INNOKO NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
McCrath, Alaska
ANNUAL NARRATIVE REPORT
Calendar Year 1991
U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM INNOKO NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE McGrath, Alaska
ANNUAL NARRATIVE REPORT Calendar Year 1991
U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM REVIEW AND APPROVALS
INNOKO NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE McGrath, Alaska
ANNUAL NARRATIVE REPORT Calendar Year 1991
z/xAr- 6 3^/?3 Refuge Manager 6ate Assoblate Manager Review Date
(x 3 Regjional OfficevApproval Z)almm TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION 6
A. HIGHLIGHTS
B. CLIMATIC CONDITIONS 1. Summary ......
C. LAND ACQUISITION •> 1. Fee Title...... Nothing To Report 2. Easements...... Nothing To Report 3. Other ...... Nothing To Report
D. PLANNING 1. Master Plan ..... Nothing To Report 2. Management Plan. .... Nothing To Report 3. Public Participation. Nothing To Report 4. Compliance With Environmental Mandates . 11 5. Research and Investigation Nothing To Report
E. ADMINISTRATION
1. Personnel . . 13 2. Youth Programs . . 17 3. Other Manpower Programs Nothing To Report 4*. Volunteers Program . 20 5. Funding . 23 6. Safety. . . 24 7. Technical Assistance Nothing To Report 8. Other Items. . 31
F. HABITAT MANAGEMENT
1. General ..... • • • • . 32 2. Wetlands ...... Nothing To Report 3. Forests ...... Nothing To Report 4. Croplands...... Nothing To Report 5. Grasslands...... Nothing To Report
6. Other Habitats.... • • • « . 47 7. Grazing ...... Nothing To Report 8. Haying ...... Nothing To Report 9. Fire Management. . Nothing To Report 10. Pest Control .... . Nothing To Report 11. Water Rights .... . Nothing To Report 12. Wilderness and Special-Areas Nothing To Report 13. WPA Easement Monitoring . Nothing To Report • < G. WILDLIFE
1. Wildlife Diversity .....Nothing To Report 2. Endangered and/or Threatened Species Nothing To Report
3. Waterfowl . ' . . • . 49 4. Marsh and Water Birds ....Nothing To Report 5. Shorebirds, Gulls, Terns, Allied Species Nothing to Report 6. Raptors ...... 51 7. Other Migratory Birds ....Nothing To Report
8. Game Mammals ...... • . 52 9. Marine Mammals...... Nothing To Report 10. Other Resident Wildlife ....Nothing To Report 11. Fisheries Resources...... 56 12. Wildlife Propagation and Stocking Nothing To Report 13. Surplus Animal Disposal ....Nothing To Report 14. Scientific Collections ....Nothing To Report 15. Animal Control...... Nothing To Report
16. Marking and Banding..... • . . 58 17. Disease Prevention and Control. Nothing To Report
H. PUBLIC USE
1. General ...... 59 2. Outdoor Classrooms-Students . . 60 3 . Outdoor Classrooms-Teachers # , . 60 4. Interpretive Foot Trails.... Nothing To Report 5. Interpretive Tour Routes.... Nothing To Report 6. Interpretive Exhibits/Demonstrations Nothing To Report 7. Other Interpretive Programs Nothing To Report
8. Hunting ...... • . . 61 9. Fishing ...... 62 ro. Trapping ...... 63 11. Wildlife Observation. ....Nothing To Report 12. Other Wildlife-Oriented Recreation . Nothing To Report 13. Camping ...... Nothing To Report 14. Picnicking...... Nothing To Report 15. Off-Road Vehicling .....Nothing To Report 16. Other Non-Wildlife Oriented Recreation Nothing To Report
17. Law Enforcement...... • . 67 18. Cooperating Associations.... Nothing To Report 19. Concessions ...... Nothing To Report
I. EOUIPMENT AND FACILITIES
1. New Construction ...... 68 2. Rehabilitation...... Nothing To Report
3. Major Maintenance ...... • . 71
4. Equipment Utilization and Replacement . • . 78
5. Communications Systems .... . • . 81 6. Computer Systems .....Nothing To Report 7. Other...... Nothing To Report * J. OTHER ITEMS
1. Cooperative Programs. Nothing To Report 2. Other Economic Uses . Nothing To Report 3. Credits . • . . 82
K. FEEDBACK
Summary 82
L. INFORMATION PACKET
Spring floodwaters across the floodplalns of the Innoko and Iditarod rivers. < 6
INTRODUCTION
Innoko National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) was established December 2, 1980 with the passage of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (A.N.I.L.C.A.)* The Refuge is located in west central Alaska, about 270 miles southwest of Fairbanks and 221 miles northwest of Anchorage. Refuge headquarters is in McGrath, a community located on the south bank of the Kuskokwim River approximately 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 (Doyon, 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, Iditarod, Dishna and Yetna Rivers flow through the Innoko Wilderness. 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 shrub-land and tundra types common in western and northern Alaska. White spruce occurs ih large, pure stands along the rivers where the soil is better- drained. Numerous fires have set vast areas back to earlier serai 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 as many as 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 which is 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. 7
PURPOSES OF INNOKO REFUGE Section 302.3.B of ANILCA sets forth the following major purposes for which the Innoko Refuge was established and shall be managed: (i) 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;
(iij 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 (i) and (ii), the opportunity for continued subsistence uses by local residents; and (iv) to ensure, to the maximum extent practicable and in a manner consistent with, the purposes set forth in paragraph (i) water guality and necessary water guality within the Refuge.
Trail to the field camp boat landing. 8
A. HIGHLIGHTS
- New moose survey technique continues to be refined with significant progress realized. (G.8.) - Plant association mapping for satellite ground truthing continues with significant progress realized. (F.l.) - Refuge Manager Feiger and Wildlife Biologist Skinner survive helicopter in-flight engine failure unscathed. (E.6.) - Refuge Manager Feiger and Pilot Ladegard survive airplane crash unscathed. (E.6.)
- Severe spring flooding occurs across the Innoko floodplain, and at McGrath. (B.1., 1.3)
- New Wildlife Biologist/Pilot Pete Finley reports for duty. (E.l.) - White-fronted goose banding operation hampered by persistent flood waters. (G.3.) - Four YCC enrollees complete a resident program in "the wilds". (E.2.) - Refuge plagued with continual break-down of radio communications system. (1.5.) s - Assistant Manager Merritt, Biologist Skinner and Secretary Collins receive performance.awards. (E.l.) - CGS awards new office lease and work begins on a new headquarters site. (1.1.)
- Another successful law enforcement effort conducted during moose season thanks to Special Agent Bill Mellor. (H.17.)
- Five Challenge Grants totalling $40,000 for environmental education activities were submitted. (H.l.) 9 B. CLIMATIC CONDITIONS 1. Summary Early winter weather was generally mild and slightly warmer than normal on the average. However, some record low temperatures and a record high were set during February. On February 7th, the -52 degree reading set a new low for the date and was a statewide low for the day. A -50 reading on the 8th was also a new record low for that date at McGrath. A +44 degree reading on the 26th, under clear skies, set a new record high for that date and was welcomed with open arms by local residents. As usual, moderating weather in March provided the cure for numerous cases of cabin fever. Continued moderating weather in April, along with concerns regarding record snowpack, raised questions regarding flood potential and a community meeting was held in mid-April to plan flood response activities. May temperatures ranged from 30 degrees on the 2nd to 73 degrees on the 25th. Breakup on the Kuskokwim River at McGrath occurred at 2 p.m. on the 6th, followed almost immediately by ice jams and flooding. By 4 p.m. floodwaters were spreading throughout the community. The river crested around midnight at a level exceeding by approximately one inch the previous record set in 1972. Heavy personal property damage occurred throughout McGrath's lower lying areas. Fortunately, no loss of life nor serious injuries occurred as a result of the flood.
The ARM'S house was temporarily isolated by floodwaters but incurred no damage. 10 Wet conditions throughout late spring and early summer contributed to one of the worst mosquito hatches in recent memory. However, unusually hot, dry weather prevailed from mid to late June and a lightning storm on June 21st started numerous wildfires in the McGrath area. Smoke, accompanied by heavy air traffic related to fire control activities, dominated the skies over McGrath through mid summer. Late summer was wet and cool followed by a relatively warm, dry September replete with hosts of biting insects. Milder than usual weather persisted through the end of October. Ice was observed on the Kuskokwim River on October 11th; however freezeup did not occur until early in November. Freeze-up, when it did occur, was slow and steady and no ice jams or related flooding occurred at McGrath. A lack of snowfall in November hampered snowmobile transportation but did provide for good ice formation to support aircraft operations throughout winter. Weather conditions during the remainder of the year were relatively mild for winter in the sub-Arctic. Tables B.l and B. summarize climatic data for the year. Table B-l; Monthly Temperature Data. McGrath. Alaska Month Hicrh Low Temperature Temperature January 38 -60 February 44 -52 March 40 -28 April 55 - 6 May 73 30 June 88 36 July 82 35 August 68 32 September 72 . 31 October 52 6 November 36 -26 December 25 -44 Table B-2: Monthly Precipitation Data. McGrath, Alaska Month Precipitation finches) Snow finches) January .74 9. 6 February .32 6. 8 March 2.28 31.2 April . 59 39.0 May .26 0.0 June .57 0.0 July 2.73 0.0 August 2.96 0.0 September 1.25 0.2 October 1.58 3.0 November .62 11.5 December 1. 09 2 2. 1 11 D PLANNING
4. Compliance with Environmental and Cultural Resources Mandates A cultural/archaeological resource survey was planned again this year to gather baseline data needed to complete other Refuge planning (e.g., the station land protection and fire management plans). Unfortunately, budget and time constraints hampered the effort. A survey, to be conducted by Regional Archaeologist Chuck Diters and Debra Corbett, is scheduled for July 1992.
•- . m
t
Above: Aerial view of the old Holigachuk village site. Below: One of the remaining cabins stands in a field of fireweed. Recent land status maps verify that much of the site is on refuge lands. This "beached" sternwheeler near Holigachuk represents another historic resource for which the Service has responsibility. 13 E. ADMINISTRATION 1. Personnel Permanent Full Time Employees
PHILLIP J. FEIGER, Refuge Manager GS-12 EOD 9/20/81 EDWARD S. MERRITT, Assistant Refuge Manager GS-11 EOD 1/14/90 ROBERT M. SKINNER, Wildlife Biologist GS-11 EOD 4/23/89 SALLY JO COLLINS, Secretary GS-5 EOD12/2 2/86 PETER T. FINLEY, Wildlife Biologist/Pilot GS-12 EOD 9/8/91
Wildlife Biologist Skinner contemplates the meaning of it all. 14 Intermittent and Seasonal Employees
MARCUS R. MILLER, Small Engine Mechanic WG-8 RES 8/30/91 PAUL E. LADEGARD,"Airplane Pilot GS-12 3/4-6/19/91 ROBERT GRAY ANDERSON, Biological Technician (Wildlife) GS-5 EOD 5/28/91 ROBERT FERNAU, Biological Technician (Botany) GS-7 6/3-9/27/91 JUDITH E. STEEVES, Clerk-typist GS-3 END 6/22/91 Will there ever be a year when we can report that our staff was here all year? Probably not. The recruiting process to fill our vacant Wildlife Biologist/Pilot position, which began late in 1990, wds completed in September when Pete Finley was selected. Pete and his family came from the Des Lacs Refuge in North Dakota, arriving in early October. The transition to living in "bush" Alaska is difficult even for someone coming from North Dakota but the Finleys are making the adjustment well. Local Pilot Paul Ladegard joined us during February and March to prepare for and conduct the spring moose census. He had been our regular pilot from 1987-90 and his expertise was very beneficial to us in completing this project.
Robert (Gray) Anderson, a volunteer during the 1990 summer season, was hired as a temporary Biological Technician. For the first time we have some continuity in our seasonal staff. Gray did an exceptional job for us and at the end of the field season he was converted to intermittent status to make it easier to bring him back next year.
Biological Technician (Wildlife) Gray Anderson from Hohenwald, Tennessee. 15 Seasonal Biological Technician/(Botany) Robert Fernau entered on duty in June. He assisted through the field season with plant identification for our vegetation mapping project. In September he traveled to Selawik Refuge at Kotzebue to assist with maintenance projects before separating at the end of the month.
Intermittent Clerk-typist Judith Steeves resigned to take a full- time position at a much higher salary level with the local Native-owned business corporation. We miss her help and buoyant attitude. Small Engine Mechanic Marc Miller resigned his position after the field season. He wanted to get more active in aircraft repair. Again, he is missed.
Budget constraints have kept us from filling either of the above positions. Mark Sweeney, OAS summer pilot, did most of our summer flying. His expertise, and the assistance of his wife Susanne, contributed much to the success of our field season.
OAS Pilot Sweeney enjoys the pink glow of fireweed in full bloom. 17
As bureaucracy grows, so does the frustration of trying to do our work with volunteers and temporary employees. Our job is very complicated in Alaska. Our employees cannot just go out and do the work. They must first get to the job site with the equipment to do the job, and enough gear to live there while the work is in progress. This means figuring out how much and what type of camping gear, food, equipment, etc., is needed. Lack of experience in the seasonal hires means that one of our few permanent staff must do the thinking and planning for each crew for each job; an often Herculean task in a busy field season. Not wanting inexperienced staff to be injured or hurt on the job, we tralri our people how to work around aircraft, how to operate and work out of boats, how to avoid bear problems or how to react if such a problem is encountered, and we even train how to do the job. All of this training, which must be repeated each year, consumes close to one-third of our field season. Small wonder we are in favor of more permanent positions. Sometimes in the heat of frustration comes a ray of light. This manager had such an experience as the entire permanent staff earned, and was awarded, outstanding performance recognition. With a staff like I had, small frustrations become insignificant.
2. Youth Programs
Our participation in the Youth Conservation Corps (YCC) program continues to pay good dividends in terms of village relations. We also view it as a way to interest Native Alaskan youth in natural resource careers with the Service. The program is very pbpular with the youth involved, their parents, and village elders. The program provides us with an opportunity to tell our story in each village and to fill information voids in a positive way. Enrollees selected for the program spend six to eight weeks on the Refuge participating with field crews in every aspect of the operation. Upon completion, enrollees have experienced a variety of biological, operational, and maintenance-related work. In addition, they have had an opportunity to learn from the Refuge staff and volunteers from all over the country. And we learn from them. Four enrollees participated in the 1991 field season. Two of the enrollees, Patrick Snow and Amy Wise, were from McGrath. We also hosted Takotna resident Fred Capsul, and Flora Howard who lives in Grayling. All four enrollees were very positive about their experience and seemed reluctant to see the field season end. One enrollee, Patrick Snow, has expressed an interest in working for the Service and will return in 1992 for another season of experience. We anticipate hiring him through the Resource Apprenticeship Program for Students (RAPS) which is funded by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. YCC enrollees Fred Capsul of Takotna and Flora Howard of Grayling. YCC enrollees Amy f^ise and Patrick Snow (far right), both of McGrath. 20
4. Volunteer Programs
Reliance on volunteers continues to be necessary in order to accomplish summer field work objectives. Through the assistance of regional volunteer coordinator Bill Kirk, we were able to meet our volunteer needs again this year. We were fortunate enough to have two of our volunteers from last year, Gray Anderson and Chris Cole, return for a second season. Both are from the "Volunteer State" of Tennessee. Gray returned as a Biological Technician and Chris as a volunteer. Their presence provided some much needed continuity in our field program. Additional volunteers included Andrea Medeiros (Pennsylvania), Candace Stoughton (New Mexico), Ed Mallek (Michigan), Susanne Sweeney (Washington), Tom Gerber (Missouri), Beverly Skinner (Alaska), Norv Dallin (Alaska), Richard Fernau (California), S/Sgt. Tom Johnson and S/Sgt. Brian Sherer (Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska). As usual, our volunteer force represented a good cross-section of the country. Our volunteers arrived in late May and early June, and departed from late August to mid September. Approximately one third of their time was expended in required safety, orientation, and biological training. Projects involving volunteers included goose banding, brood counts, plant association mapping, satellite imagery ground truthing, and a variety of maintenance and logistical work. We estimate that a total of approximately 2,400 work hours, valued near $20,000, were donated by these folks. Additional volunteer assistance throughout the year was donated by local resident Beverly Skinner, primarily in the public use environmental education program. An accounting of her activities can be found in sections H.2 and H.3.
In retrospect, we could not have asked for a better group of volunteers. Their contribution was significant and their experience could, if it were possible, provide a great deal of continuity and efficiency to the field program. Unfortunately, we have no mechanism for seasonal hiring preference based on prior volunteer service. 21
Volunteer Ed Mallek from Portland, Michigan, is a student at Michigan State.
Returning volunteer Chris Cole (right) of Fayetteville, Tennessee, and new volunteer Tom Gerber, a student at the University of Missouri. Candace Stoughton, a volunteer from Las Cruces, New Mexico/ releasing a recently collared white-fronted goose.
Andrea Medeiros, volunteer from Berwyn, Pennsylvania is prepared for anything! < 23
5. Funding
Although never enough to do all that is needed, funding for FY-91 remained adequate to cover fixed costs, overhead, regionally important projects, and a few key station project needs. Regional support for our efforts in completing a habitat map from satellite imagery and the development of a new moose survey technique, both important projects, remains strong. The allocation of funds for FY-91, as reflected in our funds advice, were as follows: Fixed Costs $ 418,000 Overhead 25,000 Projects 95,000 Other (Migratory Birds, Fire, Etc.) 49,000 Total 587,000 A list of approved projects and associated fund targets are shown in Table E.l. Also included in this table are expenditures from "other" fund sources.
Table E.l: FY-91 Project Expenditures Projects
Duck Production Survey $ 14,000 Moose Survey 14,000 Moose Radio Tracking 11,000 Wetland Study 36,000 YCC Program 6,000 Start Moose/Aquatic Study 5,000 Hire Seasonal Biological Technician 9,000 Other
White-fronted Goose Banding (NAWMP) 2,000 Floatplane Docks (MMS) 45,000 Fire Program Support (9100 funds) 2,000
Our FY-91 budget allocation for fixed and overhead expenses reflects a positive change from the previous year. In our 1990 Annual Narrative Report we indicated that fixed and overhead allocations should include sufficient funds to carry on some minimally acceptable level of operation, as opposed to just paying salaries, rent and utilities. It is not logical to assume that a project will be funded at a level so austere that employees will not have the necessary means to accomplish meaningful work. We are pleased to report that our concerns were recognized as legitimate and we were funded accordingly. 24
6. Safety
Safety continues to be our number one priority with regard to all aspects of the operation. Field safety plans are prepared annually prior to the summer season, and monthly safety meetings are replaced during the summer months with intensive safety training, daily safety briefings, and individual counseling as necessary. In addition, and because of our small staff size, all permanent staff members are expected to participate on the Safety Committee which meets guarterly.
Unfortunately, two aviation mishaps occurred during the month of March. Fortunately, neither resulted in death or injury. However, the Refuge Cessna 185 suffered considerable damage. A brief account of each incident follows. On March 17th, at approximately 10 a.m., a survey crew departed the Innoko Refuge field cabin by helicopter to conduct a moose population survey. Enroute to the starting point the helicopter ascended to an altitude of approximately 2,400 feet above ground level in order to transmit a flight plan activation message to the Flight Service Station in McGrath. During the radio transmission, the helicopter yawed violently, the pilot reported an engine failure and began the restart process. After losing approximately 1,400 feet of altitude, the engine started. The pilot immediately climbed to an elevation sufficient for auto rotation and remained over the Innoko River while returning to the cabin. A request for a mechanic was relayed to the contractor, Alaska Helicopters, through the McGrath Flight Service Station. An immediate precautionary landing was ruled out by the pilot due to snow depth, the distance to the cabin, and possible danger during takeoff. The helicopter was checked out by a company mechanic and an OAS inspector and then flown back to Anchorage for repair. The cause of the engine failure remained a mystery at year's end.
On March 22, the Refuge's Cessna 185 departed the Innoko Refuge field cabin for a position approximately five miles south of the junction of the North Fork and the main Innoko River. At that position a boat had been stored for the winter. The plan was to land, remove snow from the boat and retrieve some supplies. The aircraft had landed at the same location the previous day without problem. Prior to landing, a fly-by to check landing conditions and wind speed was conducted. The wind was from the southeast at five knots. Weather conditions were 3,500 scattered, 4,000 broken, and a visibility of fifteen miles. The landing was set up to the east landing upstream toward the boat. The configuration was 30 degree flaps and 70 knots airspeed. Touchdown occurred in the middle of the river.* The aircraft 25 continued straight ahead and then started a left hand-turn and slowed slightly. The aircraft then bounced once and started a skid to the right: The aircraft bounced a second time, followed by the right wing hitting the surface. The aircraft then nosed down into the snow, cartwheeled, and impacted the left wing with the tail straight up in the air. The shutdown procedure was then completed followed by a check for injuries. A Japan Airlines flight was contacted on 121.5, then an Alaska Airline flight on 128.1. There were no serious injuries to the pilot or passenger; however, the aircraft suffered serious damage to the left wing, right wing tip, left main gear, right main gear leg, the engine and propeller.
The McGrath Flight Service Station notified Secretary Sally Jo Collins of the accident. She arranged for a contract helicopter working at the Koyukuk-Nowitna Refuge Complex to perform the rescue. In just over two hours it was on the scene to pick up Refuge Manager Feiger and Pilot Ladegard. Koyukuk-Nowitna Wildlife Biologist Mark Bertram assisted in the rescue operation. We also had two local pilot volunteers standing by at McGrath ready to go at a moment's notice, exhibiting once again a special concern among pilots when a plane goes down in the bush. The month of May is always a busy time in terms of safety planning. Final arrangements were made with the U.S. Air Force to provide two survival school instructors and learning materials for a warm season wilderness survival orientation. The Refuge's annual field safety plan was completed, and work progressed throughout the month in preparation for other necessary safety training including boat operations, aircraft operations and bfear/firearms safety. New safety equipment and supplies were also purchased in May and included signaling devices, fire extinguishers, first aid kits, and emergency trauma kits. In June, prior to conducting biological operations, two weeks of intensive field safety orientation were conducted with all staff members present. All required safety training, and a few optional but important subject areas were covered. The highlight of this year's training was a two-day session on warm season Arctic survival. Sessions were conducted in the field and presented by Air Force Survival School Instructors Tom Johnson and Brian Sherer.
This year's training package also included an eight hour session on aircraft safety conducted by Regional Aviation Manager John Sarvis on June 17th. A short photo essay highlighting some of our safety training follows: S/Sgt. Brian Sherer lectures on hypothermia, dehydration and other physiological factors associated with wilderness survival. 27
YCC enrollee Amy Wise helps construct an emergency shelter from materials readily available.
YCC enrollee Flora Howard helps weave a sleeping mat on a homemade loom using locally available grass. S/Sgt Sherer demonstrates the safe way to turn dry poles Into firewood.
-
Good firecraft skills are essential In a survival situation regardless of the season. S/Sgt. Sherer provides Instruction In proper fIrehulldlng techniques. Volunteer Chris Cole practices firing a signal flare and using a signal mirror during "rescueability" training. < 30 31
8. Other Items Electronic mail, facsimile machines, copiers, radio systems, and computers all seem to be conspiring to dictate our work day. These all make our work easier, don't they!?
Ahhhhhhh. Tranquility! < 32
F. HABITAT MANAGEMENT 1. General Introduction
Maps of vegetation are essential for protection of wildlife habitat and for wildlife population and trend surveys. Vegetation maps must be meaningful relative to wildlife populations and must be accurate to be useful. The vegetation pattern is usually not one of distinct units but of changing complexes of plant aggregations blending gradually across wide zones. Animals use the vegetation as structural units for protection and as individual species for food. The vegetation continuum can be divided into map units in many ways. To be useful for wildlife management, a vegetation map unit should be consistent in species composition and be detectable on photography and other imagery with great accuracy. Our mapping units were derived from the vegetation surveys of the Innoko National Wildlife Refuge conducted by Botanist John DeLapp during the summers of 1985-1988. John's work was initiated by Manager Phil Feiger and Assistant Manager Mike Smith. We also used extensively the 1987 report by Steve Talbot and Carl Markon on a Landsat-facilitated vegetation map and vegetation reconnaissance of Innoko Refuge.
Phrpose
Our purpose was to identify aggregations of plants (mapping units) that define the distribution of wildlife and can be accurately delineated on photography and imagery. We wanted the number of aggregations to be as few as possible to make our maps simple and accurate and easy to use for surveys and habitat assessments but as many as necessary to accurately display the habitats of individual wildlife species. Our goal then is to transform our vegetation information into working wildlife management maps to be used for habitat assessment and population trend surveys.
Methods
We outlined examples of the mapping units on photography to ground truth satellite imagery. Instead of mapping small isolated examples of the vegetation throughout the Refuge, we chose to map a large block in the central portion of the Refuge. We were not only interested in developing mapping units but also in describing the relationships between units. We selected an < 33 area on the central Innoko River that appeared to contain most of the range of riverine, muskeg, and upland plant communities. We sampled each large scale change of vegetation throughout the block. We did not place the vegetation into groups during the field work; we only documented the changes occurring in the vegetation continuum. ^ We estimated percent cover in three categories for each vascular* plant species.
A sampling transect in Mapping Unit 1; sedge - bluejoint - willow marsh.
*
Field crew sampling the understory of Mapping Unit 4; black spruce - tamarack. f 34
After sampling the entire block, aggregations of plants were chosen for mapping units that were similar in species composition. Some of our units lack structural similarity at this writing (Example - forests that have varying canopy covers) Our sampling map was then revised to reflect our mapping unit decisions.
Future Work
Next summer we will map outlying areas of the Refuge to test our block model and to provide more ground truth areas for satellite imagery. We also will develop the aquatic mapping units and mountain mapping units that were missed this year. The aquatic mapping will be used first for waterfowl population survey strata.
Vegetation Mapping Units The following are the current completed vegetation mapping units Also included are tentative mapping units, not yet completed, based on John DeLapp's vegetation surveys. < 35
Mapping Unit I
Carex rostrata - Calamagrostis canadensis - Salix planifolia subspecies pulchra. Sedge - Bluejoint - Willow marsh. Dominant plants
Calamagrostis canadensis Carex rostrata Salix planifolia subsp. pulchra Potentilla palustris Rubus arcticus Carex aquatilis Equisetum fluviatile Open Carex or Calamagrostis marsh with Salix borders - sometimes strips of Salix marking old river beaches Requires flooding each spring in combination with drying up during the summer Wettest areas are Carex,; next wettest are Calamagrostis; driest edge of zone are Salix
A sedge - bluejoint - willow marsh (Mapping Unit 1). Excellent waterfowl and moose habitat. Mapping Unit 2
Betula papyrifera - Populus tremuloides - Populus balsamifera LOWLAND. Lowland deciduous forest.
Dominant Plants Betula papyrifera Alnus crispa Calamagrostis canadensis Equisetiim sp (silvaticum, arvense, pratense) Rosa acicularis Rubus arcticus Trientalis europaea Cornus canadensis Alnus incana Ribes triste Dryopteris dilatata Mertensia paniculata Viburnum edule Thalictrum sparsiflorum Rubus idaeus Spirea Beauverdiana
This aspen and birch site Is an example of Mapping Unit 2; Lowland deciduous forest.
Picea glauca (understory) Populus tremuloides (mixed with or replaces Betula papyrifera) Less common than Betula papyrifera Populus balsamifera (mixed with or replaces Betula papyrifera) Cottonwood absent in riverine forest along parts of the Innoko; much more common on the Yukon River Little or no moss and lichen cover Within zone of frequent river flooding Salix planifolia sub sp. pulchra (bordering M.V.I) Salix depressa Salix alaxensis (bordering rivers) 37
Mapping Unit 3
Picea glauca. LOWLAND. Lowland white spruce forest. Not sampled Rare component in large stands Less frequently flooded than Mapping Unit 2 Moss cover and permafrost begin development here
Mapping Unit 4
Picea mariana - Larix laricina. LOWLAND. Lowland black spruce - tamarack forest. Dominant Plants Picea mariana Betula papyrifera Larix laricina Ledum palustre Vaccinium uliginosum Vticcinium vitis-idaea Rubus chamaemorus Betula nana Oxycoccus microcarpus Spiraea Beauverdiana Equisetum silvaticum Geocaulon lividum Empetrum nigrum Drosera rotundifolia Much moss and lichen cover
Lichens occur in the drier sites
Larix occurs in the wetter sites Larix less common than black spruce Never occurs in closed stands
Underlain with permafrost 38
Mapping Unit 5
Chamaedaphne calyculata - Andromeda polifolia - Myrica gale - Cyperaceae. Lowland. Cassandra, Andromeda, Sweet Gale, Sedge bog
Dominant Plants Carex chordorrhiza Carex rotundata Eriophortim Scheuchzeri Chamaedaphne calyculata Andromeda polifolia Myrica gale Oxycoccus microcarpus Betula nana Drosera rotundifolia Potentilla palustris Drosera anglica Menyanthes trifoliata Utricularia intermedia Salix fuscescens Utricularia vulgaris- Eguisetum fluviatile Mosses - dominant A wet bog complex Dry zone - Chamaedaphne calyculata, Betula nana W^t zone - Drosera anglica, Menyanthes trifoliata, Utricularia intermedia, Utricularia vulgaris, Eguisetum fluviatile Carex and Eriophorum abundant - generally increasingly so on wetter sites Mapping Unit 6
Betula papyrifera'- Populous tremuloides. UPLAND. Upland paper birch - aspen forest. Betula papyrifera Alnus crispa Cornus canadensis Calamagrostis Canadensis Spirea Beauverdiana Eguisetilm silvaticum Populus tremuloides (replaces or mixed with Betula P.) Picea glauca (understory) Rosa acicularis Little moss or lichen cover Similar to Mapping Unit 2, Betula - Populus. LOWLAND.
Mapping Unit 7
Picea glauca. UPLAND. Upland white spruce forest. s Rare component in large stand
Not sampled < 40
Mapping Unit 8
Picea mariana. UPLAND. Upland black spruce.
Dominant Plants Picea mariana Betula papyrifera Ledum palustre Vacciniiim uliginosum Vaccinium vitis-idaea Oxycoccus microcarpus Geocaulon lividum Equisetum silvaticum Rubus chamaemorus Betula papyrifera Empetrum nigrum Spirea Beauverdiana Betula nana Larix laricina (few in uplands)
Abundant moss and lichen cover
Very similar composition to Mapping Unit 4, Picea mariana. LOWLAND. Underlain with permafrost or shallow soil over bedrock
The following mapping units are based on John DeLapp's surveys and were not found in our block map. We will map samples of these areas next summer for satellite ground truth data. Currently we use point locations on color IR photos from Mr. DeLapp's work for ground truthing imagery for these types. 41
Mapping Unit 9
Carex Rotundata - 'Carex chordorrhiza - Eriophorum angustifolium - Eriophorum Scheuchzeri. Sedge - cotton grass bog.
A wet bog meadow with Carex growing in a moss (sphagnum) mat which is often floating
Blends frequently with Mapping Unit 5.
Field crew member Ed Mallek thinking about sampling the sedge - cottongrass bog of Mapping Unit 9.
Mapping Unit 10
Eriophorum vaginatum - Carex Bigelowii. Cotton grass - sedge tussock tundra.
This type is generally found on gently rolling hills. Drainage is slow and soils are wet and are underlain with permafrost. Scattered black spruce and ericaceous shrubs occur. Blends with Mapping Unit 8 - Picea mariana. UPLAND. 42
Mapping Unit 11
Alpine Vegetation: Very little alpine vegetation is found on the Refuge. It occurs on exposed ridge tops and peaks. We look forward to studying this type next summer to see if it should and can be divided into multiple vegetation map units. Some plants are Saxifraga bronchialis, Lupinus arcticus, Carex Bigelowii, Empetrum nigrum, and Salix phlebophylla in the open, exposed sites. Below these sites are thickets of Alnus crispa and stunted Populus tremuloides.
Fire Vegetation Fires occur annually in a variety of vegetation types. We plan to visit burns of various ages in each vegetation type to document the changes occurring over time in response to fire. Burned vegetation mapping units can then be associated with their appropriate post fire successional stage. When food and cover preferences of individual wildlife species are known, the relationships of these wildlife species to the burn vegetation will be evident.
Burned vegetation will not be treated as a single vegetation type or mapping unit. Burned land will be labeled with its basic plant community and post fire effect on species composition.
Fire burned this black spruce site and failed to burn adjacent white spruce, birch, bog and marsh sites. f 43
Aquatic Vegetation. The vegetation of *the permanent waters of the Refuge vary according to the depth, flooding sequence, age of the water body, surrounding plant communities, and size of the water body. These variations were not sampled this year but next season we plan to develop aquatic mapping units to complement our upland system. This work will be directed initially toward the stratification of waterfowl habitat for brood surveys. Some aquatic plants are Equisetum fluviatile, Sparganium angustifolium, Sparganium minimum, Potamogeton gramineus, Potamogeton natans, Potamogeton perfoliai:us, Sagittaria cuneata, Lemna minor, Lemna trisulca, Nymphaea tetragona, Nuphar polysepalum, Cicuta mackenzieana, Callitriche hermaphroditica, Callitriche verna, Myriophyllum spicatum, Myriophyllum verticillatum, Hippuris vulgaris, Menyanthes trifoliata, Utricularia intermedia, Utricularia minor, and Utricularia vulgaris. At this writing, aquatic areas are simply mapped as water.
The following mapping units at this writing are included in the previous units. Mapping Unit 12 Ledum Palustre - Vaccinium uliginosum - Betula nana. LOWLAND.
Presently included in Mapping Unit 4 - Picea mariana - Larix Laricina. LOWLAND. Similar except lacks trees. This type will be broken out and included as a separate mapping unit when we Ifearn how to do this accurately.
Mapping Unit 13 Ledum palustre - Vaccinium uliginosum - Betula nana. UPLAND
Presently included in Mapping Unit 8 - Picea mariana. UPLAND. Similar except lacks trees. This type will be broken out and included as a separate mapping unit when we learn how to do this accurately.
Graminoid Drawdown Shore. Narrow vegetation type found on shallow river and river connected lake shores that experience annual drawdowns of water. Found extensively on the lower Iditarod River, lower Grouch Creek, on Big Boat Slough, and a few other sloughs with river connections. Common plants include Eleocharis palustris, Arctophila fulva, Hippuris vulgaris, Eleocharis acicularis, Juncus arcticus, Carex 44 aquatilis, and Poa palustris. Often this type is too narrow for detection with satellite imagery; therefore, these areas will be mapped by hand and -digitized into the Geographic Information System. The distribution of this vegetation type is correlated very strongly with the distribution of geese.
Salix alaxensis. RIVER BAR. Narrow vegetation type found on the deposition side of river bends bordering the water. The first zone of vegetation above the high Vater mark. Usually has a Calamagrostis canadensis understory with Artemisia Tilesii, Polygonum alaskanum, Mentha arvensis, and Epilobium angustifolium. Found on all major rivers in the Refuge that have regular flood cycles. Often this type is too narrow for detection with satellite imagery; therefore, these areas will be mapped by hand and digitized into the Geographic Information System. This type, along with Mapping Unit 1 - Carex - Calamagrostis - Salix, is critical winter moose habitat.
Physiographic Processes
The distributions of plant species are correlated with the frequency and duration of flooding, permafrost, fire, slope and aspect, elevation, and soils. The successional sequence of vegetation in relation to our aggregations of plants (mapping units) in the valley flats is related primarily to frequency and duration of flooding, and the development of permafrost. Our mapping unit receiving the most frequent flooding is Mapping unit 1 *- Carex - Calamagrostis - Salix. Above Mapping Unit 1 in areas flooding less frequently is Mapping Unit 2 - Betula - Populus. LOWLAND. Mapping Unit 3 - Picea glauca. LOWLAND, is the zone where flooding occurs least frequently and also where moss and permafrost development begins. Mapping Unit 4 - Picea mariana - Larix. LOWLAND, occurs in valley flats beyond the zone of flooding with permafrost in the soil and a heavy moss layer. Mapping Unit 5 - Chamaedaphne - Andromeda - Myrica - Cyperaceae occurs in valley areas beyond the zone of flooding in areas with melted or no permafrost and a thick sphagnum moss layer. Mapping Unit 9 - Carex rotundata - Carex chordorrhiza - Eriophorum angustifolium - Eriophorum Scheuchzeri occurs in the valley flats in the wettest areas beyond the zone of flooding. It is frequently a quaking bog. The successional sequence of vegetation in the hills is correlated with slope and aspect and elevation. Mapping Unit 6 - Betula - Populus. UPLAND., occurs on steep south facing slopes with no permafrost and little moss cover. Mapping Unit 7 - Picea glauca. UPLAND., an advanced successional stage of the Betula - Populus. UPLAND., occurs on the same sites. Mapping unit 8 - Picea mariana. UPLAND, is located on gentle slopes of any aspect and steep slopes with some northern exposure. Mapping Unit 10 - Eriophorum vaginatum -Carex Bigelowii is found on gently rolling hills and on gently sloping hilltops. We find Mapping Units 8 and 10 in apparently similar areas and are not certain what differentiates their distribution. The Eriophorum - Carex type appears to be wetter with perhaps less permafrost development. We will explore this aggregation next summer. The low growing vegetation in Mapping Unit 10 - Alpine vegetation, occurs above timberline.
The effect of fire on vegetation can be dramatic in the short run, but" in general, has much less effect on species composition of the area than the prevailing forces of flooding, permafrost, slope and aspect, soils, and elevation. The timing and intensity of the fire have much to do with its effect. Fire effects are very site-specific. Any aggregation of plants (mapping unit) can border any other aggregation. Borders are determined by changes in elevation (sometimes very slight), slope and aspect, presence or absence of permafrost, and soils. Aggregations do, however, frequently occur in regular patterns. In valley flats, where very slight changes in elevation in relation to river levels determine plant distribution, often the low Carex - Calamagrostis - Salix mapping units are bordered by Betula - Populus and Picea glauca forests. In the valley flats beyond the zone of flooding Picea mariana - Larix forests are frequently bordered by Chamaedaphne - Andromeda - Myrica - Cyperaceae. Also, on the wetter side, Chamaedaphne - Andromeda - Myrica - Cyperaceae often borders Carex rotundata - Carex chordorrhiza - Eriophorum angustifolium - Eriophorum Sfcheuchzeri. In the hills Picea mariana forests, Betula - Populus, and Picea glauca forests and Alpine areas form regular patterns with respect to slope and aspect and elevation. Also, because aggregations of plants or mapping units generally do not occur distinctly in the continuum of vegetation, combinations of mapping units occur as frequently as pure types. These combinations occur as uniform mixtures and/or patches so small that they can not be mapped separately.
Carex - Calamagrostis - Salix sometimes mixes with Chamaedaphne - Andromeda - Myrica - Cyperaceae in bog environments that infrequently receive nutrient laden flood water. Very frequently Betula - Populus lowland forests mix with Picea glauca lowland forests. In fact, pure Picea glauca lowlands are rare. Betula - Populus and Picea glauca lowland forests mix with Picea mariana - Larix lowlands. This occurs as small patches of each type and as true mixtures. This combination occurs on the edge of the flood zone in areas where moss cover and permafrost are beginning to develop. Picea mariana - Larix lowland often occurs in patches with Chamaedaphne - Andromeda - Myrica -Cyperaceae in the zone of 46 melting and developing permafrost. Chamaedaphne - Andromeda - Myrica - Cyperaceae blends with Carex rotundata - Carex chordorrhiza - Eriophorum angustifolium - Eriophorum Scheuchzeri. In the upland, Betula - Populus blends with Picea glauca. As with the lowland counterpart, pure Picea glauca forests are rare in the uplands. We presume that lowland and upland pure Picea glauca forests are rare because it is unlikely they will not burn during the several hundred year successional process necessary for their development. Also, fallen spruce may provide openings for birch establishment, even in mature forests.
Setting sun reflects on birch and spruce trees bordering Camp Lake - a frequent evening treat. 47
6. Other Habitats
A hank of the Innoko River cut away during Spring run-off, and in the exposure of thousands of freshwater clams on the lake bed. 49
G. WILDLIFE
3. Waterfowl
Brood Surveys Innoko Refuge, in 1991, cooperated with the Regional Office in a statewide survey to determine waterfowl production. As in 1990, the survey plots were in two strata - "low" consisting of habitat far from rivers, and "other" consisting of habitat close to rivers. About 75% of the 5999 square mile survey area is classified as "low". Twenty-eight plots were surveyed: 13 in "low" and 15 in "other". All the "low" plots and four of the "other" plots were done with a helicopter. The remaining "other" plots were surveyed on the ground. Sixty three broods were sighted during this late July-early August survey on the plots and seven species were identified (Table G.l). Brood sightings were down in 1991 compared to 1990 (109 total broods sighted) particularly pintails (down from 29 to 6 broods) and green-winged teal (down from 35 to 15 broods). Due to the very low sample size on Innoko Refuge, and the resulting very wide confidence intervals, it is not possible to statistically determine if the decline is real or due to chance (Table G.2). Innoko's data did however contribute to the statewide effort which showed a 35-60% decline in duck populations in Interior Alaska.
Table G.l: Duck Species and Number of Broods Seen During the 1991 Brood Survey Duck Species Number of Broods
American Wigeon 18 Green-winged Teal 15 Northern Shoveler 11 Northern Pintail 6 Common Goldeneye 3 Mallard 2 Black Scoter 1 Unidentified Duck 7 Total 63 50
Table G.2: WATERFOWL PRODUCTION SUMMARY - EXPANDED ESTIMATES
Production Area: Innoko Refuge Year; 1991 Selected Data: ALL STRATA Number of Plots; 28 Expanded Area: 5999
Broods Broods Adults Adults Young Young Expanded C.V. Expanded C.V. Expanded C.V.
Mallard 281 0.73 8062 0.51 987 0.71 Gadwall 0 0 0 American Wigeon 1500 0.45 5531 0.53 7526 0. 50 Green-winged Teal 2875 0.41 6562 0.26 13,405 0. 39 Blue-winged Teal 0 0 0 Northern Shoveler 1125 0.68 3281 0.40 6375 0.62 Northern Pintail 750 0.52 26,999 0.58 3725 0.48
DABBLER SUBTOTAL 6531 0.31 26,999 0.32 32,018 0.31
Redhead 0 0 0 Canvasback 0 0 0 Lesser Scaup 0 0 0 Greater Scaup 0 188 0.68 0 Ring-necked Duck 0 0 0 Common Goldeneye 281 0.54 281 0. 54 1594 0. 59 Barrow's Goldeneye 0 0 0 Bufflehead 0 0 0
DIVER SUBTOTAL 281 0. 54 469 0.48 1594 0.59
Oldsguaw 0 0 0 Harlequin Duck 0 0 0 Steller's Eider 0 0 0 Spectacled Eider 0 0 0 Common Eider 0 0 0 King Eider 0 0 0 Black Scoter 750 - 1.00 2624 0. 74 2707 1.00 White-winged Scoter 0 0 0 Surf Scoter 0 188 1.00 0 Ruddy Duck 0 0 0 Common Merganser 0 0 0 Red-breasted Merganser 0 0 0 Hooded Merganser 0 0 0
MISC. DUCK SUBTOTAL 750 1.00 2812 0.70 2707 1.00
Unidentified Duck 674 0.40 2438 0.44 3501 0.43
TOTAL 8236 0.27 32,718 0.27 39,820 0.27 51 6. Raptors
A peregrine falcon survey was conducted on the Yukon and lower Koyukuk rivers from June 22-July 10 in cooperation with the Koyukuk/Nowitna NWR Complex and Peter Bente, USFWS - Endangered Species Office, Fairbanks. The purpose of the annual survey is to gather general trend information. The survey has been conducted by the Endangered Species Office since 1979 to document peregrine falcon use of the Yukon River. The Innoko portion of the survey, which was participated in by Biological Technician Mallek, included a reach of the Yukon River from the village of Kaltag_south along the refuge's west boundary. During the entire survey, a total of 12 single adults, 50 pairs, and 88 young were observed. Eight singles, 25 pairs, and 48 young were observed during the Innoko portion of the survey which consists of the Yukon River between the villages of Kaltag and Anvik. Banding results for the entire survey included 12 adults trapped (5 previously banded, 7 newly banded); 76 young banded between Galena and Anvik; and 11 young banded between Ruby and Galena.
Division of Endangered Species Wildlife Biologist Peter Bente checks leg hand on an adult peregrine falcon near Anvik. A pair of young peregrine falcons observed during the survey.
Evidence of black bears raiding bank swallow nests. 53
Time to turn around!!
MOOSE
A; moose survey was conducted in early April on the 13 3 2 square mile northeast corner of the Refuge which includes portions of the Innoko, Mud, and Dishna River systems. We began by using our multispectral scanner (MSS) habitat map to develop moose habitat classes - large river, small river, hills and black spruce flats, and muskeg from 10 vegetation units that were based on plant species composition. The moose habitat classes were sampled with three sampling strata - large river, small river, and hills and muskeg. Strips 300 meters wide were surveyed with a helicopter in the sampling strata. Flightlines were placed at one mile intervals in the hills and muskeg strata and 1/4 mile intervals in the two riverine strata. Lines flown were systematically selected for uniform coverage of the entire stratum. The helicopter was equipped with an Apollo LORAN Model 604 for locating and navigating flightlines and for recording the locations of moose observed. The survey was flown at 250 feet above the ground level at 40-90 mph, depending on cover. 54
Three sightability tests were conducted on two-square-mile areas by first flying our normal survey procedure across the entire area and then spending about three times our normal effort in an intensive search. A total of 279 moose were seen in the survey (Table G.2). Of these, 97% were seen in the large river moose habitat class. The estimated population of moose for the entire survey area was 1071 moose + 19.8% at the 95% confidence interval.
During our three sightability tests we saw 24 moose in our regular.^surveys and 26 moose on the intensive survey of the same areas, indicating that our population estimate may be about 10% below actual population numbers. The basic data analysis unit was the number of moose per habitat class per flightline. Thus lines with small amounts of the large river habitat class, for example, had on a per unit basis, similar numbers of moose to lines with large amounts of large river habitat. Next year's plans are to replace the strip survey with a line transect survey where distance data is obtained, and to use our recently obtained Thematic Mapper Landsat data for habitat analysis.
Tfeble G.2. Moose seen and estimated total moose in moose habitat classes
Large Small River River Hills Muskeg Total
Moose seen 271 0 279 Moose per hectare 02710 .00052 .00083 .00322 Total hectares 34628 8304 155809 133325 332065
Estimated total moose 938 129 1071
56
11. Fisheries Resources
The subsistence way of life persists In Yukon River villages along the Refuge's western boundary as evidenced by this operating fish wheel.
Very little is known regarding fisheries resources refuge-wide. TJiis lack of information is due to both the expense associated with conducting minimally acceptable surveys, and regional priorities for fisheries fund use. Local concerns among subsistence users residing in- villages along the Yukon and Innoko rivers include the impacts of guided sport fishing for northern pike, and our lack of baseline knowledge regarding populations of summer and fall run chum (dog) salmon, whitefish and sheefish. We have a long way to go in terms of being in a position to meet our fisheries related mandates as established in the enabling legislation.
Work progressed throughout the year on the DRAFT Innoko Fisheries Management Plan which will include prioritized goals and objectives designed to, among other things, meet legal mandates and address local concerns. A small effort to gather rudimentary data relative the summer chum run was conducted in August. Nets were set and monitored on the Innoko River at the confluence of Big Boat Slough to document species occurrence and timing of the run. The effort was conducted by Biological technicians Mallek and Cole, and Resource Apprentice Program enrollee Snow. Results indicated a run from mid to late August. Other species captured during the effort included northern pike and sheefish. Biological Technicians Mallek and Cole, and RAPS enrollee Snow show off their catch. 58
16. Marking and Banding
Goose Banding In 1991, crews captured, banded, and neck-collared 145 white- fronted geese. Five of these birds had been previously captured on Innoko Refuge, and banded. One had been previously neck- collared. This effort was a part of a cooperative Fish and Wildlife Service study on the mid-continental white-fronted goose population. This year's capture was way down from last year's 1158 birds because of extreme flood conditions which kept the birds dispersed until after the molt.
The geese were captured on lakes near the Iditarod tributary of the Innoko River by driving them into nets with float planes.
Banding operation in full swing. 59
H. PUBLIC USE 1. General Public use activities, both consumptive and non-consumptive, remain low relative to many other stations in Alaska. This is due, in part, to the extreme isolation and high cost associated with accessing the area. Other contributing factors include an absence of facilities to accommodate use, unfriendly terrain, and hosts of biting insects. Moose hunting during the September sport season on the upper reaches of the Innoko River, and subsistence hunting below the confluence of the Innoko and Iditarod Rivers, are the reason most visitors enter the area. Despite recent population declines, moose along the Innoko River remain relatively abundant and good opportunities to harvest trophy bulls exist. Although Refuge waters support a trophy northern pike fishery, little use of this resource occurs. Trapping is a commercial/subsistence activity limited to the most intrepid. Camping, wildlife observation, and other non- consumptive use is incidental to the pursuit of game.
Management concerns relative to public use have increased with expanded Federal responsibilities regarding subsistence. Areas of concern include addressing the need for credible biological data in order to establish realistic seasons and bag limits, minimizing conflicts between sport hunters and subsistence users, developing an issue oriented public education program, and resolving jurisdictional and regulatory/enforcement guestions. Staffing and funding levels at present hamper the development of a' truly effective public outreach program. The FY-92 budget package, which was prepared in September, included a funding reguest aimed at correcting this situation. The budget proposal, approved at the time of this report, will provide the means to enhance both our subsistence and environmental education programs. Included in the project is the addition of an intermittent Refuge Operations Specialist and program support funding.
Work began in April on a new station environmental education analysis reguested for Regional Office planning purposes. The analysis identified opportunities and goals, and outlined objectives and specific tasks. The analysis, along with a budget exercise, was submitted in September.
This year marked the beginning of a station effort to take advantage of the Challenge Grant program. Volunteer Beverly Skinner drafted and submitted four Challenge Grant proposals for environmental education activities. The proposals, which totaled $40,500, included conducting weekly nature programs at local area schools, building nature trails in nine rural^ villages, Earth Day celebrations, and Fish and Wildlife Service involvement with the 60
Iditarod Area School District Science Fair program. One additional Challenge Grant was submitted through our office by high school teacher Norv Dallin for a bear collaring/tracking project to be conducted by the McGrath High School science class.
2. Outdoor Classrooms-Students
This year's environmental education activities, involving working directly with students, began in March. Secretary Collins, our resident historian, provided the McGrath Girl Scouts with a program.'on local area history on the 21st. The annual McGrath School Science Fair was conducted on the 29th. The Innoko Refuge donated two National Geographic Society books, Wild Lands for Wildlife-America's Refuges, to be used as prizes for the best wildlife-related high school and elementary projects. Staff members also assisted in judging the event.
In April, during National Wildlife Week, environmental education activities were conducted in Grayling, Anvik and McGrath. The school programs were provided by Volunteer Beverly Skinner and focused on the spring waterfowl hunting issue and wetlands. Thanks to her efforts, approximately 125 students and seven teachers participated in 400 hours of Environmental Education activity. National Wildlife Week programs were also scheduled for Holy Cross and Shageluk; however, weather and transportation problems precluded the additional visits.
Through the efforts of Volunteer Beverly Skinner, environmental education activities were conducted during the year through the Ibcal Girl Scout program. The big event of the year was a week- long day camp conducted in McGrath for approximately 35 children. Additional weekly activities were conducted throughout the year.
Other student activities were provided by Deputy Manager Merritt for high school students in conjunction with our annual Youth Conservation Corps recruitment effort in May. In September Wildlife Biologist Bob Skinner presented a special program to McGrath High School science students pertaining to the development of our new moose survey technigue.
3. Outdoor Classrooms-Teachers
The Iditarod Area School District, with headquarters in McGrath, administers schools in nine communities. Schools within the District are located in both the Kuskokwim and Yukon River drainages. Through cooperation with the District, the Refuge has an opportunity to effect positive change across a vast area of interior Alaska. In an effort to take advantage of our close proximity to the District offices, we have developed a liaison 61 position filled by Volunteer Beverly Skinner. Beverly was able to participate in two training opportunities during the year. On March 8th through-the 10th, she attended training at the Regional Office provided by Environmental Education (EE) Specialist Beverly Farfan. The focus of the training was on the new wetlands curriculum. A second EE training opportunity sponsored by the Regional Office, which we arranged for Beverly to attend, occurred on September 16th through the 20th. Participation in this training was also arranged for Volunteer Norv Dallin. Norv is a science teacher in the Iditarod Area School District and has expressed an interest in working with the Refuge to develop a District-wide program. Through their efforts, we hope to expand our activities both in McGrath and in outlying villages. National Wildlife Week materials were distributed to the nine Iditarod Area School District communities. In addition, personal contacts were made with school principals and teachers in the villages of McGrath, Shageluk, Holy Cross, Anvik, and Grayling to offer assistance in planning and implementing National Wildlife Week activities. Programs were encouraged which focused on wetland values and waterfowl species of special concern in Alaska. An effort was made to integrate environmental education activities with information needs relative to the spring waterfowl hunting issue.
8. Hunting Essentially all public use on the Innoko Refuge occurs in September during moose hunting season. Upland game bird, small mfemmal, and migratory waterfowl hunting are incidental to moose hunting, as are camping, river floating, and wildlife observation. Use of the area.seems divided with sport hunters concentrating along the upper reaches of the Innoko River. Sport hunters access the area via air taxi operators out of Anchorage, Galena or McGrath, contracts with outfitters and guides, or in private aircraft. Subsistence use occurs mostly along the Yukon River, which forms the Refuge's west boundary, and on the lower Innoko River. The confluence of the Innoko and Iditarod Rivers appears to be as far upriver as subsistence hunters usually travel. Subsistence use is primarily by residents of Holy Cross, Anvik, Grayling, and Shageluk, although Yukon Delta residents have been known to travel over 300 river miles to access the area. Determining how many people hunt moose and obtaining accurate harvest data is difficult, and probably impossible, given current capabilities. Reports from state harvest ticket returns are at best a crude index, at least with regard to the subsistence take, because many hunters do not return their harvest tickets. Village traditional hunting.methods include party hunting, and individual hunters exceeding bag and possession limits. The take 62 is opportunistic and game taken is generally distributed throughout the village. Many traditional subsistence hunters fear that harvest "ticket information will be used as a means for prosecution so compliance is low. Six Special Use Permits were issued during the year - three to air taxi operators, two to guides, and one to an outfitter. Permittees are required to provide information pertaining to their operations such as descriptions of aircraft to be used, tail numbers, data on the number of clients transported into the area, and their success. Hunter use data furnished by permittees indicated that 32 clients harvested 21 moose, a success rate of approximately 66 percent. The success rate for the previous year was 84 percent.
At the time of this report, no information pertaining to average antler size during the 1987 through 1991 moose seasons was available. Mean antler size of moose harvested in the upstream unit gradually declined from 1983 to 1986. Antler spread 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 above information implies that the average antler size of moose harvested by sport hunters in the upstream unit declined in four years. Hunting pressure, aided by air taxi operators and increasing private aircraft use, was intense in some upstream areas. Pressure over the last few years may have been enough to rbduce the number of large antlered bulls in the population. Data regarding average bull size, bull/cow and cow/calf ratios from our most recent survey are reported in Section G.8. It will remain important to monitor those ratios, along with data from harvest tags and other sources, in order to ensure continued subsistence, sport and trophy hunting opportunities.
9. Fishing
Waters within the boundaries of the Innoko Refuge support a trophy northern pike fishery which is probably unsurpassed anywhere in Alaska. In addition, good numbers of sheefish are available in some areas. Both species are taken by sport users as an incidental activity while hunting. Other fish populations, primarily used by subsistence harvesters, use Refuge waters for migration and spawning. These include chum salmon and whitefish, both of which are significant to the village of Shageluk which is located approximately 30 miles downstream from the Refuge boundary on the Innoko River. < 63
One Special Use Permit was issued by the Koyukuk/Nowitna Complex in Galena for the purpose of conducting fly-in trophy pike fishing on the Innoko Refuge's northern unit. This unit is administered by the Galena office due to its close proximity to that town. No permitted use of the lower unit of the Innoko Refuge occurred. Some recreational and subsistence use of this fishery does occur but we have no data from which to estimate that use. The potential for overuse of this fishery is a real concern. Northern pike are slow growing and trophy size fish tend to be quite old and therefore easily over-harvested.
10. Trapping The need to gather data pertaining to both furbearer populations and trapping activity has become critical with expanded Federal responsibilities for subsistence management. Unfortunately, the capability to monitor subsistence trapping has never been sufficient given the small staff and limited dollars available, and no additional capability appears likely any time soon. We have no Refuge-specific data pertaining to trapping reportable for 1990-91. We probably won't have any data for 1992. Approximately ninety percent of the Innoko Refuge falls within the boundaries of State Game Management Units 21 A & E. A trapper questionnaire developed by Alaska Department of Fish and Game Biologist Jack Whitman provides some crude, and highly subjective, data pertaining to the current abundance and population trends of furbearers in these two units. An example of the questionnaire can be found in Figure H.l. Tables H.l and H*. 2. summarize the results of the survey. The number of trappers responding to the questionnaire declined somewhat from the previous year. Biologist Whitman thinks this decline has more to do with poor travelling conditions during 1990-91 than a disinterest in the questionnaire. This information is included here , rather than in the wildlife section, because it is not statistically valid and represents trapper use and perceptions more than actual population levels. It is important to remember that this information is derived from an area much larger than the Refuge. In addition, it includes areas which receive higher use by trappers than we suspect occurs on the Refuge. 64
Figure H.I. 1990-1991 TRAPPER QUESTIONNAIRE
HOR THIS TRAPPING SEASON COMPARED TO LAS'1 YEAR MANY THE ANIMALS ON MY TRAPLINE HERE THE NUMBERS H fRE ' DID NOT DONT DONT YOU IpARQE COMMON Afiim PRESENT KNOH FEHER SAME MORE KNOH CATCH COYOTE COYT LYHI I. Y MX RED FOX -- RFOX MARTEH.. . MART MUSKRAT HUSK MI HK HI MR BEAVER RFVR HOLF HOI.F ----- ROLVERINE.. . ROLV OTTER OTTR
ERMINE — FRHN RED SQUIRREL SQRI. - HARE HARE GROUSE GRSE PTARMIGAN.. . PTAR MICE MICE OHLS 8. HANKS
RHAT GAME MANAGEMENT UNIT DID YOU TRAP IN?_ SPECIFIC LOCATION HOR LONG HAVE YOU BEEN TRAPPING THERE? HOR MANY MILES LONG RAS YOUR LINE? R/UT KIND OF TRANSPORTATION DO YOU USE?. IS TRAPPING AN IMPORTANT SOURCE OF INCOME? _OR RECREATION? RHAT HERE TRAPPING CONDITIONS LIKE THIS YEAR?
DID YOU TRAP MORE, SAME, OR LESS THAN LAST YEAR? DURING THE LAST 10 YEARS, HAS THE AMOUNT OF TRAPPING IN YOUR AREA CHANGED NOTICEABLY?. IN RHAT RAY? , RHAT EFFECT DO YOU THINK TRAPPING HAS HAD ON THE FURBEARER POPULATIONS IN YOUR AREA DURING THE LAST 10-20 YEARS?_ RHAT DO YOU THINK IS THE MOST IMPORTANT FUR PROBLEM?.
PLEASE ADD ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS ON THE BACK OF THIS SHEET; I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM YOU.
THANKS MUCH FOR YOUR INPUT 65
Table H.l: Current Abundance of Furbearers
Number of Responses Species Scarce Common Abundant Index*
Coyote 5 0 0 1.00 Lynx 7 1 0 1. 50 Red fox 1 6 2 5.44 Marten 1 9 2 5.33 Muskrat 5 4 0 2.78 Mink 4 6 2 4.33 Beaver 1 4 7 7. 00 Wolf 1 7 3 5.73 Wolverine 4 8 0 3. 67 River otter 2 7 3 5.33
Table H.2: Trends in Furbearer Populations
Number of Responses
Species Declining Stable Increasing Index*
Coyote 1 6 0 4.33 Lynx 2 5 2 5.00 Red fox 1 6 1 5.00 Marten 2 6 3 5.36 Muskrat 1 7 1 5. 00 Mink 2 2 6 6.60 Beaver 0 5 5 7. 00 Wolf 1 8 1 5. 00 Wolverine 2 7 1 4. 60 River otter 2 4 3 5. 44 *Key to index - Scarce = 1-3 Common = 4-6 Abundant = 7-9
Note: Information derived from trapper questionnaire.
See Figure H-l.^ * Old trapper's cabin approximately two miles downriver on the Innoko from Diskaket. Construction was simple small and low for easy heating. 67
17. Law Enforcement
A winter subsistence moose hunt occurred on portions of the Refuge February 1st through the 10th. We were assisted in a law enforcement effort by the Division of Law Enforcement, Fairbanks. Special Agent Mark Webb arrived in McGrath with a Supercub on the 5th. Unfortunately, extreme cold weather settled in for the duration of the hunt and no patrols were possible. Mark departed for Fairbanks on the 9th. Efforts in support of Service policy relating to spring waterfowl hunting enforcement were initiated in April. A radio announcement was aired on local radio station KSKO on the 19th. Personal contacts with village elders, via phone, were conducted at mid-month and village meetings were scheduled for the first week in May. Posters and brochures interpreting Service policy were sent to each village.
Deputy Manager Merritt departed for Grayling and Anvik on the 8th to conduct spring waterfowl hunting enforcement activities. Early breakup conditions on the Yukon River resulted in a lack of hunter access to traditional hunting areas. In addition, open water and bird dispersal resulted in few birds present in known harvest areas. No waterfowl hunting was observed. Village meetings were conducted in both communities to explain the Service's enforcement policy, and to encourage the establishment of household harvest surveys. Twenty people attended the village meetings in Grayling and sixteen in Anvik. Special Agent/Pilot Bill Mellor (Slidell, Louisiana) and Deputy Manager Merritt conducted law enforcement activities on the Refuge during the September moose hunt. This was the second season we have been fortunate^enough to have Agent Mellor's assistance. A special thanks to Special Agent A1 Crane in Fairbanks for making the arrangements. Law enforcement activities were based out of the field cabin and conducted from the 13th through the 23rd. The moose hunting season on the Refuge began on September 5th and ended on the 25th. Fifty eight moose hunters were field checked and six hunting violations were recorded. In addition, four violations pertaining to air taxi operations were processed. Hunting same- day-airborne continues to occur but these are difficult violations to document. Suspected violations currently under investigation include two illegal guide/outfitting operations. The most common violations detected were failure to validate harvest tickets and failure to leave evidence of sex attached to the carcass. The State's new requirement that hunters remove all edible meat from the field prior to moving the antlers is not being adequately communicated or defined in the regulations. Specifically, there is some question regarding what constitutes a field location (kill site, spike camp, main camp, etc.). 68
I. EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES 1. New Construction Due to the remoteness and isolation of the Innoko Refuge, the field headquarters site is viewed as the key to facilitating an efficient field operation. Site development, including new construction, is ongoing. Flood related cleanup and repair set back new construction but by mid-summer we were back on schedule. Several important construction projects were accomplished prior to the end of the field season. These projects, along with other smaller "tasks, kept our logging crew and chainsaw mill "humming" in an effort to keep up with the demand for building materials.
Four new pontoon decks were purchased with Maintenance Management System funds to provide safe, stable docks for float plane operations. One deck was air freighted to McGrath and three to Holy Cross in late May. The decks delivered to Holy Cross required shipping to the field headquarters via a 250 mile barge trip up the Innoko River. Holy Cross resident Jerry Walker attempted to deliver the decks in June, but experienced engine problems near Shageluk and was forced to turn back. Hopes of an early delivery were dashed because, like everyone else in the bush, he was waiting for parts. The three decks were finally delivered in late July along with our annual fuel order. All decks required assembly and floor construction. We can now safely conduct aircraft loading and fueling operations.
A new cache was constructed in the fuel operations area to provide storage for plastic fuel containers, hoses, snowmobile sfeats and other potential 'bear food'. The structure is elevated eight feet above ground and consists of a fully enclosed, weatherproof platform. Other.new construction in the fuel operations area consisted of an elevated platform with access ramp. The purpose of the platform is for storing snowmobiles, generators, pumps and other equipment above the flood water levels we have been experiencing in recent years. <
69
A closer view. < 70
Our field accommodations were improved significantly this year with the addition of a newly constructed shower house. With as many as thirty employees living at the site while working long hours in the field, this amenity was most welcome. The project was completed largely due to the efforts of our volunteers with materials milled on site. Workers can now enjoy a hot shower, in a relatively mosguito-free environment, after a hard day's work. < 71
The lease for our new administrative complex was awarded to Joaquin Construction, McGrath, in October. Work began immediately clearing old buildings from the construction site and conducting necessary survey work. The new facility, which is being built to our specifications, will triple our work space and include a conference room, storage, and a heated garage. At year's end the structure was near completion and we were optimistic that our target date of January 6 for moving in would be accommodated.
3. Maidr Maintenance Several maintenance projects were accomplished throughout the year at the two government-owned residences in McGrath. Walt Szelag and Harold Shipley, Regional Office Engineering, arrived in McGrath on February 11, and remained through the 17th working on both residences. Accomplishments included the installation of a new tub and shower in one residence, and plumbing to convert the electric hot water systems in both residences to heating oil. The hot water conversion involved plumbing the storage tank into the fuel oil-fired boiler used for the furnace systems, and circulating water between the two using a small electric pump. Unfortunately, the conversion required some fine tuning as it was not delivering the quantity of hot water necessary. On April 23rd, Regional Engineer Rudy Berus visited McGrath to resolve the problem. A few minor changes in the wiring and plumbing proved necessary and the system was "on-line" in short order. Several other minor details were also attended to and Rudy's expertise was greatly appreciated. This conversion has resulted in significant utility cost savings. 72
In December, just as ARM Merrltt was leaving town, his wife called the Refuge Office to report that huge icicles were growing out of the bottom of their house.
A drain line had broken and, after water filled the subfloor area, the excess found its way out into the -35 degree air.
74
Water behind the tile in the shower enclosure at Wildlife Biologist Skinner's residence required a major repair job. 75
Severe flooding in May, both in McGrath and on the Refuge, resulted in significant major maintenance challenges. Floodwaters in McGrath dispersed the station supply of fuel which is stored in drums on the Alaska Department of Natural Resources aircraft fuel ramp. Half of our aviation fuel, approximately twenty drums, and a dozen drums containing other fuel types remained missing at year's end. Considerable time was spent retrieving drums and reorganizing the fuel storage area. Flooding on the Refuge set back field operations a minimum of three weeks. All available hands were shipped to the field headquarters site at the end of May to begin flood related cleanup/- repairs, and equipment maintenance.
Thanks to "all available hands", the administrative cabin was soon ship-shape shortly after 40+ inches of flood waters receded. 76
Several major maintenance projects were completed at the field headquarters site during the summer field season. Two coats of log oil were applied to both the administrative cabin and adjacent cache/shop structure. Much of this work was accomplished through the efforts of our four Youth Conservation Corps enrollees. Additional work completed on the shop/cache included varmint proofing the structure with rabbit wire, and constructing and installing a new door and window.
Refuge volunteers and YCC enrollees prepare cabin exterior walls for log oil application.
78
Final shutdown of the field headquarters site was conducted by Wildlife Biologist/Pilot Pete Finley in November. Due to an aggressive program of preparing our field facilities and equipment for winter storage early on, we were better prepared for winter this year than in any previous year. The annual retrieval, inventory, cleaning, and repair of field equipment was complete by October's end thanks in large part to the efforts of Secretary Collins.
4. Equipment Utilization and Replacement
We said goodbye to our Cessna 185 in April. The aircraft was shipped in several large pieces via air freight to Anchorage. The aircraft suffered damages in a crash which occurred in March (see Section E.6, Safety). The plane remained under repair through year's end. We managed to conduct a field season through the assistance of other field stations, Koyukuk/Nowitna in particular, and through the use of a borrowed National Park Service aircraft and temporary OAS pilots.
This Cessna-185, borrowed from the National Park Service, provided much needed aircraft support while our "bird" was being repaired. 79
Small Engine Mechanic Miller and Deputy Manager Merritt transported a new riverboat upriver from McGrath to Takotna on May 21st, and returned via chartered airplane. High spring runoff resulted in the trip being made without having to replace a propeller, an unusual circumstance. Arrangements were made with Takotna resident Dick Newton to transport the boat overland to Ophir on the Innoko River for a float trip to the Refuge. The trip downriver, conducted by Small Engine Mechanic Miller and Volunteers Anderson and Cole, occurred in early June and required three days of travel. Flooding" and subsequent lower water levels complicated spring operations. The station speedboat, houseboat, and 24 foot long freight boat were repositioned and anchored over a relatively deep backwater channel in anticipation of receding floodwaters. All outboard motors submerged in the flood were drained and serviced along with chainsaws, generators and other equipment.
Wildly fluctuating water levels often complicate operations on the Innoko floodplain. We were afloat in a jiffy thanks to a helper winch and roller log. < 80
The fuel storage area hosted several "barrel rolling" parties throughout the summer in an effort to prepare for the annual fuel barge arrival. Delivery of our annual fuel order and new pontoon decks (see Section 1.1) was delayed until late July this year due to mechanical problems. Although water levels in the Innoko River were low, the barge managed to thread through the sandbars and reached the field headquarters with a minimum of problems. • 81
After up to eight years of hard service, some of our equipment, especially outboard motors, was in need of replacement. Fourteen Mossberg Model 500 shotguns were received and field tested for reliability in early June. No problems were encountered. Our old shotguns, Winchester 1200s, were considered unreliable for bear protection and excessed. Other field equipment purchased in preparation for the field season included several new outboard motors, tents, sleeping bags and miscellaneous other gear. Our hope is to institute a cyclical replacement program to systematically replace gear before major repairs become frequent.
5. Communications Systems This station has never had reliable, refuge-wide, communications. The problem has been diagnosed by several good technicians who all agree on the same solution: replacement. The equipment installed for us may have been the result of the lowest bid, but is not designed to withstand the environmental factors which occur on mountain tops in Alaska. As part of our budget process for FY-92, we submitted an MMS package for complete replacement at an estimated cost of $50,000. Given the safety implications involved, we are confident that the package will be approved.
Deputy Manager Merritt visited the radio repeater site in the Beaver Mountains on May 22nd. New batteries were installed and both transceivers were tested. One unit in need of repair was retrieved and shipped to Anchorage. The repaired unit was reinstalled on site in early June. The work was facilitated by the Alaska Department of Natural Resources which provided helicopter access to the site on several occasions. In addition, their radio technician assisted in troubleshooting our system.
Although our communications system was working prior to major field work commencement, the quality of reception remained poor. The situation was corrected, temporarily, by an Alaska Radio Inc. Technician accompanied by RO Telecommunications Manager Tim Miller in mid-June. As a result of their efforts, we had both radio and telephone patch communications for approximately three days. The system functioned intermittently through the remainder of the year and only with constant attention. All portable radios were tested, frequency programmed, and repaired prior to the field season. Two portable base station units were purchased along with antenna and solar/battery systems for base camp operation. These units are more powerful than the hand held units and provide good communications between camps and workers in the field. 82
J. OTHER ITEMS 3. Credits
Sections A, B, E.2-7, H, and I were prepared by ARM Merritt. RM Feiger covered sections C, D, E.l, E.8, J and K. WB Skinner wrote Sections F and G.l-5, 7-10, and 12-17. Typing and assembling were done by Secretary Collins. Photos were contributed by Secretary Collins, and volunteers Medeiros, Mallek and Gerber.
K. FEEDBACK 1. General Over the past few years my feedback contributions have been mostly negative, and since the conditions which prompted the comments have not changed, obviously also unproductive. With this in mind, I had about decided to skip this section this year until it was obvious that this would be my last opportunity before retirement. A colleague remarked that it was nice that I could leave while still feeling good about the job and the organization and it occurred to me that he was right on the money. Sometimes we seem to focus on what is not right with our job because this is where our effort is needed. The danger of course is that we forget that there is much more that is positive. i Almost without exception Service employees have a commitment to the resource greater than any other agency I'm aware of. The Service itself, while not immune from outside pressures, is better known for not passing such pressures to the field. I could recount numerous instances of the Service and her employees standing tall in defense of the resource. Thousands of times I've observed colleagues putting in extra time, spending their own money, doing work not theirs to do, all to get the job done. There is no better proof of the value of our work than the lengths Service employees will go to get it done. I've heard this called "personal sacrifice" but how can you call it that when we consider it a privilege instead? Yes, I am leaving with good feelings. It has been a wonderful career. I've met and worked with the best people doing the best of jobs and I know I'm leaving refuges in good hands.
Would I do it again? You beti Only next time, I'd do it even better. No caption necessary!!
INFORMATION PACKET UB..Northern Harrier UR..Hairy Woodpecker *UR..Hoary Redpoll UB..Osprey RBW.Gyrfalcon CR..Common Redpoll RM..Peregrine Falcon *RM..Merlin *UB..American Kestrel
KEY
Abundance U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Alaskan Region C Common 1011 East Tudor Road
Status For more information, contact:
B Breeding only in summer Refuge Manager R Resident. Year-aroundf INNOKO NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE breeding Box 69 W Winter resident. McGrath, Alaska 99627 Non-breeding M Migrant Phone: (907) 524-3251 V Vagrant
Updated March 1991
f 4 BIRDS OF THE CR..Spruce Grouse CB..Alder Flycatcher INNOKO NATIONAL UR_. .Ruffed Grouse UB..Western Wood-peewee WILDLIFE REFUGE UB..Sharp-tailed Grouse UB..Olive-sided Flycatcher UR..Willow Ptarmigan UB..Say's Phoebe UB..Common Loon UB..Sandhill Crane *UM..Horned Lark CB..Arctic Loon UM..Black-bellied Plover CB..Violet-green Swallow CB..Red-throated Loon UB..Lesser Golden Plover CB..Tree Swallow CB..Red-necked Grebe CB..Semipalmated Plover cb..Bank Swallow UB..Horned Grebe UB..Greater Yellowlegs UB..Cliff Swallow UB..Tundra Swan CB..Lesser Yellowlegs CR..Gray Jay UB..Trumpeter Swan CB..Solitary Sandpiper CR..Raven CB..Canada Goose *UB..Wandering Tattler CR..Boreal Chickadee CB..White-fronted Goose UB..Whimbrel *RR..Siberian Titt RM..Snow Goose CB..Hudsonian Godwit CR..Black-capped Chickadee CB..Mallard RV..Marbled Godwit *CB..Arctic Warbler CB..Pintail *UM..Ruddy Turnstone CB..American Robin CB..Green-winged Teal CB..Spotted Sandpiper CB..Varied Thrush UB..Blue-winged Teal UB..Semipalmated Sandpiper UB..Hermit Thrush CB..American Wigeon CB..Pectoral Sandpiper UB..Swainson's Thrush UV..Eurasian Wigeon CB..Least Sandpiper CB..Gray-cheeked Thrush CB..Northern Shoveler CB..Long-billed Dowitcher CB..Ruby-crowned Kinglet RB..Canvasback CB..Common Snipe *UB..Water Pipit RB..Redhead CB..Red-necked Phalarope CB..Bohemian Waxwing RB..Ring-necked Duck UB..Parasitic Jaeger UB..Northern Shrike CB..Greater Scaup UB..Long-tailed Jaeger CB..Orange-crowned Warbler CB..Lesser Scaup RV..Pomarine Jaeger CB..Yellow Warbler CB..Common Goldeneye UM..Herring Gull CB..Yellow-rumped Warbler CB..Barrow/s Goldeneye UB..Glaucous Gull UB..Blackpoll Warbler UB..Bufflehead UB..Glaucous-winged Gull CB..Northern Waterthrush UB..Oldsquaw CB..Mew Gull CB..Wilson's Warbler UB..Harlequin Duck CB..Bonaparte's Gull CB..Tree Sparrow UB..White-winged Scoter CB..Arctic Tern CB..White-crowned Sparrow CB..Surf Scoter UB..Great Horned Owl UB..Fox Sparrow CB..Black Scoter RMW.Snowy Owl UB..Lincoln Sparrow UB..Red-breasted Merganser CB..Northern Hawk Owl UB..Chipping Sparrow *RV..Common Merganser UB..Great Gray Owl CB..Savannah Sparrow UB..Northern Goshawk CB..Short-eared Owl *UB..Golden-crowned Sparrow UB..Swainson's Hawk *UB..Boreal Owl CB..Dark-eyed Junco UB..Sharp-shinned Hawk CB..Belted Kingfisher *CM..Lapland Longspur CB..Red-tailed Hawk UR..Northern Flicker UM..Snow Bunting UB..Rough-legged Hawk UR..Downy Woodpecker CB..Rusty Blackbird UB..Golden Eagle UR..Three-toed Woodpecker UR..Pine Grosbeak UB..Bald Eagle UR..Black-backed Woodpecker UR..White-winged Crossbill UNITED -STATES DEPARTMENT ^OF THE INTERIOR U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE INNOKO NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE BOX 69 MCGRATH, ALASKA 99627 Phone (907) 524-3251 Fax phone 524-3141
ESTABLISHMENT: The Innoko National Wildlife Refuge was established on December 2, 1980, as part of the "Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act" (ANILCA). With this act, Congress established nine new Alaska refuges and made additions to seven existing refuges. A unique situation exists in Alaska which this Act took advantage of: whereas most refuges in the Lower '48 were established to protect the few remaining acres of good wildlife habitat or to create habitat in areas where it once existed, Alaska refuges cover millions of acres of wildlands. No State or private land was withdrawn to create these refuges. Instead, those federal lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) which were considered to have high wildlife values were transferred to the Fish and Wildlife Service for management as National Wildlife Refuges.
OBJECTIVES: The Innoko Refuge was established: 1) to conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their natural diversity; 2) to fulfill international treaty obligations of the United States with respect to fish and wildlife and their habitat; 3) to provide, in a manner consistent with the above, the opportunity for continued subsistence uses by local residents; and 4) to insure water quality and quantity.
DESCRIPTION: The Innoko National Wildlife Refuge encompasses approximately 3.85 million acres. The refuge is bordered on the west by the Yukon River, on the north by the Khotol Hills, and on the east and south by the Kuskokwim Mountains. It includes the middle portion of the Innoko River and its drainages. About one half of the Refuge consists of black spruce muskeg^ wet meadow and sedge or horsetail marsh. There are many lakes and ponds of varying sizes. The other half of the Refuge is mostly spruce and birch covered hills. Most of these hills do not exceed one thousand feet. The well-drained permafrost-free slopes host stands of white spruce, paper birch and aspen.
The poorly drained areas and northern exposed slopes are usually covered with stunted black spruce woodland with an understory of lichens, mosses and shrubs. The Yukon River is vegetated on its banks and islands with a mixture of white spruce, paper birch, cottonwood and aspen. Willow and alder are present along most rivers and streams and bordering many wet meadows and marshes.
WILDLIFE: The extensive wetlands of the Innoko Refuge provide habitat each year for well over 100,000 waterfowl and shorebirds. This is an important nesting area for white-fronted and lesser Canada geese, pintail, widgeon, shoveler, scaup, scoters, red-necked grebes, lesser yellowlegs and Hudsonian godwits. This is also a very important area for moose, black bears and wolves. Beaver are very numerous with lodges common on all rivers and streams and most lakes, even in the muskeg areas where their normal food is scarce. Other fur- bearers include marten, lynx, red fox, river otter and wolverine. Caribou use the Refuge, particularly in late winter when deep snow moves them down from the mountains. The fishery resource of the Refuge has not been thoroughly investigated as yet. Sheefish, whitefish, grayling, chum salmon, and northern pike are found in the rivers, and northern pike and blackfish in some lakes (northern pike are found in all waters save those isolated shallow lakes which freeze to the bottom in winter). Perhaps the most common and abundant wildlife on the refuge is the mosquito. No binoculars will be needed to locate them!
PUBLIC USE: Although the Refuge is open to public use, it does not receive a great number of visitors. Any camping or backpacking is strictly primitive as no facilities or prepared trails exist, or are .planned. A few trappers from the Yukon River villages use the Refuge in winter, and some bird hunting takes place in the fall by subsistence users. Presently, however, the greatest use of this Refuge is in September by moose hunters. Moose on the Innoko River are relatively abundant and many local and non-local people come here to hunt. Many of these hunters are from Anchorage or the Lower M8, although a majority are from mid-Yukon villages and the regional centers of Bethel, Galena and McGrath. Those who wish to visit the Refuge can get there by chartered aircraft out of Anchorage, McGrath, Bethel or Galena. (Access in summer is by float-plane, and in winter by ski- equipped airplane). McGrath is the most common access location for those visiting the Refuge, or for someone coming from Anchorage. Accommodations are available in McGrath (see below) and reservations should be made in advance. The following information may be of assistance to you:
Lodgings in McGrath
TAKUSKO HOUSE ROSA'S RIVERSIDE CAFE & ROOMS Box 11 Box 274 McGrath, Alaska 99627 McGrath, AK 99627 Phone (907) 524-3198 Phone (907) 524-3666 CAROLINE'S KITCHEN AND ROOMS Box 4 5 McGrath, AK 99627 Phone (907) 524-3466 Airline Service from Anchorage-McGrath - Passenger
PEN-AIR MARKAIR EXPRESS Metroliner, 19 passenger Beechcraft, 19 passenger turbo-prop aircraft turbo-prop aircraft 1 fit. daily Mon-Sat 2 fits daily Mon-Sat 1 fit Sunday Phone: (907) 524-3777 Phone: (907) 524-3923 Toll free: 800-448-4226 800-478-0800 Airline Service from Anchorage-McGrath - Freight
NORTHERN AIR CARGO MARKAIR Anchorage - 243-3331 Anchorage 266-6224 McGrath - 524-3778 McGrath - 524-3923
Local Air Taxi Charter Service 45 WOOD'S AIR SERVICE MarkAir Express Bob Woods, Pilot c/o Airline Services Box 258 Box 211 McGrath, Alaska 99627 McGrath, AK 99627 (907) 524-3525 (907) 524-3340 Owner: Warren Woods Ak. toll free 800-478-3923 Box 840 Palmer, AK 99745 Phone (907) 745-4831 Locally Based Guide
Innoko River Guide & Outfitters (Fishing, float trips, Attn: Robert Magnuson photography, Summer/Fall. Box 111 Cessna 185 on floats, McGrath, AK 995627 Supercub w/tundra tires, Phone: 524-3866 boats, motors, river rafts. If you are planning to camp on the Refuge, you should be prepared for the environment. Much of the Refuge that is accessible by aircraft or boat is in low-lying marsh or muskeg areas. Walking in these areas is made easier and more comfortable by using waterproof, preferably hip length, boots. Anticipate rain at any time during spring, summer or fall and carry rain gear. Dress appropriately for the weather and carry spare clothing. High temperatures may go over 80 degrees F. in the summer months, although 60 and 70 degrees are more common. A surprise freeze could happen even in the summer, particularly in June or August, so come prepared. During the moose season in September, expect cold, wet weather and hope for milder weather. Winters are cold - the temperatures may drop to -50 to -60 degrees. For more particular climate information, check with the Refuge Manager.
Be sure to bring a tent and a warm sleeping bag. Although you may prefer a gas or propane camp stove, there is plenty of wood in most places. It is permissible to use any dead and down wood, or to cut any trees of less than three inches. In this regard, keep in mind the black spruce which grows in the muskeg areas and on permafrost soils grows very slowly. It is better to cut firewood in areas where it is most dense and will be naturally replaced sooner. A lantern will not be necessary from May through July as the daylight is nearly constant, with only a short twilight between sunset and sunrise. Be sure to boil all drinking water as giardia may be present. There are purifying water pumps on the market which will also eliminate this organism. Carry a good first-aid kit and plfenty of mosguito repellent. Bears are plentiful and, though few incidents have occurred, they are always to be considered dangerous. Cow moose with calves can also be dangerous and should be avoided. Most important of all, make sure someone knows where you are and when you are to come out. It would be appreciated if you checked with the Refuge Manager on your way in and out of the Refuge area. Topographic maps can be obtained from any U.S. Geological Survey Office. At the 1:250,000 scale, five maps will cover the Refuge. They are: Ophir, Holy Cross, Iditarod, and Unalakleet for the lower unit and Nulato for the upper unit. Maps are also available at a scale of one inch to the mile.
Refuoe Staff: The Refuge staff is headquartered in McGrath, approximately seventy air miles from the Refuge, and consists of a Refuge Manager, Assistant Refuge Manager, Wildlife Biologist, Pilot and Secretary. The staff is bolstered during the summer by volunteers and seasonal employees to assist with biological work on the Refuge. The Refuge staff is responsible for management of the Refuge, which includes: enforcement of game laws, particularly during the moose season; issuing permits for special uses on the Refuge such as cutting house logs, or commercial activities like oil exploration; inventorying and monitoring wildlife populations; and assisting the public in their use of the Refuge. The waterfowl population on the Refuge is a very important aspect of our management since the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-is responsible for these migratory birds and there is a great public demand for hunting and observing them. The staff spends much of the summer censusing the ducks and geese on the Refuge to estimate their population and production. These numbers help in setting hunting regulations from Alaska to Mexico. In fact, most of the Lower '48 states are on the migration route or serve as wintering grounds for waterfowl that breed in Alaska.
The Refuge staff will be glad to assist you with any additional information you may need. Please feel free to write or telephone. (2/93)