None
<5%
5-25:%
26-509¢
51-75'%
)75%
Devils Canyon
POPULATION D
Est.Prop.SE w/cov
0.228 0.0481
0.238 0.0390
0.272 0.0330
0.179 0.0292
0.052 0.0120
0.031'0.0117
\~atana
POPULATION A
Est.Prop.
0.244
0.223
0.292
0.147
0.067
0.027
SE w/cov
0.0190
0.0124
0.0111
0.0113
0.0087
0.0050
>2200 feet alev.
POPULATION B
Est.Prop.SE vlcov
0.253 0.0205
0.145 0.0131,
0.263 '-)..0194
0.197 0,0=.6::
0.100 0.01.22
0.042 0.i)08-oo
No.transects 43 165 1 ,.',,*
.l.I:':::'
0.1
0.24
0.22
0.2
O.'18
0.'16
0.'14
0.'12
0.:26
BLUEBERRY CANOPY COVERAGE
Chi.Square'(8 d.f.)=5.9,P"';0.66
0.3 -r-----~--------.:.----------------:-_:r
0.28
t-=
~.0.08
0.l:J6
0.IJ4
0.1J2
0~::..L..::t--TLL.::1.._L.L..4~4----LL.L~~-~..J....1-lL.<~---L..L...J+~:l..---L...<:....I....r-u:~
ll..o
ll..
I..L.o
Zo
i=
0::oa.o
0::a..
None <5%5-25%26-507.51-757.>757.
~DEVILS CANYON
CANOPY COVERAGE CLASScs::::sJ WATANA ~>2,200'ELEV.
270
---~~,--~-,,------------"~--r'l'!"'--------------------
Figure 42.Canopy coverage for crowberries in each impoundment zonB and
above 2200 feet elevation.Chi square analysis was based on estimated proportien
in each class times the number of transects.Last three classes were lumped.
Devils Canyon l~atana >2200 feet elev.
Coverage POPULATION D POPULATION A -POPULATION B
Class Est.Prop.SE w/cov Est.Prop.SE w/cov Est.Prop.SE w/ccv
None 0.379 0.0639 0.376 0.0210 0.611 0.0257
<5%0.256 0.0439 0.140 0.0127 0.178 0.0175
5-25%0.181 0.0225 0.224 0.0138 0.143 0.0160
26-50%0.131 0.0251 0.148 0.0106 0.059 0.0110
51-75%0.036 0.0119 0.085 0.0104 0.010 0.0029
>75%0.01.6 0.0117 0.028 0.0061 0.000 0.0000
No.transects 43.00 165.00 126.00
0.6
0.5
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.1
CROWBERRY CANOPY COVERAGE
Chi Square (6 d.f.)=29.3,P<0.001
0.7 -,------------------------------,
n.:a
0..
l.a..a
za
i=a:::a
0..aa:::
0..
...=
Ulw
None <570 5-2570 26-5070 51-7570 >7570
.LZZl DEVILS CANYON
CANOPY COVERAGE CLASSJs::sl WATANA IZZI >2,200'ELEV.
271
..
Figure 43.Canopy coverage for lowbush cranberries in each impoundment zcn€an~
above 2200 feet elevation.Chi square analysis was based on esti~ated propor~io;
in each class times the number of transects.Last three classes were lumped.
COVE;rage
Class
None
<5%
5--25°6
26--50%
51-,75%
>75%
Devils Canyon
POPULATION D
Est.Prop.SE w/cov
0.171 0.0483
0.409 0.0459
0.289 0.0385
0.097 0.0193
0.031 0.0118
0.003 0.0026
i¥atana
POPULATION A
Est.Prop.
0.262
0.454
0.214
0.055
0.012
0.004
SE ;,of/COY
0.0187
0.0138
0.0128
0.0084
0.0033
0.0020
>2200 feet e::"217.
POPULATION B
Est.Prop.SE wfcov
0.188 0.0182
0.305 0.0:218
0.3.30·0.0204
0.138 0.0150
0.033 O.OOiS!
0.005 (1,0031
No.transects 43 165 l~S
LOWBUSH CRANBERRY CANOPY COVERAGE
0.45
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.1
0.15
0.35
0.05
0.25
Chi Square·(6 d.f.)=16.9.·P=0.01
0.5 -,-------------------------------,
.0.:o
!l..
1.1..o
Zo
~o
!l..on::::
!l..
~
W
None <57.5-257.26-507.51-757.>757.
IZZI IJEVILS CANYON
CANOPY COVERAGE CLASS
[SS]WATANA ~>2,200'ELEV.
272
"if
Figure 44.Canopy coverage for Equisetum'in each impoundment zone and
above 2200 feet elevation.Chi square analysis was based on estimated propOr~i)l
in each class times the number of transects.Last four classes were lumped.
Coverage
Class
None
<5%
5-25~s
26-50%
51-75%
>75%
Devils Canyon
POPULATION D
Est.Prop SE w/cov
0.503 0.0651
0.361 0.0627
0.075 0.0172
0.035 0.0120
0.012 0.0119
0.014 0.0086
Watana
POPULATION A
Est.Prop.
0.692
0.178
0.074
0.029
0.016
0.011
SE w/cov
0.0120
0.0208
0.0090
0.0058
0.0034
0.0032
>2200 feet
POPULATION B
Est.Frop.
0.568
0.218
0.122
0.046
0.023
0.019
SE ii/CO'!
0.026:
0.0186
0.0083
0.0060
O.005~)
No.transects 43 165
EQUISETUM CANOPY ·C.OVERAGE
.Chi Square (4.d.f.)=11.5,P=0.02
0.7 ....,..-------,--------------------------,
0.6
a-o 0.5a-
lJ..o
z 0.4o
~oa-0.3o
0::a-
tii 0.2
1.LI
o.,
None <5"5-25"26-50"51-75">75"
lZZJ DEVILS CANYON
CANOPY COVERAGE CLASSlS:Sl WATANA fZ:Zl >2,200'ELEV.
273
Figure 45.Abundance data for blueberries in each impoundment zone and
above 2200 feet elevation.Chi square analysis was based on estimated proportion
in each class times the number of transects.Last two classes were lumped.
Devils Canyon Watana >2200 feet elev.
Abundance POPULATION D POPULATION A POPULATION B
Class Est.Prop.SE w/cov Est.Prop.SE Iv /cov Est.Prop.SE w/cov
None 0.764 0.0421 0.796 0.0171 0.681 0.0210
1-4 0.110 0.0244 0.117 0.0119 0.156 0.016'3
5-20 0.086 0.0181 0.065 0.0074 0.123 0.011:::
>20 0.040 0.0136 0.021 0.0060 0.041 0.0081
No.transects 43 165 126
>205-201-4
NUMBER OF BERRIES PER PLOT
lS:sJ WATANA ~>2,200'ELEV.
274
BLUEBERRy'ABUNDANCE
Chi Square (4 d.f.)=5.9 (P =0.21)
0.8
0.7
a.:0.6
an.
I.L.0.5a
za
i=0.4n::an.an::0.3n.
~
VI
I.LI 0.2
0.1
a
None
IZZJ DEVILS CANYON
-----------.----------------"""1'1""---
Figure 46.Abundance of crowberries in each impoundment zone and
above 2200 feet elevation.Chi square analysis was based on estimated propor:icn
in each class times the number of transects.Last three classes were lumped.
W/CQV
0.0144
0.0080
0.0105
0.0134
)2200 feet a12-;;.
POPULATION B
EST.PROP.SE w/co~
Abundance
Class
None
1-4
5-20
>20
Devils Canyon
POPULATION D
EST.PROP.SE w/cov
0.758 0.0391
0.102 0.0241
0.073 0.0141
0.057 0.0241
Watana
POPULATION A
EST.PROP.SE
0.618
0.102
0.126
0.153
0.875
0.052
0.043
0.,026
0.0153
0.C100
No.transects 43 165
0.9
0.8
0.7
!L
0a..0.6
1.L.
0
Z 0.50
j:::
It:
0 0.4ll.
0
It:
ll.0.3..::
lI)w
0.2
0.1
CROWBERRY ABUNDANCE
..Chi Square (2 d.f.)=?4.0.P<0.001
None 1-4 5-20 >20
""'
IZZI DEVILS CANYON
NUMBER OF BERRIES PER PLOT!SSI WATANA ~>2,200'ELEV.
275
Figure 47.Abundance of lowbush cranberry berries in each impoundment zo:,~anc
above 2200 feet elevation.Chi square analysis was based on estimated proportion
in each class times the number of transects.Last three classes were lumped.
el-2v~
B
SE ,.;/ccv
0.0206
0.0103
0.0134
0.0110
>2200 feet
?OPULATION
Est.Prop.
0.744
0.068
0.119
0.069
SE '1i/COV
0.0136
0.0064
0.0074
0.0074
Watana
POPULATION A
Est.Prop.
0.873
0.038
0.047
0.042
Devils Canyon
POPULATION D
Est.Prop.SE w/cov
0.845 0.0315
0.101 0.0288
0.040 0.0128
0.014 0.0075
Abundance
Class
None
1-4
5-20
>20
Nc.transects 43 165
LOWBUSH CRANBERRY ABUNDANCE
Chi Square (2 d.f.)=8.3 (P=O.02)
NUMBER OF BERRIES PER PLOT
[SSJ WATANA IZ:Zl >2,200'ELEV.
0.9
0.8
D.7a.:
0
Il.C).S
l.L.
0
z 0.50
~
0 0.4Il.
0
IX:
Il.0.3
~w
().2
c 1).1
0
None
JZZ]DEVILS CANYON
1-4 5-20 >20
276
'------jiAL!¥l