HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA4165IDENTIFYING WILDLIFE LANDS :
FISH AND WILDLIFE ANALYSIS FOR THE
SUSITNA RIVER BASIN STUDY
Final Report
by
U.S. Department of Agriculture
in cooperation with
State of Alaska and the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
October 1985
Final Report
Identifying Wildlife Lands:
Fish and Wildlife Analysis for the
Susitna River Basin Study
Prepared by
United States Department of Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service
Forest Service
In Cooperation with
State of Alaska
and
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
For further information, contact
State Conservationist
Soil Conservation Service
201 E. 9th Avenue, Suite 300
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-3687
Telephone (907) 261-2424
October 1985
Acknowledgements
A cooperative interagency project such as outlined here inevitably involves a
large number of individuals; unfortunately, acknowledging them all by name is
not possible. Nonetheless, it is a pleasure to acknowledge the key
individuals who coordinated the involvement of their respective agencies and
were instrumental in keeping this project moving forward. Ann Rappoport of
the USFWS modified existing Habitat Evaluation Procedure models for use in the
Susitna River Basin Study, contacting a variety of helpful ADF&G biologists in
the process.
in the study,
Christopher Estes ably coordinated the ADF&G's early involvement
part of which involved initiating instream flow and fisheries
research in the Willow Subbasin. He was followed by Rich Cannon and
Carl Yanagawa who successfully coordinated compilation of much additional
ADF&G information on the Talkeetna, Beluga, and Upper Susitna Subbasins.
Dimitri Bader and Patricia Baird spent many hours assisting with preparation
of the fish and wildlife element maps and reviewing them with other Department
biologists, principally Jack Didrickson from Palmer. They also prepared most
of the narratives for the fish and wildlife element and other planning
reports. Chris Beck, Randy Cowart, and Marjorie Willits of the ADNR
continually supported integration of fish and wildlife information in the
State planning process, and were very receptive to the methodologies developed
here. Calvin Steele of the SCS, a key player in the collection of data used
in these analyses, also provided helpful review comments on this report, while
SCS economist John O'Neill assisted the ADF&G in economic analyses of fish and
wildlife resources. Sterling Powell, formerly of the SCS, provided the
unifying vision of what could be done through this study, and kept us all
striving together to do justice to the rich resources and complex land-use
questions in the Susitna River Basin. And finally, Devony Lehner, SCS
Biologist, who is the primary author of this report, for her dedication to the
project and her outstanding ability to coordinate all aspects of this report.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Llst of Flgures ................................. '.... .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . 4
Llst of Tables . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . ... . . . . . . . .. . . . 5
Introductlon ... ~................................................... 7
I. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
I I. The Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
III. Flsh and Wlldllfe Resources ln the Susltna Rlver Basln ............. 17
A.
B.
c.
D.
IV. Flsh
A.
B.
c.
Flsh and Wlldllfe Specles 17
Flsh and Wlldllfe Habltats .................................... 28
Human Uses of Basln Flsh and Wlldllfe 35
40 Future of Flsh and Wlldllfe Resources
and Wlldllfe Hodellng and Happlng ln the Susltna Rlver Basln .. 46
Introductlon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Flsh and Wlldllfe "Element" ................................... 47
Flsh and Wlldllfe Hodellng .................................... 52
1. Introductlon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
2. Hodellng and Happlng of Specles-speclflc Habltats 54
3. Hodellng and Happlng of Hlgh Specles Dlverslty
and Habltat Scarclty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
a. Introductlon . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
b. Wlldllfe Specles Dlverslty Hodel .................... 58
c. Habltat Scarclty Hodel .............................. 67
4. Integratlon of Hodel Outputs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
a. Introductlon ........................................ 71
b. Habltat Synthesls Hodel Steps ....................... 72
- 2 -
D. Creating the Fish and Wildlife Element Hap ................... 78
V. Fish and Wildlife Field Investigations ............................ 86
References 89
Appendixes 100
A. Bibliography of Reports prepared during the Susitna
River Basin Study ................. -..............•............ A-1
B. Outline of ADF&G Susltna Basin Data ..........•............... B-1
C. Description of USFWS Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP)
models applied in Susitna River Basin ........................ C
D. Examples of field procedures and data forms used during
the Susitna River Basin vegetation inventory.................. D
-3 -
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Hap of Susitna River Basin and Willow Talkeetna, Beluga,
and Upper Susitna Subbasins . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . 11
Figure 2. Susitna River Basin Study: inventory data areas .............. 16
Figure 3a. Successional stages following fire -upland white
spruce sites 42
Figure 3b. Successional stages following fire -permafrost black
spruce sites 43
Figure 4. Patterns of forest succession following fire in Alaska ....... 44
- 4 -
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Birds of the Susitna River Basin ............................... 18
Table 2. Mammals of the Susitna River Basin . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . 23
Table 3. Fishes of the Susitna River Basin ............................. 25
Table 4. Big game population estimates for the Susitna River
Basin/Matanuska-Susitna Borough ............................... 27
Table 5. Susitna Cooperative River Basin Study, land cover
mapping units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Table 6. Summary of selected plant community (wildlife habitat;
acreages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Table 7. Preferred habitats for selected Susitna Basin mammals ......... 33
Table 8. Preferred habitats for nesting, feeding, or both for
selected Susitna Basin birds .................................. 34
Table 9. Susitna Basin sport fishing effort and harvests
by species -1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . • 38
- 5 -
Table 10. Susltna Basln total sport flshlng days and
harvests -1977-1981 ...................................... ·... 39
Table 11. Plant communlty correlatlons and wlldllf~ specles
dlverslty ratlngs for SCS vegetatlon types ................... 62
Table 12. Correlatlon of mammal specles llsts: Gasllne Corrldor -
Susltna Basln . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . • 63
Table 13. Correlatlon of blrd specles llsts: Gasllne Corrldor -
Susltna Basln . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . ... . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 64
Table 14. Habltat scarclty ratlngs ..................................... 70
Table 15. Summary of lnstructlons for habltat synthesls model .......... 73
Table 16. Recommended flsh and wlldllfe/publlc use corrldor
wldths for Susltna Basln streams ............................. 76
- 6 -
Introduction
The following report covers fish and wildlife studies conducted in the
Susitna River Basin as part of the Susitna Cooperative River Basin Study.
The report is divided into five parts:
Part I, Background, discusses both the origins of the Susitna Cooperative
River Basin Study and the basis for Soil Conservation Service participation
in Basin fish and wildlife analyses.
Part II, The Study Area, describes very briefly the location of the Susitna
River Basin and the four "subbasins" into which it was divided for study
purposes.
Part III, Fish and Wildlife Resources in the Susitna Rivet"' Basit-,, pr--ovides a
general description of the fish and wildlife species and habitats currently
found in the Basin. Current human uses of these resources, and changes
affecting their future use and availability, are also briefly discussed.
Part IV, Fish and Wildlife Modeling and Mapping in the Susitna River Basin,
describes the technical fish and wildlife analyses conducted by the SCS as
part of the River Basin Study. These analyses consisted of two main
activities: 1) working with the USFWS and the ADF&G to develop ways to use
River Basin data in "modeling" the relative fish and wildlife values of
Basin lands, and 2) assisting the ADF&G in developing procedures for
-7-
creating fish and wildlife "element maps," that is, maps showing Basin lands
best suited for maintaining desired fish and wildlife resources. Use of
these products by land use planners is also briefly discussed.
Part V, Fish and Wildlife Field Investigations, briefly identifies
wildlife-related data collected by the SCS and FS in the field during the
Cooperative Study.
Ap~endixes supplement the information provided in these five parts.
-8 -
I. Background
In recent years, the State of Alaska and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough have
been determining which of their lands should be retained in public ownership
and which should be sold or leased to the private sector. These
determinations have generally been based on what the ·state or Borough has
perceived to be the "best uses" for particular parcels. Historically, "best
uses" have usually been identified with very little information because
adequate inventory data were not available. As a result, Basin lands have
often been either inappropriately developed, e.g., homes have been built in
flood plains, septic systems in or adjacent to wetlands; or lands have been
used in ways that have not served the public interest, e.g., public trails
or hunting areas have been sold to private interests who then blocked public
access. Environmental problems, damage to structures, and conflicts among
land users have 'inevitably resulted. Finding solutions to these problems
has been difficult in the absence of adequate data, and because opinions
often differ on what constitutes a parcel's best use or the public's best
interest.
In order to develop a data base on which alternative land uses could be
logically evaluated and selected, the Alaska Department of Natural Resources
(ADNR) requested technical assistance from the U.S. Department of
Agriculture-Soil Conservation Service in February 1976. In response, the
USDA, in June 1976, authorized the Alaskan River Basin Study under Public
Law 83-566. In February 1978, a plan of work for the Alaska Rivers-Susitna
-9-
River Basin Study was adopted. For study purposes, the Susitna Basin was
divided into four subbasins: Willow, Talkeetna, Beluga, and Upper Susitna
(Figure 1). The Willow Subbasin Study was scheduled first. Once it was
completed (USDA 1981c), a joint study of the Talkeetna, Beluga, and Upper
Susitna Subbasins was undertaken.
Public Law 83-566 (Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954)
provides broad authority for cooperation between USDA agencies and other
Federal and State agencies in river basin planning, surveys, and
investigations. The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) directs these
activities, working closely with the USDA Forest Service (FS) and Economic
Research Service (ERS). Conducted at the request of cooperating agencies,
in this case the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, river basin studies
and investigations:
identify water and land resource problems,
analyze the economic base and environmental setting, and
suggest alternative plans for solving identified problems and
improving the economy and environment.
-10 -
USDA involvement in river basin fish and wildlife investigations is
predicated on Department policy as outlined in Memoranda from the Secretary
of Agriculture. Current ,usDA fish and wildlife policy, articulated in
Secretary's Memo 9500-4, is to " ... assure that the values of fish and
wildlife are recognized, and that their habitats, both terrestrial and
aquatic, including wetlands, are recognized and enhanced, where possible, as
the Department carries out its overall missions." Within its authorities,
Department activities in supr:;ort of this policy may include:
supporting research and management programs that respond to the
economic, ecological, educational, recreational, scientific and
aesthetic values of fish and wildlife;
improving, where needed, fish and wildlife habitats;
ensuring the presence of diverse, native and desired non-native
populations of wildlife, fish, and plant species;
providing research, educational, technical, and financial
assistance to inform, encourage, and assist landowners to
understand, apply, and improve management practices for fish and
wildlife habitats;
assisting with the improvement of opportunities for recreational
uses of fish and wildlife, such as hunting, fishing, trapping, and
viewing;
-12 -
encouraging and assisting the States, territories, and other
Federal agencies in conducting resource inventories and evaluating
the status and potential of fish and wildlife habitat ...
Under Department authorities and mandates outlined above, the USDA-SCS
entered into a cooperative agreement wjth the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) to jointly
conduct fish and wildlife investigations as part of the Susitna Cooperative
River Basin Study. In particular, the SCS, working with these agencies, the
ADNR, and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough:
1) identified potential problems and issues affecting long-term
maintenance of sustainable populations of desired fish and
wildlife species in the. Basin to meet increasing human demands for
these resources. The problems and issues identified are outlined
in the Willow Subbasin Final Report (USDA 1981c) and in Land Use
Issues and Preliminary Resource Inventory -Matanuska-Susitna-
Beluga Cooperative Planning Program (ADNR et al. 1982)
2) analyzed the environmental base, and to some extent the economic
base, affecting Basin fish and wildlife resources. Descriptions
of environmental analyses conducted by the SCS in the Susitna
River Basin are contained in the Willow Subbasin Final Report
(USDA 1981c), in the Susitna River Basin Summary Report (USDA
1985), and in the various technical reports, such as this
-13 -
one, accompanying the summary. (Other USDA technical reports are
listed in Appendix A.) Descriptions of economic analyses
conducted by the SCS/ERS are contained in the Willow Subbasin
Final Report and in The Susitna Cooperative River Basin Study
Economic Development Analysis: Talkeetna Subbasin (Fuglestad and
O'Neill 1983). Technical assistance was also provided to the
ADF&G during their attempts to develop an economic method for
calculating monetary values of fish-and wildlife-related
activities in the Susitna River Basin (ADF&G 1983b,_l983d).
3) developed fish and wildlife-oriented land use alternatives
(element maps) to assist the State and Borough in addressing
long-te-rm maintenance of fish and wildlife resources in the Basin
in ways compatible with improving the regional economy and the
environment. Development and use of these alternatives-are
discussed in this and other reports cited above.
-14 -
II. The Study Area
The Susitna River Basin includes approximately 14 million acres in
Southcentral Alaska. Of this total, about one million acres lie in the
Willow Subbasin (see USDA 1981c). The remainder of the Basin extends from
Cook Inlet on the south, to the Alaska Range on the north, Clearwater
Mountains on the northeast, Lake Louise area on the east, and Tordrillo
Mountains on the west. Major stream systems include the Susitna, Talkeetna,
Chulitna, Kahiltna, Skwentna, Yentna, and Beluga Rivers, as well as the
lower reaches of the Chakachatna River. Lakes in the area number in the
hundreds; among the larger of these are Lake Louise and Beluga Lake, as well
as Alexander, Strandline, Trapper, Shulin, Chelatna, and Amber Lakes. The
Basin is described in greater detail in the Susitna Basin Final Report (USDA
1985) and in accompanying technical reports, listed in Appendix A.
For study purposes, the Susitna River Basin was divided into three subbasins
as shown in Figure 2. Environmental inventory data were collected by the FS
and the SCS in shaded areas. Data collected in the Upper Susitna Subbasin
were not as detailed as those collected in the other two subbasins.
Technical analyses discussed in this report apply only in the shaded (data)
areas shown on Figure 2.
-15 -
0
Figure 2. Susitna Basin Study -
inventory data areas
1 Beluga Subbasin
2 Talkeetna Subbasin
3 Upper Susitna Subbasin
III. Fish and Wildlife Resources in the Susitna River Basinl/
A. Fish and Wildlife Species
Many kinds of fish and wildlife are currently found in the Susitna Basin.
These include big game species, such as moose, caribou, Dall sheep, black
bear, and brown bear; furbearers, such as wolf, marten, wolverine, and mink;
resident and anadromous fishes, such as salmon, trout, and grayling; small
game; waterfowl; hawks and eagles; and a variety of others. Twenty-nine
species of freshwater and anadromous fishes, 157 species of birds£/, and
38 native mammal species (not counting Beluga whales and harbor seals, which
may occur in C¢ok Inlet waters) are likely to breed in or migrate through
the area (Tables 1, 2, and 3). For several species important to man (e.g.,
moose, black bear, beaver, etc.), Susitna River Basin populations are among
the most abundant in Alaska and, in some cases, in the U.S. Estimated
current numbers of six big game species found in the area are presented in
Table 4. Where information was available, Table 4 also indicates what
percentage of statewide populations are believed to occur in the
Matanuska-Susitna Borough (generally equivalent to the Basin).
11 For further information on Basin fish and wildlife resources, see ADF&G
1984
£/ One Federally listed threatened or endangered bird species is likely to
migrate through the Basin: a threatened subspecies of the peregrine
falcon (Falco pereqrinus anatum). Two peregrines were sighted perched
in an open stand of white spruce near timberline by an SCS biologist on
August 2, 1981 (Beluga Subbasin, plot 65).
-17 -
Table 1. Birds of the Susitna River Basin
(Sources: Anchorage Audubon Society, Inc. 1978, Armstrong 1980,
Gabrielson and Lincoln 1959, Kessel and Gibson 1978,
Kessel et al. 1982, Murie 1963, Ritchie et al. 1981)
GAVIIFORMES (loons)
Common Loon
Arctic Loon
Red-throated Loon
PODICIPEDIFORMES (grebes)
Red-necked Grebe
Horned Grebe
ANSERIFORMES (waterfowl)
Whistling Swan
Trumpeter Swan
Canada Goose
Black Brant
White-fronted Goose*
Snow Goose
Mallard
Gadwall
Pintail
Green-winged Teal
Blue-winged Teal
Northern Shoveler
European Wigeon
American Wigeon
Canvasback
Redhead
Ring-necked Duck
Greater Scaup
Lesser Scaup
Common Goldeneye
Barrow's Goldeneye
Bufflehead
Old squaw
Harlequin Duck
Gavia immer
Gavia arctica
Gavia stellata
Podiceps grisegena
Podiceps auritus
Olor columbianus
Olor bucCinator
Branta canadensis
Branta nigricans
Anser albifrons
Chen caerulescens
Anas platyrhynchos
Anas strepera
Anas acuta
Anas creccJ::li
Anas discors
Anas clypeata
Anas penelope
~ americana
Aythya valisineria
Aythya americana
Aythya collari s
Aythya mari la
Aythya affinis
Bucephala clangula
Bucephala islandica
Bucephala albeola
Clangula hyemalis
Histrionicus histrionicus
* The Tule White-fronted Goose, a subspecies of the White-fronted Goose,
may be nominated for inclusion on the endangered species list in the
future (Cannon, personal communication, 1980).
-18 -
White-winged Scoter
Surf Scoter
Black Scoter
Hooded Merganser
Common Merganser
Red-breasted Merganser
FALCONIFORMES (diurnal raptors)
Goshawk
Sharp-shinned Hawk
Red-tailed Hawk
Rough-legged Hawk
Golden Eagle
Bald Eagle
Marsh Hawk
Osprey
Gyrfalcon
Peregrine Falcon*
Merlin
American Kestrel
Melanitta deslandi
Melanitta perspicillata
Melanitta nigra
Lophodytes cucullatus
Merqus merganser
Merqus serrator
Accipiter qentilis
Accipiter striatus
Buteo jamaicensis
Buteo laqopus
Aquila chrysaetos
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Circus cyaneus
Pandion haliaetus
Falco rusticolus
Falco pereqrinus
Falco columbarius
Falco sparverius
GALLIFORMES (grouse, ptarmigan, chicken, quail, etc.)
Spruce Grouse
Willow Ptarmigan
Rock Ptarmigan
White-tailed Ptarmigan
GRUIFORMES (cranes, rails, etc.)
Sandhi 11 Crane
CHARADRIIFORMES (shorebirds, gulls, etc.)
Semipalmated Plover
Killdeer
American Golden Plover
Black-bellied Plover
Hudsonian Godwit
Whimbrel
Greater Yellowlegs
Lesser Yellowlegs
Canachites canadensis
Laqopus laqopus
Laqopus mutus
Laqopus leucurus
Grus canadensis
Charadrius semipalmatus
Charadrius vociferus
Pluvialis dominica
Pluvialis sguatarola
Limosa haemastica
Numenius phaeopus
Trinqa melanoleuca
Trinqa flavipes
* A Federal threatened subspecies of peregrine falcon (~ pereqrinus
anatum) is believed to migrate through and feed in the Susitna Basin.
-19 -
Solitary Sandpiper
Spotted Sandpiper
Wandering Tattler
Ruddy Turnstone
Northern Phalarope
Common Snipe
Short-billed Dowitcher
Long-billed Dowitcher
Surfbird
Sanderling
Semipalmated Sandpiper
Western Sandpiper
Least Sand pi per
Baird's Sandpiper
Pectoral Sandpiper
Dun lin
Parasitic Jaeger
Long-tailed Jaeger
Glaucous Gull
Glaucous-winged Gull
Herring Gull
Mew Gull
Bonaparte's Gull
Arctic Tern
Marbled Murrelet
COLUMBIFORMES (pigeons and doves)
Mourning Dove
STRIGIFORMES (owls)
Great Horned Owl
Snowy Owl
Hawk Owl
Great Gray Owl
Short-eared Owl
Boreal Owl
Saw-whet Owl
CORACIIFORMES (kingfishers)
Belted Kingfisher
PICIFORMES (woodpeckers)
Common Flicker
Hairy Woodpecker
Downy Woodpecker
Black-backed Three-toed Woodpecker
Northern Three-toed Woodpecker
,.. 20-
Tringa solitaria
Actitis macularia
Heteroscelus incanus
Arenaria interpres
Lobipes lobatus
Gallinago gallinaqo
Limnodromus griseus
Limnodromus scolopaceus
Aphriza virqata
calidri s alba
Calidris pusilla
calidris mauri
Calidris minutilla
Calidris bairdii
Calidris melanotos
Calidris alpina
Stercorarius parasiticus
Stercorarius longicaudus
Larus hyperboreus
Larus glaucescens
Larus arqentatus
Larus ~
Larus philadelphia
Sterna paradisaea
Brachyramphus brevirostris
Zenaida macroura
Bubo virqinianus
Nyctea scandiaca
Surnia ulula
Strix nebulosa
Asio flammeus
Aegolius funereus
Aegolius acadicus
Megaceryle alcyon
Colaptes auratus
Picoides villosus
Picoides pubescens
Picoides arcticus
Picoides tridactylus
PASSERIFORMES (songbirds)
Say's Phoebe
Alder Flycatcher
Western Wood Pewee
Olive-sided Flycatcher
Horned Lark
Violet-green Swallow
Tree Swallow
Bank Swallow
Cliff Swallow
Gray Jay
Black-billed Magpie
Common Raven
Black-capped Chickadee
Boreal Chickadee
Red-breasted Nuthatch
Brown Creeper
Dipper
Winter Wren
American Robin
Varied Thrush
Hermit Thrush
Swainson's Thrush
Gray-cheeked Thrush
Wheatear
Townsend's Solitaire
Arctic Warbler
Golden-crowned Kinglet
Ruby-crowned Kinglet
Water Pipit
Bohemian Waxwing
Northern Shrike
Orange-crowned Warbler
Yellow Warbler
Yellow-rumped Warbler
Townsend's Warbler
Blackpoll Warbler
Northern Waterthrush
Wilson's Warbler
Red-winged Blackbird
Rusty Blackbird
Pine Grosbeak
Gray-crowned Rosy Finch
Hoary Redpoll
Common Redpoll
Pine Siskin
Red Crossbill
White-winged Crossbill
-21 -
Sayornis saya
Empidonax alnorum
Contopus sordidulus
Nuttallornis borealis
Eremophila alpestris
Tachycineta thalassina
Iridoprocne bicolor
Riparia riparia
Petrochelidon pyrrhonota
Perisoreus canadensis
Pica pica
Corvus corax
Parus atricapillus
Parus hudsonicus
Sitta canadensis
Certhia familiaris
Cinclus mexicanus
Troglodytes troglodytes
Turdus miqratorius
Ixoreus naevius
Catharus·guttatus
Catharus ustulatus
Catharus minimus
Oenanthe oenanthe
Myadestes townsendi
Phylloscopus borealis
Regulus satrapa
Regulus calendula
Anthus spinoletta
Bombycilla garrulus
Lanius excubitor
Vermivora celata
Dendroica petechia
Dendroica coronata
Dendroica townsendi
Dendroica striata
Seiurus noveboracensis
Wilsonia pusilla
Agelaius phoeniceus
Euphagus carolinus
Pinicola enucleator
Leucosticte tephrocotis
Carduelis hornemanni
Carduelis flammea
Cardueli s pinus
Loxia curvirostra
Loxia leucoptera
Savannah Sparrow
Dark-eyed Junco
Tree Sparrow
White-crowned Sparrow
Golden-crowned Sparrow
Fox Sparrow
Lincoln's Sparrow
Song Sparrow
Lapland Longspur
Smith's Longspur
Snow Bunting
-22 -
Passerculus sandwichensis
Junco hyemali s
Spizella arborea
Zonotrichia leucophrys
Zonotrichia atricapilla
Passerella iliaca
Melospiza lincolnii
Melospiza melodia
Calcarius lapponicus
Calcarius pictus
Plectrophenax nivalis
Table 2. Mammals of the Susitna River Basin
(Sources: Kessel et al. 1982, MacDonald 1980,
Manville and Young 1965, Youngman 1975)
INSECTIVORA (small insect-eating mammals)
Masked Shrew
Dusky Shrew
Water Shrew
Arctic Shrew
Pygmy Shrew
CHIROPTERA (bats)
Little Brown Bat
LAGOMORPHA (rabbits, hares, pika)
Collared Pika
Snowshoe Hare
(varying hare)
Sorex cinereus
Sorex monticolus
Sorex palustri s
Sorex arcticus
Sorex hoyi
Myotis lucifugus
Ochotona collaris
Lepus americanus
RODENTIA (mammals with two chisel-shaped incisors in each jaw)
Hoary Marmot
Arctic Ground Squirrel
Red Squirrel
Northern Flying Squirrel
Beaver
Northern Red-backed Vole
Meadow Vole
Tundra Vole
Singing Vole
Muskrat
Brown Lemming
Northern Bog Lemming
Meadow Jumping Mouse
Porcupine
Norway Rat *
House Mouse *
CETACEA (whales, dolphins, porpoises)
Beluga (white whale)
* introduced
-23 -
Marmota caligata
Spermophilus undulatus
Tamiasciurus hudsonicus
Glaucomys sabrinus
Castor canad~ensi s
Clethrionomys rutilus
Microtus pennsylvanicus
Microtus oeconomus
Microtus miurus
Ondatra zibethicus
Lemmus sibiricus
Synaptomys borealis
Zapus hudsonius
Erethizon dorsatum
Rattus norvesicus
Mus musculus
Delphinapterus leucas
CARNIVORA (carnivorous mammals)
Coyote
Wolf
Red Fox
Black Bear
Brown (grizzly) Bear
Marten
Ermine (short-tailed weasel)
Least Weasel
Mink
Wolverine
River (Land) Otter
Lynx
ARTIODACTYLA (even-toed hoofed mammals)
Moose
Caribou
Mountain Goat
Dall Sheep
PINNIPEDIA (seals)
Harbor Seal
-24 -
Canis latrans
Canis lupus
Vulpes vulpes
Ursus amaricanus
Ursus arctos
Martes americana
Mustela erminea
Mus tela ni V!!li s
Mustela vison
Gulo gulo
Lutra canadensis
Felis lynx
Alces alces
Rangifer tarandus
Oreamnos americanus
Ovis dalli
Phoca vi tu li na
Tab.le 3. Fishes of the Susitna River Basin
(Source: Morrow 1980)
Petromyzontidae (lampreys)
Pacific lamprey
Arctic lamprey
Clupeidae (herring)
Pacific herring
Entosphenus tridentatus
Lampetra japonica
Clupea harenqus pallasi
Salmonidae (whitefish, trout, salmon, grayling)
Round whitefish
Bering cisco*
Rainbow trout/steelhead
Lake trout
Dolly Varden
Arctic charr
Pink (Humpback) salmon
Chinook (King) salmon
Chum (Dog) salmon
Coho (Silver) salmon
Sockeye (Red) salmon/Kokanee
Arctic gray ling
Osmeridae (smelts)
Pond smelt
Surf smelt
Eulachon (Hooligan)
Umbridae (mudminnows and blackfish)
Alaska blackfish
Esocidae (pikes)
Northern pike
Catostomidae (suckers)
Longnose sucker
Prosopium cylindraceum
Coreqonus laurettae
Salmo qairdneri
Salvelinus namaycush
Salvelinus malma
Salvelinus alpinus
Oncorhynchus qorbuscha
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus keta
Oncorhynchus kisutch
Oncorhynchus nerka
Thymallus arcticus
Hypomesus olidus
Hypomesus pretiosus
Thaleichthys pacificus
Dallia pectoralis
Esox lucius
Catostomus catostomus
* observed spawning near Talkeetna by ADF&G biologists (Trent, personal
communication, 1981)
-25-
Gadidae (codfishes)
Burbot
Gasterosteidae (sticklebacks)
Threespine stickleback
Ninespine stickleback
Cottidae (sculpins)
Slimy sculpin
Coastrange sculpin
Pacific staghorn sculpin
Sharpnose sculpin
Pleuronectidae (flounders)
Starry flounder
-26-
Gasterosteus aculeatus
Pungitius pungitius
Cottus cognatus
Cottus aleuticus
Leptocottus armatus
Clinocottus acuticeps
Platichthys stellatus
Table 4. Big game population estimates for the
Susitna River Basin/Matanuska-Susitna Borough
Estimated
Borough
Species Population!/
moose 49,000
brown bear 1,000
black bear 2,000
Dall sheep
mountain goat
6,000-
8,000
300
wolf 800-1,000
!/ Source: ADF&G 1982a
Estimated
% of State
Population2/
25-50%
10-20%
10%
12-16%
8-13%
Preferred Habitats
Young forests, especially deciduous
and mixed forests; low and tall
shrublands with willow, birch,
aspen, poplar, cottonwood, alder,
lowbush cranberry, and other woody
browse; freshwater wetlands,
including muskegs, bogs, marshes;
forested and shrubby stream and
river valle s
open tundra and grasslands; but
also uses a wide variety of shrub
and forest habitats, especially if
they are relatively open
forests and woodlands; preferred
areas seem to be semi-open forested
areas with understory vegetation of
fruit-bearing shrubs, herbs, lush
Nrasses and succulent forbs
steep grasslands and tundra in
alpine zone characterized by
cliffs, deep canyons, rock
outcrops, and other types of
11 escape terrain 11
alpine and subalpine areas in the
Talkeetna and Chugach Mountains
with grasses, sedges, and forbs; in
winter, prefers rocky wind-blown
ridges where forage remains
accessible
all habitats in which preferred
prey species (e.g., moose, caribou,
small game, etc.) are available.
~I Source: derived from state population estimates in Rearden (ed) 1981
-27 -
B. Fish and Wildlife Habitats
The place where an animal normally lives and finds food, shelter, and
opportunities to reproduce is called its "habitat." Habitats are usually
characterized by dominant plant forms (e.g., forest or grassland habitats)
or by dominant physical conditions (e.g., stream or talus slope habitats).
Because particular habitats support particular animal species, an area with
many kinds of habitats is generally more likely to support a diverse fauna
than a more homogeneous area, especially if the former is also characterized
by relatively stable climatic conditions and productive plant communities.
These principles explain why, in comparison with much of the rest of the
State, the Susitna River Basin generally supports a relatively diverse and
abundant fauna. A large variety of habitats is available because the Basin
encompasses a wide range of landforms, localized environments, and plant
communities. Basin habitats include coastal mudflats and tidelands,
estuaries, rivers and streams, flood plains, marshes, deciduous and
coniferous forests, shrublands, grasslands, muskegs, alpine tundras, and
windswept peaks. In addition, Basin climates are generally mild compared to
climates in most other areas of the State, and as a result many Basin plant
communities are relatively producti~~. High productivity of nutritious and
palatable plant species provides the foundation for large fish and wildlife
populations.
-28 -
Plant communities are commonly used as the mapping units for wildlife
habitats. These communities can be classified at many levels, from general
·description ("hardwood forest") to detailed statistical quantification
("paper birch forest with 75% tree canopy closure, 800 stems of pole-and
sawtimber-size birch per hectare, 5 stems of sapling-size birch per hectare;
tall shrub layer composed of an average 15,000 stems per hectare of wild
rose and 12,000 stems per hectare of high-bush cranberry; herb layer of ... "
etc.) The level of classification chosen reflects the needs and knowledge
of those using the classification system. In the Susitna Basin study, the
classification system used to assess suitability of Basin habitats for
individual wildlife species is more detailed than that used when comparing
habitats in terms of relative scarcity or wildlife species diversity.
In the Susitna River Basin, 30 different plant communities, as well as 9
other non-vegetated 11 Cover types,11 were mapped and computer automated*
(Table 5). Cover-type categories were combined as needed for wildlife
modeling. In Table 6, the 39 original mapped cover types have been combined
into 15 general habitat categories. Acreages and percent-of-subbasin
covered by general habitat categories in inventoried areas are also
indicated in Table 6. Tables 7 and 8 list some of the birds and mammals
* Computer automation of Susitna Basin inventory data is discussed in
ESRI 1982.
-29-
Table 5 ~ID COVER HAPPING UNITS
VEGETATED
FOREST AND WOODLAND -
more than 1 Olr. Crown Cover
CLOSED FOREST
SOY. crown cover
CONIFEROUS FOREST
WHITE SPRUCE
21-short stands ( 30 ft
25-tall stands )30 ft
BLACK SPRUCE
41-short stands < 10 ft
42-tall stands )10 ft
MOUNTAIN HEMLOCK
45-short stands < 30 ft
46-tall stands )30 ft
DECIDUOUS FOREST
Closed Deciduous-
Closed Mixed
22-young stands <40 yrs
24-medium-aged stands
20-80 yrs
26-old stands )80 yrs
COTTONWOOD
27-young stands
{40 yrs
28-medium-aged stands
40-100 yrs
29-old stands )100 yrs
OPEN FOREST-WOODLAND
lO~solr. crown cover
CONIFEROUS FOREST
WHITE SPRUCE
31-short stands ( 30 ft
33-tall stands )30 ft
BLACK SPRUCE
43-short stands { 10 ft
DECIDUOUS FOREST
Open Deciduous-
Open Mixed ·
32-medium-aged stands
40-80 yrs
34-old stands )80 yrs
COTTONWOOD
35-medium-aged stands
40-100 yrs
36-old stands }100 yrs
: NON-FOREST -less
than lOY. Crown Cover
SALT WATER WETLANDS
50-grassland
51-low shrub
52-tidal marsh
TALL SHRUB
60-alder
61-alder-willow
(streamside veg.)
LOW SHRUB
62-willow-resin birch
63-GRASSLAND
TUNDRA
64-sedge-grau
65-herbaceous
66-shrub
67-mat and cushion
FRESH WATER WETLANDS
68-sphagnum bog
69-sphagnum-shrub bog
. .
NON-VEGETATED
. OTHER
70-CUltural Influence
71-Tyonek Timber s,le
BARREN
80-mud flats
81-rock
PERMANENT SNOW
AND ICE
82-snowfield
83-glacier
WATER
91-lakes )40 ac.
92-lakes 10 ac.-40 ac.
96-streams and rivers
165 ft -660 ft wide
97-river)l/8 mile wide
(660 ft)
Table 6. Summary of selected plant community (wildlife habitat) acreages
WILLOW !f TALICBETNA
S U 8 8 A S I N S
UPPER SUSITNA BELUGA VEGETATION TYPES*
(SCS map codes) '-of '-of '" of '-of
-----------------------"•~•~r~•~•'----"s~u~b~b~••~!~ne_~llcr~~·----~•~u~b~b~•~•~i~nc_~ac~r~e~s._ __ -"s~u~b~b~a~s~!~n---•~•~r~e~sc_ __ _,s~u~b~b~a~s~i~•-
1. Open mixed fqrest
(32,34)
2. Closed mixed forest
24 26
3. Open conifer forest
(31,33)
276,010 28.48
172,010 17.75
4. Closed conifer forest
(21.25.41.42)
(includes 43)
5. Open deciduous forest
(35,36)
3,390 .35
6. Closed deciduous forest
(22.27.28.29)
7. Tall riparian shrub-
alder, willow (61)
49,670 5.12
8. Tall shrubs-alder
60
9. Low shrubs-willow, 12,730 1.31
resin birch (62) <includes 66)
10. Saltwater wetlands-23,370 2.41
grass, sedge, shrub
50 51 52
11. Black spruce
forests, muskegs,
sphagnum bogs
43 68 6!1)
12. Grassland (63)
(43 included
above; 68,69
not totaled)
194.580
13. Tundra 'J_/
(64,65~.66,67)
145,150
(excludes 66)
Total vegetated acres
14. Wster-lakes, streams
(91,92,96,97)
876,910
!/
20.07
14.98
90.47
!I
92,360 !I 9.53 !I
15. Non-vegetated
00.80,81.82 ,83)
57,760 2.49 11,600
628,770 27.11 37,720
67,070 2.89 20,400
153,850 6.63 17,240
1,740 .08 ?,!
12,880 .56 2.720
136,280 5.88 20,680
487 '700 21.03 342,440
13,250 .57 105,920
11,380 .49 0
528,010 22.77 5,400
29,130 1.26 1,120
68,160 2.94 1,106,960
2a196,040 94.69
99,830 4.30 8,280
23,380 1.01 209,240
Total acres 969,270 100,00 2D319,250 100,00 1,889,7?.0
.61 155,810 10.74
2.00 203,040 14.00
1.08 5,210 .36
.91 49,410 3.41
?,/ 5,770 .40
.14 6,150 .42
1.09 59,420 4.10
18.12 435,000 29.99
5.61 16,280 1.12
0 18,940 1.30
.29 218,150 15.04
.06 25.650 1.77
58.58 160,250 11.05
88.49 1,359,080 93.71
.44 33,990 2.34
11.07 57,350 3.95
100.00 1,450,420 100.00
-Vegetation types are described in detail in: Susitna River Basin Vegetation Report (USDA in progress).
!I Willow Subb89in plant conwnunity classes ar•~ not directly comparable to classes in other subbasins,
acreages presented here are therefore rough totals.
ll Minimum mBpping unit in this subbasin was i~O acres rather than 10 acres, therefore, plant communities
occurring in small scattered parcels (polygons) do not appear on the map.
'J_I In Will'ow Subbasin, shrub tundra (SCS 66) :Ls combined with low shrub acreage (SCS 62).
likely to use particular habitats. Tables such as these can be used by
planners and others interested in having information such as:
1) which habitats are likely to be used by wildlife species of
interest,
2) how abundant particular habitats are in various subbasins,
3) which habitats are likely to be used by many wildlife species and
which by few,
4) which wildlife species use many habitats and which use only a few,
5) which wildlife species are likely to be affected by alterations of
particular habitats,
6) which habitats are increasing or decreasing over time, and by how
much (remapping after several years would be required for such
comparisons) .
-32 -
Table 7. Preferred habitats for seleeted Susitna Basin •amaals
• • • 3 • 0 .. ,; .... .... ; ~ ~ " 3 ~ .. " :;; • "' • :;; • ~ • ~ • 0 " • ~ • • ' .. 0 • "' c .... 0 :;; c ~ • ~ ~ .... • • "' ~ • • c • • • • • • • 0 • 0 • ....
0 .... "' i ~ c ~ • .... • • • c • • 3 • .. • • "' I .... 0
~ .. 0 .... • .... • • ~ • " ~ • • ~ c I • 3 " ~ • • • • • I • • " " ~ • .. • " " • • ~ • a • ~ ~ ~ • • " .c • • • • • • • • e • • • .c .... • • ... 0 • • • • .... .c ~ • • • .. .. .. 0 ~ 0 • • ..
;! .. • ... .... ~ .... • • • • • .... ~ • • "' "' • • • • • • • • • "' c c • " 0 • 0 c ~ c .... 0 0 c • • .. .. • 0 .. • • • • • ~ ~ I
!j • • ~ "' -"' ;: ~ .... • .. :;: "' • c • c • • " ... .. -• • • • • • " • • . ., ... c u " .. ... .. .... .. • • • ... . .. 0 • i ... -.. ... • • " ~ .
" " " = .. = = " " 0
SBLICTBD SPECIES
1. masked shrew X X X X X X X X X X X X
2. pika alpine X
3. snowshoe hare X X X X X X X X w/cover X
4. hoary marmot alpine X
5. arctic ground squirrel alpine X
6. red ~quirrel X X X
7. northern flying squirrel X X X
8. beaver X X X
9. northern red-backed vole X X X X X X X X X X X
10. muskrat X X X X
11. northern bog lemming --110ist--X X X X moist X
12. meadow jumping mouse -open---X X X X moist
13. porcupine X X X X
14. coyote X X X X X X X X X X X X
15. grey wolf X X X X X X X X X X X X
16. red fox --open---X X X X X X X X X
17. black bear X X X X X X X X X
18. brown bear --open--X X X X X X X X
19. marten X X X
20. short-tailed weasel -open--X X X w/cover X X
21. mink --edges--X X X X
22. wolverine X X X X X X X X X X
23. river:-otter X X X X
24. lynx X X X X X X X X X X
25. moose X X X X X X X X X w/cover X
26. caribou X X X X alpine X X
27. mountain goat in winter X spring alpine X X
28. Dall sheep near spring alpine X X
treeline
• "Riparian" habitats are defined as those plant communities near enough rivers,
stt"eams, ponds, or lakes for these water bodies to be readily accessible to mammal
species in question. This distance varies with size and mobility of particular
species.
Table 8. Preferred habitats+ for nesting (n)' feeding (f),
or both ~b) for selected Susitna Basin birds
"' "' "' " ,_
0 "' c ;:: ,; 0 .,. ~ u "' ~ ,_ "0 "' "0 ,_
.0 " "' " "0 0 ~ u "' "' " ' "' 0 "' "0 " .. "' u 0 " "' "' "' ~ "0 "' "0 ... 0 u " " " "' ';;; ,_ "' ,_ ,_ "' " 0 ,_ 0 " :;:; "' 0 u "0 .; ,_ ,_
" ,_ -;;; " " " 0
" " " 0 " "' > 0. " ,_ ;:: ' ~ 0 .; .e 0. 0 "' ,_ " ,_ .e "' .0 .,. "' " u "0
" ' "' .0 ... "' ,_ " "' " "' ,_ ' "' "' .0 0 0 ~ ... "' 0. "' .0 ~ "' ,_ " ,_ 0.
"' ... .e ... "' "' .0 ~ ~ " "' "' " "' "' ,_ "' "' "' 5 " .; ::: ,_ " " ~ ,_ " " 0 ,_ "' ,_ "' -;;; "' " ,_ " " ~ ... 0 ... 0 "' 2 ... "' "'"' ,_ "" ... "' ... ... ,_ '-"' ... "' "' "' " -;;; " "' "' "0 """' "' "' "' ,_ • • 2 • "' "0 " "'-c 0 "' 0 " ... " " 0 " "' "'"' ~ ,.,
w ,_ 0 ... "' "' "' " " ... ... ' .0 .... " "' ·;: "0 ·;: "0 ·;: u ';;; " "' '-' ... "0 "0 " " "' .c '-"' ,_ ,_ ... w " "' "' "' "' "' .c "' "' """ 0 0 ...
-' c u " 0. c. 0. c. 0. ,_ "' ,_ -"" w 0 ~ ;;;: ;;;: ;;;: ;;;: " ,_ .r: <5"' c .5 ~
SELECTED SPECIES "' '-' => => "' "' "' -'-'
]. co11100n loon b b
2. horned grebe b
3. trumpeter swan b f b
4. mallard b b b b
5. green-winged teal b b b b
6. harlequin duck b b
7. bald eagle " f f n
8. marsh hawk b b
9. gyrfalcon f f f f f f n
10. spruce grouse b b b
ll. willow ptarmigan b b b
12. spotted sandpiper b b
13. mew gull b b b b
14. arctic tern b b
15. great horned owl b b b b n
16. hawk owl b b b b
17. belted kingfisher b b b
18. hairy woodpecker b b
19. northern 3-toed woodpecker b
20. alder flycatcher b b b b
21. tree swa 11 ow b f f
22. gray jay b f b b
23. conmon raven b b b b f f f f f f f f f f n
24. dipper b n
25. wilson•s warbler -----b in shrub thickets-----
26. comnon redpo 11 b b b b b b b f b
27. snow bunting b b n
+ Marine coastal habitats not included.
* 11 Riparian 11 habitats are defined as those plant communities near enough rivers, streams, ponds, or
lakes for these water bodies to be readily accessible to particular bird species.
C. Human Uses of Basin Fish and Wildlife
Comprehensive data on all human uses of Basin fish and wildlife are not
collected; however, available ADF&G data indicate that well over 300,000
days are spent each year harvesting big game, small game, furbearers,
waterfowl, and fish species in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough. "Because of
its proximity to major population centers, and its diverse and abundant fish
and wildlife, a substantial percentage of statewide hunting and fishing
effort occurs in the Basin. The ADF&G (1984) estimates that 15% of sport
fishing effort, over 40% of moose hunting effort, 23% of caribou hunting
effort, as well as 17% of the sheep harvest in the State take place within
the Borough. This represents very high human use of Basin fish and wildlife
in light of the fact that the Borough represents only about 4% of total
State area, and not all Borough lands are used by hunters or anglers because
some are inaccessible to them and others do not provide suitable habitats
for harvested species. (For an economic analyses of some of these uses, see
USDA 1985).
As noted previously, seven species of big game (moose, caribou, Dall sheep,
wolf, wolverine, black and brown bear) may be locally abundant during
particular seasons, and are hunted in appropriate habitats throughout the
area (see Table 4). In addition to big game, a variety of small game,
furbearers, and waterfowl are trapped and hunted in the Basin, including red
fox, lynx, beaver, marten, muskrat, mink, river otter, snowshoe hare, spruce
grouse, three species of ptarmigan, and fifteen kinds of ducks and geese.
-35 -
Furbearers are particularly abundant along river and stream corridors and
around ponds and lakes; while 50,000 to 100,000 ducks and geese may migrate
through Cook Inlet coastal marshes in spring and fall.
The numerous streams and associated pond and lake complexes in the Basin
provide suitable habitats for migration, spawning, and rearing of a variety
of fish species important to man. The Susitna River and its tributaries are
estimated to contribute.approximately 50-60% of the Upper Cook Inlet
commercial salmon harvest (ADF&G 1982a). In addition, fish populations,
especially anadromous species such as salmon, steelhead, and Dolly Varden,
support important recreational and subsistence fisheries. (Spawning salmon
and salmon carcasses also become important food for birds and mammals.)
Nonanadromous species are also fished in the area, including rainbow trout,
nonanadromous Dolly Varden, lake trout, Arctic grayling, northern pike,
burbot, and whitefish. Tables 9 and 10 provide information on angler days
per stream and sport fish harvests 1977-1981 in the study area.
Many nongame species also find suitable habitats throughout the Basin, and
are enjoyed by hikers, birders, photographers, and other "non-consumptive"
recreationists. Raptors, such as golden and bald eagles, great horned owls,
red-tailed-hawks, and marsh hawks, breed in the-area, as do a variety of
wading and shorebirds, woodpeckers, and songbirds. Many bird species that
do not nest in the Basin depend on area habitats during migration, among
them probably a threatened subspecies of peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus
anatum). Small mammals, such as .shrews, voles, marmots, lemmings, and
-36 -
others provide entertaining wildlife viewing and are important prey species
for carnivorous furbearers and big game. Non-game wildlife also benefit
human societies by controlling insect outbreaks, pollinating plants,
dispersing and planting seeds, mixing soil, and performing a variety of
other ecological roles.
-37-
Table 9. Susitna Basin sport fishing effort and harvests by species -1980
(Willow Subbasin excluded) (source; AllF&G 1983d)
seecfes Harvested
ays DV Toto!
Fisheries Fished KS 55 LL RS P'S cs RT AC LT GR NP WF BB Other Harvest
G1 enna 11 en Area
Lake louise,
Lake Susftna,
Tyone Lake 10,519 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,609 ~.~77 0 1,666 6;612 0 15,366
other waters (x 35%) 5,623 1~5 57 75 M!! 0 !! ~61 292 764 5,965 !! __..§ 667 341 ..1..1.2!
Total 16,362 145 57 75 301 0 0 461 292 3,393 10,462 0 1,751 7,299 341 24,577
Eastside Susltna River Drainages
Caswell Creek 4,963 215 1,124 0 77 1,663 19 15~ 83 0 353 0 0 26 26 3,740
Montana Creek 19,287 559 2,684 0 257 8,230 571 854 167 0 655 0 0 13 13 14,003
Sunshine Creek 5,208 13** 1,534 0 116 2,406 225 193 39 0 0 0 0 39 0 4,567
Clear (Chunllna) Creek 4,388 172 661 0 6 622 385 950 751 0 1,346 0 0 32 32 4,959
Sheep Creek 6,041 45** 430 0 0 6,362 648 385 83 0 725 0 0 45 0 8,723
Others 12,216 ~** 2,23~ 1,663 257 3,40~ 1,~45 2,658 790 267 ~.854 !! 0 212 520 18,348
Total 54,103 1,049 8,667 1,663 713 22,668 3,293 5,194 1,913 267 7,935 0 0 367 591 54,340
Westside Susltna River Drainages
Kroto Creek (Deshka) 19,364 3,685 2,290 0 0 669 0 4,305 0 0 1,817 0 0 224 69 13,079
Lake Creek 8,325 775 2,351 0 267 2,101 69 2,144 121 0 1,972 103 0 0 0 9,903
Alexander Creek 6,812 1,438 999 0 52 809 121 1,945 353 0 1,H5 0 0 0 0 6,862
Talachulltna River 2,542 121** 491 0 112 276 17 379 982 0 1,713 0 0 0 0 4,091
Chult River 614 17** 256 0 0 69 0 301 146 0 0 0 0 0 0 791
Theodore River 700 17** 370 0 0 232 0 250 129 0 0 0 0 0 0 998
Lewis River 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9
Other Rivers 4,998 129** 6,010 0 34 362 284 1,722 603 181 1,808 0 0 448 0 11,581
Shell Lake 414 0 0 0 198 0 0 103 0 69 0 0 0 0 0 370
Whiskey Lake 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hewitt Lake 471 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9
Judd Lake 814 0 0 0 267 0 0 86 723 0 232 0 0 0 0 1,308
Other Lakes 2,999 0 __ o .!! ill 0 ~ 2,092 ...ll ill 560 129 !! ..ll. 34 3,271
Total 48,125 6,182 12,769 0 1,111 4,538 491 13,345 3,100 448 9,247 232 0 706 103 52,272
GRAND TOTAL 118,590 7,376 21,493 1,736 2,125 27,226 3,784 19,000 5,305 ,.,108 27,644 232 1,751 8,372 1,035 131,189
Total Poundage 171,000/968 125,000 1,740 12,500 89,600 27,600 19,000 5,300 10,300 30,400 696 2,280 29,300 1,000 527,000
Source: Hills, HI chae 1 J. 1961. Statewide Harvest Study -1980 data. ADFG, Division of Sport Fish, Juneau. Extracted from Tables 42, 44 and 45.
Species Harvested and average weights (lbs): Chinook salmon (KS) 24.4/2.2, Coho salmon (55) 5.6, Landlocked Coho salmon (LL) 1.0, Sockeye salmon (RS)
5.9, Pink salmon (PS) 3.3, Chum salmon (CS) 7.3, Rainbow trout (RT) 1.0, Dolly Varden/Arctlc char (DV/AC) 1.0, Lake trout (LT) 2.5, Arctic grayling (GR)
1.1, Northern pike (NP) 3.0, Whitefish (SF) 1.3, Burbot (BB) 3.5. (Source for poundages: ADF&G, Division of Commercial Fisheries, and ADF&G, Division
of Sport Fish, Pers. Comm., L. Engel 3/83; and, Morrow, James E., 1980. The Freshwater Fishes of Alaska. Alaska Northwest Publishing Company,
Anch.orage. --------
** king salmon less than 20 Inches.
Table 10. Susitna Basin total sport fishing days and harvests: 1977-1981
(Willow Subbasin excluded) (source: ADF&G 1983d)
Fisheries
Glennallen Area
Lake Louise, Lake Susltna
& Tyone Lake
Other Waters (X 35\)
Eastside Susitna Drainage
1977
Days Harvest
14,899 10,624
7,746 10,308
All waters except Willow Creek
1978
Days Harves1:
13,161
4,667
8,41!1
7,9111
1979 1980
Days Harvest Days Harvest
1981
Days Harvest
Average
Days Harvest
12,199 8,953 10,539 15,386 14,397 15,941 13,039 11,865
6,613 11,909 5,823 9,191 5,354 9,231 6,040 9,711
& Little Willow Creek 38,044 33,163 57,641 67,6011 54,140 38,552 54,103 54,340 41,949 35,884 49,175 45,909
Westside Susftna Drainage
All Freshwater Areas 31,946 39,606 38,771 48,28;: 50,374 48,938 48,125 52,272 37,335 36,110 41,310 45,043
Total 92,635 93,701 114,240 132,22!1 123,326 108,352 118,590 131,189 99,035 97,166 109,565 112,528
(Total Less Pink Salmon) (73,727) (97,31(1) (99,435) (103,963) (91,774) (99,242)
Percent of-statewide Totals 7.7 9.6 8.8 12.7 9.0 8.3 7.9 10 7.0 10 8.1 10.1
Source: Hills, Michael J. 1977-1981. Stetewlde Harvest Studies. Selected from appropriate tobles. "Days" ore days of
active fishing, all anglers. "Harwst11 denotes all fish taken, all species included, but does not include catch
and release fisheries.
D. Future of Fish and Wildlife Resources
Resource maps and inventory data presented in Susitna Basin Study reports
reflect environmental conditions existing at the time of the study. These
conditions are continually changing, both as a result of natural events,
such as floods, fires, earthquakes, landslides, glacial advances and
retreats, and soil erosion and deposition; and as a result of human
activities, such as mining, logging, farming, and construction of roads,
dams, houses, etc. As conditions change, so do affected plant communities
and fish and wildlife habitats.
Some·environmental changes are relatively predictable. Their effects on
fish and wildlife habitats and populations can, therefore, be anticipated
and often modified. Changes caused by human activities provide good
examples. Ha.bi tat impacts of mining, logging, or--far-·ming, for"' example, can
generally be anticipated. If information on existing conditions is
available, as in the Basin, plans can then be developed to avoid or reduce
negative effects of such activities on fish and wildlife. Some natural
changes can also be predicted to some extent and, therefore, planned for
appropriately. Examples include: 1) probable frequency and extent of
flooding (see USDA 1981a and b, 1982a, b, and c) and 2) successional changes
in plant communities. Changes associated with plant succession are
particularly important to wildlife because different animal species find
optimum habitats in different successional stages. Figures 3a and 3b
illustrate two successional sequences occurring in the Basin, and identify a
-40-
·few of the wildlife species that may use habitats provided by different
successional stages. Figure 4 provides a more complex indication of
possible successional sequences following fires on different sites.
Often, if environmental changes are understood, they can be deliberately
manipulated to benefit fish and wildlife: impoundments can be constructed
to create aquatic and wetland habitats; plant succession can be accelerated
by seeding or planting desirable species; plant succession can be slowed by
cutting, burning, or mechanical crushing; development activities such as
road building, farming, etc. can be directed to areas of lesser importance
for fish and wildlife through community planning and zoning. Whether a
change is seen as beneficial or detrimental will depend on which fish and
wildlife species are affected, what human activities will have to be
curtailed or modified to accommodate affected species, and the personal
opinions of those involved.
It is important for land planners and users to remember that change is
intrinsic to natural environments, and that, as a result, habitats and the
faunas they support will vary over time. Where human activities occur,
habitat and faunal changes are often dramatically increased. The future
availability of fish and wildlife resources in the Basin will depend on how
those changes affecting fish and wildlife, especially those affecting
-41 -
Fig. 3a Successional stages following fire -upland white spruce sites
(adapted from Viereck and Schandelmeier 1980)
1. Newly burned: This stage las~s a few weeks to a year.•
2. Herb-tree seedling· stage: One to 5 years after the
fire, fast-growing mosses and herbs and tree seedlings
are established.
3. Shrub (willow) and· tree sapling stage: In this
stage, 6 to 25 years after fire, the willow shrubs
and tree saplings dominate the stands and form a
nearly continuous canopy, which begins to shade
out the herbaceous and moss layer.
4. Dense hardwood stage: Birch and aspen form a
dense canopy that tends to shade out much of the
understory that has developed since the fire.
5. Mature hardwood stage: Aspen stands mature at
about 80 years. Birch stands then gradually
open through natural thinning.
6. Mature birch and white spruce: At 100 years and
more, the successional sequence reaches a stage
in which mature white spruce stands, often ~th
a component of old birch trees, are dominant.
7, White spruCe/moss: The mature stands are composed
of white spruce with"thiek moss mats on the fares~
floor.
Selected species using stages
I
moose red fox Wl-.lllow I snowshoe
hare ptarm\gan
I
I I I ] red
squirrel
ma~ten I apruce
grouse
Although some authors consider the white spruce stands to be the climax vegetation of th@se sites,
it has also been suageated t~at some old upl~nd ~hite spr~ce stands ma7 be ~eplaced by black spruce
and bo2 or a treeless moss/lichen association as cermaft"ost develocl'l nnder the accttmnll'lti~!"' mn<iil'l :>.nrl
organic layers.
*Successional chronology and pattern on particular sites vary with factors such as preburn vegetation,
proximities and types of seed source, time and severity of fire, presence or absence of permafLost,
occurrence. of natural or cultural disturbances; as well as with site-specific conditions such as
slope, soil, aspect, climate, etc.
• .,.
0 .
0-1
2
• .,.
2 •
2-5
3
• .,.
2 . .,.
<
~
0 • • ~
6-25
• .,.
2 • ,
4
< • :;;-
0 ~ ~. -g
~ 0 ..
:
< • Q
26-50
Age {years l
5 6 7
51-100 100·200 200-250+
Fig. 3b Successional stages following fire -pemafrost black spruce sites
(adapted from Viereck and Schandelneier 1980)
,L Newly-burned: Lasts from a fev waelts co a year. At thb
stage the.forest floor is doainated by charred mo•••$ and
lllineral a•h. If the burn -is light to moderate. suckeT
shoo.u of shrubs, Calamagrostis·, and· Polytrichum may .appear.
Selected species using stages
2. Herbaceous-young shrub stage: Lasts from 1 to 4 years
and is the time of species establishment. Bare mineral
soil areas are covered with Marchantia, Ceratodon purpureus,
Polytrichum commune, Epilobium angustifolium, tree seed-
lings, etc. Sprouting species, primarily Calamagrostis
canadensis, ~ chamaemorus, and Eguisetum silvaticum,
become abundant.
brown
bear
moose
3. Shrub stage: The shrubs dominate the vegetation. Toward
the end of this stage, the-shrub canopy closes, leaf litter
becomes abundant, herb and moss cover increases, and the
first lichens, usually the foliose lichens Peltigera
~ and !::_ aphthosa, become established. This suge
usually occurs from 6 to 25 years after fire.
sno shoe
hare
4. Young black spruce: This stage occurs 26 to 50 years after
fire. Stands are usually dense. Toward the end of this
stage, the spruce canopy becomes closed and the shrubs re-
duced in cover.
grey-cheeked
thrush
5. Dense black spruce -Pleurozium stage:
51 to 100 years after the fire. Black
and Pleurozium schreberi dominate.
The stage occura
spruce, low shrubs,
borjal
chicka-
dee northern
bog lemming
(wetter
6. Mature black spruce/feathe~oss stage: This is the final
stage in the postfire succession. Black spruce trees,
saplings, and seedlings dosinate the atand.
squirrel
red sitles)
I -
The last three stages are dom~nated by trees. The tall shrub layer of willows and alders begins to
thin out, but the low shrub layer continues to expand and increase in cover. The invasion and rapid
development of feathermoss, f~ticose lichens, and additional foliose lichens occurs, and a thick
organic layer developa. This layer tiea up .the available nutrients, creates colder soil temperatures,
and results in the return of a shallow ac:ive soil layer on many sites.
*Successional chronology arid pattern on particular sites vary with factors such as preburn vegetation,
proximities and types of seed ~ource, time and severity of fire, presence or absence of permafrost, oc-
curence of natural or cultural disturbances; as well-as site-specific conditions such as slope, soil,
aspect • climate·. etc.
Age (years)
UJ a:
....
0-1
• "' ~
~
2-5 6-25 26-50
~·
~
~
0
E ....
51-100
• "' ~ •
~
~
0
.!: • u
~
0. •
~ u
0
:0
100-200
Figure 4. Patterns of forest succession following fire in Alaska
(source: Viereck and Schandelmeier 1980)
DRY -WARM WET • COLD
Figure 4 shows some ·of. the many paths of revegetation that have been
obs.erved following fire in interior Alaska. The orig1nal preburn forest
type is shown on the bottom row of .boxes. The thickness of· the line is
related to how commonly each of the revegetation sequences occurs. Thus,
black spruce is usually replaced directly by other stands of black spruce
but occasionally is replaced. by aspen or birch. Aspen stands, usually on
warm dry sites, are most often replaced by other aspen stands but
occasionally are revegetated by birch or a grass meadow after fire.
Eventually, with a long period without fire, the aspen stands are invaded by
.white spruce or occasionally black spruce. The climax vegetation on
well-drained sites is white spruce and on cold wet sites black. spruce, often
with an alternating bog cycle (Viereck and Schandelmeier 1980).
habitats, are understood and managed. Understanding and managing habitat
change requires:
1) knowledge of existing habitat conditions,
2) ability to assess relative fish and wildlife values of various
Basin habitats,
3) ability to predict changes, both natural and manmade, probable in
Basin habitats (including effects of such changes on particular
species), and
4) the authority and means to implement habitat-use and management
decisions made on the basis of available knowledge.
Reports, maps, and other sources of data produced during the Susitna Basin
Study provide information on existing habitat conditions and on how these
conditions may change. Section IV of this report discusses methodologies
for assessing relative and wildlife values of Basin lands, which can
also be useful in assessing effects of habitat changes. Area planning,
conducted jointly by the State and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, with
technical assistance from the SCS and the USFWS, provides the authority to
make general decisions concerning uses of Basin lands and t~aters. And
finally, more detailed Management Plans provide the means for designing and
implementing selected land and water uses in ways most beneficial for fish
and wildlife.
-45-
IV. Fish and Wildlife Modeling and Mapping in the Susitna River Basin
A. Introduction
The following sections describe the technical fish and wildlife analyses
conducted by the SCS as part of the Susitna Cooperative River Basin Study.
These analyses consisted of two main activities: 1) working with the USFWS
and the ADF&G to develop ways to use River Basin data in "modeling" the
relative fish and wildlife values of Basin lands, and 2) assisting the ADF&G
in developing procedures for creating fish and wildlife "element maps" that
could serve as fish-and wildlife-oriented land-use alternatives. (In
addition, the SCS assessed the economic value of selected fish and wildlife
resources, and assisted the ADF&G in evaluating others [USDA 1985].)
In the modeling analyses, Basin habitats were evaluated in terms of:
1) their relative ability to provide food and cover seasonally to selected
wildlife species, 2) their relative ability to support a variety of wildlife
species ("species diversity"), and 3) their relative abundance within the
Basin ("habitat scarcity"). Computer maps were produced displaying the
results of each evaluation. Habitats were categorized in terms of plant
communities mapped by the USDA (see Table 5), which are described in
Resource Statistics for the Susitna River Basin (USDA in preparation).
Following modeling, a methodology was developed to systematically integrate
model results, and to combine them with mapped information on wetlands and
flood pl~ins. The resultant model synthesis was combined with ADF&G
-46 -
wildlife -population and harvest data to create fish and wildlife "element
maps" for use by State planners and others.
Element maps and their accompanying narrative are described immediately
below. Following that, SCS fish and wildlife models, steps for integrating
model outputs, and procedures for creating fish and wildlife element maps
are described. ADF&G and USFWS models are also identified.
B. Fish and Wildlife "Element"
Maintaining the existing diversity and productivity of fish and wildlife
populations in the Study Area was identified as a high priority by both the
State and Borough during the Susitna River Basin Study (ADNR et al. 1982,
ADNR 1982, 1983). As a result, the SCS, USFWS, ADF&G, and ADNR_
cooperatively examined ways to combine Basin inventory data with existing
data to produce products that would help the State and Borough: a) identify
and locate particularly important or valuable fish and wildlife habitats in
the Study area, b) understand short-and long-term effects of vadous land
uses on selected fish and wildlife populations, habitats, and human uses,
and c) develop land-use plans that would specifically consider fish and
wildlife resources in the area and would promote their maintenance and
enhancement. This cooperative effort resulted in the "fish and wildlife
element" used by the Susitna Area Planning (SAP) Team while developing the
Matanuska-Susitna Area Plan.
-47 -
The fish and wildlife element consists of: 1) mylar maps (at scales of
either 1:63,360 or 1:250,000 depending on available data) outlining a system
of lands that biologists recommend be allocated and managed for fish and
wildlife; and 2) supplementary narratives describing the supply of, demand
for, and economic contributions of study area fish and wildlife. Three
major assumptions are inherent in the element maps and back-up narratives:
Assumption 1: All vegetated Basin lands and many waters currently
support fish and,wildlife. Existing development pressures suggest that
not all of these habitats will be available to fish and wildlife in the
future; instead, habitats will decline in quality and quantity as other
land and water uses are implemented. As a result, future Basin fish and
wildlife will have to be maintained with a smaller habitat base than
currently supports them.
Assumption 2: Diverse high-quality fish and wildlife resources can be
maintained in the Basin for long-term public benefit, despite
d•w<>lnpmPnt of othO>r rO>snur~O>s, if: 1) suitabl9 Basin lands and l~ilhlrs
are allocated to and managed for fish and wildlife maintenance and
public use, and 2) at the same time, negative environmental impacts of
developments occurring outside allocated fish and wildlife areas are
mitigated or minimized through land-use guidelines, best ma~agement
practices, or other appropriate actions.
Assumption 3: Not all areas of the Basin are equally well suited to
maintaining Basin fauna and associated human uses. A fish and wildlife
-48 -
element map, by synthesizing all available information, can help in
identifying a system of Basin lands and waters that, if allocated and
managed appropriately, will best permit long-term maintenance of fish
and wildlife resources most valued in the area.
Element maps themselves provide only an outline of the system of lands and
waters identified as essential for maintenance of Basin fish and wildlife.
Specific biological values of particular areas are documented instead by:
1) model outputs described below and in Appendix B and C, 2) ADF&G maps of
species distributions and of harvest areas, and 3) the element narrative.
Site-specific values can, however, he readily determined because element
maps are subdivided into individually-numbered "analysis units." Values of
each analysis unit are listed in a computer file. Using this file, planners
can discover what values are found in an area by looking up appropriate
analysis units. Alternatively, all areas (analysis units) having a
particular value, such as highly suitable moose winter range, can he listed
or mapped by the computer. Appendix B presents an example output from the
analysis unit computer file.
In addition to outlining a recommended fish and wildlife system, element
maps were also designed to broadly indicate the kinds and intensities of
land uses compatible with the fish and wildlife resources found on
particular parcels of land. This was done by subdividing identified
high-value fish and wildlife lands into four "sensitivity/management"
categories, and by outlining recommended land-use practices for each
category. Categories were distinguished on the basis of: 1) fish and
-49 -
wildlife resources supported by specific areas, 2) vulnerability of
particular.fish and wildlife populations and habitats to disruption from
human activities, and 3) options that various areas afford for management
and enhancement of fish and wildlife. The four categories used were:
1) "single-use" fish and wildlife lands -recommended for retention in
public ownership,
2) multiple-use fish and wildlife lands, conservative management-
recommended for retention in public ownership,
3) multiple-use fish and wildlife lands, liberal management-generally
recommended for retention in public ownership, but some selected parcels
could be made available for land-,disposal programs without s_ignificant
detriment to long-term fish and wildlife resources, and
4) multiple-use fish and wildlife lands particularly suitable for habitat
enhancement. (Like (3), these lands t~ere generally recommended for
public retention with some exceptions possible.)
A fifth category comprises lands outside the recommended fish and wildlife
system. This category encompasses lands and waters where maintenance of
fish and wildlife resources is a secondary rather than primary objective.
Fish and wildlife resources in these areas can be protected through best
management practices, land-use guidelines, and siting and design criteria.
-50 -
Element maps for Willow, Talkeetna, Beluga, and Upper Susitna Subbasins were
developed at a scale of 1:63,360; in the Talkeetna Mountains, Alaska Range,
and Glenn Highway areas, fish and wildlife element maps were produced at a
scale of 1:250,000. Element maps are on file at the State Department of
Natural Resources in Anchorage. Data used in developing element maps are
described. below and in Appendix B and C.
It will be a challenge to have outlined lands and waters actually allocated
for fish and wildlife uses, and a further challenge to have them managed
productively and well if they are so allocated. The pressures to use
important habitats for settlement, agriculture, hydropower, resource
extraction, and other human developments are strong and perpetual. Even if
identified lands and waters ~allocated to maintain fish and wildlife
resources, it is still important for land owners, planners, and managers to
take into account the biological truism that "everything is connected to
everything else." Wildlife-oriented management of fish and wildlife areas
alone will not necessarily ensure long-term maintenance of biological
resources. currently present. Activities and developments outside fish and
wildlife lands can affect animal populations inside the system, as well as
those outside it, because all lands are linked by environmental processes
such as movements of air, sediments, water, and organisms.
Fish and wildlife managers can generally increase public and political
support for protecting lands for fish and wildlife by emphasizing that such
lands need not necessarily be single-use areas. If carefully sited,
-51 -
planned, implemented, and monitored, other resource activities such as
forestry .and mining are often possible in fish and wildlife habitats without
permanentdamage to habitats or populations, and may even be used to improve
habitat conditions for certain species. With growing pressures to use and
develop Alaskan·lands, careful multiple-use planning will become
increasingly essential.
C. Fish and Wildlife Modeling
1. Introduction
Many of the data collected in the field or from aerial photography during
the Susitna Study 1~ere used to evaluate land suitability for various uses.
In some cases, computer programs (models) were developed by which digitized
inventory data could be analyzed and used to create maps showing wher--e known
(measured) conditions were favorable or "suitable" for specific land uses
such as·timber production or farming. In order to do this, optimally
sui tah l f' t:ondi ti ons ~lf'rf' rlf'fi nf'd (thf'%' hf'ramP "morlf' ling rri t~>ri a") ••i th
which measured conditions in particular areas could be compared. Areas
where measured conditions best matched optimum conditions were mapped as
most suitable for land uses in question. Because much of the information
needed to incorporate fish and wildlife concerns into land use planning was
not directly available, suitability of lands for various fish and wildlife
resources was also modeled.
-52-
Four criteria were used in selecting fish and wildlife resources to be
modeled:
1) Where possible, fish and wildlife resources addressed should be
positively correlated with overall environmental quality. This
criterion led to the modeling and mapping of habitats in terms of their
abi 1i ty to support "high species diversity" and their relative scarcity
in the Basin.
2) One or more selected resources should be assessable in economic terms,
at least to some degree. This criterion led to the modeling and mapping
of habitats in terms of their ability to support the seasonal needs of
moose. (Economic analyses of fish and wildlife resources are described
in the Susitna River Basin Study USDA summary [USDA 1985].)
3) Resource needs of both "consumptive" human users (e.g. meat and trophy
hunters) and ''nonconsumptive'' users (e.g. photographers, hikers) should
be considered. This criterion supported modeling and mapping of
habitats associated with high species diversity (generally important for
non-consumptive uses) and habitats associated with species harvested by
man.
4) Enough data should be available on resources selected to permit them to
be adequately modeled. This criterion largely controlled the selection
of particular species for habitat suitability modeling.
-53 -
2. Modeling and Mapping of Species-specific Habitats
Because, for individual fish and wildlife species, all habitats are not
created equal, it is possible to identify those habitats on which a
particular species generally depends. This is basically a complex task
because fish and wildlife often use different habitats during different
stages of their lives and seasons of the year, and because their use of
particular areas may be based as much on tradition or interactions with
other species as on intrinsic environmental conditions. Nonetheless, it is
clear that individual species do depend more heavily on certain habitats,
where their needs for f 0pd, water, shelter, and reproductive environments
are most easily satisfied. If conditions distinguishing preferred ("most
suitable") habitats can be quantitatively defined, those same conditions can
be measured in habitats of interest. Then, by comparing field measurements
to defined optima, the relative suitability of measured habitats for species
in question can be assessed.
This "ppro"ch h"s boon form~li~od by thg USFWS in their Habitat Evaluation
Procedures (HEP). HEP has been under development since 1974 by the USFWS,
with input from other government agencies, universities, and private-sector
biologists, and was created to permit documentation of "the quality and
quantity of available habitat for selected wildlife species." As developed,
HEP can be used to provide information on either: 1) the relative habitat
values of different areas at the same point in time; or 2) the relative
-54 -
value of the same area at future points in time (USFWS 1980a, 1981);
Because creating fish and wildlife element maps required both comparing the
relative habitat values of different areas in the Basin at the same point in
time and projecting future habitat values, HEP provided an appropriate,
although still largely unverified, methodology for use in Basin fish and
wildlife analyses. Once Basin data had been analyzed with HEP, the SCS also
assisted the ADF&G in using inventory data to assess Basin plant communities
in terms of their theoretical carrying capacities for moose and their
suitability for moose enhancement activities (ADF&G 1984).
Originally, six species were selected for HEP analysis in the Basin: moose,
snowshoe hare, willow ptarmigan, spruce grouse, red squirrel, and beaver.
These species were selected because: they met needs of both consumptive and
non-consumptive human users; "habitat suitability models" were available for
each (that is, models defining the optimum habitat conditions for each
species) in Terrestrial Habitat Evaluation Criteria Handbook -Alaska (USFWS
1980b); and the relative suitabilities of their Basin habitats could be
assessed using digitized river basin data. WhE:>re n0cessi'ilry, Hi'ilnclbook mod<!ls
were modified so that available inventory data could be more easily used to
i'ilssess reli'iltive habiti'ilt suitabilities.
In the Willow Subbasin, habitat mi'ilpping was actually completed for five of
the six selected species: moose, snowshoe hare, willow ptarmigi'iln, spruce
grouse, and red squirrel. For each of these species, computer maps were
-55 -
generated showing areas that could theoretically provide highly, moderately,
or poorly suitable habitats for 11 food,11 11 Cover,11 and/or 11 reproduction.11
(Computer costs were minimized by depicting two or three species per map.)
Details of the Willow Subbasin modeling effort, including suitability
criteria and inventory data used, are contained in Appendix C of this
report. Published HEP maps are contained in USDA 1981c.
After the Willow Subbasin analysis was completed, modeling efforts were
reviewed in light of how modeling products were used by state planners.
Three major changes were subsequently made for modeling in the Talkeetna,
Upper Susitna, and Beluga Subbasins. The first was to revise and expand
moose habitat modeling to reflect additional field data and further
discussions with state biologists. To do so, the Willow Subbasin HEP moose
model was modified using additional inventory data collected in other
subbasins. (The revised moose model is descr--ibed in Appendix C.) In
addition, as mentioned above, the ADF&G used Susitna Basin vegetation data
to develop models depicting theoretical moose carrying capacities and moose
enhancement potentials of Basin vegetation types. Two additional changes
were made in wildlife modeling: 1) plans to repeat Willow Subbasin small
game/furbearer models in other subbasins were abandoned, and 2) an
alternative methodology was developed for addressing these and other
11 non-big-game 11 species.
~56-
3. Modeling and Mapping of "High Species Diversity" and "Habitat
Scarcity"
a. Introduction
While negotiating allocation of lands in the Willow Subbasin, biologists had
seen that maps showing suitable habitats for squirrel, hare, grouse, or
ptarmigan were not particularly meaningful to most state planners. Whatever
their ecological roles, "non-big-game" species were considered by many state
planners to have low economic, political, and aesthetic values. As a
result, maps of their preferred habitats had negligible effects on land-use
decisions, especially when these habitats appeared relatively abundant at
present. Biologists involved with the study were, therefore, faced with how
to map and document in a meaningful way habitats supporting these and other
non-big-game bird and mammal species.
Three categories of non-big-game habitats were of particular concern to
biologists involved with planning. The first consisted of habitats used by
a large number, or high diversity, of species. Such areas contribute a
disproportionately large percentage to the variety of wildlife species
existing in the Basin. The second and third categories consisted of
habitats that are "scarce" in the Basin or particularly sensitive to
disturbance. It was assumed that species associated with "scarce" or
"sensitive" habitats, particularly species highly dependent on them (i.e.
"obligate" species), could be disproportionately affected by land-use
-57 -
changes. For species using "scarce" habitats, few or no alternative sources
of food, cover, and reproductive requirements might be available once their
habitats were eliminated or altered. For species using "sensitive"
habitats, land uses occurring in and outside of their habitats, even at
relatively great distances in some cases, might significantly alter required
conditions, such as water quality, water flo1~s, nutrient inputs, and
sediment regimes. On the assumption that planners would find it useful and
meaningful to know 1~hich areas supported many kinds of wildlife or
relatively scarce habitats (even if most species using these areas would
have little weight if considered individually), the SCS developed models to
map these two habitat categories. "Sensitive" habitats were later also
identified, during the process of assigning management categories to
outlined fish and wildlife lands. The models developed to map species
diversity and habitat scarcity are described below.
b. Wildlife Species Diversity Model
The goal during development of the wildlife species diversity model was to
identify and map plant communities (i.e. habitats) capable of supporting the
highest diversity* of wildlife species. Available data on actual wildlife
species occurrences in different Basin plant communities were not sufficient
* Here, "diversity" means only the number of different· species (often
called species "richness"); relative population size of various species
is not taken into account.
-58 -
to identify and map these "high diversity" habitats directly; and available
time, personnel, and funding were insufficient to collect these data. As a
result, the relative wildlife species diversity characterizing each Basin
habitat was indirectly ·approximated by extrapolating work done by Konkel et
al. (1981). (The best available field data on use of Basin habitats by a
variety of wildlife species are those compiled by Gipson (1982) and Kessel
et al. (1982) as part of the Susitna Hydroelectric Studies.)
Konkel et al. identified wildlife species (birds and mammals) likely to use
each mapped habitat (cover type) along the route of the proposed
trans-Alaska natural gas pipeline. As explained in their report: "The
occurrence and regional distribution of wildlife species within the [gas
pipeline] study, and the associations between species and habitat types,
were determined through literature research and through consultation with
species experts in various government agencies and the academic community ...
Habitats meeting food, cover, and reproductive needs of a greater number of
species [were assumed to] have greater wildlife value. Therefore, diversity
of wildlife species within a habitat type [was] emphasized in this
evaluation process. Actual species abundance within a habitat type was not
a factor in this evaluation. However, it [t~as] assumed that habitat types
with a higher quality rating [in terms of providing a particular species
with food, cover, and reproductive needs] would support a higher population
[of that species] than habitat types with a lower rating. All species were
considered to be of equal importance in this evaluation." (pp. 2,3)
-59-
Descriptions of wildlife -habitat associations prepared by Konkel et al.
included c.onsideration of: a) which wildlife species used particular
habitats, b) when particular habitats would be used by their associated
species, c) what "life requisites" (food, cover, reproductive requirements)
each habitat provided to associated species, and. d) how confident the
authors felt about each identified wildlife -habitat association.
In order to apply the findings of Konkel et al. to the Susitna River Basin,
cover types used by Konkel et al. (described in Markon 1980) were
cross-correlated with cover types mapped in the Susitna Basin. Vegetation
types used by Konkel et al. were relatively general (i.e., analogous to
Level III Viereck and Dryness 1980), and except in three cases, good
equivalents for Basin types were found among gasline plant community
descriptions. Correlations between Basin and gasline cover types are shown
in Table 11. (In gener ... al, data from Region 4 of the gasline corridor
[between Delta Junction and the Canadian border] were used whenever possible
in making extrapolations because environmental conditions in this area are
most similar to those in the Basin, although the "interior" climate of
Region 4 is characterized by greater temperature extremes.)
In addition, wildlife species lists compiled by Konkel et al. were compared
with species lists compiled for the Basin in order to calculate a
-60-
"similarity index"* between the two regions and thus verify that faunas as
well as mapped cover types were similar enough in the two study areas to
permit extrapolations. As indicated in Tables 12 and 13, mammal species
lists were more similar than bird species lists, but both t~ere felt to match
well enough to permit extrapolation. For mammals, 42 species were
identified by combining lists from both Konkel et al. Region 4 and the
Susitna Basin; 81% of these (34 species) occurred in both study areas
(Table 12). For birds, 167 species were listed by combining the two areas
(Regions 1 and 4 of Konkel et al. were used), 110 of which (66%) were common
to both. If bird species using coastal water-related habitats are excluded
(that is, shorebirds and waterfowl), agreement between the two study areas
increases to 76% (102 species, 77 common to both areas). (Coastal habitats
in the Susitna Basin and those found in the gasline corridor were generally
dissimilar. As a result, agreements between coastal bird species lists were
not as good as agreements between lists of upland birds.) Table 13 shows
similarity in bird species lists between the two areas for each Order of
birds encountered.
* "Similarity Index" as defined by Samson and Knopf (1982) equals the
ratio of species shared by Sample A and B to the total number of species
occurring in Sample A plus Sample B.
-61 -
scs
veq. code
32,34
31,33
61
35,36
24,26
62
50,51,52
21,25,41,42
22,27,28,29
43
68,69
60
63
70,80,81,
82,83
64,65,66,67
91,92,96,97
Table 11. Plant community correlations and wildlife
species diversity ratings for SCS vegetation types
(after Konkel et al. 1981)
High Wildlife Species Diversity
(vegetation type)
mixed forest-open
conifer forest-open
tall shrub-riparian willow or mix
deciduous forest-open
mixed forest-closed
low shrubs-willow, resin birch
SW wetlands--grass, sedge, shrub
Moderate Wildlife Species Diversity
conifer forest-closed
deciduous forest-closed
short black spruce-open
sphagnum bog ( shrubs)
tall shrub alder
grassland
Low Wildlife Species Diversity.
cultural, mud flat, rock, snow, ice
(small agricultural parcels may be
included)
Tundra -Special Consideration
et
sedge-grass, herbaceous, mat-cushion,
and shrub tundra types
Water Bodies -Special Consideration
ponds, lakes, streams, rivers
-62 -
Konkel Mark on
al. veg. code veq. code
21 14-01
14 12-01
8 7-01 '7-02
19 13-01
22 14-02
9,10 8-01' 8-02'
9-01,9-02
no match
15 12-02
20 13-02
16 12-03
29 21-00
12,23,25
(small
parcels
24 may
be in-
cluded)
1,3,4,5
no match
no match
i0-00,16-00,
18-00 (with
appropriate
qualifiers)
(small parcels
17-00 may be
included)
01-00,
03-00-05-00
(with
appropriate
qualifiers)
23-00-26-00
(with
appropriate
qualifiers)
Table 12. Correlation of mammal species lists:
Gasline Corridor -Susitna Basin
Present in Present in Present in
Combined species list Susitna Basin Both Areas Gas line-Region 4
1. water shrew X
2. arctic shrew X
3. singing vole X
4. mountain goat X
5. masked shrew X X X
6. dusky shrew X X X
7. pygmy shrew X X X
8. little brown bat X X X
9. collared pika X X X
10. snowshoe hare X X X
11. hoary marmot X X X
12. arctic ground squirrel X X X
13. reel squirrel X X X
14. northern flying squirrel X X X
15. beaver X X X
16. northern red-backed vole X X X
17. meadow vole X X X
18. tundra vole X X X
19. muskrat X X X
20. brown lemming X X X
21. northern .bog lemming X X X
22. meadow jumping mouse X X X
23. porcupine X X X
24. coyote X X X
25. wolf X X X
-26. red fox X X X -
27. black bear X X X
28. brown bear X X X
29. marten X X X
30. ermine X X X
31. least weasel X X X
32. mink X X X
33. wolverine X X X
34. river otter X X X
35. lynx X X X
36. moose X X X
37. caribou X X X
38. Dall sheep X X X
39. woodchuck X
40. long-tailed vole X
41. yellow-cheeked vole X
42. bison X
Total number present 38 34 38
Percent of total 42 species 90.5 81.0 90.5
-63 -
Table 13. Correlation of bird species lists:
Gasline Corridor-Susitna Basin
Total Number Number of Percent
Taxon of Species Species Shared Agreement
1. Gaviiformes (loons) 3 2 66.7
2. Podicipediformes (grebes) 2 2 100.0
3. Anseriformes 29 17 58.6
(swans, ducks, geese)
4. Falconi formes 13 11 84.6
(hawks, falcons, eagles)
5. Galli formes (ptarmigan, grouse) 6 4 66.7
6. Gruiformes (cranes) 1 1 100.0
7. Charadrii formes (plovers, 36 16 44.4
sandpipers, phalaropes, jaegers,
gulls, terns, murre lets)
8. Columbiformes (doves) 1 0 0
9. Strigiformes (owls) 7 6 85.7
10. Cot"'aci i for--mes (kingfishers) 1 1 iOO.O
11. Piciformes (woodpeckers) 5 5 100.0
12. Passeri formes (songbirds) 63 45 71.4
Tot;ols 167 110 66.9
(Totals minus Anseriformes
and Charadriiformes) 102 77 75.5
-64 -
Complete correspondence between plant and animal communities identified in
the two studies was neither expected nor a prerequisite of the
extrapolations performed. The goal in terms of developing a wildlife
species diversity model was to ensure that gasline plant and animal
communities were similar enough to Susitna Basin communities that Konkel's
wildlife/habitat assessments could reasonably be used to provide a relative
species-diversity index (rather than a measure of absolute species numbers)
for Basin cover types. In other t•ords, it was assumed that if gasline plant
communities were generally similar to those in the Basin in terms of plant
species, plant community structure, canopy closure, and vertical
stratification; and if generally similar bird and mammal faunas occurred in
gasline and Basin areas, then the relative wildlife species diversity of
mapped Basin plant communities would be approximately equivalent to the
relative wildlife species diversity of gasline plant communities.
When an SCS vegetation type was matched by more than one gasline type, it
was assigned the highest diversity rating from among the gasline types it
matched. Tundra 11egetation types WQre considO>rod Ulpariltely for two
reasons: 1) although tundra types seldom support a large variety of
species, they frequently support species rarely found elsewhere (e.g.,
caribou, Dall sheep, marmot, arctic ground squirrel, etc.); and 2) tundra
types tend to be particularly susceptible to disturbance because of the very
slow growth rates of plants adapted to these harsh environments--this low
-65-
"resilience"*· should be considered during planning. Wildlife species
diversity ratings assigned to Basin cover types are presented in Table 11.
For the three Susitna Basin cover types not matched by any gasline habitat
types, relative wildlife species diversity was rated qualitatively on the
basis of general ecolQgical principles. The unmatched Basin estuarine
wetlands were rated as having "high wildlife species diversity" because of
the seasonally high species diversity, productivity, and ecological
importance generally characteristic of these wetlands (see for example,
Greeson et al. 1979). "Tall alder shrublands" and "Calamagrostis
grasslands" were rated as having "moderate wildlife species diversity"
because of the poorly developed vertical stratification and the low
structural heterogeneity and plant species diversity of these plant
communities. (Grasslands, however, are often characterized by a relatively
high diversity and abundance of small herbivorous and insectivorous mammalss
e.g., voles, shrews, mice, that in turn provide prey for a variety of bird
and mammal predators; and alder shrublands are important soil enrichers
because of the nitrogen fixing bacteria associated with alder roots.)
* "resilience" is a measure of the ability of a system to absorb
disturbance and persist with the same relationship between components."
(Margules and Usher 1981, p. 84)
-66 -
C. Habitat Scarcity Model
"Habitat scarcity" was considered in an attempt to incorporate a regional
perspective in the dev~lopment of fish and wildlife element maps. As
emphasized in a number of recent articles (e.g., Ness 1983, Samson and Knopf
1982), maintaining the fauna native to a region depends largely on
maintaining landscape patterns comparable to those existing at the time of
human settlement. As Ness points out: "When natural areas are seen as
remnant patches interacting with and within a culturally-modified matrix, we
are led to consider the diversity of the regional landscape as more
significant to conservation than the diversity of any single patch or
collection of patches" (p. 12). Similarly, Samson and Knopf identify as the
most important issue facing conservationists: "the preservation of a mosaic
of habitats in which can be preserved a representative cross-section of
native species" (p. 421). To a large extent, Susitna Basin landscapes still
reflect conditions and patterns similar to those found at the time of
western settlement. By considering habitat scarcity, those habitats among
the most likely to be inadvertently lost from this regional pattern, namely
those found on the fewest acres, can be highlighted for protection, thus
protecting wildlife species they support. A scarcity approach was also in
keeping with Jenkins' suggestion that" ... the preservation of diversity [of
species, communities, natural features, and phenomena] is best accomplished
by concentrating on the rarest elements" (1976, p. 448).
-67 -
Relative sca~city of different habitats (vegetation types) was assessed by
first determining how many acres each vegetation type covered, and comparing
this acreage to an "equitable" share. The equitable share equaled the
acreage or percent-of-subbasin each vegetation type ••ould cover if all types
·were equally abundant, in other words: total vegetated acres divided by
number of vegetation types present. Vegetation-type categories used in
calculating equitability were the same 15 categories used in assessing
wildlife species diversity (see the previous Section). For example, an
"equitable share" in the Talkeetna-Beluga Subbasins* equaled 237,000 acres
(3,555,120 acres~15 vegetation types), or 6.67% of the vegetated area.
Each vegetation type was then assigned one of the following four ratings:
1. very scarce: vegetation types covering less than 1.6% of the
subbasin under consideration;
2. scarce: vegetation types covering from 1.6% to 4.5% of the
subbasin under consideration;
* For this analysis the Talkeetna and Beluga Subbasins were considered as
a single unit because of the desire to use a regional perspective when
considering vegetation type distributions. These adjacent subbasins are
generally similar in terms of latitude, elevations, and relative
abundance of mapped cover types.
-68 -
3. neither scarce nor abundant: vegetation types covering from 4.6%
to 8.5% of the subbasin under consideration; and
4. abundant: vegetation types covering over 8.5% of the subbasin.
Table 14 indicates acres and scarcity ratings of vegetation types in the
Upper Susitna Subbasin and the combined Talkeetna-Beluga Subbasin. Regional
differences between subbasins are readily apparent from Table 14; plant
communities abundant in the Talkeetna-Beluga Subbasin are often scarce in
the generally higher-elevation Upper Susitna Subbasin, and vice versa.
Table 14 also indicates the degree to which one or more vegetation types may
dominate an area; for example, over 70% of the vegetated lands in the
Talkeetna-Beluga Subbasin support closed mixed forests, sphagnum bogs (with
or without shrubs), or tall alder shrublands.* Land planners and users must
take into account regional differences in plant community distributions if
they wish to maintain or change regional patterns of animal distributions.
* Statistical analysis of data collected within each vegetation type would
indicate whether these very abundant types contain more heterogeneity
than other types used in wildlife modeling (Resource Statistics for the
Susitna River Basin, USDA in progress).
-69 -
Table -\'1. Habitat Scarcity Ratings
Total ~ of Total acres Vegetation Total ~ of Total acres of Vegetation
Talke6tna of veg. type scarcity/ Upper Susitna veg. type in scarcity/
SCS plus Beluga \n Talkeetna-· abundance vegetated Upper Susitna abundance rating
Vegetation_!y•p~ec_ ________ ~c~o~d~e~sc_ ____ ~v~e~•~·~·~·~•••""-------~•=•~l~uh•~•-•S~u~b~b~a~s~i~nc_ __ ~•~·~tln••"------------2•~•~•~•'--·----------s~u~b~b~a=•~l~n--________ _,o~f~v~·~·~-~t~vuP~•'----
OPEN KIXI!:D FORES1"
OPEN CON£FER FOREST
TALL SIIRUB ALDER-
WILLOW (RIPARIAN)
OPEN DECIDUOUS FOREST
(COTTONWOOD
32,34
31.33
61
35,36
6_01
2.03
5.50
0.21
213,570
72 280
195,700
7,510
neil:.hor scarce
nor abundant
scarce
neither scarce
nor abundant
very
scarce
0.61
1.08
1.09
•
11,600
20.400
20,680
•
very scarce
very scarce
very scarce
•
,c~L~O~SE~D~M0 l~X~E~D~F~O~R~E •• S~T ____ -"2~4~2~6c_ ______ 2~3~.4~0<------------·~3~1~8~l~O, _________ abundan,t ____________ -'2~.~0~0 ____________ ~3~7~7~2~0--------~·~·~·~·~c~ec_ ______ __
LOW SHRUBS ··WILLOW, 62 0. 83 29, 530 very 5. 61 105,920 neither scarce
RESIN Bl.RC~H--------------------------------------------------------------~·~·~·~·~c~ec_ ________________________________________________ ~n~o~•Lea~b~u~n~d~a~n~t'----
SALTWATER WETLANDS-50,52 o. 73 26,020 .very 0 0 N/A
GRASSLA~D. SEDG~E_H~A~R~S~H'---·-------------------------------------------"s~c~a~•~c~ec_ __________________________________________________________ __
CLOSED CONI£o"ER 21,25, 5.72 203,260 neither scarce
FOREST .tH 42
LOW SHRUB SALT-51 0.12
WATER WET_cl,;.A,N,Dc_ _________ __
£LOSEO DECIDUOUS FOREST 22,27,28,29 0.54
OPEN SHORT BLACK 43 0.23
4,300
19.030
8,150
nor abundant
very
scarce
very scarce
SPRUCE FOREST scarce
very )
SPHAGNUM BOG, WITII 68,69 20.76 738,070 abundant
AND WITJ!OUTc_S~IwlR~U~B~Sc_ ________________________________________________ -c ______ ___
0.91 17.240 very scarce
0 0 N/A
0.14 2 I 720 very scarce
0.29 5,400 very scarce
TALL SHkUB ALDER ~6~0c_ ________ ~2~5~.~9~5c_ __________ ~9~202Lc7~0~0c_ ________ a~b~uwn~d~a~nutc_ __________ ~l~8~.~1~2c_ __________ ~3~4~2~4~4~0c_ _______ a~b~uwn~d~a~nutc_ ____ __
GRASSLAND 63 1-54 54,780
(CAI.AKAGROSTIS)
TUNDRA 64,65,
66 67
TOTAL VJ~GETATED ACRES IN SUEJEJASIN
p non-vegetated
Water lakes and
atrenms
TOTAL ACRES
70,80,
81 82 83
91,92,
96 97
6.42 228,1110
3 555 120
NA 80,730
NA 133,820
3 769 670
very 0.06 1,120 very scarce
scarce
ne i thor scarce 58.58 1,106,960 abundant
nor abundant
1 672 200
2.14'-of N/A 209.240 11-07'1.. of
total area total area
3.5S'J. of N/A 8,280 0.44'1.. of
total area total area
1 889 720
* Minimum mapping unit in Upper Susilna Subbasin was 40 acres (rather than 10 acres as in other mnpped subbasins). As a result, plant
comr;1uni ties thnt. occur only in small parcels (polygons) are not delineated.
4. Integration of Model Outputs
a. Introduction
Once individual models were completed, a "habitat synthesis" model was •
developed. The goal was to create a model that could use computerized
inventory data to design a first approximation of a fish and wildlife
element map. To do this, steps were first outlined for computer integration
of the models described above. Additional steps were then added to include
consideration of wetlands, flood plains, and riparian corridors. Further
development of the fish and wildlife element map involved "fleshing out" the
computer-generated skeleton by manually adding important habitat areas
identified by ADF&G biologists but not included in the automated data base.
Modeling steps involved in generating the synthesis-map are described below
and outlined in Table 15.
As shown in Table 15, the "synthesis" model (excluding stream and river
corridors and wetlands) covered approximately 18.4% of the combined
Talkeetna-Beluga Subbasins and 11.8% of the Upper Susitna Subbasin. Within
these relatively small subsets of subbasin lands, all vegetation types that
are not "abundant" are specifically addressed, vegetation types supporting
the greatest variety of species are specifically addressed, and year-round
moose range is addressed (both directly or indirectly). Additional
acreages, not shown in totals, add "abundant" vegetation types where they
71 -
occur in proximity to river and stream corridors, along with wetlands and
flood plains. The steps in the synthesis model are simple and easily
replicated. It was hoped that these features of the model output would help
make the land and water system it identified readily explainable and
meaningful to planners as high value for fish and wildlife. Manual addition
of other high value fish and wildlife lands is described following outline
of synthesis model steps.
b. Habitat Synthesis Model Steps
Step 1: Using one pattern or shade, print all "high wildlife diversity"
vegetation types that are "very scarce" or "scarce" and all "moderate
wildlife diversity" vegetation types that are "very scarce" in each
subbasin. (The area identified by this step covers approximately 6.2% of
the combined Talkeetna-Beluga Subbasins and 6.2% of the Upper Susitna
Subbasin.)
Step 2: Using a second pattern or shade, print "open mixed forests" and
"tall shrub, alder-willow (riparian)" vegetation types if not printed during
step 1 and if not "abundant."* These two vegetation types are identified as 1
* If these vegetation types are "abundant," selection of representative
acreages of these types must be made manually. See following Section
for description of manual mapping procedures.
-72-
step t:
step 2:
step J:
st~p 4:
step 5:
Instructions for each step
map all 11 very scarce" and "scarce"
habitats hAVin& "hi&h species diversity"
1•lua all ••vet"y scarce .. habitats havinr;
"moderate species dlver1llly"
map 1111 "open ml-.od forests" and "tall
t~lder willow rlparlan shrublands" 1f not
previously mapped and lf not "abundant"
mBp stream and river corridors
map all .. shrub tundra" and "low shrub
willow-resin birch" lf not previously
ruapped and l f nol "abundant:."
map selected freshwater wetlands not
yet mapped
Totals
• 94.37. of the Talkeetna Beluga Subbasin Js vegetated,
89.5'1. of the Upper Susilna Subbasin is vegetated.
SCS vr.g~tat.lon codes
inc J !!4!!! .P.L.£!£ h s t.!_2
T~tlk~elna·Boluta
Subbasin
ll, 33, 33, 36,
so, 51, >2, 62;
22, 21, 28, 29,
43, 51, 63
32, 34, 61
stream corridor
porli ons 101f 21,
24, 25, 21!», 41,.
42, 60, 64, 6S,
66, 67, 6<9;, 69
66
Upper Susltna
Subbasin
24, 26, 31, 32,
33, 34, 61:
21, 22, 25, 21,
29, 41, 42, 43,
68, 69
included by
step 1
stroatn corridor
portions of 60,
64, 6S, 66, 67
62, 66
28,
63,
SCS wetland cOdes SCS wetland codes
2, 3, 6** 2, 3, 6**
•• SCS wetland types are dnscribed in USDA in progress and·bdefly ln tbh t.oxl:..
Total acres (~ of ve&otated ac&•eg) ill
~n Subbasln_!u£luded by each s~~e
Talkoblna.Belu&a
subbasin
225,784 (6.33~)
409,194 (11.51~)
not computer
mapped,
(not computed)
11,470 (0.49~).
nol computer
mapped,
(not compuled)
632,448 (18.33~)
Upper Sus It na
Subbasin
103,342 (6.181.)
included hy
stop 1
not compuler
mapped,
(not computed)
93,810 (3.61~)
not. comt•U.l(~r
mapped,
(nut computed)
197,132 (11.19~)
among those with the "highest wildlife species diversity." (The area
identified by this step covers approximately 11.5% of the combined
Talkeetna-Beluga Subbasins. These two vegetation types are "very scarce" in
the Upper Susitna Subbasin and were, therefore, mapped by step 1.)
Step 3: Using a third pattern or shade, print recommended stream
corridors.* This step was approximated manually in the Talkeetna, Beluga,
and Upper Susitna Subbasins because stream data, as incorporated in the
digitized data base, did not allm• computer performance of this step.
Corridor widths recommended along individual streams roughly reflected
stream drainage areas. Table 16 identifies corridor widths recommended on
the basis of drainage areas.
Step 4: Using a fourth pattern or shade, print all areas supporting either
!!low shrubs:....Will011J, resin birc.hH or Hshrub tundraH vegetation types if these
* Values of riparian corridors to fish and wildlife and to human
recreationists are well documented. (See, for example, Thomas 1979,
ADF&G,1983c, USDA 1983.) In addition, human developments along streams
and rivers are often subject to flood damage and destruction.
Incorporating stream and river corridors into the recommended system of
fish and wildlife lands was considered of highest priority by all
biologists involved in the Susitna study.
-74 -
----~----~----------
types are not "abundant" and were not printed during steps 1 or 3.* Most
areas of moderately or highly sui table moose winter range 1~ere mapped as
byproducts of steps 1, 2, and 3. ~ a result, moose winter range did not
need to be specifically addressed in the synthesis model. Important moose
spring/summer/fall range, however, was not necessarily adequately mapped
during the first three steps; step 4 resulted in inclusion of areas
providing suitable moose spring/summer/fall range. (The area identified by
this step covers approximately 0.5% of the combined Talkeetna-Beluga
Subbasin and 5.6% of the Upper Susitna Subbasin.)
Step 5: Using a fifth p·attern or shade, map freshwater wetlands not yet
mapped and that are identified by the following SCS codes in the Basin
wetland model: 2, 3, and 6.** Saltwater wetlands were mapped by step 1;
this step incorporated freshwater wetlands other than "black spruce forests
* If these vegetation types are "abundant," selection of representative
acreages of these types must be made manually. See following Section
for description of manual mapping procedures.
** The wetland model is described in USDA 1985. Codes included here
represent the following wetland plant communities: 2 = cottonwood
forests and woodlands, 3 =mixed deciduous-coniferous forests and
woodlands, 6 = freshwater marshes.
75 -
Table 16. Recommended fish and wildlife/public use
corridor widths for Susi tna Basin .streams
Drainage Area 11
over 500,000 acres
150,000 to
500,000 acres
75,000 to
150,000 acres
Recommended width for
fish and wildlife/
public use corridor ~/
1 mile from each bank
3/4 mile from each bank
. 1/2 mile from each bank
Examples 'i/
Susitna River, Yentna River,
Kahiltna River, Talkeetna
River, Skwentna River,
Chakachatna River,
Beluga River
Kroto Creek, Kichatna River,
Talachulitna River, McArthur
River, Kashwitna River,
Little Susitna River,
Chulitna River
Montana Creek, Little Willow
Creek, Moose Creek, ~ohnson
Creek, Kustatan River,
Chuitna River, Sheep Creek,
Theodore River
11 Drainage areas were obtained from Susitna Basin Flood Plain Management
and Flood Hazard Studies (USDA 1981, 1982).
~I Corridor widths as measured outward perpendicular from each stream bank.
~I . Streams are listed in order of decreasing drainage area. All streams
not followed by an (*) ~ important for spawning, rearing, or migration
of anaclromous fishes (ADF&G 1983a). All streams followed by an (*) are
not listed in ADF&G 1983a.
-76 -
Table 16. Recommended fish and wildlife/public use corridor
widths for Susitna Basin streams (continued)
Drainage Area 11
10,000 to
75,000 acres
less than
10,000 acres
Recommended width for
fish and wildlife/
public use corridor~/
1/4 mile from each bank
standard m1n1mum corridor
as determined by ADF&G
and ADNR; or, in cases
of special or unique
values, corridor deter-
mined on a case-.. by···case
basis
Examples "§/
Donkey Creek, Fourth of
July Creek*, Peters Creek,
Nikolai Creek, Honolulu
Creek, Lewis River, Ivan
River, Byers Creek, Red
Creek, Wasilla Creek,
Cottonwood Creek,
Troublesome Creek,
Nakochna River, Rabideux
Creek, 196 Mile Creek*,
Old Tyonek Creek, Ninemile
Cre-ek*, Threemile Creek,
Answer Creek, Birch
Creek*, Trapper Creek,
Gate Creek, Tyonek Creek,
Goose Creek,
Chuitkilnachna Creek*,
Twentymile Creek,
caswell Creek
Lucile Creek, Olson Creek,
Seventeenmile Creek
* All streams not followed by an (*) are important
or migration of anadromous fishes (ADF&G 1983a).
by an (*) are not listed in ADF&G 1983a ..
for spawning, rearing,
All streams followed
-77 -
and muskegs" (SCS wetland code 1) or "sphagnum bogs with or without shrubs"
(SCS wetland codes 4, 5). Muskegs and bogs are either "very scarce" and
mapped by step 1, or "abundant" and considered adequately addressed by
step 3. (This step was performed by manual map overlay, actual acreages
covered are, therefore, not computed. In actuality, most of these
freshwater wetlands were incorporated by previous steps.)
D. Creating the Fish and Wildlife Element Map
As mentioned previously, fish and wildlife element maps constitute a
land-use alternative designed to maintain Basin fish and wildlife
resources. Element maps were developed using the various model outputs
discussed above in combination with available ADF&G data. ADF&G data
consisted of: 1) maps at various scales displaying distributions and ranges
of particular species or species groups; namely salmon (and some other
anadromous and resident fishes), moose, caribou, Dall sheep, black bear,
brown bea_r, furbearers, waterfowl, seabirds, and raptors; 2) maps displaying
known "essential use areas," such as Dall sheep salt licks, moose or caribou
calving grounds, trumpeter swan nesting lakes, bear denning sites; 3) maps
and data indicating where particular species are harvested; and 4) general
data from field biologists on where particular species are likely to be
found. ADF&G data on Basin resources are contained in the narrative fish
and wildlife element and its accompanying atlas (ADF&G 1984). Appendix B
lists ADF~G maps used during the study.
-78 -
The actual element maps were drafted manually on a sheet of mylar. "Core"
areas were outlined first on the mylar sheet. These consisted of: 1) lands
identified by the habitat synthesis model, namely, riparian corridors,
habitats supporting many kinds of wildlife, scarce habitats, habitats
supporting highly suitable moose range, and selected wetlands; and 2) known
"essential use areas" identified by the ADF&G.
Once core areas had been mapped, connecting these lands via ecological
corridors became the next priority. There were seven main reasons why
interconnecting core areas was considered essential. To begin with,
connecting the skeletal core system of fish and wildlife lands was a logical
way to increase its size. Size of wildlife area has been identified by many
researchers as an important determinant of which and how many wildlife
species can be maintained (e.g., Diamond et al. 1976, Diamond and May 1976,
Sullivan and Shaffer 1975, MacArthur and .Wilson 1967j. Up to a point,
increased area is positively correlated with increased species diversity.
Whitcomb et al. (1976) provide the following summary of reasons for
maximizing the size of fish and wildlife management areas:
a) Larger areas can support a greater number of wildlife species; one
rough rule is that a tenfold increase in area size corresponds to a
doubling of the equilibrium number of species present (the number
of species reaches "equilibrium" when immigration of new species
equals extirpation of species already present);
-79-
b) Large areas generally have higher species immigration rates and
lower extinction rates than comparable smaller areas (this is a
corollary of (a) above);
c) Some species require very large home ranges. For example, species
using seasonally or spatially patchy food supplies, such as moose
and bear, must use resources distributed over a large area; large
carnivores, such as wolves and wolverines, must range over a large
area to obtain sufficient prey. Maintaining these species
consequently requires maintaining large areas of appropriate
habitat.
d) Preservation of entire ecological communities, with all trophic
levels represented, generally requires large areas;
e) Large fish and wild 1 i fe management areas are better buffered
against human perturbations and natural disasters;
f) Large areas are often necessary to minimize the pressures of
predation, parasitism, and competition exerted by species abundant
in disturbed areas surrounding wildlife lands;
g) Failures of small wildlife areas to maintain all species initially
present have been amply documented;
-80 -
h) The irreversibility of habitat fragmentation demands a conservative
strategy in protecting fish and wildlife lands and waters.
A second reason for interconnecting core areas was based on evidence that
even small habitat "islands" can support both wide-ranging species and much
of their indigenous fauna if they are ecologically connected to, and
"subsidized" by, larger habitat areas (MacClintock et al. 1977). Habitat
corridors through disturbed lands allow replacement populations to travel
from larger areas (where the species can persist) to smaller parcels.* The
importance of interconnecting habitat "patches" is also emphasized by Noss
(1983).
Thirdly, although core areas have been identified as especially suitable for
fish and wildlife resources emphasized during this study, all undisturbed
vegetated lands in the Basin provide good to excellent habitats for
particular species. Connecting and filling out the core skeleton with
contiguous areas incorporated additional habitats that could satisfy the
life requirements of many "non-target" 1~ildli fe species.
* An example of the effectiveness of such habitat corridors in
"subsidizing" habitat "islands" is illustrated in Anchorage. Moose are
often seen in subdivisions well within the city limits, such as Rogers
Park, Lake Otis Park, and Turnagain, because these areas are connected
by greenbelt corridors to large habitat areas, such as Ft. Richardson
and Chugach State Park.
-81 -
Fourthly, many highly valued big game species in the Basin move between
different habitats at different times of year. Moose, for example, use
upland shrubs during spring, summer, and fall, but migrate to riparian
corridors as snow depth~ increase in upland areas. Corridors connecting
areas can serve as migration routes for species that seasonally move from
one area to another.
Fifthly, the suitability of lands for recreationists interested in enjoying
fish and wildlife resources can be enhanced by dispersing recreational
users, and by providing opportunities for extended hiking, boating, hunting
trips, etc. in natural settings that are uninterrupted by incongruous land
uses. A widespread system of interconnected habitat/recreation lands and
waters promotes user dispersion and permits extended high quality
recreational outings.
Sixth, an interconnected system is generally easier to manage than a
fragmented system. Some habitat management techniques, such as prescribed
fires, are not feasible or economical on fragmented parcels.
Seventh, current understanding of many natural ecosystems is still
rudimentary. A diverse, extensive, interconnected system of suitable fish
and wildlife lands and waters, particularly a system in which all habitats
in the Basin·are adequately represented, was viewed as a logical means to
encompass most of the ecological conditions and processes that maintain fish
-82 -
and wildlife habitats and populations, despite current inability to identify
and account for all such ecosystem components.
An eighth, but essentially "political," reason exists for tying core areas
together in an interconnected system. An interconnected system provides a
spatial context for the inclusion of any particular parcel. As a result,
lands can be recommended for wildlife-related allocations not only on the
basis of their inherent values (which may cease to be meaningful to planners
if repeated for parcel after parcel) but also on the basis· of the
physiographic and biological linkages that they provide between parts of the
overall system. Because the functional unity of an interconnected system
can be graphically seen, the need for parcel-by-parcel justification of
recommended lands should theoretically be reduced. Thillmann and Monasch
(1976) point out that with a logical integrated system: "Dedications of
land can be evaluated within the context of a patter-·n that r--espot1ds_ to the
natural determinism of the landscape ... " and as a result " ... the
development industry can see that a unique and valuable open space resource
combining many elements can be of prime importance ... [to] development and
[that] ... [open space] areas are not arbitrary, capricious, or
unreasonable." They further note that they were" ... extremely successful
in eliciting contributions of the EQC'S [Environmental Quality Corridors
that form the framework of their open-space system] wherever they affect
land which is up for rezoning." (pp. 552-553.) Since "sale-ability" of
fish and wildlife land-use alternatives will certainly in part determine the
-83 -
acreage allocated to fish and wildlife resources, recommending an
interconnected system of lands and waters appears to have practical, as well
as ecological, values.
Core areas were interconnected and expanded by laying the mylar sheet over
various models and maps and "fleshing out" the system with conJ;iguous or
nearby areas of additional moose range (identified by the HEP moose model
and ADF&G biologists), additional "abundant" vegetation types and wetlands,
pnd ar9a.~ ·of high human use. Wherever possible, edges* between plant
communities, and areas of high vegetative interspersion* were incorporated
when connecting or expanding core areas. Finally, the outlined system was
examined to ensure that all types of vegetation, wetlands, landforms, and
water bodies inventoried in the Basin were represented. ADF&G field and
area biologists then reviewed element maps to identify any additional
essential use areas, hunter access points, etc. wat .... t ... anting inclusion.
As mentioned above, the goal during this process was to outline a fish and
wildlife land base that was, in essence, greater than the sum of its parts.
In other words, although the system initially grew around lands highly
* Although not used here, approaches exist for automatically mapping and
calculating edge, interspersion, juxtaposition and other
wildlife-related spatial patterns using geographic information systems
(see, for example, Heinen and Cross 1983, Brooks and Scott 1983).
-84 -
suitable for a few selected fish and wildlife resources, it was believed
that the diversified pattern of lands produced by spreading outwards from
and interconnecting core areas would encompass a full spectrum of
environmental conditions, processes, and interrelationships, and hence would
support a full complement of Basin fish and wildlife resources.
-85 -
V. Fish and Wil~life Field Investigations
In order to facilitate the kinds of modeling described above, it was
important that the SCS and FS collect environmental data that could be used
to assess the value of Basin habitats for particular wildlife species. In
general, two types of data are needed to make such assessments: 1) data on
which animal populations are present in particular areas, in what numbers
and when, and 2) data on environmental conditions present in particular
areas at different times of year (specifically, conditions affecting the
presence and abundance of wildlife populations of interest). When
cross-correlated, population data and environmental data can generally
identify habitats in which particular species are most likely to be found.
Such analyses can be used to assure that habitats supporting desirable
wildlife species are maintained, or that conditions in managed habitats are
favorable to particular species.
Collecting data on fish and wildlife populations, for example, population
size, distribution, seasonal movements, birth and death rates, etc., is the
responsibility of the ADF&G and the USFWS. The SCS, on the other hand,
collects or assists with collection of data on environmental conditions such
as soil characteristics; plant species, cover, and productivity in
particular areas; quality and quantity of local or regional water resources;
and types of landforms present. These kinds of data can be very useful in
describing and characterizing specific habitats where, according to ADF&G or
-86 -
USFWS data, particular species do occur. Once associations between species
and habitats have been described, "potential" habitats can be identified in
areas where appropriate environmental data exist, even if population data
are lacking. (This is the principal rationale behind species-specific
models discussed above.)
In order to make sure that environmental data collected during the Susitna
Study would be useful when evaluating habitats for selected wildlife
species, the SCS sought assistance from the USFWS and the ADF&G in
identifying meaningful "habitat parameters" to inventory. Habitat
parameters consist of specific measurable environmental characteristics that
appear to be correlated to the suitability of a_ habitat for a· particular
species. For moose, for example, parameters that affect how well a habitat
provides necessary food and cover include:
a) total available browse, measured in pounds per acre;
b) availability of browse species preferred by moose, such as willow
(Salix spp.) and birch (Betula spp.), measured as a percent of
total available browse;
c) amount of cover available, measured-as percent of surface area
covered by tree or tall shrub foliage; and
d) total annual forb production, measured in pounds per acre.
-87 -
Moose habitat parameters and parameters relevant to other species had
originally been identified as part of the "Habitat Evaluation Procedures"
(HEP) developed by the USFWS. The SCS was able to incorporate measurement
of HEP parameters into its field activities, and hoped thereby to collect
environmental data of greatest possible use to wildlife biologists.
Examples of habitat characteristics measured during collection of field
data, and of wildlife signs noted during surveys, are provided in Appendix
D.
In addition to HEP parameters, many inventory data not specifically
collected for wildlife analyses have been used for habitat models discussed
above, particularly vegetation data. The ADF&G is planning a new
examination of SCS vegetation data as part of a "habitat suitability
assessment" in which actual moose distribution data will be correlated with
mapped and inventoried plant community data in a portion of the Talkeetna
Subbasin (Shea et al. 1983). Further use of River Basin products for
similar analyses is encouraged whenever time and funding permit. Through
such analyses, both modeling and field data collection can be improved.
-88 -
References
(References marked with an (*) contain discussions
particularly relevant to the evaluation, selection,
and/or design of "conservation" lands and systems.)
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), Habitat Protection Section.
1980. A synthesis and evaluation of ADF&G fish and wildlife resources
information for the Willow and Talkeetna Subbasins. (Prepared for the
USDA-SCS Interagency Cooperative Susitna River Basin Study, Agreement
No. 58 04368 16). ADF&G, Anchorage. 180 pp.
______ , Habitat Division. 1983a. Catalog of waters important for spawning,
rearing or migration of anadromous fishes, Southcentral Region, Resource
Management Region II. ADF&G, Anchorage. 136 pp .
. 1983b. An economic analysis of moose, caribou, sheep, bear, and
waterfowl hunting in the Susitna Basin (prepared by S. Burgess)
(Appendix B of fish and wildlife resources element for the Susitna Area
Planning Study) ADF&G, Anchorage. 36 pp .
. 1984. Fish and wildlife resources element for the Susitna Area
Planning Study. ADF&G, Anchorage. 236 pp. plus appendixes and separate
atlas .
. 1982a. Fish and wildlife resource and public use information for
Matanuska-Susitna -Beluga study area. ADF&G, Anchorage. 43 pp .
. 1983c. Riparian report, Susitna Area Plan (prepared by D.
Rosenberg) (Appendix C of fish and wildlife resources element for the
Susitna Area Planning Study.) ADF&G, Anchorage. 50 pp.
-89 -
______ . 1982b. Summary of issues and policies extrapolated from the Willow
Subbasin Land Management Plan and applied to the Matanuska-Susitna-
Beluga cooperative planning area. ADF&G, Anchorage. 12 pp .
. 1983d. Susi tna A'rea Plan human use and economic effects-sport
fishing (prepared by S. Burgess) (Appendix A of fish and wildlife
resources element for the Susitna Area Planning Study.) ADF&G,
Anchorage. 20pp.
Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR), Division of Land and Water
Mgmt., Resource Allocation Section .. 1983. Susitna Area Plan public
wor:I<shops Spring 1983, summary of results and staff analysis. ADNR,
Anchorage. 36 pp.
______ , Division of Research and Development. 1982. Fish and wildlife
habitat issues. Pp. 17-24 in: FY 83 statewide natural resources plan.
ADNR, Anchorage. 85 pp.
in cooperation with Matanuska -Susitna Borough; ADF&G; Alaska Dept.
of Transportation and Public Facilities; Kenai Peninsula Borough; with
assistance from USDA, SCS. 1982. Land use issues and preliminary
resource inventory, vol. 1, planning background report, Matanuska-
Susitna-Beluga Cooperative Planning Program. ADNR, Anchorage. 202 pp.
plus Appendixes.
Anchorage Audubon Society. 1978. Birds of Anchorage, Alaska. Anchorage
Audubon Society, Inc., Anchorage.
Armstrong, R.H. 1980. A guide to the birds of Alaska .. Alaska Northwest
Publishing Co., Anchorage. 308 pp.
-90-
*Asherin, D.A., .H.L. Short, and J.E. Roelle. 1979. Regional evaluation of
wildlife habitat quality using rapid assessment methodologies.
Pp. 404-424 in: Transactions 44th North American wildlife and natural
resources conference (K. Sabol ed.) Wildlife Management Institute,
Washington, D.C. 630 pp.
Betters, D.R. and J.L. Rubingh. 1978. Suitability analysis and wildland
classification: an approach. J. of Environ. Mgmt. 7:59-72.
Brooks, R.T. and C.T. Scott. 1983. Quantifying land-use edge from aerial
photographs. Wildlife Society Bull. 11(4):389-391.
Cannon, R.L. personal communication. 1980. ADF&G, Habitat Division,
Anchorage.
*Crapper, P.F. and A.P. Spate. 1982. Rational land use planning:
Puckapunyal Army Training Area. J. of Environ. Mgmt. 15:351-361.
Diamond, J.M. and R.M. May. 1976. Island biogeography and the design of
natural reserves. Pp. 163-186 in: Theoretical ecology, principles and
applications (R.M. May ed.) W.B. Saunders Co., Philadelphia, PA.
Diamond, J.M., J. TeFborgh, R.F. Whitcomb, J.F. Lynch, P.A. Opler, and C.S.
Robbins. 1976. Island biogeography and conservation: strategy and
limitations. Science 193:1027-1032.
Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI). 1982. Final report
computerized geographic information system, Talkeetna and Beluga
Subbasins, Susitna River Basin, Alaska. (prepared for USDA, SCS, FS;
ADNR) ESRI, Redlands, CA. n.p.
*Fuller, R.J. 1980. A method for assessing the ornithological interest of
sites for conservation. Bio. Cons. 17:229-239.
-91 -
Gabrielson, I.N. and F.C. Lincoln. 1959. The birds of Alaska. Stackpole Co.
Harrisburg, PA. and Wildlife Mgmt. Inst., Washington, D.C.
*Galli, A.E., C.F. Leek, and R.T. Forman. 1976. Avian distribution patterns
in forest islands of different sizes in central New Jersey. The Auk
93:356-364.
Gipson, P.S. 1982. Susitna hydroelectric project furbearer studies, phase I
report to Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, Inc. Alaska Cooper·ative
Wildlife Research Unit, Fairbanks. 76 pp. plus Appendix.
*Goodfellow, S. and G.F. Peterken. 1981. A method for survey and assessment
of woodlands for nature conservation using maps and species lists: the
example of Norfolk Woodlands. Bio. Cons. 21:177-195.
Greeson, P.E., J.R. Clark, and J.E. Clark (ed's.). 1979. Wetland functions
and values: the state of our understanding (Proceedings of the National
Symposium on wetlands, Nov. 7-10, 1978). American Water Resources
Association, Minneapolis, MN. 674 pp.
*Harty, F.M., C.L. Harnish, and G.M. Lehman. 1981. A partial bibliography of
recent literature relevant to the design and management of nature
preserves. J. of the Natural Areas Assoc. (now: Natural Areas Journal)
1:11-12.
Heinen, J. and G.H. Cross. 1983. An approach to measure interspersion,
juxtaposition, and spatial diversity from cover-type maps. Wildlife
Society Bull. 11(3):232-237.
*Higgs, A.J. 1981. Island biogeography theory and nature reserve design.
J. of Biogeography 8:117-124.
-92 -
Hinds, W.T. 1979. The cesspool hypothesis versus natural areas for research
in the United States. Environ. Cons. 6(1):13-20.
*Jenkins, R. 1976. Maintenance of natural diversity: approach and
recommendations. Pp. 441-451 in: Transactions 41st North American
wildlife and natural resources conference (K. Sabol ed.) Wi.ldlife
Management Institute, Washington, D.C. 634 pp.
Kessel, B. and D.O. Gibson. 1978. Status and distribution of Alaska birds,
studies in avian biology No.1. Cooper Ornithological Society, Dept. of
Biology, UCLA, CA. 100 pp.
Kessel, B., S.O. MacDonald, D.O. Gibson, B.A. Cooper, and B.A. Anderson.
1982. Alaska Power Authority Susitna hydroelectric project environmental
studies, phase I final report, subtask 7.11: birds and non-game
mammals. Univ. of Alaska Museum, Fairbanks. 149 pp.
Killian, R. 1982. Selected natural diversity bibliography with annotations.
Natural Areas Journal 2(4):12-27.
*Kirkpatrick, J.B. 1983. An iterative method for establishing priorities for
the selection of nature reserves: an example from Tasmania. Bio. Cons.
25:127-134.
*Kitchener, D.J., A. Chapman, B.G. Muir, and M. Palmer. 1980. The
conservation value for mammals of reserves in the western Australian
wheatbelt. Bio. Cons. 18:179-207.
*Klopatek, J.M., J.T. Kitchings, R.J. Olson, K.D. Kumar, and L.K. Mann.
1981. A hierarchical system for evaluating regional ecological
resources. Bio. Cons. 20:271-290.
-93 -
Konkel, G., ,J. Clarke, L. Halpin, P. Martin, J. Murk, B. Palmer, L. Shea,
and R. West. 1981. An evaluation of wildlife habitats within the Alaska
natural gas pipeline corridor-draft. (USFWS Habitat Evaluation Project.)
USFWS, Anchorage. n.p.
MacArthur, R.H. and E.O. Wilson. 1967. The theory of island biogeography.
Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ.
*MacClintock, L., R.F. Whitcomb, and B.L. Whitcomb. 1977. Evidence for the
value of corridors and minimization of isolation in preservation of
biotic diversity. Am. Birds 31(1):6-12.
MacDonald, S.O. 1980. Checklist mammals of Alaska. Univ. of Alaska Museum,
Fairbanks.
Manville, R.H. and S.P. Young. 1965. Distribution of Alaskan mammals
(circular 211). Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife (now USFWS),
Washington, D.C. 74 pp.
*Margules, C., A.J. Higgs, and R.W. Rafe. 1982. Modern biogeographic
theory: are there any lessons for nature reserve design? Bio. Cons.
24:115-128
*Margules, C. and M.B. Usher. 1981. Criteria used in assessing wildlife
conservation potential: a review. Bio. Cons. 21:79-109.
Markon, C.J. 1980. Terrestrial and aquatic habitat mapping along the Alaska
natural gas pipeline system. USFWS, Special Studies, Anchorage. 67 pp.
*Miller, R.I. 1978. Applying island biogeographic theory to an East African
reserve. Environ. Cons. 5(3):191-195.
-94-
*Miller, W.F. and B.O. Carter. 1979. Rational land use decision-making: the
Natchez State Park. Remote Sensing of Environ. 8:25-39.
Mills, M.j. 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982. Alaska statewide sport fish harvest
studies. (Volumes 20, 21, 22, 23 of Federal Aid in Fish Restoration.)
ADF&G, Sport Fish Division, juneau.
Morrow, j.E. 1980. The freshwater fishes of Alaska. Alaska Northwest
Publishing Company, Anchorage. 248 pp.
Murie, A. 1963. Birds of Mt. McKinley National Park,. Alaska. Mt. McKinley
Nat. Hist. Assoc.
*Nichol, j.E. 1982. Parameters for conservation evaluation. j. of Environ.
Mgmt. 14:181-194.
*Noss, R.F. 1983. Different levels of natural areas thinking. Natural Areas
journal 3(3):8-14.
Pearsall, S. 1983. Additions to diversity bibliography. Natural Areas
journal 3(3):3-7.
*Polunin, N. and H.K. Eidsvik. 1979. Ecological principles for the
establishment and management of national parks and equivalent reserves.
Environ. Cons. 6(1):21-26.
Rearden, j. (ed.). 1981. Alaska mammals. Alaska Geographic 8(2).
Ritchie, R., j. Curatolo, and A. Batten. 1981. Knik Arm wetlands study,
final report. Submitted to USFWS, Western Alaska Ecological Services.
Alaska Biological Research, Fairbanks. 196 pp.
-95-
*Rogers, P.M. and K. Myers. 1980. Animal distributions, landscape
classification and wildlife management, Coto Donana, Spain. J. of App.
Ecology 17:545-565.
*Samson, F.B. and F.L. Knopf. 1982. In search of a diversity ethic for
wildlife management. Pp. 421-431 in: Transactions of the 47th North
American wildlife and natural resources conference (K. Sabol ed.)
Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.C. 722 pp.
*Selman, P.H. 1982. The use of ecological evaluations by local planning
authorities. J. of Environ. Mgmt. 15:1-13.
Shea, L., S. Albert, J. Westlund, G. Mills. 1983. Regional habitat
management guides project, draft proposal for a pilot project for
terrestrial habitat suitability assessment. ADF&G, Anchorage. n.p.
*Simberloff, D.S. and L.G. Abele. 1976. Island biogeography theory and
conservation practice. Science 191:285-286.
*------· 1982. Refuge design and island biogeographic theory: effects of
fragmentation. The Am. Naturalist 120(1):41-50.
*Sinden, J.A and G.K. Windsor. 1981. Estimating the value of wildlife for
preservation: a comparison of approaches. J. of Environ. Mgmt.
12:111-125.
Suffling. R. 1980. An index of ecological sensitivity to disturbance based
on ecosystem age and related to landscape diversity. J. of Environ.
Mgmt. 10:253-262.
*Sullivan, A.L. and M.L. Shaffer. 1975. Biogeography of the megazoo; Science
189:13-17.
-96 -
*Thillmann, J.H. and W.J. Monasch. 1976. Wildlife as inputs to comprehensive
planning. Pp. 548-554 in: Transactions 41st North American wildlife and
natural resources conference. (K. Sabol ed.) The Wildlife Management
Institute, Washington D.C. 634 pp.
Thomas, J.W. (ed.). 1979. Wildlife habitats in managed forests, the Blue
Mtns. of Oregon and Washington (Ag. Handbook No 553). USDA, FS. in
cooperation with Wildlife Mgmt. Inst. and the US, BLM. USDA. 512 pp.
Trent, T.W. 1981. personal communication. ADF&G, Habitat Division,
Anchorage.
US Department of Agriculture (USDA), Soil Conservation Service (SCS). 1983.
Flood plain management study, Lower Tanana River and tributaries,
Alaska. (prepared by E. Grey and D. Lehner) USDA, Anchorage. 23 pp. plus
Appendixes.
USDA, SCS, Economic Research Service (ERS), Forest Service (FS). 1981a.
Flood hazard study, 196 Mile, Caswell, Sheep, Goose, Montana, Answer,
and Birch Creeks and Tributaries; Alaska Rivers Cooperative Study,
Susitna River Basin, Talkeetna Subbasin. USDA, Anchorage. 31 pp. plus
Appendixes.
______ . 1982a. Flood hazard study, Kroto, Rabideux, Trapper, and Peters
Creeks; Alaska Rivers Cooperative Study, Susitna River Basin, Talkeetna
Subbasin. USDA, Anchorage. 37 pp. plus Appendixes.
1981b. Flood hazard study, Troublesome, Byers, Honolulu Creeks; East
and Middle Forks of the Chulitna River; Alaska Rivers Cooperative Study,
Susitna River Basin, Talkeetna Subbasin. USDA, Anchorage. 24 pp. plus
Appendixes.
-97 -
______ . 1982b. Flood plain management study, Beluga Subbasin streams, Alaska
Rivers Cooperative Study, Susitna River Basin, Beluga Subbasin. USDA,
Anchorage. 13 pp. plus Appendixes.
______ . 1982c. Flood plain management study, Kashwitna River; Wasilla,
Cottonwood, and Lucile Creeks; Alaska Rivers Cooperative Study, Susitna
River Basin, Talkeetna Subbasin. USDA, Anchorage. 17 pp. plus Figures
and Appendixes .
. 1981c. Willow Subbasin, Susitna River Basin Study -Alaska, final
report (in cooperation with the ADNR, ADF&G, and the USFWS). USDA,
Anchorage. 144 pp .
. 1985. Susitna River Basin Study summary of USDA investigations and
analyses. USDA, Anchorage.
in progress. Resource statistics for the Susitna River Basin. USDA,
Anchorage.
*US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), Office of Coastal Zone Management. 1982. National Marine
Sanctuary Program regulations: Appendix 1 -selection criteria. Federal
Register 47(173):39195-39199.
*US Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Division of
Ecological Services. 1980a, 1981. Habitat evaluation procedures (HEP),
Ecological Services Manual 100, 101, 102, 103. USFWS.
* . 1980b. Terrestrial habitat evaluation criteria handbook -Alaska.
USFWS, Anchorage, Alaska. n.p.
-98 -
Viereck, L.A. and C.T. Dryness. 1980. A preliminary classification system
for vegetation of Alaska (Gen. Tech. Report PNW 106) PNW Forest and
Range Experiment Station. Portland. OR. 38 pp.
Viereck, L.A. and L.A. Schandelmeier. 1980. Effects of fire in Alaska and
adjacent Canada--a literature review (BLM AK Tech. Report 6). US Dept.
of Interior, BLM, Anchorage. 124 pp.
*Whitcomb, R.F. 1977. Island biogeography and "habitat islands" of eastern
forest. American Birds 31(1):3-5.
*Whitcomb, R.F., J.F. Lynch, P.A. Opler, C.S. Robbins. 1976. Island
biogeography and conservation: strategy and limitations. Science
193:1030-1032.
*Williams, G. 1980. An index for the ranking of wildfowl habitats as applied
to eleven sites in West Surrey, England. Bio. Cons. 18:93-99.
Youngman, P.M. 1975. Mammals of the Yukon Territory. National Museums of
Canada, Publi. in Zoology. No. 10. Ottawa, Canada. 192 pp.
-99 -
Appendixes to:
Identifying Wildlife Lands: Fish and Wildlife Analyses
for the Susitna River Basin Study
USDA 1985
-100 -
APPENDIX A
Bibliography of reports prepared during the Susitna River Basin Study
Prepared by or for the USDA:
(Those marked with an* are contained in full in: Susitna River Basin Study
Summary of USDA Investigations and Analyses [USDA SCS, 1985])
Economics:
1.
2. * A Methodology for Estimating Road Costs in the Susitna River Basin
(P. Fuglestad and J. O'Neill, 1983, USDA ERS, SCS)
Water Resources:
1. *Mean Annual Precipitation and Water Yield in the Susitna River
Basin (E. Merrell, 1979, USDA SCS)
2. Susitna Basin Planning Background Report-Water Supply and Demand
(B. Loeffler, 1980, ADNR in cooperation with USDA)
3. Susitna Basin Water Quality Report (B. Rummell, no date, for USDA
SCS, FS, ERS)
Soils:
1. Soil Survey Susitna East Area, Alaska (USDA SCS, in progress)
2. Soil Survey Yenta Area, Alaska (USDA SCS, in progress)
Land Treatment and Agronomy:
1, Alaska Irrigation Guide (E. Merrell, in progress, USDA SCS)
Geology:
1. Geology Report for the Talkeetna Subbasin, Susitna River Basin
Alaska Cooperative Study (S. Sumsion, 1979, unpublished report
prepared for the USDA SCS)
A-1
Land Cover (Vegetation):
1. Preliminary Field Procedures for the Cooperative Vegetation
Inventory of the Susitna River Basin, Alaska (USDA FS, PNW, 1979)
2. Resource Statistics for the Susitna River Basin (USDA SCS, FS,
ERS, in progress)
3. Timber Resource Statistics for the Talkeetna Block, Susitna River
Basin Multiresource Inventory Unit, Alaska (T. Setzer, G. L.
Carroll, B. R. Mead, 1979, USDA FS, PNW Forest and Range Experiment
Station)
Recreation:
1. Recreation Atlas
with USDA, 1979)
Willow-Talkeetna Basin (ADNR in cooperation
Archeological, Historical, and Cultural Resources:
·<
1. Cultural Resource Assessment: Talkeetna-Lower Susitna River Basin,
Southcentral Alaska (G. Bacon, J. Kari, and T. Cole, 1982, for
USDA SCS, FS, ERS)
2. Cultural Resource Assessment: Talkeetna-Lower Susitna River Basin,
Southcentral Alaska (supplemental report) (G. Bacon and T. Cole,
1982, for USDA SCS, FS, ERS)
3. Cultural Resource Assessment: Beluga Study Area, Southcentral Alaska
(G. Bacon, J. Kari, T. Cole, C. Mobley, and R. Carlson, for USDA
SCS, FS, ERS)
Fish and Wildlife and Wetlands:
1. Identifying Wildlife Lands: Fish and Wildlife Analyses for the
Susitna River Basin Study (D. Lehner, 1984, USDA SCS)
2. *Wetlands Mapping in the Susitna River Basin (USDA SCS, FS, ERS,
1985)
Flood Plain Management:
1. Flood Hazard Studv. 196 Mile, Caswell, Sheep, Goose, Montana,
Answer, and Birch Creeks and Tributaries (E. Grey, 1981, USDA SCS,
ERS, 'FS)
2. Flood Pl&in Management Study, Beluga Streams (E. Grey, 1982, USDA
SCS, ERS, FS)
A-2
3. Flood Plain Management Study, Kashwitna River; Wasilla, Cottonwood,
and Lucile Creeks (E. Grey, 1982, USDA SCS, ERS, FS)
4. Flood Hazard Study, Kroto, Rabideux, Trapper, and Peters Creek
(E. Grey, 1982, USDA SCS, ERS, FS)
5. Flood Hazard Study, Troublesome, Byers, and Honolulu Creeks; East
and Middle Forks of the Chulitna (E. Grey, 1981, USDA SCS, ERS, FS)
Data Processing (Geographic Information Systems):
1. Final Report: Computerized Geographic Information System-
Talkeetna and Beluga Subbasins, Susitna River Basin, Alaska
(ESRI, 1982, for USDA SCS, FS)
2. Final ·Report: Computerized Geographic Information System -Upper
Susitna Subbasin (ESRI, 1983, for USDA SCS, FS)
Bibliograph{es:
1. Susitna River Basin Resource Bibliography (ADNR in cooperation with
USDA, 1977)
2. Susitna River Basin Resource Bibliography, supplement 1979
(D. Lockhart, 1979, ADNR in cooperation with USDA SCS, FS, ERS)
Prepared by other agencies with USDA assistance:
1. Land Status Atlas-Susitna River Basin (Alaska Department of
Natural Resources, 1978)
2. Land Use Issues and Preliminary Resource Inventory (volume 1 of 2)
Growth Potential, Development Issues, Settlement Patterns (volume 2
of 2) (Alaska Department of Natural Resources, in cooperation with
the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, Alaska Department of Fish and Game,
Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Kenai
Peninsula Borough, and USDA, 1982)
3. Matanuska-Susitna Borough Comprehensive Plan (Matanuska-Susitna
Borough)
4. Resource Elements (Department of Natural Resources, 1984)
a. Agriculture Element for the Susitna Area Plan
A-3
b. Fish and Wildlife Resources Element for the Susitna Area Plan
(Alaska Department of Fish and Game)
c. Forestry Element for the Susitna Area Plan
d. Settlement Element for the Susitna Area Plan
e. Recreation Element for the Susitna Area Plan
f. Subsurface Resources Element for the Susitna Area Plan
5. Response to Public Comments on the Draft Susitna Area Plan (Alaska
Department of Natural Resources, 1985)
6. Susitna Area Plan (Public Review Draft) (Alaska Department-of
Natural Resources, in cooperation with the Matanuska-Susitna
Borough, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Alaska Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities, Kenai Peninsula Borough,
USDA, and BLM, 1984)
7. Susitna Area Plan (Final Draft) (Alaska Department of Natural
Resources, in cooperation with the Matanuska-Susitna Borough,
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Alaska Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities, Kenai Peninsula Borough,
USDA, and BLM, 1985)
8. Susitna Area Plan Land Use Alternatives (Alaska Department of
Natural Resources, 1983)
9. Susitna Area Plan, Public Workshops Spring 1983, Summary of Results
and Staff Analysis (Alaska Department of Natural Resources,
Resource Allocation Section, Division of Land and Water Management,
1983)
10. A Synthesis and Evaluation of ADF&G Fish and Wildlife Resources
Information for the Willow and Talkeetna Subbasins (Alaska
Department of Fish and Game, 1983)
A-4
Appendix B:
Outline of Susitna Basin Data Base
maintained by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game
1) Example computer printout of Analysis Unit Data (Analysis Unit 1149)
2) List of maps compiled in ADF&G Susitna Area Plan Fish and Wildlife
Atlas (ADF&G 1984)
B-1
SUUniA A~EA PlANNINC HABITAT RATING BY! AtlALYStS UltlT JUNE 1983 U~IT N 1 ~9 TOTAL~ 2~00 ONR TOTALSw 2410
AtlliLYSts I nnn~t 1 noca 1 110. ·oF 1 P~RCEt:r OF TOTAL 1 II~DEL UNIT llA:IE C~HGORIES ACRES ALL CATS (3,2,1) RATING ·------------------------------·-----------------------------~---------------------------------------------------------· 114? HOOSt ECA•.SUHIWIN 2.0 ):rrHI<;U 103Q 45.~ 4~.4 ~·~F.OIIJij s~o 23. 2 .5 ; =lO:l 748 lO.S 31.1 :tfiO~t:: .u
1149 '-1=UNY.N0Wtl ZQ .s 3.0 M~OSE PCAP,SUM/Witl
1640 "'~•It I'i-'1 SS.l 76.6 ~:rrf~~O IfJH a .o .o 6 =lo~. "20 t8:8 23.4 =..,om: ~ •l ·1=Vt!KMWtl 20 .a
1.0 1149 IIOOSE Etlii,Vrr,;TATION
l=li!GH 1~~8 .o d .:.=U:!""~IUl'\ 3 .. P. 1 =tow 64.6 94 .. 5 0=!!0"~ 60 )1.7 -1 =UtllN~~" 0 .o 1147 MOOSE HAI.OTH'.R SEASONS 2.0 l=tlli)H 1080 45.0 45.8 "'=MEOIUU 108Q ~s.o 45.8 ~=l04 200 8.) So5 =!JO~I!! 0 .o
HAl .• WI tiTER • =UNXNOWII 4~ 1.7
3.0 1147 MOSQ
~=•nr.H 1ozry 45.0 SI-4 (:4~DIUII rog 33.3 4 ,6 ~Low .o .o a:: oN!: s~g 20.8 •I•UNKIIOV" .a 2.0 114? SPECIES OlV!RStTY
~~HI5H
2318 i·s 3-~ ;=~2CIU!t 9 .. ~ 96: •LO~ :8 O=NOUE 0 ·1•UNKN0Hif 0 .o 1147 ~AS. SYNTHESIS
O:oT:i~R zm i~:f !=STREAKS ~=SCARCl MOO/HIGH DIY 98 1:R •OPEN ANOPY 4=SHRIJB TIJNORA 0 .o 11'·' AGRTCIJl TURf
S40 2;!., l •UI!SIJITA3l F <•CLASS I SOilS HB ,d >=CLASS I! SOILS
4•ClASS III SOILS 1460 60.6 S•ClASS IV SOILS 120 5.0 1147 GRAltNG
~=NOllE 1890 78.4 ... =Htt;H 0 .o :i=liODERATf 0 .o 4=lOW HO 19 .. S 5=\H\T!?R so 2.1 1149 f0RES1RY
0 .a 1=110 VALUE .=IIIGH 1660 65.9 l=i\OOER~TE 140 5.6 4•lOW 4~8 3.§ :;=VeRY lOW 19. ~=IION•FOREST 0 .o
1149 7aWATER so 2.1 SeTTLEMeNT
1•liATF.R 7~8 z.~ Z•Vf.RY LOW :!?. "•LOW 50 2.1 t=IIOOERAT~ 560 z~.z 5•HIC,H 1030 '2·7
CLOSED FOREST -------------21=CQ!;F,:I~,~H~~~ Z2o:oc:~"n,mc, tuG
Z4 -=D:.:C 10, t·I:C, r;:, zS=Cui: lF ,:rs, r ,,Ll
Z 6 = Oi; C.£ u, ~!X, ~l;:,
Z7=,~Trc::~~ou,(:J'
2 a =tv it c.;, !JIJO :;,,1 CJ Z9=CJlrC;l~OOJ,CLO
OPEfl FORi:!;l• UCCCLAriD --------------------J1~CoH1F,::~,~~IL~T
J Z=LIC: C .i. .;, , ;x,;; :.:.:..
3l=t~N1f,W~,T~Ll
34.: DCC.., u, :·:.<, lJL U
35=CU'fi (/i;~u~u,l·i?O
36~t~Ti~I~~COC,UlJ
CLO!Jt:CI rllitl!i I (V!i-!I:U
41=DLK SPRUCE,SHC1T 4Z=8LK SPRUC~,i~ll
4S=M! ri~~L~C~,§H~"l
lt6=M 1 ILoiLor..r..,, 4l'
OPfi' FR~~-~~c: (~~ ~Pl
43=BLK SP~UC~,~ItC~T
~Alf WAT~~ ~fTLAfl~S
50=S.AU c.;:A:iSL.\if!)
51 =Lu"' Shitlru 52.::TiOAL II:IRSH
TALL SHRUaS -----------
ACRES
8
9?0
56~
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
---~~~
24fJ
8
Q
0
0
0
&
90 ------~
90
GAME Uf~l T :·11 :18 1:9 ·:1 Q "11
1149 z z 2 l 1
FISH IIH s.,.:ttlis ;1
~.uNaow TRou;
COHO SALMN
)\
64.6
.o .o 41.z
.0·
Z3.3 .o
:8
.o
.o .o .o .o .o .o
IO.Q
10.0
:8
.Q
.c
.o
.o
.Q .o .o
VtCtTAT!ON TY.P~S ~y ANA~1StS UNtT
UIIIT IF IT ~9 TOT ~L= 2t,U()
TYPC
LOW SIIP.IJJ ---------6Z•WILL~U R. ~IRCH
GtlAS'ilA:ID ---------63=UPLANI) r.n!IIS';
TUHO;U\
6 4: S!: Ot; E-G~ .\ '5 S
6 5= It r: Rilf,C H'U'i
66=5ttauo 67•"lAT • CIJSIII111
FR~~fl~lT~~ W£TLA40~ -------------------66=~PftAUUUf1 101;
69•SPH•&-S'IRIJ5 90G
CULTUr.AL Ff:~TU~ES -----------------70•CULTURAL INFLNCS
BARREN
BO•IlUO FLATS 81=ROCK
PERn~U!IIT SNOW ~ ICE -------------:..----·--82=SNOWFtlED 83=GLAClER
II ATE~
91=LAKES GT ·~ AC 92=LAK"S GT 10 LT ~0
V6~ST"tAMS ~ RtVFnS
97:RXV~QS GT 1/~ HI
0
0
0
D
·o ------0 •J u
0
500
0 500
-----2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
~0
0
8
%
.o
.o
.a
.o
.o
.a .o .o .o
20.8
zo:R
.o
.o
.o
.o .o
.o
.o .o
.a
.a .o .o .a
~·~1~ 1\1l '11' ~1 02 :., ~4 CGS1 t~);! CG1i'3 CGSI,
1 1 1 1 2 2 I 0 ~ 0 0
F2 F3 f-4-F5 F6 n
2. 2 I 1 1 1 ;!. 2 1. 1
'IYP!:
WHITE SPP.Utc <z1,z5,J1d'!J
aLACK SPRUCE (41,4!,431
MOUIITA!N HEMLOCK (1,5,46)
COTTONWOOD
<z7,zs~~9,35,J6>
11lXEO FO~EST t2z,z,,z6,32,J4>
S~LT WAT~R WETLANDS 1so,s1,sz1
TALL SH~UBS (60,61l
LOW SliRUB 1621
&RASSLANO
1631
TUNn~ (64,65,66,671
FRESHWATER WETLANDS (68,691
CUlTURAL FEATURES (701
BARREN (HUO;ROCKS) !S1,82l
?ERMANENT SNOW & ICE (82, 83)
CGSS CGS6 nen WFBSGI
u 0 1 I
ACRES
0 .o
240 1 o.o
0 .o
0 .o
1550 64.6
0 .a
3.8
0 .o
0 .o
0 .a
500 20.8
0 .o
a .o
0 .o
WFSSGZ MFBSG3 R1
2 1 3
Table B-2
Maps compiled in ADF&G Susitna Area Plan -Fish and Wildlife Atlas
A. Introduction
Ala Susitna Area Plan Subregional Boundaries
Alb Susitna Basin Subbasins Data-base Boundaries
A2a Resource Analysis Units (1:500,000)
A2b Resource Analysis Unit Inset (1:250,000)
A3a Harvest Report Code Units -Moose
A3b
A3c
B. Supply
Harvest Report Code Units
Harvest Report Code Units
Bl Moose Seasonal Distribution
Caribou
Sheep
B2 Caribou Seasonal Distribution
B3 Dall Sheep Seasonal Distribution
B4 Brown Bear Seasonal Distribution
B5 Black Bear Seasonal Distribution
66 Waterfowl, Seabird, Raptor Seasonal Distribution
87 Anadromous Fish
BB Resident Fish
89a Moose Habitat Suitability Summer
89b Moose Habitat Suitability -Winter
BlO Moose Enhancement Suitability Potential
811 Wildlife Diversity
812 Riparian Lands
813 Moose Winter Range Availability-based on estimated .snow
accumulation
814a M.oose Carrying Capacity (ExistinSJ)
814b Moose Carrying Capacity (Potential)
615 Vegetation Community Types
B-4
C. Demand
Cl Modes of User Access
C2a Hunting Effort for Moose
C2b Hunting Effort for Caribou
C2c Hunting Effort for Sheep
C3 Sport Fishing Location, Access, and Effort
C4 Local Community Resource Use Areas
C5 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Lands (Fish and Wildlife Element Map)
C6 Fish and Wildlife Areas meriting Legislative Consideration for
Special Management
B-5
Appendix C:
Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP) Models
applied in the Susitna River Basin
1. Description of HEP models applied in the Willow Subbasin:
a) moose
b) willow ptarmigan
c) spruce grouse
d) snowshoe hare
e) red squirrel
2. Description of revised moose model applied in Talkeetna and
Beluga Subbasins
c
United States Department of the Interior
IN REPLY REFER TO:
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
lOll E. TUDOR RD.
WAES ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503
(907) 276-3800
Weymeth Long
State Conservationist
U.S. Soil Conservation Service
2221 E. Northern Lights
Anchorage, Alaska 99504
Dear Mr. Long:
2 9 MAY 1981
Enclosed please find the Technical Appendix -Fish and Wildlife Resources
for the Willow Subbasin portion of the Susitna River Basin Cooperative
Study. This Technical Appendix is the explanatory background for the
wildlife habitat models prepared by our field office to satisfy our
cooperative agreement with the U.S. Soil Conservation Service and Alaska
Department of Fish and Game.
So that the Technical Appendix may serve as a complete document, we have
attached copies of your brief vegetation type descriptions and mapped
outputs for the Subbasin habitat models. However, the Technical Appendix
will be most useful if it is made available in conjunction with your full
report.
We appreciate the opportunity to participate in the Susitna River Basin
Cooperative Study and look forward to our further coordination with you
and with the state in completing the study.
Attachment
cc: Carl Yanagawa, ADF&G
Randy Cowart, ADNR
Sincerely,
Prfginal Sigr>ad by
Keith Bayha
Regional Directo~
C-1-1
Susitna River Basin
Cooperative Study--
Willow Subbasin
Technical Appendix -Fish and Wildlife Resources
A. INTRODUCTION
Programs to actively protect and enhance Alaska's fish and wildlife
resources can minimize decreases in fish and wildlife habitats and
populations which will inevitably accompany settlement and development of
the state. One of the goals of government fish and wildlife agencies is
to encourage environmentally sound land use practices. These agencies
work to minimize fish and wildlife resource losses by directing necessary
developments to areas of less value for fish and wildlife and by recommending
land use practices which will maximize fish and wildlife values on developed
lands.
The Susitna River Basin ·Cooperative Study (SRBCS) provided an opportunity
for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the Alaska Department of
Fish and Game (ADF&G) to develop and recommend land use practices which
could protect and enchance fish and wildlife resources in the rapidly
developing Susitna River Basin. One step in this· coordinated effort
consisted. of identifying potentially suitable wildlife habitats. Identi-
fied habitats, additional fish and wildlife information and data on other
resources was then coordinated in planning land use alternatives for the
~usitna Basin.
While participating in the SRBCS, the FWS and ADF&G have focused on two
activities: (1) assessing the fish and wildlife resources of the Willow
Subbasin (Section 4.27 of main report); and (2) correlating the dtstributions
of selected wildlife species to specific habitat characteristics.~/ This
Technical Appendix explains how habitat suitability models were used to
make these correlations.
B. METHODOLOGY
Fish and wildlife resources can be assessed in terms of (1) population
distributions and abundances, and (2) habitat suitability. Known fish
and wildlife use areas have been delineated (ADF&G 1973, 197Ba and b).
To analyze habitats in terms of their suitability in meeting a species'
life requisites, a theoretical approach involving computer models was
taken.
1. Key fish and wildlife use areas
Distributions of subbasin fish and wildlife species have previously been
mapped at a scale of 1:250,000 (ADF&G, 1973, 1978a and b). For the
SRBCS, ADF&G area biologists refined this information for display on
mylar overlays of 1:63,360 topographic base maps covering the study area.
lfThe Susitna River Basin has been divided into four subbasins for
the purposes of this study. The Willow Subbasin report is to be
completed early in 1981 while analysis of the Talkeetna Subbasin is
scheduled for later in 1981. The Beluga and Upper Susitna Subbasins
will be covered in 1982.
C-1-2
Distributions of many of the game bird and mammal species,l/ as well as
anadromous fish streams, mapped by ADF&G have been rectified and digitized
by Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) Redlands, California,
as part of the data base for the study. Much of the existing data on
terrestrial species is general and differs in detail throughout the study
area (ADF&G, 1980). However, the ADF&G data on species distributions and
use areas provided a check for modeled habitat suitabilities.
2. Models of habitat suitability
Habitat suitability for six wildlife species was modeled by exam~n~ng the
relationship between those species' habitat requirements and the physical
and biological characteristics of the Willow Subbasin.
Species were chosen for modeling if they were: (1) addressed in the
Terrestrial Habitat Evaluation Criteria Handbook-Alaska (USFWS, 1980a);
(2) covered by ADF&G distribution and abundance data; (3) widespread or
present in several habitats within the subbasin; and (4)ndependent upon
habitat parameters which could be assessed using vegetation, soils, and
other data mapped during the Cooperative Study. Habitat models were
developed for spruce grouse (Canachites canadensis), willow ptarmigan
(Lagopus lagopus), snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus), red squirrel
(Tamiasciurus hudsonicus), beaver (Castor canadensis), and moose (Alces
alces).
(a) The Terrestrial Habitat Evaluation Criteria Handbook -Alaska
The FWS Terrestrial Handbook for Alaska provided the general methodology
for modeling wildlife habitat suitabilities in a manner comparable with
other resource use suitabilities (e.g. agriculture, timber, settlement,
recreation).
The Handbook offers the most complete data base available on species-
specific habitat requirements. It was developed for use with the
national Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP) program (USFWS, 1980b). HEP
provides a methodology for systematically measuring vegetation, soils,
and other environmental data and then using these data to evaluate the
habitat suitability of an area for a particular species. The HEP method-
ology may also be used to predict how habitat suitability will change
over time, with and without various developments. The Terrestrial Hand-
book is organized into individual "species accounts" for 29 wildlife
species found in Alaska. Species accounts are based upon information
from published and unpublished sources, as well as on the judgements of
species experts. Species accounts include narrative summaries of habitat
requirements for food, cover, reproduction, and other life requisites.
General habitat types (e.g. tundra, loW shrublands, coniferous forests)
which provide suitable environmental conditions for each species life
2/The 26 wildlife species mapped by ADF&G are: sharp-tailed grouse,
spruce grouse, rock ptarmigan, willow ptarmigan, white-tailed ptarmigan,
snowshoe hare, hoary marmot, arctic ground squirrel, red squirrel,
flying squirrel, beaver, muskrat, porcupine, coyote, gray wolf, red
fox, black bear, brown bear, marten, weasel, mink, wolverine, river
otter, lynx, moose, and Dall's sheep. Fish species covered by the
anadromous fish streams map include: chinook, sockeye, coho, chum,
and pink salmon.
C-1-3
requisite are identified; and graphs and equations for computing species-
specific habitat suitability index (HSI) values for a particular area are
provided. Mathematical models were developed using data referenced in
-the species accounts.
The REP system provides an experimental method for quantifying the relation-
ship between certain physical or biological habitat characteristics in an
area and the potential suitability of that area for a particular species
such as moose or ptarmigan. Habitat characteristics or "habitat parameters"
are measured in the field and then assigned suitability index (SI) values
of from 0.0 to 1.0 according to graphs provided in the REP species accounts.
An SI value of 1.0 indicates that the parameter, as measured (e.g. percent
tree canopy cover), is optimum in the area under study, while a value of
0.0 is assigned when a habitat characteristic is limiting to a particular
wildlife species. Handbook graphs and life requisite equations can be
used as diagnostic tools for determining the factors potentially limiting
a species in specific habitats.
Using REP, only those vegetation cover or habitat types in which a species
of interest is found are evaluated; only those life requisites which that
habitat supplies are considered. When a species utilizes a variety of
habitat types, different factors become important depending on which type
is considered.
(b) Habitat Types as Classified by Vegetation
Habitat types can be distinguished and categorized on the basis of vegeta-
tion composition. As a result, A Suggested Classification for Alaskan
Vegetation (Fourth Revision) (Dyrness and Viereck, 1979) provided the
vegetation classification system used for both the Terrestrial Handbook
and SCS field sampling and mapping of the subbasin. This system is a
hierarchical framework and descriptive nomenclature for the classifica-
tion of Alaskan vegetation. For the classification levels used here, the
Fourth Revision cited above is essentially the same as the updated version
published in 1980.
In order to promote compatibility of resource inventory data collected by
different organizations, and studies, the Dyrness and Viereck vegetation
classification system was ~]vised to be usable by any researcher, planner,
or land manager in Alaska.-The dynamic nature of the system allows
revisions as necessary to accomodate new information and additional
vegetation categories.
The classification scheme consists of five levels, starting with general
vegetation formation (forest, shrubland, tundra, herbaceous, and aquatic)
3/Creation of the system was under the guidance of the Interagency
Committee on the Classification of Alaskan Vegetation, formerly
sponsored by The Joint Federal -State Land Use Planning Commission.
Upon termination of the Commission in June 1979, committee activities
were transferred to the Alaska Land Managers Cooperative Task Force.
C-1-4
at Level I and continuing to specific plant communities at Level V.
Level II was used both for HEP species accounts and for baseline mapping
of vegetation in the Willow Subbasin:
Forest coniferous
mixed coniferous-deciduous
!!_/Tundra
Shrub land
deciduous
-sedge-grass
herbaceous
shrub
-mat and cushion
tall
-low
i/Grassland tall
-herbaceous-sedge
Subbasin vegetation was mapped using 1:63,360 scale color infrared aerial
photographs and field data collected in summer 1978. For this mapping
the SCS subdivided the Level II vegetation categories into Level III and,
in some cases, Level IV categories. A total of 30 vegetation types, in
addition to categories of disturbed/barren and water, were distinguished,
Species habitat parameters were then evaluated in each vegetation type
used by the species being considered. General HEP habitat types (Level
II) are correlated to more detailed SCS vegetation types (Levels III and
IV) in Table 1.
Table 1 was used to determine which vegetation types should be considered
potentially suitable habitats for each of the six wildlife species consideredi
Suitability Index (SI) values were determined for the habitat parameters
which occured in a given vegetation type and affected at least one of the
six evaluation species, Sis for the habitat parameters in a given vegetation
type were then combined to produce an overall habitat suitability value 1
indicating how well that vegetation type met a particular species life
requisites. Habitat parameters were evaluated using data ranging from
quantified measurements of tree heights, shrub and tree canopy cover, or
moss ground cover, to estimations of dominant plant species, and to more
qualitative assessments such as the accessibility of escape terrain for
Dall's sheep.
Specific data for evaluating parameters such as tree heights or percent
shrub canopy cover do not exist for the entire study area, However, by
combining the three sources of information avaliable, suitability values
could be determined for several vegetation habitat parameters Without
specific local data, These three sources were: (1) SCS descriptions of
vegetation cover types (attached); (2) field data from sampled sites; and
(3) consultations with U.S. Forest Service and SCS biologists, range
scientists, and foresters involved with study design and field sampling.
4/The tussock tundra type is not present in the Willow Subbasin.
S/Grasslands are actually termed "herbaceous" in the Alaska vege-
tative system, For the purposes of this study and consistency with
SCS typing and sampling, the tall and mid-grass categories have been
grouped together as tall grass.
C-1-5
Table 1. SCS vegetation classification system used in the Willow
Subbasin as correlated to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Servic~Habitat Evaluation Procedures classification
(Dyrness and Viereck, 1979).
HEP SCS Vegetation Categories
Closed Forests ( 50% crown cover)
coniferous 21 = Coniferous, White Spruce, Short Stands
deciduous 22 = Deciduous, Mixed, Young Stands
mixed 24 = Deciduous, Mixed, Medium-aged Stands
coniferous 25 = Coniferous, White Spruce, Tall Stands
26 = Deciduous-Mixed, Old Stands
deciduous 27 = Cottonwood, Young Stands
deciduous 28 Cottonwood, Medium-aged Stands
mixed 29 = Cottonwood, Old Stands
Open Forest-Woodland (10-50% crown cover)
coniferous 31 = Coniferous, White Spruce, Short Stands
mixed 32 = Deciduous, Mixed, Medium-aged Stands
coniferous 33 Coniferous, White Spruce, Tall Stands
mixed 34 = Deciduous-Mixed, Old Stands
deciduous 35 = Cottonwood, Medium-aged Stands
mixed 36 = Cottonwood, Old Stands
Black Spruce and Mountain Hemlock
coniferous 41 = Black Spruce, Closed, Short Stands
coniferous 42 = Black Spruce, Closed, Tall Stands
C-1-6
coniferous
tall grass
low shrub
herbaceous
sedge-grass
tall shrub
tall shrub
low shrub
43 : Black Spruce, Open, Short Stands
Non-Forest ( 10% crown cover)
50 : Saltwater Wetlands, Grassland
51 : Saltwater Wetlands, Low-Shrub
52 : Saltwater Wetlands, Tidal Marsh
60 : Tall Shrub, Alder
61 : Tall Shrub, Alder-Willow (streamside)
62 : Low Shrub, Willow-Resin Birch
tall grass 63 : Grassland
sedge-grass 64 : Tundra, Sedge-Grass
tundra
herbaceous 65 : Tundra, Herbaceous
tundra
shrub tundra 66 : Tundra, Shrub
mat & cushion 67.: Tundra, Mat and Cushion
tundra
herbaceous 68 : Fresh Water Wetlands, Sphagnum Bog
sedge-grass
low shrub 69 : Fresh Water Wetlands, Sphagnum-Shrub Bog
Non-Vegetated
disturbed 70 : Cultural Features
82 Snowfield
83 : Glacier
Water
freshwater 91 Lakes 40 ac.
freshwater 92 : Lakes 10 ac. 40 ac.
freshwater 96 Streams and Rivers 165 ft. 660 ft. wide
freshwater 97 River l/8 mile wide (660ft.)
C-1-7
A map of the vegetation types listed in Table 1 was part of the data base
automated by ESRI for use in modeling the different resource capabilities
of the study area. Computerized data on soil types, the presence of
water and proximities of various vegetation types or pabitat features
were also available in assessing habitat parameter.values.
(c) Species and habitat suitabilities modeled for the study
Habitat 67uitability was mapped according to two multi-species habitat
models.-
Model A: moose, snowshoe hare
Model B: willow ptarmigan, spruce grouse, red squirrel
Computer model outputs consist of maps which display habitat types in
terms of their suitability to support the life requisites of the wildlife
evaluation species. Thus output maps show areas providing unsuitable,
low, or suitable habitat for the life requisites of particular species.
Habitat types potentially suitable for each species' life requisites are
presented in .Table 2. Species may be found to a limited extent in vegeta-
tion types other than those specified in the table or delineated on final
study maps.
The degree of resolution possible in the habitat suitability models was
limited by two factors: (1) the general, rather than site-specific,
nature of information available for most of the Willow Subbasin; and (2)
time and budget constraints. Thus it was not possible to divide habitat
suitability categories beyond "unsuitable", "low", and "sui table" as
described below:
unsuitable
low suitability
suitable
-areas with a 0.0 suitability index value for at
least one habitat parameter;
-areas with suitability indices less than 0.4 but
greater than 0.0 for approximately half of the
paTameters used to assess habitat suitability;
these areas are potentially limiting to a given
wildlife species.
-areas which are generally not limiting for a given
species' life requisite(s); the suitability index
of each applicable habitat parameter was approximated
to be at least 0.4.
Relative weighting of each habitat parameter is incorporated into parameter
graphs (e.g. Figures 1 through 4) by the range of possible SI values
(USFWS 1980a). Thus while graphed SI values of less important parameters
may range between 0.8 and 1.0, graphed SI values for more important
parameters may drop to zero. Parameters with a narrow range have much
6/A third habitat model was developed for beaver. Due to time and
funding constraints, this model could not be analyzed by computer.
The beaver model may be revised and utilized in analyzing wildlife
habitats.in other parts of the Susitna River Basin.
C-1-8
Table 2. Life1 yequisites modeled for each species by habitat
type--
HABITAT TYPE
Species Coniferous
Forest
Mixed
Coniferous-
Deciduous
Forest
Deciduous
Forest
Moose WR, we
C S/S/F
F S/S/F
WR, we
C S/S/F
F S/S/F
WR, we
C S/S/F
F S/S/F
Snowshoe F F
Repro.
c
F
Repro.
c
Hare Repro.
c
Willow F
Ptarmigan Repro.
c
WR
Red Squirrel F F
Repro.
c
F
Repro.
c c
Spruce F (S/SF/ F S/S/F
Repro.
c
Repro.
c
WR WR
BeaveJl F
c
!:./
2:./
Based upon species accounts in USFWS 1980 Terrestrial Habitat
Evaluation Criteria Handbook-Alaska. Moose life requisites were
modified for the Willow Subbasin, see Section C, Part 1.
Areas suitable as beaver habitat must be within 880 yards (805 m) of
water and include all perennial water bodies, streams, and rivers.
Because of funding limitations, the beaver model was developed but
not analyzed by computer.
Symbols: WR = Winter Range WC = Winter Cover F = Food
S/S/F = Spring/Summer/Fall C = Cover Repro. = Reproduction
C-1-9
Table 2. Life1 yequisites modeled for each species by habitat
type-
HABITAT TYPE
Species Shrub lands Grasslands Tundra
Tall Low
Moose WR WR
we
C S/S/F
F S/S/F F S/S/F
Tall Herbaceous-
Sedge
c S/S/F
F S/S/F F S/S/F
Shrub Mat and
Cushion,
Tussock, or
Herbaceous
F S/S/F F S/S/F
Snowshoe F
Hare Repro.
c
Willow F F
Repro.
c
Ptarmi-Repro.
gab. c
WR WR
2 Beaver-/ F F
:!/
c c
Based upon species accounts in USFWS 1980 Terrestrial Habitat
Evaluation Criteria Handbook-Alaska. Moose life requisites were
modified for the Willow Subbasin, see Section C, Part 1.
Areas suitable as beaver habitat must be within 880 yards (805 m) of
water and include .all perennial water bodies, streams, and rivers.
Because of funding limitations the beaver model was developed but
not analyed by compu~er.
Symbols: WR = Winter Range WC = Winter Cover F = Food
S/S/F = Spring/Summer/Fall C = Cover Repro. = Reproduction
C-1-10
less influence on an overall numerical suitability value than do parameters
with wide ranges. Those parameters which can be assigned an SI value of
0.0 may be considered limiting factors. Consequently the life requisites
evaluated_ by such limiting parameters would be limited with an overall SI
= 0.0 Descriptions of the life requisite(s) for which identified areas
are limiting or unsuitable are included•ln the accompanying species-specific
accounts~
(d) Example of rationale behind habitat models
SI values for several habitat parameters were rated for more generaliz_ed
habitat categories formed by groupings of SCS vegetation types (e.g. open
forests). An example of these groupings and the modeling of habitat
suitability is detailed below for snowshoe hare. Only generalized descrip-
tions of modeling procedures are given in the attached accounts for all
other evaluation species. "Percent tree canopy cover" was one of four
parameters used to compute SI values for snowshoe hare cover and reproduc-
tion in forest types. According to the Terrestrial Handbook account for
snowshoe hare, closed forests are of greater value for cover and reproduc-
tion than are open forests because they offer greater protection from
predators (USFWS 1980a).
SCS defined forest types 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 41, and 42 as
having a canopy closure greater than 50 percent. All other forest types
were classified as open forests with canopy closures of from 10 to 50
percent. Therefore the closed forest types listed above could be assigned
a high SI value (0.8 to 1.0) for the snowshoe hare tree cover parameter;
those types fall within the high range on the appropriate HEP graph.
Open forest types can similarly be assigned a moderate SI value (0.4 to
0.8).
Where data on some parameters were lacking, information on the remaining
parameters could be composited to determine the overall habitat value as
long as none of the remaining factors was limiting (i.e. SI >O). For
example, to measure food value for a given species, five parameters might
be identified in the Handbook. Yet, it might be possible to approximate
qnly four of these parameters from data available in the study area.
Assume at least three of the measurable parameters have suitability
indices of at least 0.4 and none can be assigned an SI = 0.0. Then
habitat suitability from the geometric mean of all five parameters should
be at least moderate, even if the unknown parameter has a low suitability
index (0.0< SI<0.4). Thus it would be unnecessary to determine the
fifth parameter. However, if one or more parameters were assigned an SI
= 0.0, the life requisite was considered limited. The appropriate area
was then mapped as unsuitable for that life requisite and species.
(e) Limitations to usefulness of the study models
Two factors may limit the validity of the Terrestrial Handbook species
models and the habitat models developed for this study. To begin with, a
certain amount of interpretation and judgment was involved in compiling
existing data for the Handbook. Handbook authors, however, did give
highest priorities to Alaskan research and to information derived through
empirical methods (USFWS 1980a). Limitations of available information
and reservations concerning use of information on species habitat require-
ments are described in each species account; these limitations were taken
into account in dev~loping habitat models for the Willow Subbasin.
---Secondly,-Handoook-mode Is -have-only -rec-entry b<ien devenwe-d-;--Thus--the
models have not previously been tested or used in areawide planning.
C-1-11
Every effort was made to overcome these limitations, including: (1)
discussions with ADF&G and USFWS biologists regarding model assumptions
and applicability to the study area; (2) review by ADF&G area biologists
of initial habitat suitabilities mapped by computer; and (3) field verifi-
cation of habitat characteristics and suitabilities identified on the
computer outputs.
It must also be noted that the resolution of modeled information is
relatively general. Because the minimum mapping unit was 10 acres (4
ha), valuable riparian or other areas smaller than 5 acres may not be
identified (see Section 4.28, Wetlands, for further discussion of minimum
mapping unit effects). In applying model outputs to specific areas, an
on-ground site evaluation must be made to identify valuable streamside
corridors or other small areas.
A final caution must be added before the specific habitat models are
described. Habitat conditions are not static. They change with both
natural and human-induced plant succession, as well as with other natural
and cultural processes such as flooding, clearing, earth movements, fire,
etc. As a result, conditions modeled in the report are not necessarily
the conditions which will exist in the future. Plant succession is
addressed in the main report (Section 4.27). Succession and other dynamic
processes should be considered when applying the habitat models and when
developing long-range management plans.
C. INDIVIDUAL SPECIES HABITAT MODELS
Since separate models of Wetlands and Land Use Constraints (including
anadromous fish streams) were developed during the study, the habitat
models were focused on terrestrial upland species. It was assumed that
areas most important to fish and waterfowl would be delineated by Wetlands
and Land Use Constraints models.
The following discussion is divided into a species-by-species description
of habitat requirements related to Willow Subbasin features. Unless
otherwise referenced, all information on species habitat requirements and
life requisites is adapted from the Terrestrial Handbook (USFWS 1980a).
Additional information and reference lists are available in the Handbook.
1. Moose --Alces alces
(a) Subbasin moose populations
Highly visible and widely distributed throughout Alaska, moose are th.e
object of a multi-million dollar hunting and guiding business, provide
important meat supplies for many people, and are a popular subject for
observation and photography. The over 800,000 acres of suitable moose
.habitat within the one million acre Willow Subbasin support 2,000-4,000
moose. This highly valuable wildlife resource is located within a 2-hour
drive of half the state's human population. Nearly half of the state's
licensed hunters and trappers reside in this area: 23,644 in Anchorage
and 3,525 in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough in 1979.
In additon to being highly accessible to large numbers of people,
Subbasin moose populations are highly productive, as indicated by
population estimates, calf:cow ratios, and twinning rates. A unique
combination of environmental and cultural conditions is responsible for
the high moose productivity in the area:
C-1-12
1) availability of suitable habitats for year-round food and
cover--Nutrition has been widely accepted as a major deter-
minant of moose productivity. Calf:cow ratios, twinning rates,
and winter mortality are all related to nutrition, and there-
fore to quality and quantity of forage. Preferred forage
species such as young-growth willow, birch, and aspen, aquatic
forbs, and other herbaceous species are currently abundant and
widespread throughout the Subbasin. In addition, different
vegetation types providing alternative food sources are highly
interspersed wi·th one another and with protective cover vegeta-
tion. Wetlands, which provide nutritious succulent forbs and
may be favored calving areas, cover approximately two-thirds of
the Subbasin.
2) moderate maritime climate--Cool moist summers and mild winters
prvide a climate favorable for moose. In particular, winter
moose mortality in the Subbasin is relatively low most years
because the depths, density, hardness, and duration of snows in
the area generally do not seriously reduce moose mobility or
food availability. Snow accumulations at the lower elevations
are normally not heavy, and frequent strong winds in the Subbasin
reduce snow cover on exposed sites. In addition, strong winds
privde relief from insects during summer and fall. Climatological
conditions in the Willow Subbasin are noticeably favorable in
comparison to conditions immediately to the north, where average
temperatures are colder and snow depths greater (Didrickson
1968). The more favorable climate of the Willlow Subbasin is
believed to allow greater numbers of calves and older age-class
individuals to survive the winter (Didrickson, 1968 and pers.
comm. 1980).
3. low natural predation--Long-term and widely dispersed human
settlement in the Subbasin has significantly reduced wild
predator populations. In particular, wolves, black bear, and
brown bear numbers are kept low by trapping, hunting, and
defense-of-life-and-property kills. These three predator
species can significantly contribute to moose mortality and
their absence increases moose survival rates.
4) historical disturbances, both natural and human-caused--Natural
disturbances such as wildfires, flooding, and glacial movements;
and human-caused disturbances such as logging, accidental and
intentional fires, clearing for roads, homesteads, agriculture,
etc. promote the early successional browse species which charac-
terize productive moose habitats. Prior to the early 1940's,
early successional browse was not abundant in the Subbasin and
moose were consequently scarce. As outlined by Chatelain
(1951) and Didrickson (1968), great numbers of moose first
appeared about 1947-48, responding to habitat .changes casued by
human exploration and settlement. Specifically, during the
1920's and 30's, activities of miners, railroad construction
crews, and early settlers changed subbasin vegetation by clearing
and burning timber. Large areas of the Subbasin were burned
about 1924 and reburned about 1940, with smaller fires in
between. As a result, early seral vegetation suitable for
moose browse appeared where such vegetation had not existed
before. Triggered by the sudden abundance of food, and abetted
by the favorable climate, the high reproductive capability ·of
moose caused a rapid increase in Subbasin moose populations.
C-1-13
Moreover, un~il the late 1960's, Subbasin moose habitat
originally created in the 1920's-40~s was largely maintained by
th~ constantly changing patterns of human land use, especially
homesteading, in the area. New homesteads were cleared while
others, previously cleared, were abandoned and reverted to
moose browse. The result was the continual production of new
moose browse as old browse underwent successional changes' and
declined in productivity.
Since the late 1960's, reductions in land-use activities beneficial to
moose have caused some declines in the quality and quantity of Subbasin
moose habitats. Nonetheless, ~he moderate climate, availability of suitable
plant communities, and low predation characteristic of the Subbasin still
permit large moose populations which can benefit greater numbers pf
people more easily than any other big game populations in the State. If
moose habitat can be maintained and/or enhanced, this wildlife resource
can remain available for the long-term use and enjoyment of thousands of
people.
Moose utilize a variety of habitats, depending on climate, availability,
tradition, and seasonal needs. As seen in the Willow Subbasin, moose
generally coexist with humans when protected from over-exploitation.
However, Subbasin moose populations will decline as the quantity and
quality of moose range is diminished through settlement, development, and
fire supression (ADF&G 1973). Loss of range has been and will probably
continue to be the primary negative human impact to moose in the Willow
Subbasin (Jack Didrickson, ADF&G, pers. comm., May 1980). Moreover, with
increasing vehicular traffic and the paving of additional roads, road
mortality can be expected to rise and mortality from trains to remain a
significant impact.
(b) Moose habitat use
As noted previously, moose are associated with seral communities created
by fire, glacial, or fluvial action, as well as with climax upland shrub
and lowland bog communities. Upland willows along streams and birch in
drier sites are important in summer and autumn; in areas of light snow
accumulation, upland shrubs may be used all year. Important moose summer
range is found in lowland bogs. These bogs are characterized by an
intricate mosaic of black spruce forests, wet herbaceous vegetation,
shrubs, subclimax hardwood communities, and numerous intermediate succes-
sional stages. Key winter range is provided by the successional communi-
ties of birch-willow-aspen shrub thickets with a high proportion of
willows.
Quality and 'distribution of food plants are of prime importance in
meeting moose nutr}jional requirements and providing a preferred variety
of forage. Brows~ is the winter staple, with willow (Salix spp.) the
l/Browse is here defined as woody stems eaten after deciduous
leaves have dropped.
C-1-14
preferred species. Birch (Betula spp.), cottonwood (Populus spp.), and
aspen (Populus tremuloides) are utilized heavily in areas where willow is
scarce or absent. Some low-growing species such as lowbush cranberry
(Vaccinium vitis-idaea) and foliose lichens (Peltigera spp.) are important
alternative winter foods. As a variety of terrestrial and aquatic herbaceous
plants becomes available, use of browse ceases through late spring and
summer. In fall, browse again becomes of prime importance.
In summer, moose are frequently seen feeding in open areas and utilizing
bordering shrub and forest areas for cover. Winter cover needs are
generally determined by the influence of climatic factors, particularly
snow and wind, on food availability and animal mobility. Mature forest
stands with dense canopies provide cover for escape from wind and snow,
especially in late winter. Moose generally prefer more open, shrub-domi-
nated areas and sedge meadows in early winter when snow depth is minimal.
In late winter, moose shift to closed canopy coniferous and deciduous
riparian habitats where snow accumulation is reduced, and ground vegeta-
tion more visible than in the shrub and open meadow habitats.
Wet, marshy lowlands, characterized by open areas interspersed with dense
stands of shrubs and trees, are commonly observed to serve as moose
calving grounds. Openings with abundant early spring forage are frequently
used as calving areas. However, identification of calving concentrations
in open wetlands may be attributed as much to greater ease of human
observation as to actual moose distributions (Didrickson, pers. comm.).
Islands in rivers and lakes are also often used for parturition. Studies
of radio-collared moose provide evidence that moose utilize nearly all
suitable feeding and cover habitat types for calving; quantitative infor-
mation on varying levels of use among different types is lacking.
Frequently, the value of a habitat for moose depends on its proximity to
other habitat types. A mixture of vegetation types can provide cover
habitat in close proximity to feeding habitat and a variety of alterna-
tive food species and successional stages. Optimally interspersed habitat
will supply all requirements within a minimum area, although home range
size for moose is variable. While some moose populations make substantial
and traditional seasonal movements, other populations are predominantly
sedentary.
(c) Moose habitat model
For the purposes of this study, the moose habitat model in the Terres-
trial Handbook (USFWS l980a) was modified to take into consideration
habitat characteristics and moose activities within the Willow Subbasin,
as well as the generalized nature of the habitat information that was
available. Modifications were based upon discussions with Jack Didrickson,
Paul Arneson, and Warren Ballard, AOF&G, and Wayne Regelin, USFWS.
Willow Subbasin habitats were evaluated for their suitability in providing
four life requisites believed essential to the area's moose: winter
range, winter cover, food (spring/summer/fall), and cover (spring/summer/fall).
Although reproduction with regard to parturition and the first few weeks
after calves are born, is a fifth moose life requisite, calving habitats
were not separately mapped. Biologists do not have sufficient information
for accurately delineating or evaluating calving habitats. Water _is also
an important component of moose habitats but it is generally not limiting
in the Willow Subbasin. The life requisites evaluated in each habitat
type are listed in Table 3. The assumptions and criteria used to distin-
guish and model unsuitable, limited, and suitable areas within each
habitat type are discussed in terms of applicable life requisites.
C-1-15
n
I .....
I ..... a-
TABLE 3
MOOSE LIFE REQUISITES EVALUATED BY HABITAT TYPE
Potential Life Requisites Willow Subbasin Habitat Types*
CF MF DF TS LS TG HSG ST HT
Winter Range XX XX XX XX XX
Winter Cover XX XX XX XX
Food (Spring/Summer/Fall) XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX
Cover (Spring/Summer/Fall) XX XX XX XX XX
XX = Type was evaluated for suitability in supplying each life requisite
*CF = Coniferous forest
MF = Mixed forest
DF = Deciduous forest
TS = Tall shrub
LS = Low shrub
TG = Tall grass
HSG = Herbaceous sedge-grass
ST = Shrub tundra
HT = Herbaceous tundra
MCT = Mat and cushion tundra
SGT = Sedge-grass tundra
MCT SGT
XX XX
Winter Range--Coniferous Forest (CF), Mixed Forest (MF), Deciduous Forest
(DF), Tall Shrub (TS), and Low Shrub (LS)
Winter range, as a combination of food and cover requirements, is considered
the primary factor limiting moose in the.Willow Subbasin (Didrickson,
pers. comm.). Plant quality, plant quantity, and cover are the three
factors which determine the suitability of Subbasin shrublands and forests
as moose winter range.· Quality of food plants is indicated by the plant
species present in potentially .suitable vegetation types. The vertical
extent and horizontal cover of moose browse species determine food plant
quantity; browse is available on plants growing to a height of approximately
10-15 feet (to 4.6 m), or on thos.e which can be bent over (i.e. plants
with circumferences less than 5 inches (3 em)).
Suitable winter ranges must also provide cover for thermal protection, to
keep snow off browse ·plants, and to prevent snow accumulations. that
restrict animal mobility. Such ranges are indicated by the percent
coniferous tree canopy cover, defined by vegetation type.
The ability of Subbasin habitats to provide these three factors was
determined using SCS vegetation type descriptions, SCS measurements of
vegetative production (Table 4), and further details provided by SCS and
USFS personnel. Numbers corresponding to SCS vegetation types were
previously given (Table 1).
Areas of low value as moose winter range generally consisted of those
vegetation types where at least two of the three quality, quantity, and
cover factors described above are limited. These areas are as follows:
CF Type 42--closed, tall stands of black spruce: shrub and deciduous
sapling cover and height values were low relative to other types.
DF Types 28--closed, medium-aged stands of cottonwood: limited
availability of cover and browse.
MF Type 26--closed, old stands of mixed-deciduous forest: limited
plant quality as characterized by SCS productivity measurements.
TS Type 60--alder: low plant quality as characterized by SCS; type
may be used for cover if adjacent to suitable food.
Winter Cover--CF, MF, DF, TS
Winter cover is provided by the same general habitat types as is winter
range, with the exception of low shrub areas. The greater the percent
coniferous tree canopy, tall shrub, and sapling crown covers, the more
suitable the type is as moose winter cover. Thermal protection within
these types will be influenced by climatic features such as snow and wind
which can limit food availability and animal mobility. Topographic
relief, i.e. slightly hilly landscapes, affords greater protection than
flat terrain. Minor topographic features are an important characteristic
of moose winter cover which could not be measured for this study.
For the
with an
limited
35.
moose habitat model, winter cover was considered limited in areas
open deciduous canopy or with a closed deciduous canopy and
understory. Three habitat types were so limited: 27, 28, and
C-1-17
n
I .....
I .....
00
CONIFEROUS FOREST
21 25 31 33
TABLE 4
Annual Production of Willow Subbasin Vegetation Types
As Determined by U.S. Soil Conservation Service*
VEGETATION TYPE
DECIDUOUS FOREST MIXED FOREST
41 42 43 22 27 28 35 24 26 29 32 34 36
A 1000-400-1200-300-150-100-300-
1500 650 2000 700 400 300 900
400-100-600-
700 300 1000
400-
1000
200-400-
1000 1500
700-1000-800-700-
1100 1800 1500 1300
B H M H M L L M M L M M M M M H M/H
TALL LOW SHRUB TUNDRA TALL HERBACEOUS
SHRUB GRASS SEDGE-GRASS
60 61 51 62 69 64 65 66 67 63 50 68 52
2500-500-200-750-500-200-300-500-· so-2500-800-300-400-
3000
H
A
B
1500
M/H
800 1000 1200 800 800 1200 100 3500 1500 600 1300
M M M M M M L H H M M
Total annual production of herbaceous plants and woody shrubs (lbs/acre)
Rating for moose forage availability -based on habitat type descriptions and personal communications
provided by U.S. s.c.s. personnel
*Production was rated as follows:
high ~ greater than 1000 lbs/acre
moderate ~ 300-1000 lbs/acre
low z les·s than 300 lbs/acre
M/H
Spring/Summer/Fall Cover--CF, MF, DF, TS, TG
Most of the Willow Subbasin may be classified as spring/summer/fall cover
(Didrickson, pers. comm.). Spring/summer/fall are defined as mid-April
through early or mid-November. Habitats supplying spring/summer/fall
cover are necessary to provide protection from weather in spring and
hunters in late fall. None of the vegetation types potentially suitable
as moose spring/summer/fall cover were considered limited.
Spring/summer/fall food--CF, DF, MF, TS, LS, TG, HSG, ST, MCT, HT, SGT
Moose can find spring/summer/fall food in nearly any habitat type where
herbaceous vegetation is available. Availability and palatability of
forage species affect the intensity with which moose utilize specific
plant species for spring/summer/fall food. Thus the same factors of
quality and quantity, important in determining winter range, must be
considered here.
Spring/summer/fall food was considered li~ited for moose in areas of
limited forage quality and low productivity as indicated by SCS measure-
ments, Table 4. Only three types were so limited: CF type 42, MF type
26, and TS type 60.
While winter range is often termed the critical moose habitat, it is
spring/summer/fall habitat which allows a moose population to achieve its
greatest numbers. During those seasons moose attain the physical reserves
which will sustain them through winter stresses.
(d) Limitations of model
Snow, wind, and insects are three factors which affect habitat suitability
but which were not accounted for in the moose habitat model. Snowfall is
highly variable on both an annual and local scale; long-term, compre-
hensive snowfall data do not exist within the study area. Because snow
decreases food availability and restricts animal mobility, it may be the
primary factor limiting an area's suitability as moose winter range.
Alternatively, additional habitats may be suitable winter range in years
of light snow, e.g. shrub tundra habitats where moose generally do not
winter because of relatively high snow accumulations. Tundra was not
considered potentially suitable as winter range.
Wind is another factor not easily measured but strongly influential in
determining habitat suitability for moose. Wind may cause important
forage to become available by blowing areas free of snow. At the same
time, moose mobility may be reduced in wind-packed snow. Moose will be
required to seek protection in extremely open, windy areas.
Summer insect concentrations in forests may cause moose to seek more
exposed areas where breezes provide relief from insects, despite the
concomitant loss of protection from predators. While neither snow, wind,
nor insect levels can be reliably predicted for a given area, it is
important to consider their influence when evaluating habitat suitability
at specific sites.
One final consideration regarding the habitat suitabilities defined by
this model is palatability of specific plant species. Moose do not
equally select all species of willow as browse •. Thus not allwillow .
habltat_s_ are aui:oma-dcaTly-better ror moose than Subbas:Ln-alder habitats.
C-1-19
However, willow species could not be differentiated at the level of
vegetation mapping undertaken during this study.
Areas identified as limited moose habitat by this modeling effort should
not necessarily be eliminated as potential habitat. The greatest potential
for habitat manipulation and improvement may be in those limited areas if
the limitations can be eliminated or compensated.
(e) Results
Nearly the entire vegetated portion of the Willow Subbasin may be
classified as suitable habitat for moose. (Note, 12 percent of the
Subbasin was mapped as nonvegetated water bodies and barren or cul-
turally-disturbed land. That area was not included in calculating areas
of potential moose habitat.) Slightly more than half of the Subbasin is
suitable as moose winter range or winter cover (Table 5). For spring/summer/
fall range, food is less limiting than is cover: 83 percent of the Subbasin
has suitable spring/summer/fall food; only 63 percent has suitable cover.
Only 1.5 percent of the Subbasin was classified as unsuitable habitat.
This classification was for winter range. In total, 3.5 percent of the
forest and tall shrublands were of limited suitability as moose winter
range; 5 percent were of limited suitability as moose spring/summer/ fall
range (the combination of food and cover life requisites during those
seasons).
2. Willow ptarmigan -Lagopus lagopus
The willow ptarmigan occupies shrublands·, shrubby openings in coniferous
forests at or below timberline, and shrub tundra. Because it is widely
distributed, abundant, and winters at lower elevations, the willow
ptarmigan is the most frequently encountered game bird in the state.
Hunting effort varies with bird abundance; ptarmigan populations are
characterized by yearly fluctuations with 7-9 years between peaks (ADF&G,
1978a).
Although size of the harvest is unknown; ptarmigan hunting is most inten-
sive in late winter when snow depths force birds to lower elevations.
One of the most popular recreational ptarmigan hunting areas in the state
is adjacent to the headwaters of the Little Susitna River in the northeast
corner of the study area. Observation and photography of ptarmigan occur
year-round and are popular whenever and wherever the birds are acces-
sible.
Willow and berry plants are the prime components of the willow ptarmigan
diet. While willow buds and twigs supply ptarmigan with food in winter,
willow leaves and berries become important in spring and domi~~te in late
summer. During the fall, use of willow buds and catkins increases but
use of willow leaves decreases.
Ptarmigan rarely utilize dense stands of timber. Shrubby habitats with
few trees are preferred in winter. Below timberline, such habitats are
provided by burns, river courses, and areas disturbed by human activity.
Habitat value for ptarmigan is enhanced by vegetative diversity and
"edge" effect. Thus typical summer habitat consists of shrubby tundra at
the upper edge of timber. Good brood cover is characterized by (1) low
vegetation in moist areas where chicks can easily travel and feed, (2}
high floral diversity, and (3) occasional shrubs of moderate height.
Territorial sites are similarly characterized by high plant species
diversity and 3 to 6-foot tall (.9-1.8 m) shrub clusters alternating with
open vegetation less than 1 foot tall (.3m). Ptarmigan avoid dense
brush of any floral composition and wet marshes which tend to be shrubless.
C-1-20
Table 5. Acres of habitat suitable or limited for moose by habitat type and
life requisite
Moose
Life
Requisites
Habitat T pe
CF . MF DF TS LS TG HSG ST
total acres 171,010 243,690 35,700 49,670 66,520 14,270 125,300 1220
of habitat
in study area
MCT Total
HT Potential
SGT Habitat
145,150 853,530
(%)of Total (17.7) (25.1) (3.7) (5.1) (6.9) (1.5) (12.9) (.1) (15.0) (88.0)
Winter
Range s 165,940 230,690 32,310 23,810
L 6,070 13,010 3,390 11,640
u 0 0 0 14,220
"Winter s 172,010 243,690 32,310 49,670
cover
L 0 0 3,390 0
66,520
0
0
519,270
(60.8)
34,110
(4. 0)
14,220
(1.7)
497,680
(58.3)
3,390
( .4)
Spring/
summer/
fall
food
s 165,940 230,690 35,700 23,810 66,520 14,270 125,300 1220 145,150 808,600
(94.7)
L 6,070 13,010 0 25,860
Spring/
summer/
fall
cover
s 172,010 243,690 35,700 38,130
L 0
S = suitable
L = limited
U = unsuitable
0 0 0
0 0 0
14,270 109,810
0 15,490
1/Tbe study area also includes 81,820 acres of barren/disturbed
of water. Thus the entire study area is 970,260 acres in size.
is given, habitat type is not utilized for that life requisite
C-1-21
0 0 33,300
(1.8)
613,610
(71.9)
15,490
(3.9)
land and 34,910 acres
Where no acreage
(a) Willow ptarmigan habitat model
Ptarmigan habitat has been defined by 14 parameters in coniferous forests
and 11 parameters in tall and low shrublands and shrub tundra (Table 6,
Figure 1). Food, winter range, cover, and reproduction are the life
requisites evaluated within each type. Shrub tundra areas provide suitable
habitat for food, cover, and reproduction. Within the Willow Subbasin,
neither coniferous forests nor shrublands should bii liiniting for ptarmigan
winter range or reproduction, when they are above 1,000 feet in elevation.
However, portions of these habitats may be limiting for ptarmigan food or
cover.
Areas are of limited value in providing ptarmigan food when willows
constitute less than 20 perce~t of the total shrubs. This principle
ptarmigan food is in low supply in tall alder shrublands and in both open
and closed stands of white spruce.
Shrublands on dry soils, with a poor interspersion of moderately tall
·shrubs and low open vegetation, are of limited value for cover. The
shrub ·understory of tall closed black spruc_e forests is similarly limited
as ptarmigan cover. Those Subbasin shrublands on the driest soils have
been classified as unsuitable for ptarmigan cover.
The lower alpine zone has been characterized as the breeding habitat of
willow ptarmigan. Although not part of the computerized data base for
this study, elevation can be manually delineated to identify the areas of
less than 1,000 feet or greater than 4,250 feet in elevation which are
unsuitable for ptarmigan reproduction.
(b) Limitations of model:
Estimations of the percent willow cover in each vegetation type utilized
by ptarmigan are subject to error and may affect the validity of the
ptarmigan habitat model.
(c) Results
Willow ptarmigan are primarily found in the 9.8 percent (289,420 acres)
of the Willow Subbasin covered by shrubland, coniferous forest, or shrub
tundra vegetation (Table 7). All of these vegetation types located
between 1,000 and 4,250 feet in elevation were considered suitable for
ptarmigan reproduction. The shrublands and coniferous forests were also
potentially suitable as winter range. Within this area approximately
63,490 acres (1.9 percent of potential ptarmigan habitat) consist of tall
alder shrublands or white spruce stands of low value for ptarmigan food.
Shrublands with low food values, as well as additional shrublands and
black spruce stands considered low for ptarmigan cover occur on 49,810
acres or 17.2 percent of the potential ptarmigan habitat. Another 4,100
acres (1.4 percent) of shrublands were classified as unsuitable for
cover. (Note, these figures include habitats below 1,000 feet in elevation
which are actually unsuitable as ptarmigan habitat. While calculation of
the extent of the low elevation areas could not be made, these areas can
be manually delineated on the habitat map.)
3. Spruce grouse -Canachites canadensis
Spruce grouse inhabit coniferous and mixed coniferous-deciduous forests
-throughout -AlasKa.--Wilen-aoun-dl:ui£, these grous-e ate exten·s-iveiy hunted-
for recreation and subsistence. The highest grouse densities in the
_s_~te are found_in Southcentral Alaska.
C-1-=22
Table 6. Parameters and rules for rating habitat suitability for four life
requisites of willow ptarmigan, Lagopus lagopus (adapted from
USFWS, 1980a).
Food Value: Limited when 0 <. I 1 < 0.4.
Where: I 1 = Suitability Index (SI) of % willow in total shrubs
Winter Range Value: Limited if at least two of the following parameters
are assigned low SI's (not evaluated in shrub tundra habitat).
Where: I 2 = SI of % tree canopy cover (coniferous forest habitats only)
I 3 SI of % alder in total shrubs
I 1 SI of % willow in total shrubs
I 4 = SI of % shrub crown cover
Cover Value: Limited if at least three of the following parameters
are assigned low SI's.
Where: Is = SI of % coniferous in total trees (coniferous forest
habitats only)
I6 SI of % tree canopy cover (coniferous forest habitats
only)
I7 = SI of % shrub crown cover
I8 = SI of % bryophyte and graminiform cover less than 1
foot high in openings
Ig = SI of soil drainage
IlO SI of interspersion of shrubs and lower vegetation
Reproductive Value: Limited if at least two of the following parameters
are assigned low SI's.
Where: Ill = SI of average shrub height (feet)
Il2 = SI of % forbs in ground cover
I13 ·= SI of maximum height of ground vegetation in openings feet
Il4 = SI of elevation (feet above sea level)
Suitability index (SI) values were derived from graphs in Figure 1
and SCS vegetation characterizations for coniferous forest, shrubland,
and shrub tundra types. I = SI value for designated parameter as
delineated on accompanying graphs.
Areas where SI = 0.0 for any parameter will be unsuitable for the life
requisite(s) defined in any part by that parameter. Suitability is low
when 0.0 < I< 0.4.
C-1-23
Figure 1. Graphs for determining suitability index values of parameters
used to evaluate coniferous forest, tall shrub, and low shrub
habitats f.or »illow ptarmigan (adapted from USFWS 1980a).
L
~8.8 -~
% VIWI'c' IN lUTA!. Sf<\115
~ 1!.8 -~
,,------------
/
'il, u I
:;:: I
I
I
I
I
j:: I
::l 1!. ~ I
§! I
t:; I
ii! 8.2/
C-1-24
Lll / \. /
"" a. 8
I \ -I
~ I \
~ I \ a.sl I \
\
E \
a.~ \ _, \ !i! \
t:; \ m !.2 \
\
B.BB 21! .ca 6B 8B Ull
% TRff CA.'U'Y llJ'IE!!
<Fm YDITER RAIID
Ll
" r
~ 8.8 I
I -I ~ e I
8.6 I
I -I
i!:: I ._
B.~ I --' -~ I t:; m 8.2 I
I
I as, 21! .ca Ill 8B Ull
% gaB ~:miN llJVER
<Fm YINTER RAIID
11!1
Figure 1, suitability index graphs for willow ptarmigan, continued,
L8
-;:.. 8.8 -~
Su -t;
--' 8.4 -~ ,_ -~ 8.2
8.81!
I.. I!
C. B.8 -~
~ B.6
l=
:l 8.4
/ ',, I
I \
I \
"I \
\ I \ I \ I \ I \
I \
I \
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
28 48 68 as 181!
I S!ill.l3 ffiO'I'N aJVER
1"6 II D s.s~A-L~~a-L~~c~--~o-
I.. I!
~ B.B -~ e B.6 -l=
d B.4
~ ,_ -~ 1!.2
B.il
A
soiL IllA~
<ffi£Ellll(; SEASall
r 1
B
IH1&6M&SICiliF ~
Alll I..DttJ1 VtiB AT!Cil
c
C-1-25
1.8 ,---------......
I ',
c. 8.8 -~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l= I
:: s." I ~ I
~ 11.2
Ell
I Elmf!ll1E 00 GRA.~INIF!Jlll
aJVER (<1 FOOT HIG! IN !f'ENI~
A -VERY I'O:RY Ill I'O:RY IllAII£D
B -SGEYHh T I'O:R Y I:RAital Ill
,'OCElATELY m.J. IllAII£D
C -m.J. IllAIIBJ Ill SGEYHAT EXCESSIVRY
rnAm::D
D -EXCESSIVRY I:RAital
A -S<RBS 3-B FT TAll. ISIU TED IN
EXT!J!SIYE AP!iJS IF VEIB ATICil
lESS THAN 1 FT
B -S<RBS 3-B FT TAU. IN !l.lJSTERS
SCATTER£IJ VIJI.IWSLY nm.GWT
AP!iJS IF VEIBA T!Cil lESS THAN 1 FT
C -S<RBS 3-B FT TAU. IN WHE IE.TS
IXJUNJ.TII(; AJa WITH OCCASICfiAL
!f'ENII£5 IF VEIBAT!Cil lESS THAN
1FT
Grouse prefer upland forests with from 30 percent to 90 percent of the
stand composed of spruce. Understories with substantial amounts of
blueberries and cranberries are also necessary for optimum grouse habitats.
The spruce-berry vegetation type will provide grouse with (1) black and
white spruce needles which comprise their winter diet; (2) blueberry
leaves and buds, old cranberries, and unripe crowberries which are taken
in increasing amounts as the snow recedes and are a substantial part of
the summer diet until the gradual return to spruce needles in fall; and
(3) a favorable vegetation structure for male breeding displays, for
concealing chicks, and sometimes for nests.
(a) Spruce grouse habitat model
Ten habitat parameters are used to determine the habitat suitability of
.coniferous and mixed coniferous~deciduous forests for spruce grouse.
Combinations of these parameters are used to rate habitat suitability for
food (spring/summer/fall), winter range, cover, and reproduction (Table
8). As shown in Figure 2, all but three parameters in coniferous forest
types and two parameters in mixed forest types were at least moderately
suitable for food, winter range, cover, and reproduction ( SI~ 0.4).
As described by SCS, coniferous and mixed forests within the Willow
Subbasin will have a percent spruce composition or tree canopy cover high
enough to be given at least a moderate suitability value for grouse
winter range, cover, ·and reproduction.
The one coniferous forest parameter which could be rated low for grouse
in the Willow Subbasin is percent cover of berry-producing plants; the
sole parameter used to measure spring/summer/fall food value. All four
white spruce types were considered to have a berry-producing plant cover
of from 5 to·15 percent. Therefore, these types were assigned a low
suitability rating for grouse spring/summer/fall food (Table 9). A
berry-producing plant cover of less than 5 percent, and thus an unsuitable
rating, was characteristic of tall, closed black spruce stands. For the
mixed forests, the cover of berry-producing plants was not considered a
limiting factor for grouse spring/summer/fall food; thus in mixed forests,
no parameters were assigned low suitability ratings.
(a) Limitations of spruce grouse habitat model:
Estimations of percent cover of berry-producing plants within Subbasin
coniferous forest types constitute the main potential source of error in
the spruce grouse habitat model. If true percent cover substantially
differs from that presented in Table 9, then the suitabilities of vege-
tation types rated for grouse spring/summer/fall food would change.
Grit is essential to grouse in the fall. Because there was no way to
account for grit supplies in the grouse habitat model, some ,areas mapped
as suitable grouse habitat may in fact be limited by insufficient grit.
(c) Results
Approximately 42.8 percent (415,700 acres) of the Willow Subbasin is
covered by coniferous and mixed coniferous-deciduous forests potentially
suitable as spruce grouse winter range, cover, or reproduction habitat
C-1-26
Figure 1, sui~abili~y index graphs for willow ptarmigan, continued.
~~~L~-2----~.----6--~8---18
~ 1.81 r-il,. 1.8, / I
\ ( \. \ I I ~ u' I \
!!! 8.8 : i I • I I I • --I ~ I I ~ I I e 8.6
I I e I I I I ~6 I I I I I I -I I -I I 5u I I r:; I I I I --' 8.4 I I -I I -I I ~ I I ~ I I ... I I ... I I -8.21 -I ~ I ~ 8.2 I I \. I I ----------· I I I I
B.BB 1 2 3 .( 5 B.BB 119! 219! 3ll! 419! sal!
MAX I£IGIT !F oo.Hl VEIE AT! !II ELEVATI!II
Ill !J'IJID£S !Fl) <FT MCNE sa L£VEl)
C-1-27
Table 7. Acres of habitat suitable or limited for willow ptarmigan
by habitat type and life requisite.
Habitat Type
Willow
ptai'llligan Total
life Coniferous Shrub lands Shrub Potential
requisites forest tundra Habitat
total acres 172,010 116,190 1,220 289,420
of habitat in
study area 1 (% of total)-/ (17.7) (12.0) (.1) (29. 8)
Food s 139,430 85,280 1,220 225,930
(S/S/F) (7 8 .1)
L 32,580 30,910 0 63,490
(21. 9)
Cover s 165,940 68,350 1,220 235,510
(81.4)
L 6,070 43,740 0 49,810
(17.2)
u 0 4,100 0 4,100
(1.4)
Repro-s 172,010 116,190 1,220 289,420
duct ion (100)
L 0 0 0 0
Winter s 172,010 116,190 288,200
Range (99. 6)
L 0 0 0
s suitable
L = limited
u = unsuitable
--habitat is not utilized for this life requisite
1/0nly those portions of these areas which are within approximately 1,000-
-4,250 feet in elevation are actually suitable see habitat map. The study
area also includes 564,110 acres of other habitat types, 81,820 acres of
barren/disturbed land, and 34,910 acres of water. Thus the entire study
area is 970,260 acres.
C-1-28
Table 8. Parameters and rules for rating habitat suitability
for four life requisites of spruce grouse, (adapted from
USFWS, 1980a).
Food Value (Spring/Summer/Fall): Limited when 0~ I 1 ~ 0.4.
Where: I 1 -SI of % cover of berry-producing plants
Winter Range Value: Limited if at least one of the
following parameters is assigned a low SI.
Where: I 2 SI of % spruce in stand composition
I 3 = SI of % black spruce in total spruce
I4 =
Cover Value:
Where: I5 =
I6 =
I2 =
I3 =
I4 =
I7 =
Is =
(coniferous forest types only)
SI of % tree canopy cover
Limited if at least three of the following
parameters are assigned low suitability
indices.
SI of % combined white spruce and birch in
stand composition (mixed coniferous-deciduous
forest types only)
SI of % Populus in stand composition
{mixed coniferous-deciduous forest types
only)
SI of % spruce in stand composition
SI of % black spruce in total spruce
(coniferous forest types only)
SI of % tree canopy cover
SI of % shrub and sapling crown cover
(73 feet)
SI of % herbaceous and woody ground
cover ~3 feet)
Reproductive Value: Limited if at least one of the following
parameters is assigned a low suitability
index.
Where: I 9 = SI of average size of openings among tree
trunks (feet)
I 10 = SI of height of majority of trees (feet)
I 11 = SI of average height of ground vegetation
in openings at least 15 feet wide {feet)
Suitability index {SI) values for habitat parameters were derived
from graphs in Figure 2 and SCS vegetation characterizations for
coniferous .and mixed coniferous-deciduous forest habitat types.
I = SI value for designated parameter as delineated on accompanying graphs.
Areas where SI = 0.0 for any parameter will be unsuitable for the
life requisite(s) defined in any part by parameter. Suitability is
low when 0.0 <. I~ 0.4.
C-1-29
Figure 2. Graphs for determining suitability index values of para-
meters used to evaluate coniferous and mixed coniferous-
deciduous forests for spruce grouse (adapted from USFWS
1980a) •
..--
~
-A -!J'E!IINGS 21-39 FEET AOlOSS
B -tFENINGS 31--411 FEET AOlOSS ,.---
D -G'EHINGS <15 ffi ><Ill FEET AOlOSS
B. s A B c D
1.9
'CD 8.8 A -lREES >3<! F"-I HIQl -~
"" !;! B.B -~ -B. 4 ...I -51 .... -ii! B. 2
B. s A B c
1£!00 DF HAJIRID DF lREES <FD
1.8
-a.s.s -~
~ B.B -l= -8.4 ...I -51 .... -ii! 8.2
s.sa 1 2 3 4 5
AY. I£IGIT DF OOJ{) VEG. DC
!J'Elll!I;S AT LEAST 15' YU:E <FD
8 -TilES 29-3<! Fe: I HIQl
C -TREES <11! FEET HIGH
C-1-30
Figure 2, suitability index graphs for spruce grouse, continued.
Coniferous forests only.
LB r----
/ -::. 1!. 8 -~ I
~l!.B I
I
I -I
l= I
:l!. I
I -~ I ,_ I -I iil 1!.2 I
I
I
8.88 2B .(8 sa 82 182
% CDYER !F
terr-f'll!n.CnG FUI!TS
LB .... ,
',
'(;,8.8 ~ -~
~ 1!.8 -l= ::;u -~ ,_ -iil 11..2
11..88 2B .(8 sa Bil li!S
% IUJ:K S!'lUE IN TOTAl. S'laCE
1.1!
-;;, 11..8 --~!.8 -l= ::;u -~ ,_ -iil 1!.2
11..81 2 8 18
C-1-31
LB ('/ I
\
\
I \
'N 1!.8 I \ -~ I e I
B..6 I
I -I
l= I -1!.4 I -' I -~ I
t-I -I iil 1!.2 I
I
I
U8 2B 48 68 88 lBS
x S?!al::E IN sr~ crwosmCfl
1.8
"=:r B. B -~ e 11..8 -i:; 11..4 -' -~ -iil 11..2
B.B8
LB
'0 11..8 -~
~--\
/ \
/ \ (
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2B 48 68 Bil lBS
% TREE r:m:PY COVER
!.S8~~2B~~48=-~sa=-~~=-~1BS
% fESACE!l.5 }.'{) YllDT
GmHJ aJYER c<3 rn
Figure 2, suitability index graphs for spruce grouse, continued.
Mixed coniferous-deciduous forests only.
1.8 / 1.8
/ \
,/ \
'Nit8 I \
~ l!.il / I \ -,-' -I \ --eu ,-' e I
8.6 I
I --I
§ !.4
j!:: I .... B. I ....J I .... ....
~ 9! I
1:: I .... I m 1.2 m 8.2 I
I
I
8.!!8 25! 48 68 88 188 8.88 2S 48 68 88 188
%-OlVER IF % S?.M:E IN STND mf'OSmtll
E£mY-f'R((JXm; l'l..mTS
1.8 ,. I "-.. I
I '\
I \
~!.8 I \ -I -
1.1! /-
-::..B.S /~ --eu I
I
I .... I
!:: -. I
I :...; 1:1.4 • .... I
9! , ... , .... , m s.2 ,
e !.8 ....
E 8.4 ....J ....
~ .... m 8.2 , ,
8.81 25! 41 68 88 188 B.SI 2S 48 68 88 188
% 11i'EE r:mFr lllVER 1 C!MliJ£!l mm: sr.an: ND
Boot IN STND CXWOSmtll
58
C-1-32
Table 9. Habitat suitability of coniferous forests for spruce
grouse in the Willow Subbasin.
Life requisite: Food (spring/summer/fall)·
Habitat Type -Coniferous Forest
Habitat
Parameter closed white
spruce
open white
spruce
closed black
spruce
SCS vegetation
code
berry -producing
plant cover = I 1 15% = M-H
5-15% = L
5% = u
short
21
L L
tall
25
short
31
L L
tall
33
short
41
H
tall
42
u
open black
spruce
short
43
H
In the mixed coniferous-deciduous forest, the suitability index (SI) for
berry-producing plant cover ranged from 0.6 to 1.0. Therefore
mixed forests will not be limiting for grouse food, Figure 1 was used to
determine coniferous forest habitat suitability ratings as follows:
Parameter Value
0.8
0.46 I 1 ~ 0.8
0,0 4. I, ~ 0.4
Il = 0,0 L
Suitability Index
H (high)
M (moderate)
L (low)
U (unsuitable)
C-1-33
(Table 10). However, 7.8 percent (32,580 acres) of those forests may be
considered of low value for spring/summer/fall food because berry cover
is limited to from 5 to 15 percent. Another 1.5 percent (6,070 acres)
are estimated to have a berry plant cover of less than 5 percent; therefore,
they are unsuitable habitats for grouse spring/summer/fall food.
4. Snowshoe hare -Lepus americanus
Common and widespread throughout most of Alaska, the snowshoe hare occupies
coniferous, deciduous, mixed coniferous-deciduous forests, and tall shrub
habitats. Hare populations are extremely cyclic in inland areas, although
less so along the coast. Hare numbers peaked most recently about 1970
then dropped to low levels in the mid-1970's. Throughout the study area,
hare population levels remain moderate in localized pockets even when
overall populations are at cyclic lows.
Human settlement patterns which may adversely affect hare habitat have
been particularly prevalent in the Willow Subbasin: fire suppression and
prevention activities in recent years have probably reduced hare habitat;
urban spread and livestock grazing may cause further adverse local impacts
(ADF&G 1978a). At the same time, high hare populations often alter
habitat by girdling willows and other browse plants utilized by other
species, such as moose.
The snowshoe hare is an important food for many furbearers, especially
lynx, whose populations fluctuate in response to the hare cycle.
Hunting effort varies with population fluctuations, although hare are
probably the most popular small game species in Alaska (ADF&G l978a).
Areas adjacent to roads and waterways are the most heavily hunted; these
areas are also prime places for nonconsumptive observation and photography
of hares.
The most important factors affecting habitat suitability for snowshoe
hare are browse availability and density of cover. Study of hare habitat
in interior Alaska has shown the importance of an interspersed environment
which provides refuge in winter combined with more open range for summer.
Food habits of snowshoe hare vary seasonally with changes in plant species
availability; locally, food habits vary with plant species density and
distribution. Small twigs, bark, and conifer needles are the components
of hare winter diets. Snow depth may be an important factor; deeper
snows allow hares to browse at heights beyond their usual reach of approximately
24 inches. Herbaceous plants are consumed with greater frequency as
their availability increases: blueberry, lowbush cranberry, fireweed,
and horsetail provide food in spring. Green plants, particularly grasses,
forbs, and deciduous leaves, comprise the hare's summer diet.
Crepuscular and nocturnal, the hare travels along familiar runways from
shelter to feeding areas. During the day, the animal rests in slight
depressions among ground litter, within dense clumps of low trees or
shrubs, or under cover of rocks, logs, stumps, or vegetation bent over
with snow.
{a) Snowshoe hare habitat model
Habitat suitability for snowshoe hare is described by five habitat para-
meters in coniferous, deciduous, and mixed coniferous-deciduous forests,
C-1-34
Table 10. Acres of habitat suitable or limited for spruce grouse
by habitat type and life requisite.
Spruce
grouse
life
re uisites
total acres
of habitat
in study arev
(% of total)-
Food (S/S/F)
Cover
Reproduction
Winter range
s = suitable
L = limited
u = unsuitable
s
Coniferous
forest
172,010
(17.7)
133,360
L 32,580
u 6,070
s 172,010
L 0
s 172,010
L 0
s 172,010
L 0
Habitat T pe
Mixed
forest
243,690
(25. 1)
243,690
0
0
243,690
0
243,690
0
243,690
0
Total Potential
Habitat
415,700
( 42. 8)
377,050
(90. 7)
32,580
(7 .8)
6,070
(1.5)
415,700
0
415,700
0
415,700
0
1/The study area also includes 437,820 acres of other habitat types,
-81,820 acres of barren/disturbed land, and 34,910 acres of water. Thus
the entire study area is 970,260 acres.
C-1-35
and four parameters in tall shrublands (Table 11). Within the Willow
Subbasin, height of food plants, extent of shrub and sapling crown cover,
and herbaceous and other ground cover make alder and alder-willow tall
shrub habitats suitable for snowshoe hare food, cover, and reproduction
(Figure 3). Values for those same parameters, as well as for tree canopy
cover, indicate that mixed forest habitats of the Subbasin are also
suitable for the above life requisites.
Evaluations of hare habitat parameters indicate that one of the coniferous
and two of the deciduous forest types identified by SCS are of low value
as hare habitat. That is, tall closed stands of black spruce typically
have a shrub and sapling crown cover of less than 25 percent. This makes
them-of low value for hare food, cover, and reproduction; tall black
spruce stands provide neither accessible winter browse nor cover from
terrestrial predators. With herbaceous ground cover less than 15 percent,
these spruce forests are even more limited in providing hare food.
Young and medium-aged cottonwood stands are similarly of low value for
cover and reproduction; those cottonwoods associated with riparian systems
also lack the herbaceous ground cover which would make them suitable
habitat for hare food.
Since all SCS vegetation types which were limited for hare life requisites
were also limited for various moose life requisites, they were not separately
mapped. Deciduous forests identified as low value for moose winter range
and winter cover are of low value for hare food. They are also limited
for hare cover and reproduction when adjacent to streams or rivers. The
tall black spruce stands mapped as low value for moose winter range,
spring/summer/fall food, and reproduction are also of low value for hare
food, cover, and reproduction.
(b) Limitations of snowshoe hare habitat model:
Errors would be introduced in the snowshoe hare habitat model if actual values
for heights of food plants, extent of shrub and sapling crown covers, or
percent herbaceous or total ground cover substantially differ from
approximations made by SCS, U.S. Forest Service, and FWS personnel for
the Willow Subbasin. Since field data from Subbasin coniferous forests
had been compiled while data from other types had not, the reliability
of the model is highest for coniferous forest types.
(c) Results
All 290,360 acres (30.2 percent) of mixed forest and tall shrub habitats
within the Willow Subbasin are suitable for snowshoe hare food, cover,
and reproduction (Table 12). However, 6,070 acres of coniferous forest
and 3,390 acres of deciduous forest habitats will be of limited value for
hare food, cover, or reproduction. Those areas are equal to 1.9 percent
of the potential hare habitat.
5. Red squirrel -Tami.asciurus hudsonicus
Red squirrels are found in association with spruce over most of Alaska.
A solitary, nonmigratory animal, the red squirrel inhabits the mature
C-1-36
Table 11. Parameters and rul.es for rating habitat suitability for three
life requisites of snowshoe hare, (adapted from USFWS, 1980a).
Food Value:
SI's.
Where: Il =
I2 =
I3 =
Cover Value:
SI' s.
Where: I4 =
Il =
I2 =
I5 =
Limited if at least two parameters are assigned low
Suitability Index of height of cover and food plants
for snowshoe hare
SI of % shrub and sapling crown cover
SI of % herbaceous ground cover
Limited if at least two parameters are assigned low
SI of % tree canopy cover (forest habitats only)
SI of height of cover and food plants for ·snowshoe hare
SI of % shrub and sapling crown cover
SI of amount of ground cover (vegetation, rocks, stumps)
Reproductive Value: Limited if at least two parameters are assigned
low SI's.
Where: I4 = SI of % tree canopy cover (forest habitats only)
Il = SI of height of cover and food plants for snowshoe hare
12 = SI of % shrub and sapling crown cover
I5 = SI of amount of ground cover (vegetation, rocks, stumps)
Suitability index (SI) values for habitat parameters were derived from
graphs in Figure 3 and SCS vegetation characterizations for coniferous,
deciduous, and mixed coniferous-deciduous forest and tall shrub types.
I = SI value for designated parameter as delineated on accompanying graphs.
Areas where SI = 0.0 for any parameter will be unsuitable for the life
requisite(s) defined in any part by that parameter. Suitability is
low when 0.0 t:.. IL. 0.4.
C-1-37
Figure 3.
1.8
~s.8 -~
Graphs for determining suitability index values of para-
meters used to evaluate coniferous, deciduous,.mixed
coniferous-deciduous forests, and tall shrublands for
snowshoe hare (adapted from USFWS 1980a).
-
r
r
A -UJV, lEO.MEIT PI..AIIT Sl'B:IES
B -1-3 FEET
C -3-6 FEET !liT lilT <3 FEET
D -OO'TH 1-3 FEET 00 3-6 FEET
E -6-Ul FEET !liT lilT <6 FEET
F -6-Ul FEET 00 Eiil£R 3-6 FEET l'R
1-3 FEET, !liT lilT OO'TH
G -IlnliB ALL Tim COVER ~!.\~as.
1-3 FEET, 3-6 FEET, 00 6-Ul FEET
H -MOST PI..AIIT Sl'B:IES >18 FEET IN
1£IGIT
~ n
8.8 A 9 C D E F G H
I£IGIT DF COVERJF'(Ul PlJJ!TS a=n
1.S ,.----1.8 ~------/ / / / / /
'N s.·s / 'ro S. B / / -,./ -/ ~ ~
// i ~ I!. I! ///
8.6 / --/
l= l= /
/ / -8.4 / -8.4 / -' / -' --,. ~ / ~ / / ... / --~ 8.2 / ~ 8.2 /
/
B.BB 2S 48 Bl! es 1BS S.SB 2S 48 Bl! es UlS
% 5!Ril Alfl Sld'LIII:; CllO'IN COVER % I£R!IACEOOS GR!lHl COVER
C-1-38
Figure 3, suitability index graphs for snowshoe hare, continued.
1.8
'ihB.B --A -GRI1HJ COVER CVEIB ATI[Jl. ROCKS.
~ 1!.6 -STlM'Sl, <21!%
B -GRI1HJ COVER lffERA TE. 29--W
l= -1!.4 ....J -C -GRI1HJ COVER !ElSE, >48%
~
1--ii! 1!.2
I!.S I
A B c
C-1-39
Table 12. Aeres of habitat suitable or limited for snowshoe hare by habitat
type and life requisite.
Snowshoe
hare life
re9uisites
total aeres
of habitat
in study area
(% of total)-!!
Food, cover,
or reproduetion
S = suitable
L limited
CF MF
172,010 243,690
(17 .7) (25.1)
s 165,940 243,690
L 6,070 0
Total
Potential
DF TS Habitat
35,700 49,670 501,080
(3.7) (5 .1) (51. 6)
32,310 49,670 491,620
(98.1)
3,390 0 9,460
(1.9)
lfTotal study area also ineludes 352,460 aeres of other habitat types,
81,820 aeres of barren/disturbed land, and 34,910 aeres of water. Thus
the entire study area is 970,270 aeres.
C-1-40
coniferous and mixed coniferous-deciduous forests. Although deciduous
forests are utilized as marginal habitat during emigration and population
expansion, they cannot support permanent overwintering populations.
Viewing and photography, especially around campgrounds, waysides, and
other recreation sites, comprise significant human uses of red squirrel,
one of the most commonly observed 'small mammals in Alaska (ADF&G 1978a).
Red squirrels are primarily hunted and trapped for recreation with some
utilization as food, fur, and trap bait. Some shooting of squirrels
occurs around human dwellings when squirrels gain access to buildings and
destroy insulation. Therefore, the widely scattered but continuing
settlement of the Willow Subbasin could negatively impact squirrels in
the study area. Clearcutting may also negatively impact squirrels by
causing them to completely evacuate a site. Farming or ranching may
destroy the forests upon which squirrels depend and result in local
population displacements or reductions. Direct mortality of red squirrels
also results from predation by wild carnivores such as marten, fox, lynx,
and many raptors as well as by domestic animals such as dogs and cats.
Alternatively, fire suppression permits development of climax forests
suitable for red squirrel.
Sufficient food is believed to be the primary habitat requirement of red
squirrels• White and black spruce seeds are the mainstay of red squirrel
diets in Alaska, with squirrel populations fluctuating in response to
spruce cone abundance. White spruce seeds are preferred over black
spruce seeds and are of higher caloric value. However, the greater
reliability of Alaska black spruce con.e crops means that black spruce
provide a more dependable and readily available food source than white
spruce. From year-to-year white spruce cone crops may·vary from excellent
to completely nonproductive. In good years, squirrels can store more
cones than necessary for overwinter survival. Stored cones, fungi,
various fruits, and seeds and buds other than spruce may be important
foods when cone crops fail.
(a) Red squirrel habitat model
Mature coniferous forests provide optimum squirrel cover; white spruce
stands are preferred over black spruce. The comparatively high quality
of white spruce stands is reflected in both smaller sizes of defended
territories and higher squirrel densities in white than black spruce
forests. Lower survival rates in black spruce forests are apparently due
to the inferior nutritional value of black spruce cones and to the more
open, less protective, nature of the overstory. The lower reproductive
success of squirrels in black than in white spruce forests indicates that
the overriding limiting factors for reproduction are food quality and
quantity. As a result, the four parameters used to evaluate coniferous
and mixed forests for red squirrel food can be used to value reproduction.
Two of those parameters can be used to evaluate all forest types for
squirrel cover (Table 13). In the Willow Subbasin, the percent black
spruce in total spruce corresponded to at least a moderate suitability
value. Moreover, the number of trees per acre was estimated to be at
least 25 throughout the study area forests. Thus half the parameters
used to evaluate Subbasin coniferous and mixed forests for food, cover,
and reproduction received suitable values (Figure 4). However, the small
tree diameters in both open and closed stands of short black spruce
indicate that those types will be of low value for cover.
C-1-41
(a) Limitations of red squirrel habitat model
No information was available on white spruce cone production in Willow
Subbasin forests. Since cone production may vary greatly from year to
year, the aver-age importance of white spruce for food and reproduction
could not be det~rmined. In years of low white spruce cone production,
open and closed stands of short black spruce would probably be at least
somewhat suitable as red squirrel habitat. These black spruce stands
have not been specifically delineated by the squirrel habitat model.
(b) Results
Approximately 47 percent of the Willow Subbasin contains forest habitats
utilized by red squirrels (Table 14). Ninety-two percent of those forests
are coniferous or mixed; they are suitable for squirrel food, cover, or
reproduction. However, 8 percent of the Subbasin contains deciduous
forests which are of low value for any squirrel life requisite.
C-1-42
Table 13. Parameters and rules for rating habitat suitability for
three life requisites of red squirrel, (adapted from USFWS
1980a).
Food Value: Limited if at least two of the following parameters
are assigned low SI's.
Where: Il Suitability Index of % coniferous in total trees (mixed
forests only)
Iz = SI of % black spruce in total spruce (coniferous and
mixed forests only)
I3 SI of number of trees per acre
14 = SI.of average DBH of trees (inches)
Is = SI of white spruce cone production
I6 = SI of % quaking aspen in total trees (deciduous forests
only)
Cover Value: Limited if at least one of the following parameters
is assigned a low SI.
Where: SI of number of trees per acre
SI of average DBH of trees (inches)
Reproductive Value: Limited if at least two of the following parameters
are assigned low SI's (not evaluated for deciduous forests)
Where: T = SI of % coniferous in total trees (mixed forests only) -1
Iz = SI of % black spruce in total spruce
13 = SI of number of trees per acre
I4 = SI of average DBH of trees (inches)
Is = SI of white spruce cone production
Suitability index (SI) values were derived from graphs in Figure 4 and SCS
vegetation characterizations for coniferous, deciduous, and mixed forests.
I = SI value for designated parameter as delineated on accompanying graphs.
Areas where SI = 0.0 for any parameter will be unsuinable for the life
requisite(s) defined in any part by that parameter. Suitability is low
when 0.0 I 0.4.
C-1-43
Figure 4. Graphs for determining suitability index value of para-
meters used to evaluate for red squirrel (adapted from
USFWS 1980a).
1.8
'
~ 8.8 ''\ -' -' iB.6 ' ' • -
§ 8.4 -~
~ 8.2
8.81 2il 411 B8 BB llll
% ll.AO( Sl'R!I:E IN lllTAL Sl'R!I:E
1.B
~ 8.8 --i B.B -
§ 8.4 -! -~ 1.2
1.8 A B C
AVfR}.[;E !Di IF lREES CII[)£g
-
-
-
-
n Ll A B c D E
1.B /, .. -
'NI.B -I -I
i B.B
I
I
I -I I= I
::1 1!.4 I -I !I! f
t:: I
~ 1!.2 I
I
I
I
8.81 58 llll 1::11 2lll
llJIER IF TREES PER ~
C-1-44
B -!Di 5 TO 11 IIDfiS
c -!Ill > 11 IlO£S
A ->5!11 CG£5 IIi 75-lll!% IF lRI:ESr
1lll-5!!ll CG£5 IIi All TREES
B ->5!11 ro£S IIi SIJ-75% IF lRI:ESr
1SS-5I!S CG£5 IIi All TREES
C -<U!Il CG£5 1Ji SIJ-75% IF liHS!
>5!11 ro£S (II SlJE TREES
D -<llll CG£5 IIi 75-{tj% IF MESt
>5!11 CG£5 IIi OCCASIIJIAL lREES
E -<llll ro£S IIi OCCASIIJIAL MESt
1R Ill CG£5 IIi JJfr TREES
2SI
Figure 4, suitability index graphs for red squirrel, continued.
Mixed coniferous-deciduous forests only.
1.8 ~--------1.8 ------------, .
':.1.8 -~ s 8.6 -~ -8.4 .... -~ -ii! 8.2
........ ........ ........
1
I
ll
I
_,I
8.8~~--~~=-~~~~~=-~~=-~1~
1 trJIIfER(llS IH lUT Al 'TREES
1.8 ..,,,-,,
'(\, B. 8 ( -~ I s I
1!..6 I
I -I ~ I -8.4 .... -I ~ I .... I -ii! 8.2 I
I
I
I
8.81 51 1~ 151 2811 251
IUIE! IF TRttS PER AtRE
1.1
-::. 8.8 --s 8.6 -E 8.4 .... -~ t::
ii! 1!.2
LB A 8 c
'NB.S -~
s 8.6 '"", -~ -8.4 .... -~ -ii! 8.2
A -!Bl <5 IID£5
B -!Bl 5 lO 11 Itll£5
C -!Bl >11 IID£5
C-1-45
h for red squirrel, continued. Figure 4, suitability index grap s
Deciduous forests only.
1.8 1.8
":. 8.8 'N 8.8 --------_,/" -/.,...,"" -~ a a 8.6 / 8.5 ,.
" I -," -I ~ .-" ~ I -8.4 ," -8.4 I _, --' -.-" -I ~ ~ I -,.--I
~ 8.2 ~ 8.2 I
I
I
I
8.88 2S 48 68 88 188 8.88 58 188 158 2111 251!
% tlJAKI~ ASPEN Ill TUTAL ~ IU££R IF 1RffS PER AN
1.81
'(;, 8.8 --A -!HI <S IID£5
~ 8.6 -B -!HI 5 TO 11 ItoB
~ -8.4 _, -~ C -!Di >11 ItoB -~ 8.2
8.8 A B c
C-1-46
Table 14. Acres of habitat suitable for red squirrel by habitat type
and life requisite.
Red squirrel
life requisites
total acres
of habitat
in study arev
(% of total)-
Food or
Cover
Reproduction
S suitable
L limited
s
L
s
L
Habitat ty e
Coniferous Mixed
Forest Forest
172,010 243,690
(17.7) (25.1)
172,010 243,690
0 0
172,010 243,690
0 0
--habitat not evaluated for this life requisite
Deciduous
Forest
35,700
(3. 7)
0
35,700
Total Potential
Habitat
451,410
(46.5)
415,700
(92 .1)
35,700
(7.9)
415,700
(92.1)
0
(0)
lfTbe study area also includes 302,790 acres of other habitat types, 81,820
acres of barren/disturbed land, and 34,910 acres of water. Tbus, the entire
study area is 970,260 acres.
C-1-47
Literature Cited
Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 1978a. Alaska's fisheries atlas.
Volumes I and II. State of Alaska, Department of Fish and Game.
1978b and 1973. -Alaska's wildlife and habitat. Volumes I (1973)
and II (1978). State of Alaska, Department of Fish and Game.
1980. A synthesis and evaluation of ADF&G fish and wildlife resources
information for the 1-lillow and Talkeetna Subbasins.
Chatelain, E.F. 1951. Winter range problems of moose in the Susitna
Valley. Proct•edings Alaska Science Conference, 2:343-347.
1951. Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration, W-3-R-5 Volume
5 (4) 3-6.
Didrickson, J.C. 1968.
Valley moose herds.
An evaluation of Matanuska and lower Susitna
ADF&G. unpublished. n.p.
Dyrness, C.T., and Viereck, L.A. 1979. A suggested classification for
Alaskan vegetation. Fourth revision, June 1, 1979. Xerox copy, 44
pages.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1978. Catalog of Alaskan seabird
colonies. USDI, FWS. FWS/OBS-78/78.
1980a. Terrestrial habitat evaluation criteria handbook -Alaska.
Division of Ecological Services, Anchorage, AK.
1980b. Habitat evaluation procedures. ESM 102. Division of
Ecological Services, USDI, FWS. Washington, D.C.
Viereck, L.A. and C.T. Dyrness. 1980. A preliminary classification
system·for vegetation of Alaska. USDA, Forest Service. Pacific
Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. GTR-PNW-106. 38
pages.
C-1-48
SCS VEGETATION TYPE CHARACTERIZATIONS
FOREST & WOODLAND ( ~ 10% Crown Cover)
CLOSED FOREST ( .::_ 50% Crown Cover)
CONIFEROUS FOREST White Spruce
Code
21 Short stands white spruce -Main canopy usually less than 30 feet in
height, usually found at higher elevations·as isolated pockets in areas
dominated by alder, grassland or open mixed stands.
Characteristic plants are: Trees -white spruce, paper birch;
Shrubs-willows, high bush cranberry, prickly rose alder, rusty
menziesia; Herbs -fireweed, dogwood, starflower; Grasses -blue-
joint; Others -sedges, ferns.
Total annual production of the understory is:
1000 -1500 lbs/acre
25 Tall stands white spruce -Main canopy usually greater than 30 feet in
height, usually found at lower elevations on better sites, almost always
found mixed with old and decadent deciduous trees (very rarely found as a
pure type in Susitna Valley).
Characteristic plants are:
Shrubs -willow, blueberry,
dogwood, five-leaf bramble,
.ferns.
Trees -white spruce, paper birch;
dwarf birch, spirea; Herbs -fireweed,
lupine; Grasses -bluejoint; Others -
Total annual production of the understory is:
400 -650 lbs/acre
Black Spruce
41 Short stands black spruce -Main canopy usually less than 30 feet in
height, generally found on wet and/or cold (poor) sites, may be found
mixed with birch of poor quality but usually found as a pure type forming
islands and stringers in bog areas or transition zones between bog·area
and forest areas. Understory is usually a thick moss and/or sedge mat.
Characteristic plants are: Trees -black spruce, paper birch;
Shrubs -willows, spirea, lowbush cranberry, dwarf birch, labrador
tea, crowberry, twin-flower; Herbs -wintergreen; Grasses -bluejoint;
Others -horsetails.
Total annual production of the understory is:
150 -400 lbs/acre
C-1-49
42 Tall stands black snruce -Main canopy usually greater than 30 feet in
height, can usually be identified as a fire formed stand, on relatively
good sites, stands are remarkably pure and the stocking density is
usually quite high, may be found mixed with very scattered birch.
~
Characteristic plants are: Trees -black spruce, paper birch;
Shrubs -lowbush cranberry, blueberry, dogwood, crowberry, labrador
tea, currant, highbush cranberry, prickly rose, twin-flower, geocaulon;
Grasses -bluejoint; Others -horsetails.
Total annual production of the understory is:
100 -300 lbs/acre
Mountain Hemlock
*45 Short stands hemlock -Main canopy less than 30 feet, geographically
limited in Susitna Valley to higher ground west of Tyonek, found as
stringers mixed with other local types.
*46 Tall stands hemlock -Main canopy greater than 30 feet, geographically
limited in Susitna Valley to low ground west of Tyonek, found as stringer
stands mixed with other local types.
Deciduous Forest -Closed deciduous, Closed mixed
22 Young stand -deciduous/mixed -Canopy is usually very finely textured as
seen from above, openings in stand are very rare. Composed mostly of
birch and/or aspen. This type very rarely mixed with other types except
when found as a remnant condition in burned areas. Spruce is not usually
evident as a component of the overstory in these young stands. 0-40
years old.
Characteristic plants are: Trees -paper birch, aspen; Shrubs -
willows, alders, prickly rose, lowbush cranberry, rusty rnenziesia,
highbush cranberry, dogwood, twin-flower, devilsclub, spirea;
Grasses -bluejoint; Herbs -cloudberry, starflower; Others -horse-
tails, lichens.
Total annual production of the understory is:
400 -700 lbs/acre
24 Medium age stand deciduous/mixed -Canopy is usually fine textured as
seen from above, openings may be fairly common but they are usually
small. Elements of this type include birch, spruce and aspen. Birch is
usually found as a main component of this type but % composition may vary
greatly depending on a number of factors, e.g., as the type increases in
age, the percentage of white spruce as a grown component usually increases
along with the amount of understory and number of stand openings.
40-100 year age.
* Note these descriptions are very tentative. \_ ~'4.. ~~ v:c -..t. v.eT f"~~ ;_...
,,, vJ\1\t-W cJvJ,V.,,i~ ,)
C-1-50
Characteristic plants are: Trees -paper birch, white spruce, black
spruce, aspen; Shrubs -alders, willows, highbush cranberry, lowbush
cranberry, prickly rose, labrador tea, A:nerican red raspberry, bog
blueberry, rusty menziesia, devilsclub; Herbs -dogwood, starflO\>er,
fireweed; wint~rgreen, tall bluebell, cloudberry; Others -horsetails,
ferns.
Total annual production of the understory is:
200 -1000 lbs/acre
26 -Old stand -deciduous/mixed -Canopy is usually somewhat coarse textured
as seen from above, openings are usually common and may cover close to
half of the stand area. Canopy may also appear smooth, but openings appear
as definite holes in the crown. Deciduous trees in these old stands are
usually decadent. Spruce is usually becoming the dominant species. The
understory component of the stand is usually visible from above and
includes Calamagrostics and Alnus as its most common species. These
stands are always greater than 100 years old.
Characteristic plants are: Trees -paper birch, white spruce, black
spruce; Shrubs -alders, tall blueberry, rusty menziesia, prickly rose,
lowbush cranberry, highbush cranberry, devilsclub, five-leaf bramble,
twin-flower; Grasses -bluejoint; Others -horsetails, ferns.
Cottonwood
Total annual production of the understory is:
400 -1500 lbs/acre
27 Young stands -cottonwood -Most commonly found on new islands, downstream
ends of old islands and point bars of rivers. Cottonwood or poplar is
usually found mixed with large alder and/or willow -(understory is sparse
to nonexistent). 40 years .old.
Characteristic plants are: Trees -cottonwood; Shrubs -'tvillows,
alders; Grasses -bluejoint; Others -horsetails, ferns.
Total annual production of the understory is:
100 -300 lbs/acre
28 Medium age stands -cottonwood -Most commonly found in a riverine situation
or within at least one mile of a river (alluvial soils): Stands are usually
pure cottonwood or poplar, spacing is even and crown closure approaches 1007..
Understory in the Susitna Valley is dominated by alder and devilsclub.
40-100 years old.-
Characteristic plants are: Trees -cottonwood, white spruce; Shrubs -
devilsclub, highbush cranberry, alders, willows, American red raspberry;
Grasses -bluejoint; Others -horsetails, ferns.
Total annual production of the understory is:
600-lOOO.lbs/acre
C-1-51
29 Old stands -cottonwood -Most commonly found in riverine influence
(alluvial soils). Stands may be mixed with young white spruce. Cotton-
wood are extremely large (30-40 inches in diameter) and decadent (larger
trees may be only shells). Stand appears somewhat clumpy due to openings
appearing in stand. Understory includes large quantit~es of alder,
devilsclub and willow. Greater than 100 years old.
Characteristic plants are: Trees -cottonwood, white spruce;
Shrubs -alders, willows, prickly rose, devilsclub, highbush cranberry,
American red raspberry; Grasses -bluejoint; Others -ferns, horsetails.
Total annual production of the understory is:
700 -1100 lbs/acre
OPEN FOREST -WOODLAND (10-50% Crown Cover)
Coniferous Forest ~~ite Spruce
31 Short stands -white spruce -Usually found at higher elevations as a
transition type between closed forest and high elevation nonforest areas.
Usually found mixed with elements of the higher elevation type, i.e., if
the higher elevation type is a mixture of alder and grass then the open
white spruce transition type will normally be forming a complex type with
alder and grass. 30 feet tall.
Characteristic plants are: Trees -white spruce, paper birch;
Shrubs -alders, willows, American red raspberry, dwarf birch;
Grasses -bluejoint, bromes; Herbs -starflower, dogwood, cow parsnip,
false hellebore; Others -ferns, horsetails.
Total annual production of the understory is:
1200 -2000 lbs/acre
33 Tall stands -white spruce -Same as type 31 except normally found at
lower elevations or on better sites. Commonly found in creek bottoms
mixed with alder/willow and grass. 30 feet tall.
Characteristic plants are: Trees -white spruce, paper birch;
Shrubs -alders, willows, lowbush cranberry, twin-flower, labrador
tea, spirea; Grasses -bluejoint; Herbs -dogwood, starflower;
Others -ferns, horsetails.
Total annual production of the understory is:
300 -700 lbs/acre
Black Spruce
43 Short stands -black spruce -Found in association with bog types. Black
spruce are usually of very poor form. Site is either wet or cold or both -
trees usually less than 15 feet in height.
C-1-52
Characteristic plants are: Trees -black spruce, paper birch;
Shrubs -dwarf birch, labrador tea, bog blueberry, bog rosemary,
crowberry, alders, willows; Grasses -bluejoint; Herbs -dog<wod,
geocaulon, cloudberry; Others -sedges, horsetails.
' Total annual production of the understory is:
300 -900 lbs/acre
Deciduous Forest Open deciduous, Open mixed
32-.Medium Age stands-deciduous mixed-Similar to type 31 except normally
found at lower elevations (as elevation increases so does proportion of
spruce in mixed types). Although birch/aspen stands are not usually found
as a transition type between forest and high elevation nonforest areas,
they are often found just below areas of type 31. 40 years old.
Characteristic plants are: Trees -paper birch, white spruce;
Shrubs -dwarf birch, alder, prickly rose, highbush cranberry,
willow, sweetgale, leatherleaf, rusty menziesia; Grasses -bluejoint;
Herbs -cloudberry, fireweed, bunchberry; Others -ferns, horsetails.
Total annual production of the understory is:
1000 -1800 lbs/acre
34 Old stands -Found in same general location as type 33. Found in associa-
tion with grass and alder. Birch, in this type, is usually found growing
in very small, tight clumps. Spruce are usually found to have an open
grown form and are normally much younger than the hardwood component of
the type.
Characteristic plants are: Trees -paper birch, white spruce;
Shrubs -alders, willows, highbush cranberry, rose, devils club,
elderberry, tall blueberry; Grasses -bluejoint; Herbs -fireweed,
dogwood, burnet, false hellebore, starflower, bluebell; Others -
ferns, horsetails.
Total annual production of the understory is:
BOO -1500 lbs/acre
Cottonwood
*35 Medium Age stands -Usually found at treeline just above elcvational limit
of open white spruce. Found in pockets among low shrubs.
Characteristic plants are: Trees -cotton,.mod, \vhite spruce;
Shrubs -alder, willow, devilsclub; Grasses -bluej oint; Herbs
wintergreen, fireweed, bluebell; Others -ferns, horsetails.
Total annual production of the understory is:
400 -1000 lbs/acre
C-1-53
*36 Old stands -Two elevational phases of this type seem to occur. The high
elevation phase, consisting of balsam poplar, may be found mixed with
streamside alder/willow along flowing water on high elevation flats. The
low elevation phase, consisting of cottonwood, may be found on major river
flood plains growing with a confusing mixture of other types including
open spruce, open birch, alder, grass, etc.
Characteristic plants are: Trees -cottonwood, birch, white spruce;
Shrubs -alders, willows, rose, highbush cranberry, American red
raspberry, devilsclub; Grasses -bluejoint; Others -ferns, horsetails.
Total annual production of the understory is:
700 -1300 lbs/acre
NON FOREST ( <10% Crown Cover)
Saltwater Wetlands
*50 Grassland -Elymus dominated grassland in areas of tidal influence.
Usually found at edge of normal high water in sandy soil. Normally this
type is found in areas where the shoreline gradient is relatively steep,
usually found as a belt of grass along the shore.
Total annual production of the understory is:
800 -1500 lbs/acre
*51 Low shrub -Hyrica dominated shrubland located on tidal flats. Water level
is usually fluctuating seasonally. In areas that are more continuously wet,
sedge replaced Hyrica.
Total annual production of the understory is:
200 -800 lbs/acre
*52 Tidal Marsh -Usually found in areas with many shallow lakes and little
topographic relief (within tidal influence). Vegetation is dominated by
various sedges. Woody plants may occur on the drier sedge and peat ridges
that are common to this type.
Tall Shrub
Total annual production of the understory is:
400 -1300 lbs/acre
*60 Alder -This type is dominated by tall (10-15 feet) alder grm•ing in dense
thickets with grasses, ferns, and a great variety of forbs growing in the
understory. Devilsclub can be found as a dominant understory to the alder
on wetter and steeper sites. Devilsclub will normally ~xclude other under-
story vegetation. The type is found at or above treeline. At treeline it
is often found mixed with open white spruce and cottonwood types.
Characteristic plants are:
alder, devilsclub, spirea,
Herbs -fireweed; Others -
Trees -white spruce, cottonwood; Shrubs
currant; Grasses -bluejoint, hentgrass;
ferns, horsetails.
Total annual production of the understory is:
2000 -3000 lbs/acrc
C-1-54
*61 Alder-Willow (streamside vegetation) -Tnis type is dominated by a mixture
of very large alder and willow. This type is normally found on frequently
flooded ground such as new islands, point bars, etc. Understory is sparse
but may include eguisetum and calamagrostis. This type is often found
mixed with young open cottonwood (in younger stands ths cottonwood is
almost indistinguishable from the willow and alder).
Characteristic plants are: Trees -cottonwood; Shrubs -aders, willows,
rose; Herbs -bluebells, lupines, fireweed; Grasses -bluejoint;
Others -horsetails, ferns, sedges.
Low Shrub
Total annual production of the understory is:
500 -1500 lbs/acre
*62 Willow -resin birch -This type is dominated by either willor or resin
birch or a combination thereof. The type is often found in sheltered
situations at high elevations, e.g., draws in mountainous terrain. This
type is found at and above the transition between tall shrubland and
tundra.
Characteristic plants are: Shrubs -thoarf birch, willows, tall
blueberry, Grasses -bluejoint, bentgrass; Herbs -fireweed, lupines,
meadowrue; Others -ferns, sedges.·
Total annual production of the understory is:
750 -1000 lbs/acre
Grass land
*63 Calamogrostis grassland -This type is dominated by Calamagrostics 1 to
2 meters tall. Fireweed and various ferns are sometimes common. This
type is most often found as an understory in the more open forest types
and woodland areas where it is commonly associated with alder patches.
This type can also be found unassociated with other types along small
streams.
Characteristic plants are: Trees -white spruce, birch, cottonwood;
Shrubs :-alder, American red raspberry; Herbs -fireweed, cow parsnip,
false hellebore; ~ras~-bluejoint; _9the'::'!-ferns, sedges.
Tundra
Total annual production of the understory is:
2500 -3500 lbs/acre
*64 Sedge -Grass Tundra -This type is found above treeline on relatively flat,
wet areas. Vegetation consists almost entirely of various wet sedges.
Characteristic plants are: Shrubs -willows; Grasses -b]uejoint,
bentgrass; Others -sedges.
Total annual production of the understory is:
200 -800 lbs/acrc
C-1-55
*65 Herbacious Tundra -This type is found above treeline and is almost
always found mixed with and above shrub tundra. The variety of species
found in this type is immense, consisting mainly of various grasses and
forbs. Soil varies in depth and may be intermixed with rock outcroppings.
Vegetation may not be continuous. •·
Characteristic plants are: Shrubs -tall blueberry, dwarf birch,
crowberry, willows, bearberry; Herbs -geranium, wintergreen,
fireweed, dogwood; Grasses -brome, fescue, timothy; Others -sedges.
Total annual production of the understory is:
300 -800 lbs/acre
*66 Shrub Tundra -This type is dominated by dwarf arctic birch and other
shrubs along with various short grasses and a large number of forbs.
This type is almost always found mixed with and below herbacious tundra.
Density of the shrubs found.in this type varies considerably and may
often appear quite patchy.
Characteristic plants are: Shrubs -willm<s, dwarf birch, alder,
labrador tea, tall blueberry, bearberry, burnet, wintergreen;
Grasses -bluejoint, fescue, timothy, hairgrass; Others -sedges,
ferns.
Total annual production of the understory is:
500 -1200 lbs/acre
*67 Mat-cushion tundra -This type is dominated by such plants as dryas,
crowberry, bearberry, sedge, grass, lichen and other rooted forbs.
Climatic conditions are extreme at the elevation where this type is
found. Vegetation cover may be complete (closed mat cushion) or rela-
tively sparse (scattered mat cushion) with a large percentage of the
vegetation being lichen. This type is often mixed with rock.
Total annual production of the understory is:
SO -100 lbs/acre
Fresh Water Wetlands
*68 Sphagnum bog -Cover is dominated by varying amount of sedge, equisetum
and moss (especially sphagnum). This type is usually found as a floating
mat over several feet of water or as a thick mat directly over saturated
or frozen soil. Shrubs and stunted trees (if present) may be found on
drier peat ridges. (This type is similar to tidal marsh except that
shallow lakes are less common, the peat ridges form a more continuous
and regular pattern and .the type is found inland beyond tidal reach.
Usually found as a pure type.
Characteristic plants are: Trees -black spruce; Shrubs -dwarf
birch, bog blueberry, sweetgale; Herbs -cloudberry, buckbean;
Grasses -bluejoint; Others -sedges, cottongrass.
Total annual production of the understory is:
300 -600 lbs/acre
C-1-56
*69 Sphagnum/Shrub bog -Vegetation of this type is dominated by a thick
moss mat (sphagnum) and/or sedge· tussocks. Grass, ericaceous shrubs,
salix, blueberry and cranberry may also be present. Ground water level
usually varies seasonally but this type is usually never as wet as
sphagnum bog. This type is usually mixed with open stAnds of short
black spruce. Many other types may also be found in close association
with sphagnum shrub bog. The associated types are usually found on
glacial moraines and eskers within the bog area.
Characteristic plants are: Trees -black spruce; Shrubs -dwarf
birch, labrador tea, leatherlea:f, willm<s, lowbush cranberry, bog
rosemary, sweetgale; Herbs -cloudberry, buckbean; Grasses -blue-
joint; Others -sedges, horsetails, cottongrass.
NON VEGETATED
Total annual production of the understory is:
500 -1200 lbs/acre
*70 Cultural influence -May be broadly defined as land that has been obviously
affected by human activity. Includes agricultural land, urban areas, and
land developed to support or provide services to agricultural and urban
land. This "type" may indeed be vegetated but vegetation that is present
may not be natural in either composition or spacing.
Barren
*80 Mud Flats-Confined to tidal areas (Cook Inlet ••• ) and the mouths of major
rivers (Susitna, Knik •.. ). This "type" may appear vegetated on C. I. R. and
color photography or from the. air, however, the 11Vegetation" is usually
algal blooms, andior other sea plants. Mud fiats are usually well
patterned with ripple marks or water drainage pattersn. They dre normally
submersed during high tide. They may be used as resting and feeding areas
by waterfowl.
*81 Rock -Includes exposed bedrock and scree co~only found along with mat
cushion tundra at high elevations. This "type" is also used to describe
large landslide areas -some morainal features and other natural barren
areas ..
Permanent Snow and Ice
*82 Snow fields -High elevation snow accumulation areas. Appears to be a
permanent or nearly year round part of the landscape. Nay be found as
small pockets on slopes protected from the sun, on lee slopes or in gulleys.
Usually found over bare ground. May also be found as large snow accumulation
areas at very high elevations. Often mixed with mat-cushion tundra and rock.
*83 Glacier -Includes both icefields and glaciers. Usually found covering
several square miles. Considered a permanent part of landscape. To dif-
ferentiate 83 from 82, note 83 covers much larger areas; crevasses,
moraines and other glacial features are usually present.
C-1-57
Revised Moose HEP* Model
Description of Mo_g_el
The suitability of the Talkeetna and Beluga Subbasins as moose habitat was
modeled with regard to winter range (WR) and spring/summer/fall range
(S/S/FR). Range was defined as areas which provide moose with their life
requisites of food and cover for the season(s) of interest. Two other
essential life requisites which must be provided if habitat is to satisfy
all needs of a moose during its life cycle are reproduction and
interspersion. Because data on which to base a reliable model of
reproductive habitat does not exist, no such model was prepared.
Interspersion was considered manually after each seasonal range was mapped.
Interspersion is defined as suitable if both WR and S/S/FR are provided
within the potential home range of moose. Thus the absence or low value of
any one life requisite will seriously limit overall habitat suitability.
The suitability of Subbasin vegetation types as moose winter range was based
upon four parameters: quality of deciduous browse species, quantity of
deciduous browse species, presence of Vaccinium vitis-idaea, and canopy
cover. The first three parameters were used to indicate food value, the
last one to indicate cover value, primarily for protection from weather.
Only forest and tall shrubland vegetation types were evaluated as potential
WR.
* HEP = Habitat Evaluation Procedures
C-2-1
Four parameters were also used to evaluate Subbasins for their suitability
as spring/summer/fall range: quality of deciduous browse species, quantity
of deciduous browse species, forb quantity, and proximity to cover. Again,
the first three parameters provided an index of food value, the fourth
parameter was an index of cover value, primarily for_protection from
predators. While all Subbasin vegetation types were evaluated as potential
S/S/FR, a few types were found to be unsuitable.
The parameters for defining each seasonal range were combined and criteria
for assigning Suitability Index (SI) values were applied as follows:
SI for WR= ----____ _:__ + v 4
4
2(V 1 ) + v2 + v5 + v6
SI for S/S/FR= ---
5
v1 = deciduous browse quality as indicated by ·species and
percent of total available browse.
v2 = deciduous browse quantity as indicated by total available
browse of Salix, Betula, and Alnus species.
v3 -availability of cover as indicated by canopy type and
percentage of tall shrub cover.
v4 = presence of Vaccinium vitis idaea (VAVI) according to
percentage of cover: a = ) 5%, b = 1-5%, c = ( 1%.
v5 = availability of cover as indica"ted by canopy type or
distance to forest and to all shrub cover types.
v6 = total annual forb production.
C-2-2
The suitability of each vegetation type as moose habitat was independently
determined for WR and S/S/FR, resultant values were considered together in
assigning overall habitat values for each type. Values of each parameter
within each vegetation type, as well as calculated SI's for each vegetation
type, are shown in the following tables.
C-2-3
Table 1:
Criteria for assigning SI values to moose habitat parameters
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
Parameters
SI value of dominant deciduous browse, by percent
of total available browse (WR) or annual production
(5/S/FR)};_/
Salix > 80%
Betula--papyrifera ~80%
Salix + Betula + Alnus where SO% ""-Alnus <:. 6S%
and Salix and Betula are each at least lS%
Salix + Alnus where 60% ..:S. Salix<.. 80%
Salix + Betula where 40%$. Salix<:. 80%
Sa 1 ix + Alnus where 2S% $.. Sa 1 ix < 60%
Salix + Betula +Alnus where 7S%< Alnus :=...80%
and Salix and Betula are each at least 10%
Betula nana + Salix + Alnus where Salix <:. 10%
and Bet~naria 2;. 60%
Betula nana > 80%
Betula +Salix + Alnus where Salix~ 10% and
10% $ Betula ""-40%
Alnus + Salix or Alnus + Salix + Betula where
90%::=.. Alnus< 9S%
Alnus > 9S%
SI Value
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
o.s
0.3
0.2
11 Available browse as defined by SCS included stems and twigs less than Smm
in diameter and was used here as an index of winter browse availability.
Leaves and twigs comprising the current year's growth were measured for SCS
figures on annual production, the index for spring/summer/fall browse
availability. For further details on methods of data collection and
definitions of terms see: Preliminarv Field Procedures for the Cooperative
Vegetation Inventory of the Susitna River Basin, Alaska, Pacific Northwest
Forest and Range Experiment Station, Alaska Renewable Resources Evaluation
Project (RRE-4103), April, 1979.
Vz = Total available browse for WR or total annual production for S/S/FR
in pounds per acre of Salix, Betula, and Alnus spp •
a. .2! S7S 1.0
b. 300S. browse < S7S 0.8
c. 100 ::;.__browse<: 300 0.6
d. so~ browse< 100 0.4
e. 20~ browse<.. so 0.2
f. O<. browse< 20 0.1
g. 0 0.0
C-2-4
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Cover for WR as measured by tree canopy
in forest types and by percent tall shrub
cover in tall shrublands.
cover
closed forest by type and ground verification
of plots so classified by photo-interpretation
CF or MF
DF
closed forest by type but where ground verification
of plots so classified by photo-interpretation showed
cover to be less than 50%
CF or MF
DF
open forest by type but ground verification of
those plots showed canopy cover to be at least 50%
CF or MF
DF
open forest by type and ground verification showed
canopy cover to be 10 to 50% for plots so classified
by photo-interpretation
CF or MF
DF
shrub canopy cover > 4.5 feet for tall shrublands
50% cover
10 to 50% cover
Definitions: CF = coniferous forest
MF = mixed forest
a.
b.
c.
DF = deciduous forest
closed·= at· least 50% canopy cover
open = between 10 and 50% c·anopy cover
Vaccinium vitis-idaea cover.l/
greater than 5% average cover
1 to 5% average cover
less than 1% average cover
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.4
.8
.4
0.06
0.03
o.oo
ll Vaccinium vitis-idaea is not essential winter browse but is utilized in
winter. Therefore Vaccinium presence was counted as a bonus; absence of
this Vaccinium was not used to downgrade the SI calculated for WR with
regard to each vegetation type.
V5 = Cover for S/S/FR as measured by vegetation type
a.
b.
c.
or distance to vegetation types which supply cover
CF ,. MF, DF, or TS
portions of all other vegetated types when within
440 yards of CF, MF, DF, or TS; S/S/FR value is
based solely on food parameters.
portions of all other vegetated types when farther
than 440 yards from CF, MF, DF, or TS
C-2-5
1.0
0
0
v6 =
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
e.
Total forb production
at least 175 pounds per acre
125 < forbs <. 175 pounds per
75< forbs ..:;_ 125 pounds per
25< forbs $. 75 pounds per
20 < forbs s,_ 25 pounds per
0<. forbs <. 20
zero forb prOduction
acre
acre
acre
acre
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.1
0
1/ Annual production for all forb species was totaled in pounds per acre,
averaged for all plots in each vegetation type, and then scaled to Sl values
as above.
C-2-6
Table 2:
Characteristics of Talkeetna and Beluga Subbasin Vegetation Types
as Described by Habitat Parameters for Moose Range
Habitat Parameters
v1 v2 v3 v4
scs Browse Species Production Canopy Type VAVI Cover
Vegetation Type (percent total) lbs/acre Cover Class Class
21 Al(100) 548 cl CF c
22 Al( 92)Sa( 8) 696 cl OF a
24 Al ( 77)Sa(13) . 320 cl MF a
BP( 10)
25 Sa(100) 188 cl CF a
26 Al( 94)BP( 4) 403 cl MF b
Sa( 2)
27 Al( 7l)Sa(29) 473 cl OF c
28 Al (100) 127** cl OF c
29 Al (100). 247 cl MF c
31 Sa/Bn* 393 op CF a
32 Sa/(100) 456 op MF c
33 Al( 72)Sa(28) 924 op MF c
34 Sa( 58)Al(42) 377 op MF c
35 A1(100} 31 op OF c
36 Al (100) 552 op MF c
41 A1(100) 40 cl CF a
42 BP(100) 48 cl CF a
43 Al (100) 40 op CF b
60 Al(lOO) 1,082 TS ·c
61 Sa( 82)Al(18) 2,628 TS c
Classifications are based on SCS/FS vegetation data for the Talkeetna
subbasin.
* not measured in plot of pure type, but mentioned as being heavily
browsed in area, present in heterogeneous plot.
** based on heterogeneous type, one plot.
Abbreviations:
VAVI = Vaccinium vitis-idaea
Al = Alnus spp.
Sa = Salix spp.
BP = Betula papyrifera
BN = lletula nana
CF = coniferous forest
OF = deciduous forest
MF = mixed coniferous-deciduous forest
TS = tall shrub
cl = closed
op = open
C-2-7
Table 3:
Suitability Index {SI) Values for Moose Winter Range Habit.at
Parameters by Vegetation Type
Habitat Parameters scs v1 v2 v3 v4 Winter
Vegetation Type Range
21 0.2 0.8 0.8 0 .5
22 0.3 1.0 0.8 0.06 .7
24 0.7 0.8 1.0 0.06 .9
25 0.9 0.6 1.0 0.06 .9
26 0.3 0.8 1.0 0.03 .6
27 0.7 0.8 0.8 0 .8
28 0.2 0.6 0.8 0 .5
29 0.2 0.6 1.0 0 .5
31 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.06 .8
32 0.9 0.8 0.4 0 .8
33 0.7 1.0 0.4 0 .7
34 0.7 0.8 0.6 0 .7
35 0.2 0.2 0~6 0 .3
36 0.2 0.8 0.6 0 .5
41 0.2 0.2 0.8 0.06 .4
42 0.8 0.2 0.8 0.06 .7
43 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.03 .3
60 0.2 1.0 0.4 0 .5
61 0.9 1.0 0.4 0 .8
See Table 2 for definitions and vegetation characteristics on which these
SI values are based. Classifications are based on SCS/FS vegetation data
for the Talkeetna Subbasi~.
C-2-8
Table 4:
Characteristics of Talkeetna and Beluga Subbasin Vegetation Types
as Described by Habitat Parameters for Moose Spring/Summer/Fall .
(S/S/F) Range
Habitat Parameters
scs v1 v2 v5 v6
Vegetation Browse Species Production S/S/F Forbs
Type (percent total) lbs/acre Cover lbs/acre
21 Al (100) 428 cl CF 291
22 Al(94)Sa(4)
Be(2)
636 cl OF 106
24 Al (60)Sa(23) 205 cl MF 71
Bp(16)
25 Sa(54)BN(46) 47 cl CF 143
26 Al(83)BP(14) 147 cl MF 68
Sa(3)
27 Al (50)Sa(50) 310 cl OF 22
2B Al(86)Sa(14) 598 cl OF 40
29 Al(100) -247 cl MF 96
31 BN(lOO) 360 op CF 64
32 Sa(100) 313 op MF 214
33 Al(70)BN(27)
Sa(3)
105 op CF 370
34 Al(99}BN(1) 122 op MF 121
35 A1(100) 56 op OF 132
36 Al (100) 237 op MF 18
41 Al(100)BN(4) 19 cl CF
42 0 0 cl CF 14
43 Al(100) 23 op CF 19
50 0 0 TG 0
51. 0 0 LS 0
52 0 0 HSG 0
60 Al poo) 649 TS 38
61 Sa 79)Al(21) 560 TS 234
62 Sa(74)BN(26) 323 LS 121
63 BP(100) 3 TG 381
64 0 0 SGT 21
65 BN(57)Sa ( 43) 134 HT 14
66 BN(65)Al(31)Sa(4) 103 ST 38
67 0 0 MCT 13
68 0 0 HSG 0
69 BN(90)Sa(5)
Al (5)
111 LS 12
Abbreviations:
cl = closed VAVI ~ Vaccinium Vitis-idaea
op • open Al 2 Alnus spp.
TS ~ ta 11 shrub Sa = !>alTx spp.
TC = ta 11 grass BP =Betula papyrifera
LS = low shrub BN = Betu I a nana
OF = deciduous forest SGT = sedge~griii tundra
CF = coniferous forest HSC = herbaceous sedge-grass
MF = mixed coniferous deciduous forest MCT = mat and cushion tundra
ST • shrub tundra
C-2-9
Table 5:
Suitability Index (SI) Values for Moose Spring/Summer/Fall
(S/S/F) Range Habitat Parameters by Vegetation Type
Habitat Parameters
scs vl Vz v5 v6 Spring/
Vegetation ·Summer/Fall
Type · Range
21 0.2 0.8 1.0 1.0 0.6
22 0.3 1.0 1.0 0.6 0.6
24 o.g 0.6 1.0 0.4 0.8
25 0.7 0.2 1.0 0.8 0.7
26 0.5 0.6 1.0 0.4 0.6
27 0.7 0.8 1.0 0.2 0.7
28 0.5 1.0 1.0 0.4* 0.7
29 0.2 0.6 1.0 0.6 0.5
31 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.4 0.7
32 0.9 0.8 1.0 1.0 o.g
33 0.5 0.6 1.0 1.0 0.7
34 .0.2 0.6 1.0 0.6 0.5
35 0.2 0.4 l.O 0.8 0.5
36 0.2 0.6 1.0 0.1 0.4
41 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.1 0.3
42 0 0 1.0 0.1 0.2
43 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.1 0.3
50 0 0 0 0 0
51 0 0 0 0 0
52 0 0 0 0 0
60 0.2 1.0 1.0 0.2 0.5
61 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9
62 0.8 0.8 0 0.6 0.6
63 0.8 0.1 0 1.0 0.5
64 0 0 0 0.2 0.1
65 0.8 0.6 0 0.4 0.5
66 0.6 0.6 0 0.4 0.4
67 0 0 0 0.1 0.1
68 0 0 0 0 0
69 0.6 0.6 0 0.4 0.4
*Estimated from one plot in heterogeneous type
See Table 4 for definitions and vegetation characteristics on which these
SI values are based. Classifications are based on-SCS/FS vegetation data
for the Talkeetna Subbasin.
Non-forest and non-tall shrub types greater than 440 yards from cover are
not S/S/F range.
C-2-10
MOOSE (1:63,360 and 1:250,000)
Map Subbasin into 11 categories of moose habitat suitability as follows:
Ca t·egory
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
Criteria for Mapping by
SCS Vegetation Code
24, 25, 27, 61
22, 26, 31, 32, 33
21, 28, 29, 34, 36, 60
41, 42
35, 43
62, 63, 65 if within
440 yards of cover !/
66, 69, if within 440
yards of cover
64, 67, if within 440
yards of cover
so, 51, 52, 68
70 through 83
91 through 97
Abbreviations: WR = winter range
S/S/FR = spring/summer/fall range
mod = moderate
Value to Moose
high WR, mod/high S/S/FR
mod/high WR, high or
mod/high S/S/FR
mod/high or mod WR and
S/S/FR
mod/high or mod WR and
low S/S/FR
low WR and low or mod
S/S/FR
mod/high S/S/FR, not WR
mod S/S/FR, not WR
low S/S/FR, not WR
vegetated types of
insignificant value as
either moose WR or
S/S/FR
none, are disturbed or
barren of vegetation
water bodies
1/ "Cover" for S/S/FR is provided by all forests and tall shrublands,
vegetation types 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 41, 42,
43, 60, and 61. I have assumed that grid cells are 10 acres and this search
wilr be defined by a distance of two grid cells from the cell of interest.
C-:2-11
Appendix D:
Examples of field procedures and data forms
used during the Susitna River Basin
vegetation inventory
D
HABITAT INVENTORY PLOT
At each point of the location, estimate and record habitat data
on the 1' X 2' north half of the frame. Record the following
data on the Habitat Plot Sheet:
SPECIES NAME
Record species name as listed. Record unknowns by number,
bring sample back to camp to be keyed and identified. Try to
collect some blossoms or seeds since these aid the
identification process.
SPECIES CODE
Record species by code as listed on the back of the form. If
not listed refer to SCS national list of scientific plant names
for the proper code. This item can be done in the camp or
office.
ITEM 82
ITEM 83
HEIGHT ITEM 84
Estimate and record ·the average height of each species at each
point. Use the following height classes and codes.
Code Height Class
1 0-6 inches ., 6-18 inches ' 3 18 inches -3 feet
4 3-10 feet s over 10 feet
D-1
ITEM 85 CANOPY COVER
At each point, estimate and record canopy cover by species
using the following codes:
Code Class
t 1-5%
2 5-2o%·
3 20-40%
4 40-60%
5 60-80%
6 ao-95%
7 95-100%
Canopy cover is not merely a measure of area covered by
leafy portions of the plant. Rather, it can be thought of
as amount ·of ground area influenced by a plant within the
plot. It is estimated by visuali~ing the plant as a
ploygon with sides drawn about extremities of the canopy.
See diagram. Most communJ.tJ.es are composed of several
layers of different plant species. Therefore, when canopy
cover is added for all species in the plot, ground cover
can actually be greater than 100 percent.
cove.; »nMAi2J
A • I
13•.J
C:•l
o-.2-
!•l
Figure 2. Diagram illustrating method of estimating canopy
coverage. The biologic soundness of using the vertical
projection of a polygon drawn about the ext:.-emities of the
plant canopy is illustrated by E, which, by accident of
foliage arrangement, actually has no leaves directly above
the plot frame. A plant of this type probably exe:-ts at
least as much influence on the ecosystem· outlined as does A.
D-2
DENSITY OF STEMS ITEM 86
Count and record the number of woody stems inside the plot
frame that extend above 6 inc·hes in height.
HEDGING (PAST USE) !!EM 87
Hedging results from past use of plants by animals for feed or
browse. Past use is defined as one year old, usually several
stems of new growth are appearing where .each single stem was
browsed. Estimate this past use and .record with ~he following
codes:
Code
1
2
3
4
Class
None
Light use
Moderate use (40-60%)
Heavy use (clubbiness)
BROWSE (CURRENT USE) ITEM 88
Estimate present use of the species for animal browse .and
record using the following codes:
Code Class
1 None
2 Light
· 3 Moderate (40-60%)
4 Heavy use (clubbiness)
WILDLIFE SIGNS ItEMS 89--96
During the process of measuring the understory vegetation, keep
a mental tally of wildlife use signs in the area. Est'imate and
record using the items listed below. Additional comments
covering items not coded (such as scat, hair, feathers,· etc.)
may be made od the back of the Habitat Plot Sheet.
TRAILS-TYPE ITEM 89
Code ~
01 No trails
02 Rodent
OJ Small game
04 Large game
0-3
:
: :
:
I
: I
~ : 1
: : i
:
: : :
v-a
:
: :
56~ 114
85 !l
~~~~I!_Y ,86. ~
"' X m -!!I
87-, ... 1--+.,-=-1
., ~g;_m-(5:-1=:_~:~
~ ~·;::~~ e6 · !
I!!:!i 90
In::i 91
In::i 92
I~ 93
UULS-Nm!BER
Code -·
Ol
oz
03
Ite!ll -
No trails iu area
Several (3-5) ~rails t~rougn area
Area heavily bisected by ~rails
NESTING 'IUES/?HAIRY nEES
Code -
Ol
oz
03
04
Ite!ll -
None observed
Que or more bird nests
Que or more squirrel trees
Oue or more cavity t:rees
Hummocks are sm;all mounds often found on vee sites. ·they
are usually topped by grasslike plants of t:he genus ca:::e:c.
aud provide shelter to small wildlife.
Code -
l z
3
Noue present:
Less ~ban 50% of area covered
Over So: of area covered
HllMMOCX SIZE C'..ASS
Record average size class of the hucmacks observed-
Code Item -
l 6 inches high
Z 6-lZ inches high
3 u-zo inches high
4 ZO inches high
CA. VES , BURROWS
Code Item
Ol None obser1ed
OZ One or more burrovs noted
03 One or more caves oo~ed
D-5
""'
1
2
J
' 5
~
tT!H 84 H&tCHt
0-6 incites
6-18 inchal
18 inchu - l !ut
) 10 f -'" over 10 feet
TRAILS
"' w ....... ,_w ... ~ oz z"' o-< w -~ Cl o=> ·0 6~ oo o.Z z .. Zv>
'< ., 0 0 0 ~ "' "'
tTf.H 85
1
2
J
' 5
6
7
WILDLIFE
NEST
T R~ES
IU ~ ... ~ u. w
0~ .....
~0 0!!!!
ciC> 0~ ·:> oo z;;; z "' Zv>
v '< "' 0 --"' "' .,.
lsl• 7 II !r ~~~2 13 ,,. "'" 0 1 1 I I I
0
I ol2 I I I I I
"'
I
l
J
ol3 I I I I I
ol4 I I I I I
o 1s I I I I I
ol6 I I I I I
ol7 I • I I I
ols I. I I I I
ol9 I I I I I
1 1o I I I I I
Tit I I I I I
• J• 7 J• •.I'· 11J12 !3 i'• tsJ16
!T'EM 92 HU~OCKS
Nun• presanc
L••• than SO% of •r•• covered
Over 50% of •n• conre4
l-5%
5-201
20-40%
40-60%
60-80%
SG-95%
95-100%
1
2
J
'
nr:H a7 KEDGING (PAST USE)
None
Light uu
Hoder1te use (40-60%)
Huvy uu (c lubb~neu)
ITEM 88
1
2
J
'
!NOUS! (CURRENT USE)
None
Light
Moderate (40-60%)
H•avy uae (clubbin•••)
4.LOCATION APPRAISAL FORM I 2 3 4
TREE
CAVIT!fS
'<
"'a
Y:t: ·v Oz z
'<
"' .,.
17111
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!7J11
~
"'0
AI l:
·v Oz z-
"' Ill .,.
19 j20
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!9J2o
I
2
l
'
ci "' w "' N V) 0 v -... ~ "' 0 "' ._ ... oo ~ i O"' UJ ·:'.1 lU
~ ~ ·> z 0"( 0;:> 0 ::>
:X: :X: zv z ... v
'< "' N M "" "" .lJ .,. .. <>-.,. .,. .,.
21 22 23j24 2Sj26 27 21 2tl30
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
21 22 23J2• HI•• 27 21 29,:1D
ntM 93 HUMMOCK SIZE CLASS
6 i.nchu hizh
'-L2 inc!l.u hich u-zo inehu hi;h
20 inchu his:n
31
31
OPTIONAL REMARKS
32133
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
32133
34135 36jn 31,39 .. ,.,, ..
I I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
T I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I ., I I I I TOTALS
34135 36,3J .. ,,. ••1•1142
tTDf 96 CONE PRODUCTION
l -MANT CONES ON 75-100% OF TREES;
SO~ CONES ON ALL TR!ES
2 -MANY CONES ON 50-75% OF TREES;
SOME CONES ON ALL TREES
3 -FEW' com~:s ON S0-7 5% OF TREF.S;
~Vf CONES OH SOME TREES
4 -~ CONES ON 75-95% OP TREES:
XANT CONES ON OCCASIONAL TRFES
S -FEW' CONES OH OCc.\S tONAL TREES:
OR HO CONES ON A.'iT TREES
TREE CAVITIES ~5"
Keep a line tally of the number of tree cavl.tLes less than 5
inches diameter and greater than 2 inches deep. After all 10
points have been visited record the total number observed.
ITEM 95A
TREE CAVITIES ~ 5" ITEM 95B
Keep a tally as above and record the total number of tree
cavities greater than 5 inches in diameter afte>:' all points
have been visited.
CONE PRODUCTION ITEM 96
Observe and record cone production by the following codes:
l 75% of the trees have a lot of cones
2 50-75% of the trees have a lot of cones
3 50% of the trees have a lot of cones
4
5
RANGE PLOT
Read and record on the Range Form the estimated weight in grams
of current year's growth. by ~pecies that lie within the
perimeter of the 4 sq. foot (2x2)plot; Data will. not be
collected on the following trees or woody shrubs--over 4 1/2
feet in the 4 sq. ft. plot:
Aspen
Paper Birch
Cottonwood
Shurb Birch
Mtn. Ash
Alder
Elderberry
Willow
Spruce
When estimating the weights or collecting the current year's
growth, consider only the portion of the plant inside the
vegetation frame. Measure portions of plants which fall inside
the vertical projection of frame even if the plant is rooted
outside. Likewise, ignore all parts of plant outside the
vertical projection of the metal frame even though the plant
may be rooted inside.
Clip the current years growth after estimating weights by
species on the range plot. Clip the first plants of each
species encountered within plots l through 5, and the first
plants of each species encountered within plots 6 through 10.
D-7
ITEM 97
Place the current year's grOwth by species in separate
paper bags snd usi~g ~ater ?=Qof falt tip pen, label ~ith:
1. locac ion n•~mber
2. point number
3. dace (t~onch, day, year)
4. species
S. estimator's name
After all the planes have been clipped, puc in ?aper ~ags
and labeled, place all bags in a plastic b.'!g. Return the
specimens co ~amp Eor weighing.
Record the actual 11eighc on the range for.; and on ::he paper
bag.
!'lAPPING UNI1'
Identify and reco~·d the mapping unit at each point. l'h i.3
is necessar1 in order to identify points located in
vegetative
photo. Use
I CLOSED
Code
021
025
041
042
045
046
022
024
026
027
028
029
intrusions chat vere
the following codes:
:"ORES'!
l'!aopins Unit
Closed Forese
than 30'
Closed Forest:
than 30'
Closed Forese
than 30'
Closed Forest
ehan 30'
-White
tall. -white
tall. -3lac:k
tall. -l! hc:k
tat l.
not typed out
sprur.e -shore
spt"uce -~all
Sp:l:'UCe -sho~t
sprue.:! -t-ttl
Closed· Forest -Mt. Hemlock. -s:,ort
than 30' call.
on che
-less
-greater
-less
-greater
less -
Closed Fares: -Me. Heclock -:all -greate~
than 30' call.
Cloaed Forest -Dec:iduous/~!i:.~d -young -
less than 40 years old.
Closed Forese -Oec:iduo•Js/Mi:ced mediuc:
age -40 -100 years old.
Closed Forest -Deciduous/Mixad -old age -
greater than 100 years old.
Closed Forest -Cotcon...,ocd -young -less
chan 40 years old.
Closed Forese -Cottonwood -medium age -
40 ~ tOO years old.
Closed Forest -Cottonwood -otd age -
greater than 100 years old.
D-8
MAPPING UNIT (CONT.)
ll OPEN FOREST
031 Open Forest -White spruce -short -less than 30'
tall.
033 Open Forest -White spruce -tall -greater than
30' tall.
043 Open Forest -Black spruce -short -less than 30'
tall.
032 Open Forest -Deciduous/Mixed -medium age -40 -
100 years old.
034 Open Forest -Deciduous/Mixed -old age -greater
than 100 years old.
035 Open Forest -Cottonwood -medium age -40 -100
years old.
036 Open Forest -Cottonwood old age -greater than
100 years old.
III !:ION-FOREST
050 Non-forest -saltwater wetland -grassland.
051 Non-forest -saltwater wetland -low shrub.
052 Non-forest -saltwater wetland -tidal marsh.
060 Non-forest -tall shrub -alder.
061 Non-forest -tall shrub -alder -willow
062 Non-forest-low shrub·-willow-resin birch.
063 Non-forest -grassland.
064 Non-forest -tundra -sedge -grass.
065 Non-forest -tundra -herbacious.
066 Non-forest -tundra. -shrub ..
067 Non-forest -tundra -mat and cushion.
068 Non-forest -wetland. ~ sphagnum bog.
069 . Non-forest -wetland -sphagnum -shrub bog.
IV CULTURAL
070
V BARREN
080
081
082
VI SNOW
085
086
VII WATER
091
092
096
097
Cultural Influence.
Barren -mud flats.
Barren -rock.
Barren -bare ground.
Permanent snow and ice -snow field.
Permanent snow and ice -glacier.
Water-lakes -less than 40 ac.
Water -lakes -less than 10 ac. greater than
40 ac.
Water -streams and rivers -less than 165 ft.
greater than 660 ft. wide.
Water-rivers-less than 1/8 mile wide (660 ft.)
D-9
ITEM 97 ·
. Jl: RANGE riODUCTION FOIM ' ' ' I" I I 4tocATIOH 1 1 1 61 rwt stu 10 .
0
14
WEIGHT Of C\frrED IIAI'TS.
fiiSI.ClllfiJIG SECONO.tliPri~G
SfiCI!S P.O!NT !'OINT I'OINT rGII'II
COOl I J 3 t
fOIHI fOIHI IOIHT KliNt fOIHT POilU ~~-~~ ~~ ~~ !,~~ ~~ '1o~:
s· 6 l I f ID Ha mouno WlfGHI NO. WllGIIf '"'""'
321 ·~~~ m.
I I I I I I I I I I I I 1\ Jl Jl. X X'X X X )( i0( X'X')C. T'
rihl Ill )4j15J16 17JIIIl
X'X X x J\ I I I I I I I I 9! MAP UNit
8lmc1rs I I It I I II I I 1.1 TT I I I I I I I I TT I I I I I I I I I
I II t I I I II I I I I I I I I I I 1·1 II I I I 11 I I I II TT T
'
Ill t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t 1 1 I I Tl TT T
I I I I I I I II I I IT TT I I I I I I I I -fT I I I I I I I I I I I
ITT I I I 1-I I I I IT TT I I II II I I Tl I I I I I I Tl TT T
I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I ~I I I I I 1 11 I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I
I ITt I I I I I I I IT T-T I I I I ITo I TT 1 11 I I I I I Tt t
I II I I I I I I I I IT TT t 1 I I I I II I I 1 11 11 1 11 11 1
TTTI I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 11 11 I 1 I I IT
I I I' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TT I 11 I I I II Tl 1
•19 holnl12l13 141 1119 20l2H
I I I I I I I II I I IT TT I I I I I I II. I I 1 11 tl I II I I I
TTl I I I I II I I I I I I I I. I I I I I I TT 1 I I I I 1 1 I 11 1
ITTTI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II TT I I I I I 1 11 11 1
I I I I I I I I I I I I I -IT I I I I I I I I I I 1 11 I 1 I I I II -1
I I II I I I I I II I I I I 11 I I I I II I I 1 1.1 11 1 II TT 1
I II I I I I I I I I I I IT I I ~I IT ol I I 1 11 1 ~ 1 11 ITT
I I I I 1 I I I I TT II I I I I I I I I I I TT I I 1 1 I 1 11 I I I
I I 11 I I I I I I I I I II I I ! I I I II I I o 11 11 1 11 ITT
I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I I I I 1 11 I 1 1 I I Tl 1
TTTTI I I I I I I I I TT I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 11 I 1 I
Tl I I I 11 I I I I 1r TT 1 t I I I I I I TT 1 1 I I 1 1 I I 1 I I
I I I It I I I I IT I I I I I I I I I I I I Tl t 11 11 1 11 ITT
1l9holll I(ISII6il~23(24 [~j
ITEM 83
ITEM 98
Enter the common or scientific name for each plant
encountered on the plot.
SPECIES CODE
Enter the species code for the plant as found on the back
of the habitat form,
ESTL~TED WEIGHT PER SPECIES
Estimate and record by species the ~eight of all plants (or
parts of plants) ~hich fall ~thin the sampling frame.
Enter the ~eight using three digits. Example:
Weight Code
3 grams 003
23 grams 023
321 grams 321
no plant present 001
trace 888
Record code 001 if one of the observed species is not found
in the 2x2 plot.
Record code 888 ~hen there is only a -tr ... ce of a partic:ular
species. ·A trace ~auld ~eigh 2 grams or less.
ITEMS 99,102 CLI?li'E.D POINT NUMBER
leo, ITEMS 03
The first plants of each species encountered ~ithin plots
-1-5 and •Jithin plots 6-10 ~ill be clipped and ~eighed.
Record the appropriate point numbers on ~hich each species
is clipped and ~eighed.
Code Point Code Point
01 1 06 6
02 2 07 7
03 3 08 8
04 4 09 9
05 5 10 10
WET WEIGHT
Record the ~et ~eight of the current year's growth for each
species c.lipped. Record the ~eight in grams as a 3-digit
code. This may be done on location or later the same dav
--~ at camp. Record 001 if no plants ~ere clipped. Record 888
if there are 2 grams or less of any species.
D-11
WET WEIGHT (CONT.)
Weight
3 grams
313 grams
Code
No weight specimen
Trace under 2 grams
003
313
001
888
DRY WEIGHT
NOT FIELD RECORDED.
The weight ·recorded
items 100 and 103.
data.
Recorded after vegetation has bee:t dried.
will be for the same material weighed in
Use the same .codes for traces ·and missing
TALL BRUSH PLOT
On points 4 and 8 of the location, establish the lO'x 10' tall
brush plot as shown on the vegetation location diagram.
The plot should be viewed three-dimensionally (length, width,
and height) and only the vegetation within that cube evaluated
regardless of its origin. For example, if a plant is rooted on
the plot, only that portion within the plot boundary should be
considered even though a portion of the plant extends beyond
the plot boundary. If the plant is rooted out of the plot
boundary, but: extends onto the plot, only that port: ion which
lies within the perimeter of the plot should be considered.
The common tall brush species are already labeled on the form.
·Enter the common name and species code of any additional tall
brush species found on the plot.
MAXIMUM DIAMETER
The maximum diameter (mm) of stem considered in estimating
available browse is indicated here. Indicated in this column
for each species is the maximum diameter of twigs estimated and
clipped as available browse. If species is not listed use 5
millimeters unless other instructions are given.
D-12
ITEMS 100, 103
ITEMS 101,104
ITEM 105
NUMBER OF UNITS
For each species select a sample unit (2 or J branches) within
the plot perimeter. Using this sample unit, estimate the
number of units of this size that remain inside the plot
boundary and under 10 feet in height. Record the number of
units. (Be sure to include the sample unit).
WET WEIGHT
Clip all the current year growth from the selec.ted sample unit
for each species and place it in a paper bag. Label the bag
with:
1. location number
2. point number
J. date (month/day/year
4. species
5. plot size
6. number of units
Use a waterproof felt tip marker to label the bag. Place in
plastic bag and bring the sample back to camp. Green/or .wet
weights may be determined. in the field or at camp.
Deduct the weight of the bag to obtain the true weight. of the
green current years growth.
Record the weight on the bag and on .the form. Even if green
weight is determined in the field, the sample must be brought
h __ ~~-~ .• to ~am-,.. ~~ ~h~~i-,, A~ ·w·=i~L,·,•s ----------J. --o -•
ITEM 106
ITEM 107
DRY WEIGHT ITEM 108
NOT FIELD RECORDED. This process will be carried out in the
office at a later date after the green material has dried.
Record the dry weight on the form and on the paper bag.
NUMBER OF UNITS ITEM 109
Using the same sample unit selected for the measure of
productivity under 10 feet in height, estimate the number of
like size sample units that protrude above an imaginar; 10 foot
line and still within the plot boundary (10' xlO' square)
projected straight up in the area. Enter the number of
estimated sample units on the form.
D-13
[l23~ sm il TAllORLISH fORM --'-410C~IION 611101 m1 -_, __
i . POINT •I . POINT 8
~
'I riOOUCIIVIIY fiODU~IIVIIY ! < , >I 1 AY!oll~!fll: !!OWU 1 > , t.VAUA•U llOWS' :1 10 0 • . < 10 10
I IPfCIU ~ irlCIIl 106 107 108 109 110 H1 112 Ill 106 11)7 101 109 110 l~l 112 Ill
ll NAME :o:J IJ COOl NQOI WU DaY 1.0.01 NO.Of ~~~$! Wfl DIY tlO.OI WEI DaY NO.OI NOOI IW>I Wtl IllY I -UNIIS WIIGIII WIIGIII llllll$ SIJMS IWIG$ loii!GIII WEICllll UNlll WIIGIII Wflllllf U14111 SliMS JINlll' WfiGUJ WIIGIIJ
I ~~p!j!!jE !!jlsjTh !i)!!j!! §j!!jE 23jl•j~ ~jEj2.a ~~3o !!jEjE l4jl5p6 EJ~ ~~ ~!4~5 ~p?j•a ·~~~51 s~~ ~~~6 S7jssjsv
A~PHi
PAPER BIRf"ll
I I I I I I _I I I I I I I I-I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I rnT I Tr rrTI I I I I I. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
1 = ,,~ i i : i 1 i : i i i r i i 1 i ~ir~:::-: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : ~: : : :~ ~ =:'< : : : ; ; : ; ; ; : ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; I ~ ; I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
· I IIIII 11111111111111111111111111 Ann A~
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .I TTl I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
1·1rn ITTI-rl_l_l_n_I_III_TTTI_I_f_.-riiTl-rTrTn.TI II I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I Ll I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IT
~~*11'1'61171"1 ~2'12212312~1~*-****~I!!I~~E~~~~~~1i*~l~~~lw~l~i!l~~~~~~~~~
I II II II II II I II II 11111111 r I I II II I I I fll II rn I I II I I I I I
I I I I I I I l I I I I I I I I I I IITTT I TT IT I I I I I I I I I I I I TTT I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1111_1_1 T I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11-1-IT I -~~-n II I I I I I I I I I I
1-...;.._-----1-1 I I I I I I I I I n1111rn I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1.1 I I I I I I rn-m
111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
ITTTTn 11-n I I I I I I I 1--rl I I I I I I I I I I I I ITTTITTII-TTI I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I oTTT
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I J. I I I . I . rr I I I I I I I I I -~~-~ I .. I .. I .. I I
•-·•-~• .. 1 ... 1 ... 1 •• r ... 1 •. 1 ... 1 .... 1 .... r ..... r ... r ..... lu.l.-. r.: ... r ... r .... t .... l.t -----~---0 * i I i~'f:':t_ .I_. i __ J ...... I. ... f .... J ... i., .. J .• u ..... , . .,., .. •• ••• ,. •• ,.,,.no:.:#l5ni11,.,., .... ~11;J41"-'1"''t".::'fii~J:!f J~VI"~
ITEM 110
ITEM 1U
ITEM 112
ITEM 113
AVAILABLE BROWSE
In a sample unit, count the number of ste~ tips that have a
diameter less than the maximum diameter indicated in Item
105 and that lie within the perimeter of the tall br.Jsh.
plot ( 100 sq. ft.) below a h.eigh.t of 10 feet:. Include all
stems wh.ich are less than the maximum diameter whether
current year's growth or not. Multiply by the nu1J1be::-of
units and record.
PERCENT BROWSED TWIGS
Estimate and record the percentage of t•.;igs showing recent
use as browse.
WET WEIGHT, BROWSE
At the maximum diameter indicated in Item 105 or at 5. 0
millimeters, clip and weigh 10 stem tips and enter the
average weight. Place the stems in a paper bag and label
the bag with:
1. location number
2. point number
3. date (month, day, year)
4. plot size •
5. total weight of sample
6. average weight of stem
7. number of stems ~n.·the plot
Write with a waterproof felt tip marker. Place in a
plastic bag and bring back to camp for further analysis.
DRY WEIGHT, BROWSE
NOT FIELD RECORDED. This process will be carried out in
the office at a later date. Weigh the sample after the
green material dries and obtain average dry weight per
stem. Enter the data on the form. Record the dry weight
on the paper bag.
D-15
114· Slope (degrees)
A direct measurement of the average slope of the plotless area vtsible
fro• each transect using a clinometer along the direction of the slope.
·115· Aspect (degrees from true nol'th)
The aspect of the slope along which each transect runs should be miasured
using a 111agiletic compass. · If the transect is tht'ough an at'ca cllaracter-
i&ed as flat. ridgetop. narrow valley bottom, water. indicate as such
and do .not record aspect.
116~ Mict'o-relief
A Elevated micro-relief of tussocks. hummocks, polygons. anJ
ridges exte~sive
B Elevated feature~. prese!'t with. areas of re~ativ.~ly flat
~nicro-relief
C ._ Unifomly flat ·or ne.:~rly so·
A subjective evnluatlon o.f' the micro-relief within e::ach riot.
117· Micro-topography
A -Gro.und. flat
I -S•all hU11110cks up to 6 inches tall
C • Tall hummocks 6 to 12 inches tall
D ... Undercut and collapsing hummocks 12 to 2D inches tall
E -Areas with hummocks greater than 12 inches tall
118· Type of vegetation in ground cover
A-HerbaceOus plantS which tend to form tussocks aOd hummocks.
mostly less than.2 .feet tall
B -. Low shrubs which tend to form clu~ps and hummocks such as
dwarf birch or bog myrtle
C -Combination--· of both A and B
D -Either _A, '8, or C, but with extensive undecompo~ed moss cover
"E -. Other plant types
.~ Other plant types with extensive undecomposed moss cover or
only_ mOss
An ocular esti~ate of the dominant vegetation type within ench plot.
119· White $pn1ce cone production
A-Greater than SOD cones on 75-100% Of tl'ces;
100-500 cones on all trees
B -Greater then 500 cones on SD·7S~ of trees;
100-SOO cones on all trees
C -Less than 100 cones on S0-75\ of trees;
Greater than·SOD coneS on some trees
D • Less than lDO cones on S0-75\ of trees;
Greater thon SOD-cones on occasional trees
E -· Less than lUO cones on occasional trees;
or no cones on any trees
D-16
It is difficult to estimate tho nWll.ber of cones per tree. Standardiza-
tion of tho osti•ates of the various biologists involved in· the study
is necessary through a process of. ostimat~ng and _then counting many
trees. Once estimates are reliable. white spruce trees selected by
point centered quarter method should bo evaluated. Ad~ltionnl trees
may have to be nndoal.Y selectod for evaluation. ·
120. Small t-ree cavities (less than 5" diameter and greater than 2" do_ep)
Record the number.
121. Large tree cavities ( greater than 5" diouneter)
122. Avenge size of openinss among tree trunks (feet)
A Openings 21-30 feet across
B Openings 31-40 feet across
C Openings 15~20 feet across
0 Openi~gs less than 15 o-r greater than 40 feet across
An oculilr estim11te of th.: ·!lvcrag~ diam~tt.:r of !Jp~tnings J?otw.::en trunks
of trees as they occur in the plotless area visible froa·each transect.
123 • Haximum beisht of ground vegetation (inches)
An ocular estimate of the •aximum height of understory ~egetati9n in the
openings aiDOng the trees. Heasure aaxirnua height within.· each plot that
fall within an opening and estimate •aximum height in tbe openings
within the plotless area visible fo~ each transect. Round to the
neare:>t foot.·· ·
124 • Average height of around vegetation in openings at least 15. feet wide c£
An ocular estimate of the maximum height of understory·vegotation within
plots or plotless areas visible fro• each transect which are located ~"
openings greater than 15· feet side among tree trunks.
125 • Pei'cent brrophy;:e and graminifol'li .;:over less than one fo.ot high in
open1ngs
An ocular estimate of the percent bryophyte and graminiform cover le$S
than one foot in height and within openings between shrUb clumps and/or
tree!!. Esti~tcs e:!)' be "'.a.de !:'ithin p!ots or !:'ith!n the p!ot!esl!l are.'
visible froa each transect, ~hich~ver method is most'appropriate.
126 . EJaphic mixture within. stand
A Varied lllOi:>ture conditions.; numerous openings and marshy
areas wlth herbs
B Varied moisture conditions but with marshy areas less dominant
C Uniformly dry
0 Uniformly moist
E Almost continually flooded
F ContinuallY flooded
o~J7
0
1 -
())
IHLDLIFE FORM
lilllllljll 11_11 1111•1.11 II
1---·~---·---------~-r-r·l-r'rt'"ri~l 1 1 ~-,..; !-f'l 1"1-l 1 1 1 1 1 1
115 Aspect (Degrees from true north) I j
1
r~;.;;;£=::.....:.;:;.~;,;;.:;;:..,.;=~=-...::.:;;~1_,--_ f-r,-~-~~ T T' . CI.Ti ··1 I I I I 1 1 o I I I I I T
c..U6 Micro-relief , J-!.1:.:17~-.:.M;:;i.:.:cr:..:o~-.:.:to:..lp:.:o~gr:.;a::l:p;;;h:.,Y ________ -ht"T-1'1 I I~~ I I I I I I I I I I I I
, __ Jo.110.\8:...,.:T,;vn_..:e:;..;;;o.:;,f_.,.:v;,;;e!"'Jl.e~.•t;.::a~t;;io:,:.n:..:-i~n~..a;; gJro::,:u~n~d.:,:. c::::o:.tv.::.er:-__1-:"i' II 1 1 1
I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~ 1
.
1 1 1 1
~ill '--~~ ... "'i..;.te.;...;;s,;.pr:.;u;:'"".;;.;;;e_c;.;o;.;.;n..;.e-..,-p,.;lr.;;,od;;,;u;.;c;.;;t.;.;io;;.n;..· ----r-~· ~~,. j. l I r"1' T'l'-I I I I .1 I . I I I I ""iT"
_],20 Small tree cavities . I 1 1 1 ' I I I I I I I I I 1 I l I I
121 Large tree cavities l 1-1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I 1 1 1 I I . 1 1 1_ 1
II II I I II II II 11· 11' I I II 122 Av. size of openings among tree trunks r12;.;:;3---~-.:..........;;:;.,. ,.;.;;,.;,;.;::;_;.;-.;,...;;,;;;=~'i""l j-I I -n I 1-I I' T I I I I I I I I I
Mov h~; nh• nf "OI<QI!Jldl.., ,vegeta.t,i.c.~l =14 '
124 Av hgt, ground Vel!· in OPenln!!e~-_}lS;-rl II I . I I I I I r I I I I .. I I I I I I
12S%Bryophyt,e/gramininform. (1' in openings ,-l 1 T ..,..,. 1 1 1 I 1 .1 · -1 ·1 1 1 1 1 --~--.-
126 P.-1· ,J,. • ··• l •h, -,. A I "'i'"" I I . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
~12;.;7;..II:'nWJt.P.erll.;su;po,.;ew.;rs~i;.~;o.u;nt:lol.::f~sJ.!h"-llriJ.ub~s.:;J;&ollll!ll;oi-w-er-v"'e-g.--+'-r,· -T I I I I I I I I I 1 1· 1 1 1 1 · 1 1 1
---------~-~---------------------~--~-~~~~~·~~~-~~~~~~~~~~~R-1 .I I I I I I I I_ I I 1_1 I I_ I I I I I I ~8 Intersner~_ion wLmoose cover habitat
129 Interspersion with wetlands
.130 Bank suitability .
I l I I I I I I I I 1,1 __ I I I I •• I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
131 % cover of aquatic forage I l I I I I I I I I' I I . I I I I .· I I I I
J-i•J-,2~Do_m_l_n"a_n_t-·a-;·•u..:a-tl-.C-Ve_g_e_t..;at:.;i_o_n ____ -f_""i'\ 'j I I I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I . I I I I
•mrrpe Of• l;ntic W~ter body • j' f.·. I I I I I I I I I I I I . I I I I I I -----... I I II II II II -~-~--TI--1-1 ,I-l~-_1_34 Degree of etrtTophica1±on -• · •
135 Water depth . · I I I I I I _ I I I I I I . '"'i I I I I l I I
t-13_6_R;.:.:i;.;:s.;;,e::..o.;;r~f-.;a;.;l;_l_f_ro_m_no_r_m_H_I,-IO_d_e-pt ... h---l-_"1"-'"1 ll-+_""l-r-1-l-11''"'11"-I I I I . 'I I . I I r 'I . I I I I
137 Substrate type
~·-..
I,--_1 I I l I I I I I I I I _1 I 1'1 f1
rl · _l l -r'1 I I I I ·1 'I I I I I l 'I ·=-r4-
1 f II I I "1 ~--11 I I_ I I ·r·l I I I I
NOTES•
J-----------.--"'"""-ii-1-tl I I I _I l I I I I I L I 1· I I I I I •
I-I I I ll I ' I I I l I I I ·. I I ..,*lj-, l I
-... -... --.. ·~~---,_-· -·-~··--i-..,_.-----+~~G]Io iilliii3 i.ir.sli: 17.11alt9 20121 m 23124125 26\27\28 2'9.\JOlJI J2l33l3413siJ6\37
•. ·t·-==-cw -
127• Interspersion of shrubs and lower vegetation
A. Shrubs 3-8 feet tall, isolated in extensive areas of vep,;etation
less than one foot
B -Shrubs 3-8 feet tall in clusters scattered variously throughout
areas of · .. egetation less than 1 foot
c·-Shrubs 3-8 fC!et tall in wide belts dominating area with occnsional
openings of vegetation less than 1 foot
A subjC!ctive evaluation of the Interspersion of shrubs and lower vegetation
may be btased on the plotless area visible from each transect.
128· Interspersion with moose cover habitat (forests, shrublands)
A .. Highly interspersed with pockets of cover habitat
B -•loderately intet"sper~cd -poCkets of cover habitat Common
but not abundant ·
C -Few or no signifiCant pockets "of cover habitat. but homogeneous
cover type is bordered bY forests or shrublands
D -Few or no significant pockets of cover habitat.: bot"dered by a
Slllall ai!IQunt of forcH or sht•ul:ll:md vcget:~t ion
E .... Nu significant cover habitat within any t"c<Uonable Uist>tncu
A sUbjective evaluation of the interspersion of clumps of tnes o.nd/ot"
shrUbs within and around the homogenous vegetation type being samples
based on the plotless. area visible fro. each transect.
129. Interspersion with wetlands (marsh, shallow lentlc, or slow lotic w~ter)
A • Highly interspersed with wetland pockets; nUillerous bogs,
•arshes. ponds. shallow lakes or sloughs
B ... P.foderately interspersed • wetland pockets common but not
abundant
C Few or no signiflcont wetland pockets, but ho~genous ccver
~ype is bot"dered by ueas of wetland habitat
D -Few or no significant wetland pockets; bordet"ed by a small
amount of wetlands
E • No significant wetland habitat within any reaso11<~hle distance
A subjective evaluation of the interspersion of wetlands and/or shallOu
freshwater areas within and at"ound the homogeneous vegetation t:)"[IC being
· •8111pled based on the plotle!SS at"ea visible from each tr.:lnsect.
130 •. Bank suitability
A -f.lost of bank (at least 75\) well vegetated with perennial plants;
not slumping ot" eroded
B Most of bank (at leaSt 75\) well vegetated with annual plants;
not slumping or et"oded
C .;. ~t"e than 25\ of bank t"CW 0 bare. and undercut
D Bank steep and high; slumping. subject to erosion
E -Bank of solid rock; steep
D-19
131. Percent cover of aquatic forage
An ocular estiNte of the percent cover of herbaceous aquatic plan:
such a~ eelgrass, duckweeds, pondweeds, water lilies~ cat~tail~ an'
horse~tails. The most appropriate.sa~pling method should be used.
132. Do•inant aquatic vegetation
A Emergent vegetation (streams, ponds, lake~)
8 Floating and submerged vegetation (streams, ponds, lakes)
An ocular estimate based on tho relative percent covers of emergeni'
vegetation versus float ina: and submerS:ent vegetation in a freshwater body.
List plant species in notes.
133· !ypo of lentic water body
A Reiatively clear shallow water; open shoreline (not closed in
by trees) with extensive emergent ve~etation
8 Relatively clear, shallow wateri some ~mergent vegetation;
with/without close trees
C Ot:ep watur 10ith low Sp...lngy floating r.~at
0 Deep oligotrophic water; no aquatic vegetation
E Stamant water with plankton blooms
An ocular estimate of the depth' and veget.:~tion pattern of a lentic
water body and the tree situation aiong the shoreline. "ShallOw"
is defined as not so deep as to preclude ~onsiderable digging and ( ;ing
by trumpeter swans for lower aquatic plant parts, roots, tubers, e~,~
134. Degree of eutrophication (May to October)
A lfigllly oligotrophic
8 Slightly oligotrophic
C -Moderately oliKotrophic
D Distinctly eutrophic
E Highly eutrophic
''llighly ofigotrophic" refers to freshwater bodies that arc paor in
nutrients and therefore have few or no aquatic in~ects or pl~"~$ and
are likely to be very deep. ''Slightly eutrophic" r-efers to frcSh\mter
bodies in which plankton and aquatic plants nnd insects .:1re present/
but not abundant. "Moderately eutrophic" refers to freshwater bodt
th.:Lt have moderate amounts of plankton and aqua.tic plants and insectS,
a moderate accumulation of urganic material in the littorl.l :one, bu::
at least 70 percent open W.:Ltcr. "Distinctii' lll!tropl'lic" rci1~rs .to
fresh,~ater botlills :hat h:lVe :abt.:nJunt pl:lnl.:rou :tnJ :utuat L:: insu.::ts ;;.nJ
plants, extensive organic material in the littoral :vn~. anJ nnly .lO
to 70 p•trcent open water. "Highly eutrophic" ref~rs to freSh\>atcr
bodies that are either shallow and choked with plant gr01~th with less
than 40 percent open water or, if plants aro abs~nt, too low in oxygen
to support aquatic insects. A subjective evaluation based on general
reconnaissance of randora representatives ~f ~acl.1 tVUtl of .fresh\~atPr
D-.20
135. Water depth (inches)
The depth of a shallow freshw>~.ter body may be determined with a weighted
measure tape along the most appropri3te transects. Depths less than 30
inches are ideal for moose. Depths greater than SO inches are too Jeep
for moose and need not be measured.
136. Ri~o or fall from nomal water depth ffeet)
A subjective evaluation of the seasonal fluctuations of the water level
of a freshwater body may be made based on the shoreline characteristics.
Fluctuations of less than two feet need not be quantified as they present
no problem to beavers.
137. Substrate trpe
A-Lake on shale slide on steep sl9pe
8 -Lake on other substrate
C .:. Strca11 channel protected from rapid d01mcutting; channel bed I ined
uith large boulder~~ dike!\, r:IOI":lines, an<l slides not of rcct.ln!.
origin; rocks :;tuhle (ghci;ll till, :;chl$t, ~r:mite)
D -Stream channel bed lined with loose soft fine-textures materials
readily' movable in waterj may be currently eroding or filling;
rocks unstable type~ such as shale and sandstone
Investigate available geological information for the local area. Field
reconnaissance along representative types of lotic water bodie5 should
allow adequate subjective evnluation.
D-21
ASD-FPP 1805-86