HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA4166t
SUSITNA REGIONAL FOREST PLAN
FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES
January, 1990
This DRAFT report summarizes the distribution, habitat
requirements, food habits, and potential logging impacts to a
number of fish and wildlife species found in the Susitna Regional
Forest Plan area. Background information is also summarized from
which management guidelines were developed to avoid or ameliorate
impacts to the fish and wildlife resource in the planning area.
Introduction
The primary goal of this document is to provide an integrated
discussion of timber and wildlife habitat management and to
identify most of the necessary wildlife habitat components which
can be maintained or enhanced while allowing for the development of
a forest products industry. This goal can only be achieved by
recognizing the habitat requirements for healthy wildlife
populations and then incorporating those requirements into a
comprehensive timber management plan.
Purpose
The department believes that biologically sound timber management
practices can be compatible with most populationjhabi tat management
goals of moose and could also improve habitat quality for other
wildlife species. This compatibility can be realized from a better
understanding of the interactions between wildlife species and the
forest community, how those interactions change over time, and how
wildlife populations respond to various silvicultural practices.
The timber industry is in a unique position to influence the future
abundance wildlife resources, especially moose, in southcentral and
interior Alaska. It can manipulate timber harvesting practices to
enhance areas of deteriorating or marginal moose habitat or
conversely, degrade currently productive moose habitat through the
conversion of forest habitats to less desirable forms. The main
purpose for developing this document is to provide some basic
guidelines to wildlife habitat management and forest management
compatible.
Objectives
* To summarize knowledge appropriate to southcentral Alaska that
describes moose habitat requirements, and their relationships
to timber harvest activities.
* To develop specific guidelines to maintain and enhance the
capability of the available land base to efficiently produce
and sustain moose and other wildlife resources desired by the
Alaska Department of Fish and Game in response to public
demand.
* To maintain and improve coordination and communication with
all agencies that may have land management responsibilities
that include timber harvest activities.
* To provide input to the appropriate agencies to enable the
orderly development of wood products on commercial forest
lands in a manner consistent with current and anticipated
future demand for those products, the existing land
capability, and the protection of the wildlife resource.
MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR IMPROVING MOOSE HABITAT
THROUGH FOREST MANAGEMENT IN THE SOUTHCENTRAL REGION
by
Steven w. Albert
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Division of Habitat
Anchorage
September 1988
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Goals
1. 2 Purpose
1.3 Objectives
2.0 TIMBER MANAGEMENT IN SOUTHCENTRAL ALASKA
2.1 State Level
2.2 Federal Level
2.3 Private Interests
3.0 EFFECTS OF FORESTRY PRACTICES ON MOOSE POPULATIONS
4.0 MOOSE HABITAT REQUIREMENTS
5.0 MOOSE MANAGEMENT IN SOUTHCENTAL ALASKA
5.1 Population Management
5.2 Habitat Management
6.0 RECOMMENDED GUIDELINES FOR IMPROVING MOOSE HABITAT
7.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF MOOSE HABITAT MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES
8.0 LITERATURE CITED
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Leopold (1933) defined wildlife management as " . . the art of
making land produce sustained annual crops of wild game for
recreational use." With respect to moose, one aspect of this
process involves the management, or direct manipulation, of
populations to increase or decrease numbers of animals depending
on the state of balance between the animals and their habitats.
Another aspect of moose management deals with management of
habitat to increase or better support desired numbers of moose.
Management of habitats and of populations are closely linked.
In southcentral Alaska, the available area of high quality moose
habitat is shrinking rapidly. In the next few decades lands will
be lost to further urban expansion, second home development,
mineral development projects such as coal strip mines or mining
of construction materials (gravel, limestone). Fire suppression
efforts by various agencies prevent stands from returning to
early seral stages. Other land uses such as agriculture andjor
timber production may also be competitive in varying degrees.
Concurrently, public interest in sport hunting and nonconsumptive
recreational use of moose has increased substantially greatly
increasing demand for moose. Large increases in recreational
activities such as photography, hiking, and nature studies are
expected in which moose or caribou, are a major attraction.
In the past, moose habitats in southcentral Alaska were often
improved by wildfire, land clearing, or abandonment of homesteads
and croplands. Presently, game managers cannot rely on such
factors to create or improve habitat. The creation or
enhancement of moose habitat in the future must be planned and
coordinated with other land uses. Cooperative interagency
forest management and planning may provide opportunities to
partially meet future habitat needs for moose. The following
set of management guidelines is offered to planning agencies to
be used in that context.
Any major moose habitat management program requires a definition
of purpose, goals, and objectives, the latter of which can
involve an evaluation of values because certain objectives may be
incompatible. For example, although a moose habitat management
program may bring about increased moose production, it may also
reduce the perceived "naturalness" of the landscape and
consequently the quality of the sport hunting or wilderness
experience of nonconsumptive users.
1.1 Goal
The primary goal of this project is to provide an integrated
discussion of timber and moose habitat management to identify all
of the necessary moose habitat components which can be
maintained or enhanced while allowing for the development of a
forest products industry. This goal can only be achieved by
recognizing the habitat requirements for a healthy moose
population and then incorporating those requirements into a
comprehensive timber management plan.
1. 2 Purpose
The department believes that biologically sound timber management
practices can be compatible with most moose population/habitat
management goals and could also improve habitat quality for other
wildlife species. This compatibility can be realized from a
better understanding of the interactions between moose and the
forest community, how those interactions change over time, and
how moose respond to various silvicultural practices.
The timber industry is in a unique position to influence future
moose abundance in southcentral and interior Alaska.
It can manipulate timber harvest practices to enhance areas of
deteriorating or marginal moose habitat or conversely, degrade
currently productive moose habitat through the conversion of
forest habitats to less desirable forms. The purpose in
developing this document is to provide some basic guidelines to
wildlife habitat management and forest management compatible.
1.3 Objectives
1. 3.1
1. 3. 2
1. 3. 3
1. 3. 4
To summarize knowledge appropriate to southcentral
Alaska that describes moose habitat requirements,
and their relationships to timber harvest
activities.
To develop specific guidelines to maintain and
enhance the capability of the available land base
to efficiently produce and sustain moose
populations and distributions desired by the
Alaska Department of Fish and Game in response to
public demand.
To maintain and improve coordination and
communication with all agencies that may have land
management responsibilities that include timber
harvest activities.
To provide input to the appropriate agencies to
enable the orderly development of wood products on
commercial forest lands in a manner consistent
with current and anticipated future demand for
those products, the existing land capability, and
the protection of the wildlife resource.
MOOSE
Leopold (1933) defined wildlife management as " . . the art of
making land produce sustained annual crops of wild game for
recreational use. " With respect to moose, one aspect of this
process involves the management, or direct manipulation, of
populations to increase or decrease numbers of animals depending on
the state of balance between the animals and their habitats.
Another aspect of moose management deals with management of habitat
to increase or better support desired numbers of moose. Management
of habitats and of populations are closely linked.
In southcentral Alaska, the available area of high quality moose
habitat is shrinking rapidly. In the next few decades lands will
be lost to further urban expansion, second home development,
mineral development projects such as coal strip mines or mining of
construction materials (gravel, limestone). Fire suppression
efforts by various agencies prevent stands from returning to early
seral stages. Other land uses such as agriculture andjor timber
production may also be competitive in varying degrees.
Concurrently, public interest in sport hunting and nonconsumptive
recreational use of moose has increased substantially greatly
increasing demand for moose. Large increases in recreational
activities such as photography, hiking, and nature studies are
expected in which moose or caribou, are a major attraction.
In the past, moose habitats in southcentral Alaska were often
improved by wildfire, land clearing, or abandonment of homesteads
and croplands. Presently, game managers cannot rely on such
factors to create or improve habitat. The creation or enhancement
of moose habitat in the future must be planned and coordinated with
other land uses. Cooperative interagency forest management and
planning may provide opportunities to partially meet future habitat
needs for moose. The following set of management guidelines is
offered to planning agencies to be used in that context.
Any major moose habitat management program requires a definition of
purpose, goals, and objectives, the latter of which can involve an
evaluation of values because certain objectives may be
incompatible. For example, although a moose habitat management
program may bring about increased moose production, it may also
reduce the perceived "naturalness" of the landscape and
consequently the quality of the sport hunting or wilderness
experience of nonconsumptive users.
General Distribution: Moose are widely distributed throughout
the planning area with some of the highest densities recorded along
the Susitna River and in its major tributary drainages. Moose
distribution is mainly influenced by the availability of habitats
that can offer a mosaic of cover-and food-producing units.
Food Habits: Moose are browsers and feed primarily on trees and
3
shrubs. Browse (deciduous woody plants) is the most important form
of vegetation eaten by moose in southcentral Alaska and comprises
75-80% of the diet on normal winter range but declines in use as
herbaceous vegetation becomes more available in spring and summer
(LeResche et al. 1974b).
In the Susitna valley, Chatelain (1951, 1952) found that willow,
birch, cottonwood, and aspen, in decreasing order, comprised
practically all the winter food of moose in this area. Based on a
study of moose rumen samples collected between Willow and
Talkeetna, Shepherd (1958) found that willow and birch comprised
almost 90% of the total identifiable volume. Aspen, Populus spp.,
and highbush cranberry and 12 other plant species made up the
remaining 10% volume. Spencer and Chatelain (1953) conducted
spring browse surveys on the Kenai Peninsula and reported willow,
birch, aspen and cottonwood supplied 95% of the winter forage for
moose. LeResche and Davis (1973) described seasonal food habits of
three semi-tame moose from the Kenai Peninsula. In early winter
when snow depths were less than 30 em (12 in), sedges (Carex EPQ.)
were sought out wetland areas. In late winter, birch (72%) and
lowbush cranberry (21%) were the most important food items. In
Denali National Park, willows were the major summer and winter
foods along with dwarf birch and aspen (Murie 1944). Conifers are
not an important component in moose diets, primarily because the
two major species present, white spruce and black spruce, are
considered unpalatable to moose (Murie 1944).
In addition to the previously mentioned browse species, moose
utilize a variety of terrestrial and aquatic herbaceous plants. In
early spring, newly emergent sedges, horsetail (Eguisetum spp.),
and pondweed (Potomogeton spp.) are consumed in boggy areas and
lakes and ponds (LeResche and Davis 1973). Aquatic plants are
eaten with decreasing frequency throughout the summer as
palatability decreases (Peterson, 1955). Summer foods, as observed
by Spencer and Chatelain ( 1953) , were comprised of almost two-
thirds birch leaves, one-fourth forbs, such as fireweeds (Epilobium
angustifolium and~ latifolium), lupine (Lupinus nootkatensis),
and cloudberry (Rubus chamaemorus). Mushrooms, grasses, sedges,
and aquatics constitued the remainder of the diet. LeResche and
Davis (1973) noted that in summer 65, 25, and 10% of all bites
taken were parts of deciduous woody plants, forbs and a combination
of grasses, sedges, and aquatics respectively.
cushwa and Coady (1976) observed that snow conditions, particularly
snow depth, can influence food availability and lead to variable
patterns of food preferences. For example on the Kenai Peninsula,
LeResche and Davis (1973) recognized the importance of lowbush
cranberry, a nonbrowse food, especially when it becomes unavailable
under the snow. During the winter of 1971-72, early snow covered
all of the lowbrush cranberry resulting in an almost complete loss
of calves. Dead calves were found with rumens full of birch and
severely decreased body weights indicating that a lowering of diet
4
diversity may limit moose densities.
Habitat Requirements: Moose habitat needs include a source of
food, cover, and water interspersed evenly throughout the
landscape. Forage and nutient requirements are provided by a
diverse mixture of deciduous trees and shrubs, aquatic and
herbaceous vegetation and a source of mineral elements. Forest
cover provides security from predation and shelter from severe
winter conditions.
Winter Habitat Preferences in the susitna River Valley
Chatelain (1951) concluded that the most important limiting factor
to moose in the susitna River valley was the quantity and quality
of winter range. In southcentral Alaska many studies have
demonstrated the importance of riparian habitats for the winter
survival of moose (Spencer and Hakala 1964, LeResche et al. 1974a,
Modafferi 1984, Machida 1979, Albert and Shea 1986). Riparian
willow stands provide most winter forage with maximum use of these
areas occurring during periods of greatest snow depth. The value
of these wintering areas is enhanced by adjacent upland coniferous
forests that provide thermal cover and shallower snow depths.
LeResche et al. (1974a) and Modafferi (1984) recognized the
importance of upland climax communi ties as winter habitat for
moose. These communities are dominated by willow andjor shrub
birch (Betula glandulosa) and are found at or near timberline. The
availability and use of alpine wintering areas is likely governed
by snow depths. In years of deep snow the loss of these wintering
areas increases the importance of lowland wintering habitat as
greater numbers of moose are forced to concentrate in lowland
riparian habitats.
As winter progresses with greater snow depths, there is an increase
in moose use of coniferous habitats, especially, dense-canopy
stands dominated by white spruce. In addition to providing
shelter, Moen (1973) found that conifer stands provided a more
stable thermal balance for some ungulates by reducing wind
velocities and subsequent heat loss during extreme cold. In
Ontario, McNicol and Gilbert (1978, 1980) noted that moose used
residual stands of coniferous cover in cutovers as a wind break and
appeared to bed in the shallower snow depths on the leeward sides
of these stands.
cover
Forest management activities can influence forest wildlife habitats
on a broad scale by significantly changing patterns of forage and
cover areas over the landscape. In southcentral Alaska interest in
intensive management of commercial forest land is increasing
rapidly. This course of action could result in a rapid conversion
of old-growth forest to intensively managed second-growth forest.
5
----------------~------------------------
Initially it is expected that clearcut logging would create new
foraging areas adjacent to high quality cover provided by the
residual virgin forest. Moose populations would then increase in
response to the improved habitat conditions. However, further
rapid cutting of the remaining forest and accelerated development
of existing second-growth forests could lead to comparatively large
acreages of immature second-growth forest cover with limited forage
production with minimal residual cover that would lead to an
overall decline in moose numbers. Biologists often refer to this
as the "boom and bust" phenomenon because neither the forage nor
the cover necessary to support large moose populations can be
sustained over time. The department believes that forests in
southcentral Alaska can be managed for wood products and also
provide sustained quality habitat values for moose and some other
wildlife species. For this to occur, a coordinated and
interdisciplinary approach to forest management is necessary.
As previously stated, moose require areas that satisfy both the
summer and winter energy requirements of the animals. During
summer moose occupy energy-rich areas, but are usually forced by
winter conditions to move to areas where conditions are more
favorable for conservation of the energy stored during summer. The
well being of the population will depend on availability of
adequate forage and cover on both summer and winter ranges to meet
annual energy requirements.
Unfortunately, there is very little detailed information describing
how moose respond to varying ratios of harvested/unharvested areas.
In northeastern Ontario, Welsh et al. (1980) found higher use by
moose in areas where less than 40% of all timber had been removed.
Such areas consistently provide both cover and forage. Schwab
(1987) suggested that retension of at least 50% of all standing
timber by alternating 4 ha (10 ac) logged and unlogged patches
resulted in nearly ideal year-round moose habitat for north-central
British Columbia. Markgren (1974) attributed high moose densities
in Sweden to similar logging patterns. Based on results from from
these studies, the existing knowledge of moose habitat requirements
in the planning area, and observations by department biologists, it
appears that relatively large uncut areas in association with
harvested areas are a necessary component of good winter range.
Cover areas are important to moose because of the manner in which
cover modifies microclimates. In cover moose and other wildlife
are less susceptible to extremes in temperature, solar radiation,
windspeed, humidity, rain throughfall, and snow accumulation
(Geiger 1965, Brusnyk and Gilbert 1983). In addition cover reduces
the potential for predation and human disturbance.
Security cover.
The need for security cover by moose has been poorly defined.
Moose are more vulnerable to predation and hunting because of
6
increased visibility resulting from the removal of forest cover by
logging. Several studies in ontario have documented significant
declines in local moose populations due to increased access and
hunter kill following logging operations (Eason et al. 1981,
Timmerman and Gollat 1982, and Eason 1985).
In the boreal forest, moose prefer to use secluded habitats for
calving to m1n1m1ze the potential for predation and human
disturbance. Stephens and Peterson {1984) suggested that the use
of coniferous cover during the summer calving season was
attributable to the survival advantage accruable to very young
calves and reflected anti-predatory behavior. In southcentral
Alaska, these calving areas include isolated patches of black or
white spruce forest associated with open bog-meadow complexes
(Bailey and Bangs 1980, LeResche et al. 1974), upper elevation
coniferous forest and other small isolated forested sites.
Franzmann and Schwartz (1986) implied that moose preferred secluded
areas of coniferous cover to minimize black bear predation on
calves.
Security cover or hiding cover will be defined as vegetation
capable of hiding 90% of a standing adult moose from the view of a
human at a distance of 61 m (200 ft) or less (adapted from Thomas
et al. 1979) . This is the distance at which an animal is
essentially hidden. It may include some shrub stands and all
forested stands with adequate stem densities of overstory (trees),
understory (shrubs) or a combination of the two that will hide
animals.
Snow Interception Cover
Moose gain and lose energy continuously, and their survival and
reproduction are related to their net energy balance. Moose can
obtain the same net energy balance by increasing their energy gain
(forage intake) or by decreasing their energy losses (moving less,
moving through shallower snow, or conserving heat). Deep snow
affects this energy balance as well as moose habitat use by
increasing energy demands for movement and by decreasing energy
intake by limiting availability and accessibility of forage (Coady
1974). Moose are forced to move to habitats where coniferous cover
results in shallower snow depths and greater ease in movement and
select areas of shallow snow for travel.
There is an abundant amount of published literature that supports
the hypothesis that moose prefer to occupy browse-producing areas
(open areas) except when snow exceeds a critical depth. When snow
exceeds this critical depth, moose will retreat to cover types with
closed canopies and reduced snow depth. Nasimovitch (1955)
observed that adult moose abdomens were in contact with the snow
surface while running in snow depths of 85-90 em (34-36 in) and
concluded that snow depths greater than 90-100 em (36-40 in) were
7
critical limits for moose. Moose were unaffected by snow depths of
40-50 em (16-20 in), but were impeded by depths of 60-70 em (24-28
in) (Nasimovich 1955). DesMeules (1964) reported that snow depths
between 77-86 em (31-33 in) caused moose to leave clearcut areas
and areas with snow depths exceeding 107-122 em (43-48 in) were
avoided. Ritcey (1967) and Prescott (1968) noted that depths of
60-70 em (24-28 in) reduced moose mobility in British Columbia and
Nova Scotia, respectively.
Throughout the range of North American moose, animals generally
select dense cover when snow depths exceed some critical depth.
New Brunswick moose moved from open to dense forests when snow
depths exceeded 100 em (40 in) in open areas and were confined to
dense conifer habitat types when snow depths outside these types
averaged 113 em (45 in) (Telfer 1970). In eastern Canada, Kelsall
and Prescott (1971) reported that moose tracks were generally not
observed in areas lacking forest canopies. Moose movements beyond
those necessary for obtaining food were not evident. Prescott
(1968) observed that moose in Nova Scotia appeared to concentrate
in specific areas when snow depths approached 76 em. Van
Ballenberghe and Peek (1971) and Peek et al. (1976) observed moose
shifting from open areas to dense cover as snow depths increased.
In Alaska, Coady (1973) observed that when snow depths of 90 em or
greater lasted for several months, substantial winter dieoffs
occurred in several areas of the state.
Bunnell et al. (1985) documented 16 features of the forest
overstory that influence snow interception and can be modified by
forestry practices but the most important were tree species
composition, stand patchiness, crown size and form, and canopy
closure (Nyberg et al. 1986). McNay et al. (1988) also found that
canopy closure and snow storm size and intensity were the best
determinants of a stand • s capability to intercept snow. For
southcentral Alaska, the same forest canopy characteristics that
will maximize thermal cover (discussed below) will likely satisfy
the needs of moose for shallower snow depths.
Thermal cover.
Forest stands that function as thermal cover reduce energy
expenditures of moose by ameliorating the adverse effects of
weather. Moose require thermal cover to moderate adverse climatic
conditions during both summer and winter (Schwab 1987) . Moose are
well adapted to withstand extreme cold (Renecker et al. 1978) but
are sensistive to heat stress in all seasons (Kelsall and Telfer
1974). In controlled experiments with moose, Renecker and Hudson
(1986) reported that upper critical temperatures were 14 to 20°C
(57-68°F) or more in summer and between -5 and 0°C (24-32°F) degrees
in winter. Heat stress in moose leads to increased levels of
metabolism, heart and respiratory rates and may even cause lower
food intake leading to weight loss.
8
Changes in habitat utilization and behavioral patterns may be
attributed to heat stress. Knorre ( 1959) observed that moose
required shade or water to lie in on summer days with air
temperatures greater than 20°C. Moose were in better condition
after a cool summer than a hot summer and calf weights were almost
50% greater after a cool summer when compared to a hot summer. In
Minnesota, Berg and Phillips (1970) observed that moose were more
active at night than day, presumably because of lower temperatures.
Belovsky and Jordan (1978) found that summer foraging activities
peaked at sunrise and sunset and time spent foraging decreased as
daily air temperatures increased. During warm weather, Belovsky
(pers. comm. in Allen et al. 1987) determined that moose selected
bedding sites with lower soil temperatures than the average for the
surrounding area. Substrates chosen were generally damp and under
dense conifer canopy. In summer moose in southcentral Alaska are
likely responding to summer heat by frequenting cool mesic cover
types consisting of a relatively large spruce component.
Coniferous cover also can provide thermal advantages to moose in
winter. Renecker et al. (1978) found that temperatures below -20°C
(-4°F) with some wind elevated metabolic rates in moose calves in
response to cold stress. There are many observations of moose
moving into coniferous cover to retreat from winter storms, winds
and/or cold temperatures (Hatter 1950, Eastman 1978, Telfer 1978,
Phillips et al. 1973, Knowlton 1960, Rolley and Keith 1980, Brusnyk
and Gilbert 1983). McNicol and Gilbert (1978, 1980) proposed that
moose used clumps of residual coniferous cover as a wind break.
Moen (1973) observed that conifers reduced wind velocities and
subsequent heat loss during extreme cold periods. In regions, like
southcentral Alaska, that are subject to severe winter conditions,
the protection provided by coniferous cover is a critical component
of moose habitat (Peek and Eastman 1983).
Thermal cover quality is a function of the percent tree canopy
cover which reflects tree density, the proportion of tree canopy
comprised of coniferous species, and the mean height of coniferous
trees. Deciduous stands may serve as thermal cover in summer, but
not in winter. Proulx and Joyal (1981) found that most forest
stands used for winter cover in Quebec had a canopy cover ranging
from 41 to 80% and a height of 9 to 21m (30 to 69ft). Peek et
al. (1976) reported that moose preferred the tallest and most dense
stands in midwinter. Almost 72% of moose bed sites were in stands
with coniferous trees <3 m (10 ft) apart equivalent to a stocking
rate of approximately 225 stemsjha (550 stemsjacre). Almost 69%
were adjacent to balsam fir trees, and 57% were in stands with a
canopy height >15m (49ft).
Forest canopies function like a thermal blanket by increasing the
downward flux of thermal radiation towards the forest floor.
Therefore winter nighttime temperatures are warmer under a canopy
than in the open. Because canopy permeability increases rapidly as
trees are removed, lower canopy closure means poorer nighttime
9
thermal cover. Stands with a large amount of canopy cover are
assumed to provide maximum protection from low temperatures and
wind chill. Because cover values increase with the percentage of
canopy closure, ideal late winter thermal cover occurs when
coniferous tree canopy closure is ~75% (Allen et al. 1987).
The quality of winter cover increases as the proportion of conifers
in the stand increases. A stand composed of >70% coniferous
species is assumed to represent optimal winter cover.
stands with an increasing proportion of deciduous species still
maintain some winter cover value, albeit declining, and will also
have some value for moose during hot temperature periods.
Thermal cover in winter is considered unsuitable if the coniferous
component of the stand is of insufficient height to trap longwave
radiation at moose height and provide adequate cover for moose.
Ideal cover occurs when the mean height of the coniferous trees is
~ 10.6 m (35ft) (Allen et al. 1987).
Calving Habitat
Calving habitat for moose consists typically of wet marshy lowland
areas with such as tidal flats, bogs created by fire, areas flooded
by beavers, shallow partially filled lakes or lowlands associated
with major rivers (Rausch 1967). Bailey and Bangs (1980)
described the following characteristics of moose calving areas on
the Kenai Peninsula: flat terrain, high water table with much
surface water visible during the calving period, vegetation
consisting of low-lying shrubs, mosses, grasses, and sedge
interspersed with various sized stands of black spruce. Many
calving sites occur on islands in waterbodies, peninsulas, and lake
shores. Modafferi (1982) found that pregnant female moose often
moved to islands in the Susitna River to bear their young and avoid
predation by bear·, coyotes, and wolves. Leptich and Gilbert {1986)
and Smith et al. ( 1988) described similar characteristics for
calving areas in northern Maine and ontario, respectively. Calving
areas in the lower Susitna Basin often have openings with abundant
early spring forage and are generally interspersed with dry upland
islands of dense stands of shrubs and trees. Calves are usually
born in the islands of dense cover.
Some of the more traditional calving areas found in the planning
area include some areas along the Little susitna River, along the
Susitna River and its mouth, Kahiltna River flats, the muskeg bogs
below Little Peters Hills.
Summer Range
(TO BE ADDED LATER]
Rutting Habitat
Rutting habitat includes a wide variety of habitats. Breeding
10
groups of moose may concentrate in riparian habitats of the larger
rivers and streams {Didrickson et al. 1977). Lent (1974) reported
observations of breeding groups at or above timberline in the
Alaska Range and on edge of small clearings or bogs on the Kenai
Peninsula.
Habitat Diversity
Habitat diversity or the degree of interspersion of plant
communities is an important component of high quality moose
habitat. A diverse mixture of plant communi ties results in
relatively large amounts of shrub-forest ecotones, along with
shrub-sedge and shrub-aquatic ecotones. Because of the nature of
the 1947 Kenai burn, LeResche et al (1974) found that the large
number of stands, their irregular shapes, and the diversity of
stand types and ages resulted in large amounts of edge ecotones
which led to the high moose densities observed in the burn area.
In northeastern Minnesota areas with the highest moose habitat
potential consisted of highly diverse habitats with large amounts
of edge (Peek et al. 1976).
Natural Mineral Licks
Natural mineral licks are used by moose to ingest water andjor
earth containing high concentrations of mineral elements
(Tankersley 1987). Licks are an important component of moose
habitat because they can provide mineral elements essential to the
health of a moose population. Large proportions of moose
populations are known to use mineral licks (Best et al. 1977,
Tankersley and Gasaway 1983). Most lick use occurs in spring and
early summer and is probably linked to the change in diet
associated with the flush of green vegetation in early spring.
Best et al. (1977) noted that moose in Alberta used licks from
April to early June. Moose have been observed making excursions
out of their normal home range to visit mineral licks (Best et al.
1977, Risenhoover and Peterson 1986).
Human Use: Because the planning area includes only portions of
Game Management Units (GMU) 13E, 14A, 14B, 16A, and 16B, it will be
difficult to calculate hunter harvest of moose. In GMU 16, the
annual reported sport harvest has averaged 615 moose during the
last three regulatory periods including 1987-88. This level of
harvest is comparable to that of most recent years. Hunter effort
has remained fairly constant over the last three reporting periods
averaging 2,150 hunters. In GMU 16A, most of the moose harvest
(224 animals in 1987-1988) occurs in the Petersville Road corridor,
along the Parks Highway, and in the Kroto Creek, Moose Creek, Gate
Creek, and Peters Creek drainages (Faro 1988). In GMU 16B, the
Susitna River floodplain below the Yenta River confluence, the
Alexander Creek, Lake Creek, Twentymile Slough, Skwenta River
11
drainages, and the Yenlo Hills provided a large portion of the
total harvest (428 animals in 1987-1988). According to Fall
( 1983) , these areas also contain year-round residents and are
important subsistence hunting areas.
The Little Susitna River and the east bank of the Susitna River in
GMU 14A are also heavily used by moose hunters and have produced a
significant portion of the total moose harvest in this unit. In
GMU 14B, the Birch Creek, Montana Creek, Goose Creek, Sheep Creek,
Kashwitna River, Little Willow Creek, and Willow Creek drainages
receive most of the hunter effort. Except for the Little Willow
Creek and Willow Creek drainages where the majority of moose are
taken at timberline, most moose are harvested within the planning
area.
The non-hunting use of moose has not yet been measured but interest
in this species occurs mainly during the summer (tourists) months.
The actual harvest of moose is usually significantly greater than
the reported harvest, because not all
hunter report their take.
Timber Harvest Impacts: The department believes that many of the
practices used in intensive forest management can improve moose
habitat values in southcentral Alaska if they are applied with the
basic ecological requirements of moose in mind. The most important
influences affecting the quality, quantity, and arrangement of
moose food and cover include the following:
* Logging road construction can directly impact moose
populations by increasing human access (Eason et al. 1981,
Pierce 1983, 1985, Scaife 1980, Timmerman and Gollet 1983).
Increased human disturbance resulting from additional access
may displace moose from preferred winter ranges or alter
normal activity patterns during this critical period
(Modafferi 1988).
* The increased road density associated with timber harvesting
activities will likely result in the increased frequency of
moose-vehicle collisions (Grenier 1973).
* Valuable moose habitat will likely be lost or habitat quality
diminished because of increased road density and human
disturbance.
* Loss of important upland mature forest stands used by moose at
various times for relief from extreme climatic conditions,
escape cover, and security cover will likely reduce local
moose numbers.
* Because of increased levels of human disturbance, some moose
will likely be prevented from using traditional seasonal use
areas such as calving areas or mineral licks.
12
Management Guidelines: It is anticipated that intensive forest
management activities will increase rapidly in the next 5-10 years
in southcentral Alaska. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game
(ADF&G) is concerned that forestry practices could have adverse
impacts on moose habitat in this region. studies conducted in the
boreal forest zone worldwide have shown that forestry operations
can influence moose utilization of habitat. Although research
investigating timber harvest impacts on moose in Alaska is lacking,
impacts are likely to be similar to those recorded in other boreal
forest locations.
Presently, the department is actively participating in the
development of the susitna Regional Forest Plan, the Matanuska-
susitna Borough Forest Plan, and the review of current state forest
practices regulations. In addition to regularly scheduled timber
sales on state lands, the department has been notified of several
relatively large, long-term logging plans throughout southcentral
Alaska. The existing value of these lands as sources of moose
habitat, recreational use, and commercial forest value can be
greatly enhanced. Consequently, timber harvest management plans
should incorporate appropriate measures to protect resource values.
One practical means of accomplishing this end is the use of
recommended guidelines for forest management practices.
These guidelines should not be inflexible rules but standards or
biological principles which foresters and biologists must consider
when planning for timber harvest activities. Most areas cannot be
managed to maximize both fish and wildlife habitat and timber
production. Discussions and compromises among foresters and
biologists are a vital part of the management process. After
documenting the importance of specific areas for moose habitat, it
is important that biologists have the opportunity to evaluate and
suggest reasonable management practices that will provide the
greatest level of protection feasible and, where possible, the
opportunity for enhancement of vital fish and wildlife habitat
values.
The purpose of this section is to describe forest management
guidelines and practices as they apply to southcentral Alaskan
topography, climate, and soils. It is the department's goal to
develop management guidelines that are based on sound silvicultural
principles as well as moose habitat management techniques which not
only maximize moose habitat but will also be consistent with the
management and economic objectives of timber operators. In many
cases, properly planned timber harvest operations can lead to the
achievement of multiple resource management objectives, including
development of the forest products industry and the enhancement of
both non-consumptive recreation (moose viewing, nature photography,
etc.) and consumptive recreation (sport hunting of moose). Other
fish and wildlife resources and their user groups also benefit from
wisely designed timber harvest operations.
13
1. Logging Road Location
Management Consideration
Avoid disturbance to regularly-used moose movement patterns,
protect important seasonal use areas and other sensitive locations,
and refrain from disruption of critical moose activities (e.g.,
calving, rutting, etc.).
Recommended Management Options
* A preliminary road system plan should be developed for the
entire sale area prior to harvest activity.
* Align logging roads to avoid sensitive vegetation cover types
such as riparian zones, wetlands, aquarian feeding sites (i.e.
ponds), and naturally occurring forest openings.
* Use natural terrain features and vegetation to insure the
usability of moose forage areas, as well as other important
seasonal use areas, by shielding these areas from road
traffic. Logging roads should be located in dense timber away
from forest openings.
* Roads should be laid out to facilitate closure with gates or
other access control structures to protect moose from
harassment, prevent road damage, or insure quality hunting.
* Avoid locating straight stretches of road of more than 0. 25 mi
(0.4 km) in forested areas to increase the cover value for
moose and minimize the effects on local moose numbers of
hunting from roads.
* Locate log landing areas to minimize the amount of road and
skid trail construction.
* Secondary logging road systems should not be designed to
interconnect, thus reducing access and impacts from road
hunters, and allowing greater control of access in local
areas.
2. Logging Road Construction and Design
Management Consideration
Maintain moose migration routes and protect key seasonal use areas.
Recommended Management Options
14
* Maintain maximum amount of roadside vegetation to serve as
protective cover for moose.
* Schedule road construction times to avoid seasonal use
periods.
* Minimize the width of the road right-of-way.
* Roads should be designed so that they can easily be closed
either on a permanent or temporary basis at a low cost.
* Maintain cover where moose trails cross roads.
* Dispose of road right-of-way slash so as not to inhibit moose
movement.
* In important moose areas 1 roads should be constructed to
minimum standards to discourage high volume vehicle use but
maintain safety and environmental conditions and meet
management objectives. This implies slow speed, single track
roads without large cuts and fills.
* In appropriate areas topsoil resulting from road construction
should be stored for later use in restoration.
* Steep cuts and fills should be avoided to not preclude
blocking moose travel routes.
* Establish vegetative cover on all cuts and fills to reduce
erosion and runoff, improve wildlife habitat 1 and enhance
visual quality. Plant species selected for cover should not
include preferred moose browse species that may attract moose
to the road thereby increasing chances of moose-vehicle
collisions.
3. Logging Road Management
Management Consideration
Reduce human disturbance and prevent unnecessary harassment of
moose.
Recommended Management Options
* Develop only temporary short-term access roads into the
immediate area of a timber harvest operation.
* Restrict public use of sensitive moose areas by closing
primary andjor secondary spur roads during critical seasonal
periods.
* All non-permanent roads and skid trails should be retired and
15
revegetated with accepted moose browse species immediately
after timber removal has been completed. In southcentral
Alaska these browse plants include most of the willow species
(Salix ~), birch (Betula ~), aspen and cottonwood
(Populus~), high-bush cranberry (Viburnum~), labrador
tea (Ledum ~),and other woody shrubs and forbs (see cushwa
and Coady 1976 and LeResche and Davis 1973).
* Develop procedures that establish areas and times of use for
ORVs in harvest areas. This would include closure of certain
areas used by moose during sensitive seasonal use periods.
4. Scheduling Harvest Activities
Because disturbances associated with logging are generally
cumulative, timber sales should not be planned as isolated events;
all past and future activities must be evaluated and harvest
planning efforts should consider long term consequences.
Management Consideration
Proper scheduling of silvicultural prescription treatments can be
an effective means of meeting wood production goals and at the same
time emphasizing and improving habitats important to moose and
other wildlife species. In this manner, the beneficial effects of
incremental silvicultural treatments can be maximized.
Recommended Management Options
* Timber sales should be planned to produce a continuous mosaic
of mature, close-canopied timber stands intermixed with cuts
of varied sizes that range between 5 and 25 years old.
* Logging activities on recognized moose winter range should be
concentrated into the shortest possible time frame for each
area. Intensive harvest activity in a single season is far
less detrimental than a low level of activity over several
seasons.
* In a situation where several timber sales may consecutively
progress from one drainage to the next, harvest activity
should be confined to a single drainage or location at a time
with completed sales being converted to security areas of non-
disturbance for moose as quickly as possible.
* Timber harvesting should be scheduled to optimize vegetational
responses beneficial to moose. For example, consider
shortening timber harvest rotations to minimize the time
period in which second-growth forests produce little or no
moose browse.
* Timber harvesting schedules should be coordinated with other
16
types of land activities to reduce simultaneous impacts.
* Where possible, the clearing of aspen sites should be done in
winter when sucker production is stimulated to the greatest
extent because of high carbohydrate reserves {Usher 1978).
* It is strongly urged that in units scheduled for future
harvest, an evaluation of moose browse quantity, quality, and
utilization be completed where practical by the ADF&G. These
data can be used to better define moose range distribution and
quality.
* Harvesting early in the annual growth cycle {before July)
means that regrowth of birch and balsam poplar will occur the
year of harvesting. Regrowth is delayed until the following
year if harvesting occurs later in the annual growth cycle
{Zasada et al. 1981).
* Harvesting during the period of active growth can reduce a
tree's ability to regenerate through vegetative reproduction
(e.g., root suckering, basal sprouting), because the tree's
food reserves, which fuel the regrowth response, are at a low
point at this time (Zasada 1986). Therefore, winter
harvesting is recommended for hardwood stands not used by
moose.
* Winter logging is preferable in areas with a relatively high
density of aquatic feeding sites. Human disturbance during
summer can prevent moose from obtaining critical nutrients
available from aquatic sites that may be deficient in the
terrestrial diet {Crossley 1985).
5. Location and Shape of Harvest Units
Management Consideration
Siting of harvest units should consider the effective use and
availability of adequate forage and cover blocks for moose.
Recommended Management Options
* Shape and blend areas to be cut with the natural terrain to
the extent practicable.
* The geographic position of mature stands relative to cut areas
provides year-round security cover, thermal cover in summer,
and refuge from deep snow conditions, and may contain
alternate food sources. Their position, relative to potential
harvest areas, should be considered in the design of these
harvest areas. Maintenance of mature coniferous cover (late
winter habitat) in close proximity to any early winter
17
concentration areas will benefit wintering moose.
* The orientation of clearcuts probably will not influence moose
production or use. Nevertheless, a variety of cut
orientations should be included in any timber harvest plans to
cover the range of conditions that may be important to moose.
In areas of heavy snow accumulations, drifting may bury
browse. In these areas, clearcuts should be oriented
downwind.
* If timber removal is to occur on moose winter ranges, the
harvest of south-facing slopes is preferred over north slopes.
Snow accumulations are less and the duration of snow cover is
shorter leaving more browse exposed to moose. Moose also
experience savings in energy by having more sunlight available
during the cold months of the year.
* Clearing of timber areas adjacent to, but not in, riparian
zones may be warranted only if the adjacent areas are not
heavily used by moose and if the integrity of the
riparian/aquatic habitats can be maintained.
* The timbered fringes of ponds and lakes should be maintained
to a width of 100 m (330 ft) to provide security cover for
moose feeding on aquatic plants (Brusnyk and Gilbert 1983).
Selective removal of merchantable timber from these fringes
would be encouraged to maintain shorter (< 15 m) stands with
less crown closure(< 60%) as reported by Crossley (1985). A
more open canopy would encourage the establishment of shade-
intolerant browse species such as willow or aspen.
* Maximize the amount of forage-producing edge in cuts by
delineating irregularly shaped borders to cut areas (Scaife
1980). Long, narrow, and meandering cut units provide a
greater amount of edge distance and benefit more moose than do
units having a circular or square configuration. Moose use on
larger cuts can be maximized if the use of square or
rectangular units is minimized while using an undulating-
shaped cut instead of one with straight edges.
* When managing for the enhancement of moose habitat, well-
drained upland sites that produce abundant amounts of browse
are best suited for clearing, whereas poorly-drained upland
sites that do not produce as much browse should be maintained
as areas of cover.
* The size of cuts should range between 5 and 40 acres (2-16 ha)
with the preferred size being approximately 8 ha (20 acres).
The relatively wide range in size provides flexibility to
accomodate the many factors that could influence the size of
cuts, such as, local moose densities and distribution
patterns, spatial relationships between browse and standing
18
timber, topography, access, economic factors, etc. For
example, an 8 ha (20 acres) rectangle cut is 400 m (1,320 ft)
long and 200 m (660 ft) wide. Cuts of too large a size
preclude moose use of the total area while cuts that are too
small may encourage high-density concentrations of animals
leading to over-browsing.
* Although no upper limit to the distance moose will move away
from cover to forage has been defined, researchers have
demonstrated declining use of browse at greater distances from
cover. For maximum utilization, the configuration of
individual cuts should be such that the distance to cover does
not exceed 100 m {330 ft) throughout the unit.
* In cases where maximum clearcut widths cannot be kept to 200
m ( 6 6 0 ft) or in clearcuts larger than 16 ha ( 4 o acres) ,
residual islands of dense cover should be left within the
clearcut boundaries. Residual islands ranging in size from
0.2-2.0 ha (0.5-5.0 acres) can be used by moose for cover,
bedding and shelter (Monthey 1984, McNicol and Gilbert 1978,
Euler 1987). Residual patches of cover should be spaced 200-
300 m (660-990 ft) apart within the clearcut, stocked by at
least 1/3 in conifers to provide some relief in years of deep
snow, and at least 4-6 m ( 13-20 ft) high for good hiding
cover.
* Maintain a minimum leave strip width of at least 330 ft (100
m) between cutting units (Matchett 1985) •
* Harvest units should be oriented to avoid blowdown and loss of
moose habitat.
6. Harvesting Methods
Management Consideration
Utilize and conduct timber harvest methods and associated
activities in a manner that will protect, increase and enhance
moose habitat values in the cutting unit.
Recommended Management Options
* Clearcutting of small harvest units (2-16 ha) should be the
preferred method of timber harvest in white spruce stands.
* Clearcutting with seed trees (seed tree cuts) should be the
preferred method of timber harvest in paper birch stands.
* In known moose forage areas, limbs from all felled logs should
be removed to minimize any damage to residual standing moose
browse as logs are skidded to a landing area.
19
* In clearcut areas with relatively large amounts of moose
browse undergrowth, a shortwood harvesting system could
minimize loss of the valuable shrub undergrowth. In areas
without moose browse understory, and where its growth is
desirable, tree length and full-tree skidding may be more
appropriate harvesting systems. The latter two systems result
in less slash residue, much greater disturbance to the shrub
undergrowth and provide more favorable growing conditions.
* Where possible, trees should be felled away from possible
moose foraging areas.
7. Debris Management
Logging slash disposal can be done mechanically, by burning or by
a combination of both methods. Slash not piled, windrowed, or
burned may physically hinder moose use of an area or may limit
establishment of moose food items. Slash can be broadcast burned
or piled and then burned. Moose will also be attracted to piles of
hardwood slash with branches and tops.
Management Consideration
Maintain access to available forage for moose, eliminate barriers
to travel, and make use of debris for cover.
Recommended Management Options
* Coniferous logging debris/slash can be windrowed or piled
adjacent to logging roads to serve as visual barriers and
protective cover for moose. This practice is not recommended
for paper birch operations because moose may be attracted to
the slash piles as a food source and would be more susceptible
to moosejvehicle accidents.
* In relatively large clearcut areas, openings should be cut
through windrowed slash to allow passage by moose, especially
on established moose trails.
* Slash and other small debris should be burned while the ground
is damp to protect root systems of forage species.
* Logging debris that has fallen into the adjacent uncut forest
and slash within the openings should be cleaned up or removed
by the operator as they may reduce moose use of the area
because of lower forage production or more difficult access to
security cover areas. Valuable moose forage plants may be
screened by a tangle of broken tree limbs and uprooted debris.
* The growth of early successional shrubs preferred by moose
would be encouraged by broadcast burns in clearcuts rather
20
than burning piles of slash.
8. Site Preparation
Management Consideration
It is generally recognized that softwood (white spruce) and
hardwood browse species (birch, aspen, balsam poplar, and willow)
regeneration can be improved after timber harvesting by some form
of mechanized seedbed scarification.
Recommended Management Options
* Areas should be scarified just prior to peak annual seedfall
or prior to application of artificial seeding techniques.
Scarified seedbed receptivity tends to decline moderately over
time.
* Larger-sized seedbed areas will have greater regeneration
success than smaller patches (Arlidge 1967).
* Depending on soil type, areas of soil compaction may reduce
seedling growth or even cause mortality due to water retained
in depressions created during scarification treatment (Lees
1964) • Therefore, operators should avoid creation of an
uneven ground surface and soil compaction by using appropriate
machinery.
* On logging sites where the surface has been compacted due to
the operation of heavy machinery common to logging operations,
various forms of mechanical discing (possibly disc trenching
or scalping) may be used to alleviate such problems.
* On aspen sites, it is suggested that cleared areas be heavily
scarified or lightly burned to produce maximum sucker response
(Stoeckler 1948, Usher 1978, Scaife 1980).
* Distribute the areas of exposed mineral soil uniformly over
the site so that regeneration of trees andjor browse shrubs
will be uniformly distributed (Zasada 1986) .
* Fertilization of mineral soils with nitrogen to improve the
seedbed environment should also be considered early in the
post-logging period.
* For paper birch areas, scarification on logged sites should
expose only the upper mineral soil layer (A horizon) (Densmore
1988).
9. Prescribed Burning
21
Management Consideration
Management Options
* Controlled burning techniques are recommended when climatic,
soil, and fuel load conditions are conducive to remove logging
slash, maintain forest openings, and to improve the quality
and quantity of moose forage.
10. Tree Harvesting Systems
In southcentral and interior Alaska, three tree harvesting systems
predominate -log length, tree length, and full tree logging. The
log length system removes only the merchantable portion of the tree
from the cutting site. Tree length logging leaves the limb
material on the site, but the entire trunk is harvested and either
bucked at the landing or hauled full length to the mill. Full tree
logging involves removal of the entire tree from the site. Limbing
occurs at the landing and bucking at either the mill or the
landing. Full tree logging will result in the greatest amount of
physical disturbance to the organic layers and exposure of mineral
soil, while destroying more competing vegetation such as grasses
and herbs (Zasada 1972). The opposite is true for log length
logging -it results in comparatively minimal soil disturbance.
Treelength logging rated closer to full tree logging in its ability
to aid site preparation. Logging activities generally do not
expose sufficient amounts of mineral soil to ensure birch seed
establishment.
Management Consideration
Harvesting alone rarely creates those conditions necessary for
successful forest regeneration, especially in most areas of
southcentral and interior Alaska where organic layers are usually
thick and much timber removal occurs on frozen and snow-covered
ground. Careful management of harvest operations can provide some
site preparation benefits.
Recommended Management Options
* The full tree logging system should be used where feasible to
obtain maximal disturbance of the organic soil layers for
natural regeneration.
* On dry upland sites, logging activity should be conducted
during the summer period to maximize surface disturbance. In
wet areas, logging should be conducted soon after the ground
has frozen.
22
* Timber operators should attempt to maximize surface
disturbance. If no site preparation work can be completed,
logging activity should be conducted during the summer period.
11. Herbicides
Management Consideration
Herbicides are often used to reduce competition between conifers
and hardwood shrub species, herbaceous vegetation, and grasses.
These chemicals can indirectly impact wildlife, particularly
moose, by altering the existing deciduous flora. Changing the mix
of available plants influences the amount of moose browse. In
fact, browse may be reduced to the extent that moose can no longer
use an area.
Recommended Management Options
* Herbicides should not be used as a seedbed preparation
technique to encourage regeneration of conifer stands until a
long-term evaluation of herbicide effects on moose habitat has
been completed.
* If glyphosate is applied by means of aerial spraying, a
minimum buffer strip width of 75 m (250 ft) should be
maintained in the vicinity of aquatic areas to protect habitat
for moose and anadromous fish from significant direct
toxicological effects (Payne et al. 1987). However, a buffer
strip width of 150 m (500 ft) will increase the probability of
obtaining an acceptable degree of habitat protection.
12. Forest Regeneration
Management Consideration
Silvicultural prescriptions should be written to improve the
quantity and quality of available forage and cover for moose while
still maintaining forest management objectives for final stocking
rates of merchantable trees.
Recommended Management Options
* It is imperative that detailed regeneration plans be developed
well in advance of all timber harvests. These plans should be
based on a thorough evaluation of the total forest ecosystem,
particularly the wildlife component. Timber removal can
greatly impact local moose populations. These plans should be
developed cooperatively and agreed upon by forest and wildlife
managers.
23
[ * Natural regeneration should be the primary reforestation
practice for logged areas in southcentral Alaska.]
* Tree stocking rates should be developed that allow the maximum
period (approximately 25 years) before canopies close and
shade out understory forage species.
* Precommercial thinning techniques, when economically feasible,
may be employed before closure of the canopy (ca. 20-25 years)
reduces forage species values in the understory. By lowering
tree densities, early successional community types can be
maintained for a longer time period. On winter range areas,
the number of trees per hectare should still meet multiuse
objectives of maintaining snow interception capabilities as
well as adequate stocking rates for regeneration.
* On sites with nutrient-poor soils, fertilization could improve
the nutritional status and make the site more hospitable to
seeds and seedlings of shrubs and trees.
24
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. Road Management
Forest roads are constructed to harvest forest stands and, once in
place, are maintained to manage regenerating stands and provide
access for fire protection and suppression. Roads can have a
significant impact on moose populations and their habitat. Logging
roads affect the frequency, rate, and quantity of surface erosion
and slope failure which can reduce important moose habitat. Road
construction can disrupt natural drainage patterns thus affecting
water quality that may in turn affect the quantity and quality of
aquatic forage plants.
Roads can directly influence moose populations by increasing hunter
access as well as recreational vehicle use within critical habitat
areas such as winter range. Road management may be one of the most
important factors influencing moose populations in habitats
affected by logging. Scaife (1980) reported that 70% of the moose
harvest in a north-central Manitoba study area were shot by hunters
standing on forestry roads. In the Alberta white spruce habitat
type, Lynch ( 1973) found that 28% of the moose kill was taken
within one mile (1.6 km) of roads; 80% of the hunting pressure and
18% of the land occurred in this same zone. stelfox ( 1984)
reported that road access and harassment from human activity
greatly affected big game use of clearcuts in west-central Alberta
at a time when big game carrying capacity was considered high. In
British Columbia, observations also show that the success rate and
distribution of the moose kill is strongly correlated with access
corridors (Murray 1974, cited in Bunnell and Eastman 1976).
Although some big game species such as elk or black-tailed deer
tend to avoid roads even without traffic, some moose subpopulations
may use roads as travel routes. Grenier (1973) showed that the
moose kill by highway vehicles in Laurentides Park in Quebec was
directly correlated with traffic intensity and accounted for 15-20%
of the population mortality. However, Bunnell and Eastman (1976)
reported that logging roads in British Columbia did not appear to
contribute significantly to wildlife road kills.
A permanent forest road system may occupy 8-10 percent of the
forest land area (Froehlich 1978). In the Susitna Regional Forest
Plan (SRFP) study area, it is estimated there are approximately
450,000 acres (1821 km2 ) of commercial forest land. Larsen (1974)
estimated that each square mile (2.59 km2 ) of intensively managed
forest will contain approximately 6 miles (10 km) of road. Using
a conservative average of 3 miles (5 km) of road and skid trails
per square mile of harvested land, the total length of reading
necessary to harvest all of the commercial forest land would
approximate 2,100 miles If a 40 foot road corridor is
constructed, 4.8 acres will be cleared for each mile of road, and
25
approximately 10,000 acres of forest land would be disturbed. A
portion of the area used for roads will certainly include important
moose habitat.
More than any other single facet of intensive forest management,
road construction and the post-logging management of those roads is
expected to be a major problem in moose management. Road
construction may remove valuable moose habitat, affect their
distribution and movement patterns, and increase potential for
harassment and other disturbance factors. In many areas forest
roads are often characterized by: 1) public accessibility; 2)
little screening cover along the edges; 3) wide rights-of-way with
steep high cut banks; and 4) locations adjacent to or passing
through valuable riparian habitat.
Many studies have shown that optimal use of logged areas by some
big game species has been adversely influenced by the existence of
roads left open to vehicular traffic (Leege 1976, 1984, Perry and
overly 1977, Thiessen 1976, Tomm et al. 1981, Ward 1976, Willms
1971, Witmer 1981, Lyon 1979, 1983, Lyon et al. 1985, Pederson et
al. 1980).
Increased public access via new logging roads was highly correlated
with increases in human-induced mortality to moose in northern
Idaho (Pierce 1983, 1985). Matchett (1985) suggested that road
closures and a limiting of access could prevent excessive or
unregulated human-induced mortality of moose in the Yaak River
region of northwestern Montana. Ritchie (1978) noted that
increased road access and human activity was a likely factor in the
declining trend of moose numbers in southeastern Idaho. In a study
of the responses of moose and deer species to logging practices in
central Alberta, Tomm et al. (1981) found that human disturbance
was the most important factor influencing the use of clearcuts by
moose. It was also suggested that if harassment could be minimized
by controlling access, this could allow greater variability in the
shape and pattern of cutting units and also give moose a greater
opportunity to gain the presumed benefits of timber harvesting.
B. Timber Harvest and Removal
B.l Research Findings
The amount of empirical data describing the relationship of moose
to logging practices in Alaska is meager. Specific information on
moose forage production and forest succession following clearcut
logging has not been collected in Alaska. The ADF&G is not aware
of any research documenting actual moose population responses to
post-logging succession following commercial timber harvest and
removal. Because of the relatively small scale of activity,
commercial timber harvesting activities have had a relatively minor
impact on moose habitat in Alaska. However, throughout the boreal
forest zone of Canada and in portions of the United states logging
26
activities are, and have been, a primary influence on the status of
local moose populations (Berg and Phillips 1974, Telfer 1972).
The fact that clearcut logging can change the productive capacity
of mature forests in southcentral and interior Alaska is obvious.
Historically, early seral plant communities have been established
after natural or man-caused fires, river flooding and erosion,
logging and land clearing, beaver activities, and/or natural
blowdown by wind storms (Wolff 1976, Spencer and Hakala 1964,
Viereck 1970).
It is generally believed that most logging operations in late
sucessional boreal forest stands are beneficial to local moose
populations if they retain all riparian habitat and result in a
highly diverse mixture high in forage species regrowth and forested
winter range (Telfer 1974, Peek 1974). Most logging activity uses
clearcutting, where all stems are removed at once except where non-
merchantable patches occur. Thus, logging may act similar to fire,
which causes relatively large areas of forest to revert to young
stands, most often consisting of early seral plant communities
characteristic of secondary succession. Moose prefer to utilize
the early seral stages of forest succession that provide abundant
amounts of woody browse. Clearcut logging coupled with
scarification can produce these early seral community types. Post-
logging site preparation treatments such as scarification,
broadcast burning, revegetation, or seeding may be used to
influence the rate at which vegetation reestablishes itself on the
site.
B.1.1 Moose utilization of riparian communities and clearcuts
Moose in southcentral and interior Alaska are primarily associated
with early successional stage forest, the upland shrub and lowland
bog climax communities and riparian shrub habitats. Riparian shrub
communities consisting mainly of willow, andjor juvenile birch and
aspen or a combination of these and other browse species are
thought to be the habitat types most preferred for moose winter
forage in Alaska ((Chatelain 1951, LeResche et al. 1974, Mould
1979, Taylor and Ballard 1979, Milke 1969, Masters et al. in press,
Grauvogel 1984, Modafferi 1984, Albert and Shea 1986).
On a Tanana River floodplain site near Fairbanks, Milke (1969)
found that willow production available as browse for moose averaged
203.8 kgjha (181 lbsjac). Wolff (1976) estimated the amount of
hardwood browse produced and the amount consumed by moose in 8-and
15-year-old willow-dominated riparian shrub stands in the Tanana
River floodplain near Fairbanks. The two stands produced 38 and
113 kgjha (34 and 101 lbsjacre), respectively, with approximately
55% of available browse being consumed in one year. This
illustrates the importance of early seral plant communities as
winter habitat for moose. Maximum use of these riparian areas
usually occurs from mid-to late winter and is directly related to
27
maximum snow depth. Dense stands of spruce adjacent to riparian
communities enhance their value by providing cover. Although most
riparian areas are seral communities, they are self-perpetuating
through alluvial processes and, thus, provide a permanent source of
seral habitat.
Seral habitat important to moose may also be created by wildfire,
clearcut logging and other human disturbances that remove climax
vegetation (Le Resche et al. 1974, Davis and Franzmann 1979). In
areas where riparian habitat is limited, creation of early seral
habitat by logging may result in rapid and large increases in moose
populations (Cowan 1950) . In northeastern Saskatchewan, MacLennan
(1975) reported that monthly winter moose densities in a clearcut
area averaged 2.4 times greater than that of the surrounding area.
Hunt (1976) enlarged upon MacLennan's (1975) study and found that
moose densities were 56% higher in clearcuts than uncut areas and
attributed differences in the two studies to differing levels of
winter severity. Moose tended to prefer clearcuts 9-10 years old
over more recent cuts (3-6 years old) because of the increased
amount of available residual cover and browse.
Year to year snow conditions can also influence how clearcuts are
utilized. For example, greater snow depths may force moose to
venture further into an open clearcut than they might in shallower
conditions. Moose utilization patterns were found to differ
according to size, shape, and configuration of the clearcuts
(MacLennan 1975, Hunt 1976) ..
Crete (1976) concluded that logging operations in Quebec were a
valuable tool for managing moose habitat. Logged stands of paper
birch and aspen were utilized in winter more frequently than uncut
stands in Pontiac County while the opposite was true in Mont
Tremblant Park. A slower and less abundant regeneration of the
feeding stratum resulted in less use of harvested stands in the
Park study area. The speed and abundance of regeneration of the
feeding stratum, the density of uncut coniferous stems, the rate of
closure of the canopy stratum, and the degree of winter severity
can influence levels of moose utilization of logged areas (Crete
1976:50).
McNicol and Gilbert (1980) studied late winter moose utilization of
upland mixed-species clearcuts of varying size but similar age (10-
15 years old) • Moose preferred clearcut areas with scattered trees
over completely open clearcuts, uncut areas, or open clearcuts with
small planted trees. Preferred clearcuts had 52% more browse stems
per hectare available, a greater diversity of browse species and
the largest number of browse stems present. Eastman (1974)
evaluated winter habitat use by moose in north-central British
Columbia and concluded that partially logged stands 11-20 years old
had the greatest use; burns were used at almost comparable levels,
then forests, with 3-year old clearcuts having the least amount of
use. Based on study results, Eastman pointed out the need for
28
site-specific evaluations regarding logging practices and their
resultant impacts on moose. Partial logging practices were studied
including cut and leave strips, individual tree selection, and
minimum tree-diameter limits. This type of logging created mosaics
of small cover-and food-producing units that closely resembled
highly productive, natural winter ranges. Because, at the time of
the study, clearcutting had only been recently introduced in that
part of British Columbia, Eastman cautioned that clearcutting could
eventually produce habitat of similar quality to partial cutting
methods. Welsh et al. (1980) also found that winter utilization of
clearcuts in Ontario by moose was greatly influenced by forest
harvesting practices and the age and history of the clearcut.
Large uncut areas contiguous to clearcut areas appear to be a
necessary component of good winter habitat. These authors also
concluded that timber harvesting practices could be used to improve
moose habitat quality.
B.l. 2 Increased forage yields from timber harvesting
Quantitative information describing the effects of logging on
forage production for moose in North America is limited. In
Alaska, young seral stages of boreal forest have been produced more
often by wildfires than logging. There is ample evidence of
dramatic increases in moose populations in areas burned during the
1930's and 1940's (Lutz 1956, Spencer and Hakala 1964, Spencer and
Chatelain 1953). Willow, birch, and aspen are often the first
recolonizers of burned or logged areas. Seemel (1969) reported
annual shrub production of 500 kgjha (445 lbsjacre) with 82,000
shrub stemsjha (33,184 stemsjacre) in the most dense paper birch
stands 21 years after the 1947 burn on the Kenai Peninsula.
Increases in browse production following logging may be similar to
those which follow fire. For some areas of eastern Canada, Telfer
(1970) showed that logging may have resulted in a greater than 50-
fold increase in browse yield 7 years after the cut. Telfer (1972)
estimated browse biomass on logged areas in New Brunswick at 440
kgjha (392 lbsjacre) at 10-12 year post-logging compared to 23
kgjha (20.5 lbsjacre) 2 years after logging. Vallee et al. (1976)
found that the optimal age of clearcuts for maximum browse
production (as measured by stemsjha) was between 5 and 10 years of
age in stands of softwood or mixedwood origin, and between 10 and
15 years of age for hardwood stands. These findings were similar
to and corroborated those of Telfer (1972).
Stelfox ( 197 4) evaluated browse production and utilization by
moose, elk, and deer after clearcut logging in a white spruce
forest in the western Alberta foothills. The number of browse
plants decreased 44% during logging and scarification. After 6
years, browse plant numbers had doubled and were 30% more numerous
than in the uncut areas. Seventeen years after logging, numbers of
browse plants had grown three times more numerous in the clearcuts
than in the mature forests. Unscarified logged areas had 25% more
browse plants than scarified areas [[WHY]]. Browse production
decreased from 529 lbsjacre (green weight) in the mature forest to
29
187 lbsjacre after logging and 101 lbsjacre after scarification.
Browse production in the scarified areas aged 1, 5, 9, 17 years
averaged 101, 860, 1,438, and 1,702 lbsjacre, respectively. The
one unscarified area had slightly higher production values. Big
game use of the logged areas was 19 and 65% greater than in the
adjacent mature forest.
McNicol et al. (1980) described the extensive utilization of a 1965
clearcut by a high density moose population in Ontario. Moose
densities were 1/krn2 (2.5/mi2 ) in 1970, 5/krn2 (12/mi2 ) in 1976, and
9/krn2 (22/mi2 ) in 1980.
B.l. 3 Clearcut size, shape, and coniferous cover requirements
Where clearcutting is the chosen timber-harvesting technique,
vegetation should be managed to provide a variety of plant
communities within close proximity to each other. Moose require a
combination of diverse habitat conditions that contain early
successional stages for food and late successional stages for
cover.
Mature forest cover fulfills varied habitat requirements for moose
including a means of escape or a refuge from predators and hunters,
areas of mechanical and thermal protection from winter storms or
summer sun, and a secure area for parturition and calves (Thompson
and Vukelich 1981).
Unfortunately, in interior and southcentral Alaska, no studies have
been conducted that provide specific information documenting
optimal clearcut size and shape and their relationship to the cover
requirements for moose. In sweden, prior to the early 1960's,
clearcut sizes of about 2 ha (5 acres) indicated favorable regrowth
of preferred browse species and an increasing moose population
(Markgren 1974). Through the mid 1970's, clearcut size increased
to over 5 ha (12 acres), but moose numbers apparently declined
(ibid.). However, it should be cautioned that the lower moose
numbers could not be attributed solely to increasing clearcut size.
Telfer (1974) suggested that moose may use c1earcuts up to 140 ha
(350 acres) but larger clearcuts are probably not used until the
stand has regenerated sufficiently to provide minimal cover (10-15
years). Peek et al. (1976) recommended clearcuts of approximately
80 ha (200 acres) for providing good moose habitat. In British
Columbia, Eastman (1974) recommended that square clearcuts should
not be greater than 115 ha (285 acres) based on Telfer's {1972)
guidelines.
In a very limited study of the relationship of browse utilization
by moose and distance from cover, Hamilton and Drysdale {1975)
concluded that clearcuts less than 200 m (650 ft) in width were
small enough such that distance from cover did not alter moose
utilization patterns. They also found that clearcuts greater than
300 m (975 ft) in width showed decreasing use, especially beyond 40
30
m (130 ft), with no use beyond 100 m (325 ft) from the edge of the
cut. Hunt (1976) concluded that differences in clearcut size,
shape, and habitat configuration could affect patterns of moose
utilization. Severity of winter conditions can influence how much
of a clearcut is utilized in a given year. For example, MacLennan
(1975) reported that distances moose were observed from cover
averaged 89 m (97 yds) in a severe winter compared to 48 m (53 yds)
in a mild winter on the same cut (Hunt 1976). Thompson and
Vukelich (1981) observed that most cows with calves were less than
60 m (66 yds) from cover regardless of snow depth and conditions.
Any negative effects of large clearcut sizes may be offset by
numerous patches of residual cover which enable moose to use a
greater proportion of a clearcut. Hamilton et al. (1980) found no
correlation between distance from cover and browse abundance or its
distribution, indicating a uniform distribution of browse
vegetation. Approximately 95% of all browsing activity occurred
within 80 m (88 yds) of some form of cover. Along with coniferous
vegetation, even small, deciduous islands and heavy shrub growth
provide an attractive means of escape from hunters and animal
predators. Moen (1973) demonstrated that wind flow in the middle
of a large clearcut was more "chilling" to white-tailed deer than
wind flow next to tree islands or clearcut edges where the flow
pattern can be broken. McNicol and Gilbert (1978) found that moose
used residual tree patches as wind breaks and appeared to derive
benefits from shallower snow depths on the leeward sides of these
stands.
B.l. 4 Increased forage species diversity from logging
A diverse selection of browse species is advantageous in areas
where snow conditions can limit the abundance and availability of
a preferred browse species (McNicol and Gilbert 1980:368). Peek et
al. (1976) discussed a shift in browse species used by moose as
winter progressed and suggested that it was due to changes in
availability.
Removal of the forest canopy by logging temporarily increases plant
species diversity (Wallmo et al. 1972). Miquelle and Jordan (1979)
documented the importance of plant species diversity in the summer
diet of moose on Isle Royal. Le Resche and Davis (1973) found that
approximately 35% and 22% of the food consumed by moose on the
Kenai Peninsula consisted of non-browse food items such as lowbush
cranberry, lichens, sedges, grasses and aquatics. This suggests
that southcentral Alaskan moose may require access to a diverse
diet of browse and non-browse plants.
B.2 Timber Harvest Systems
Silvicultural methods commonly used in timber management are
clearcuts, seed-tree cuts, shelterwood, single-tree selection and
group-tree selection. These methods span a continuum in the degree
31
of exposure a site experiences, with the clearcut method providing
the most exposure and the selection method the least (Daniel et al.
1979) .
Clearcutting involves the removal of all trees before regeneration
occurs and results in an even-aged second-growth stand.
Clearcutting methods are of several types, including simple
clearcuts, alternate-strip clearcuts, and progressive-strip
clearcuts with the assumption that the width of each exposed strip
is optimal for the natural establishment of seedlings.
The seed-tree cut consists of leaving a sufficient number of good
seed-producing trees scattered over the cut area to ensure adequate
stocking in a reasonable time period. This method ensures an even
distibution of seed, and allows for a larger area to be cut with
natural regeneration than clearcutting. This method is also
favorable for intolerant tree species.
Under the shelterwood method a stand is removed in a series of cuts
several years apart with the most mature and defective timber taken
first in the preparatory cutting. The best trees left may then
grow rapidly for a period of time, but more importantly, will
supply seed for adequate growth of seedlings on the ground. A
second cut, the seed cutting, in which 30-60% of the remaining
volume is removed, usually occurs after a good seed production
year. Only the very best windfirm dominants are left for the final
or removal cutting. However, it is unlikely that shelterwood cuts
would be applicable to intolerant pioneer species like paper birch,
aspen or cottonwood which require a seedbed of mineral soil exposed
to full light (Smith 1962). Shelterwood cuts require multiple
entries and roads constructed under higher standards. Although
this method has hardly been used in Alaska, if at all, it may have
some benefits for moose when harvesting mature even-aged or uneven-
aged birch stands because of its capability of producing a large
number of birch seedlings with hiding cover nearby.
Selective cutting occurs when each tree (or group of trees) cut is
chosen with regard to its present position in the stand and future
possibilities for growth (Stoddard 1978). Selection methods are
generally applied in uneven-aged stands. The regeneration never
loses the protection or competition from the adjacent older age
classes. Single-tree selection involves the frequent removal of
mature individuals or small groups of trees with a new generation
occuring in their place. Group-selection cuts result in larger
openings but not so large as to lose the site protection of the
surrounding trees.
C. Post-logging Site Preparation
The creation and maintenance of productive multiple use forests is
a goal common to forest managers and wildlife managers. The
32
reforestation of commercial forest lands in Alaska is mandated by
the Forest Resources and Practices Act ( 1979) . This statute
requires that a regeneration program be developed that will ensure
a sustained yield from forested lands from which the timber has
been harvested.
The regeneration and establishment of forest trees and tall shrubs
after timber harvesting is influenced by numerous biotic and
abiotic variables. The interactions between the seed available for
regeneration and the condition of the organic layers and surface
soils of the seedbed are particularly critical to vegetative
reestablishment. Seed sources must be planned prior to harvesting.
Seed availability is probably the more restrictive of these two
variables (Zasada 1986). If adequate seed sources are not left,
regeneration will not be successful even if surface conditions are
optimal for germination and seedling establishment. However,
proper seedbed conditions greatly influence the degree of seed
germination and vegetative reproduction (i.e. , root suckering,
layering, basal sprouting, and regrowth from detached vegetative
parts such as stem or root segments). Numerous studies have shown
that seedbed surfaces consisting of thick organic material (humus)
are generally poor environments for seedling germination and
establishment because they tend to dessicate rapidly in direct
sunlight (Zasada and Gregory 1969).
There are two alternative forms of reforestation -artificial
seeding or planting and natural regeneration. In southcentral and
interior Alaska, natural regeneration has been the most common
means of forest renewal. No matter which reforestation technique
is used, some form of site preparation is necessary to provide
optimal seedbed conditions (Gardner 1980, Zasada 1980, Zasada and
Gregory 1969). Alaskan and Canadian experience has demonstrated
that abundant natural regeneration can be obtained given a good
seed source and a mineral soil seedbed (Zasada and Grigal 1969).
In the last ten years most post-logging regeneration efforts have
been aimed at exposing mineral soil for the natural seeding
process. This type of seedbed substrate most closely approximates
the necessary germination conditions of a stable, adequate moisture
regime, favorable soil temperatures, and a sufficient nutrient
supply (Zasada and Gregory 1969).
Proper site preparation is fundamental to the establishment of
plants and seeds. Competition from unwanted vegetation is reduced,
the supply of soil nutrients improves, soil temperatures increase,
drainage improves, the risk of plant loss from frost diminishes,
and the growth of planted seedlings is enhanced.
Zasada and Grigal (1978} reported that the initial stages of plant
succession on their study sites was influenced by site preparation.
Scalped surfaces contained numerous seedlings of birch, aspen,
alder, and willow, while unscalped areas supported low shrubs and
herbaceous species that were common prior to timber harvest and of
33
low value to moose.
C.l Mechanical Scarification
scarification is an old, and fairly common, method of soil
preparation. However, the technique has not been widely used in
Alaska because of high treatment costs, unfavorable economic
conditions in the timber industry, and blatant disregard of sound
silvicultural practices in past years. In this method, the moss
and organic layers are removed exposing the mineral soil for the
natural seeding of forest trees and shrubs. Mineral soil exposure
may be exposed over the entire harvested area, in random patches
with considerable intermixing of soil components, in parallel
furrows, or in uniformly spaced scalps. Many kinds of heavy
equipment can be used for scarification and include: 1) bulldozer
and tractor blades, multiple disks, drums, and anchor chains for
random scarification; 2) plows, rippers, and disk trenchers that
produce furrows; and, 3) spot cultivators for scalping patches.
The many kinds of site-preparation equipment have naturally led to
many different site-preparation methods. Probably the most common
methods are shearing and raking. This involves use of a bulldozer
or tractor with a straight blade or a raking blade. After logging
has been completed, most of the slash is windrowed or piled to one
side of the clearcut. This also removes or intermixes the top
organic layer with mineral soil. Root raking, also known as rock
raking and grubbing, involves rather severe site disturbance
because tree stumps are torn out of the ground and piled or
windrowed. This can be a risky procedure because of the possible
removal of the nutrient-holding upper soil layer. Roller chopping
crushes and breaks up most woody material up to about 3 inches in
diameter but usually does not cause sufficient disturbance to the
soil organic layer nor provides adequate control of resprouting
competing vegetation. Because the chopped material is scattered
over the soil surface, some additional mechanical activity is
needed to expose areas for regeneration. Discing results in mixing
the organic and mineral soil layers instead of just scraping off
the top organic layer. Disc trenching produces a furrow and
scalping or shearing results in a small spot where the organic soil
layer has been scalped off and thrown into an adjacent berm.
C.2 Prescribed Burning
Prescribed burning can be an effective and economic means of
removing accumulated slash and logging debris from clearcut areas.
Bunnell and Eastman (1976) reported that prescribed burning
resulted in less severe site damage than natural wildfires and that
burning slash would extend early successional stages. Prescribed
burning of logging slash on Maine clearcuts resulted in greater
production of hardwood stems and shrubs than in clearcuts where
debris was not removed (Rinaldi 1970). Light burns can stimulate
vegetative reproduction of some hardwood browse species favored by
34
moose. The beneficial effects for moose of prescribed burning may
last up to 15 years before the canopy begins to close over the
understory.
Prescribed burning has only been! used in Alaska in recent years.
Fire creates a great variety of microsites for germination and
establishment of trees and shrubs (Friedman 1981, Zasada et al.
1983, Dyrness and Norum 1983). Z~sada et al. (1983) described the
use of controlled burning on an upland black spruce site in
interior Alaska. The low costs (sometimes one-third that of
mechanical scarification) assoc~ated with this technique have
increased its attractiveness as a site preparation technique.
However, experience in Canada has indicated that prescribed fire
alone often does not always creat/e adequate seedbed conditions and
that it may have to be used i:¢. conjunction with some form of
mechanical site preparation.
' On white spruce sites, clearcutting is the only silvicultural
system that can accommodate prescribed burning because white spruce
is so susceptible to fire. The 1method of timber harvesting will
also influence the burn prescription because the amount of fuel
accumulation will vary greatly between the log length, tree length,
and full-tree harvesting system~. Generally, field observations
from mixed-forest stands tend to indicate that residual organic
layer depth combined with some measure of burn severity are
necessary to estimate the degred of future regeneration response
and relative importance of seed amd vegetative reproduction (Zasada
1986). I
C.3 Herbicides
The use of herbicides (e.g., glyphosate; 2,4,5-T; atrazine; 2,4-D;
and simazine) and other chemicals in forest management involves a
myriad of technical, biological, social, and legal problems.
Social concerns regarding possible impacts of herbicide use
together with strict legal restrictions on use have constrained use
of this technique. The objective of herbicide treatment is to
temporarily reduce the dominance of an undesirable vegetation
component thereby allowing the desired vegetation to attain greater
site occupancy more rapidly (Daniel et al. 1979).
Since glyphosate was introduced in the early 1970's, it has become
widely used by forest managers in Canada, Norway and in the United
States, because of its effectiveness in shrub competition control.
In southcentral Alaska, the use of glyphosate (Monsanto product
name-Roundup), a relatively new broad spectrum herbicide, has
been advocated to control the large amount of bluejoint grass
(Calamagrostis canadensis) that rapidly develops in many clearcut
sites. Although Sutton (1978) reported that hundreds of efficacy
studies have been carried out in North America and Europe, the
majority of these studies have been agriculturally oriented with
35
little attention given to forests or their associated wildlife.
There are no published studies evaluating the effects of
glyphosate on the habitats of northern boreal wildlife species,
especially moose in Alaska, under operational field conditions.
Krefting and Hansen (1969) and Mueggler (1966) stated that
carefully planned herbicide treatments could increase browse
production on big game range. Conversely, some herbicides can be
used to reduce or eliminate broad-leaved shrub densities. In fact,
Braathe (1978) recommended use of glyphosate to reduce available
food resources as a means of controlling moose numbers in Norway.
Kennedy and Jordan (1985) found that glyphosate treated stands in
northern Minnesota averaged half the available browse of 2, 4-D
treated areas. Because glyphosate has no residual effects, it may
actually encourage growth of grasses and forbs in the next growing
season (ibid.). In British Columbia, Sullivan and Sullivan (1979)
reported that black-tailed deer showed did not avoid eating
glyphosate-treated forage in simulated feeding trials.
LITERATURE CITED
ADF&G. 1984. Fish and wildlife resources element for the Susitna
area planning study. Prep. Alaska Dept. Fish and Game,
Habitat Division, Anchorage. 236 pp. + apps.
Albert, s.w., and L.C. Shea. 1986. Moose winter habitat in the
lower Susitna Valley, Alaska: Pilot project on habitat
suitability assessment. ADF&G, Div. Habitat. Tech. Rept.
No. 86-6. Juneau, Alaska. 105 pp.
Aleksiuk, M. 1970. The seasonal food regime of arctic beavers.
Ecology 51:264-270.
Allen, A.W. 1982. Habitat suitability index models: beaver.
USFWS/OBS 82/10.30. 20 pp.
Allen, A.W. 1987. The relationship between habitat and
furbearers. Pages 164-179 in Wild furbearer management and
conservation in North America. M. Novak et al., eds. Ontario
Ministry Natural Resources, Toronto. ?? pp.
Anderson, H.W., M.D. Hoover, and K.G. Reinhart. 1976. Forests and
water: effects of forest management on floods, sedimentation,
and water supply. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-18.
115 pp.
Anthony, R.G., and F. B. Isaacs. Characteristics of bald eagle nest
36
sites in Oregon.
Corvallis
Unpubl. draft. Oregon State Uni v. ,
Arlidge, J.W.C. 1967. The durability of scarified seedbeds for
spruce regeneration. Brit. Columbia For Serv. Res. Note 42.
20 pp.
Bailey, T.N., and E.E. Bangs. 1980. Moose calving areas and use
on the Kenai National Moose Range, Alaska. Proc. N. Amer.
Moose Conf. Workshop 16:289-313.
Bailey, T.N., A.W. Franzmann, P.D. Arneson, and J.L. Davis. 1978.
Kenai Peninsula moose population identity study. ADF&G, Fed.
Aid in Wildl. Rest. Project Nos. W-17-3 through 9. Final
Report. 84 pp.
Ballard, W.B., T.H. Spraker, and K.P. Taylor. 1981. Causes of
neonatal moose calf mortality in south central Alaska. J.
Wildl. Manage. 45:335-342.
Banfield, A.W.F. 1974. The mammals of Canada. Univ. Toronto
Press. Pages 157-162.
Bangs, E.E., T.N. Bailey, and V.D. Berns. 1982. Ecology of
nesting bald eagles on the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge,
Alaska. Pages 47-54 in W.N. Ladd and P.F. Schempf, eds.
Proc. Symp. and Workshop on Raptor Manage. and Biology. USDI-
USFWS. Alaska Reg. Office.
Banko, W.E. 1960. The trumpeter swan. No. Amer. Fauna No. 63.
USFWS, Washington, D.C. 214 pp.
BeechBeecham, J.J., D.G. Reynolds, and M.G. Hornocker. 1983. Black
bear denning activities and characteristics in west-central
Idaho. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 5:79-86.
Berg, W.E., and R.L. Phillips. 1974. Habitat use by moose in
northwestern Minnesota with reference to other heavily
willowed areas. Naturaliste Canad. 101:101-116.
Best, D.A., G.M. Lynch, and O.J. Rongstad. 1977. Annual spring
movements of moose to mineral licks in Swan Hills, Alberta.
Proc. N. Am. Moose Conf. Workshop 13:215-228.
Blanchard, B.M. 1983.
Yellowstone area.
Grizzly bear-habitat relationships in the
Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 5:118-123.
Boyce, M.S. 1974. Beaver population ecology in interior Alaska.
MS Thesis. Univ. Alaska, Fairbanks. 161 pp.
Bradt, G.W. 1938. A study of beaver colonies in Michigan. J.
Mammal. 19:139-162.
37
Bratkovich, A.A. 1986. Grizzly bear habitat components associated
with past logging practices on the Libby Ranger District,
Kootenai National Forest. Pages 180-184 in G.P. Contreras and
K.E. Evans, eds. Proc. Grizzly Bear Habitat Symposium. USDA,
Forest Serv. Intermountain Res. Sta. , Ogden, Utah. Gen. tech.
Rept. INT-207.
Braun, C.E., F. Hamerstrom, T. Ray, and C.M. White.
Conservation committee report on status of eagles.
Bull. 87:140-143.
1975.
Wilson
Brody, A.J., and J.N. Stone. 1987. Timber harvest and black bear
population dynamics in a southern Appalachian forest. Int.
Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 7:243-250.
Brusnyk, L.M., and F.F. Gilbert. 1983.
reserves by moose. J. Wildl. Manage.
Use of shoreline timber
47:673-685.
Bunnell, F.L., and D.S. Eastman. 1976. Effects of forest
management practices on wildlife in the forests of British
Columbia. Pages 631-689 in Proc. XVI IUFRO World Congress.
Burnett, G.W. 1981. Movements and habitat use of American marten
in Glacier National Park, Montana. MS Thesis. Univ. Montana,
Missoula. 130 pp.
Burns, J.J. 1964. Comparison of two populations of mink from
Alaska. Canad. J. Zool. 42(6) :1071-1079.
Buskirk, s.w. 1983. The ecology of marten in southcentral Alaska.
Ph.D. Thesis. Univ. Alaska, Fairbanks. 131 pp.
Buskirk, s.w. 1984. Seasonal use of resting sites by marten in
south-central Alaska. J. Wildl. Manage. 48:950-953.
Campbell, T.M. 1979. Short-term effects of timber harvests on
pine marten ecology. MS Thesis. Colorado State Univ., Fort
Collins. 71 pp.
Chatelain, E.F.
Peninsula.
1950. Bear-moose relationships on the Kenai
Trans. No. Amer. Wildl. Conf. 15:224-233.
Chatelain, E.F. 1951. Winter range problems of moose in the
Susitna valley. Proc. Alaska Science Conf. 2:343-347.
Chatelain, E.F. 1952. Distribution and abundance of moose in
Alaska. Proc. Alaska Science Conf. 3:134-136.
Clark, T.W., and T.M. campbell. 1976. Population organization and
regulatory mechanisms of pine martens in Grand Teton National
Park, Wyoming. Pages 293-295 in R.M. Linn, ed. Proc. First
Conf. Sci. Res. Nat. Parks. 1325 pp.
38
Clark, T.W., and T.M. Campbell. 1977. Short-term effects of
timber harvests on pine marten behavior and ecology. USDA-
u.s. For. Serv. Terminal Rept. 60 pp.
Cowan, I. MeT., w.s. Hoar, and J. Hatter. 1950. The effect of
forest succession upon the quantity and upon the nutritive
values of woody plants used as food by moose. Canad. J. Res.
28, Sect. D:249-271.
Craighead, J.J. 1980. A proposed delineation of critical grizzly
bear habitat in the Yellowstone region. Bear Biol. Assoc.
Monogr. Ser. No. 1. 20 pp.
Crete, M. 1976. Importance of the logging operations on the
winter habitat of moose in southwestern Quebec. Proc. No.
Amer. Moose Conf. and Workshop 12:31-53.
Crossley, A. 1985. Summer pond use by moose in northern Maine.
M.S. Thesis. Univ. Maine, Orono. 39 pp.
Cushwa, C.T., and J. Coady. 1976. Food habits of moose (Alces
alces) in Alaska: a preliminary study using rumen contents
analysis. Canad. Field-Nat. 90(1):11-16.
Daniel, T.W., J.A. Helms, and F.S. Baker. 1979. Principles of
silviculture. McGraw-Hill Book Co. New York, N.Y. 500 pp.
Davis, J.L., and A.W. Franzmann. 1979. Fire-moose-caribou
interrelationships: a review and assessment. Proc. North Am.
Moose Conf. and Workshop 15:80-118.
Densmore, R.A. 1988. Regeneration of paper birch and willow
following scarification of logged areas in southcentral
Alaska. Unpubl. Rept. Inst. Northern Forestry. Fairbanks,
Alaska. 21 pp.
Densmore, R.A., and J.C. Zasada. 1978. Rooting potential of
Alaskan willow cuttings. Can. J. For. Res. 8(2):477-479.
deVos, A. 1952. The ecology and management of fisher and marten in
Ontario. Ont. Dept. Lands and For. Tech. Bull. 90 pp.
Didrickson, J.C., D. Cornelius, and J. Reynolds.
southcentral moose population studies. ADF&G, Fed.
Wildl. Rest. Proj. W-17-6, W-17-7, W-17-8, Jobs 1.17R,
and 1.19R. 8 pp.
1977.
aid in
1.18R,
Douglass, R.J., L.G. Fisher, and M. Mair. 1983. Habitat selection
and food habits of marten, (Martes americana) in the Northwest
Territories. Canad. Field-Nat. 97:71-74.
Dyrness, C.T., and R.A. Norum. 1983. The effects of experimental
39
fires on black spruce forest floors in interior Alaska. Can
J. For. Res. 13:879-893.
Eason, G., E. Thomas, R. Jerrard, and K. Oswald. 1981. Moose
hunting closure in a recently logged area. Alces 17:111-125.
Eastman, D.S. 1974. Habitat use by moose of burns, cutovers and
forests in northcentral British Columbia. Proc. No. Amer.
Moose Conf. and Workshop 10:238-256.
Elgmork, K. 1978. Human impact on a brown bear population (Ursus
arctos ~.). Biol. Conserv. 13(2):81-103.
Ellison, L.N. 1966. Seasonal foods and chemical analysis of
winter diet of Alaskan spruce grouse. J. Wildl. Manage.
30(4):729-735.
Ellison, L.N., and R.B. Weeden. 1968. Game bird report. ADF&G,
Fed. Aid in Wildl. Rest.
Job No. 1, 2, 6, 7, 8. 22
Ann. Proj. segment Rept. Vol 9.
Proj. W-13-R-2, and 3, Work Plan B,
pp.
Ellison, L.N.
grouse.
1976. Winter food selection by Alaskan spruce
J. Wildl. Manage. 40(2):205-213.
Erickson, A.W. 1977. Cabinet Mountains Grizzly Bear Management
study. USDA, Forest Serv. Contract No. 262-46. 25 pp.
Euler, D. 1987.
17:180-192.
A moose habitat strategy for Ontario. Alces
Fall, J.A., D. Foster, and R.T. Stanek. 1983. The use of moose
and other wild resources in the Tyonek and upper Yentna areas:
a background report. ADF&G, Div. of Subsistence Tech. Paper
No. 74. 44 pp.
Faro, J.B. 1985. Black bear survey-inventory progress report.
Pages 38-39 in B. Townsend, ed. Annual report of survey-
inventory activities. Vol. 16, Part IV. Black bear. ADF&G.
Fed. Aid in Wildl. Rest. Proj. W-22-4, Job 17.0. Juneau. 43
pp.
Faro, J.B. 1988.
80-84 in s.
activities.
Wildl. Rest.
Moose survey-inventory progress report. Pages
Morgan, ed. Annual report of survey-inventory
Vol. 18, Part VIII. Moose. ADF&G. Fed. Aid in
Proj. W-22-6, Job 1.0. Juneau. 183 pp.
Forest Resources and Practices Act. 1979. AS 41.17.010
Francis, G.R. , and A. B. Stephenson. 1972. Marten ranges and food
habits in Algonquin Provincial Park, Ontario. Min. Nat. Res.
Research Rept. (Wildlife) No. 91.
40
Franzmann, A.W., c.c. Schwartz, and R.O. Peterson. 1980. Moose
calf mortality in summer on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. J.
Wildl. Manage 44(3):764-768.
Friedman, B.F. 1981. Fire ecology and population biology of two
taiga shrubs, lingonberry (Vaccinium vitis-idaea) and alpine
blueberry (Vaccinium uliginosum). M.S. Thesis, Univ. Alaska,
Fairbanks. 162 pp.
Froehlich, H.A. 1978. The physical effects of timber harvesting
on forest soils. Pages 49-64 in A.B. Berg, ed. Proc. Symp.
Managing young forests in the Douglas-fir region. Oregon
state Univ., Corvallis.
Fyfe, R.W., and R.R. Olendorf. 1976. Minimizing the dangers of
nesting studies to raptors and other sensitive species.
Canad. Wildl. serv. Occa. Paper No. 23. 14 pp.
Gardner, A.C. 1980. Regeneration problems and options for white
spruce on river floodplains in the Yukon Territory. Pages 19-
24 in M. Mayo and R. M. VanVeldhuizen, eds. Forest
Regeneration at High Latitudes. USDA-USFS Gen. Tech. Rept.
PNW-107. Portland, OR. 52 pp.
Gerrard, J. M. , Gerrard, P. N. , and D. W. A. Whitfield. 1980.
Behavior in a non-breeding bald eagle.
94:391-397.
Canad. Field-Nat.
Gibbons, D.R., and E.O. Salo. 1973. An annotated bibliography of
the effects of loggings on fish of the western United States
and Canada. USDA-USFS Gen. Tech. Rept. PNW-10. 145 pp.
Grauvogel, C.A. 1984. Seward Peninsula moose population identity
study. ADF&G. Final rept. Fed. Aid in Wildl. Rest. Proj. w-
22-2, Job 1.29R. Juneau, Alaska. 93 pp.
Grenier, P. 1973. Moose killed on the highway in the Laurentides
Park, Quebec, 1962-1972. Proc. No. Amer. Moose Conf. Workshop
9:155-194.
Grubb, T.G. 1977. A summary of current bald eagle research in the
northwest. USDA-u.s. Forest Serv. Prog. rept. 10 pp.
Grubb, T.G. 1980. An evaluation of bald eagle nesting in western
Washington. Pages 87-103 in R.L. Knight et al., eds. Proc.
Washington Bald Eagle Symp. Seattle, Washington.
Hagmeier, E.D. 1956. Distribution of marten and fisher in North
Canad. Field-Nat. 70:149-168. America.
Hakala, J.B.
beaver
1952. The life history and general ecology of the
(Castor canadensis Kuhl) in interior Alaska. MS
41
Thesis. Univ. Alaska.
Hall, J.G. 1960. Willow and aspen in the ecology of beaver on
sagehen creek, California. Ecology 41:484-494.
Hamilton, G. D., and P.D. Drysdale. 1975. Effects of cutover width
on browse utilization by moose. Proc. No. Amer. Moose conf.
and Workshop 11:1-12.
Hamilton, G.D., P.D. Drysdale, and D.L. Euler. 1980. Moose winter
browsing patterns on clearcuttings in northern Ontario. Can.
J. Zool. 58:1412-1416.
Hansen, A.J., and J.W. Bartelme. 1980. Winter ecology and
management of bald eagles on the Skykomish River, Washington.
Pages 133-144 in R.L. Knight et al., eds. Proc. Washington
Bald Eagle Symp. Seattle, Washington.
Hansen. A.J., E.L. Boeker, J.I. Hodges, and D.R. Cline. 1984.
Bald eagles of the Chilkat Valley, Alaska: ecology, behavior,
and management. New York. 27 pp.
Hansen, H.A. 1973. Trumpeter swan management. Wildfowl 24:27-32.
Hansen, H.P., P.E.K. Shepherd, J.G. King, and W.A. Troyer. 1971.
The trumpeter swan in Alaska. Wildl. Monogr. 26. 83 pp.
Hargis, c.D., and D.R. McCullough. 1984. Winter diet and habitat
selection of marten in Yosemite National Park. J. Wildl.
Manage. 48:140-146.
Hawley, V.D., and F.E. Newby. 1957. Marten home ranges and
population fluctuations. J. Mammal. 38:174-184.
Herrero, S.M. 1972. Aspects of evolution and adaptation in
American black bears (Ursus americanus Pallas) and brown and
grizzly bears (U. arctos Linne) of North America. Int. Conf.
Bear Res. and Manage. 2:221-231.
Herrero, S.M. 1978. A comparison of some features of the
evolution, ecology, and behavior of black and grizzly/brown
bears. Carnivore 1(1):7-17.
Horejsi, B.L. 1986. Industrial and agricultural incursion into
grizzly bear habitat: the Alberta story. Pages 116-123 in
G.P. Contreras and K.E. Evans, eds. Proc. Grizzly Bear
Habitat Symposium. USDA, Forest Serv. Intermountain Res.
Sta., Ogden, Utah. Gen. tech. Rept. INT-207.
Hughes, J. 1990. Personal communication. Raptor Biologist,
ADF&G, Oil Spill Impact Assessment & Recovery Division.
42
Hugie, R. D. 1982. Black bear ecology and management in the
northern conifer-deciduous forests of Maine. Ph.D. Thesis.
Univ. Montana, Missoula. 203 pp.
Hunt, H.M. 1976.
Saskatchewan.
12:91-127.
Big game utilization of hardwood cuts in
Proc. No. Amer. Moose Conf. and Workshop
Kelsall, J.P., E.S. Telfer, and T.O. Wright. 1977. The effects of
fire on the ecology of the boreal forest with particular
reference to the canadian north: a review and selected
bibliography. Can Wildl. Serv. Occas. Pap. No. 32. 58 pp.
Jensen, W.F., T.K. Fuller, and W.L. Robinson. 1986. Wolf (Canis
lupus) distribution on the Ontario-Michigan border near Sault
Ste. Marie. Canad. Field-Nat. 100:363-366.
Johnson, C.B. 1985. Use of coastal habitat by mink on Prince of
Wales Island, Alaska. MS Thesis. Univ. Alaska, Fairbanks.
179 pp.
Johnson, L. 1981. Otter and marten life history studies. ADF&G
Final Rept. Fed. Aid in Wildl. Rest. Proj. W-17-10, W-17-11,
and W-21-1, Job 7.10R. Juneau. 29 pp.
Jonkel, C.J. 1987. Brown bear. Pages 457-473 in Wild furbearer
management and conservation in North America. M. Novak et
al., eds. Ontario Ministry Natural Resources, Toronto. ??
pp.
Jonkel, C.J., and I. MeT. Cowan. 1971. The black bear in the
spruce-fir forest. Wildl. Monogr. 27. 57 pp.
Kelleyhouse, D.G. 1977.
northern California.
227.
Habitat utilization of black bears in
Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 4:221-
Kessel, B., D.D. Gibson, s.o. MacDonald, and B.A. Cooper, and K.C.
Cooper. 1982. Avifauna of the lower Susitna River
floodplain, Alaska. University of Alaska Museum, Fairbanks.
Prepared for LGL Alaska Environmental Research Assoc., Ltd.
King, J.G. 1968. Trumpeter swan survey, Alaska. USDI-Bur. Sport
Fish and Wildl. Juneau.
Koehler, G.M., W.R. Moore, A.R. Taylor. 1975. Preserving the pine
marten: management guidelines for western forests. Western
Wildlands 2(3):31-36.
Koehler, G.M., and M.G. Hornocker. 1977. Fire effects on marten
habitat in the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness. J. Wildl.
Manage. 41:500-505.
43
Kolenosky, G.B., and S.M. Strathearn. 1987. Black bear. Pages
443-454 in Wild furbearer management and conservation in North
America. M. Novak et al. , eds. Ontario Ministry Natural
Resources, Toronto. ?? pp.
Larsen, D.H. 1983. Habitats, movements, and food of river otters
in coastal southeast Alaska. MS Thesis. Uni v. Alaska,
Fairbanks. 149 pp.
Larsen, J.s. 1974. Forest management practices and policies as
related to wildlife. Pages 193-196 in H.C. Black, ed. Proc.
Wildlife and forest management in the Pacific Northwest Symp.
September 11-12, 1973. Corvallis, OR.
Leege, T.A. 1976. Relationship of logging to decline of the Pete
King elk herd. Pages 6-10 in S.R. Heib, ed. Proc. Elk-
Logging-Roads Symp. December 16-17, 1975. Moscow, ID.
Leege, T.A. 1984. Guidelines for evaluating and managing summer
elk habitat in northern Idaho. Wildl. Bull. No. 11. Idaho
Dept. of Fish and Game. 73 pp.
Leptich, D.J., and J.R. Gilbert. 1986. Characteristics of moose
calving sites in northern Maine as determined by multivariate
analysis: a preliminary investigation. Alces 22:69-82.
Lees, J.C. 1964. Tolerance of white spruce seedlings to flooding.
Forest Chron. 40:221-225.
LeFranc, M.N., Jr., M.B. Moss, K.A. Patnode, w.c. sugg, III. 1987.
Grizzly bear compendium. Prep. Nat. Wildl. Fed. for
Interagency Grizzly Bear Comm. 540 pp.
Lensink, c.J. 1953. An investigation of the marten in Interior
MS Thesis. Univ. Alaska, Fairbanks. 89 pp. Alaska.
Lensink, C.J., R.O. Skoog, and J.L. Buckley. 1955. Food habits of
marten in interior Alaska and their significance. J. Wi1d1.
Manage. 19:364-368.
Lent, P.C.
Canad.
1974. A review of rutting behavior in moose.
101:117-130.
Nat.
LeResche, R.E., and J.L. Davis 1973. Importance of nonbrowse
foods to moose on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. J. Wildl.
Manage. 37(2):279-287.
LeResche, R.E., R.H. Bishop, and J.W. Coady. 1974a. Distribution
and habitats of moose in Alaska. Naturaliste Canad. 101:143-
178.
LeResche, R.E., J.L. Davis, P.O. Arneson, D.C. Johnson, and A.W.
44
Franzmann. 1974b. Moose behavior studies. Final rept, Fed.
Aid in Wildl. Rest. Projects W-17-2, W-17-3, W-17-4, W-17-5,
and W-17-6. Job 1.2R.
Lindzey, F.G., K.R. Barber, R.D. Peters, and E.C. Meslow. 1986.
Responses of a black bear population to a changing
environment. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 6:57-63.
Lutz, H.J. 1956. Ecological effects of forest fires in interior
Alaska. USDA-USFS Tech. Bull. No. 1133. 121 pp.
Lutz, H.J. 1960. History of the early occurence of moose on the
Kenai Peninsula and in other sections of Alaska. USDA-USFS,
Alaska Forest Research Center. Misc. Publ. No. 1. 25 pp.
Lynch, G.M. 1973. Influence of hunting in an Albert moose herd.
Proc. No. Amer. Moose Conf. and Workshop 9:123-135.
Lyon, L.J. 1979. Habitat effectiveness for elk as influenced by
roads and cover. J. For. 77:658-660.
Lyon, L.J. 1983. Road
effectiveness for elk.
Lyon, L.J., et al. 1985.
density
J. For.
models describing
81(9):592-595.
habitat
Machida, s. 1979. Differential use of willows by moose in Alaska.
M.S. Thesis, Univ. Alaska, Fairbanks. 98 pp.
MacLennan, R. 1975.
Porcupine Forest.
11:27-36.
Use of forest cuts by big game in the
Proc. No. Amer. Moose Conf. and Workshop
Major, J.T. 1979. Marten use of habitat in a commercially clear-
cut forest during winter. MS Thesis. Uni v. Maine, Orono. 31
pp.
Manville, R.H., and S.P. Young. 1965. Distribution of A1aksan
mammals. U.S. Fish Wildlife Serv., Bur. Sport Fisheries and
Wildl. Circular 211. 74 pp.
Markgren, G. 1974. The moose in Fennoscandia. Naturaliste canad.
101:185-194.
Marshall, W.H. 1951. Pine marten as a forest product. J. For.
49:899-905.
Martell, A.M. 1983. Changes in small mammal communities after
logging in north-central ontario. Canad. J. Zool. 61:970-980.
Mason, C.F., and S.M. MacDonald. 1986.
Conservation. Cambridge Univ. Press.
45
otters: Ecology and
236 pp.
Masters, M.A., R.A. Densmore, B.J. Neiland, and J.C. Zasada. in
press. Moose utilization of riparian willow in the central
Alaska north slope. Draft MS submitted to Alces. 29 pp.
Matchett, M.R. 1985. Moose-habitat relationships in the Yaak
River drainage, northwestern Montana. M.S. Thesis. Uni v.
Montana, Missoula. 229 pp.
McKelvey, R.W., M.C. Dennington, and D. Mossop. 1983. The status
and distribution of trumpeter swans (Cygnus buccinator) in the
Yukon. Arctic 36(1):76-81.
McLellan, B.N., and D.M. Shackleton. 1988. Grizzly bears and
resource-extraction industries: effects of roads on behaviour,
habitat use and demography. J. Appl. Ecol. 25:451-460.
McNicol, J.G., and F.F. Gilbert. 1978. Late winter bedding
practices of moose in mixed upland cutovers. Can. Field-Nat.
92 (2): 189-192.
McNicol, J.G., and F.F. Gilbert. 1980. Late winter use of upland
cutovers by moose. J. Wildl. Manage. 44:363-371.
McNicol, J.G., H.R. Timmerman, and R. Gollat. 1980.
of heavy browsing pressure over eight years on
Quetico Park. Proc. No. Amer. Wildl. Conf.
16:360-373.
The effects
a cutover in
and Workshop
Mech, L.D., and L.L. Rogers. 1977. Status, distribution, and
movements of martens in northeastern Minnesota. USDA-For.
Serv. Res. Pap. NC-143.
Mech, L.D., S.H. Fritts, G.L. Radde, and W.J. Paul. 1988. Wolf
distribution and road density in Minnesota. Wildl. Soc. Bull.
16:85-87.
Milke, G.C. 1969. Some moose-willow relationships in the interior
of Alaska. MS Thesis. Univ. Alaska, Fairbanks. 79 pp.
Miller, S.D. 1987. Susitna hydroelectric project final report.
Big game studies. Vol. VI. Black bear and brown bear.
Submitted to Alaska Power Authority. 276 pp.
Miller, S.D. 1988. Game Biologist, ADF&G, Anchorage.
Mindel!, D.P. 1983. Nesting raptors in Southwest Alaska: status,
distribution, and aspects of biology. Bur. Land Manage. ,
Alaska Tech. Rept. 8. Anchorage, Alaska. 59 pp.
Miquelle, D.G., and P.A. Jordan.
diversity in the diet of moose.
and Workshop 15:54-79.
46
1979. The importance of
Proc. No. Amer. Moose Conf.
Modafferi, R.D. 1984. Moose-downstream. ADF&G. Susitna Hydro.
Project. Ann. prog. rept. Phase II: Big Game Studies. Vol.
II. 116 pp.
Modafferi, R. D. 1988. Lower Susitna Valley moose population
identity and movement study. ADF&G, Fed. Aid in Wildl. Rest.
Proj. W-22-5 and W-22-6, Job No. lB-1.38. 60 pp.
Moen, A. N. 1973.
Francisco. 458
Wildlife ecology.
pp.
W.H. Freeman and Co, San
Monthey, R.W. 1984. Effects of timber harvesting on ungulates in
northern Maine. J. Wildl. Manage. 48(1):279-285.
Murie, A. 1944. The wolves of Mt. McKinley. u.s. Natl. Park.
Serv., Fauna Ser. No. 5. 238 pp.
Murray, D.F. 1961. Some factors affecting the production and
harvest of beaver in the upper Tanana River, Alaska. MS
Thesis. Univ. Alaska, Fairbanks. 103 pp.
Murray, N .E. 1974. Harvest charcteristics, densities and
productivity of moose (Alces alces andersoni) in centrl
British Columbia. B. Sc. Thesis. Univ. British Columbia,
Vancouver. 44 pp.
Northcott, T.H. 1964. An investigation of the factors affecting
carrying capacity of selected areas in Newfoundland for the
beaver. M.Sc. Thesis. Memorial Univ., st. Johns, NF.
Oldemeyer, J.L., and W.L. Regelin. 1984. Forest succession,
habitat management, and moose on the Kenai National Wildlife
Refuge. USFWS, Denver Wildlife Research Center. Final
Report. 30 pp.+ appendices.
Orme, M.L., and R.G. Williams. 1986. Coordinating livestock and
timber management with the grizzly bear in situation 1
habitat, Targhee National Forest. Pages 195-203 in G.P.
Contreras and K.E. Evans, eds. Proc. Grizzly Bear Habitat
Symposium. USDA, Forest serv. Intermountain Res. sta., Ogden,
Utah. Gen. tech. Rept. INT-207.
Parker, J. 1988. Susitna Valley bald eagle survey, 1988. USDI-
USFWS. Ecol. Serv. , Anchoage, Alaska. Unpubl. rept. 8
pp.+maps.
Pearson, A.M. 1975. The northern interior grizzly bear (Ursus
arctos ~). Canad. Wildl. serv., Rep. Ser. 34. 84 pp.
Pedersen, R.J., A.W. Adams, J.M. Skovlin. 1980. Elk habitat use
in an unlogged and logged forest environment. Wildl. Res.
47
Rept. 9 . Oregon Dept.
Section, Portland, OR.
Fish &
121 pp.
Wildlife, Res. and Devel.
Peek, J .M. 1974. on the nature of winter habitats of Shiras
moose. Naturaliste Canad. 101:131-141.
Peek, J.M., D.L. Urich, and R.J. Mackie. 1976. Moose habitat
selection and relationships to forest management in
northeastern Minnesota. Wildl. Monog. No. 48. 65 pp.
Perry, c., and R. overly. 1977. Impact of roads on big game
distribution in portions of the Blue Mountains of Washington,
1972-1973. Washington Game Dept. Appl. Res. Sect., Olympia,
WA. Bull. 11. 39 pp.
Peterson, R.L. 1955. North American moose. Univ. Toronto Press.
Pierce, D.J. 1983. Food habits, movements, habitat use and
populations of moose in central Idaho and relationships to
forest management. M.S. Thesis, Uni v. Idaho, Moscow. 2 05 pp.
Pierce, D.J., B.W. Ritchie, and L. Kuck. 1985. An examination of
unregulated harvest of Shiras moose in Idaho. Alces 21:231-
252.
Plummer, A.P., D.R. Christensen, and S.B. Monsen. 1968. Restoring
big game range in Utah. Utah Div. Fish & Game Publ. No. 68-3.
183 pp.
Poelker, R.J., and H.D. Hartwell. 1973. The black bear
Washington. Wash. State Game Dept. Bull. 14. 180 pp.
in
Quick, H.F. Effects of exploitation on a marten population. J.
Wildl. Manage. 20:267-274.
Rausch, R.A. 1967. Report on 1965-66 moose studies. ADF&G, Fed.
Aid in Wildl. Rest. Proj. W-15-R-1, Work PlanK.
Retzer, J.L., H.M. Swope, J.D. Remington, and W.H. Rutherford.
1956. Suitability of physical factors for beaver management
in the Rocky Mountains of Colorado. Colorado Game and Fish
Dept., Tech. Bull. No. 2. 33 pp.
Rinaldi, A.M. 1970. Deer and hare forage following strip
clearcutting and slash disposal on the Penobscot Experimental
Forest, Maine. M.S. Thesis, Uni v. Maine, Orono. 81 pp.
[Cited in McNicol and Timmerman 1981]
Risenhoover, K.L., and R.O. Peterson.
sodium source for Isle Royal moose.
1986. Mineral licks as a
Oecologia 71:121-126.
Ritchie, B.W. 1978. Ecology of moose in Fremont County. Idaho
48
Dept. Fish & Game, Boise. Wildl. Bull. 7. 33 pp.
Scaife, B. 1980. The impact of forestry practices on moose (Alces
alces) in north-central Manitoba. M.Sc. University Manitoba,
Winnepeg. 70 pp.
Schoen
Schupbach, T.A. 1977. History, status, and management of the pine
marten in the upper peninsula of Michigan. MS Thesis.
Michigan Tech. Univ., Houghton. 71 pp.
Schwartz, c.c., and A.W. Franzmann. 1980. Black bear predation on
moose. Alaska Dept. Fish and Game. Fed. Aid in Wildl. Rest.
Rept. Proj. W-17-11 and W-21-1. Juneau. 82 pp.
Schwartz, c.c., A.W. Franzmann, and D.C. Johnson. 1983. Black
bear predation on moose (bear ecology studies) . Alaska Dept.
fish and Game. Fed. Aid in Wildl. Rest. Proj. W-17-10, W-17-
11, w-21-1, W-21-2, W-22-1. Job 17.3R. Juneau. 135 pp.
Schwartz, c.c., S.D. Miller, and A.W. Franzmann. 1987. Denning
ecology of three black bear populations in Alaska. Int. Conf.
Bear Res. and Manage. 7:281-292.
Seemel, R.K. 1969. Range-productivity relationships. Pages 144-
149 in R.H. Bishop, ed. Moose report. ADF&G, Fed. Aid in
Wildl. Rest. Proj. Seg. Rept. W-15-R-3. Juneau, Alaska.
Shepherd, P.E.K. 1958. Food habits of railbelt moose. Job
Completion Report 12 ( 1) : 110-116. Fed. Aid in Wildl. Rest.
Proj. W-3-R-12.
Sigman, M.J.
wildlife
Division.
1985. Impacts of clearcut logging on the fish and
resources of southeast Alaska. ADF&G, Habitat
Technical Rept. 85-3. Juneau, Alaska. 95 pp.
Slough, B.G., and R.M.F.S. Sadleir. 1977. A land capability
classification system for beaver (Castor canadensis Kuhl).
Canad. J. Zool. 55:1324-1335.
Smith, B. L. 1978. Investigations into black and grizzly bear
responses to coastal logging -1977. B.S. Thesis, Simon
Fraser Univ., Burnaby, B.c. 85 pp.
Smith, D.M. 1962. The practice of silviculture. Seventh Edition.
J. Wiley & Sons, New York. 578 pp.
Smith, J.D., E.M. Addison, R.F. McLaughlin, D.J.H. Fraser, D.G.
Joachim. 1988. Calving sites of moose (Alces alces). can.
J. Zool. (in prep).
49
Smith, P.A. 1984. Kenai black bears and cranberries: bear food
habits and densities. M.S. Thesis. Univ. Alaska, Fairbanks.
143 pp.
Snyder, J. E . , and
clearcuttings
Newfoundland.
J .A. Bissonette. 1987. Marten
and residual forest stands in
canad. J. Zool. 65:169-174.
use of
western
Soutiere, E.C. 1979. Effects on timber harvesting on marten in
Maine. J. Wildl. Manage. 43:850-860.
Spencer, D.L., and J.B. Hakala. 1964. Moose and fire on the Kenai.
Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conf. Proc. 3:10-33.
Spencer, D.L., and E.F. Chatelain. 1953. Progress in the
management of the moose of southcentral Alaska. Trans. No.
Amer. Wildl. Conf. 8:539-552.
Spencer, W.D., R.H. Barrett, and W.J. Zielinski. 1983. Marten
habitat preferences in the northern Sierra Nevada. J. Wildl.
Manage. 47:1181-1186.
Stalmaster, M.V. 1980. Management strategies for wintering bald
eagles in the Pacific Northwest. Pages 49-67 in R.L. Knight
et al. , eds. Proc. Washington Bald Eagle Symp. Seattle,
Washington.
Stalmaster, M.V. 1981. Ecological
behavior of wintering bald eagles.
Univ., Logan. 157 pp.
energetics and foraging
Ph.D. Diss. Utah State
Stalmaster, M.V., and J.R. Newman. 1978. Behavioral responses of
wintering bald eagles to human activity. J. Wildl. Manage.
42:506-513.
Stalmaster, M.V., R.L. Knight, B.L. Holder, and R.J. Anderson.
1985. Bald eagle. Pages 269-290 in E.R. Brown,ed.
Management of wildlife and fish habitats in forests of Oregon
and Washington. Part 1 -Chapter narratives. USDA-USFS
Pacific Northwest Region Publication No. R6-F&WL-192-1985.
332 pp.
Stanek, R.T. 1987. Historical and contemporary trapping in the
western Susitna basin. Alaska Dept. Fish and Game, Division
of Subsistence. Tech. Pap. No. 134. 147 pp.
state of Alaska. 1986. Matanuska Valley Moose Range Management
Plan. Prepared by ADNR and ADF&G. October, 1986. 256 pp.
Stelfox, J.G. 1974. Browse production and utilization during 17
years of regeneration in a white spruce forest. Proc. No.
Amer. Moose Conf. and Workshop 10:135-144.
50
Stelfox, J.G. 1984. Effects of clear-cut logging and
scarification on wildlife habitats in west-central Alberta.
canad. Wildl. Service. Edmonton, Alberta. 176 pp.
steventon, J.D., and J.T. Major. 1982. Marten use of habitat in
a commercially clearcut forest. J. Wildl. Manage. 46:175-182.
stoddard, c.H. 1978. Essentials of forestry practice. John Wiley
and Sons, New York. 387 pp.
stoeckeler, J .H. 1948. The growth of quaking aspen as affected by
soil properties and fire. J. For. 46:727-736.
sullivan, T.P., and o.s. Sullivan. 1979. The effects of
glyphosate herbicide on food preference and consumption in
black-tailed deer. Can. J. zool. 57:1406-1412.
swenson, J. 1986.
Tankersley, N.G.
ungulates.
1987. Importance of natural mineral licks to
Unpubl. Rept. ADF&G, Anchorage. 36 pp.
Tankersley, N.G., and w.c. Gasaway.
moose in Alaska. Can. J. Zool.
1983. Mineral lick use by
62:2242-2249.
Taylor, K.P., and W.B. Ballard. 1979. Moose movements and habitat
use along the susitna River near Devil's canyon. Proc. No.
Amer. Moose Conf. and Workshop 15:169-186.
Taylor, M.E., and N. Abrey. 1982. Marten, (Martes americana),
movements and habitat use in Algonquin Provincial Park,
ontario. Canad. Field-Nat. 96:439-447.
Telfer, E.S. 1970. Winter habitat selection by moose and white-
tailed deer. J. Wildl. Manage. 34:553-559.
Telfer, E.S. 1972. Forage yield and browse utilization on logged
areas in New Brunswick. Can. J. For. Res. 2:346-350.
Telfer, E.S. 1974.
boreal forest.
Logging as a factor in wildlife ecology in the
Forestry Chron. 50(5):1-5.
Thiel, R. P. The relationship between road densities and wolf
habitat suitability in wisconsin. Amer. Midl. Nat. 113:404-
407.
Thiessen, J.L. 1976. Some relations of elk to logging, reading
and hunting in Idaho's game management unit 39. Pages 3-5 in
S.R. Hieb, ed. Proc. Elk-Logging-Roads symp. December 16-
17,1975, Moscow, ID.
51
Thompson, I.D. 1986. Diet choice, hunting behaviour, activity
patterns and ecological energetics of marten in natural and
logged areas. Ph.D. Thesis. Queen's Univ., Kingston,
Ontario. 179 pp.
Thompson, I.D. 1988. Habitat needs of furbearers in relation to
logging in boreal Ontario. For. Chron. 64:251-261.
Thompson, I.D., and M.F. Vukelich 1981. Use of logged habitats in
winter by moose cows with calves in northeastern Ontario. Can
J. Zool. 59:2103-2114.
Thompson, I.D., and P.W. Colgan. 1987. Effects of logging on home
range characteristics and hunting activity of marten. Int.
Un. Game Biologists Conf. Krakow, Poland.
Tietje, W.D., and R.L. Ruff. 1980.
bears in boreal forest of Alberta.
870.
Denning behavior of black
J. Wildl. Manage. 44:858-
Timm, D, and L. Wojek. 1978. Trumpeter swans. Fish Tails and
Game Trails. ADF&G, Juneau. Nov. pp. 4-6.
Timmerman, H.R., and R. Gollet. 1983. Age and sex structure of
harvested moose related to season manipulation and access.
Alces 19:301-328.
Tomm, H.O., J.A. Beck, Jr., and R.J. Hudson. 1981.
wild ungulates to logging practices in Alberta.
Res. 11:606-614.
Responses of
Can. J. For.
u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1981.
guidelines for Oregon and Washington.
Bald eagle management
Portland, OR. 10 pp.
Usher, R.G. 1978. The response of moose and woody browse to
clearing in the boreal mixed-wood zone of Alberta. M.S.
Thesis, Univ. Calgary. 137 pp.
Vallee, J., R.Joyal, and R. Couture. 1976. Observations on
regeneration of food species for moose in clearcut stands in
Mastigouche Park, Quebec. Proc. No. Amer. Moose Conf. and
Workshop 12:54-69.
Viereck, L.A. 1970. Forest succession and soil
adjacent to the Chena River in interior Alaska.
Res. 2(1):1-26.
Wallmo, o.c., W.L. Regelin, and D.R. Reechert. 1972.
by mule deer relative to logging in Colorado.
Manage 36(4):1025-1033.
development
Arctic Alp.
Forest use
J. Wildl.
Ward, A.L. 1976. Elk behavior in relation to timber harvest
52
operations and traffic on Medicine Bow range in south-central
Wyoming. Pages 32-43 in S.R. Hieb, ed. Proc. Elk-Logging-
Roads Symp. December 16-17, 1975, Moscow, ID.
Welsh, D.A., K.P. Morrison, K. Oswald, and E.R. Thomas. 1980.
Winter utilization of habitat by moose in relation to forest
harvesting. Proc. No. Amer. Moose Conf. and Workshop 16:398-
428.
Willms, W.D. 1971. The influence of forest edge, elevation,
aspect, site index, and roads on deer use of logged and mature
forest, northern Vancouver Island. M.S. Thesis, Univ. Brit.
Columbia, Vancouver. 184 pp.
Witmer, G.W. Roosevelt elk habitat use in the Oregon Coast Range.
Ph.D Dissertation, Oregon State Univ., Corvallis. 104 pp.
Wolff, J.O. 1976. Utilization of hardwood browse by moose ony the
Tanana floodplain of interior Alaska. USDA-USFS Res. Note
Portland, Oregon. 7 pp.
Woolington, J.D. 1984. Habitat use and movements of river otters
at Kelp Bay, Baranof Island, Alaska. MS Thesis. Univ.
Alaska, Fairbamks. 247 pp.
Yeager, L.E. 1950. Implications of some harvest and habitat
factors on pine marten management. Trans. N. Amer. Wildl.
Conf. 15:319-334.
Young, D.D., and J.J. Beecham. 1987. Black bear habitat use at
Priest Lake, Idaho. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 6:73-80.
Zager, P., C. Jonkel, and J. Habeck. 1983. Logging and wildfire
influence on grizzly bear habitat in northwestern Montana.
Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 5:124-132.
Zager, P. 1983. Grizzly bears in Idaho's Selkirk Mountains:
an update. Northwest Sci. 57(4):299-309.
Zasada, J.C., R.A. Norum, R.M. Van Veldhuizen, and C.E. Teutsch.
1983. Artificial regeneration of trees and shrubs in
experimentally burned upland black sprucejfeathermoss stands
in Alaska. Can. J. For. Res. 13:903-913.
Zasada, J.C., L.A. Viereck, M.J. Foote, R.H. Parkerson, J.O. Wolff,
and L.A. Lankford, Jr. 1981. Natural regeneration of balsam
poplar following harvesting in the Susitna valley, Alaska.
Forest Chron. 57(2):57-64.
Zasada, J.C., and D.F. Grigal. 1978. The effects of silvicultural
systems and seedbed preparation on natural regeneration of
white spruce and associated species in interior Alaska. Pages
213-220 in C.A. Hollis and A.E. Squillace, eds. Proc. Fifth
53
No. Amer. Forest Biology Workshop. Univ. Florida
Zasada, J.C., andR.A. Gregory. 1969. Regeneration of white spruce
with reference to interior Alaska: a literature review. USDA-
USFS Res. Pap. PNW-79. 37 pp.
Zasada, J.C. 1986. Natural regeneration of trees and tall shrubs
on forest sites in interior Alaska. Pages 44-73 in K. Van
Cleve et al., eds. Forest ecosystems in the Alaskan taiga.
Springer-Verlag New York, Inc. 230 pp.
Zasada, J.C. 1980. Some considerations in the natural
regeneration of white spruce in interior Alaska. Pages 25-29
in M. Mayo and R. M. VanVeldhuizen, eds. Forest Regeneration
at High Latitudes. USDA-USFS Gen. Tech. Rept. PNW-107.
Portland, OR. 52 pp.
Zasada, J.C. 1972. Guidelines for obtaining natural regeneration
of white spruce in Alaska. USDA-USFS Pac. NW for. & Range
Expt. Sta. Portland, OR. 16 pp.
54