University of Denver Digital Commons @ DU
Geography and the Environment: Graduate Student Capstones Department of Geography and the Environment
12-2013
Spatial Relationships, Movements, and Habitat Associations of Introduced “Non-Native” Elk Populations on Etolin and Zarembo Islands, Alaska
Jean S. Davidson
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/geog_ms_capstone
Part of the Geographic Information Sciences Commons, and the Physical and Environmental Geography Commons
Recommended Citation Davidson, Jean S., "Spatial Relationships, Movements, and Habitat Associations of Introduced “Non- Native” Elk Populations on Etolin and Zarembo Islands, Alaska" (2013). Geography and the Environment: Graduate Student Capstones. 48. https://digitalcommons.du.edu/geog_ms_capstone/48
This Capstone is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Geography and the Environment at Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Geography and the Environment: Graduate Student Capstones by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ DU. For more information, please contact [email protected],[email protected]. SPATIAL RELATIONSHIPS, MOVEMENTS, AND HABITAT ASSOCIATIONS OF INTRODUCED “NON- NATIVE” ELK POPULATIONS ON ETOLIN AND ZAREMBO ISLANDS, ALASKA
______
A C apston e Project
Presented to
the Faculty of Natural Sciences and M athem atics
University of Denver
______
In Partial Fu lfillm en t
of the Requirem ents for the Degree
M aster of S cien ce
______
by
Jean S. Davidson
Decem ber 2013
Advisor: Steven R. H ick D a v id so n - ii
© Copyright by Jean S. Davidson 2013
All Rights Reserved
D a v id so n - iii
Author: Jean S. Davidson
T it le : S p a t ia l R e lation sh ips, M ovem en ts, an d H abitat A ssociation s of Introduced “Non- Native” Elk Populations on Etolin and Zarem bo Islands, A la s k a
Advisor: Steven R. Hick
Degree Date: June 2014
A b s tra c t
Etolin and Roosevelt Elk w ere introduced to A fognak Island, A laska in
1929 (State of Alaska, 2013). Due to the success of that introduction,
Roosevelt Elk and Rocky Mountain Elk were subsequently introduced to
Z arem bo and Etolin Islands in Southeast Alaska in 1987. Due to the environm ent of Southeast Alaska, the ability to determ ine m ovem ents, trends, and h abitat preferences are limited. In support of the Alaska
Departm ent of Fish and G am e (A D F& G ), th is proje ct an alyze s th e h abitat preferences of the elk based upon data from global positionin g system s.
Locational data is analyzed for proximity to m anaged lands and con siders proxim ity to fresh w ater and slope. Findings w ill be incorporated into
A D F & G ’s long term m anagem ent of the elk and the m anaged areas.
D a v id so n - iv
Acknow ledgem ents
I w ould like to thank M r. R ichard Low ell of th e Alaska Departm ent of
Fish an d G am e for h is assistan ce an d gu idan ce th rou gh th is process. I would also wish to thank Mr. Robert Davidson for his insight and patience. D a v id so n - v
Table of Contents
Chapter One: In tro d u c tio n ...... 1
Background ...... 1
E lk ...... 3
Environm ent ...... 5
Managed and Unm anaged Lands...... 8
Geographic Inform ation System s ...... 10
Chapter Tw o: Design and Im plem entation ...... 12
Global Positioning System s ...... 12
Analysis Methodology ...... 12
Chapter Three: Results ...... 16
E to lin Is la n d ...... 16
Zarem bo Island...... 49
Chapter Four: Discussion ...... 76
D e n s ity ...... 76
Fresh W ater ...... 77
S lo p e ...... 78
M anaged Lands ...... 79
Chapter Five: Summary ...... 81
References ...... 82
B ib lio g ra p h y ...... 86
Table of Figures D a v id so n - vi
Figure 1. Case Study Location and Orientation ...... 7 Figure 2. Etolin Island, A laska Subset A reas ...... 17 Figure 3. Etolin Island, Elk Density Locations for 2008 to 2011...... 18 Figure 4. Etolin Island, Elk D ensity: A utum nal Equinox to W inter S olstice ...... 19 Figure 5. Etolin Island, Elk D ensity: R utting Locations ...... 20 Figure 6. Etolin Island, Elk D ensity: W inter S olstice to V ernal Equinox ...... 21 Figure 7. Etolin Island, E lk Density: Vernal Equinox to Sum m er Solstice ...... 22 Figure 8. Etolin Island, Elk D ensity: Calving Locations ...... 23 Figure 9.Etolin Island, Elk Density: Sum m er Solstice to Autum nal Equinox ...... 24 Figure 10. Etolin Island, Elk Locations in Relation to Fresh W ater...... 26 Figure 11. Etolin Island, Elk Locations in Relation to Fresh W ater, S ubset 1 ...... 27 Figure 12. Etolin Island, Elk Locations in R elation to Fresh W ater, S ubset 2 ...... 28 Figure 13. Etolin Island, Elk Locations in R elation to Fresh W a te r, S u bs e t 3 ...... 29 Figure 14. Etolin Island, Elk Locations in Relation to Fresh W ater, S ubset 4 ...... 30 Figure 15. Etolin Island, Elk Locations in Relation to Fresh W ater, S ubset 5 ...... 31 Figure 16. Etolin Island, Elk Locations in Relation to Fresh W ater, S ubset 6 ...... 32 Figure 17. Etolin Island, Elk Locations on S pecified S lope Percentages ...... 34 F ig u re 1 8. Etolin Island, Elk Locations on S pecified S lope Percentages, S ubset 1 .... 35 Figure 19. Etolin Island, Elk Locations on S pecified S lope Percentages, Subset 2 .... 36 Figure 20. Etolin Island, Elk Locations on S pecified S lope Percentages, S ubset 3 .... 37 Figure 21. Etolin Island, Elk Locations on S pecified S lope Percentages, S ubset 4 .... 38 Figure 22. Etolin Island, Elk Locations on S pecified S lope Percentages, S ubset 5 .... 39 Figure 23. Etolin Island, Elk Locations on S pecified S lope Percentages, S ubset 6 .... 40 Figure 24. Etolin Island, Elk Locations in Relation to M anaged Lands ...... 42 Figure 25. Etolin Island, Elk Locations in Relation to M anaged Lands, S ubset 1 ...... 43 Figure 26. Etolin Island, Elk Locations in Relation to M anaged Lands, S ubset 2 ...... 44 Figure 27. Etolin Island, Elk Locations in Relation to M anaged Lands, S ubset 3 ...... 45 Figure 28. Etolin Island, Elk Locations in Relation to M anaged Lands, S ubset 4 ...... 46 Figure 29. Etolin Island, Elk Locations in R elation to Managed Lands, Subset 5 ...... 47 Figure 30. Etolin Island, Elk Locations in Relation to M anaged Lands, S ubset 6 ...... 48 Figure 31. Zarem bo Island, Subset Areas...... 50 Figure 32. Zarem bo Island, Elk Density Locations for 2008 and 2009 ...... 51 Figu re 3 3 . Z arem bo Island, Elk Density Locations: Autumnal Equinox to W inter S o ls tic e ...... 52 Figure 34. Zarem bo Island, Elk D ensity Rutting Locations ...... 53 Figure 35. Zarem bo Island, Elk Density Locations: W inter Solstice to Vernal Equinox ...... 54 Figure 36. Zarem bo Island, Elk Density Locations: Vernal Equinox to Sum m er S o ls tic e ...... 55 D a v id so n - v ii
Figure 37. Zarem bo Island, Elk D ensity Calving Locations ...... 56 Figure 38. Zarem bo Island, Elk Density Locations: Sum m er Solstice to Autum nal Equinox ...... 57 Figure 39. Z arem bo Island, Elk Locations in Relation to Fresh W ater ...... 59 Figure 40. Z arem bo Island, Elk Locations in Relation to Fresh W ater, S ubset 1 ...... 60 Figure 41. Z arem bo Island, Elk Locations in Relation to Fresh W ater, S ubset 2 ...... 61 Figure 42. Z arem bo Island, Elk Locations in Relation to Fresh W ater, S ubset 3 ...... 62 Figure 43. Z arem bo Island, Elk Locations in Relation to Fresh W ater, S ubset 4 ...... 63 Figure 44. Zarem bo Island, Elk Locations on Sp ecified Slope Percentage ...... 65 Figure 45. Zarembo Island, Elk Locations on Specified Slope Percentage, Subset 1 66 Figure 46. Zarembo Island, Elk Locations on Specified Slope Percentage, Subset 2 67 Figure 47. Zarembo Island, Elk Locations on Specified Slope Percentage, Subset 3 68 Figure 48. Zarembo Island, Elk Locations on Specified Slope Percentage, Subset 4 69 F ig u re 4 9. Zarem bo Island, Elk Locations in Relation to Managed Lands ...... 71 Figure 50. Zarem bo Island, Elk Locations in Relation to M anaged Lands, Subset 1 . 72 Figure 51. Zarem bo Island, Elk Locations in Relation to Managed Lands, Subset 2 . 73 Figure 52. Zarem bo Island, Elk Locations in Relation to Managed Lands, Subset 3 . 74 Figure 53. Zarem bo Island, Elk Locations in Relation to Managed Lands, Subset 4 . 75
Table of Tables
Table 1. Data Sources ...... 13 Table 2. Sum m ary of Dates ...... 14 Table 3. Etolin Island, Elk Preference to Proxim ity to S tream s ...... 25 Table 4. Etolin Island, Elk Preference to Slope Percentage ...... 33 Table 5. Etolin Island, Elk Preference to Managed and Unm anaged Lands ...... 41 Table 6. Zarem bo Island, Elk Preference to Proximity to Stream s ...... 58 Table 7. Zarem bo Island, Elk Preference to Slope Percentage ...... 64 Table 8. Z arem bo Island, Elk P reference to Managed and Unm anaged Lands ...... 70
D a v id so n - 1
Chapter One: Introduction
Background In 1 9 2 9 , elk w ere su ccessfully introdu ced to A fogn ak Islan d, A laska.
F ift y - six years later, the Alaska State Legislature directed the Alaska
D e partm e n t of Fish an d G am e (A D F& G ) to tran splan t e lk to “suitable” locations w ithin A laska (State of Alaska, 2013). To m eet these legal requirem ents, the ADF&G conducted analysis to determ ine potential locations for transplant and type of elk. Roosevelt elk were chosen due to the habitat sim ilarity of S ou th e ast Alask a an d th e ir tradition al habitat of th e
O regon and W ashington coastal region (Alaska Department of Fish and
Gam e, 1985).
Prior to 1 9 8 7 , th e re w e re six failed atte m pts to introdu ce e lk to
Southeast Alaska, specifically Etolin and Z arem bo Islan ds (Alaska
Departm ent of Fish and G am e Division of W ildlife Conservation, 2011). In
1987, 33 Roosevelt elk and 17 Rocky M ountain elk were m oved from the
Elkhorn W ildlife M anagem ent Area , O regon to Etolin and Zarem bo Islan ds
(L o w e ll, R ., B e ie r, L ., & K o ch , C ., 2009). Rocky Mountain elk were chosen due to the lim ited num bers of R oosevelt elk available. The initial losses of the transplanted elk were high; however the population stabilized w it h in 18 m o n th s o f re le a se (L o w e ll, R ., B e ie r, L ., & K o ch , C ., 2 0 0 9 ). In 1994, the
D a v id so n - 2
A D F& G e stim ate d th e elk popu lation to be 1 0 0 to 1 2 5 an im als, prior to th e last radio collar failing (Low ell, R ., B eier, L., & K och, C ., 2009). S ince 1994, additional anim als have been collared w ith G lobal Positioning System ( G PS) tran sm ittin g devices.
Etolin and Zarem bo Islands are located in G am e M anagem ent Unit 3
(G M U - 3), within the ADF&G gam e m anagem ent stru ctu re (A laska
Departm ent of Fish and G am e Division of W ildlife Conservation, 2011). The goal of G M U- 3, based on the 1999 Draft Southeast Alaska Elk M anagem ent
P la n , are: to m anage the area for hunting opportunities, m aintain elk populations on Etolin and Zarem bo Is la n d s b e lo w c a r r y in g ca p a c it y , lim it t h e spread of elk to adjoining islands and m ainland, and m aintain post- h arv e st ratio of 25- 30 bulls to 100 cows (Alaska Departm ent of Fish and G am e
D ivision of W ildlife Conservation, 2011). In order to m eet these objectives, the ADF&G needs to m onitor elk activities on Etolin and Z arem bo Islan ds.
Th e goal of th is case stu dy is to assist th e ADF& G in determ ining elk m ovem ents by answering the following questions:
• Is there an elk habitat preference for m anaged or unm anaged land? • Do the elk show a preference for specific locations based upon the season ? • Do the elk have a preferred calving lo c a t io n ? • Is there a preference between elk location and terrain factors, such as slope, availability to fresh w ater , and proximity to m anaged lands?
D a v id so n - 3
E lk According to the O regon W ild (2013), Roosevelt elk bulls have an average w e ig h t between 700 and 1, 100 pounds while cows average between
575 and 625 pounds. The initial losses of the transplanted elk were high m ost likely due to predation and environm ental factors (Alaska Departm ent of Fish and G am e Division of W ildlife Conservation, 2011).
There has been num erous studies regarding habitat, feeding habits, and influences of hum an impact on transplanted elk (Bowyer, 1981;
Schwartz, II & Mitchell, 1945; Bettinger, Boston, & Sessions, 1998; Kneib,
Knauer, & Kuchenhoff, 2009; Niederleitner, 1987; Gates and Hudson, 1981;
S kovlin, 1982). This proposal covers a sam pling of the literature available to draw upon for study.
According to Kneib, Knauer, & Kuchenhoff (2009), one of the m ost crucial requirem ents of the conservation and m anagem ent of wildlife is the understanding of the habitat in which they live in. S u it a b le h a b it a t fo r e lk requires five key com ponents in order to survive in a specific area or region: food, vegetative cover to provide w arm th, vegetative cover for secu rity, space and an available w ate r source (N iederleitner, 1987). W ithin the food com ponent, there are specific nutritional requirem ents that can only be found in the taxa grasses fam ily, forbs and shrubs (Niederleitner, 1987;
D a v id so n - 4
Kufeld, 1973). Kufeld (1973) identified and docum ented 170 specific grasses, shrubs, and forbs that elk have known to subsist on; however, e lk have been known to change diets depending upon the region that they are located in due to environm ental factors such as snow, rainfall, and availability for brow sing (N iederleitner, 1987).
In addition to understanding the food source, thermal issues are an im portant consideration for elk (N iederleitner, 1987). Therm al considerations include the ability to provide w arm th as w ell as cover for security (Niederleitner, 1987). Studies have shown that elk prefer dense timbered areas and tend to bed dow n at night fa c in g sou th in order to ensure warmth (Niederleitner, 1987; Gates and Hudson, 1981; Skovlin,
1982). These therm al issues m ay be one of the reasons why elk have the te n dency to return to the sam e wintering areas; whether there is shortage of food supply or not in that area (Schwartz, II & Mitchell, 1945). Das (1998) and Raym er (2000) su ggest th at th e fore st itse lf alon g w ith th e tim be r m anagem ent practices have an impact on w ildlife.
M odels have been developed to analyze the habitat of elk (Posillico,
Meriggi, Pagnin, Lovari, & Russo, 2004; Cooper & Millspaugh, 1999;
Railsback & Harvey, 2002; Bettinger, Boston & Sessions, 1998). One m ethod is to develop habitat selection based upon grid cells (Posillico,
D a v id so n - 5
M e r ig g i, P a g n in , L o v a r i, & R u s s o , 2 0 0 4 ) , w h ile a s e c o n d m o d e l u s e s a m ultinom ial logit m odel (Cooper & M illspaugh, 1999). A third m odel w as developed by Railsback and Harvey (2002) to predict how animals select a specific h abitat is determ ined by food source and m ortality risks. The fourth m odel, developed by Bettinger, Boston and Sessions (1998) developed the h abitat e ffe ctive n e ss m ode l (H E I) for rating pote n tial habitat for elk based upon habitat cover, size and space of foraging. The HEI m odel accounts for the increased m ovem ent of the Alaska Elk’s tendency to spend time feeding and m oving during the sunrise and sunset periods and the decreased m ov e m e n t at other times of the day (Bowyer, 1981) potentially due to other habitat factors. A fifth m odel developed by Brown, Schreier, Thom pson, and
Vertinsky (1993) developed criteria based upon suitability ; s u it a b ilit y is determ ined by e le v a t io n , s lo p e , s lo p e p o s it ion , dom inate species of overstory coverage, h eigh t class an d crow n closu re class. U n like th e H E I m odel, the suitability m odel by Brow n, et al (1993) does not account for the increased m ovem ent of elk. Another difference between the HEI m odel and th e su itability m odel is that the H EI m odel considers changes in terrain
(Brown, et al, 1993)
Environm ent Etolin and Zarem bo Islands are located in th e Ton gass N ation al Fore st in Southeastern Alaska. The Tongass National Forest is the largest national
D a v id so n - 6 fo re s t in t h e U n ited S tate s an d is approxim ately the size of W est V irginia
(United States Forest Service, 2012). The Ton gass N ation al Forest is a tem perate rain forest w ith average precipitation accum ulation of 1 .5 m eters a year (W eather.com , 2013). The average tem peratures for this region range from - 4 ° C in th e w inte r to 18° C in the sum m er m onths (W eather.com ,
2012). The significant am ount of rain and cloud cover in the region prevents long term observations of w ildlife. F ig u re 1 de picts th e stu dy are as.
D a v id so n - 7
F ig u re 1 . Case Study Location and O rientation
Etolin and Zarem bo I s la n d s con sists of un even - aged old grow th forests, forested m u skeg an d forest scru bs (K irch h off, M . & Larsen , D .,
D a v id so n - 8
1998). W estern Hem lock, Sitka Spruce, Alaska Cedar, and W estern Red
Cedar provide overstory coverage for the elk and other wildlife (Kirchhoff, M .
& Larsen, D., 1998). The underbrush provides foliage which includes: tall shrubs, low grow ing evergreen plants, forbs, and ferns (Kirchhoff, M. &
Larsen, D., 1998). Due to the thick canopy and dense vegetation, visual observation of elk m ovem ent is lim ite d (Alaska Departm ent of Fish and
G am e Division of W ildlife Conservation, 2011).
Both Etolin and Zarem bo Islan ds have w ildlife that m ay be considered predatory tow ard the transplanted elk. Based upon fieldwork conducted by
A D F& G , e x act predation le v e ls are unknown; however wolves appear to be the m ajor predator in the area (Alaska departm ent of Fish and G am e
D ivision of W ildlife Conservation, 2011 ). Brow n bears, black bears and w olves have been identified on Etolin I slan d. In com parison , o n ly w o lv e s and black bears have been id e n t ifie d on Zarem bo Island (Alaska departm ent of Fish and G am e Division of W ildlife Conservation, 2011).
M anaged and U nm anaged Lands The U.S. Forest Service developed an adaptive timber harvesting plan in 1979, which includes Etolin and Zarem bo Islands (U nited States Forest
S ervice, 20 1 2 ). D as (1 9 9 8 ) states th at it is cru cial for m an agem en t plan s to include non- tim ber and intangible aspects, i.e. w ildlife, in the planning and
D a v id so n - 9 m an aging of th e forest. D as (1 9 9 8 ) con tinu es to discu ss the possibility of the harvest patch size m ay positively im pact the w ildlife based upon the spatial configuration.
Both Etolin and Zarem bo Islan ds have been harvested for timber; however the impact between the two islands is very different (Blejwas,
Low ell, & Porter, 2007). Zarem bo Is la n d h as an exten sive road system an d oth er basic infrastru ctu res such as a dock an d bu n k hou se (B lejw as, Low ell,
& Porte r, 2 0 0 7 ). In con trast, E tolin Is la n d does not have a road system or any other perm anent infrastructure (B le jw a s, L o w e ll, & P o rte r, 2 0 0 7 ).
A ccording to th e cu rre n t tim be r h arv e st plan , 30,000 acres are scheduled to be harvested on Etolin Island; which m ay influence the distribution of the elk
(Alaska Departm ent of Fish and G am e Division of W ildlife Conser v a t io n ,
2011). The ADF&G (1985) has hypothesized harvested areas of 25 years in age or less would be beneficial to elk based upon the size and energy the a n im a l w o u ld e x p e n d in com parison to the energy usage of the snow and slash regions of Etolin and Zarem bo Islan ds.
In order for the U .S. Forest S ervice to coordinate efforts of tim ber m anagem ent on Etolin and Zarem bo Islands, understanding of the elk h abitat is n ecessary for effective m anagem ent of this species ( L o w e ll, B e ie r
& Koch, 2012). Niederleitner (1987) found that one of the consequences of
D a v id so n - 10 m ultiple resource m anagem ent p la n s has been the coordination between the m ultiple agencies responsible for habitat, w ildlife , and timber harvesting.
According to Das (1998), a m anagem ent plan based upon timber a n d w ild life is essential. The coordination between ADF&G and the U.S. Forest Service w ill assist in the long term m anagem ent of the Tongass N ational Forest
(Store & Jokimaki, 2003).
G eographic Inform ation System s G eographic Inform ation Scien ce (G IS c ) provides tools (geographic inform ation system s - G IS ) and m ethodologies to assist m an age m e n t in developing strate gies to resolve n atu ral resou rce con flicts (B row n , S ch reier,
Thom pson, & Vertinsky, 1993). Brown, et al (1993) em ployed the G IS to generate overlays, location m aps, and determine the environm ent. The flexibility of a G IS in conjunction w ith sim ulation m odeling provides an innovation m ethodology as w ell as a m ethod to exam ine potential conflicts
(Brown, et al, 1993). Store and Jokimaki (2003) found G IS has been used to produce com plex m odels and data elem ents for analysis. In addition to producing com plex m odels, the software has allow ed new m odeling techniques to be used to gain a better understanding of a species habitat
(R otenberry, Preston, & Knick, 2006). The m odeling and analysis capabilities from G IS system s have allow ed the ability to assess spatial patterns at the regional scale, exam ining elk habitat through spatial and
D a v id so n - 11 tem poral analysis (Rotenberry, Preston, & Knick, 2006; Bettinger, Boston, &
Sessions, 1998; Kaufmann, 2000). The GIS provides a reliable m odeling m e th od th at can pre dict h abitat su itability (R ote n be rry , Pre ston , & K n ick ,
2006).
Using a G IS, Stewart, Bowyer, Kie, and Hurley (2010) studied female m ule deer and North Am erican elk habitats using digital elevation m odels
(D E M ), h abitat ch aracte ristics an d th e m u lti- response perm utation procedures to exam ine the distribution of the e lk cow s based u pon th e w inter season. A sim ilar m odel w as developed by M iller (2012) to exam ine sheep grazing patterns in Idaho. Kaufman (2000) suggests th at a G IS m o d e l m ay allow m anagers to understand the com plex spatial relationships betw een the habitat and w ildlife. The GIS will provide the m eans to conduct habitat analysis of Etolin and Zarem bo Islan ds.
D a v id so n - 12
C h a p te r T w o : Design and Im plem entation
G lobal Positioning System s Between 2008 and 2011, global positioning system (G PS) enabled t r a c k in g of six elk occu rred. A lthough this is a lim ited sam ple size, 27,000 successful locations have been geolocated on Etolin and Zarem bo I slan ds.
Sam ple data from 1990 radio telem etry indicated discreet herds on Etolin had developed (Blejwas, Lowell, & Porter, 2007). The data readings from the 1990 period were com pared to the 2008 to 2011 periods to verify regional approxim ations. The G PS inform ation obtained from the t r a c k in g c o lla r s w ill b e invaluable as environm ental factors lim it the a e r ia l observation of elk on either E tolin or Z arem bo Islands. Frair, M errill, V isscher, Fortin,
Beyer, & Morales (2005), using G PS inform ation , found the patterns of elk m ovem en t reflect spatial ch aracteristics of forage patch es w ith in specific param eters su ch as size of forage patch an d location of cover. In addition,
Frair, M errill, V isscher, Fortin, B eyer, & M orales (2005) w ere able to determine that the natural foraging habitats include wet or dry m eadow alon g w ith w e t m e adow s an d cu tov e r fore sts.
Analysis M ethodology Due to the specific questions requested by the ADF&G , the m odel developed by Brow n, Schreier, Thom pson, and Vertinsky (1993) was ch ose n .
12 D a v id so n - 13
The B row n, et al. (1993) m odel detailed suitability based upon elevations, slope, slope position, dom inate species of overstory coverage, h eigh t class an d crow n closu re class. M ovem en t type an d du ration of th e specific m ovem ent was not practical based upon the known frequency (1 to 6 hour intervals) of the G PS readings. The G PS data w as review ed for locational errors an d con sisten cy, to ensure data m e t m in im u m c r it e r ia . G P S p o s it io n data points which could not be geolocated within the area of the study were rem oved.
D ata for th is case stu dy w as obtained from th ree prim ary sou rces:
A D F& G , Southeast Alaska G IS Library and Alaska G eospatial Clearinghouse.
T a b le 1 describes th e data sets obtained from each sou rce. A ddition al data sources were reviewed and analyzed, however due to the limited data availability for Southeast Alaska several data sets were discou n ted.
T a b le 1 . Data Sources
S ou rce D a ta S e t A p p lie d
Alaska Departm ent of Fish and GPS R eadings of C o lla re d E lk Gam e
A la s k a G e o s p a tia l C le a rin g h o u s e D igital Elevation M odels
Southeast Alaska GIS Library Hydrology, N ational Land Cover, Size D e n s ity
United States Geological Survey Landsat
D a v id so n - 14
S pecific dates and tim es for analysis w ere critical to ensure continuity across the data. Peak rut and calving dates were based Roosevelt elk stu dies an d an alysis from Schwartz and Mitchell (1945). D u e to th e very northern location of Southeast Alaska, m orning, afternoon, and evening time periods have little m eaning. In order to accurately notate day and night locations of the elk; the civil tw ilight table w as applied. U sing a Julian calendar, the dates and times were com pared to the National O ceanic and
A tm ospheric A dm inistration civil tw ilight calendar to determ ine day or night lo c a t io n s . Seasonal dates were applied using the vernal and autum nal equinox and the winter and sum m er solstice. T a b le 2 provides a su m m ary of the dates applied to th is case stu dy.
T a b le 2 . Sum m ary of Dates
A c tiv ity D a te
Peak Rut Season 15 Sept. - 1 O c t.
Peak Calving Season 15 May - 15 Jun.
C iv il T w ilig h t 1:54am to 9:58pm variation
Autumnal Equinox 22 Sept. 2008, 22 Sept. 2009, 22 Sept. 2010, 23 Sept. 2011
W in te r S o ls tic e 21 Dec. 2008, 21 Dec. 2009, 21 Dec. 2010, 21 Dec. 2011
D a v id so n - 15
Vernal Equinox 19 Mar. 2008, 20 Mar. 2009, 20 Mar. 2010, 20 Mar. 2011
S u m m e r S o ls tic e 20 Jun. 2008, 21 Jun. 2009, 21 Jun. 2010, 21 Jun. 2011
Applying G IS c techniques, elk locations w ere analyzed for proxim ity to m anaged and unm anaged lands, w ater, and slope using proximity and spatial statistics an alysis. These variables would be analyzed to determ ine local elk habitat preferences.
D a v id so n - 16
Chapter Three: Results Upon analysis of the available data for Southeast Alaska, it was determ ined neither the m odel developed by Brow n, et al. (1993) nor the HEI m odel w ould be supported. After discussing options w ith the ADF& G , it w as determ ined to con du ct geograph ic statistical an alysis using t o o ls e t s w it h in
ArcGIS software to determ ine elk h abitat preferences.
E to lin I s la n d As requested b y t h e A la ska Departm ent of Fish and G am e, using geostatistics an d analytical toolsets w ithin A rcG IS so ftw a re T a b le 3 thru
T a b le 5 provide sum m aries of elk preferences on Etolin Is la n d . F ig u r e 10 t hrough F ig u r e 30 provides v is u a l r e s u lt s o f t h e d ata. These tables and figures are a sum m ation of both the day and night h abitat preferences of the e lk , w hich w as determ ined from a total of 63,643 georeferenced poin ts. In order to answ er the h abitat preference question based u pon season al variation, den sity m odels were developed (F ig u r e 3 th rough F ig u r e 9 ) . Due to the num ber of reference records each analysis area was subsetted in order to obtain data granularity. The subset areas are depicted in F ig u r e 2 .
D a v id so n - 17
F ig u re 2 . Etolin Island, Alaska Subset Areas
D a v id so n - 18
F ig u re 3 . Etolin Island, Elk Density Locations for 2008 to 2011
D a v id so n - 19
F ig u re 4 . Etolin Island, Elk D ensity: Autum nal Equinox to W inter Solstice
D a v id so n - 20
F ig u re 5 . Etolin Island, Elk D ensity: Rutting Locations
D a v id so n - 21
F ig u re 6 . Etolin Island, Elk D ensity: W inter Solstice to Vernal Equinox
D a v id so n - 22
F ig u re 7 . Etolin Island, Elk D ensity: Vernal Equinox to Sum m er Solstice
D a v id so n - 23
F ig u re 8 . Etolin Island, Elk D ensity: Calving Locations
D a v id so n - 24
F ig u re 9 .E to lin Island, Elk Density: Sum m er Solstice to Autum nal Equinox
D a v id so n - 25
T a b le 3 . Etolin Island, Elk Preference to Proxim ity to Stream s
P ro x im ity to S tre a m s (in m eters)
A ll Day N ig h t C a lv in g
Num ber of Records 63, 643 36, 660 26, 983 6 , 469
M in im u m 0.006430 0.006432 0.009407 0.041047
M a x im u m 1 , 856.40 2 , 066.72 2 , 053.19 1 , 739.46
Mean 337.75 432.78 407.12 554.55
Standard Deviation 390.06 430.37 380.49 525.91
D a v id so n - 26
F ig u re 10. Etolin Island, Elk Locations in Relation to Fresh W ater
D a v id so n - 27
F ig u re 11. Etolin Island, Elk Locations in Relation to Fresh W ater, Subset 1
D a v id so n - 28
F ig u re 12. Etolin Island, Elk Locations in Relation to Fresh W ater, Subset 2
D a v id so n - 29
F ig u re 13. Etolin Island, Elk Locations in Relation to Fresh W ater, Subset 3
D a v id so n - 30
F ig u re 14. Etolin Island, Elk Locations in Relation to Fresh W ater, Subset 4
D a v id so n - 31
F ig u re 15. Etolin Island, Elk Locations in Relatio n to F re s h W a te r, S u b s e t 5
D a v id so n - 32
F ig u re 16. Etolin Island, Elk Locations in Relation to Fresh W ater, Subset 6
D a v id so n - 33
T a b le 4 . Etolin Island, Elk Preference to Slope Percentage
Elk Preference to Slope Percentage
A ll Day N ig h t * C a lv in g
Num ber of Records 63, 643 36, 660 26, 983 6 , 469
M in im u m 0 0 0 0
M a x im u m 69 67 69 63
Mean 13.04 14.39 11.22 16.89
Standard Deviation 11.54 11.86 10.83 11.71 * Calving num bers include both day and night elk locations.
D a v id so n - 34
F ig u re 17. Etolin Island, Elk Locations on Specified Slope Percentages
D a v id so n - 35
F ig u re 18. Etolin Island, Elk Locations on Specified Slope Percentages, S u b s e t 1
D a v id so n - 36
F ig u re 19. E to lin Island, Elk Locations on Specified Slope Percentages, S u b s e t 2
D a v id so n - 37
F ig u re 20. Etolin Island, Elk Locations on Specified Slope Percentages, S u b s e t 3
D a v id so n - 38
F ig u re 21. Etolin Island, Elk Locations on Specified Slope Percentages, S u b s e t 4
D a v id so n - 39
F ig u re 22. Etolin Island, Elk Locations on Specified Slope Percentages, S u b s e t 5
D a v id so n - 40
F ig u re 23. Etolin Island, Elk Locations on Specified Slope Percentages, S u b s e t 6
D a v id so n - 41
T a b le 5 . Etolin Island, Elk Preference to Managed and Unm anaged Lands
Elk Preference to M anaged and Unm anaged Lands
A ll D ay N ig h t C a lv in g Count % Count % Count % Count %
M is c e lla n e o u s / Unknown 2 , 512 3.95% 1 , 370 3.74% 1 , 142 4.23% 54 0.83%
Forested M uskeg 531 0.83% 353 0.96% 178 0.66% 90 1.39%
C u t Age < 2 0 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Cut Age >=20 and <=50 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
C u t Age > 5 0 247 0.39% 162 0.44% 85 0.32% 24 0.37%
Non- F ore st 12, 970 20.38% 8 , 916 24.32% 4 , 054 15.02% 2 , 398 37.07%
Young Growth S iz e 2 403 0.63% 300 0.82% 103 0.38% 72 1.11%
Young Growth S iz e 3 91 0.14% 70 0.19% 21 0.08% 0 0.00%
G ro w th S iz e 4 h y d ric 14, 600 22.94% 7 , 949 21.68% 6 , 651 24.65% 1 , 042 16.11%
G ro w th S iz e 4 non- h y d ric 8 , 760 13.76% 5 , 370 14.65% 3 , 390 12.56% 1 , 236 19.11%
Unproductive F ore st 23, 454 36.85% 12, 124 33.07% 11, 330 41.99% 1 , 493 23.08%
W ater 75 0.12% 46 0.13% 29 0.11% 60 0.93%
D a v id so n - 42
F ig u re 24. Etolin Island, Elk Locations in Relation to M anaged Lands
D a v id so n - 43
F ig u re 25. Etolin Island, Elk Locations in Relation to M anaged Lands, S u b s e t 1
D a v id so n - 44
F ig u re 26. Etolin Island, Elk Locations in Relation to M anaged Lands, S u b s e t 2
D a v id so n - 45
F ig u re 27. Etolin Island, Elk Locations in Relation to M anaged Lands, S u b s e t 3
D a v id so n - 46
F ig u re 28. Etolin Island, Elk Locations in Relation to M anaged Lands, S u b s e t 4
D a v id so n - 4 7
F ig u re 29. Etolin Island, Elk Locations in Relation to M anaged Lands, S u b s e t 5
D a v id so n - 48
F ig u re 30. Etolin Island, Elk Locations in Relation to M anaged Lands, S u b s e t 6
D a v id so n - 49
Zarem bo Island As requested by the Alaska Departm ent of Fish and G am e, using ge ostatistics an d an alytical toolse ts w ithin th e softw are T a b le 6 th rough
T a b le 8 provide sum m aries of elk preferences on Zarem bo Island. F ig u r e 39 t hrough F ig u r e 53 provide visual results of the data. These tables and figures are a sum m ation of both the day and night preferences of the elk, totaling 8,885 georeferenced points. In order to answer the preference question based upon seasonal variation, a density m odel was developed, fig u r e s F ig u r e 32 th rough F ig u r e 38. Due to the num ber of reference records each analysis area was subsetted in order to obtain data granularity. The subset areas are depicted in F ig u r e 31.
D a v id so n - 50
F ig u re 31. Zarem bo Island, Subset Areas
D a v id so n - 51
F ig u re 32. Zarem bo Island, Elk Density Locations for 2008 and 2009
D a v id so n - 52
F ig u re 33. Zarem bo Island, Elk Density Locations: Autum nal Equinox to W inter Solstice
D a v id so n - 53
F ig u re 34. Zarem bo Island, Elk Density Rutting Locations
D a v id so n - 54
F ig u re 35. Zarem bo Island, Elk D ensity Locations: W inter Solstice to Vernal Equinox
D a v id so n - 55
F ig u re 36. Zarem bo Island, Elk D ensity Locations: Vernal Equinox to Sum m er Solstice
D a v id so n - 56
F ig u re 37. Zarem bo Island, Elk Density Calving Locations
D a v id so n - 57
F ig u re 38. Zarem bo Island, Elk Density Locations: Sum m er Solstice to Autum nal Equinox
D a v id so n - 58
T a b le 6 . Zarem bo Island, Elk Preference to Proximity to Stream s
P ro x im ity to S tre a m s (in m eters)
A ll Day N ig h t * C a lv in g
Num ber of Records 8 , 885 4 , 917 3 , 968 942
M in im u m 0.35 0.35 0.94 0.94
M a x im u m 1 , 529.23 1 , 287.78 1 , 529.23 1 , 045.11
Mean 357.16 358.85 355.06 370.36
Standard Deviation 253.33 250.54 256.73 209.06 * Calving num bers include both day and night elk locations.
D a v id so n - 59
F ig u re 39. Zarem bo Island, Elk Locations in Relation to Fresh W ater
D a v id so n - 60
F ig u re 40. Zarem bo Island, Elk Locations in Relation to Fresh W a te r, S u b s e t 1
D a v id so n - 61
F ig u re 41. Zarem bo Island, Elk Locations in Relation to Fresh W ater, S u b s e t 2
D a v id so n - 62
F ig u re 42. Zarem bo Island, Elk Locations in Relation to Fresh W ater, S u b s e t 3
D a v id so n - 63
F ig u re 43. Zarem bo Island, Elk Locations in Relation to Fresh W ater, S u b s e t 4
D a v id so n - 64
T a b le 7 . Zarem bo Island, Elk Preference to Slope Percentage
Elk Preference to Slope Percentage
A ll Day N ig h t * C a lv in g
N u m b e r o f R ecords 8,885 4 , 917 3 , 968 942
M in im u m 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
M a x im u m 45.00 45.00 39.00 45.00
Mean 1 0 . 28 11.15 9.21 13.26
Standard Deviation 7 . 71 8.00 7.18 7.39 * Calving num bers include both day and night elk locations.
D a v id so n - 65
F ig u re 44. Zarem bo Island, Elk Locations on Specified Slope Percentage
D a v id so n - 66
F ig u re 45. Zarem bo Island, Elk Locations on Specified Slope Percentage, S u b s e t 1
D a v id so n - 67
F ig u re 46. Z a re m b o Is la n d , Elk Locations on Specified Slope Percentage, S u b s e t 2
D a v id so n - 68
F ig u re 47. Zarem bo Island, Elk Locations on Specified Slope Percentage, S u b s e t 3
D a v id so n - 69
F ig u re 48. Zarem bo Island, Elk Locations on Specified Slope Percentage, S u b s e t 4
D a v id so n - 70
T a b le 8 . Zarem bo Island, Elk Preference to M anaged and Unm anaged Lands
Elk Preference to M anaged and Unm anaged Lands A ll Day N ig h t C a lv in g Count % Count % Count % Count % M is c e lla n e o u s / Unknown 1 , 546 17.40% 426 8.66% 1 , 120 28.23% 36 3.82% Forested M uskeg 668 7.52% 364 7.40% 304 7.66% 38 4.03%
C u t A g e < 2 0 88 0.99% 54 1.10% 34 0.86% 0 0.00%
Cut Age >=20 and <=50 2 , 943 33.12% 1 , 995 40.57% 948 23.89% 696 73.89%
C u t A g e > 5 0 74 0.83% 44 0.89% 30 0.76% 10 1.06%
N on- Forest 56 0.63% 14 0.28% 42 1.06% 0 0.00%
Young Growth S iz e 2 22 0.25% 4 0.08% 18 0.45% 2 0.21%
Young Growth S iz e 3 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Grow th Size 4 h y d ric 1 , 370 15.42% 594 12.08% 378 9.53% 72 7.64%
Grow th Size 4 non- h y d ric 1 , 346 15.15% 1 , 042 21.19% 702 17.69% 68 7.22%
Unproductive Forest 772 8.69% 380 7.73% 392 9.88% 20 2.12%
W a te r 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
D a v id so n - 71
F ig u re 49. Zarem bo Island, Elk Locations in Relation to M anaged Lands
D a v id so n - 72
F ig u re 50. Zarem bo Island, Elk Locations in Relation to M anaged Lands, S u b s e t 1
D a v id so n - 73
F ig u re 51. Zarem bo Island, Elk Locations in Relation to M anaged Lands, S u b s e t 2
D a v id so n - 74
F ig u re 52. Zarem bo Island, Elk Locations in Relation to M anaged Lands, S u b s e t 3
D a v id so n - 75
F ig u re 53. Z a re m b o Island, Elk Locations in Relation to M anaged Lands, S u b s e t 4
D a v id so n - 76
Chapter Four: Discussion
D e n s ity D ata displays elk prefer the southern tip of Etolin Island. F ig u r e 3 shows the concentration of the elk over a three year time period. Although there are areas of concentration over the three years, the m ajority of the time, the elk appear to be dispersed throughout the southern tip. By e x tracting th e spe cific date s, th e elk show different areas of concentration.
The data shown in F ig u r e 4 t hrough F ig u r e 9 displays the areas in which the e lk te n d to prefer, to include specific calving and rutting areas. A ccording to
Schwartz and M itchell (1945), elk have a tendency to return to selected calving areas.
In contrast to th e E tolin Is la n d elk, the elk found on Zarem bo Island are not m oving from the southern tip in a direct northerly fashion. Rather the Zarem bo elk have a preference to m ove along the western coastline to the central northern section (F ig u r e 32 th rough F ig u r e 38). Another difference, is the Zarem bo Is la n d elk have sm aller conce ntrated areas for each season, to include rutting and calving areas. The density figures are sm aller due to the limited num ber of records; however the inform ation obtaine d sh ow s th at the Z are m bo Is la n d elk prefer the coastline com pared to in la n d v a lle y s .
D a v id so n - 77
Fresh W ater Th e prox im ity to fre sh w ate r is on e of th e m ain h abitat factors for e lk
( Bowyer, 1981; Schwartz, II & Mitchell, 1945; Bettinger, Boston, &
Sessions, 1998; Kneib, Knauer, & Kuchenhoff, 2009; Niederleitner, 1987;
Gates and Hudson, 1981; Skovlin, 1982). Understanding the preference of elk to fresh w ater sources w ill assist biologist and m anagers to develop com prehensive m anagem ent plans. The distance of the elk to fresh water sou rces ran ge from 0 .00 6 m eters to 2 , 066.7 m eters. These figures do not include the fresh water from the rainfall pooling in the m uskeg. The available data does not provide this level of detail; how ever the
Dictionary.com (2013) definition of muskeg is, “a bog of northern North
A m erica, com m on ly h aving sph agn u m m osses, sedge, and som etimes stu n ted black spru ce an d tam arack trees”. S ince m uskeg, by definition, contains m any areas of water, it can be reasonably expected that elk m ay u se th ese areas for sou rces of w ater. Table 3 displays the results of the a v a ila b ly o f fr e s h w ate r to the Etolin elk. The findings on Etolin Island do n ot su pport th e con ce pt th at elk pre fe r sm aller distan ce s to large r distan ce from fresh w ater. F ig u r e 10 through F ig u r e 16 d is p la y s th e locatio n of the elk in relation to sources of fresh water sou rces. Rain w ater pooled in the clear cuts and m uskeg are not included in this analysis due to the limited environm ental and topological data available.
D a v id so n - 78
S im ilar to the Etolin elk, the Z arem bo elk has a large variation between location and the proximity of fresh water. The range of the 8,885 records is 0 .35 m eters to 1 , 529.23 m eters, with a standard deviation of
209.06 m eters to 253.33 m eters (T a b le 6 ). F ig u r e 39 th ro u gh F ig u r e 43 depict the Zarem bo elk lo c a t io n s in proxim ity to fresh w ater. R ain w ate r pooled in the clear cuts and m uskeg are not included in this analysis due to the lim ited environm ental and topological data available.
S lo p e Frair, M errill, V isscher, Fortin, B eyer, & M orales (2005) found that elk preferred m oderately steep slopes for foraging. The elk on Etolin Island support this theory. Findings indicate the Etolin elk have a slope m ean 13.04 percent ( T a b le 4 ) . The slope preference changes depending on the day or night variance as w ell as the calving season. The Etolin elk prefer a m oderate to steep slope of 16.89 percent. The m aximum slope percentage for th e E tolin elk is 6 9 percent.
In con trast to th e E t o lin Is la n d e lk , the Zarem bo Is la n d elk do not prefer moderately steep slopes. The m ean slope for all periods is 11.15 percent ( T a b le 7 ). Th is is 1 .8 9 percent less than Etolin Is la n d for the overall m ean. The day and night averages has a slope of 9.21 percent. T h e
Z arem bo Is la n d calving area has a significantly higher slop e, 13.26 percent.
D a v id so n - 79
The m aximum slope the Zarem bo Is la n d can be found was 45 percent com pare d to th e 6 9 percent o n E t o lin Is la n d . F ig u r e 44 th rough F ig u r e 48 display the elk locations in relation to the percentage of slope.
M anaged Lands A ccording to B ettinger, B oston , an d S ession s (1 9 9 8 ) e lk u se forage as a m eans of therm al cover. Data from the E t o lin Is la n d elk support this theory. The Etolin Is la n d elk prefer therm al coverage from the unproductive fore st cate gory in com parison to m anaged lands during night time hours.
This trend continues for the day hours as well as the calving season. These figures indicate that the elk do not prefer the managed lands as the percentage ranges from 0 to 0.44 percent of usage based upon intersecting the times and timber harvested areas. F ig u r e 49 th ro u gh F ig u r e 53 provide the visual representation of elk locations in relation to t he m anaged lands on
Etolin Island.
E lk fo und on Zarem bo Island have a different preference com pared to those elk found on Etolin Island. The elk on Zarem bo Island display a preference for m anaged lands, especially harvested areas that are 20 to 50 years o ld ( T a b le 8 ). During calving season, there was a 74.89 percent th at elk w ould be located on harvested lands. The findings also indicate the elk
D a v id so n - 80 do not use the surrounding forest areas for therm al cover. However, there are a significant percentage of unknown areas that m ay skew the r e s u lt s .
D a v id so n - 81
C h apter Five: S u m m ary Based upon the findings between the elk on Etolin and Zarem bo
Islands, there appears to be significant preference differences. The differen ces also cou n ter oth e r elk studies ( Bowyer, 1981; Schwartz, II &
Mitchell, 1945; Bettinger, Boston, & Sessions, 1998; Kneib, Knauer, &
Kuchenhoff, 2009; Niederleitner, 1987; Gates & Hudson, 1981; Skovlin ,
1982; Frair, M errill, V isscher, Fortin, B eyer, & M orales, 2005). D ue to these sign ifican t differen ces, it is stron gly recom m en ded to con du ct furth er analysis on the transplanted elk by considering the fo llo w in g t o p ic s :
• Determ ine species of elk on each island
• Determ ine if elk use fresh water in m uskeg
By determining the dom inant species of elk on each island, specific characteristics m ay be obtained. Although the Roosevelt Elk and the Rocky
M ountain Elk have sim ilar overall characteristics, they m a y vary s lig h t ly in th e ir h abitat preferences. These m inor differences m ay account for the differences in slope and their routes toward the northward on each island.
T he data obtained during the course of this project w ill be able to provide w ildlife biolo gists and forest m anagem ent personnel w it h b a s e lin e inform ation for drafting a long term m anagem ent plan for Southeast Alaska.
D a v id so n - 82
References
Alaska Departm ent of Fish and G am e. 1985. Biological feasibility of transplanting elk in Southeast Alaska. Decem ber
Alaska Departm ent of Fish and G am e, Division of W ildlife Conservation. 2011. W ildlife m anagem ent report: Elk m anagem ent report. Juneau, AK.
Bettinger, Pete, John Sessions, and Kevin Boston. 1997. Using tabu search to schedu le tim ber h arvests subject to spatial w ildlife goals for big gam e. Ecological M odelling 9 4 , n o . 2 – 3: 111- 123.
Bettinger, Pete and John Sessions. 2003. Spatial forest planning: To adopt, or not to adopt? Journal of Forestry 101, no. 2: 24- 29.
Bettinger, Pete, Kevin Boston, and John Sessions. 1999. Com binatorial optim ization of elk habitat effectiveness and tim ber harvest volum e. Environm ental Modeling & Assessment 4 , n o . 2 - 3: 143- 153.
Blejw as, Karen, Richard Low ell, and Boyd Porter. 2007. Etolin elk research proposal: U sing rem ote- download G PS collar to determ ine the distribution and abundance of elk on Etolin and Zarem bo Islands. Alaska Departm ent of Fish and G am e.
Bow yer, R. Terry. 1981. Activity, m ovem ent, and distribution of Roosevelt Elk during rut. Journal of M am m alogy 62, no. 3: 574- 582.
Brown, Sandra, Hans Schreier, W illiam A. Thom pson, and Ilan Vertinsky. 1 9 9 4 . Linking m u ltiple accou n ts w ith G IS as decision su pport system to resolve Forestry/W ildlife conflicts. Journal of Environm ental Managem ent 42, no. 4: 349- 364.
C o o p e r, A .B . a nd J.J. M illspaugh. 1999. The application of discrete choice m odels to w ildlife resource selection studies. Ecology 80: 566 - 575.
Das, Jitendra Kum ar. 1998. A whole- forest m anagem ent approach integrating forest structure, tim ber harvest and w ildlife dynam ic s. P h .D .,
D a v id so n - 83
University of Toronto (Canada). In ProQ uest ProQ uest Dissertations & Theses Full Text.
Dictionary.com . 2013. M uskeg. Retrieved from h ttp://diction ary.referen ce.com /brow se/m u skeg?s= t
Frair, Jacqueline L., Evelyn H . M errill, D arcy R . V isscher, D aniel Fortin, Hawthorne L. Beyer, and Juan M . M orales. 2005. Scales of m ovem ent by elk (cervus elaphus) in response to heterogeneity in forage resources and predation risk. Lan dscape E cology 20, no. 3: 273- 287, http://search.proquest.com /docview/738967765?accountid=14608.
G ates, C. and R. H udson. 1981. H abitat selection by w apiti in a boreal forest enclosure. Naturaliste can. 108: 153- 166.
Kaufmann, Cynthia Kathleen. 2000. Analysis of spatial harvest con straints on ecological (w ildlife habitat) versus econom ic (tim ber harvest) objectives. M .Sc.F., Lakehead University (Canada). In ProQ uest ProQ uest C en tral, ProQ u est D issertation s & Th eses Fu ll Text.
Kirchhoff, Matthew D. and Douglas N. Larsen. 199 8 . D ie t a r y o v e r la p between native Sitka Black- Tailed Deer and introduced elk in southeast Alaska. The Journal of W ildlife M anagem ent 62, no. 1: 236- 242.
Kneib, Thom as, Felix Knauer, and Helmut Küchenhoff. 2011. A general approach to the analysis of habitat selection. Environm ental and E cological S tatistics 18, no. 1: 1- 25.
K u fe ld , R . 1973. Foods eaten by the Rocky Mountain Elk. J. Range Mangem ent 26(2): 106- 113.
L o w e ll, R ic h a r d ., Lavern Beier, and C a r l K och . 2012. Elk m ovem ents and habitat use on Etolin and Zarem bo Islands, Alaska.
M iller, R . 2012 . Utilizing G IS and rem ote sensing to determ ine sheep grazing pattern s for best practices in lan d m an agem en t protocols. U n iversity of Southern California.
D a v id so n - 84
N ie d e r le itner, Joe F. 1987. A m ethodology for the analysis of elk habitats w ithin m anaged forest regim es. M .Sc., U niversity of Alberta (Canada). In ProQ u est ProQ u est D issertation s & Th eses (PQ D T).
O regonwild.com . 2013. Roosevelt Elk. Retrieved from h ttp://w w w .oregonw ild.org/fish_w ildlife/w ild life - page s/roosevelt- e lk .
P o sillico , M ., A M e rig g i, E . P a g n in , S . L o v a ri, a n d L . R u sso . 2 0 0 4 . A h a b ita t m odel for brown bear conservation and land use planning in the central Apennines. Biological Conservation 118: 141 - 150.
R a ilsback, Steven F. and Bret C. Harvey. 2002. Analysis of habitat- s e le c t io n rules using an individual- based m odel. Ecology 83, no. 7: 1817- 1830.
Raym er, Delia Faye Norm an. 2000. Effects of elk and white- tailed deer brow sing on aspen com m unities and w ildlife habitat quality in northern low er m ichigan: An 18 - year evaluation. Ph.D., M ichigan State U niversity. In ProQ u est ProQ u est D issertation s & Th eses Fu ll Text.
Rotenberry, John T., Kristine L. Preston, and S teven T. Knick. 2006. G IS - based niche m odeling for m apping species' habitat. Ecology 87, no. 6: 1458- 1464.
Schwartz, John E.,II and Glen E. Mitchell. 1945. The Roosevelt Elk on the Olym pic Peninsula, Washington. The Journal of W ildlife M anagem ent 9 , no. 4: 295- 319.
Skovlin, J. 1982. Habitat requirem ents a nd evaluations. In J.W. Thom as and D. E. Toweill [EDS.]. Elk of North Am erica: Ecology and m anagem ent. H a rrisb u rg , P A . S ta ck p o le B o o k s, p . 3 6 9 - 413.
State of Alaska.2013. Elk hunting in Alaska. Alaska Department of Fish and G am e. Retrieved from http://ww w .adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm ?adfg= elkhunting.m ain
S te w a rt, K . M ., B o w y e r, R . T ., K ie , J. G ., & H u rle y , M . A . (2 0 1 0 ). S p a tia l distributions of m ule deer and north am erican elk: Resource partitioning
D a v id so n - 85
in a sage- steppe environm ent. The Am erican Midland Naturalist, 163(2), 400- 412. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com /docview/234931889?accountid=14608
Store, Ron and Jukka Jokimäki. 2003. A G IS- based m ulti- scale approach to h abitat su itab ilit y m o d e lin g . E c o lo g ic a l M o d e llin g 169, no. 1: 1- 15.
United States Forest Service. 2013. Tongass National Forest. Retrieved from h ttp://w w w .fs.u sda.gov/ton gass/
W eather.com . (2012). M onthly average for Tongass National Forest. Retrieved from : h ttp://w w w .w eath er.com /w eath er/w xclim atology/m on th ly/graph /1 0 0 3 :1 3
D a v id so n - 86
Bibliography
Aebischer, N icholas J., Peter A. Robertson, and Robert E. Kenw ard. 1993. Com positional analysis of habitat use from anim al radio - tracking data. Ecology 74, no. 5: 1313- 1325.
A g e r, Alan A., Bruce K. Johnson, John W . Kern, and John G. Kie. 2003. Daily and seasonal m ovem ents and habitat use by fem ale Rocky Mountain Elk and m ule deer. Journal of M am m alogy 84, no. 3: 1076- 1088.
Alaska Departm ent of Fish and G am e, Division of W ildlife Co nservation. 1999. DRAFT Southeast Alaska elk m anagem ent plan.
Alaska Departm ent of Fish and G am e, Division of W ildlife Conservation. 1993. The introduction of elk to Southeast Alaska: An assessment.
B a s t ille - Rousseau, Guillaum e, Daniel Fortin, and Christian Dussault. 2010. Inference from habitat- selection an alysis depen ds on foraging strategies. Journal of Anim al Ecology 79, no. 6: 1157- 1163.
Biggs, Jam es R., Daw n M . VanLeeuw en, Jerry L. Holechek, and Raul Valdez. 2010. Multi- scale analyses of habitat use by elk follow in g w ildfire. N orth w est S cien ce 84, no. 1: 20- 32.
B o n e , Christopher and Suzana Dragicevic. 2009. Evaluating spatio- t e m p o r a l com plexities of forest m anagem ent: An integrated agent- based m odeling and G IS approach. Environm ental Modeling & Assessm en t 14, no. 4: 481- 496.
Brook, Ryan K. 2010. Habitat selection by parturient elk (cervus elaphus) in agricultu ral an d forested lan dscapes. Canadian Journal of Zoology 88, : 968.
B u n n e ll, F. L . a n d L . L . K re m sa te r. 1 9 9 2 . S ustaining w ildlife in m anaged forests. Northwest environm ental journal, 6(2), 1990, pp 243– 269. 1992. B iological Conservation 59, no. 1: 80- 81.
D a v id so n - 87
Chang, Kang- tsung. 1994. GIS- based program aids w ildlife habitat and timber m anagem ent. G IS W o r ld 7, no. 1: 40- 40.
C o e , P riscilla K . , B ru ce K Johnson, Michael J W isdom , John G Cook, Martin V avra, and Ryan M N ielson. 2011. V alidation of elk resource selection m odels w ith spatially independent data. Journal of W ildlife M anagem ent 75, no. 1: 159- 170.
Deal, Robert L. 2007. M anagem ent strategies to increase stan d stru ctu ral diversity and enhance biodiver sity in coastal rainforests of A laska. B iological Conservation 137, no. 4: 520- 532.
Forester, Jam es D., Anthony R. Ives, M onica G . Turner, Dean P. Anderson, Daniel Fortin, Hawthorne L. Beyer, Dougla s W . S m ith , a n d M a rk S . Boyce. 2007. State- space m odels link elk m ovem ent patterns to lan dscape ch aracteristics in Yellow ston e N a t io n a l P a rk . Ecological M onographs 77, no. 2: 285- 299.
Fra n k lin , W . L ., A . S . M o ssm a n , a n d M . D o le . 1 9 7 5 . S o cia l organizatio n and hom e range of Roosevelt Elk . Journal of M am m alogy 56, no. 1: 102- 118.
G illingham , M ichael P. and Katherine L. Parker. 2008. Differential habitat selection by m oose and elk in the besa- prophet area of northern B ritish C olum bia. Annual; 2012/9, 41.
H arper, Jam es A., Joseph H . H arn, W allace W . Bentley, and Charles F. Yocom . 1967. The status and ecology of the Roosevelt Elk in Californ ia. W ild life M o n o g r a p h s no. 16, The Status and Ecology of the Roosevelt Elk in C aliforn ia: 3 - 49.
Harper, Jam es A. and W illiam C . Lightfoot. 1966. Tagging devices fo r Roosevelt Elk and m ule deer. The Journal of W ildlife M anagem ent 3 0 , n o . 3: 461- 466.
H itch cock, M ark, A lan A ger, an d Pacific N orth w est R esearch S tation . 1 9 9 2 . M icrocom puter softw are for calculating an elk habitat effectiveness index on blue m ountain winter range. G eneral technical report PNW . Vol. 301.
D a v id so n - 88
Portland, O r.: U .S . D ept. of A griculture, Forest S ervice, Pacific N orthw est R e se arch S tation .
Huber, Thom as P. a n d K irt E . C asler. 1990. In itial an alysis of lan dsat TM data for elk habitat m apping. International Journal of Rem ote Sensing 11, no. 5: 907- 912.
Jenkins, Kurt. 1996. Simulating secondary succession of elk forage values in a m anaged forest landscape, western W ashington. Environm ental M anagem ent (New York) 20, no. 5: 715- 724.
Jenkins, Kurt J. and Edward E. S tark e y . 1 9 8 4 . H abitat u se by R oose v e lt E lk in unm anaged forests of the H o h V a lle y , W ashington. The Journal of W ild life M a n a g e m e n t 48, no. 2: 642- 646.
Journal of M am m alogy. 1982. Social organization of Roosevelt Elk in an old - grow th fore st. Journal of M am m alogy 63, no. 2: 331- 334.
Julian, AE, K. Schm idt, and FW W eckerly. 2013. G rou p size dyn am ics of female Roosevelt Elk in redwood national and state parks, C aliforn ia. C a lifornia Fish and G am e 99, no. 1: 49- 54.
Linnell, John D. C. and Reidar Andersen. 1995. Site tenacity in roe deer: S hort- term effects of logging. W ildlife S ociety B ulletin 23, no. 1: 31- 35.
L o n g , Ryan A., Janet L Rachlow, and John G Kie. 2009. Sex- s p e c ific respon ses of north Am erican elk to habitat m anipulation. Journal of M am m alogy 90, no. 2: 423- 432.
M ayor, Stephen J., David C. Schneider, Jam es A. Schaefer, and Shane P. M ahoney. 2009. Habitat selection at m ultiple scales. E coscien ce 1 6 , n o . 2: 238- 247.
O tto, C lint R . V . 2012. The im pact of tim ber harvest on w ildlife distribution patte rn s an d popu lation v ital rate s: D oe s stru ctu ral re te n tion am e liorate the negative effects of clearcutting? Ph.D., Michigan State University. In ProQ u e st ProQ u e st D isse rtation s & Th eses Fu ll Text.
D a v id so n - 89
Patton, David R. and Burd S. M cGinnes. 1964. Deer browse relative to age an d inte n sity of tim be r h arv e st. The Journal of W ildlife M anagem ent 28, no. 3: 458- 463.
Paul, Thom as. 2009. G am e transplants in Alaska. Alaska Departm ent of Fis h and G am e, Division of W ildlife Conservation. Technical Bulletin # 4, Second Edition.
Roloff, G ary J., Joshua J. M illspaugh, Robert A . G itzen, and G ary C. B rundige. 2001. V alidation tests of a spatially explicit habitat effectiveness m odel for rocky m ount a in e lk . The Journal of W ildlife M anagem ent 65, no. 4: 899- 914.
Rong, Ke. 2009. A m ethod for analysis of habitat selection data: B ailey's in t e r v a l. Dōngwùxué Yánjiū 3 0 , n o . 2 .
S achro, L. L., W . L. S trong, and C. C. G ates. 2005. Prescribed burning e ffe cts on sum m er elk forage availability in the subalp ine zone, banff national park, Canada. Journal of Environm ental Managem ent 77, no. 3: 183- 193.
Sargeant, G le n A . and M ichael W O ehler Sr. 2007. Dynam ics of new ly established elk populations. Journal of W ild life Managem ent 71, no. 4: 1141- 1148.
S a w y e r, H a ll, Ryan M Nielson, Fred G Lindzey, Lorraine Keith, and et a l. 2007. H abitat selection of Rocky M ountain E lk in a nonforested environm ent. Journal of W ildlife M anagem ent 71, no. 3: 868- 874.
Schaeffer, Jam es A. and Shane P. Mahoney. 2007. Effects of progressive clearcut logging on Newfoundland Ca r ib o u . The Journal of W ildlife M anagem ent 71, no. 6: 1753- 1757.
Serrouya, Robert and Robert G . D’Eon. 2008. The influence of forest cover on m ule deer habitat selection, diet, and nutrition during winter in a deep- sn ow ecosystem . Forest Ecology and Managem ent 256, no. 3: 452- 461.
D a v id so n - 90
Telesco, Rebecca L., Frank T. Van M anen, Joseph D. Clark, and M ichael E. Cartw right. 2007. Identifying sites for elk restoration in arkansa s. The Journal of W ildlife M anagem ent 71, no. 5: 1393- 1403.
Thur, Steven M. 2007. Refining the use of habitat equivalency analysis. Environm ental Managem ent 40, no. 1: 161- 70.
W all, W ., B elisle, M ., Luke,L. 2011. M oose (alces alces) w ildlife habitat decis io n a id . BC Journal of Ecosystem s and Managem ent 1 1 , n o . 3 .
W alter, W . David. 2010. Identification of subpopulations of N orth A m erican E lk ( c e r v u s e la p h u s L .) u s in g m u lt ip le lin e s o f e v id e n c e : H a b it a t u s e , dietary ch oice, an d fecal stable isotopes. E c o lo gical Research 25, no. 4: 789- 800.
W ebb, Stephen L. , Matthew R Dzialak, John J W ondzell, Seth M Harju, Larry D Hayden- W ing, and Jeffrey B W instead. 2011. Survival and cause- specific m ortality of fem ale Rocky Mountain Elk exposed to hum an a c t iv it y . Population Ecology 53, no. 3: 483- 493.
W eckerly, F., K. M cFarland, M . Ricca, and K. M eyer. 2004. Roosevelt elk density and social segregation: Foraging behavior and fem ales avoiding larger groups of m ales. A m e r ic a n M id la n d N a t u r a lis t 152, no. 2: 386- 399.
W eckerly, Floyd W . 2005. G rass and supplem ental patch s e le c t io n b y a population of Roosevelt Elk . Journal of M am m alogy 86, no. 3: 630- 638.
W eckerly, Floyd W . an d M ark A . R icca. 2 0 0 0 . U sing presen ce of sign to m easure habitats used by roosevelt elk. W ild life S o c ie t y B u lle t in 2 8 , n o . 1: 146- 153.
W eckerly, Floyd W . 1999. Social bonding and aggression in fem ale R oosevelt E lk . Canadian Journal of Zoology 77, no. 9: 1379- 1384.
Yott, Adelle, Rick Rosatte, Jam es A. Schaefer, Joe Ham r, and John Fryxell. 2011. Movem ent and spread of a founding population of reintroduced elk
D a v id so n - 91
(cervus elaphus) in ontario, canada. Restoration Ecology 19, no. 101: 70- 77.