NARR INNWR 1987

INNOKO NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

McGrath, Alaska

ANNUAL NARRATIVE REPORT

CALENDAR YEAR 1987

INNOKO NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

ANNUAL NARRATIVE REPORT

Calendar Year 1987

U. B. mant of the Interior ~~ and Wildlife Sarvica

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM

library

U.S. Fish & Wifd!ife Service 1011 E. Tudor Road

Anchorage/ Alaska 9950~

REVIEW AND APPROVALS

INNOKO NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

McGrath, Alaska

ANNUAL NARRATIVE REPORT

Calendar Year 1987

~di'~ Regional Office Approval Date

US FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE--ALASKA

11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

3 4982 00021106 9

1. Phillip J. Feiger, Refuge Manager, PFT, GS-485-12 9/20/81 to pre5ent

3.

Robert B. Winkelman, Student Trainee <Biology>, PFT, GB-499 4/23/85 to present

Patricia A. Martin, Wildlife Biologist, PFT, GS-486-9 5/6/85 to pre5ent

4. John A. DeLapp, Botani5t, Intermittent, GS-430-9 5/28/85 to present

5. Sally Jo Collin5, Secretary, PFT, GB-318-5 12/23/86 to pre5ent

6. Paul E. Ladegard, Airplane Pilot, PPT, GS-2181-12 5/31/87 to pre5ent

7. Denni5 E. Prichard, A5sistant Refuge Manager, PFT, GS-485-11 11/8/87 to present

Pilot Paul Ladegard-it was hard to catch him standing still for a picture .

I~nager Feiger doing what he does best-fixing things.

------~,. ...... ~ .•

Secretary Sally Jo Collins escaped the office to record dur ing banding

Biologist Hartin doing one of her favorite "chores" with the volunteers-gathering geese.

Biologist Martin and Cooperative Education Student Bob Winkelman nursing ti1e chain saw mill along.

Seasonal botanist John DeLapp trying to stay in touch with t:1e "real" world.

1.

1. e. 3.

1. e. 3. 4. 5.

1. e. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. a.

1. -:;) .... 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. a. 9.

St.unrnary

Fee Title • Easerney,ts Other •

Master Play, • Management Plan • Public Participation

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

A.

Compliance with Environmental Mandates Research and Investigation

Persc•Yme 1 Yc•t.tth Prc•grarns

E. 8P..M.I.J'~ .. :l$T B.HLtO...N.

Other Manpower Programs • Volunteers Program Ft.\Yid i Y"IQ

Safety Technical Assistance Other Items •

Gey·,eral Wet l.:md s Fc:•rests Crc•play,ds . Grassl aY•ds Other Habitats Graz iY•g Hayi Y•Q Fire MaY•agemeY•t

PAGE 1

• 1

Nothing to Report Nothing to Report Nothing to Report

Nc•thiY•g tc• Repc•r·t 2 2

3 4

Nothing to Report 5 7 7

Nc•th i Y•g to Repc•rt Nothing to Report

9 9

12 Nothing to Report Nothing to Report Nothing to Report Nothing to Report Nothing to Report

12

10. Pest Ccwstrcel . . . . . . . . . . 11. Water Rights . . . . . . 1'::71 a;;;. Wi lderl"sess al"sd Special Areas . . . 13. WI=' A EaseMeY's't Mcen it eer i Y's g . . . .

G. W .. U ... D..I...lEE..

1. Wildlife Diversity • e. Endangered and/or Threatened Species ••

Waterfowl • • • 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. '3.

Marsh and Water Birds . . . . . . . . . . . Shorebirds, Gulls, Terns Raptcers • • •

and Allied Species

Other Migratory Birds Game MaMmals • • • • • Mari Y'se Mammals •

. . . . . . . 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

Other Resident Wildlife Fisheries Resources Wildlife Propagation and Surplus Animal Disposal Scientific Collections

Steeckil"sg

15. Animal Control • • • • 16. Mark i Ysg aYsd Bal•sd i Ysg • • • 17. Disease Prevention and Control •

1. GeYseral . . . •;) Outdceeer Classrooms-students a;;;. . 3. 0Litdcecer Classrooms-teachers . 4. I Yst erpret i ve Fcecet Trails . . . 5. IYsterpret ive TceLir Rceutes

.

6. I Yst erpret i ve Exhibits/Demonstrations 7. Other lYsterpret ive Prcegrarns . 8. HL\Yit i Ysg . . . . . . . . . . 9. Fishi'l"sg . . . . . . .

10. TrappiYsg . . . 11. Wildlife Observat i ce'l"s 1'::71 a;;;. Other Wildlife-Oriented Recreat icws 13. Carnpi'l"sg . . . . . . . 14. pi CYI l C k i l"l g . . . . . . . . . . 15. Off-rcead Vehicli'l"sg . . . . . .

.

. 16. Other NceYs-wi ld 1 i fe OrieYsted Recreat iee'l"s 17. Law Er·sf ccrcement . . . . 18. Ceeeeperat i l"sg Associ at ieeYss . . . 19. Ce•Yscess i c:eYss .

.

.

. .

.

. NothiYsg tee Repcert . . NeethiYsg tee Repeert . . NothiYsg tee Repeert . . Ned; hi Y'sg 'tee Repeert

13 .Nothing to Report

13 • .Nothing to Report • .Nothing to Report • • • ., • • • 18 • .Nothing to Report • • • • • • • • 1 '3 . • Neeth i Y'sg tee Repeer't . . . . . . . 24 . . . . . 26 . • Neeth i Ysg tee Repeert . • Nceth i 'I"IQ ·co Repcert . • Neethi'l"sg tee Repeert

• Nce·c hi 'l"sg tee Repeer·c . . . . . . . 27 • Ne<'chi'l"sg tee Repeert

. . 29 . . . . . . . . 29 NeethiYsg tee Repeert NcethiYsg tee Repeer·t . . Ncethi'l"sg tee Repe .. rt . . NeethiYsg tee Repeert . . NeethiYsg tee Repeert . . . . . . 29 . . . . . . 31

. . . . . . 31 . . NcethiYsg to Repeert . . NcethiYsg tee Repeert . . NcethiYsg tee Repeert . . NeethiYsg tee Repeert . . NeethiYsg tee Repcert . . NcethiYsg tee Repeert . . . . 33 . . NeethiYsg tee Repeert . . Nee·bhiYsg tee repeert

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

1. 2. 3.

1.

New Construction • Rehabi lit at ic•Y• • MaJor Maintenance Equipment Utilization and Replacement Communications Systems • Computer Systems • Other

Coocerative Programs . Other Economic Uses Credits

Surmoary •

J. QIJ:::I~J.L .. LTJ;.M.J?.

34 .Nothing to Report .Nothing to Report .Nothing to Report

34 35 35

37 .Nothing to Report

37

38

INTRODUCTION

The Innoko National Wildlife Refuge was established December 2, 1980, with the passage of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. The Refuge is located in west central Alaska, about 270 miles southwest of Fairbanks and 221 miles northwest of Anchorage. Refuge headquarters is located in McGrath, a community located on the south bank of the Kuskokwim River, 70 miles east of the Refuge boundary. The exterior boundaries encompass approximately 3.8 million acres. After the conveyance of Native allotments, village and Native regional corporation CDoyon, Inc.> lands, and state lands, the Refuge will consist of approximately 3.5 million acres.

Innoko Refuge is a relatively flat plain with the highest point reaching 1461 feet. Water dominates the landscape. The Yukon River forms the western border of the Refuge, while the Innoko, Dishna, and Yetna Rivers flow through it. The Innoko River forms the north and west boundaries of the Innoko Wilderness Area. These rivers tend to be slow-moving and silty, with constantly meandering courses. Extensive wetlands with innumerable small lakes, streams and bogs occur over much of the Refuge but are particularly abundant in the southeast portion. Many of the bogs support thick, floating mats of vegetation which give the appearance of solid ground. Much of this rich wetland area appears to depend on the yearly flooding and draw­down regime for nutrient input.

The vegetation of the Refuge is a transition zone between the boreal forest of interior Alaska and the shrubland and tundra types common in western and northern Alaska. White spruce occurs in large, pure stands along the rivers where the soil is better drained. Numerous fires have set vast ar&as back to earlier seral stages consisting of aspen, birch, and willow. Black spruce muskegs or bogs develop on the poorly drained soils. Dense willow stands are common along the rivers and sloughs. The most conspicuous characteristic of the vegetation is the complex interspersion of types.

A primary focus of the Refuge is the protection of the extensive wetlands which serve as nesting and breeding habitat for at least 250,000 waterfowl; primarily wigeon, pintail, scaup, white-fronted geese, Canada geese, tundra and trumpeter swans. Innoko Refuge is well known for its large beaver population, and moose are abundant and provide an important source of meat for local residents. The success of the moose population is attributed to flooding that enhances the growth of willows - the maJor winter food of moose. In addition to those species, wolf, black bear, grizzly bear, caribou and furbearers all use the Refuge. Fish, especially northern pike, abound in Refuge streams and lakes supporting subsistence and sport fisheries.

PURPOSES OF INNOKO REFUGE

Section 302(3) <B> of the Alaska National Ir~erest Lands Conservation Act sets forth the following maJor purposes for which the Innoko Refuge was established and shall be managed:

Ci> to conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their natural diversity including, but not limited to, waterfowl, peregrine falcons, other migratory birds, black bear, moose, furbearers, and other mammals, and salmon;

Cii) to fulfill the international treaty obligations of the United States with respect to fish and wildlife and their habitats;

(iii) to provide, in a manner consistent with the :purposes set forth in subparagraphs Ci) and (ii>, the opportunity for continued subsistence uses by local residents; and

(iv) to ensure, to manner consistent ( i), water quality Refuge.

the maximum extent practicable, and in a with, the purposes set forth in paragraph and necessary water quantity within the

Pccst iccy, created.

vacated, positions < Sect i OY'I E. 1 > •

filled, pees i '1:: i C«'fl prcmtoted,

Office moved, house and bunkhouse completed. (Secticc'f, I.l).

1

Forty-nine duck brood plots <510 lakes> counted twice. <Sect i ccy, G. 3 >

Eight hundred and twelve geese banded - one a possible tule white­fronted goose. <Section G. 16).

Moose counted - almost. <Sect ioy, G. 8>.

Rccbbery feci led. (Sect icc\"1 H. 17).

Cooperation with <Sect i OY"I .J. 1 > •

other agencies boosted many of our programs.

B. CLIMATIC CONO]TIONS

Weather data was gathered at the closest National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration office, McGrath. Although some differences occurred on the Innoko National Wildlife Refuge about 70 miles west, weather conditions were generally comparable to those at McGrath.

The climate of the Innoko Refuge typifies Interior Alaska. Winters are cold with average high temperatures hovering at or below zero. Snowfall averages near 90 inches and is usually powdery due to the temperature and low humidity. Summers are short and punctuated with frequent rains. Temperatures of the Interior can be extreme throughout the year. The record high of 90 degrees Fahrenheit was set in .June 1969, while the record low was -67 degrees Fahrenheit in December 1961.

The weather SL\rnrnary fccr 1987 fccllccws:

Ternperat L\re Temperat L\re <Degrees FahreY1hei t > Rai '1"1 S'1"1C«W Averages

Mccy,th High Lccw ( IY1ches) ( IY1ches> High Lccw S\"1C«W

.Jan. 33 -51 27.7 -1. 1 -19.4 13. 7 Feb. 37 -29 9.3 9. 1 -14.0 11.9 Mar. 49 -38 0.12 2.2 21.5 -5.2 11.9 Apr. 53 -10 • 09 2. 3 37.5 15.9 8.1 May 69 28 1. 43 T 54.9 34.3 0.7 .JUY'Io 79 35 0.51 65.5 45.0 T .Jul. 82 41 4.41 68.0 48.4 0 Aug. 70 31 1. 66 63.5 45.1 T Sep. 60 18 3.34 52.7 3cr. -:. ;;;J.a;;;. 0.8 Oct. 55 5 1. 04 4 -:'1 ... 31. B 18.0 9.7 Nccv. 2.6 -23 35.0 13.4 -2.5 15.6 Dec. 37 -46 27.3 -0.8 -17.8 17.5

82 -51 12.6 108.1 AVG. 34.7 15.3 89.9

2

p. PL.ANNING

1. Master PUm.

The final phase of the "Comprehensive Conservation Plan" process began in January with discussion of the plan draft in the four villages adJacent to the Refuge, and in Anchorage and McGrath.

The two rnaiY1 ce•Y•cerY•s expressed by alrne•st all who were expe•sed te• the draft were1 1) that some change from the current status of the Refuge would be allowed, and 2) that some change from the current status of the Refuge would not be allowed. The above concerns were often <usually> voiced by the same individuals.

The above confirm that we are in step with our public.

By the time the final hearings were held in June, it was obvious to everye•Y•• that the "PlaY•" was se• g&meric as to be acceptable te• everyone, except those few who wanted concrete guidelines established. Almost no one attended the final hearings.

The final plan was published and distributed, the comment period closed, and notice was sent to the Washington office for publication in the Federal Register. Unfortunately, the notice was lost in the hallowed halls and consequently we missed by 27 days the December 2, 1987, deadline set by the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act.

No one seemed to notice.

Now begins the process of "step down plans". Not to worry - we used to call these management plans and we have been in the process of writing/rewriting these for 20+ years that I know of.

In keeping with the philosophy of proper governmental administration, it is required that we have plans in place before we turn around, staY1d up, sit de•WY,, e•r carry e•Y• se•me e•ther activity.

When faced with the task of establishing plans of Alaskan wilderness, it soon becomes apparent will establish data gathering routines which for use in writing plans ••••

fe•r fe•ur rni ll ie•Y• acres that our initial plans will provide base data

4. C2£opl iance~th EnviroY•meY,tal ar1d Cultural Resource Mamdates

Building on the previous collection of information gathered as a Volunteer, Secretary Sally Jo Collins continued to obtain photos and information about the many historic sites on the Refuge, and expanded the written history of the area. Aerial and ground surveys at the me•uth of the Di shY1a River failed to reveal aY•Y trace e•f "IY!Yie•ke• City", a gold-rush boom-town which developed there but had a very brief, 3-rnemth life spay, duriY•g the summer e•f 1908. Sally Je• cecy,tiYit.ted te•

3

search fccr phcctc•s c•r dc•cl.uneY,ts which rni ght help 1 c•cate the "city" rnc•Y"&? p'l"'ecisely.

Collins did locate the Dishkaket graveyard. On a later trip by river boat, seveY"a 1 photccs WeY"e takeY1 ccf the d i si Y1tegrat i y,g grave fey,ces ay,d crosses. Dishkaket was an Athabaskan Indian winter-village when Lt. Zagoskin exploY"ed the Innoko River in 1843. With the corning of the gold rush in 1907 several commercial enteY"prises were centered at this lcccat ic•Y~a It was a crc•ssrccads C•Y• the trai 1 system, aY1d geY1era lly the? head of navigation on the Innoko River. When the gold rush activity died down in the late teens to early 1920's, the mining-related businesses closed, and the native community was also abandoned. It appears that the native residents moved to communities on the Yukon River where there were employment oppo'l"'tunities and more abundarrt subsistence resources. Many of the business people moved to the Iditarod mining distY"ict.

Dikeman, a waY"ehouse town at the head of navigation on the Iditarod River, took its name from William Dikeman, one of the two men who made a significant gold discovery on OtteY" Creek on Christmas Day, 1908. This discovery set off the Iditarod Stampede in 1909 and b'J"'ought thousands of miners and business people up the Innoko and Iditarod Rivers. When the aiY" age was usheY"ed in, much of the freight and passenger traffic dive.,...ted to this more direct means of access. A decrease in aY"ea population was bY"ought about by the departure of p'l"'c•spectors tc• Y1ew "gc•ld rush" sites, the rnechay·lizatic•Y• c•f lc•cal mining operations, and the approach of World WaY" I. GY"adually Dikeman businesses closed and buildings were moved or torn clown. Today only the remains of one small building can be found on this once bustling site. Some photos of Dikeman were located and a few contacts were made with people who lived there in the past.

An unsuccessful attempt was made to locate the old steamboat beached across fY"om the Simel City site. Plans were made to locate it on the ground next summer and document it with photos.

E. ADMINISTRATION

1. Persormltl

Mike Smith, after five years as principal assistant, accepted a lateral transfer to Yuma, Arizona <Kofa Refuge). This happens to be the only way our assistants can be considered for positions elsewhere -to lateral transfer to a continental U.S. refuge.

After six months of gobble-de-gook, Dennis Prichard transferred, from Sequoyah Refuge in Oklahoma. He wanted new experiences, and will he ever get them.

Paul Ladegard was hired as refuge pilot. Again, the position took six months to fill, but it was worth the wait as Paul quickly became an integral part of our crew.

The 60-year-old cemetery site at Dishkaket, a community abandoned by tae mid-1920's, is gradually being reclaimed by the tundra vegetation.

A number of the grave sites at Dishkaket are still marked by ornately-carved grave fences.

General grave markers are the tnree- bar, Russian Orthodox style.

Ornately-carved crosses and grave houses still mark grave sites at the Athabaskan Indian cemetery at the abandoned village site of Holikachuk.

This member of the fleet of sternwheelers that plyed the Innoko River in the early years of the century is now gradually disintegrating near the old village site of Holikachuk.

4

John DeLapp was again appointed to a temporary botanist position for the summer. John expanded our vegetation mapping into aquatic habitat. With maJor importance placed upon waterfowl and moose habitat, knowledge of the aquatic vegetation is of maJor importance. John also became our water quality sampler. His willingness and ability to take a task to completion without supervision was iYwal\.table.

When our Assistant Manager position became vacant, we faced the real possibility that our field season would be a disaster. Wildlife Biologist Patsy Martin CGS-7> was detailed to the Assistant Manager position and given the task of organizing our field operation. Considering that these duties are normally assigned to a GS-11, her task was monumental.

We learned a lot we didn't even know we wanted to learn when we made the detail. As a GS-7 with less than one year in grade, she could not be g i vel"t a temporary prc•rnc•t i c•n. Therefc•re, she cc•\.11 d Ytc•t be officially assigned the duties within the Position Description (classified as GS-11) artd th1..1s was assigrted 11 \.ll"tclassified dtrbies." During the time that she was assigned unclassified duties, there were no performance standards in place; hence, her performance in carrying out these duties could not be considered when performance evaluations were conducted, nor could her biological duties be considered since she was temporarily relieved of these duties.

If this confuses you, to perform as though doing anything. Or situation. As usual, duties as well as any

try to put yourself in her position - expected a GS-11, paid as GS-7, and considered as not

tougher yet, imagine supervising someone in this she rose to the occasion and performed her GS-11 could have.

In addition to duties for which she could not be evaluated, Patsy earned a level 4 Cor is it level 2 this year?) rating and was presented with a Special Achievement Award, and a check (minus taxes).

Sometimes I wonder how we have any morale at all.

Student Trainee Robert <Bob) Winkelman completed his second work period. The requirement that one work period be during the school year was met during fall semester. Bob will graduate in May 1988, and will be eligible for appointment to a professional position. It has been gratifying to watch this individual progress into a professional, and we look forward to welcoming hirn into our ranks.

2. Youth Prograros

The Refuge hired Brian Maillelle and Rhonda Yaska as Youth Conservation Corps employees in 1987. Both students were from Grayling village. They were assigned to our regular banding and brood counting crews as active participants. It was the first year for the program and it was a success. Brian and Rhonda went home for a few

Youth Conservation Corps employee Rhonda Yaska bands a goose.

Ace driver Brian Maillelle, ever-alert Zephyr, and not-so-alert Volunteer Frank Durbian.

5

days after two weeks. They were anxious to return. They could have quit after six weeks, but both decided to stay for eight. Brian wants to return next year. Rhonda will be too old.

In April, we contacted schools in the four villages near the Refuge, and distributed applications. We received four. One very •nthusiastic boy was not old enough, and the other three were all from Grayling. In Grayling, applications were distributed and collected during a two-day environmental education workshop. Applications were mailed to the principals of the other schools, but perhaps those students did not understand either the JOb or the application process. We will attempt to personally contact students in each school in 1988 so we can hire one person from each village.

The problems we had with the program were minor, and most occurred because we lacked experience and personnel. When Brian and Rhonda first arrived at our field camp, everyone was very busy packing, unpacking, planning, etc. No specific tasks were outlined for them, and they were bored and uncomfortable with the gregarious crew. Because of the poor start, it took them a little longer to adJust than it need have. Next year, one person will be assigned to orient the students and acquaint them with us and our work as soon as they arrive.

Another problem we had was in establishing that the work was not a rehabilitation program for students with drug or alcohol problems. We wanted the program to be successful for us and the students, and we were not trained to counsel students with problems.

The program was well received by the villages, and we enJoyed working with the students. Including them as regular crew members worked better than developing separate proJects, as some youth programs are organized. We would not have the personnel or time to supervise a separate crew.

Without volunteers, Advices. IY1 1987, 79 work weeks!

we could not complete our maJor Annual Work ten people donated 3160 hours - the equivalent of

They counted broods, banded geese, surveyed raptors, sampled water quality, surveyed wetland vegetation and constructed a storage cache.

Six volunteers from the "lower '48" states spent the summer from mid­June to mid-August. Four volunteers from Alaska donated from 1 to 30 days. Each year, more local people express interest in helping with our programs. We hope to take them up on it whenever we can.

We have heard some arguments against using volunteers for required programs. Questions about the quality of the work seem to crop up frequently. Other people believe our budgets should include enough money to pay qualified people to do the proJects we are required to

6

do. Neither argument is valid. Each year, it seems that we get one dud out of 8 or 10 people. That's probably a lower percentage than you would find in the ranks of the permanent staff. The other people have been competent, conscientious and very hard-working. When they go home, they become ambassadors with a better understanding of the Service and refuges. That cannot help but benefit us.

Table 1. Volunteers on the Innoko Refuge, 1987.

Martha Desrnc•Y•d

FraY1k D1..1rbi ay,

Ed Grc•!S!Srnay,

Carolyy, KiY1dell

MC•Y'Ii Oil. Rc•eder

April Cro!Sby

Parn RaY1dles

Lynn Fuller

Byrc•Y• Berger

Ray Cc•ll i Y'1s

Tc•tal days

Tc•tal wc•rk weeks

Massachusetts

KaYISa!S

Flc•rida

Cc•lc•radc•

Ala!Ska

Alaska

Alaska

Cc•Yil"'eot i 01..1t

Alaska

Nqrober• c•f Days Yc•l \.IY•teered

Biology Degree, 54 Raptor Work, Bird I.D.

Carpentry, Wildlife 54 St 1..1deY'I't, Bar•ebaok BrC•Y'•O CharnpioY•

Wildlife Student, 54 Outdoor Activities, Carnp Tea!Se

Botanist, Enthu!Siasm 54

Biology Degree, Tons 54 c•f EY1ergy

Previous Volunteer, 30 Bird I. D.

Teacher, Local Resident 25

Teacher, Volunteered 15 Last Year

Birder 54

Anthropologist, Local 1 Residt:mt

395

79!

Our Volunteers

They work Hard ...

Volunteer Monica Roeder gives a goose one last check before releasing it. The rest of ·the crew is busy processing their charges.

Volunteer Ed Grossman tows a load of logs for the chain saw mill. This is the easy part of logging.

They play hard ...

The water leve l in the l ake dropped a bit after the boys made this haul of pike .

Getting ready for a Saturday night on the town ­trouble is, town is a 70-mile hike away!

And they take a well-deserved Break.

Volunteers Kindell, Desmond and Berger (seated) enjoy a July 4th watermelon while Botanist John DeLapp entertains with a giant bubble maker.

Energetic Volunteer Roeder caught in a rare moment of relaxation.

7

5. E.Yndir•g

Once again, budget problems kept us on our toes. This time we were given an adequate budget only to be told not to spend it until it was "ccfficial". "Official" didr,'t aymccttY'ICe itself trrd;il well i'f1tcc the third quarter, making wise use of taxpayer's money a real challenge. We persevered and were able to purchase several safety items to ease the Refuge Manager's mind.

FY 87 8G 85 84 83

0 & M* $265,000

195,000 233,600 164,000 180,000

ARMM** $170,000

65,000 86,400 80,000

RPRP*** $12,000

81,000 65,000

(reduced to 164,000)

* Operations and Maintenance ** Accelerated Refuge Mair~enance Management *** Resource-Problem-Related-ProJects

G. Safety

Tcctal $447,000

341,000 385,000 244,000 164,000

With the exception of some serious airplane problems, had a relatively-safe year.

Black Bear Encounters

One volunteer and a Youth Conservation Corps employee were treed by black bears twice on consecutive days in different areas. These were the first confrontations our field crews have had in four years of work in areas with many bears. In the first incident, the bear was surprised, and Frar1k and Bria.,.., climbed trees "Jt\s·t; tc• be safe". The second incident was a little different. They saw a small flock of geese run into the brush as they approached. Then the geese ran out of the brush into the water, and a black bear pounced out after them. The bear went back into the woods. Frank and Brian waited awhile, then walked down the slough. The bear came out of the trees, running toward them. They climbed trees, and the bear started to climb the one Brian went up. Frank waved and yelled to attract the bear. Perhaps he waved too vigorously because his small tree fell. He hit the ground running for the boat to get the shotgun. The bear was gone when he returned.

The ccy·,ly casualty was Fra.,..,k' s arm which was sc•re for a cccttple of days, and his Vuarnet sunglasses that he lost in the mud when the tree fell. As it turned out, it was better that the crew did not have a gun because neither they nor the bear was harmed. However, if the bear had been faster, or Brian slower.... Before these incidents, we strongly suggested that people carry the shotguns we provide, but we

8

did Yscd; insist. Nc•w, we im:>ist that they prac·tice with them, aYsd carry thern when they walk the brood plots.

IYsJury

The only other inJury occurred when Biologist Martin tore some ankle ligaments while chasing a flightless goose for banding. The inJury will take over a year to heal. Such accidents probably are unavoidable. We have to wear hip waders to stay dry, and they offer no support. One thing we might do is to encourage people to be physically fit. Martin thinks that if she had been in better shape, running through the tussocks would have been easier, she would not have had to work at it so hard, and she rnight not have twisted her aYskle.

For the second year, we relied on the Alaska Department of Natural Resources in McGrath to relay messages frorn office to field, and vice versa. Their cooperation was outstandin~, but we should not have to depend on them to take care of us. We need the repeater station that was prc•mised us last year <See: h. Eqt.liprneYst aYsd Facilities>.

Our field crew received a letter of cornrnendation for our safety practices from the regional safety officer. Regional volunteer coordinator, Bill Knauer, reported on our conscientious crew after he helped us with brood counts for a week. The pat on the back was appreciated.

A couple of small notes should be mentioned. We issued inflatable life vests to all crew members, and insisted they wear thern in the bc•a·t;s aY·sd the airplaYse. Almc•s·t; everyc•ne complied. We <.:•Y'dered rnc•re vests for 1988, and asked for flarne orange color instead of tan ones. Most people wore the vests even while walking plots, and the bright colors will be easier to see from the plane.

We used a chain saw winch for many things, and never had an acciderrt with it. However, we were lucky. The winch was anchored with a towing belt, or even a logging chain. The cable broke once, but did not hit anyone. The material that is used to anchor the winch should be the weakest link in the system. If it breaks, the winch will pull forward, but no cables will go flying around, snapping someone's eyes out, or worse. We used cheap nylon rope after our free lesson.

Tim Maynard, a safety specialist Cardio-Pulmonary Resuscitation and McGrath in April. Other rnernbers attend, and 15 people participated in

Aircraft Safety

from the regional office, taught a Defensive Driving Class in of the community were invited to the three days of classes.

Most serious safety problems this past year dealt with the aircraft. In July, the three-bladed propeller on the Cessna 185 lost an internal snap ring. Due to the design of the propeller, a blade was not lost. However, it was very loose. The Office of Aircraft Services sent out a mechanic to install a new propeller. No other problems have

Volunteer Crosby holds one of the stainless-steel shotguns that took all the abuse we delivered. Looks like she may need one of those life vests pretty quick!

Volunteer Durbian models the inflatable life vest. Everyone was required to wear one in the plane or in boats.

9

occurred with this type of propeller.

In August, during a 100-hour inspection, cracks were found in the vertical tail structure of the aircraft. The entire vertical tail assembly was changed.

Refuge Pilot Paul Ladegard attended the annual Pilot's Safety Meeting in Anchorage. A discussion took place concerning a problem that occurs when life vests that have a C02 inflation system are inflated inside a Cessna 185 float plane. It is very difficult to exit through the small doors of this type of aircraft with the vests inflated. It was recommended that the vest should not be inflated until the passenger is outside the aircraft.

F. HABITAT MANAGEMENT

1. General

Innoko Refuge falls into the category of "new'' Alaskan refuges, being established with passage of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980. Because of this status, the management of the Refuge is geared toward gathering baseline information about the various habitats and the wildlife they support.

This would not be possible without a thorough knowledge of the vegetation. The easiest Cand best> method of determining the vegetation types has been through the use of color-infrared photography. The Refuge has a complete set of these photos at a scale of 1:60,000 (about 1''/mile). From this information, a 1:250,000 scale map of the Refuge was prepared showing vegetation cover types. Extensive field collections of plants were undertaken by our Botanist, John DeLapp, who devised a key to the different colors to tell what vegetation types occur in any given segment of the Refuge. This is the only refuge in Alaska that has this capability.

As more baseline data is gathered for specific proJects (i.e. moose>, a correlation between the animal and the vegetation it inhabits can be determined. Thus, the management of any wildlife population can be determined by observing the animal's use of these areas.

a. ~·tlanda

Duck Brood Plots

A subsample of twenty-one duck brood plots and one drawdown lake were identified as typifying the variation within all fifty brood plots and three drawdown lakes. During the 1987 field season, seasonal botanist John DeLapp and volunteer Carolyn Kindell visited 16 of these 21 "representative'' plots as well as the drawdown lake. During June, July and August 1987, the botanists described the vegetation of 130 water bodies on the plots. The vegetation descriptions will provide the basis for a quantitative analysis of wetland vegetation and its

relationship to duck productivity. In addition to aerial helicopter surveys during the first week less-detailed descriptions of 92 water bodies on plots.

The obJectives of the study were to1

10

the ground surveys, ccf August provided 16 additional brood

1) classify Refuge water bodies by their physical characteristics -size, relative age, drainage characteristics, distance to nearest river or tributary, shoreline slope and irregularity, water level, •~tent of mud-flats and degree of puddling;

2> describe and classify the vegetation of each water body, from open water to shoreline to surrounding vegetation;

3> analyze the above physical and vegetation data along with the Refuge's accumulated duck productivity data from these same water bodies and to identify correlations.

Each water body on the selected brood plots was described using a standard data sheet <Table 2>. Each water body was classed according to type <Table 3.>. Water body size was measured in acres with a digital planimeter and enlargements of the Refuge color infra-red CCIR> photos <scale: 4 inches = 1 mile>. Shoreline slope was described as either vegetated or unvegetated, and abrupt, steep or gradual. Water level was estimated as low, average or high, depending on the e~tent of standing water in the shoreline vegetation. For drawdown lakes, the e~tent of mud-flats was estimated as percent of the lake basin. When draw-down lakes were puddled, the number of puddles were recorded.

The vegetation of each site was described in detail. The percent of the water body which was vegetated was estimated and the dominant vegetation types of the water and the surrounding area were identified and their e~tent delineated. These vegetation types were classified according to Viereck's system for Alaskan vegetation. Percent cover of plant species was estimated within each vegetation type from the water body's center to its shores, and from the shore to 50 meters inland. One hundred thirty-eight species were identified, and four were unknown <Table 4. >.

The data have Y•c•t beeYs aY•alyzed. It is Ysc•t pc•ssi ble tee attempt a detailed analysis without a statistical package for the Refuge computer. At this point, only a superficial description of the water body vegetation was possible.

There was a great deal of variation in the composition of the shoreline vegetation. Each lake visited seemed unique in one way or another, whether it was a difference in the relative dominance of certain plant species within a particular vegetation zone, or the distribution of those zones relative to the water body. However, there were certain plant assemblages that occurred roughly as bands surrounding some water bodies. For instance, in some relatively-young lakes with gradual mineral shores there was often a transition from a Care~ rostr~ta zone in the shallows to a Carex aqyatilis zone further

Table 2. Brood plot lake descriptio~ form, 1987

PLOT# LAKE# OBSERVERS DATE ACREAGE

CIR PHOTO# LOW ALTITUDE PHOTO#

LAKE TYPE CSee sheet for types> WATER LEVEL

PUDDLING EXTENT C# of puddles> EXTENT OF MUDFLATS

SHORELINE TYPE (~ Circumfere~ce of lake of each type> <Vegetated abrupt, u~vegetated abrupt, steep, gradual)

~ OF LAKE VEGETATED

SHORELINE VEGETATION CTotal=100~ of Circu., 50m inland to open water>

10m i~land - 50m inla~d 1m i~land - 10m i~la~d

shoreline - 1m i~land

5rn - 2rn 10rn - 5rn 20rn - 10rn 50rn - 20rn

Yeget at i Ct\"1 T..Y.Q!ii

~ COVER OF MAJOR PLANT SPECIES CTo nearest 10~)

Species Vegetated H20 Area Sh<:;c\"elj.Y!e-1rn 1rn i'1"1lay,d-::. i ·nl c:md ~JZ!.rn irs 1 and

------··--

·-------------

---·- --------

-------

Table 3. Lake types used to describe water bodies on duck brood plots, 1987.

1. Water bodies of the active floodplain <Relatively young floodplain surfaces)

A. River connected lakes

1. Oxbow lakes (recognized old river channels> a. Drawdown lakes

1> Puddled lakes 2> Non-puddled lakes

b. Non-drawdown lakes 2. Non-oxbow lakes

a. Drawdown lakes 1) Puddled lakes 2> Non-puddled lakes

b. Non-drawdown lakes

B. Lakes not connected to river or other lakes 1. Oxbc•w lakes 2. Non-oxbow lakes

C. Lake systems <lakes connected to other lakes) 1. River connected

a. Oxbow lakes b. Non-oxbow lakes

2. No connections to river a. Oxbc•w lakes b. Non-oxbow lakes

D. Rivers and tributaries

II. Water bodies of the inactive floodplai~ Colder floodplain surfaces)

A. River connected lakes

B. Lakes not connected to river or other lakes

C. Lake systems 1. River connected 2. No connections to river

a. moat surrounding uplifted island of land b. lake or pond not immediately adJacent to

or SL\rrc•l.lr,dir,g islar1d c•f lay·,d

Table 4. Plant taxa found on 16 brood plots sampled in 1987.

8.!; C•YJ.tt. .. llif.LP ~J..Q.b i .,.-, i.f C• :!__~_ .. \.!ft 8..a rp§.}!.j_~_ .. Jiii:.Q.P...L 8 ~S.:~.!!:1~1!.:r.:.lt ~----~~g .. \.§)j __ !i?.. EU.n.!.U!.. .. ~.Q.P-.! .. . 8_n£1r..Qm.g_Q._c!\_ .... QPU. fP.U.~ 8r<;;;:.t.~!.P-.bJ .. l~ ... .f .. \.!JY~ 8Y':.~.!i?..rft~_.§_t~;L ... :U .. l~-~--~-i. 8.~.:t..!'?.r.. ... Ji} .. ~-.P. .. ~ .r.:.i p q ~ ~-!!Sa.,.., ~ ..... ..\?...P..P.! ... ~€?_<;J::~!..Il a n.n .. ~-~---~L.l,.\£.~~.fQrr!1.~.).? S..~_t lt.lE. . ...X.!.S\:0.~. ~et..~.tL;;L .. .Q..~RY..r_~.f-~r!E.I a tfl~.n.? __ Pe>.:r.:.:n.~t~ C~:r.:_g_?:L~.Q .. ~t a:t..i .. U.?. C.A:r.:..li!>-LJl~ .. .Q.!i?..l..P.kt.~ -~·-Ca i~.m-~B.:C.£:.c.~.t..J.~ .... ~;~n~.9-f?..Y.:t?. .. t? G~r..~ c !:t~c.rdP.:r.:.:r:.b .. ~.~.$\. C~.r-~~- .. £$\Xt~.?.G.~.n~. C.i\_rex_U_m~•.?_€\

CAt:t..b_~-.n.~.t .. €\YJ? CaJJ..!L..f!.sLl...\..t§.!;_r_.~_!?..

c~r.P a rQJ.n~ ...... P.:r.:.~.t..J?.r.}§.~ ~.:C..f#..L.r~<;;~t.\.l11Q~.:t~. {;a rex _ _r.:g_~t:r.:~.t-.€1 C.~J-~_j r _g_~•.n ..... a.t. . .r.i:.i.Vo.;i,ng\!W. C.s.Ll...i t r .. ~.£.b~ ... -~P.Q~ .. C.~..:.t r:.i\r.i.~_§.Q.P.! .. . C.t.:L~Jf!.~-~.9_€\.Ph.:n.~ ... P.~ l.Y.9 .. \.\ .. l .. ffl:~.!::.<, C.b.r..Y.§.~!.§.Q_l._~.1J.i...\.HO ..... :t~.:t..J'.?..r.:,_!;!.·('\,\.f.fl Qj_c;-JJ..:t..!L.W_€\!;.h~n-~ ... t~.€1 r.1.m. G.l...j)\_Q __ U:t~.--§.P.Q.!! .. C.~~).~Y.t\,lJ1L .. Q.~.n.~.c;;tt?:n~j_g;_ :Orc·~~A.._a...-JJLU c~

P-rS.:.!..!!Er..r•L .. :r.:.~·.t..~~r!!:.1j._fQJ.JJ~. t;: l_g_Q!;_D..s\:CLLac .;i, c.~.J..sr .. :L!?.. r;;_~_.ftt;;:!.GJ'l a..r..J .. !!L ... Q..€\.lJ,ta.t._:r.:..~ .. §.

1;;.m.R~.:u..- u~rL.n.~ .. .Q.:r.:..\:!.m f;;.a.i.1.~·.!:;} . .i.l,.!.m ... _€\.:!':IB.l.!.?.:.t .~ .f.P .. U . ..\.l.Hl. f;;P...i.l. C•Q i ltrtL . .fLi:lth!E.t rg

e::.Jll.L~ s_~t.!..®. ... _~r.v ~.n?~ e.;_g lt i. !!5~~.1.\rrt._.f l .. lt'{_i at.U .. ~ !;;.Q.Y) s_~t .. \.!.ffi. ... J?..rst..§'n~J-,~~ ~QJ.t i_~§?.:~_q.m ..... §.Y.!.Y.J!?. .. ;?.."~:r...;i .. ~ f;.r :lP.P-b.PY":_t.,!.m_ ... S.mB..\.~?t ... tfpJ.J l.t.r~~­~-~ c•.P.h2r11.!f.t_.?._~;_h.!l? .. \.tQ.b.;.:;.~.·cJ. E.r i P.Q..bg:r.:.1Hf.L_Y..~..aJ :n.€\.:P .. !.!W. {:2.iLL:i...lli!L....b.~~!i?. a t§'. G a_ti.l.HO. ...... t.. r_t:f.t9 . .1V.sJ {:2_~_PC.i\J,tl_~~n ...... U.Y...t9_qm {:2_b~. c er.}_i\_ ... JJL€\.?.t.i .rD.m Gr' e.P..tL~-L~J.\W __ JJJ ... ~.Q.i r.:t9?.J,!.rn

i::!)..Q.Q..~\.:C...t~ .... .Y '-Ll..Y.i\J:"_~_§. HyJ_gc~~m.n.i_!..\m __ .. ~P-~-.!l?Y.J.!;;l§'_fl~.

.l..!(tP.S\:~-~ .. §'Y.J.~ ..... :o~·-l-~ .. ::.:~.~.r.u:.tJ?X.~~. l r ~_\!}_ .. _§~:l;._t,;c.§?_~

8t'QQ_\.!.!!? .... _.E.:C.R~~-~gl,!.?. b:E!r. .. t~ .. -... 1.~ :r.:. ;i,.P .. t:n.~ b!;\_:t;_.Qyr..\.LliiL .. .P.~.t.q.)]!}_:t:r.~.i. .. ?.. I,§'Jf!.n.~ __ rf.l.;i,.nR:c. l,g.QJ.,\.r.~L-.P.i\1 .. \.l§.:~.X.~.+i?.. bE!.l!!rti\ ...... t .. :r.: .. ~_!J?.Y.J~.~-I,j.T!Y"~i\.~.9...-.. Q.~,c.r.~.g.~.l. ... ;~ .. h'?.. b.Y.~.lm.~gbj_.~ __ .J;: .. h.Yr§J.f.l.P.r.i:i\ l:r:l.i\ .. rc_h ~Yr~-~ .. i\..._Q.P.l.Y.W.P.:C.P.h.e. l:!l~Y..!.t..b..~--····~r.Y~rt?. .. t§. l:r:l.it:r.:..t...§'.1:t?-. .. ~ .. e. .... J?J:n r:cL<;_\.tL.;\ .. :~.-€:.\ !:r:l.t?.rlY~-nt .. b..~.!:E: ....... t. . .:r.: .. Lf9. t ti\.:1! .. ~ l.'~l.~!gtl r t:n.a.;L~ ...... i~.:~-~.:r: .. U:'l.P.:C.ii!\. MY.:r.:.;i,.<;;;:_~--· Q.ifl\J_g l:r:ly..r~~ . .9.P.b.Y .. :u.!..l.m .... ?..J?j £.~:t .. un !:r:I.Y.'C .. t~!.P.b.Yl .. LI..\!.I.L .... Y..~1~.t. ... ;i, .~.t.l ... ~.~-t qm I~Qb..r<;:!ma .. __ .ffi..\rct.._i c~_ !~L\.!.QI1!!\.r... __ Q£!..l.Y?..f?..P..ii!\J. . ..\.lr.O. !~Jf!Qh ~.§'.£L.t_i\?..:ti.J:'.~ .. S\_Q.9.:!::H!i\ Qxy cg££.~~-.. J.o.J.gr..~·£9.:r.:.P-\JJ:?..

E:~~.!iiP...R!!-

2et i:iH~ .. t~-~~-··- fr.i!i~ .. £1 . .1t!?.. 2~d i_CI.J..L~r-~ .. §. ..... J..~_QX.': .. i:ilt::).ccrJ.q.§\_ PeQ.j.£..\.!.l..f:i!.:r.:_~ ... \i?. ..... .P..~.:r.:YA.f.l.P.r::.~;J. F.~l.:!i._~...Q.!?..X~~ ...... ~.?..J?_~·-· e_~ c-~~.--.QJ_§\_\,\R.§5.

F_j,_c~~-.. Ji!.~!:~.;i,_.~.!:t€1. P..l_~11r.£:~ . .?-i .. '>M..r:t ... l?..G.b .. :r.:.§'_ggr.j .. ~!...l...~.rru;m.~ .. l..mL .. ~_~;.:..~t:~ .. tf .. l .. ~·.r.~ \J.tn ~=~~.c.l..YB.QY.!.!.Vf! .. __ ~.l~.!?..k.ti!nY.m. 2~!...l..Y..9~!.r.t!..trn_ .. i:l\fO.P.b_i..p i .. \.Hf.t pg_p_t,\l . .!.ti.~ .. -. .P..!al.?:.!:i!.m .. tf.~r.f:i!. 2P .. l...Y.:t ~-tG.h!..t!fL_<;;;:.~•.rJ.tr.(! .. \.H1!1?. E.'..P.t..t?..n..:t...t.U_§_ .. f.r.l.rti£.~;!..\i?..§ 2~~Li.'\.W9..ru?.:tQL!. __ gr.~_a rfL~.D.f?.J:..t§.. E~P l_.Y.JlQr.t!.l!:!L.l..~P-~_t.h.t.f.s;.!..L~ .. \.l.r.O. ~..:t~ mqg.~·t .~.t.rJ ..... n~.:t~mE.\i e.~ ... t.~r,t_U.J.~ .... .rJ.~.c.:r.:.~!?..aJ.£.(~ F~.!:~..§'Y'I't.LU.E.\ ___ Q_jL~-··"'L§~~r..~_§. E.'..P~ti\.m.~!B.f?..:\;:_grL .. P.f!E.:r.:.f.~~J.)_.~.:~ . ..\..t~. Pc;~t; C\J_OC!..Q.~~~.PY"L.§l?.Q .. ! ... .R a Y"I..\:!.Y-!h'JJ_Lt.,L§ ... _Q.W.£;?.1 .. tn .. t. R ii\J"J!..rr.J.G.J:.tl.J:.L!?._. _ _t:..r...~_<;;;:i'L<;;~b..Y..l.t~\.§. B.J. . ..P..~J\L.?..Q.Q.!!.. fuuo..~x __ ii!\.:r.:.~;.:t.j .. G.\..\.1!?..

8._.,~r.o.~~----~ .. ~ .. 9.i.r .. tq..\.J.).;:

8.s;;·.a..~ ..... e.G.t9._t.,tl..~.:r.:.~ .. ?.

Bgr..:i. .. P-.P-A .... h ~.?P. .tQ.i:l'l .8g.:r_;i, .. QP-St ...... L!!?..l .. ~:n.9 .. i..!;:.c¥!1 8_\,Lb.t,Ul ... ~r.G .. t..J£:.~? . .8.~.Lt2.."'1.§... •.. G.bJ.lHI.~-~W.9.:C.t.,U?.. !3_1,1 b_IJ!L .. :i..}.t~gJ!.?. ~a_L:tK .... e..~JV.t~:n?...~.?.. $.~_Lt~.L ... -'~r_b.t,l.?.:.~!,.\J 9 :Lq ~-g, $..i.I .. U.x ..... t!.~.Q..b...;i ... i.l.:n .. S~. S.sHl.Lt..:t~.r.:.i..~ .... Q_I,l.r!.fA'.?!.ti~. S.nl_:i..K .... _f_l,_\.~!;.~~g;.>.r.·t?. $..~.l .. l.?:L .... R.t,Ll. ghr.::i:\\ S~.n~G..:i. .. Q __ G.P:n.g~_§:~ .. l.,.\.li? §j,J,Mf!. __ !i?.\!.~.Y-~.

S.p_a ~.a.cn.:o_t.IJ.m .. _<;iH'J!l.\.\E.:.:tLE.9 .. l.:i..\..\.~f.l P..R .. tr.:..~.§>~--... .b..~.§'tl..\.Y-§'X9 .:i. .. a.rs.<a. ~.P-) ~.S' .. n:tl.t§.?.. .... ~:~r.:n.\A¥1 $.P..S'.r:.g~.rttt,wt ... m.l.n.J ... W1!.rf'l. S.PJ1.9.ID"J.t.,\.W. ..... l?..b!.P..!' .. i2P.b .. ~.Y.:LI.l..\JIJ ... _gmg_q ?..t.J f.P.U .. t,lr.fl $.Q.b_i.I.Q.r:f .. I,,!Jf.I. ..... R..~ .. A .. t: X.9..\,.l.f~l $.Pb.~.9Y!.t,Ust ... f.l,l?.9.WO S.P .. tL~9.:!'.'!.\,Hf.I .... J. ~.:n.~.n§g P..P.!::tS'.9.t:t~Mo .. :c :i..Pi?l:C Lt.:trf! $.p_t@_Q.l"J.\AW ... .'C .. t.,~.b.!:itl .. t.t.,.l.rfl §.P...b.sum . .IJm. ... .F.:Q .. \..ti?lr.r.<:;~?..!-l r(l

P.J: ... ~l .. l.~:cj~ .. --.G.r.~.~.?..?..t:.f..qJ.;i, 9. IbaJ ... :i. . .G.:t.1.:.!.:!JO ....... ?..P.~r?. .. :i..f.l. .. 9r:t.,vo. Tr. .. tG.b_<;;!.R.tl. .. Qt::_l..lrf.L .. §l.P .. tnqm Tr .. t~nt. S' ... U .. ?. ... ~.~,.,rq P.~J:?..€! L.J.t .. r.~~ .GJ,\.l.i.IX: .. tsL.J n·t~rW!? 9.. t~~-U..t.r. .. t!;;:t,\J .. ~r.. :i..€! ....... m.tn.9..r Wtr~.9~JJart.;L Y.l\ 1 ~lcii\'r''i? S?P· rtli:il9'r''C:•'r''rl i:z a Y..cii\l.§'r t~:n.~ ...... G.~PJ .:t a:t.t. i:il Y..!\.G.G.t:r.:s .. tq W. ...... t.,.~J. ~_gj_r:ss;•.~.l..Vf.! Y..!\.G_<;..~.n.i_t,\m ... YJ.t..i .. ~.:-:J.£1 .. ~.~.~ Y..i. ... Q.\,.\.t':l'.:t.I.,!J(! ___ ~.Q.t,l.l.~

Plus additional species yet to be DeLapp, Botanist.

138 taxa.

ider·st i f:ied. '3/29/87, Joh·f·s A.

11

up the shc•re tc• a zoy,e c•f ~.li.SUlr~~Ji.._!;'i\'l"li\dWmii..li. above the shoreliY1e. As the terrain cc•Y•tiY•ued to slc•pe gey,tly up aY1d away frc•m the water, Sali~ pulchrm became cc•dc•miY,aY•t with the Cmlilffii\grc•!i:tiiJl• The willow zone trended gradually or abruptly into a forest of Betula PiiPYrifera, which sctrnetirnes was cc•dc•miY•aY•t with Picea gl.:H.\Ci\. There were also recurring zones of floating and submerged aquatic plants within the water bodies. One sequence that occurred frequently was Spargmnium angustifolium and Utricularia spp. in the shallows, to Nympheea :t;etragc•Y•a, Nqpher pplysepela aY1d Pc•:t;amc•ge:t;c•r• armrniY!fi?\.\a iY1 the slightly deeper water, to a zone of submerged species of P<:ttmmpgeton and aquatic moss in the deepest water. The sequence occurred in a wide variety of lake types. It was found in frequently-flooded, nutrient-rich, o~bow lakes, and in relatively-sterile, rarely-flooded, non-o~bow lakes of the inactive floodplain. Therefore, few, if any, of the floating or submerged aquatic plant species will be useful indicators of duck productivity.

It is difficult to say whether the study will identify any easily­measured indicators of duck productivity before the detailed analysis is completed. Ne~t season, we will visit the Yukon River plots and sub-sample all lake types to describe them in greater detail <water chemistry characteristics, depth profiles, shoreline characteristics, drainage patterns and more quantitative vegetation data). Information from the study will provide a detailed description of the Refuge's waterfowl habitat, and will improve our ability to assess and manage these resources.

Water, sediment and fish tissue samples were collected at 12 sites on the Refuge to help determine impacte of mining on etrearns. Placer mining, mostly for gold, takes place upstream and off Refuge lands. Both mined and unrnined streams were eampled for metals, especially arseYdc, merct\ry aY1d irc•Y•. Field tests were perfc•rmed fc•r temperature, pH, conductivity, turbidity, and alkalinity. Some problems arose because of interference of iron on water hardness. We will try to correct this problem by using CDTA magnesium ealt powder pi llc•ws.

The proJect was divided into three phases. Phase I set baseline data to describe what is present on the Refuge. It will be completed in 1988. In Phase II, areas of possible trouble indicated from Phase I will be monitored. In the last phase, steps will be taken to lessen impacts and ensure better water quality.

Mixed birch/spruce riparian community. The faster-growing birch and the spruce trees are generally the same age. Spruce will eventually be dominant.

The abundant, sterile, muskeg lakes support very few ducks.

Botanist John DeLapp weighs a pike before taking a tissue sample for heavy metal testing.

DeLapp processes water samples for contaminants analysis.

The Sphagnum moss/black spruce hummock communities are very corrunon on the Refuge in many areas with discontinuous permafrost . Innoko Refuge has the dubious distinction of supporting the most species of Sphagnum of any refuge in Alaska (23 species) .

Sedge-grass meadows with Eriophorum and Equisetum surround many lakes .

12

3. E.Qrest-..

An outbreak of bark beetle in the Yukon River area of the Refuge was reported by the Alaska Department of Natural Resources in May 1987. MaYsy spruce trees were ccbviccusly iYsfested by the eYsd ccf the S\.\mmey•. Local Division of Forestry personnel asked us to coordinate efforts to survey the extent of the outbreak in 1988. We will monitor progress of the beetles, but no further action is planned.

Fires were essentially absent from the Refuge in 1987. A total of two acres burned. Such a low number was not even reported on a Form 1202 as the paperwork would have cost more than the fire.

We are in the fifth year of operation under the Kusko-Iliamna Fire Management Plan. Portions of the Refuge are given control designations by the Service. Most lands fall into the limited control group where YsC• ini·l;ial strikes will be made agaiYsst fires. IY·s 1987 the ay•ea em the western side of the Refuge that was a full-protection management zone was changed to a modified control zone where fires may or may not be attacked initially, but are not generally suppressed unless they threateY'I 1 i fe Ccr prCcperty.

According to Bureau of Land Management fire records based on 27 years of data, an average of 45,000 acres of Refuge lands burns each year due to wildfire. Prescribed fires may be in order if less than 10,000 acres does not burn for successive years. With 45,000 acres as the average, it seems 1.mlikely ·chat 1987's twc• acres ccculd irsitia·t;e prescribed burn plans. Jet stream activity affects the occurrence of thunderstorms across Alaska CRed Sheldon, Fire Management Coordinator, persC•Y'sal cccmrllUY'sicatic•Ys). A shift iYs this Jet stream cause.s m corresponding shift in the locations of wildfire in the state. As the following figures show, 1987 was our low year.

Y.u:c. # ccf Acres Bl.\rrsed # ccf Fires

1983 50,530 \.\Y'skY'sCcWY'I 1984 52,975 15 1985 28,573 11 1986 15,003 7 1987 2 1

12. Wildernes~d Speci~l Areas

Innoko Refuge includes 1.2 million acres of officially-designated wilderness. The contiguous parcel extends from the south bank of the Innoko River south to the Refuge boundary. The area is typically muskeg and sphagnum bog with thousands of tiny lakes and potholes. Elevations increase slightly around the edges of the wilderness, limiting the extent of muskeg. The Yetna and Iditarod Rivers meander

13

through the area, slowly draining moisture from atop the permafrost. The areas along the rivers are the most-productive on the Refuge for waterfowl, raptors and moose. The muskeg areas are the least­prc•duct i ve.

The southwestern portion of the Refuge is contained in the state­designated Paradise Controlled Use Area. Fly-in hunting for moose is not permitted. Recreation and subsistence use is increasing here, yet the sizes and distribution of wildlife populations are not fully understood. The Service conducts waterfowl breeding pair counts in the area, and has been leading a study to determine movements, distribution and habitat use of moose (see section 8.8).

G. ~UJ ... _P.I...l.EE.

With the Refuge situated in a transition zone between tundra and taiga environments, the expected complement of wildlife species occurs on the Refuge. Important mammals include moose, caribou, wolf, black bear, grizzly bear, red fox, lynx, marten, beaver, wolverine, and river otter. Over 120 species of birds have been recorded so far, with large numbers of waterfowl and raptors present. Fish species include, but are not limited to, salmon, sheefish, grayling, whitefish and pike. Most abundant are the mosquitoes which make roost other life-forms in the food chain possible, yet cause so much CC•l"1Sterl"1at iC•l"l.

Breeding Pair Survey

Personnel from Waterfowl Investigations in Juneau conducted the annual spring breeding pair survey on 28 May 1987. There was a substantial decrease in the number of breeding pairs from 1986 <Table 5>. Breeding pair numbers were at their lowest point since 1978. The number of ducks observed was 50~ lower than the 1986 survey, and 42~ below the ten-year mean. Water levels were high on the Innoko in 1987, but they were higher in 1985. Therefore, factors other than high water probably caused the decrease.

Duck Brood Surveys

t1~.ib.~•Q.~...!-. 01..\ck brc•c•d s1..rr•vey sampliY1g methc•ds were described iy·, the Refuge inventory plan. The basic sampling unit was a randomly­selected, 1-square-mile section. All lakes within each sampling unit were surveyed on foot or with an inflatable raft with a 4-horse motor. Inflatable rafts were more convenient to handle than canoes.

Nineteen eighty-seven was the third year randomly-selected sample units were surveyed, and the second year that two brood surveys were conducted; one in early July for dabblers, and one in mid-August for

Second brood count and botany crew: Standing: John Delapp, Ed Grossman, Patsy Martin, Brian

Maillelle, Rhonda Yaska, Martha Desmond, Monica Roeder, Paul Ladegard, Francis Earl Durbian III, Bob \'linkelman, Mark Bertram.

Kneeling: Byron Berger, Carolyn Kindell, Zephyr, Bill Knauer

14

divers. Duri~g the first survey, all ducks were i~cluded i~ the productivity estimate. Duri~g the seco~d survey, o~ly the ducks that could ~ot have bee~ alive duri~g the first survey were i~cluded to preve~t cou~ti~g the same brood twice. The ~umber of ducks from the first survey was combi~ed with the ~umber of u~repeated ducks from the seco~d survey for a total production estimate.

A helicopter was used o~ some plots duri~g the seco~d survey. Twe~ty­

four plots were sampled with the helicopter; five of those were also sampled o~ foot. The helicopter was used to sample muskeg plots that were difficult to do o~ foot and had low productivity. We also sampled some of the more-productive, river-co~~ected plots to compere with estimates from grou~d samples •

.8JE..a.1llt_fi?. .. __ ~.r.,.£L_Q_:i,_!_?c\.\ss i ol'"•· The first s1..1rvey was 6 July t c• 17 J\.1 l y, aY•d the seco~d was 2 August to 9 August. Forty-three sample u~its were completed duri~g the first survey and 49 duri~g the seco~d. We had hoped to sample all 50 plots duri~g each survey, a~d ~early did. However, we decided that we could ~ot JUstify the emou~t of time ~eeded to complete 50 plots without the helicopter. We spent a week preparing for brood surveys, a~d e week recoveri~g after they were completed. The two surveys took at least six weeks-over half of the summer field seeso~. That did ~ot allow sufficie~t time for other importa~t proJects, such as be~ding.

Sample u~its were stratified as high, medium, or low productivity plots when they were initially selected. A~nual estimates of productio~ from the brood surveys differed, depe~di~g o~ whether the plots were stratified or ~ot. The stratified duck production estimate for 1987 was 11~ higher the~ the 1986 estimate (9,000 broods a~d 8,000 broods, respectively> <Table 6). However, if the plots were not stratified, the estimate was 16,000 broods i~ 1987 e~d 24,000 in 1986-a 33~ decrease.

The trends in the number of broods per water body and the number of broods per square mile betwee~ 1986 e~d 1987 also did not correlate with the tre~ds estimated from the stratified sample. The number of broods/square mile decreased 38~ ca. 1 to 5.6>, a~d the number of broods/water body decreased 31~ (0.8 to 0.5> <Table 7>. Densities for each species ere summarized i~ Tables 8-9. To compute the number of broods per water body, we divided the combined number of broods from both surveys Cexcludi~g a~y that may have bee~ counted i~ both surveys> by the ~umber of lakes courrted in the second survey (570>. The ~umber of broods per square mile was also computed with combined ~umbers and divided by the ~umber of square miles sampled i~ the seco~d survey (49>.

There may be several reasons for the contradiction between stratified end u~stretified estimates.

1. The number of surveys used to produce the estimate. In 1986, only the second survey was used to estimate production because the first survey was done about o~e week too early.

15 Only 57 broods were counted during the first survey, comp~red to 288 during the second one.

2. Different brood densities in e~ch str~t~. There was ~ 21~ decrease in number of broods per square mile in the high strata between 1986 and 1987 <16.75 and 13.25, respectively>, and a 23~ decrease in the medium strata <5.42 and 4.18, respectively> <Table 10). But brood production increased 84~ in low strata from 1986 to 1987. The low strata accounts for a large portion of the habitat on the Refuge <2300 sq. mi.>, so a small increase in the production estimate in the low strata would add more birds to the total estimate than a similar increase in the high or medium strata. In addition, the sample size for the low strata was increased to 20 units in 1987. The increase may have affected the number of broods observed per square mile.

3. The number of lakes sampled. A different number of lakes was sampled during the first and second surveys in 1987. In the first survey, we walked around 448 lakes. In the second survey, we sampled 570 with the help of the helicopter.

4. The timing of the surveys. In 1987, the first survey was done during the twenty-seventh and twenty-eighth Julian weeks (6 July to 17 July>. In 1986, it was done during the twenty-sixth week, and most of the dabbling ducks had not hatched. The second survey was conducted during the thirty­first Julian week in 1987 <2 August - 9 August> and seemed to be timed correctly.

5. The amount of time required to complete the survey. The first survey took 11 days to complete because all plots were sampled on foot, and the airplane was stranded in McGrath twice by bad weather. The second survey was completed in seven days with the help of the helicopter.

Twenty-four brood plots were surveyed with a helicopter during the second brood survey 1 August - 3 August. The helicopter was used mainly to survey those out-of-the-way muskeg plots which had very low productivity and were hard to walk. We attempted to survey some medium and high-density plots that were also difficult to sample on foot, but it did not work. The broods bunched up or split up and hid in tall grasses, and hens scattered. Broods could not be aged or identified by species because of the confusion. We should use the helicopter to do plots that are otherwise extremely difficult or impossible to complete, and not simply to increase our sample size. We should designate certain sample units as »helicopter plots'' and others as »ground plots», and try to survey them consistently.

Brood surveys could be used as a year-to-year index of Refuge duck production. However, before we can accurately compare figures from different years, we must have some consistent samples. In 1986, 27 and 34 plots were sampled during the first and second surveys,

16 respectively, compared to 43 and 49 in 1987. We should attempt to survey at least the same 43 plots done during the first 1987 survey in 1988.

The two brood surveys were done at different times because diving ducks hatch later than dabbling ducks. In 1987, the second survey had a larger percentage of diving ducks than the first survey C13~ and 5~, respectively>, so apparently, the second survey did produce a better estimate of diving duck production <Tables 11 & 12>. The second survey was particularly successful at sampling scaup. However, if an estimate of the number of diving broods produced on the Refuge is the only reason for doing two surveys, the number of broods observed (25> may not JUStify the amount of effort required to obtain that number.

A statistician was contracted in early 1988 to analyze the brood count information from several refuges in the Region to determine whether we need two counts, the most-efficient way to census the populations, the sample size needed, etc. We will continue to do two surveys and to try to sample as many plots as we reasonably can until the statistician completes the analysis.

Pintails were the most-abundant breeding species on the Refuge in 1987, followed by wigeon, green-winged teal, shoveler, mallard and scaup. Pintails were also the most-abundant breeder in 1986, but green-winged teal were more abundant than wigeon. Total numbers of broods should not be compared between years, because the first survey in 1986 was conducted too early, and many of the dabbling ducks had not yet hatched.

Average brood sizes in 1987 were similar to 1986 averages, except for mallards <Tables 13 & 14). Only the information for the second surveys is comparable because the first count in 1986 was too early. In 1986, mallard broods averaged 3.9; in 1987, they were 5.5.

The general trend in 1987 seemed to indicate a later peak hatching date than 1986. Of the six maJor duck species on the Refuge during 1987, peak hatching dates for five of them occurred during the twenty­sixth Julian week <26 June - 2 July> <Figs. 1a-1f). Only the pintails differed; their peak was during the twenty-fifth week C19 June - 25 June>. The peak hatching date for pintails was one week later than in 1986, and two weeks later for mallards. Northern shovelers apparently had two peak hatching dates-one during the twenty-fourth week and one during the twenty-sixth week. In 1986, the peak hatching date for shovelers was during the twenty-sixth week. Only wigeon seemed to have had an earlier peak of hatch in 1987 than in 1986 <twenty-fifth and twenty-sixth, respectively>. For scaup, the peak hatching date extended from the twenty-sixth through the twenty-ninth Julian weeks (17 July - 23 July>.

In 1986, only four scoter broods were counted, so scoters were assumed to be a relatively-unimportant species on the Refuge. In 1987, only four broods were observed again. Therefore, it is probably fairly safe to assume that seaters do not occur in any great abundance on the Refuge.

Co-op student Winkelman contemplates pintail-the most abundant breeding duck on Innoko Refuge.

Volunteer Desmond holds what's left of the last critter that tried to walk this brood plot.

17

Two non-random, draw-down lake sample units were surveyed in 1986 and 1987. The lakes were river-cc•rw·.ected with a shallc•w, \.\Y,evey, bc•ttom that create numerous, small lakes or puddles when the river drops. They were the most-productive lakes on the Refuge, but were very few in number, and cover only 5-10 sq. mi. Most were along the Iditarod river, but some were located on the lower Innoko. Because of their scarcity, they were not represented in the random survey, but because of their high production, two areas totalling 1.14 sq. mi. were selected to sample each year.

During the first brood survey, 11.25 broods/water body (40 broods/square mile> were observed on the draw-down lakes, compared to 0.45 broods/water body for the random survey (Table 16>. Only 2.75 broods/water body C10 broods/ sq. mi.) were seen during the second survey, compared to 0.34 broods/water body for the second random survey <Table 17>. The water level was very high during the second survey, so the lakes were not puddled. Numbers from the draw-down lakes were not included in the total production or broods/waterbody or broods/square mile estimates for the Refuge.

Much to everyone's pleasure, vegetative and physiographic descriptions were not filled out by brood survey crews in 1987. Instead, seasonal botanist, John DeLapp, surveyed 16 plots, giving a detailed description of the water bodies and vegetation types of each CSee Section F.2>. The original plan was to survey 21 plots, but time only allowed for completion of 16. The 21 plots <the same ones that we do brood surveys on> were selected because they represented the variation within all 50 sample units and three draw-down lakes. The result should be a maJor improvement over information gathered by 8 to 10 differeY•t pec•ple c•r• the brc•c•d survey crews, beca\.\Se maY•Y did r•c•t have adequate botanical training to do reliable vegetation classification. Besides, the brood surveys are too time consuming as it is. The plants deserve someone's undivided attention.

We did not systematically census goose production on the Refuge. Few goose broods were observed on the duck brood plots, but some family groups were captured during goose banding. Thousands of white-fronted geese and many Canada geese molt on the Refuge, but we have no idea how many of them are produced there. Part of the problem is that we do not know where they nest. We surveyed most of the maJor upland streams in May with a helicopter, hoping to see single birds or pairs that might be nesting along the stream banks and oxbow lakes. Some flocks of 5-7 birds and a few singles were seen, but no concentration areas were identified. The survey was not economical, and it did not provide any useful information.

Other interior Alaska refuges CKanuti and Nowitna> are planning studies to identify white-fronted and Canada goose nesting habitat. Results from their studies may help us ider~ify important areas on Innoko Refuge. Also, an inter-refuge proJect will be started in 1989 to band white-fronted geese on different Interior refuges. Band

returns and recaptures should provide information about nesting and molting area fidelity, and help determine whether the populations need to be managed as separate or intermixing units.

On• snow goo•• w•• aeen ••v•r•l times with a large, molting flock of white-fronted geese on the Iditarod River. Hooper C1954> reported a white goose on the Iditarod River on July 11, and area residents said white geese were occasionally seen during spring Migration <Nelson, 1949).

Tablt 5. Population indicts fral tM annual, waterfowl breeding pail" SUl"Vey, stl"atUII 5-Irmoko Basin-1978 to 1967.

SPECIES 1978 1979 1900 1961 1962 1963 19M 1985 1966 1967 Trm-yeal" wan

!Thousands)

Mallard 17.6 13.2 12.2 10.3 6.4 6.3 24.7 13.2 14.9 7.4 12.8

Wigecm 65.5 43.4 74.3 40.5 21.7 58.9 45.1 16.4 60.9 20.7 44.1

~ingtd Teal 22.1 20.6 16.2 20.6 7.4 23.6 10.3 14.7 51.5 24.3 21.1

Shoveltr 17.2 7.1 29.1 40.9 13.6 20.a 10.1 5.9 39.1 6.2 19.2

Pintail 95.8 57.5 133.5 127.9 69.5 67.7 106.3 71.9 100.6 53.5 86.4

Carwasback 0.8 1.5 3.0 e.8 1.9 2.2 1.9 1. 7

Scaup 32.8 23.5 34.1 14.3 12.7 30.5 29.1 9.5 18.9 2.3 20.8

Gold~ 11.1 17.9 8.5 1. 7 3.4 13.6 16.2 10.2 6.5 10.1

Bufflthtad 2.9 2.5 2.9 2.9 2.5 2.5 1.3 2.5

Old Squaw 9.0 7.0 3.0 5.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 8.3 4.3

ScottY' 7.5 8.8 7.0 6.0 9.9 11.3 4.2 2.9 6.2 10.5 7.4

M&rganlltY' 0.6 0.3 0.3 3.1 0.3 0.9 0.9

-------- ----- --·---- -· ---·-TOT~ 281.5 202.9 322.6 273.1 146.7 233.1 254.7 148.1 304.7 135.2 233.3

--------------------

Table 6. Comparison of duck production estimates for the Innoko National Wildlife Refuge, 1987, using stratified and unstratified sarnple \.tni t s.

With Wi thccut Strati ficat iccy, S·trat i fica·t icm

-------------------- --------------------E<roc•ds D\.\CkS** E<rc•c•ds 0\.\CkS**

Pi Y1ta i 1 3,007 14,434 5,632 27,034

WigeoY• 1, 823 8,021 2,668 11' 739

G. W. Teal 1, 775 6,745 2,905 11' 039

Mallard 878 4,478 1, 186 6,049

Sca\.\P 656 3,674 1, 482 8,299

N. Shc•veler 530 2,650 1,304 6,520

UY1i deY•t i fied 393 1,493 711 2,702

Gee 1 d e'1"1eye 141 0-1(· 119 0*

Scc•ter 92 570 237 1, 469

Bufflehead 40 0* 119 0*

9,000 42,000 16,000 75,000

*Only broody hens were observed, so average brood size could not be cccrnputed.

**Nurnber of broods times average brood size.

Table 7. CoMpar-ison of 1986 artd 1987 brood del'ISities for the IrsYJOko NatiOYJal Wildlife Refuge.

F i nt Brood Survey

Broods PI\" Squa ... Milet

1966 2.11

1987 4.()7

1986 0.15

1987

lfiglll'ft used to Y'tp!"KKfft brood del'ISity in 1986.

HfigUY'IS used to rtpl"ftfl'lt brood density in 1987.

Stcortd Brood Survey Overalh·

0.801

--------

Tablt 8. Tht nuabrr of broods in each agt class, average brood sizt and the average nuaber of broods per watf!l" body for each species dul"'ing the fil"''t brood sul"'Vey, 1967.

Pondl Suplld I 288 114-.ile aectiona of l"'iver/stl"''ilu: 159.a Total 1iln of l"'iver/stl"''i!UJ 39.95 Total Water Bodint 447.a

Q.ASS I ClASS II O..ASS III lMLASSIFIED

Brood Count: Fint Stl"'atllliiJ 5

Plots: 43 RandOl Plots Datet 6 July - 17 July

BROODY TOT~ f'N. BROODS PER SPECIES BROODS f'N. SIZE BROODS f'N. SIZE BROODS f'N. SIZE BROODS f'N. SIZE I£NS BROODS SIZE WATER BODY ____ , ______________________ _ DABBLERS:

Mallard 3 4.7 3 4.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 a 14 4.4 0.03 Wigeon 1a 5.3 a 3.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 30 4.6 6.~7

G.W. Ttal 16 5.3 7 3.7 1 2.0 1 2.0 10 35 4.5 6.08 Shoveler 5 7.5 5 5.a 0 0.0 1 1.0 a 19 6.0 0.~

Pintail 31 5.5 38 4.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 13 82 5.0 0.18

Subtotal 73 5.5 61 4.3 2.0 2 1.5 43 18e 4.9 e.4t --------------------------------------------------

DIVERS:

Scaup spp. 6 7.8 e 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 7 7.8 0.02 Goldtneyt 1t 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 0.0 0.ge Bufflli!head C. Scoter W.W. Scoter S. Scoter 8.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 8.0 0.00

Subtotal 8 7.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 10 7.9 e.,ga

--------------------- ---- . . .... -Unid. Ducks 2 2.0 4 3.0 0 0.0 5 4.4 0 11 4.1 e.,ga

--------------------------------------------------Total 83 5.7 65 4.3 2.0 7 3.6 46 201 4.9 6.45

------------------------------------------lfoul"' bil"'ds wert obstl"'Vtd, but because size was urdli!'ttr'ltirlld, avtl"'age brood size could not be C<*puttd.

Tablt 9. The YIUIIber of broods in tach age class, average brood size and the average nu•ber of broods per water body for each species during the secortd brood survey, 1967.

Ponds S..pltd: ~tee

114-.ile section~ of river/strea1u 169.6 Total •iln of river/streaa: 42.4 Total watr Bodin: 569.6

Q.ASS I ClASS I I ClASS I II UHCLASSIFIED

Brood Count: Second Strat\111: ~

Ploli!iJ 49 RandOM Plots Date: 2 August - 9 August

BROODY TOT~l. fW. BROODS PER SPECIES BROODS rw. SIZE BROODS rw. SIZE BROODS rw. SIZE BROODS fW. SIZE HENS BROODS SIZE WATER BODY

DABBI..ERSt

Mallard 0 e.0 4 4.3 1 7.0 4 6.0 6 15 5.5 0.03 Wigeon 4 2.8 28 4.3 9 4.4 5 5.2 12 56 4.3 e.lt G. W. Teal 5 2.6 15 3.9 9 2.7 5 2.0 10 44 3.2 e.ea Shoveler 0 0.0 6 3.8 2 2.0 2 5.0 3 13 3.7 e.~

Pintail 1 4.0 8 3.3 7 4.7 2 4.0 12 3e 3.9 0.es

Subtotal 10 2.8 61 4.0 28 3.8 18 4.6 43 160 3.9 e.2&

--------------------------------------------------------------

DIVERSt

~aup spp. 5 4.5 8 5.0 2 8.0 4 3.0 1 20 4.8 0.04 Solder~

Bufflehead 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.0 0.00 c. Scotlf' W.W. Scoter 2 3.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 12.0 0 3 6.0 0.01 S. Scoter 0 0.0 5.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 1 5.0 e.~

Subtotal 7 4.0 9 5.0 2 8.0 5 4.2 2 25 5.0 0.04

--- --------------------------------------------lMid. Ducks 0 e.0 2 3.5 0 0.0 6 3.5 1 9 3.5 0.02

-----------------------------------------------------------------Total 17 3.3 72 4.2 3e 4.1 29 4.4 46 194 4.1 e.34

Table 1t. Mean 1lll!lber of broods per square 111i le in each of 3 strata of duck production idemi fied on Innoko National

Strata

High

Total

Wildlife Refuge in 1987.

Square Miln Saeplt Unib Saeplt Unitt CoMpltted Coftfidera Interval

at e. 86 level of Habitat Within Strata First Survty Stcond Survty Mean Broods/sq. •ilt +I- ~

165 12 12 12• 13.25 3.99

17 15 17• 4.18 1.37 33

21 16 2.30 e. sa 38 _____ , ____ _ 43 49 5.63

Tablt 11. Tha nuablr' a'lld relativt ~agn of duc:k broods observed in the first ranclolt survey are listtd in the following table.

miEi BROODS OOSERVED PERCENT (f TOTFA.

Pintail 82 43 Srwn-..iYigtd Teal 35 16 Wigeon 3a 16 ShovtliY' 19 11 Millard 14 7 Scaup 7 4 Goldentyt 2 I ScottY'S 1 1

19if 106

tU unidentifitd broods Mert not iY~Cludid in this table-

Table 12. Tht JIUibtr and relative ~ages of duc:k broods observed in the stc:OI'Id randoll survey.

~ BROODS OBSERVED PERCENT (f TOT!I.

Wigeon 56 31 Grtttn-1ti ngtd Teal 44 24 Pintail 3a 16 Scaup 2e 11 Mallard 15 a Sbovtltr' 13 7 ScottY'S 4 2 Bufflehead 1 1

185f 1N

f9 unidentified broods Mert not iY~Cludtd in this tabltt.

Tablt 13. ~ density per square tile for each species during the first brood survey, 1987 (43 plots).

Corlfidence Interval

Total Broods Broods per square lilt Standard Deviatior• Variara

----------------------------·----· Mallard 14 0.33 0.715 6.511 0.14 42 Wigeon 36 e. 10 1.611 2.597 0.31 45 G.W. Ttal 35 0.81 1.118 1.25e 0.22 27 Shovtltr 19 0.44 1.076 1.157 0.21 48 Pintail ec 1.88 3.672 13.486 0.72 3! Sc:aup spp. 7 0.16 e. 785 0.616 0.15 96 Goldeneye 2 e.es 0.213 0.645 0.64 83 Sc:ottrl 1 0.62 0.152 0.623 0.03 48 llrlidtntified 11 6.26 0.875 e. 766 6.17 65

-----------------------------------Total 201 4.67 6.421 41.225 1.25 27

----- -----------------------

Table 14. Brood d&Mity per ~quare 1i lt for tach sptein during the second brood survey, 1987 (49 plots).

Confidence Interval

Total Broods Broods per square 1i le Star~ard Deviation Variara 6.80 Levtl Perctl'lt

Mallard 15 0.31 0.652 0.425 0.12 3! Wigeon 58 1.18 2.270 5.153 0.42 35 G.W. Ttal 44 0.90 1.229 1.518 0.22 25 Shoveler 13 0.27 0.638 0.407 0.12 43 Pintail 36 0.61 8.975 6.951 6.18 29 Sc:aup 20 6.41 0.934 6.872 0.17 42 Bufflehead 1 0.62 0.143 6.021 0.03 131 Sc:ottrl 4 0.08 0.344 0.118 0.06 79 llrlidtntifed 9 0.18 0.391 6.153 0.07 4t

-------------------------------------------Total 194 3.96 4.439 0.81

Table 15.

Species

Pintai 1

Wi gec•Y•

G. W. Teal

Scaup

Average brood size for each species on Innoko National Wildlife Refuge for 1987. Numbers from the first and second brood counts were combined for the averages.

Nurnber of Broc•ds

82

67

59

25

Tc•tal Duckl iY,gs

394

295

222

140

Average # of ducks/broc•d

4.8

4.4

3. 8

5.6

UY,idey,t i fi ed 18 69 3.8

N. Shoveler 16 80 5.0

Mallard 13 66 5. 1

Scccter 5 31 5 ·::'1 ... Bufflehead 0 0 0.0

Gc•ldey,eye 0 0 0.0

Tcctal 285 1,297 4.55

*Only broods of known size and identity were used to compute average brc•c•d size.

Table 16. Nullbtr of broods in each age c:lass, average bi"Ood size, al'ld nUIIbtr of broods per water body on the non-r~ drilt"dCMn lakes for' each species duril'lg the first brood survey, 1967.

Ponds Suplech 3 114-.ilt sections of river/streaM: 1.0 Total 1ile1 of river/streu: 0. 25 Total Witllf" Bodies: 4

a..ASS 1 CLASS II CLASS 111 UNCLASSIFIED

Brood Counh First StratWIJ 5 Plots: Draw-down lakes 1 al'ld ' Dates: 11 July and 8 July

BROODY TOTAL AV. BROODS PER SPECIES BROODS AV. SIZE BROODS AV. SIZE BROODS AV. SIZE BROODS AV. SIZE HENS BROODS SIZE WATER BODY

DABBLERS:

Mallard 1 e.0 1 7.0 0 e.e 0 0.0 0 a 7.0 0.50 Wigton 1 6.0 2 6.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 4 6.3 1.9t 6.11. Teal 0 e.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 a 2 e.0 0.50 Shoveler 6 5.2 1 5.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 1a 5.2 3.9t Pintail 5 5.8 12 6.6 1 2.0 0 0.0 7 25 6.1 6.25

Subtotal 13 5.5 16 6.5 a.0 0 0.0 15 45 6.a 11.25

--------------------------------------- ---lliVERSl

Scaup IPP• 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.00 Golder~

Bufflehead c. Scottr w.w. Scottr s. Scottr'

Subtotal 0 e.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.00

-----------------------------------linid. !lucks 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.00

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Total 13 5.5 16 6.5 2.0 0 0.0 15 45 6.2 11.25

Table 17. The nuaber of broods in each age class, the averagt brood size and the n\lllber of broods per water body for the non­Y"BndOM, dY'alt"dO!IIl'l lakes duY'ing the secortd lUrvey, 1967.

Panels Suplech 3 1/4-.ile sections of Y'iver/stY'ea»: 1.~

Total •iln of Y'iver/streu: 0.25 Total water Bodin: 4

Q.ASS I CLASS II ClASS III LKLASSIFIED

Brood Count: Second Strat\111: 5 Plots: Dralt"dO!IIl'l lakes 1 and 2 Dates: 6 August and 8 August

BROODY TOTil. fW. BROODS PER SPECIES BROODS fW. SIZE BROODS fW. SIZE BROODS fW. SIZE BROODS fW. SIZE I£HS BROODS SIZE WATER BODY

---------------------------------------- --------------DABBLERS:

Mallard Wigeon 0 e.e 0 e.e ~ 0.0 ~ 0.0 1 1 e.~ 0.80 G.W. Teal 0 0.0 1 3.0 0 e.~ ~ e.e 0 1 3.0 0.25 Shoveler 0 0.0 2 2.~ 0 ~.e 0 e.0 0 2 2.0 0.50 Pintail 1 0.0 ~ ~.0 0 0.0 ~ e.e 2 3 ~.~ 0.75

Subtotal 0.0 3 2.3 0 0,0 0 0.0 3 7 2.5 1. 75

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DIVERS:

Scaup spp. 4 6.0 e.e 8.0 0.0 4 6.0 1.80 GoldtYeyt Bufflehead c. Scoter w.w. Scotti" s. Scoter

Subtotal 4 6.0 e 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 4 6.0 1.80

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------li'lid. Ducks 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.80

Total 5 6.0 3 2. 3 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 11 3.8 2.75

Figure la. Estimated hatching dates, by julian week, on the Innoko National Wildlife Refuge. Julian week 22 was May 29- June 4 in 1987.

40 ,--------------------------------------------------------------.

Figure lb. Estimated hatching dates, by julian week, on the Innoko National Wildlife Refuge. Julian week 22 was May 29 - June 4 in 1987.

PINTAIL PERCENr W.1CI-ED e.·· \\fE<

Figure lc. Estimated hatching dates, by julian week, on the lnnoko National Wildlife Refuge. Julian week 22 was May 29- June 4 in 1987.

~0 ,---------------------------------------------------------------~ i ~~ I ...!l!ll!

! 2t)l :24 ~

I :2:2--l

! ...,.- I ..:.LI J

18 ~ !

1£ -1 i

:: ~ 10 -j

r;J - i ~ i 1::1!

!

:I ..:...., lr'771

0 I ,' !" I ~ I ,.· / l

I

:23

f .. /_./j' r,.,. [,/,/A 1 .. /./ j ~·· .. /_./! [///I I//~

t ... / , ... ! _, ... './,.·' ... .;

J ,.., ,.. J

24 27 28 29 .3i

Figure ld. Estimated hatching dates, by julian week, on the Innoko National Wildlife Refuge. Julian week 22 was May 29- June 4 in 1987.

Figure le. Estimated hatching dates, by julian week, on the Innoko National Wildlife Refuge. Julian week 22 was May 29- June 4 in 1987.

).,. I •. - .. ,.-... .,.-, I r-r-... ~ ) . ..-... H . .-.. \ ·' r--1 r-r-... 1''--iU ~: ! H t..~:f'--1 :::;:, . .lJV t..L t..~:

~Nf H..(.,JC!-E) Bl'" \\£8·<

.30 .3i

I I

.I I

I I I I !

I I I

I I i I j l i I

Figure lf. Estimated hatching dates, by julian week, on the Innoko National Wildlife Refuge. Julian week 22 was May 29- June 4 in 1987.

tv1ALLARD F'ERCENf W.1CI-I:D 8'{ ·~'.EE<:

f.J) I I I I I

40 ~ I

I I I

2;() ~ I I I I I

~~ I I

10 ~ I I I I

I 0

:2:2

18

6. ~

Raptors were 'I"IC•t systematically S\.\rveyed i'l"1 1987. Active '1"1ests were '1"1oted alc•Y•g rivers, but were Y1ot cc•UY1ted. Three c•sprey Y•ests c•'l"• the upper Innoko River that were active in 1985 and 1986 were not active in 1987. All known bald eagle nests and most red-tailed hawk nests were active in 1987. IY• 1988, we will resume our surveys of raptc•r Y•ests.

A white bald eagle with a few brown feathers and two peregrine falcons were seen on the lower Iditarod River in late June and early July. C3old&'l"l eagles were iY•frequeY•tly seen th&r& durir•g the !lUHI'I& period. They were apparently hunting over the molting white-fronted goose flocks. Great gray owls were heard around th& Refuge cabin lake in September, and great horned and boreal owls were heard in mid-March.

7. Other Migratory Bird•

A small flock of sharp-tailed grouse was seen on the Innoko River belc•w C3rO\.\Ch Creek iY• September <M. Reardc•Y•, persc•Y•al cc•mmuyficatioy,). They may or may not be residents, but they were added to our bird list <T•ble 20>.

Tabl• 20. BIRDS OF THE INNOKO NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE - Ja~uary 1988

UB.. eo-on Loon CB •• Arctic Loon ca •• Red-throated Loon CB •• Red-necked ~be lS •• Homed ~be UB •• TurJClra Swan lS •• Tr1111peter Swan CB •• Cartada Goose ca •• Wllitt-fr<mttd Goose RM •• SYICM Goose ca .. Mallard CB .. Pirrtail ca .. GrHn-wi ngtd Teal UB •• Blue-winged Teal CB •• AMerican Wigeon UV .. Eurasiars Wigeon ca .. Northern Shoveler RB •• CaYNasback RB .. Redhead RB •• Ring-necked Duck CB •• Greater Scaup CB. , Lesser Scaup CB •• Coemon Goldeneye CB .. Barrow's Sol derseyt lS •• Bufflehead UB .. 01 dsquaw UB •• Harlequin Duck UB •• White-winged Scoter ca .. Surf Scoter CB •• Black Scoter UB •• Rid-briasted Merganser •RV. Cowaon Merganser UB •• Northtrn Goshawk UB .. SMairSSOYs1 s Hawk UB •• Sharp-shinned Hawk CB •• Red-tailed Hawk UB •• Rough-legged Hawk UB •• Solden Eagle UB .. Bald Eagle UB •• Northern Harrier UB •• Osprey RBW. Gyrfalcon RM •• Pertgrine Falcon *AM. Merlin fUB.Amrrican Kestrel

Aburtdarce

C COIIIIIOYI u UriCOIMsiOYI R Rare * Not yet observed on Refuge

CR •• Spruce Grouse UR •• Ruffed Grouse UB •• Sharp-tailtd Grouse UR •• Willow ptarMigan UB •• Sandhi 11 Crane UM •• Black-bellied Plover UB .. Lesser Golden Plover CB .. Seldpahaated Plover UB •• ~ater Yellowlegs CB •• Lesser Ytllowlegs CB •• Solitary Sandpiper *UB.WarJClering Tattler ua •• Whi•bril CB •• Hudsorsian Godwit RV •• ~arblid Godwit fUM.Ruddy Turrsstor~

CB •• Spotted Sandpiper UB •• SemipalMated Sar~Clpiper

CB •• Pectoral Sand pi per

CB •• Least SarJClpiper CB •• Long-billed Dowitcher CB .. COIMIIOYI Snipe CB •• Red-necked Phalarope UB •• Parasitic Jaeger UB •• Long-tailed Jaeger RV •• PoMarine Jaeger UM •• Herring Gull UB •• Glaucous Gull UB •• Glaucous-winged Gull CB •• ~ Gull CB •• Bonaparte's Gull CB •• Arctic Tern UB •• ~at Horned Owl RMW. S'fiOMY Owl CB .. Northern Hawk Owl UB .. ~at Gray Oltl CB •• Short-eared Owl *UB. Boreal Oltl CB •• Belted Kingfisher UR •• Northern Flicker UR •• Downy Woodpecker UR •• Thrte-toed Woodpecker UR •• Black-backed Woodpecker UR •• Hairy Woodpecker

CB •• Alder Flycatcher UB .. Westtrn Wood-peewet UB •• Olive-sided Flycatcher UB •• Say's Phoebt fUM. Horned Lark CB •• Violtt-green Swallow CB •• Tree Swallow CB .. Bank Swallow UB •• Cliff Swallow CR •• Gray Jay CR •• Raven CR .. Boreal Chickadee *RR.Siberian Tit CR •• Black-capped Chickadee *CB.Arctic Warbler CB •• AMerican Robirs CB •• Varied Thrush UB .. HerMit Thrush CB •• Swainson's Thrush CB •• Sray-chetked Thrush CB •• Ruby-crowned Kinglet *UB.Water Pipit CB •• Boh~ian Waxwing UB •• Northern Shrike CB •• Orange-crowned Warbler CB •• Ytllow Warbler CB •• Yellow-rusped Warbler UB •• Blackpoll Warbler CB •• Northern Waterthrush CB •• Wilson's Warbler CB •• Tree Sparrow CB •• White-crowned Sparrow UB •• Fox Sparrow UB •• LirsCOln Sparrow UB •• Chipping Sparrow CB •• Saval'IY!ih Sparrow fU8, Golden-crowned Sparrow CB •• Dark-eyed JursCO fCM.Lapland Longspur UM •• SnoM Bunting CB •• Rusty Blackbird UR .. Pir~ Grosbeak UR •• White-winged Crossbill *UR. Hoary Redpoll CR. , COIIIIIOl'l Redpoll

B Breeding only in sullllll!'l' V Vagrant, casual or accidental R Residerrt. Ytar arourtd-brtedil's9 W Winter resident. Non-breeding M Migrant

Immature Bald Eagle

Northern Waterthrush

Some of our common avian residents ~ ..

Semi-palmated Plover

Fox Sparrow

19

Twenty bulls and 15 cows were radio-collared in the Paradise Controlled Use Area in March 1986. Study obJectives and JUstification were described in the initial proposal and the 1986 progress report. The proJect is a cooperative effort between Innoko National Wildlife Refuge, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Alaska Department of Fish aY•d Gam•.

Twenty-si~ collars were active after 22 months of the study. One bull and two cows died from capture myopathy. The bull was in very poor condition when he was darted, and did not recover. No &~planation for the deaths of the cows was obvious.

One cow slipped her collar three months after she was handled. One yearling bull was found dead si~ months aft•r he was collared. Another adult bull was on mortality mode January 4, 1987. We could Y•<:•t retrieve either bull collar, so we de• r-sc•t kr-sc•w why they died.

One bull collar was turned in by a hunter si~ months after the moose was handled. The hunter said he found the animal by a lake, and he estimated that it had been dead about a month. Two bull collars were turned in by hunters who had taken the moose in September 1987, 18 mc•Y'Iths after the rnc•c•se were cc•ll ared.

As noted in our first progress report, local hunters in the controlled use area did not report their harvest with Fish and Game harvest tickets. W• visited the four villages adJacent to the area between hu'l"'ting seasons a'l"'d discussed why it was importa'l"'t to report how many moc•se th•Y tc•ok. However, the Y1Umber of local hur-sters who reportfid increased only slightly. Ne~t year, we will visit the villages again, try to make personal contacts, and hold meetings. We will make posters to display in the villages, and will attempt to contact hunters during the September moose season.

It will probably take several years and more personal contacts to improve the reporting. Some of the people do not understand the reasons for it; others are suspicious of our motives. However, the people we have contacted have been friendly, supportive, and very interested in the results of the collari'l"'g study. It is our responsibility to keep them informed, find out why they do not report harvests, and to work with them to develop mutually beneficial ways to monitor harvests.

The reported hur-~er harvests increase between 1985 and 1986. "dc•WYs-river" peccple (frc•rn the They think too many hunters are

from the Controlled Use Area did not Complaints from local hunters about

lower Yukon and Kuskokwim) co'l"'ti'l"'ued. t.tsiYsg the area.

20

In 1987, hunters were ~llowed to fly into the ~irstrips ~t Sh~geluk, Grayling and Holy Cross to hunt in the Controlled Use Area. Prior to theY,, the strips, which ~re 01.1tside the ~rea bo1.mdary, were clc•sed but the Alaska Department of Fish and Game Board changed the regulation because the strips were maintained with State funds, and must be open to public access. We did not have the money or time to check hunters on these strips to see if more people are using them. We will check the harvest ticket reports when they are compiled for 1987.

Sizes of the moose total home ranges varied from 27 to 1727 km2. Six of 12 cows and nine of 17 bulls had separate seasonal ranges <Tables 21 and 22>. Distances between the ranges varied from 12 to 220 km, and were not correlated with the sex of the animal.

We were not able to locate one cow from June through December 1986. She re-appeared in January 1987. We tracked her and her yearling calf in June and found her moving west. We lost her again until August, wheY• we fc•1.md her .,..,ear New Hamiltc•Y•, 220 km frc•m her wiy,ter locatic•Y•· She had two calves. She had not returned to Holy Cross in January 1988.

The longest distance a bull travelled km. He moved from Holikachuk up Mountain in June of both 1986 and 1987. March 1987.

between seasonal ranges was 85 the Iditarod River to Halfway

He returned to Holikachuk in

Most of the animals with distinct seasonal ranges moved from lowland riverine areas to upland hills with burns over 30 years old. They moved up in June, and down in late November or early December. Two of the cows with distinct seasonal ranges moved from one riverine area to another. Both crossed through upland, old burns when they moved.

Three of the bulls shifted home ranges between 1986 and 1987 <Table 22>. Number 26's two ranges overlapped, 38 shifted 30 km with no overlap, and 42 shifted to an adJacent range. All new ranges were apparently the same vegetation types as the old ranges.

Two of the bulls with no distinct seasonal ranges took trips outside their home ranges. Bull 29 moved south 14 km in June 1986, and again to the same location in January 1988. Bull 32 moved 17 km in May 1986. The bulls may move more frequently, but we did not detect the movements with only monthly locations. No similar movements were noted in the cows.

Four of the six cows with distinct seasonal ranges produced calves that survived their first winter during both years of the study. None of the six cows with stationary ranges successfully produced calves in either 1986 or 1987. The sample size is small, but calf survival seemed to be correlated with the cows that moved.

Two bulls were collared as yearlings in March 1986. following September. It may have been killed by

One was dead the predatccrs. It

21

probably was ~ot killed by hu~ters as it was at least five Miles from any access. The other yearling <Bull 31) moved erratically from where he was collared east of Shageluk to the Netlet~a i~ June 1986. He moved to the I~noko River in December, then back to the Netletna from June to November 1987. I~ Ja~uary 1988, he moved back to the area where he was collared.

We intended to overlay the home ranges with a LandSat vegetation map using the Map Overlay a~d Statistical System CMOSS>. However, the Data General computer at the Innoko Refuge office crashed JUSt as we started the overlays. The Bureau of Land Ma~agement volunteered to try with ARCINFOS, another faster program that they ca~ operate from a larger computer in Anchorage. They started the proJect in Ja~uary 1988.

The teeth we collected from the have not been sectio~ed, so movements with ages.

moose whe~ they were collared still we carw·•c•t cc•rnpare hc•rne raY1ge sizes or

Blood samples were collected from 29 of the moose and tested for evidence of e~posure to:

1> infectious bovine rhinotracheitis 2> bovine viral diarrhea 3> parainfluenza III 4> respiratory sy~cytial virus 5) leptospirosis

All the tests were negative.

We attempted to census moose in the Controlled Use Area November 21 to December 2, 1987. We used the method developed by Gasaway et al., 1986. The census was unsuccessful because of a multitude of problems. All three super cubs we i~itially tried to use had mechanical problems. The Thanksgiving holiday interrupted between the stratificatio~ and ce~sus, then temperatures dropped to -40 degrees Fahrenheit. No population estimate was developed, but some interesting populatio~ ratios and high densities were ~oted. As usual, we spent lots of money to get a little bit of information.

The ce~sus area was 2200 square miles defined by the ranges of 24 of the radio-collared moose. We deleted 489 square miles because the stratification took too long.

Snow and light conditions varied from good to moderate during the stratification. Whe~ we started o~ November 21, the ground was mostly snow-covered with frost on trees a~d shrubs in the southern part of the area. Conditio~s deteriorated during the last two days of the stratification when more ground vegetation was visible and no frost was i~ the trees. Moose were visible in the open, ce~tral part of the area, but not in the white spruce along the Yukon River or in the norther~ sectio~. Light conditions were good the first day, a~d

moderate to poor because of overcast skies and fog during the rest of the stratificatio~. S~ow, frost, and light co~ditio~s were good when

22

the BUbi.\Ydts Fahrev-,hei t. Fii\hrev-,hei t.

were censused, but morning temperii\tures were -42 degrees We flew eii\ch day when it Wii\rmed up to -30 degrees

Three observers ii\nd one pilot strii\tified 1711 squii\re miles in five days in ii\ C-185 airplii\ne. Search effort per squii\re mile decreased eii\ch dii\y because the stratification was taking too long. We only flew 3-4 hours per day because c•vercast skies, grouv-•d fog, ay,d sv-•ow flurries limited visibility until about 11:00 a.m. and after 3:00 p.m.

One hundred and forty-three subunits were stratified <Table 23). Estimated moose densities were low in 63.8~ of the area, medium in 32~, and high or super high in 4.2~ of the area. We counted 868 moose in 13.7 hours <63.4 moose/hour>. Most of them were in the southern subunits along the Yukon River north and east of Holy Cross.

EveY1 thc•ugh the cev-.sus was Y10t cccmpleted, three c•r fc•l.\r strata were evident from the densities of the 18 subunits that were sampled (Table 24). The densities in those subunits were among the highest reported from similar surveys in Alaska. Eight subunits had 0-2.1 moose/square mile, 4 had 3.4 6.3 moose/square mile, and 5 had B- 12.5 moose/square mile. The highest density units could be divided into two groups, but no clear point of separation was obvious.

The 18 subunits that were sampled provided some ratios and density estimii\tes. The calves/100 cows ratio was good <45/100>, and the twinning rate was moderate C21~ of cows with calves had twins>. However, the subunits that were sampled were the highest density ones, so the high quality habitat may have biased the ratio in favor of cows with calves.

The 24 bulls/100 cows ratio was not as high as we had anticipated, and most of the bulls were small (45~ yearlings, 44~ less than 50-inch iimt ler spread, ar•d 11~ greater thay, 50 i'1"1Ches>. Hc•wever, mc•st of the habitats we sampled were lowland riparian. Radio-collared bulls from the Controlled Use Area tend to move into uplii\nd burned sites until December or January. We may have biased the census against bulls by not counting many of those ii\reas. The one uplii\nd unit we sampled had four bulls over 50 inches, one yearling bull, si~ cows and one calf. Those were quite different than the numbers for the lowland areas.

Aircraft costs and other e~penses were shared by the three cooperating agencies. The Bureau paid 49~ of the e~penses, the Service paid 38~ and State Fish and Game paid 13~ <Table 25).

~ussicm. To cccmplete the Cc•·l"'trc•lled Use Area mc•c•se stl.\dy, we .,,eed four items:

l> a population estimate. 2) an intensive survey of cows during calving to determine

productivity and causes of calf mortality. 3> an intensive survey of bulls during the rut to determine

movement patterns. 4) more frequent locations of cow 24 ii\nd bulls 29, 31, 32, 36 ii\nd

37 to determine their seasonal ranges.

23 We will attempt to census the population again in November 1988. The census technique we used is the most accurate one available, but it requires very specific conditions. If possible, we will use the same technique ne~t year, but we will investigate other alternatives with less-specific requirements, and be prepared to use them if necessary.

We will charter a small fi~ed-wing plane in late May-early June 1988, and locate the cows daily from 15 May until about 15 June. Some of the cc•wa have Y1ot bee\"1 aeeY1 with calvea. We y,eed to kY•c•w if they are not producing calves, or if they are producing them and loaing them.

The bulls will be located once a week during the rut. They will alao be located daily for five days during the peak of rut. The Refuge's C-185 will be uaed for those flights. The 1988 aeason will be the last guaranteed year for the collars. It will be important to accomplish these proJects before the collars quit transmitting.

Caribccu

The Beaver Mountain caribou herd uses the southeastern portion Cupper Iditarod River area> of the Refuge in fall and winter. A few individuals seem to be year-round residents. The herd is appro~imately 800-1200 animals. Their calving grounds have not been identified, and there is some question about their origin. They may be remnants of reindeer that were herded in the area in the early 1900's.

The fc•llowiY•g article is repriy,ted frc•m the l.d.itarod Pioneer, Jam.1ary 29, 1916:

REINDEER MAN OFFERS BIG REWARD FOR WOLVES

A.H. Twitchell, the reindeer man, has been investigating the stories current here for some time to the effect that wolves were unusually numerous and ferocious this year in the Ditna and surrounding country. It is a matter of vital concern to him and he has taken particular pains to find out the truth. As far as he has been able to learn, however,there is no great numbers of of these predatory animals in these parts, and while there have been instances lately in which wolves have been seen and been killed, there probably are no marauding bands, as had been intimated. However, so interested is Mr. Twitchell in the matter that he is offering a reward of $40 for the skin and skull of any wolf killed after January 25, 1915, not more than fifty miles from Iditarod, "payable only to the person who killed

the that

aYd rna 1, " C•Y• the aYdmal

stated.

satisfactory evidence was killed as above

The territorial law now provides a bounty of $10 on wolves, but the bounty is no inducement to hunters and trappers in this section of Alaska because of the fact that the skin and both bones of the left forearm must be delivered to the authorities. As wolf skins are worth from $5 to $10 Outside, and as they are worth from $15 to $25 in this section of Alaska, acceptance of the bounty would not be profitable.

The reason for the high valuation placed on wolf skins in Interior Alaska is that they are in great demand both by Natives and whites who indulge in winter travel for the trimming of parkas, for which purpose they are especially adapted.

Mr. Twitchell states that many wolf skins are shipped in from the Outside because the supply in this section df Alaska is not equal to the demand.

Mr. Twitchell removed his reindeer herd to new feeding grounds, somewhat remote from Iditarod, because of scanty feed, and will not put his animals on the market for the present.

24

A few weeks 1 ater, it was repc•rted i Ys the liti..:t..itC..o...d.Y....iJ;!DJl.irr. that abc•ut 1000 animals were cut out of Mr. Twitchell's herd and scattered by wolves. Only a portion of the animals were rounded up and returned to the herd, thus leaving some, perhaps several hundred, of the reindeer free to roam in the upper Dishna River country.

Several wolf packs use Innoko Refuge, but their distribution and numbers have not been determined. In 1987, the state Game Board closed many areas of Alaska to land-and-shoot aerial hunting of wolves. Hunting was not closed on the Refuge. Wolves seemed to be common to abundant on the Refuge in fall and early winter of 1987, but we do not have any accurate population estimates, nor do we know what effects the aerial hunting has had or will have on the packs. It is possible that pressure on the Refuge packs could increase because it is one of the remaining places where hunters can go. We do not believe we currently have any problems, nor do we believe aerial hunting should be eliminated on the Refuge. However, we need to

25

identify the packs soon and monitor them to JUstify our policy. A proposal will be submitted to begin a wolf study on the Refuge, but our current staff is too small to take on a new proJect in the next couple of years.

Table 21. Total ar~ seasonal home ~ange sizes of cow .oose radio-collared in Pa~adise Controlled Use Area 1986-1987.

Ho~e Range Size (klll2>

Moose Total Differerst Summer/ NuMber Seasonal Fall

Ranges

10 27 No

11 244 Yes

12 1244 Yes

13 457 Yes

14 1729 Yes

15 '30 No

16 159 No

17 162+ No

18 78 No

19 145 No

21 142 Yes

24 ++ Yes

* U/L • Uplarsd buns to lowlarsd ~ipa~iars l/U = Lowland riparian to upland burn

42

***

14

***

***

***

L/L = Lowlarld riparian to lowlarsd ripal"iars

Winter Distance Betweers Seasonal Rarsges Hua}

26 14

*** 55

32 25

*** 40

***

*** 220

** Parerstheses indicate calves that were lost before May of their first year *** Not enough locations to eo~~~pute

+ 75'/. of locations were in 7 lw2 area

Changes in Calves** Habitat 1986 1987 Between Seasonal Rarsges Winter/Summer

(2}

L/U

L/U 2

l/L 0

L/U

(1}

(2}

0

(2}

0

L/U 0

L/L 2(1}

++ Disappeared June 186 to January 187. Reappeared at collaring location. Tracked 220 km fr01n Holy Cross to Eli!Monak suMr!leY' 187. Had r.ot ~etunsed to Holy Cross as of 12/30/87.

0

2

0

(1}

(1}

0

(1)

0

0

2

Table 22. Total and seasonal home range sizes of bull moose radio collared in Paradise Controlled Use Area, 1986-1987

HOMe Rar.ge Size Bun ) Moose Total Different Sulllllll!r/Fall Winter Distance Between NuMber Seasor.al Seasorsa 1 RaYJges

Ranges? (km)

26 122+ No Shifted to overlapoing ranges between ' 86 arid ' 87

27 479 Yes 53 29 24

28 78 Yes Not er.ough locatiorsS to CO/dpute

29 88 No++

30 215+++

31 461 Yes Nc<t enough locations to compute

32 27 Nc·++

34 275 Yes 77 2 8'5

35 34~ *'* 36 517 Yes 65 27 22

37 288 Nc•

38 241 No Shifted 30krn with no overlap betweer, 1'386-1987

39 317 Yes 78 (1986) 4 18 1 (1987}

4~ 294 Yes Ursdefined 7

41 459 Yes 108 7 17

42 419 No Shifted 5kr. to adJacer.t rar,ge betweers 1986-1987

43 435 No

44 586 Yes

45 216 No

* U/L = Uplarsd bum to lowlarsd r-ipar-iar• L/U = Lowland riparian to upland burn

48

LIL = Lowlarsd ripar-iars to lowlarsd r-ipar-iars

118

** Collared as a yearl irsg. Found dead after 6 110nths of locatirsg. ++ Took 2 trips c•utside home rarsge to saMe area but returrii!O withirs 1 rtonth. +++ Based on 6 locations. Found dead 9/86.

12

Change in Habitat Betweers Seasorsal

Ranges*

L/U

LIU

LIU

LIU

L/U

L/U

L/U

L/U

Table 23.

AssigY1ed Sty•atum

LC<W

Med i l..lrtl

High

Super High

Tcd;al

Stratification of moose densities in 143 subunits in the Paradise Controlled Use Area - November 1987.

Estimated Density (MC<C<Se/sq. mi.)

0 ... 0.'30

0.91 -· 2. 0121

2.01 - 4.00

> 4.00

Ntlrllbe)... <:•f Subtll''d t s*

r:35

41

2

c::.· ;.;s

143

~)) ... ea ccf the Subtmit sq. mi.

( ~ c•·f ·t; c<t c:d >

1091 (63.8)

5'+8 ( 3i::?)

.:::e. ( 1 =j)

46 (2. 7)

1711 ( 11210)

*Subunit maps are on file at the Innoko National Wildlife Refuge and Alaska Department of Fish and Game offices in McGrath.

Table 24.

Subur1i t Ntlmber

Numbers of moose a"d estimated densities fou"d i" 18 subunits censused in the Paradise Controlled Use area Novernbe'r'' 1 '387.

Bulls Cccws Tcctal Del•,sity Est i rn;at ed C' ;;:) M L LO'l'H? With Wi ·th JVI<.:cose Moccse/ st 'r''at if i ···

1 2 sq. roi. cat i Ol"l

calf calves de'l''ISity

·······--··-·········-·~·--·····-········-·-·-·······--~---···

... .,,, ________________ ····-····-·»•• -····--·"·"··-··-·-·-···-···· ·---·····-··-·-·········""'''~--· _, ... , .. ~_ .... -···-·--····-····-- ···--··--- ·"·-·-·····--·····-··-··· .. --····-······-·····-·"''''''-'''"'-"'"'-''''' ______ .. ,. ......•......

142 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LC•W

130 0 0 0 0 l 0 .::~ 0 ·::, . "· Low

12'3 0 2 0 4 2 0 1Qt 0. 7 Med

1 1 1 0 4 5 1 0 12 1. 1 !Yie<j

118 3 1 1 -~ ..:, 2 2 18 1.4 Lccw

117 1 0 0 3 0 3 13 1. b !~'led

13i.~ 0 1 3 8 7 0 26 L "7 Med

'38 5 1 0 3 4 1 21 2.0 !Vied

134 0 0 0 5 6 1 20 ·::. '""• 1 IVIed

124 4 4 0 14 4 0 30 3.4 IVIed

127 1 1 0 •:ie' >;;;,;J 1 1 2 55 4. 5 IVIed

144 4 7 1 13 7 3 48 4. '3 Med

126 0 0 1 13 4 1 26* 6. 3 StiPe'r'' High

135 3 B 3 42 .:!0 5 1 1 1 8.0 Sl..lpel~ High

136 15 B 0 '+5 21 5 125 9. 0 High

13'3 0 1 0 32 13 3 59 10. 0 Sl.IPI?l~ Hi ~~h

128 1'J ·- 6 ·:J '- 51 21 5 1>?.8 11. 0 Suoe'r'' High

104 4 1 1 1 42 1'3 5 11 7·lHE· 12.5 Low+

Tcl't.:als 54 51 17 308 143 37 832

* Includes one lone calf ** Includes 3 adults of unknown sex + There were 14 wolves and no moose in this unit when it was

stratified, and 117 moose ana no wolves when it was censused about a week 1 ateY'.

Table 25. Aircraft time and exoensea for the attempted moose census of the Paradise Controlled Use Area - November 1987.

Aircraft Type

C-185

FWS Cub

EtLM Charters

F1..1el <FWS>

Rc•<:•rn & Board FWS E<LM F&G

Total HC<I..IY'S

38.5

9.6

24.0**

24.0**

12. 0·1HE·

Total Cost for Attempted Census

Hccurs Speyst S·t; ratify i rsg C•l" CeYsSI..ISi Ysg

13.7

4.0

3.2

4 ·~ . ""' 1.9

* Does not include daily availability costs. ** Four hours/day minimum charge for the charters.

Cccst ($)

3000

3000

1440

908

1251 240 240

$10,092

908

1' 731

One of the abundant black bears on the Refuge does her part to ensure survival of the species.

Moose are the most important subsistence species on the Refuge, and they attract many hunters in September.

26

11. Fisheries rasoyrc~

The fisheries branch of Fish and Wildlife Enhancement in Fairbanks worked 0\"1 a prccJect iY1 1987 to iY1vestigate salmccYI spawYiiY1g OY1 the Refuge. During July, 21 chum salmon were radio-tagged. Three types of tags were used: Telonics internal; Telonics e~ternal; and Wildlife Materials e~ternal. All were implanted in the esophagus. The released fish were tracked by airplaYtes fccr fcc\.\r surveys. 0Ytly twcc fish were located during these surveysJ both were up the Dishna River. Both fish were males tagged with e~ternal Telonics radio tags. The surveys were not flown until several days after the fish were tagged. By that time, they could have dispersed over hundreds of miles. Some of the tags were old, and may not have had strong batteries. Ne~t

time, new or refurbished tags will be used, and fish will be trapped closer to the possible spawning areas to limit the necessary search area.

The aerial surveys showed several tributaries of the Innoko River to have adequate spawning habitat. The Dishna River was clear, and the bottom was visible on every survey. Fish were observed in deep pools at the bases of rocky cliffs. No obstructions were present to limit salmon migration. Future studies will focus on the Dishna River and its tributaries as it has good potential for spawning habitat.

Patty Rost and half of Ann Lechtenberg (Fisheries Research­Fairbanks) putting radio transmitters in salmon at the Innoko River camp.

The salmon were caught in a net, transmitters installed, and the fish released. Unfortunately, only 2 of 21 that were radioed were ever heard from again.

27

16. Mark i m;, and Band.i.ruu...

In 1987, 605 white-fronted geese <52.6~ females) and 206 Canada geese (43. 7~ females) were baYsded iYs YsiYse days. Mc•st of the white-frc•l"'ted geese were caught on the lower Yetna and lower Iditarod Rivers. Most of the Canadas were banded on Grouch Creek and No Name Creek. The geese were captured when they were molting by running the groups to shore with boats, and then catchil"'g them with hand nets. A trained black labrador retriever caught 40-50~ of the birds we banded.

Flock sizes varied from four or five in family groups to over 300, but rnc:cst gro\.tps were rn\.tch 1 arger thim the c:cnes we baYsded the previc•\.IS year. In 1986, water levels were much lower during banding, al"'d the white-fronted geese were in flocks of 40-50 along the rivers. In 1987, not many mud banks were exposed along the rivers, and the geese were in larger flocks <100-300) on river-connected lakes. We could not drive the geese into drive nets with boats on these lakes because they only had one outlet. The birds ran to shore and scattered whenever they were disturbed. We could have used an airplane to hold the geese on the lake, but our plane had to go to Anchorage for a 100-hour inspection JUst when we needed it. Next year •••••

Tule White-fronted Geese

On July 20, the dog retrieved a white-fronted goose with a white-on­bl\.te Yseck cc•llar with the letters "SV" C•Ys it. It was capt1..1red frorn a large (500+> flock of molting birds that did not contain any young of the year. It was tagged as a second-year tule white-front in Redoubt Bay, Alaska, in 1983; and was observed at Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge, California, in January and February 1984, and at Delevan Refuge, California, in November 1986.

The Alaskan distribution of tule white-fronted geese was previously believed to be restricted to Cook Inlet, over 200 miles southeast of the recapture lcccaticcy,. Hccwever, Y'I\.HI'Ibers ccf t\.lles frccrn attempted breeding ground counts never added up to the numbers from winter counts in California <Rothe, personal communication). In 1986, the Innoko Refuge banding crew located some family groups of white-fronted geese c•Ys Grc•\.ICh Creek. The adults iYs these grc•\.lps were rnuch largel ... than the other white-fronted geese they had been banding. At the time, we wondered if the birds were tules, and we intended to mark and photograph birds in the same area in 1987, but by the time we got to the area, most of the white-fronts were flying. We did not catch any that were as large as the ones we caught in 1986.

No one on the 1987 banding crew was familiar with tule white-fronted geese, so they could not positively identify the collared bird as a Tule. No photographs were taken. In July of both 1986 and 1987, the banding crews noted that some of the white-fronted geese they caught seemed much larger than the ones captured in June. In July 1988• someone who is familiar with tules will accompany the crew to try to determine whether tules molt and/or nest on the Refuge. The crew will photograph and measure the heads, profiles, etc., of the birds.

28

Recapture•

Four geese were caught in 1987 that had been previously banded. Two were banded on the Refuge as chicks in 1986. One Canada male was recaptured on the same lake, and one white-fronted male was caught about 15 miles from his original location.

One recaptured white-fronted male was originally captured September 20, 1976, in Coleville, Saskatchewan, Canada. He was at least 14 years old when we handled him. We also captured a banded-adult female Canada goose on a lake where we banded Canadas the previous year. Her number was recorded as 1311-00905, but we banded an adult female Canada on the same lake whose band number was 1307-00905. The recaptured number was probably not correctly recorded.

The Refuge banding program was initiated in 1985. We banded 1162 white-fronts and 544 Canadas in three years. We received 13 Canada goose returns - one from Palmer, Alaska, and the rest from Washington and Oregon. Apparently they are Pacific Flyway birds. Thirty white­fronted bands have been returned. Two were from Durango, Mexico; two from Central Valley in California; one from Nikolai, Alaska; and one from Fairbanks, Alaska. The rest were from Alberta and Saskatchewan, Canada; and from Louisiana and Texas. Most of the white-fronts seem to be Central Flyway birds, but some of them apparently use the Pacific Flyway. The vegetation of the southern Innoko Refuge is a mixture of interior tundra and more coastal taiga systems. It would not be surprising to find a mixture of birds from both types.

There are many general questions about white-fronted geese and also specific questions about Innoko white-fronts. We do not know if the 10,000 - 15,000 birds that molt on the Refuge are produced there, or if they only molt there. We do not know what percentage of them are Pacific Flyway birds, or how many of those may be tule white-fronts. We do not know where the geese that breed on the Refuge nest, what their survival rates are, and when or where most are harvested. In 1989, Region 7 will begin a five-year banding program on five Alaskan refuges and on the North Slope of the Brooks Range to answer some of these questions.

)

Youth Conservation Corps employee Brain Maillelle with 4 of the 812 geese banded in 1987.

Volunteer Durbian got a little greedy on this trip.

Volunteer Berger guards the holding net to prevent a break out while other crew members gather the geese. The landing net at left is a handy tool for catching running or squatting birds.

The star of the banding show-Zephyr. He caught over 400 geese in 9 days •••

••• and earned his own raincoat for long, wet boatrides .

Young Canada geese waiting to be released. Family groups were r eleased together to minimize trauma, separation , predation , etc .

We switched to aluminum bands when we ran out of stainless steel ones . 1-tost of our Canada geese go down the west coast, so salt- water corrosion may be a problem after a few years .

Smilin' Ed demonstrates his way. Actually the grip is lighter than it looks, and this feisty biter survived unscathed.

Volunteer Roeder demonstrates one way to hold the bird • • .

One of the hazards of sexing a goose .

Looks like Volunteer Grossman got too close!

Measurements of male Canada geese of the Innoko indicate that they are the subspecies taverneri.

Banding crew after the apple plane came in. Pam Randles, Bob Winkelman, Brian Maillelle, Byron Berger, Frank Durbia n, Martha Desmond, Patsy Martin, Monica Roeder, April Cr osby, and Zephyr.

29

H. PUBLIC USE

1. aeneral

Although the Refuge is open to public use, it does not receive a great amount. Any camping or backpacking is strictly primitive as no facilities or prepared trails exist, Ytor are they planned. A few trappers from local villages use the Refuge in winter, and some bird hunting takes place by subsistence users. Presently, however, the greatest use c•f the Ref1..1ge is iY• September by mc•ose huYtters. Mc•ose OY't the Innoko River are relatively abundant and many local and non-local people corne here to hunt. Many of the hunters are frorn Anchorage or the "lc•wer '48", altho1..1gh a rtli\JC•rity are from the regic•rtal cer.ters c•f Bethel, GaleYta .;md McGrath.

Off-refuge presentations are a small part of the public use program. Some slide presentations and environmental education activities are conducted, and deemed important, yet transportation constraints limit the amount that can be accomplished. With a maJority of hunters corning from the villages around the Refuge, it is important that the mission of the Service and the Refuge be conveyed to the villagers. We continue to work on this aspect at every opportunity.

2. Outdoor Cl~ssrooms - Students

Biologist Martin spent three weeks visiting four Iditarod Area School District schools and classrooms in 1987. ProJect WILD games, Alaska~

versions of CLASS PROJECTS, Alaska Wildlife Week proJects,and hunter safety films were combined for two-day programs. Students from Kindergarten through high school were included, usually in two or three separate groups.

The mc•st pc•pular games were "Hc•w Ma.,,y Bears" frc•m Prc•Ject WILD, "Musical Birds", a musical chairs game wh&>re st1..1d&?Y1ts learY• tc• identify differeY•t bird calls, .:md a game the stud&>nts named "Hide­and-Go-Moos&>'', wh&>r&? on&? student was given a radio collar and told to hide while c•ther st1..1deYtts tried tc• lc•cate "the mc•ose" with a receiver.

Developing and scheduling the programs and conducting the workshops was time-consuming, but very worthwhile. The visits were a big hit with the students, a~d also improved our relations with adults i~ the villages. They appreciated the efforts to stimulate the children's interest in the outdoors. We hope to continue the program in 1988.

a. HuY•t i ng

Almost all of the public use on Innoko Refuge was by moose hunters in September. They flew in with air taxi operators from Gale~a or McGrath, contracted with outfitt&>rs or guides, flew in themselves, or brought boats up the Yukon and Innoko Rivers. It really is amazing how far people will go to hunt moose. On the Innoko, hunters from 17 other states and two foreign countries JOined Yukon Delta residents who traveled over 300 river miles from Alakanuk to pursue trophies or

30 a winter's supply of meat. The price per pound tops the most expensive cuts in any supermarket,so relative cost is obviously not a consideration. Such demands make the moose an incredibly-valuable resource.

It is '1"10t pccssi bl e to determi '1"1e hccw ma'f•Y people ht..mt mccose O'f1 the Refuge. Reports from state harvest ticket returns are only an index because mcmy hU'f1ters do 'f10t ret ur'f• tickets, ccr they i nacc1..1rately report the location of harvest. In 1987, Pilot Ladegard and Biologist Martin contacted over 50 hunters on opening weekend with the Refuge float plane. Hunting parties were distributed far enough apart so that they probably did not contact each other, but close enough that the plane was not in the air more than 5-10 minutes between camps all the way down the Innoko and up the Iditarod Rivers.

Two outfitters, two guides, and two air taxi operators were issued Special Use Permits for the Refuge in 1987. The outfitters reported harvesting ten moose. One guide harvested five, and one guide and the air taxi operators did not report harvests.

A hU'f1ter i'f1 cc'f,e of the ccutfitter's camps pled "Y•O cccy,test" tee a charge of shecoti'flg a duck frecrn a mceving bceat. He was fined $100. Nee cether violations were noted.

Some information from 1983 through 1986. unsuccessful hunters years.

the state moose-harvest tickets was tallied for The reported numbers of successful and

did not increase significantly during the four

The Refuge is divided by two game management subunits, and the types cef huy,tiY•g varied betweem the UYiits. The .,..,ccrtherY•, upstrearn U'l"1it Wa$. hunted almost exclusively by sport hunters. Most of the moose in the sceutherY,, dowY•stream UY•i t were take.,, by reside.,..,t, st..lbsisteY•ce huY.ters.

Mean antler size of reported, harvested moose in the upstream unit gradually declined from 1983 to 1986. It was not significantly different between years; however, the 1986 average spread <48.3 inches> was significantly smaller than the 1983 (51.6 inches) average. Mean antler spread was significantly larger upstream than downstream from 1983 through 1985, but there was no significant difference in 1986.

The information implied that the average antler size of moose harvested by sport huy,ters i .,.., the upstream U'l"li t decl i Y•ed i .,.., fcet..lr years. Hunting pressure, aided by air taxi operators and outfitters, was inten$.e in some upstream areas. It may have been high enough to reduce the number of large bulls in the population. We have not ce'1"1St..\sed moccs·e i .,.., the area, so we dec Y10t have aY•Y bt..\ 11 /cccw rat ices ccr large bull/small bull ratios to compare. It will be important to monitor those ratios with fall surveys, and to balance them with the intense demand for the resource to ensure the continued opportunity to harvest large bulls in the upstream area.

31 9. Eiahing

Although the maJority of public use centers around moose hunting, other activities are RnJoyed also. Fishing is excellent, especially fc•r 'l"torthern pike, but 'l"tO spc•rt fisherme'l"t a'l"td cmly a few local residents take advantage of it. From our ''unscientific" sampling during the summer field season, several nice pike have been hauled in on light tackle. One individual in an adJacent village thought so much of this resource that he voiced an interest in setting up a lodge for outfitting fishermen on his Trade and Manufacturing inholding. He requested information in early 1988.

10. Irappir.g

Trapping information was Information for 1986-87 prepared.

sumrnari :zed frc•m was not available

1985-86 seal i .,,g recc•rds. when this report was

The number of trappers who used the Refuge in 1985-86 was unknown. Twenty-one trappers sealed furs that were harvested on the Refuge, but rnc•st of the Ref\.tge trappers cc•'l"tcentrate c•n rnart&m, which de• .,,o·t have to be sealed. There were probably more than 21 trappers.

Numbers of harvested wc•lves, wc•lveri'l"te, beaver, c•tter a'l"td lynx were taken from Alaska Department of Fish and Game sealing records which are summarized by game management sub-units. The unit boundaries do not correspond with Refuge boundaries so it was not possible to determine the exact numbers taken on the Refuge. Numbers of animals sealed from units encompassed by the Refuge were added with numbers take'l"t by trappers frc•rn Grayli'l"tg, whc• were assumed to have harvested most of their animals from Innoko Refuge.

Mirten. Martel"• is the mc•st-important trappi'l"tg species c•'l"• IYt'l"tC•kc• Refuge. They are relatively easy to trap, easy to skin, and they do not have to be sealed. Prices for hides were average to high C$100> in 1985-86 and 1986-87. A trapper who runs lines with a snowmobile and traps throughout the season can catch 300 or more marten per year.

We do 'l"tC•t kYtC•W hctW ma'l"ty rnarte'l"t trappers use the Refuge, hc•w ma'l"ty animals are taken each year, what the populations are, or what effects the trapping has on the population. Marten are very difficult to study or to census. Radio telemetry implants have only been partially successful when used to determine home range and movement patterns. Ce'l"tsuses require very specific S'l"tOW cc•Ytditic•'l"ts, a'l"td are cc•Ytfou'l"tded by marten habits of appearing in waves, then disappearing. Any population estimate would depend on whether the wave was up or down, and probably would not indicate how many marten actually inhabit the area. Therefore, the answer for marten management appears to be indirect monitoring of harvests, sex and age ratios, microtine populations, and trapper contacts, rather than direct studies.

The indirect methods also present some problems. Marten have always been aged by sectioning canine teeth, a time-consuming and expensive process. Magoun <Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fairbanks,

32

personal communication) is studying an aging technique using temporal muscle develccprneY•t. If it works, aYiimals could tie aged il"1 the field. Trappers on Innoko Refuge will be contacted in 1988 to ask them for heads or carcasses of marten. A small incentive award will be given fc•r each.

Magoun will use the carcasses for the study. Magoun also suggested that numbers of marten are tied to microtine populations. A small rnamrnal i rwey,tory i .... , trapped areas i Y'l September cc•uld be cc•rrel ated with the number of marten captured on a trapline the following season. If the populations were correlated, harvests could be predicted and managed each year. We do not have the staff to conduct such an inventory, but it should be considered in the future. In 1988, we will contact as many Refuge trappers as possible to collect carcasses and begin monitoring marten harvests.

Wc•lVeJL... NiY1e wc•lves were harvested C•Y• the Ref1.\ge iY• 1985-85. Six were shot frorn the ground; five with airplanes, and one with a snowmobile. Three wolves were trapped.

We do not have information on the sizes or distributions of wolf packs on the Refuge. Wolves or wolf signs <tracks, moose kills, etc.) were freql.\eY•tly seen duriY1g mc•c•se surveys il"• 1987-88. Packs varied frc•rn 5 to 15 and were scattered along all the maJor rivers.

In winter, 1988-89, we will attempt to identify different wolf packs and their general horne ranges with aerial surveys. Unit 21 was one of the areas left open by the Alaska Game Board to aerial land-and-shoot hunting of wolves after 1987-88. It is imperative that we identify the wolf packs of Innoko Refuge so that we can determine whether or not the harvests affect the population.

Beayere Beaver harvest i .... , Garne Managernemt Urd ·t; 21 was the highest c•r• record for the 1985-86 season <Table 26). Harvest in Unit 21E, which includes the southwest corner of the Refuge, was 2.6 times the 1984-85 harvest.

Table 26. Distribution of beaver trapped on Innoko National Wildlife Refuge, 1985-86.

Sucker Creek 30

Holikachuk 4

Iditarod 53

Rennie's Landing 10

Mud River 20

IYI'I"IC•ko River Wapc•o Hills

I '1"1'1"1C• kc• River 30

Gray l i '1"1g trappers --~~

Tc•ta 1 191

33

Summa~ field c~ews noted that they saw fewe~ beave~ along the ~ive~s du~ing 1986 and 1987 than they saw in 1985. Two trappers complained that rnaY•Y of the hc•t\ses they have t~apped "fc·~ years" were ernpty. However, many active beaver houses were observed during winter moose su~veys, 1987-88.

Most areas of the Refuge were flooded until mid to late June in 1985. Beaver houses were moved up ~iver banks, but most were flooded. Beaver were see.,.., perched iY1 trees above the floc•d waters. RuY1S frc•m the houses to the river were gradually extended as the water dropped. Sccme rtms were c•ver 30 feet lcmg. The severe floc•diY1g pccstponed spring green-up by three to four weeks. It is possible that the floods directly and indirectly caused a decline in the beaver population. We do not plan to census the beaver because our small staff has more pressing problems, and we do not believe the cu~rent harvests are harming the population.

bYYIX. Apprc•ximately yfiy,e ly'1"1X were trapped ccr sy,ared C•Y• the Reft\ge iY1 wiY1te~ 1985-86. LyY1X were 'I"IC•t cccmrnc•Y• C•Y• the Refuge, aY1d trappers indicated that they never have been. Much of the flat, black-spruce Refuge is not what would be considered good lynx habitat.

W<::clveriY1e. Eight wc•lveriY,e were harvest c•Y• the Refttge iY1 1985-86. Seven were trapped or snared, and one was shot from the g~ound. Harvests of wolverine from management unit 21 varied little from 1981-86. We have no information on wolverine populations or use on the Refuge •

. River Otter,_ Oy,ly three river c•tter were trapped frc•m the Refuge iy, 1985-86. Most otters are trapped incidentally in beaver traps. Many otter were seen in the southern portion of the Refuge during moose su~vli'ys i .,.., November 1987.

The Great Innoko River Robbery

During the month of September, state Fish and Wildlife Protection and Innoko Refuge personnel conducted moose hunter surveillance on the I 'I"IY'IC•ko Ref1..1ge.

One day while flying near the mouth of the Iditarod River, Protection Officer Mike Steele and Refuge Pilot Paul Ladegard were flagged down by boat hunters. During the preceding night, several local residents in two boats had come up the Innoko River and ransacked camps, taking everything they could find.

The hunters who flagged down Steele and Ladegard were returning from hunting when they su~prised the int~uders in the act of ransacking their camp. The iY~ruders were chased off into the night, one boat going upstream and the othe~ downstream. The victims organized, and quietly went up river and caught three of the suspects passed out in

34

their boat. They reclaimed some of the stolen articles, removed the boat motor and fired a few departing shots.

Officer Steele took statements from each victim at the camp site, and requested Pilot Ladegard fly the Cessna 185 to altitude to call for help from the Alaska State Troopers. During the climb, Ladegard observed the suspects attempting to sneak past the main hunting camp. Officer Steele was notified by radio and the suspects were apprehended in a river blockade.

Additional statements were taken from both the victims and the suspects. The three suspects were released since no additional law enforcement help was available and there was no holding facility. The suspects, who were known by the victims and even distantly related to some, returned to their home village.

The ne~t day Steele and Ladegard flew to the village of Grayling to assist the Alaska State Troopers from Bethel in apprehending the st..tspects. They were arrested a'1"1d charged. Scm1e c•f the st.c•le\•, articles were recovered and returned to the rightful owners. All of the suspects were sentenced and the rest of the stolen articles rett..trY,ed. Tht..ts ey,ded a week iY1 Septer11ber with a little ~ild l..i.f.it!

In a less-exciting event, Steele and Ladegard observed a hunter shc•c•ti'l",g ducks frc•m a r11C•Vi'1"1g bc•at. The ht..mter was cited, pled "Nc• Contest'', and was fined $100.00. Another hunter was told to return to a moose kill and collect some meat that he had left behind. No other violations were observed.

Hunter checks are very importaY~ on the Innoko Refuge. They are an effective information and prevention tool that we should use more in the ft..tture.

One Refuge residence and a bunkhouse were constructed in McGrath in 1987. Predictable problems arose with both, but weekly visits by Walt Szelag <Region Office, Engineering> and vigilant checks by Manager Feiger kept things going. The residence was inspected and accepted in December, and occupied shortly thereafter. The bunkhouse was not inspected at year-end, but it was nearly completed. Both buildings are beautiful and lu~urious.

The continuing saga of our radio system complete radio system was ordered Cwe appeared, we assumed it would be in place may be.

continues to continue. A thi'1"1k>. Whey, '1"1C• radio syster11

by 1988 or later. And it

In spite of missing snap rings on the prop, a cracked vertical tail spar, and numerous other problems, Pilot Ladegard managed to keep us in the air. He was largely responsible for our very successful season.

A new 1000-gallon fuel tank is winched up the bank from the barge. It should make re-fueling the Cessna-185 easier and safer.

The big "ooops"-The plug was left out over the winter , and break- up floods turned it over. The 110- horse outboard had to be replaced at the end of the season.

Nick-named the "Love Boat", this pontoon boat comes in handy for hauling fuel and large crews. TWo 35- horse outboards push it almost as fast as our 20- foot flat- bottomed .boats with a 35- horse motor.

Pilot Ladegard, Manager Feiger and Co-op Student Winkelman use the latest technology to stack drums so they don't freeze down in winter, or float away in floods.

Another year's supply of boat, helicopter and airplane fuel was hauled to the cabin. \'lalker Barge Company also hauled all these empties out for us. At 80 drums per year, they tend to clutter things up a bit after a few years.

After 3 years of milling logs ...

We finally got a roof on the cache.

YCC student Brian Maillelle changes the spark plugs in one of the reliable Mariner 35-horse outboards while Volunteer Durbian looks on.

The "Bomb Shelter"- a big, expensive tent that is worth every penny. Sleeps 4 or 5 with gear; it's bug-proof, water-proof, and easy to put up.

Hip boots drying on a rare, sunny day.

The sun didn't shine quite soon enough for this moldy insole.

35

We are learning more about computers than we ever wanted to know. Slccwly, we have becccrne cc•rWiYtced that ay, MS DOS-based, IYtterYtat ioYtal Business Machine-type personal computer system is more sensible and ltsefltl il"1 the field. Simple is bealttiful as we fccuYsd ccut wheY's the hard disk on our large Data General quit while we were backing it up. Two new disks later we finally got it operating again. Financial tracking has always been of interest to refuge managers and since the advent of computerization, this aspect of refuge management has become very interesting indeed!

With the Denver Finance Center telling the world that there are copious amounts of unobligated funds in the station budgets, it is sometimes hard to convince people that this is really not the case. After struggling with the Field Financial Tracking System designed for the Data General Model 10-SP computer, we finally purchased the Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheet program and developed our own tracking system. While not complete at this writing, we are close to a program which COltld be used by amy static•Y• il"1 the system amd caYs easily be rnccdified for an individual station's needs.

Fuel delivery

Receiving the year's supply of fuel products hardly ever can be considered a dull event. When the heating fuel and gasoline arrived in McGrath in early August, Secretary Collins was the only one in the office to receive it. Unfortunately, there was no one to ask what arrangements had been made for it. Since it was on a river barge, and the barge was scheduled to depart as soon as its tanks were empty, it was necessary to figure out what to do with the fuel, and how to do it. The Federal Aviation Administration loaned us a 1000 gallon tanker for the bulk heating fuel, and the Fish and Game Biologist towed the tanker to a safe storage area. The 50 drums of fuel were set on the riverbank and moved later when the rest of the staff ret llrl",ed.

Not only did it carne unexpectedly, the order had been incorrectly placed with the supplier and instead of receiving 2000 gallons of heating fuel, we received only 500. However, that was more easily remedied thal"t the mix-up C•Ys the lmleaded gasccl iYte. We ordered 500 gallons, but the barge brought us 2000 gallons! It didn't take long to get permission to refuse the extra 1500 gallons, and the barge company sold it locally. By then the Secretary was about ready to look for another JOb!

In late August, a smaller barge arrived at the Refuge camp with the fuel needed for field work. All staff members showed up to unload the 90 drums of fuel, as well as a 1000 gallon storage tank and stand. Aviation gasoline will be pumped into the storage tankallow refueling of the airplane more easily and safely. The drums were winched up a

30 foot bank, season's work.

Boats

36

then rolled into storage areas, ready for the next

The 18-foot-long speedboat with a 115 h.p. Evinrude motor was beached on an ox-bow lake in the fall of 1986. We thought that it was up high enough to keep it safe during spring breakup. However, when we flew out to check on it in the spring, high water and ice had turned it upside down. The motor had been thoroughly soaked. Though it could be repaired, we decided not to expend the thousands of dollars it would take to transport it by helicopter to and from the nearest repair location. We used it most of the summer, and when it died a natural death, we ordered a replacement.

We purchased a 24 foot long pontoon boat and had the transom modified to operate with two outboard motors. It was delivered unassembled to Holy Cross in July. Manager Feiger assembled it and drove it upriver for two days Cin pouring rain>, then was relieved by Secretary Collins and her husband, Volunteer Ray Collins, who took it on upriver. Naturally, the weather took a turn for the better shortly after the change-over was made! The boat will be outfitted next summer with a cabin. We anticipate that it will be a very useful and comfortable piece of equipment, serving not only as transportation but also as a shelter for goose banding crews and others who work away from the field cabin.

37

J. o..r.H.e.R.....1.T..E.~.

Innoko Refuge would have a difficult time operating without the help c•f other age'l"scies a'l"sd other Service prc•grarns. They have all bee'l"s mentioned elsewhere, but it is worth grouping them here to emphasize how helpful other folks have been.

The McGrath Resource Area Office of the Alaska Department of Natural Resources deserves special thanks. They transmitted messages and answered our radio calls during our summer field season. We could not safely operate without their assistance. They provided free housing fc•r all 01..1r Vc•lU'I"I'teers while they were i'l"s McGrath, a'1"1d allc•wed them tc• eat in their mess hall. The Bureau of Land Management contributed approximately 50~ of the funding for our moose study in the Paradise Cc•'l"strc•lled Use Area. The Alaska Departrne'l"st of Fish a'l"sd Game prc•vided personnel and expertise for our attempted moose census. The Alaska Department of Fish and Wildlife Protection provided an enthusiastic officer, Mike Steele, to accompany our Refuge pilot for a week of enforcement during moose season <See Section H.17>.

The Service's Fisheries Research group from Fairbanks tagged salmon on the Refuge in 1987. Their proJect was a step toward identifying our salmon spawning streams. We must also mention the regional Volunteer Coordinator, Bill Knauer, who does such a great JOb of recruiting volunteers. We would be lost without them.

4. ~

Preparation of this narrative was a team effort. Phil Feiger wrote Section D, the portions of Section E dealing with Personnel and Funding, Communications Systems and Computer Systems in Section I, and Section K. Dennis Prichard, though new to the Refuge staff in December, researched a'l"sd wrote Sect ic•Y'• B, a maJ<:•r pc•rt ic•Y'• of Sect i<=•Y's F, part of Section G, and the portions of Section H dealing with General Public Use and Fishing. Patsy Martin wrote Section A, a maJor portion of Section E, portions of Section F, a maJor portion of Sections G and H, the New Construction portion of Section I, and the rt'laJc•rity C•f SectiC•'I"s J. Sally Jc• Cc•lli'l"sS wrc•te the pc•rtic•'l"• of SectiO\'s D that covers Compliance with Environmental and Cultural Resources Mandates, and the Credits in Section J. Robert Winkelman prepared part of Waterfowl in Section G, including the 15 tables in that section. John DeLapp prepared the list of vegetation types for Section F. Paul Ladegard wrote a portion of Section H dealing with Law Enforcement, and part of Section I.

Patsy Martin mounted the photos, typed photo captions, and edited the entire document, and Sally Jo Collins typed it.

38

Gasaway, W.L., S.D. Dubois, D.J. Reed, and S.J. Harbo. 1986. Estimating moose population parameters from aerial surveys. Biological Papers of the University of Alaska, Number 22, 108 pp.

Hooper, D.C. 1954. Innoko and banding, 1954. Trip report by Bay, Alaska, 7 pp.

Iditarod River, Alaska, Waterfowl Assistant Refuge Manager, Cold

Nel&Ct'f,, u.c. 1949. I'f•Vestigatict'fiS Ct'fl breedi'f•g a'f1d wi'f•teri'f•g populations, and banding of migratory waterfowl. Unpublished report ProJect No. 3-R-4 Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration, Alaska, 4(1) :4-40.

With experience <gray hair> comes the realization that some things never change, or rather always change in the same way. In the dark ages <prior to computers>, we used to submit payrolls after the pay period was past and we received our checks (pitifully small as I remember> two we&ks 1 ater. This delay was 'f1ecessary b&tcause everything was hand-processed. The advantag&, of course, was that the pay perictd was past bJtf.~~. Sl..lbmissict'f, a'1"1d 'flO correct iCt'fiS were '1"1ecess ary.

With the Department of the Interior Pay System, automated processing became faster but was done further away <Washington D.C.> and so submissions were moved ahead to allow time for mail delays.

Enter Pay Pers. More automation required even earlier submissions until here in Alaska we were submitting payrolls by the second day of the pay period. Put another way, we were falsifying eight of the ten working days each payroll.

A formal suggestion that checks be issued two weeks later, allowing enough processing time, was soundly booed and hissed. Presumably, if you fix something, it must have needed fixing and no one will admit that these new pay systems were Care) less than perfect;, hence, the beginning of this feedback. As an organization, we let our mistakes die of old age instead of fixing them. The inertia which frustrated me as a trainee is still frustrating our young and not so young professionals today.

2. Where have the gP-QQ_3~~

There was a time when our management of wildlife refuges was .. ,.,..,fettered by cc,.,..,fusic,.,.., as tc1 what Ctl..lr missic,.,.., was. Waterfc,wl populations were low and we were told to change this. As documented i'l"1 "Waterfowl Tc,mc,rrc,w", we fixed, ditched, flctctded, bury,ed, prc,tected and planted with a steadfast purpose, namely to increase the

39

continental waterfowl population.

We did r.ot ask for what purpose we were dccir•g this, we ~ we should have more ducks and who would use these ducks did not enter into our decisior.s.

And we were successful! By the late '60's, with protection and plentiful food provided on a chain of refuges from breeding grounds to wintering areas and back had grown to numbers not seen since the early thirties.

Not satisfied with managing for wildlife, we began encouraging public use with the apparent goal of saving the world through refuges. Trying to manage for wildlife, and educate the public, resulted in an inevitable money crunch. Surprise? Increased budgets did not automatically result from increased visitation, but increased costs did. Not able <willing?> to reduce visitation and faced with an increasingly smaller margin between salary costs and overall budget we found money the only way possible, by reducing maintenance staff.

Who would do the work heretofore done by Wageboard staff? Co-op farmers were part of the answer. Waterfowl numbers were up, reducing the iDQ@rent need for as much food to be produced or at least the emergency need seemed to be lessened, and somehow we come to belie~~ that co-op farming would produce as much even though at least two thirds was hauled off the land.

By reducing force account farming, we were able to reduce staff costs at the price of reduced wildlife food.

Dense nesting cover was discovered as was the virtue of native grasslands for native grasslands' own sake.

To see if dense nesting cover was working, intense nest searches, usually in the form of cable dragging, were established to determine nesting density. Not satisfied with the nest density, we had to know number of eggs, hatching date, nest success and other information without which the eggs couldn't hatch! After all, we were already there so why not? On many of the nesting grounds, the most significant habitat destruction is by Refuge vehicles pulling cables!

Not surprising, at least to this author, the longer we have dragged fccr nests the high the rate ccf r•est destructicc'l"l by grc11 .. md predatccrs until nest success is often less than 20~. We must be stupid because after twenty years we still don't know what constitutes good nesting cover; and the dragging goes on.

On refuge habitat, destruction has continued unabated and caught between less habitat on private lands and less productive habitat on refuge lands. Waterfowl numbers have plummeted until there is real CCtYICer'l"lo

It is hard to proclaim we are doing our JOb when pintail numbers are down 47~ and we are not doing everything we can to stop the decline.

40

I think it is time to do some nest dr~gging in our he~rts to see JUSt wh~t our mission re~lly is.

Let's t~ke some lessons from our p~st. We should provide wh~t we know tc• be desir~ble 'l"sest h~bitat ~'l"sd J,ej\ve :!t.tse bird~J? alo'l"se to raise theh" young. We should provide ~n ~bund~nce of food throughout migration and wintering areas along with enough protection to assure birds can feed undisturbed. We should t~ke wh~tever steps necessary to drastically reduce h~rvest of waterfowl populations which ~re

alarmingly low, even if this me~ns closing se~sons.

Once before, we had very reduced w~terfowl populations and l~rgely

through our predecessor's ~ctions were able to bring them b~ck. We can do it again if we get back to b~sics ~nd do it f~st.

Sometimes you have to get real close to see the beauty of it, but it's there!

John (The Botanist) DeLapp escapes from his plants with a touch of Surrealism.