WMU 517 Winefred Lake Aerial Moose (Alces alces) and

White-tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus) Survey January 2013

Grant Chapman, Wildlife Biologist &

Justin Gilligan, Wildlife Monitoring Biologist

Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development Operations Division

Lac La Biche/Edmonton, Alberta September 2013

1

Table of Contents

Permission to Quote..........................................................................................................................4

Distribution.........................................................................................................................................4

Acknowledgements............................................................................................................................4

Abstract..............................................................................................................................................4

Introduction........................................................................................................................................5

Methods.............................................................................................................................................6

Study Area.............................................................................................................................6

Survey Personnel…………………………………………………………………………………..7

Survey Protocol………….......................................................................................................7

Results.............................................................................................................................................12

Moose survey.......................................................................................................................12

White-tailed deer survey......................................................................................................15

Weather and flight times and Safety…………………………………………………………….16

Discussion........................................................................................................................................19

Moose Survey…..………………………………………………………………………………….20

White-tailed deer Survey……………....................................................................................21

Other wildlife sightings…………………………………………………………………………….22

Recommendations………………………………………………………………………………..……..…24

References………………………………………………………………………………………………….26

List of Figures Figure 1 – Location of WMU 517 Winefred Lake ………………..………………………………..........6

Figure 2 – Moose and white-tailed deer survey block strata………………………………………10-11

Figure 3 – Moose and white-tailed deer observations during stratification flights………………13-14

Figure 4 - Moose and white-tailed deer observations during detailed survey unit flights...........17-18

List of Tables

Table 1 – Survey personnel and duties…….…..…………………………………………………….....7

Table 2 – Daily temperatures during survey…………………………………………..….……….…...16

Table 3 – Comparison of population parameter for moose in WMUs near 517..............................19

Table 4 – Historical population estimates, moose density and age/sex ratios for WMU 517..........20

2

Table 5 – WMU 512 pre-hunting season population estimates, permits allotted and reported

success...............................................................................................................................20

Table 6 – 2013 regional WMU moose populations, permits and 2012 harvest success………….21

Table 7.- Historical White-tailed deer surveys and parameters near WMU 517.............................21

Table 8 - Historical White-tailed deer harvest and population in WMU 517 2002-2013.................22

Appendices

Appendix 1 – WMU 517 sampling units, area, number of moose and white-tailed deer

observed during stratification flights and assigned strata..………………...….……………..27

Appendix 2 – Data summary of sampling units surveyed, animals observed and particulars

for each unit.............................................................................................................31

Appendix 3 – Moose and white-tailed deer population calculations from the Quadrat

Survey Method…………………………………………………………………………………….33

3

Permission to Quote

This report contains preliminary information and interpretations and may be subject to future

revision. To prevent the issuance of misleading information, persons wishing to quote from this

report, to cite it in bibliographies, or to use it in any other form must first obtain permission from

the author.

Distribution

Copies of this report have been sent to the Wildlife Manager for the Lower Athabasca Region,

the district offices in Lac La Biche, Athabasca, and St. Paul, the Coordinator for provincial

wildlife surveys and Provincial Big Game specialist.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Delaney Anderson, Jordan Besenski, Traci Morgan and Kristina

Norstrom of AESRD and Larry Roy of Alberta Innovates Technology Futures for their

continuous work throughout this survey. Gratitude is extended to Canwest Aviation and Delta

Helicopters for their contributions to the survey. Appreciation is also extended to Cody Clark

and Monette Gauthier of AESRD Forestry for flight-following and Ashley Burley for arranging

accommodations in the Leismer Fire Base.

Report format and text have been modelled after previous reports. This survey was funded by

the Joint Oil Sands Monitoring Program (Governments of Canada and Alberta), Alberta

Innovates Technology Futures and Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource

Development.

Abstract

An aerial moose (Alces alces) and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) survey using a

modified Gasaway sampling technique was conducted in WMU 517 between January 8 and

January 17, 2013. A total of 107 moose and 94 white-tailed deer were observed during the

stratification flights and another 87 moose and 157 white-tailed deer were classified during the

intensive helicopter survey of 15 survey units. Stratification of the WMU resulted in survey units

being assigned to one of three strata corresponding to the number of animals per survey unit for

each species. Moose strata were 0, 1-2 and 3-5 and deer strata were 0, 1-3 and 4-8 animals

per survey unit for the low, medium, and high strata respectively. Moose and deer were

classified by age, sex and antler classification during detailed survey unit flights. The moose

4

population was estimated to be 305 (±136 or ±44.5%; 90% confidence interval) with a density of

0.06 moose/km2 and ranged 0.00-0.31 moose/km2 with a bull:cow:calf sex ratio o 63:100:84.

The moose population may have increased slightly over the last survey in 2006 which estimated

224 moose but remains far below the 800 moose population goal which indicates significant

management issues in the WMU. The white-tailed deer population goal is 790 deer and the

population was estimated to be 693 (±367 or ±53%; 90% confidence interval) with a density of

0.15 white-tailed deer/km2 with survey units ranging 0.00-0.76 deer/km2. Due to probable antler

drop prior to survey dates, no buck:doe:fawn ratio was estimated however the adult to fawn

ratio was 2.65:1. Other species encountered were woodland caribou, sharp-tailed grouse, ruffed

grouse, northern goshawk, great gray owl, Canada lynx, coyote, pileated woodpecker and gray

wolf. No population estimates were made for those species. Implementation of the Lower

Athabasca Regional Plan and monitoring will be important tools and information sources to

guide future land use decisions to ensure this moose population and landscape values are

maintained in the area.

Introduction

Moose (Alces alces) and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) are 2 of the priority big

game species in Wildlife Management Unit (WMU) 517 which provides valuable recreational

hunting, first nations subsistence harvest, and non-consumptive wildlife viewing opportunity.

The objective of this survey was to obtain a current moose population estimate for WMU 517,

(last flown in 2006) and to compare this to surrounding WMU’s and with past estimates. Aerial

game surveys provide population and density estimates as well as valuable habitat use

information. When conducted at regular intervals (ideally every 5 years in northeast Alberta),

surveys provide critical data for assessing ungulate and other wildlife population trends. These

data enable managers to assess population condition which informs regional moose

management. The stratification flights for this survey also permitted data collection for

Woodland Caribou, which were utilized as a component of concurrent caribou population study

in the East Side Athabasca Range Caribou herd. Conducting these surveys gives AESRD staff

an additional opportunity to assess current habitat conditions and note changes in the

landscape.

5

Methods

Study Area

WMU 517 is located directly north of the Cold Lake Air Weapons Range (CLAWR) and is

situated between the Saskatchewan border to the east and the hamlet of Conklin to the west

(Figure 1). Most of the area consists of black spruce forest and muskeg bog interspersed with

mixed-wood and jack pine-dominated uplands. Although there is no agriculture in the WM,

timber harvesting occurs throughout the WMU and the level of oil and gas exploration and

development is extremely high west of Winefred Lake with a proliferation of industrial access

and human activity in and around Conklin. WMU 517 comprises portions of the Cold Lake and

East Side Athabasca River caribou ranges, in addition to populations of other managed

furbearers and ungulates.

Figure 1: Location of WMU 517 Winefred Lake.

6

Survey Personnel Table 1: Personnel involved in the survey including their affiliation and duties during the survey.

Personnel Affiliation Duties Delaney Anderson AESRD – Fish and Wildlife Division Observer (left

and right) Sarah Blancher Delta Helicopters Pilot – rotary

wing Jordan Besenski AESRD – Fish and Wildlife Division Observer (left

and right) Grant Chapman AESRD – Fish and Wildlife Division Co-lead/

Observer (left and right)

Cody Clark AESRD – Forestry Division Flight following Monette Gauthier AESRD – Forestry Division Flight following Barb Maile AESRD – Fish and Wildlife Division Observer (left

and right) Dmitriy Mironenko Delta Helicopters Pilot – rotary

wing James Neil Canwest Aviation Pilot – fixed

wing Traci Morgan AESRD – Fish and Wildlife Division Co-lead/

Navigator Kristina Norstrom AESRD – Fish and Wildlife Division Lead/Navigator Larry Roy Alberta Innovates Technology

Futures Observer (right)

Scott Turner Canwest Aviation Pilot – fixed wing Survey protocol

A random stratified block survey is essentially a snapshot of the population at the time of the

survey and will result in a population estimate with confidence limits and statistics about

population structure such as ratios of bulls and young to cows. Stratified random block surveys

in Alberta (specifically the modified Gasaway technique) are designed to be accurate at a 90%

confidence interval, i.e. 9 out of 10 times (Lynch, 1997). The entire area to be surveyed is

divided into survey units (5 minutes of longitude X 5 minutes of Latitude) resulting in blocks of

about 47 km2 at these latitudes. Each survey unit is assigned to one of the stratum types (High,

Medium or Low), based on the observed number of animals in that survey unit. A stratification

flight is conducted over all survey units to determine their strata. Confidence limits are a test of

overall accuracy of stratification with confidence limits greater with more variation in one or

more of the strata. The Alberta method aims for confidence limits of +/-20%. A variety of

information sources can be used during the stratification to ensure that survey units are

7

assigned into the proper stratum (ex. Habitat, snow tracks, local knowledge, and known use).

Once all units have been stratified, 5 survey units are randomly selected from each stratum and

flown in a seed order and intensively searched using helicopters. All animals are counted and

classified as to sex and age (juvenile or adult) and where possible by antler size (small, medium

or large) as per AESRD’s aerial Ungulate Survey Protocol (AESRD 2010). Data is used to

determine average density in each stratum and ratios of bulls and calves to cows.

WMU 517 was stratified for moose densities using a Cessna 185 (equipped with skis) and a

Cessna 206 fixed wing aircrafts (January 8 – 10, 2013). Flight maps to aid in navigation were

prepared using ArcGIS 9.3. A one minute latitudinal grid, which is equivalent to a 1.8 km

separation between lines, was overlain on the WMU and followed. One airplane and crew was

used. The team followed the east/west survey line in sequence, which mimicked a minute of

latitude. Approximate altitude and ground speed during flights were 100 metres above ground

and 140 km/h respectively. This allowed observers to detect animals below and within 250-300

metres on either side of the aircraft, for approximately 25 percent coverage of the WMU. Three

observers, including the navigator in the front, were required for the survey. Species and

number of animals were recorded with a waypoint taken using a Garmin handheld GPS unit.

Stratification observations were digitally rendered onto the sampling unit grid. Given air speed

and waypoint record time, a lag may occur between when an animal was observed and the

location digitally recorded. To ensure accurate stratification, waypoints that occurred near a

sampling unit boundary were assessed based on direction of air travel. Waypoints were re-

assigned to the appropriate unit if they fell within 100 m of the unit boundary and conditions

warranted.

To facilitate population estimates for both moose and white-tailed deer, survey blocks were

stratified in based on natural breaks in animals observed per survey block from the stratification

flights. This method was chosen because the stratification flights yielded low moose

observations, ranging from 0-5 moose and 0-8 white-tailed deer observations per survey unit.

Survey units with 0, 1-2 and 3-5 moose observations and survey units with 0, 1-3 and 4-8 white-

tailed deer observations were stratified as low, medium and high respectively. Twenty-four

survey blocks were randomly selected representing 8 survey units for each low, medium and

high density moose strata. From these 24 randomly generated survey blocks 15 were flown in

total. While survey blocks flown were chosen primarily based on moose stratification, certain

blocks were skipped in favor of subsequent blocks to ensure 3 of each low, medium and high

8

strata were selected for both moose and white-tailed deer. White-tailed deer survey blocks

normally measure 3 minutes of longitude by 5 minutes of latitude, however, in order to

effectively survey both moose and white-tailed deer concurrently, this survey used survey units

measuring 5 minutes of longitude by 5 minutes of latitude (the standard for moose surveys).

The 15 selected survey units were intensively searched using 2 Bell 206 helicopters equipped

with rear bubble windows and 2 survey crews from January 12 – 17, 2013. Crews consisted of a

pilot, a navigator and 2 rear seat observers. Units were flown in an east-west direction with a

flight line separation of 400 m (0.25 minute or 15 seconds of latitude). Observations were

recorded within 200m of either side of the machine, allowing for total coverage of the area.

Altitude was approximately 90 metres above ground and air speed was approximately 80 km/h,

increasing to100 km/h in more open areas. Moose were classified using these criteria: presence

of antlers or pedicel scars, presence of vulva patch, and presence of a calf. White-tailed deer

were classified using these criteria: presence of antlers or pedicel scars, body size and

presence of a fawn. All wildlife observations were recorded and the locations were digitally

recorded.

9

10

Figure 2: Moose and white-tailed deer survey unit stratification as determined by initial stratification flights (survey units with 0, 1-2 and 3-5 moose observations and survey units with 0, 1-3 and 4-8 white-tailed deer observations were stratified as low, medium and high respectively).

11

Results

Moose survey results

Fixed wing flights for stratification yielded observations of 107 moose (Figure 3). During the

intensive search of 15 sampling units, 87 moose (20 bulls, 32 cows, 27 calves, 8 unclassified)

(Figure 4) were observed. The Quadrat Survey spreadsheet program generated a moose

population estimate of 305 (±136; 90% confidence interval) with a density of 0.06 moose/km2

(Appendix 3) which ranged from 0.00-0.31 moose/km2. The sex ratio (bulls:cows:calves) was

estimated at 63:100:84 based on observed moose within and adjacent to surveyed blocks.

Confidence limits were poor at ±44.5% of the actual estimate.

12

13

Figure 3. Moose and white-tailed deer observations during stratification flights.

14

White-tailed deer survey results

The stratification flights yielded 94 white-tailed deer observations (Figure 3). During the

intensive search of 15 sampling units, 157 white-tailed deer were observed (Figure 4). The

Quadrat Survey spreadsheet program generated a white-tailed deer population estimate of 693

(±367; 90% confidence interval) with a density of 0.15 white-tailed deer/km2

which ranged from

0.00-0.76 deer/km2

(Appendix 3). The sex ratio (buck:doe:fawn) was not estimated due to

probable antler drop prior to survey dates. Confidence limits were poor at ±53% of the actual

estimate.

Additional observations included 1 Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis), 1 coyote (Canis latrans), 3

gray wolves (Canis lupus), 1 great gray owl (Strix nebulosa), one pileated woodpecker

(Dryocopus pileatus), 14 sharp-tailed grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus) and 23 woodland

caribou (Rangifer tarandus).

Weather and flight times and Safety

Overall, survey conditions were variable with excellent snow coverage, scattered fog and

freezing precipitation causing icing, and light to moderate winds. Flat light and fog made

visibility of tracks difficult at times. There were start time delays due to low ceiling and/or

precipitation with weather completely prevented surveying on January 11 (ice fog) and January

15 (freezing rain). Temperatures during the survey dates ranged from 3.1 to -31.5°C (see Table

2).

Weather was a serious issue and resulted in not only an undesirable extended survey but

eventually required that the survey be terminated prematurely as a severe snow storm arrived

mid morning after flying 15 survey units and aircraft were subsequently grounded for 28 hours

and would have created a 48 delay in the survey from 11am Thursday until Saturday morning.

Total stratification flight time was approximately 18.1 hours; block survey rotary flight time was

18.7 hours.

Safety was a significant issue during this survey with machines being unable to fly at scheduled

departure times, grounded in the field for up to 2 hours, or making it difficult to predict a safe

and reasonable flight window, or travel in preferred routes, with aircraft experiencing icing in

remote areas at times. In order to reduce weather issues, the survey base was changed from

Lac La biche to the ESRD Leismer Fire base, near Conklin, AB for the last 2 days of survey

15

which eliminated 100km of travel to the survey area. During a barrelled refuelling stop a rotary-

wing pilot experienced a fuel splash to the face that required appropriate first aid treatment

which would have been serious had several eyewash stations and running water not been

available.

Table 2: Temperatures on survey days at Christina Lake near Winefred Lake (near the centre

of WMU 517). Retrieved September 10, 2013 from Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development

http://agriculture.alberta.ca/acis/alberta-weather-data-viewer.jsp

Date Air Temp. Min. (°C) Air Temp. Max. (°C) Daily Avg. (°C) January 8

-11.2 -5.9 -8.5 January 9

-18.7 -9.0 -13.1 January 10

-30.0 -14.7 -23.1 January 11

-31.5 -15.5 -22.1 January 12

-22.3 -13.6 -18.7 January 13

-25.4 -19.2 -21.9 January 14

-21.7 -6.9 -13.2 January 15

-13.2 3.1 -5.7 January 16

-23.3 -13.4 -15.5 January 17

-24.7 -13.2 -17.8

16

17

Figure 4. Moose and white-tailed deer observations during detailed survey unit flights, including off-block observations.

18

Discussion

Moose survey discussion

The results of the 2006 moose survey for WMU 517 estimated a population of 224 moose

±32.7% (151-197 moose) and a density of 0.05 moose/km2. In 2013, the estimate increased

slightly to 305 moose ±44.5% (169-441 moose) which overlaps the range of the previous

estimate. The goal of this type of moose survey was to obtain a moose population estimate with

a confidence limit of ±20% and ±44.5% is a much poorer result than this goal. The survey team

decided that it was best to end this survey as it would have been unreasonable to continue

flying given the results of the first 15 survey units flown and the low likelihood of more survey

time improving confidence limits. Additional considerations included the arrival of a significant

snow storm that had grounded aircraft and was going to cause a 2 day delay in safe flight

operations followed by a poor and uncertain long range weather forecast.

WMU 517 has a low moose density, when compared to regional WMU’s with the exception of

WMU 529’s 2009 estimate (See Table 3).

Table 3: Comparison of population parameters for moose in WMUs near 517.

WMU Date Last Surveyed

Population Density (moose/km2)

Classification (bull:cow:calf)

512 2013 0.30 35:100:31 515 2004 0.24 39:100:68 519 2008 0.15 36:100:35 529 2009 0.04 60:100:87 726 Cold Lake Air Weapons Range - Never surveyed; planned for 2013 517 2013 0.06 63:100:84

When reviewing the population estimate survey history for WMU 517 (see Table 4) the results

demonstrate that the population of moose increased by 36% since 2006 (although with a larger

confidence limit by 11.8%) yet has decreased since the 1993 20 year high estimate of 550

moose. The management goal for WMU 517 is 800 moose (Table 6), and while the slight

increase in the 2013 population estimate is a small step towards this goal, there remain

significant moose management issues and survey issues preventing recovery of this goal and

obtaining an accurate estimate of the population. Historical impacts to the population include

high first nations harvest, metis harvest, poaching activity, and significant industrial land uses

that reduce habitat quality and survival of some cohorts.

19

Table 4: Historical population estimates, moose density and age/sex ratios for WMU 517.

Year Survey Type Population Estimate

Confidence Limit

Moose Density

Bull:Cow:Calf Ratio

1993 Classified 550 n/a 0.12 70:100:49 2000 Random block 398 ±31.3% 0.08 37:100:34 2006 Random block 224 ±32.7% 0.05 83:100:39 2011 *Modified

Gasaway N/A N/A 0.07 141:100:41

2013 Random block 305 ±44.5% 0.06 63:100:84 *Devon Canada – Did not follow 2010 AESRD Protocol

Recent survey age sex ratios (83:100:39 in 2006 and 63:100:84 in 2013) are worrisome as they

do not reflect the bull:cow ratio that should be expected in a WMU managed under a bull only

harvest regime with both early and late seasons. This change in the ratio may be a result of an

increased harvest of cows (via poaching activity, high subsistence Aboriginal hunting, and other

land use impacts that affect moose survival. Additionally sightability issues are likely reducing

confidence due to the significant difficulty in seeing animals in a old growth forested landscape

and areas dominated by dense canopy closure. WMU 517 has provided the minimum possible

number of special licenses (5 licences per season for both early and the late) since 2011

(Tables 5 and 6) and will continue to provide very little recreational harvest opportunities until

the population makes a significant recovery.

Table 5: WMU 512 pre-hunting season population estimates, permits allotted and reported success.

Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Population Estimate

225 219 217 208 218 280

WMU 517 Permits

43 26 Early 9 Late 12

Early 5 Late 5

Early 5 Late 5

Early 5 Late 5

WMU 517 Success

31 36 33 0 20 n/a

20

Table 6: 2013 regional WMU moose populations, permits and 2012 harvest success.

WMU Pop. Goal

2012 Pop. Estimate

2013 Pop. Estimate

2012 Permit

Numbers

Harvest Success

(%) 503 400 756 739 Bull 150

Cow 30 Bull 23 Cow 69

512 2000 1619 2562 Early 49 Late 25

Early 41 Late 43

515 1000 594 643 Early 42 Late 68

Early 31 Late 28

517 800 212 280 Early 5 Late 5

Early 22 Late 22

516 500 970 900 Early 105 Late 130

Early 30 Late 19

White-tailed deer survey discussion

The 2013 population estimate for white-tailed deer in WMU 517 was a pioneering attempt to

determine the numbers of white-tailed deer in this region of north-eastern Alberta. The

estimated white-tailed deer population in WMU 517 of 693 (±367 or ±53%) resulted in a density

of 0.15 white-tailed deer/km2 across the entire WMU. This average density is much lower than

the range of densities observed 0.04-1.86 deer/km2 in historical surveys in the region (Table 7).

While some survey units within WMU 517 did reach densities as high as 0.76 deer/km2, these

higher density survey units were often associated with habitat containing upland deciduous

vegetation and river drainages with topographical relief which is often the preferred wintering

habitat for deer in this region. A total of 114 adults and 43 fawns were observed in the detailed

survey unit flights resulting in a ratio of 2.65 adults per fawn.

Table 7. Historical White-tailed deer surveys and parameters near WMU 517

21

WMU 517 deer management goals are similar to other WMU’s in the region where deer range

overlaps with caribou range. Currently general hunting licenses allow for the harvest of up to 3

deer per year per person, with reported hunting pressure and harvest low.

Table 8. Historical White-tailed deer harvest and population in WMU 517 2002-2013

The winter of 2012-13 proved to be very harsh with high snowfalls and interspersed rain and

warming bouts which resulted in a deep crusted snowpack that wolves and coyotes could run

on late in the winter. High deer mortality was observed in collared adult female deer ~40% in

WMU 517 during the time from March – May 2013 as reported by the boreal deer study (Fisher

and Hiltz 2013). Anecdotal sightings by wildlife officers, biologists, and contacts working in the

area reported visual estimates of body condition and the lack of fawns, which likely resulted in a

winter mortality of ~50% of adults and a ~95% of the fawn cohort. An adjusted post winter

population estimate incorporating this significant additional mortality would reduce the

population to 355 deer in the WMU with a density of 0.06 deer/km2. Winter mortality is common

22

in the northern extent of a species range and it was concluded by Dawe (2011) that white-tailed

deer distribution changes in this region of Alberta have been driven largely by changes in winter

and summer climate.

Enumerating white-tailed deer populations in northeast Alberta and understanding their

occupation of the boreal forest provides important information to guide woodland caribou

recovery and management. Dawe (2011) reported that northward expansion of white-tailed deer

has been and continues to be facilitated by a warming climate and the increase of land use that

results in forests disturbed by agriculture, forestry and oil and gas well pads. Dawe (2011)

predicts that the majority of Alberta’s boreal areas will be occupied by white-tailed deer by the

year 2050, with considerable range expansion predicted in the Lower Athabasca Region.

White-tailed deer are an important alternate prey source for wolves (Dawe 2011; Fisher and

Hiltz 2013), and depredation by wolves has been deemed one of the most significant causes of

direct mortality of woodland caribou on landscapes heavily impacted by linear disturbances

(Environment Canada 2012). Understanding white-tailed deer abundance and distribution in

northern Alberta will assist management of the species as well as contribute to the recovery and

management of woodland caribou.

Estimating white-tailed deer populations in coniferous dominated forests during winter is made

difficult due to dense canopy cover (Fisher and Hiltz 2013). Detectability of deer in this study is

further limited by the fact that white-tailed deer are less detectable as winter progresses (i.e.

time since the rut - November) (Fisher and Hiltz 2013). Fisher and Hiltz 2013, report that deer

exhibit the lowest detectability from January to March which is a possible contributing factor to

this surveys poor confidence limit of ±53%, which is much greater than the ±20% confidence

limit goal for this type of survey. Fisher and Hiltz (2013) concluded that white-tailed deer

occupied 96% of their infrared camera trap sites in WMU 517. During this modified Gasaway

surveys stratification flights, white-tailed deer were observed in only 69.9% of survey units (72

of 103) which suggest that flight crews failed to detect white-tailed deer. Further support of this

is noted as often fresh tracks could be seen in the snow in areas where no deer were observed.

Detection variance and survey conditions that extended the survey length are the two main

factors that prevented this survey from a obtaining a better confidence interval.

While our 2013 population estimate of white-tailed deer in WMU 517 carries a low confidence

limit (693 ±367 or 53%) it is a starting point for aerially surveying white-tailed deer in Alberta’s

23

northern boreal region and highlights the need for improved survey methods. As predicted by

Dawe (2011), Fisher and Hiltz (2013) concluded that white-tailed deer distribution is stable or

increasing across this landscape. Future work is required to refine survey techniques for this

species. AESRD and Alberta Innovates Technology Futures have partnered on a project

studying white-tailed deer in northern Alberta (Fisher and Hiltz 2013) and are currently

assessing the ability of remote infrared camera traps to estimate white-tailed deer populations.

In addition, they employ gps collars to monitor deer movement and habitat use in WMU 517

which will benefit deer management across Alberta’s Boreal region.

Other wildlife sightings

During the survey, a number of other species were observed in WMU 517 including woodland

caribou, great gray owl, coyote, sharp-tailed grouse, ruffed grouse, northern goshawk, Canada

lynx, pileated woodpecker and gray wolf. While no population estimates were made for these

species, knowledge of their presence and locations contributes to the overall understanding of

the ecology in the area, future landscape planning and toward the recovery and management of

woodland caribou in the northeast.

Recommendations

Moose are an important resource for all Albertans and population health in this WMU needs

close monitoring given the inability to reach the target population of 800 moose since the 1990s.

Monitoring moose populations at regular intervals and also the effectiveness of wildlife land use

integrated standards, guidelines, policy and decisions should be a priority to ensure habitat

quality and wildlife values are maintained. Understanding moose populations in WMU 517 is

further justified in that they are a metric for monitoring biodiversity under the Lower Athabasca

Regional Plan and the Land Use Framework. Surveys are scheduled for every 5 years, but

have historically gone underfunded and have been surveyed less frequently. The recent

creation of the Joint Oil Sands Monitoring Program may address this issue.

AESRD has recently improved the capabilities of our hunting and fishing network to enable

volunteer online hunter harvest surveys, which better report hunter efforts and success for big

game. The survey results provide valuable game management information. .Moose special

licenses will be issued to reflect current estimates for recreational hunter harvest for this area

which is imprecise due to small sample sizes. Subsistence harvest information for this WMU is

poorly understood but is estimated to be relatively high as compared to other WMU’s in the

24

region. Accurate First Nation harvest data is not available, but is critical to better understand

moose population dynamics and would significantly help inform moose management in this

WMU.

Further moose population inquiry should be assessed in this area to better determine local

factors that are influencing it’s productivity. Currently there are a number of research studies

underway (academic, industrial, government and non-government) that contribute to the better

understanding of moose, white-tailed deer, caribou and wolf ecology in the region. These will be

important contributions to the future management of wildlife in the Lower Athabasca Region.

Improving on our ability to estimate white-tailed deer populations in boreal regions of Alberta is

important to guide the management of white-tailed deer in northern Alberta. It is recommended

that future surveys in the boreal mixed wood select a survey design that will yield better results

and an accuracy adequate for management purposes. Future management should incorporate

any new findings from the AESRD and Alberta Innovates Technology Futures Boreal white-

tailed deer study which is planned to be completed in 2015.

25

26

References Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (AESRD). 2010. Aerial ungulate

survey protocol manual. Produced by ASRD, Fish and Wildlife Division, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 65 pp.

Dawe, K.L. 2011. Factors Driving Range Expansion of White-tailed Deer, (Odocoileus

virginianus, in the boreal forest of northern Alberta, Canada. Unpublished doctoral thesis. University of Alberta. 159 pp.

Environment Canada. 2012. Recovery Strategy for Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus

caribou), Boreal Population, in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Environment Canada, Ottawa. xi + 138 pp.

Fisher, J.T. and Hiltz, M. 2013. The Alberta Boreal Deer Project – 2012-2013 Fiscal Year

Report. Unpublished report by Alberta Innovates Technology Futures. 26 pp. Lynch, G. 1997. Northern Moose Program Moose Survey Field Manual. Unpublished report by

Wildlife Management Consulting. 68pp

Appendix 1

WMU 517 sampling units, area, number of moose and white-tailed deer observed in stratification flight and assigned strata.

Survey Block

#

Area including large 

bodies of water km2 

Area excluding large 

bodies of water km2 

Number of Moose Observed

Moose density/ km2

(areaincludes large bodies

of water)

Moose density/ km2 (area excludes

large bodies of

water)

Number of white-

tailed deer

Observed

White-tailed deer

density/ km2 (area includes

large bodies of

water)

White-tailed deer

density/ km2 (area excludes

large bodies of

water)

Stratum value

moose

Stratum value white-tailed deer

1 39.2  39.2  2 0.05 0.05 0 0 0 Med Low

2 42.2  42.2  2 0.05 0.05 4 0.09 0.09 Med High

3 58.1  54.0  4 0.07 0.07 7 0.12 0.13 High High

4 50.8  50.1  5 0.1 0.1 4 0.08 0.08 High High

5 62.7  61.4  4 0.06 0.07 4 0.06 0.07 High High

6 55.3  51.9  0 0 0 2 0.04 0.04 low Med

7 32.5  31.3  1 0.03 0.03 0 0 0 Med Low

8 39.6  39.6  2 0.05 0.05 3 0.08 0.08 Med Med

9 41.0  41.0  2 0.05 0.05 7 0.17 0.17 Med High

10 44.6  44.6  2 0.04 0.04 9 0.2 0.2 Med High

11 48.3  48.3  2 0.04 0.04 8 0.17 0.17 Med High

12 48.3  38.4  2 0.04 0.05 3 0.06 0.08 Med Med

13 48.3  43.5  0 0 0 1 0.02 0.02 low Med

14 48.3  48.2  3 0.06 0.06 4 0.08 0.08 High High

15 48.3  37.6  0 0 0 3 0.06 0.08 low High

16 48.3  45.4  2 0.04 0.04 2 0.04 0.04 Med Med

17 48.3  48.3  0 0 0 3 0.06 0.06 low High

18 48.3  48.3  2 0.04 0.04 0 0 0 Med Low

19 47.2  47.2  0 0 0 0 0 0 low Low

20 36.9  36.9  0 0 0 0 0 0 low Low

21 46.3  46.3  0 0 0 0 0 0 low Low

22 48.4  48.4  2 0.04 0.04 0 0 0 Med Low

23 48.4  48.4  0 0 0 0 0 0 low Low

27

24 48.4  48.4  4 0.08 0.08 1 0.02 0.02 High Med

25 48.4  48.4  0 0 0 0 0 0 low Low

26 48.4  47.5  0 0 0 0 0 0 low Low

27 48.4  47.0  2 0.04 0.04 1 0.02 0.02 Med Med

28 48.4  48.4  2 0.04 0.04 2 0.04 0.04 Med Med

29 48.4  47.8  1 0.02 0.02 3 0.06 0.06 Med Med

30 48.4  46.6  1 0.02 0.02 5 0.1 0.11 Med High

31 47.7  47.7  0 0 0 1 0.02 0.02 low Med

32 26.8  26.8  2 0.07 0.07 3 0.11 0.11 Med High

33 54.7  54.7  0 0 0 0 0 0 low Low

34 48.5  47.7  0 0 0 0 0 0 low Low

35 48.5  48.5  0 0 0 0 0 0 low Low

36 48.5  48.3  3 0.06 0.06 0 0 0 High Low

37 48.5  46.6  2 0.04 0.04 0 0 0 Med Low

38 48.5  48.3  1 0.02 0.02 1 0.02 0.02 Med Med

39 48.5  47.2  0 0 0 0 0 0 low Low

40 48.5  48.2  2 0.04 0.04 1 0.02 0.02 Med Med

41 48.5  48.1  1 0.02 0.02 1 0.02 0.02 Med Med

42 48.5  48.5  0 0 0 0 0 0 low Low

43 48.5  47.8  0 0 0 0 0 0 low Low

44 48.5  48.5  0 0 0 0 0 0 low Low

45 46.3  45.3  4 0.09 0.09 0 0 0 High Low

46 46.4  46.4  1 0.02 0.02 0 0 0 Med Low

47 48.6  48.6  1 0.02 0.02 0 0 0 Med Low

48 48.6  48.6  0 0 0 0 0 0 low Low

49 48.6  48.6  0 0 0 0 0 0 low Low

50 48.6  48.6  0 0 0 0 0 0 low Low

51 48.6  48.3  0 0 0 1 0.02 0.02 low Med

52 48.6  45.6  0 0 0 0 0 0 low Low

53 48.6  48.6  0 0 0 1 0.02 0.02 low Med

54 48.6  48.6  0 0 0 0 0 0 low Low

55 48.6  43.3  1 0.02 0.02 0 0 0 Med Low

56 48.6  42.1  2 0.04 0.05 0 0 0 Med Low

28

57 48.6  42.3  1 0.02 0.02 0 0 0 Med Low

58 48.4  44.8  1 0.02 0.02 2 0.04 0.04 Med Med

59 21.2  21.2  0 0 0 0 0 0 low Low

60 22.0  22.0  0 0 0 0 0 0 low Low

61 48.7  48.7  0 0 0 0 0 0 low Low

62 48.7  48.7  0 0 0 0 0 0 low Low

63 48.7  48.7  3 0.06 0.06 1 0.02 0.02 High Med

64 48.7  48.7  1 0.02 0.02 0 0 0 Med Low

65 48.7  48.5  0 0 0 0 0 0 low Low

66 48.7  48.7  0 0 0 0 0 0 low Low

67 48.7  39.4  2 0.04 0.05 0 0 0 Med Low

68 48.7  14.1  0 0 0 0 0 0 low Low

69 48.7  45.1  0 0 0 0 0 0 low Low 70 48.7 48.3 1 0.02 0.02 0 0 0 Med Low 71 48.7 48.7 1 0.02 0.02 0 0 0 Med Low 72 48.7 48.7 1 0.02 0.02 0 0 0 Med Low 73 48.7 48.7 1 0.02 0.02 0 0 0 Med Low 74 46.5 46.5 1 0.02 0.02 0 0 0 Med Low 75 46.6 46.0 1 0.02 0.02 0 0 0 Med Low 76 48.8 48.1 2 0.04 0.04 0 0 0 Med Low 77 48.8 48.8 0 0 0 2 0.04 0.04 low Med 78 48.8 47.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 low Low 79 48.8 48.8 1 0.02 0.02 0 0 0 Med Low 80 48.8 17.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 low Low 81 48.8 19.0 3 0.06 0.16 2 0.04 0.11 High Med 82 48.8 34.0 4 0.08 0.12 0 0 0 High Low 83 48.8 48.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 low Low 84 48.8 42.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 low Low 85 48.8 48.4 2 0.04 0.04 0 0 0 Med Low 86 48.8 48.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 low Low 87 48.8 48.8 2 0.04 0.04 0 0 0 Med Low 88 48.8 48.3 2 0.04 0.04 0 0 0 High Low 89 48.8 48.8 1 0.02 0.02 0 0 0 Med Low 90 43.7 36.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 low Low 91 67.1 48.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 low Low 92 50.3 50.3 1 0.02 0.02 0 0 0 Med Low 93 50.3 47.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 low Low

29

30

94 50.3 50.3 2 0.04 0.04 0 0 0 Med Low 95 50.3 50.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 low Low 96 50.3 50.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 low Low 97 50.3 50.3 2 0.04 0.04 0 0 0 Med Low 98 50.3 50.3 1 0.02 0.02 0 0 0 Med Low 99 50.3 49.1 1 0.02 0.02 2 0.04 0.04 Med Med 100 50.3 49.4 2 0.04 0.04 0 0 0 Med Low 101 70.6 59.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 low Low 102 51.2 51.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 low Low

103 54.7 54.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 low Low

Appendix 2 Data summary of survey blocks surveyed, moose observed, density and particulars for each block.

Date Survey Block Stratum Bulls Cows Calves Unidentified

Adults Moose Total

Moose density (area includes large bodies of

water moose/km2)

Moose density (area excludes large bodies of

water moose/km2)

January 12 50 low 0 1 0 0 1 0.02 0.02 January 12 63 high 0 1 0 0 1 0.02 0.02 January 12 77 low 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 January 12 85 med 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 January 12 100 med 0 1 0 0 1 0.02 0.02 January 13 10 med 6 4 4 0 14 0.31 0.31 January 13 14 high 1 1 1 0 3 0.06 0.06 January 13 89 med 1 0 0 0 1 0.02 0.02 January 13 93 low 1 1 1 0 3 0.06 0.06 January 14 5 high 1 6 4 2 13 0.21 0.21 January 14 32 med 0 2 2 0 4 0.15 0.15 January 14 22 med 2 1 1 0 4 0.08 0.08 January 16 8 med 0 1 2 0 3 0.08 0.08 January 17 36 high 0 1 0 0 1 0.02 0.02 January 17 56 med 3 2 2 0 7 0.14 0.17

31

32

Data summary of survey units surveyed, white-tailed deer observed, density and particulars for each block.

Date Survey Block

Stratum Antlered Bucks

Antlerless Adults

Fawns Total White-tailed deer

White-tailed deer density

(area includes large bodies of water deer/km2)

White-tailed deer density

(area excludes large bodies of water deer/km2)

January 12 50 low 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 January 12 63 med 0 6 1 7 0.14 0.14 January 12 77 med 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 January 12 85 low 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 January 12 100 low 0 8 1 9 0.18 0.18 January 13 10 high 0 20 10 30 0.67 0.67 January 13 14 high 0 19 10 29 0.60 0.60 January 13 89 low 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 January 13 93 low 0 1 1 2 0.04 0.04 January 14 5 high 1 19 13 33 0.53 0.54 January 14 32 high 0 7 0 7 0.26 0.26 January 14 22 low 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 January 16 8 med 1 23 6 30 0.76 0.76 January 17 36 low 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 January 17 56 low 0 9 1 10 0.21 0.24

Appendix 3

WMU 517 moose and white-tailed deer population calculations from the Quadrat Survey Method program for January 2013.

QUADRAT SURVEY METHOD 1.WMU: 517 2. Date: 3.Species: Moose

5. Aircraft Type: 206 6. Conditions:

Note Block 103

Total Estimated Pop. 305 +/- 136 Lower / Upper Limits 169 to 440 Plus or Minus % 44.5%

Density 0.06 /sq.km. 0.17 /sq.mi. Males Females Juveniles Total

Sex & Age Ratios - - - - Sample 20 32 27 79M/F/J Ratio 63 100 84 Percent 25% 41% 34% - Proportions 0.25 0.41 0.34 - 90 % C.L. 0.06 0.07 0.07 - % +/- 25.3 17.8 20.4 - Population Split 77 123 104 305

QUADRAT SURVEY METHOD

1.WMU: 517 2. Date: January 2013 3.Species: White-tailed Deer

5. Aircraft Type: 6. Conditions:

Total Estimated Pop. 693 +/- 367

Lower / Upper Limits 326 to 1060

Plus or Minus % 53.0%

Density 0.15 /sq.km. 0.38 /sq.mi.

Males Females Juveniles Total Sex & Age Ratios - - - -

Sample 0 0 0 0M/F/J Ratio 0 100 0 Percent 0% 0% 0% - Proportions 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 90 % C.L. 0.00 0.00 0.00 - % +/- 0.0 0.0 0.0 - Population Split 0 0 0 0

33