ALCES VOL. 45, 2009 WEST – MOOSE CONSERVATION IN WILDLIFE REFUGES 59 MOOSE CONSERVATION IN THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM, USA Robin L. West U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, P.O. Box 2139, Soldotna, AK 99669, USA ABSTRACT: The National Wildlife Refuge System in the United States includes about 150 million acres of lands and waters within 550 refuges managed for conservation. A variety of laws, regula- tions, and management polices help ensure these areas will be preserved for future generations. In a web-based survey, 35 refuges reported having established populations of moose (Alces alces) within their boundaries with nearly 40 million acres of moose habitat, 99% in Alaska. The 4 recognized sub- species of moose in North America were represented on refuges found in 12 states. Approximately 39,000 moose were reported inhabiting refuges in the USA; about 38,000 in Alaska. Only 9 refuges used management practices specifically to benefit moose, primarily prescribed or wildland fire. Moose populations on refuges varied greatly and refuge managers reported numerous concerns including climate change, illegal harvest, habitat loss or degradation, parasites, disturbance, moose-vehicle col- lisions, predators, and both recreational and subsistence hunting. Future management implications of these issues are discussed. ALCES VOL. 45: 59-65 (2009) Key words: Alces alces, climate change, management, moose, national policy, survey, wildlife ref- uges. The National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) was created in 1903 when Presi- dent Theodore Roosevelt set aside the first refuge at Pelican Island, Florida. Today 550 refuges, at least one in each of the 50 states, encompass approximately 150 million acres of lands and waters and are managed for conservation of fish, wildlife, and plants as part of the NWRS in the U.S. Department of Interior’s Fish and Wildlife Service (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009). The mission of the NWRS, formalized with the passage of “organic legislation” in 1997 that amended the National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act of 1966 is: “… to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, man- agement, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.” National Wildlife Refuges (NWR) support a diverse variety of wildlife species including the 4 recognized North American subspecies of moose as described by Bubenik (1997). Alaska has the majority of the acreage, the most moose habitat, and the most moose within the NWRS. Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, nearly 2 million acres of boreal forest located in south central Alaska, was established as the Kenai National Moose Range by Executive Order in 1941 and was managed specifically to conserve and protect moose until the Refuge’s purposes were expanded in 1980. Predator management and enforcement against poach- ing dominated early activities at the Kenai National Moose Range, but by the 1960s management efforts became more focused on habitat conservation and treatments. METHODS AND OBJECTIVES A web-based survey was employed early MOOSE CONSERVATION IN WILDLIFE REFUGES - WEST ALCES VOL. 45, 2009 60 in 2008 to gather information to 1) better understand the role of the NWRS in moose conservation, and 2) identify the most impor- tant issues or constraints facing management of moose on refuges. The survey was devel- oped at SurveyMonkey.com and included 21 questions including basic questions about the refuge (i.e., size, purpose, date established) and moose-specific questions regarding the abundance, habitat, harvest, and management of moose. Refuge biologists and managers were notified of the request through regional biologists in 5 of the 8 administrative regions of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that were within the range of moose. Reminders were provided to help ensure near complete responses, and follow-up contacts were made where clarification was needed. RESULTS Thirty-nine refuges from 12 states re- sponded to the survey. One refuge, Kodiak NWR in Alaska, reported that moose had been introduced but were no longer present. Three refuges, the Charles M. Russell in Montana, Rachel Carson in Maine, and Rydell in Min- nesota reported only incidental sightings of moose, but that healthy populations occurred in nearby areas. The remainder (35 refuges) reported moose as occupying refuge lands on a regular basis (Table 1, Fig. 1). The total combined area of refuges report- ing the presence of moose was 72,024,112 acres; the estimated moose habitat was 39,599,769 acres (55%). These areas were not based on quantifiable data but were estimates that generally eliminated unsuitable moose habitat such as glaciers and alpine tundra. The vast majority (approximately 99%) of the total acreage and suitable moose habitat was on refuges in Alaska. Population estimates (N = 33; 4 refuges in Alaska reported as 2 since Fig. 1. Location of National Wildlife Refuges in the United States reporting the presence of moose, 2007. ALCES VOL. 45, 2009 WEST – MOOSE CONSERVATION IN WILDLIFE REFUGES 61 Refuge Name State Refuge Size (acres) Percent Moose Habitat Population Estimate Population Status Annual Harvest Estimate Alaska Peninsula AK 3,563,489 & 81% 2,500 ? 51-100 Becharof AK 1,200,060 Arctic AK 19,286,322 26% 1,000 ? 51-100 Innoko AK 3,850,481 100% 3,700 - 10-50 Izembek AK 311,076 10% 101 + <10 Kanuti AK 1,430,160 52% 588 ? 10-50 Kenai AK 1,912,425 89% 3,481 - 301-400 Koyukuk AK 3,550,160 & 100% 15,000 0 301-400 Nowitna AK 1,560,000 Selawik AK 2,150,162 100% 2,100 0 51-100 Tetlin AK 700,059 96% 1,272 + 51-100 Togiak AK 4,101,178 30% 1,600 0 51-100 Yukon Delta AK 19,162,297 20% 4,700 + 301-400 Yukon Flats AK 8,633,385 100% 2,500 0 201-300 Arapaho CO 23,271 19% 20 0 0 Bear Lake ID 18,086 22% 5 0 0 Camas ID 10,578 60% 8 - 0 Grays Lake ID 20,125 50% 12 0 0 Kootenai ID 2,774 100% 12 ? <10 Moosehorn ME 28,874 100% 20 + <10 Sunkhaze Meadows ME 11,217 87% 25 ? 0 Seney MI 93,245 95% 50 ? 0 Agassiz MN 61,501 73% 33 ? 0 Glacial Ridge MN 2,360 50% 7 ? 0 Lost Trail MT 8,834 38% 5 + 0 Red Rock Lakes MT 68,810 84% 93 + <10 Des Lacs ND 19,547 51% 10 0 0 J. Clark Salyer ND 59,376 42% 40 0 0 Lostwood ND 26,904 100% 8 0 0 Upper Souris ND 32,302 69% 4 + 0 Lake Umbagog NH 13,173 50% 100 0 <10 Silvio O. Conte VT 26,574 100% 85 - 10-50 Little Pend Oreille WA 42,594 100% 10 + <10 Turnbull WA 17,935 64% 10 0 0 National Elk WY 24,778 20% 20 - 0 Table 1. Summary data from 39 National Wildlife Refuges in the United States reporting the presence of moose, 2007. The population status was described as: 0 = stable, + = increasing, - = decreasing, and ? = unknown. MOOSE CONSERVATION IN WILDLIFE REFUGES - WEST ALCES VOL. 45, 2009 62 they are managed as complexes) were derived from expert opinion (5), incidental observa- tion (11), refuge-specific aerial surveys (12), or state agency aerial surveys (5). Population status was reported as increasing (8), decreas- ing (5), stable (12), and unknown (8). This assessment was made by expert opinion (9), incidental observation (12), or statistical trend analysis (12). Hunting occurred on 20 refuges. The estimated annual harvest on refuges that al- lowed hunting ranged from <10 (6), 10-50 (3), 51-100 (5), 201-300 (1) and 301-400 (3); only Alaskan refuges reported harvests >10 moose. The harvest at Izembek NWR in Alaska was <10 moose with an increasing population. Most moose reported at Izembek were on an adjacent unit of the Alaska Pen- insula NWR but were managed by Izembek. All Alaskan refuges that allow hunting have both recreational and subsistence hunting, but harvest estimates were not differentiated by type (Table 1). Only 9 of 35 refuges reported specific management actions to benefit moose such as prescribed fire (8), re-vegetation (2), willow cutting (1), rest area from grazing (1), and wildland fire use (2). Wildland fire use is the practice of allowing naturally ignited fire to burn for resource benefits and differs from prescribed fire that is a management-ignited fire for resource benefit. New terminology being used to describe various strategies to suppress all or part of a wildfire, or permit portions to burn, equate all fire management decisions other than prescribed fire as “ap- propriate management response” so future habitat treatment by fire management decisions may be more difficult to track. Some refuges historically used crushing or chaining to set back forest succession to benefit moose, but these techniques are not currently employed. Follow-up conversations with biologists and managers revealed that fire is generally con- sidered cheaper, more ecologically acceptable, and more effective than mechanical treatments. Kenai NWR reported that nearly 60,000 acres received vegetation treatment for habitat improvement in 1960-2008 (21,697 acres of mechanical, 4,863 acres of prescribed fire, and 29,638 acres of wildland fire use) with wildland fire use accounting for nearly all acreage treated in the past 5 years. The cur- rent assessment of moose habitat on refuges (N = 33) included improving (7), stable (12), declining (5), and unknown (9) conditions. These assessments were largely reported as qualitative (84%) not quantitative. The most important issues or manage- ment concerns about moose on refuges were climate change (13), habitat degradation (12), illegal harvest (11), subsistence hunting (10), recreational hunting (8), parasites (5), habitat loss (3), disturbance (2), and moose-vehicle collisions (2). Fifteen refuges reported “other” that included practical and political issues in- volving predators, coordination and education with rural users, drought, vegetation manage- ment, practical fire management programs, and reliable population surveys. All issues were identified by at least one manager in both Alaska and the lower 48 states except subsistence hunting was identified as a man- agement concern only in Alaska; parasites were identified as a concern by lower 48 refuge managers only. DISCUSSION Refuge managers are charged with achiev- ing specific refuge purposes and the mission of the NWRS. Management of the NWRS has evolved from the beginning of the 20th century when refuges were viewed as inviolate sanctuaries, and little or any public use was allowed – to post-World War II when refuges were managed increasingly for multiple uses – to the current era (post-1997) when refuges are managed primarily for wildlife. Human uses are allowed only when such uses are compatible with (i.e., do not materially in- terfere with or detract from) refuge purposes and the NWRS mission. Additionally, in 1997 ALCES VOL. 45, 2009 WEST – MOOSE CONSERVATION IN WILDLIFE REFUGES 63 Congress mandated that wildlife-dependent recreational uses (i.e., hunting, fishing, wildlife viewing, photography, and outdoor education and interpretation) were appropriate uses of the NWRS and should be permitted if compatible. It is this mandate that may help ensure oppor- tunity for moose hunting well into the future, though this applies mostly to Alaska where the majority of moose and moose habitat occur in the NWRS. Kenai NWR has a specific purpose to provide for wildlife-oriented recreation in- cluding hunting. The other 15 Alaskan refuges have a specific purpose to provide continued opportunities for subsistence hunting and fishing, but also have the general mandate to permit hunting and other wildlife-dependent recreational uses whenever compatible with other purposes. While subsistence hunting in Alaska is administered differently under Federal law than state managed recreational hunting, ample opportunity exists for both user groups. This dual management program began in 1990 and has resulted in frequent philosophical debate and legal challenge, but no significant conservation concerns have developed to date. The survey indicated no identifiable trend in the status of moose regionally or by state. Informal discussions with refuge managers suggest that site-specific habitat variables probably drive moose numbers more than any other factor; however, there were a few exceptions, such as concern over the role of parasites in the population decline of moose in Agassiz NWR in Minnesota. Habitat treatment on refuges is guided by a number of factors including the legal purposes for establishing the area, and other legal mandates, policies, and economics. Wilderness designations by Congress are relatively new protective layers applied to areas in certain refuges, as well as portions of some National Parks, National Forests, and Bureau of Land Management lands. Wilder- ness designations provide legal protection from development such as logging, mining, oil and gas extraction, and road building, but also limit the intensive management options of managers. The legal guidelines for wilder- ness management require natural processes to dominate, but active management may be used to restore or help facilitate natural processes, prevent loss of species, or be implemented in case of emergency. When active management is to be undertaken, or where mechanization is necessary to access the area or complete the proposed work in designated wilderness, federal policies require that the minimum tool practical be employed to successfully complete the task. Wilderness designations may prevent some managers from undertak- ing active moose management practices, but the long-term additional protection given to these areas should ultimately benefit moose and other wildlife and outweigh any detriment from lost management flexibility. Refuge management emphasis has also changed to include broader purposes and attention to wildlife diversity from earlier years when certain refuges were established as game ranges such as Hart Mountain National Antelope Refuge in Oregon, National Bison Range in Montana, National Elk Refuge in Wyoming, and Kenai National Moose Range in Alaska. This is especially true in Alaska where the majority of moose and moose habitat occurs within the NWRS. In 1980 Congress passed the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) which expanded the 7 existing refuges and created 9 new ones, establishing approximately 77 million acres in the NWRS (about 50%). The primary management purpose established by ANILCA for all Alaska refuges was: “to conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their natural diversity …”. ANILCA also emphasized specific species for which the areas were primarily known. Moose were specifically mentioned in 8 refug- es: Kenai, Alaska Peninsula, Innoko, Kanuti, MOOSE CONSERVATION IN WILDLIFE REFUGES - WEST ALCES VOL. 45, 2009 64 Koyukuk, Nowitna, Tetlin, and Yukon Flats. However, the stated emphasis was clearly not exclusive and does not justify management activities benefiting highlighted species while clearly harming other species. The overall goal of managing the largely pristine Alaskan refuges is to preserve natural diversity and natural processes. This has pro- vided some unique challenges, but has largely been realized in the 29 years since ANILCA was enacted. The long-term prognosis is less certain given the increasing issues associated with climate change. This is no simple phe- nomena but rather a threat of ecosystem level change within decades rather than centuries. Increased prevalence of wildfire, drying of lakes and wetlands, elevated levels of forest insect outbreaks, rising tree lines, and melting of glaciers and permafrost are some of the potential effects of climate warming (Wiles et al. 1995, Klein et al. 2005, Berg and Anderson 2006, Berg et al. 2006, Dial et al. 2007, Wiles et al. 2008). Perhaps most notable in Alaska is the predicted shift from a largely spruce (Picea spp.)-dominated forest to a decidu- ous forest because of a projected increase in the fire cycle (Chapin et al. 2003, Rupp and Mann 2005). Such a shift should substantially favor moose, but could drastically reduce suit- ability of large areas to caribou (Rupp et al. 2006). While warmer climates (and increased prevalence of fire) may benefit moose, other factors may have the opposite effect such as the emergence of parasitic infections (Kutz et al. 2004). Refuge managers charged with maintain- ing natural diversity need to have meaningful philosophical discussions to accompany data gathering, economic analyses, and manage- ment planning actions. First, there must be a common understanding of what is “natural diversity” if it is to be a management goal, followed by a decision of whether climate change is natural or anthropomorphic. If anthropomorphic, this could logically justify actions to prevent, reverse, or restore losses reasonably linked to climate change; however, practical consideration of social, technologi- cal, and economic issues should be addressed in long-term landscape management. Because of the potential magnitude of ecological change, managers may have little choice other than documenting habitat changes and track- ing plant and animal diversity, particularly in large remote refuges. It seems evident that if significant climate change is realized in the short-term, species composition in ecological communities will change and moose popula- tions, habitat, and range will likely shift. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am grateful to all the NWRS staff from the 39 refuges that provided information for this summary, and wish to offer special thanks to Dr. Eric Taylor and Dr. Joel Reynolds who helped devise the survey instrument. REFERENCES Berg, E. E. and R. S. Anderson. 2006. Fire history of white and Lutz spruce forests on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska, over the last two millennia as determined from soil charcoal. Forest Ecology Management 227: 275-283. _____., J. D. Henry, C. L. Fastie, a. d. de VoLder, and s. M. Matsuoka. 2006. Spruce beetle outbreaks on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska, and Kluane National Park and Reserve, Yukon Territory: relationship to summer temperatures and regional differences in disturbance regimes. Forest Ecology Management 227: 219-232. Bubenik, A. B. 1997. Evolution, taxonomy and morphology. Pages 77-123 in A. W. Franzmann and C. C. Schwartz, editors. Ecology and Management of the North American Moose. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D. C., USA. CHapin, F. s., t. s. rupp, a. M. starFieLd, L. dewiLde, e. s. ZaVeLeta, n. FresCo, J. HenkLeMan, and a. d. MCguire. 2003. ALCES VOL. 45, 2009 WEST – MOOSE CONSERVATION IN WILDLIFE REFUGES 65 Planning for resilience: modeling change in human-fire interactions in the Alaskan boreal forest. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1: 255-261. diaL, r. J., e. e. berg, k. tiMM, a. MCMaHon, and J. geCk. 2007. Changes in the alpine forest-tundra ecotone commensurate with recent warming in southcentral Alaska: evidence from orthophotos and field plots. Journal of Geophysical Research Biogeosciences 112: G04015. kLein, e., e. e. berg, and r. diaL. 2005. Wetland drying and succession across the Kenai Peninsula lowlands, south-central Alaska. Canadian Journal of Forestry Research 35: 1931-1941. kutZ, s. J., e. p. Hoberg, J. nagy, L. poLLey, and b. eLkin. 2004. “Emerging” parasitic infections in Arctic ungulates. Integrative and Comparative Biology 44: 109-118. rupp, t. s., and d. H. Mann. 2005. Develop- ment of a computer model for manage- ment of fuels, human-fire interactions, and wildland fires in the boreal forest of Alaska. Final Report to Joint Fire Science Program Governing Board. _____, M. oLson, L. g. adaMs, b. w. daLe, k. JoLy, J. HenkLeMan, w. b. CoLLins, and a. M. starFiLed. 2006. Simulating the influences of various fire regimes on caribou winter habitat. Ecological Society of America 16: 1730-1743. U. S. FisH and wiLdLiFe serViCe. 2009. Annual report of lands under control of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service as of September 30, 2008. In press. wiLes, g. C., p. e. CaLkin, and a. post. 1995. Glacier fluctuations in the Kenai Fords, Alaska, U.S.A: an evaluation of controls on iceberg-calving glaciers. Arctic and Alpine Research 27: 234-245. _____, D. J. barCLay, p. e. CaLkins, and t. V. LoweLL. 2008. Century to millennial- scale temperature variations for the last two thousand years indicated from glacial geologic records of Southern Alaska. Global and Planetary Change 60: 115- 125.