Wildlife Management Unit 336 Aerial Ungulate Survey 2020

Aerial Wildlife Survey Report Wildlife Management Unit 336 Aerial Ungulate Survey (2020)

Background Wildlife Management Unit (WMU) 336 (Wabamun) is located in west-central Alberta within the Red Deer-North Saskatchewan Region. The unit is located northeast of Drayton Valley and is bounded by Hwy 22 and the Pembina River to the west, and the North Saskatchewan River to the south. This 2616 km2 area has extensive open coal pit mines concentrated to the south of Wabamun Lake, but the majority of the WMU consists of mixed farming and rural residential lands.

The most recent previous aerial ungulate survey conducted in this unit used the Gasaway survey method and was conducted in 2012. Results of previous surveys are summarized in Tables 1-3.

The objective of the survey conducted in January, 2020 was to assess the status of the ungulate population in this WMU by determining estimates of population size, density and age-sex composition. We also recorded observations of additional species of interest, including carnivores, game birds, and sensitive or species at risk.

Survey Method

From January 16-20, 2020, a strip transect survey was conducted flying north-south lines at 1.6 km (1 mile) intervals resulting in 25% coverage (with 400 m wide survey strip) for a total linear survey effort of 1586 km (634 km2). Snow conditions were good and uniformly consistent throughout the unit. At each observation point, ungulates were counted by species, and, when possible, classified by sex and age.

Sex and age classification was determined for moose by identification of vulva patch and size differential of cow/calves. Sex and age classification was determined for deer using antlers and size differential between adults and fawns.

Density was calculated for white-tailed deer, mule deer and moose following Jolly 1969 (as described in Krebs 2014) for surveys conducted with unequal sized units without replacement because the transect lengths varied. Density was multiplied by the WMU area to determine population estimates. 90% confidence intervals were also calculated. A correction factor of 83% for deer detectability was applied to population and density estimates (Habib et al. 2012), with a factor of 95% applied to moose density and population estimates.

Elk observations were recorded during the survey, but population estimates were not calculated because the design of this survey is not appropriate for elk population calculation.

Results There were 946 white-tailed deer observed. Of the 946 white-tailed deer observed in 324 groups, 58 (6%) were bucks, 305 (37%) were does, 168 (20%) were fawns and 415 (28%) were not classified. Classification of sex and age for WTDE was of lower priority than other species, therefore the observations were not used to determine ratios. The average white-tailed deer density was estimated at 1.70 individuals/km2. Population was estimated at 4452 (Table 1).

There were 138 mule deer observed. Of the 138 mule deer identified in 44 groups, 20 (14%) we classified as bucks, 51 (37%) were does, 28 (20%) were fawns and 39 (28%) were not classified. The average mule deer density was estimated at 0.25 individuals/km2. Population was estimated at 642 (Table 2).

There were 450 moose observed. Of the 450 moose identified in 234 groups, 95 (21%) were bulls, 144 (32%) were cows, 114 (25%) were calves and 97 (22%) were not classified. The bull:cow ratio was 0.66 and the calf:cow ratio was 0.79 (Table 3). The average moose density was estimated at 0.71 individuals/km2. Population was estimated at

1883 (Table 3); 507 bulls, 768 cows and 608 calves.

Lastly, there were 166 elk (both on and off transect) observed within 7 groups. Of the 166 elk identified, 16 (10%) were bulls, 8 (5%) were cows, 6 (4%) were calves and 136 (82%) were not classified.

We also observed 35 coyotes, 1 Great horned owl, 1 red fox, 1 porcupine, and 20 snow buntings. These are incidental observations only and should not be considered minimum total counts.

Table 1. Comparison of current and previous survey estimates of population size (abundance), density and age-sex composition rations for white-tailed deer in WMU 336.

Abundance Estimate Density Ratio to 100 Does Survey Survey Species Year Method Mean (90% CI) Sq. km Bucks Fawns

White-tailed 1993 Transect NA 1.67 NA NA Deer

Modified White-tailed 2012 Gasaway/Random 3292 1.26 7 118 Deer Stratified Block

White-tailed 2020 Transect 1.70 0.19 55 Deer 4452 (3842-5064)

Table 2. Comparison of current and previous survey estimates of population size (abundance), density and age-sex composition rations for mule deer in WMU 336.

Abundance Estimate Density Ratio to 100 Does Survey Survey Species Year Method Mean (90% CI) Sq. km Bucks Fawns

Mule Deer 1993 Transect NA 0.42 NA NA

Modified Mule Deer 2012 Gasaway/Random 936 0.36 36 102 Stratified Block

Mule Deer 2020 Transect 642 (435-847) 0.25 39 55

Table 3. Comparison of current and previous survey estimates of population size (abundance), density and age-sex composition rations for moose in WMU 336.

Abundance Estimate Density Ratio to 100 Cows Survey Survey Species Year Method Mean (90% CI) Sq. km Bulls Calves

Modified Moose 2003 Gasaway/Random 1150 0.46 50 57 Stratified Block

Modified Moose 2012 Gasaway/Random 1071 0.41 31 57 Stratified Block

Moose 2020 Transect 1883 (1503 -2263) 0.56 54 61

Literature

Habib, T.J., D.A. Moore, and E.H. Merrill. 2012. Detection and stratification approaches for aerial surveys of deer in prairie-parklands. Wildlife Research 39 (7): 593-602. https://bioone.org/journals/Wildlife-Research/volume- 39/issue-7/WR11175/Detection-and-stratification-approaches-for-aerial-surveys-of-deerin/10.1071/WR11175.short Jolly, G.M. 1969. Sampling methods for aerial census of wildlife populations. E. Afr. Agric. For. J. 34:46-49. Krebs, C.J.