308 research outputs found
Analiza poslovanja poduzeća Kenai d.o.o. i usporedba s odabranim konkurentom
No full textObzirom na dinamiku tržišta te svakodnevnu pojavu velikog broja novih konkurenata, poduzeća
da bi opstala u tim uvjetima moraju se pripremiti na svaku novonastalu promjenu te na vrijeme
reagirati. S ciljem što uspješnijeg i kvalitetnijeg poslovanja poduzeća, provode se analize
poslovanja koje su od velike važnosti i u prevladavanju raznih kriznih situacija. A jedna od takvih
situacija bila je i kriza uzrokovana Covidom te ratom u Ukrajini.
Uz pomoć financijskih izvještaja provode se financijske analize, a najčešće analize koje se rade su
horizontalna i vertikalna analiza bilance i računa dobiti i gubitka te izračuni financijskih
pokazatelja.
U prvom dijelu diplomskog rada upoznaje se sa procesima upravljanja poduzeća te se daje
teoretski prikaz najvažnijih financijskih izvještaja poduzeća te postupaka i tehnika njihove analize.
Zatim se upoznaje sa poduzećima koja se analiziraju u radu od 2019. godine do 2022. godine te se
radi usporedba odabranog poduzeća Kenai d.o.o. sa konkurentnom tvrtkom Aneta – dingo d.o.o.
U završnom dijelu rada daje se osvrt na poslovanje poduzeća Kenai d.o.o. u periodu krizne
situacije uzrokovane Covidom -19 te ratom u Ukrajini
Analiza poslovanja poduzeća Kenai d.o.o. i usporedba s odabranim konkurentom
No full textObzirom na dinamiku tržišta te svakodnevnu pojavu velikog broja novih konkurenata, poduzeća
da bi opstala u tim uvjetima moraju se pripremiti na svaku novonastalu promjenu te na vrijeme
reagirati. S ciljem što uspješnijeg i kvalitetnijeg poslovanja poduzeća, provode se analize
poslovanja koje su od velike važnosti i u prevladavanju raznih kriznih situacija. A jedna od takvih
situacija bila je i kriza uzrokovana Covidom te ratom u Ukrajini.
Uz pomoć financijskih izvještaja provode se financijske analize, a najčešće analize koje se rade su
horizontalna i vertikalna analiza bilance i računa dobiti i gubitka te izračuni financijskih
pokazatelja.
U prvom dijelu diplomskog rada upoznaje se sa procesima upravljanja poduzeća te se daje
teoretski prikaz najvažnijih financijskih izvještaja poduzeća te postupaka i tehnika njihove analize.
Zatim se upoznaje sa poduzećima koja se analiziraju u radu od 2019. godine do 2022. godine te se
radi usporedba odabranog poduzeća Kenai d.o.o. sa konkurentnom tvrtkom Aneta – dingo d.o.o.
U završnom dijelu rada daje se osvrt na poslovanje poduzeća Kenai d.o.o. u periodu krizne
situacije uzrokovane Covidom -19 te ratom u Ukrajini
Behavior and distribution of American marten (Martes americana) in relation to snow and forest cover on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska
No full textDepartment Head: Kenneth Ray Wilson.2009 Summer.Includes bibliographical references (pages 49-53).Marten are sensitive to cold temperatures and normally rely on an insulating snow-pack and sufficient forest structure for thermal protection in winter. Low densities of marten on the western Kenai Peninsula, Alaska have commonly been attributed to shallow snow and habitat conditions that may not be conducive to supporting stable marten populations. This research examined the interactions between marten behavior in relation to available snow and habitat conditions at forest stand, home range, and landscape scales. Marten were radio-collared and back-tracked in three study areas in the Kenai Mountains and Kenai Lowlands to investigate habitat selection and the effects of snow conditions on the movement and resting behavior of marten. An aerial digital videography survey, supplemented by trapping, museum and Kenai National Wildlife Refuge (KENWR) records, was used to generate a minimum landscape distribution estimate of marten on the Kenai Peninsula. Videography detections were overlaid with Geographic Information Systems (GIS) layers for spruce-bark beetle damage and fire history on the Kenai Peninsula. We also tabulated the number of days marten were exposed to conditions in which the subnivean environment was not insulated from below freezing ambient temperatures. Trends in maximum snow depths were calculated by fitting regression lines to historic snow records at Kenai weather stations since 1931.Results demonstrated that marten chose rest sites in structures that would maximize thermodynamic efficiency given the availability of insulating snow cover and warm resting structures. While traveling, marten selected snow and habitat types largely in proportion to their availability at the home-range scale. Movement paths were more tortuous through habitat patches with higher than average canopy densities. Aerial videography surveys detected 32 locations of marten and indicated that the distribution of marten has expanded into the Kenai Lowlands where marten had previously not been reported in any abundance since the beginning of the 20th century. Detections occurred four times as frequently in a large post fire sere burned in 1947 in contrast to an area burned in 1969. Marten were detected in areas extensively damaged by spruce-bark beetles in just six instances and were twice as likely to be located outside of beetle-damaged areas. Average numbers of stress days were inversely related to elevation and the associated differences in snowfall associated with elevation. Analyses of regional maximum yearly snow depths indicated that maximum snow depths have been increasing by 0.29 cm/year in the Kenai Mountains, whereas trends have remained relatively constant in other regions of the Kenai Peninsula. Variations in available snow pack, forest maturity and the availability of resting structures may explain recent shifts in distribution at the landscape level
Summary of Angler Survey Saltwater Sport Fishing off the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska.
No full textThis report is the result of research supported in part by Alaska Sea Grant with funds provided under grant 98-403 R14-17. Total Expenditures Assuming That Less Than 100% of Each Trip Was Attributable to Fishing--- Because there are many reasons that a visitor may visit Alaska, not all of the visitation days will be cancelled when a fishing trip to the Kenai Peninsula is cancelled. In this appendix we will present the calculations for the estimation of the amount of days that would be reduced on the Kenai when fishing days are reduced. This is a work in progress and the actual numbers are likely to change slightly as we fine-tune these estimations. (Estimations for the Kenai reduction are likely to change very little in the final analysis however estimations of the Alaska portion may change more.) Again, in the UAF survey nine primary trip purposes were identified originally in Table 3.20. The primary reasons that a Kenai saltwater fishing trip was taken are reproduced in Table 2A.1. Table 2A.1---Primary purpose of visit to Alaska for Kenai Peninsula saltwater halibut and salmon anglers from the Lee et al. (1999) by tri
Kenai National Wildlife Refuge Skilak Wildlife Recreation Area Final Management Plan
No full textkenai_skilak_final_plan.pdfii
This page intentionally left blank.
ii
This page intentionally left blank.
Kenai
National Wildlife Refuge
Skilak Wildlife Recreation Area
Final Management Plan
January 2007
Prepared by
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Kenai National Wildlife Refuge U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
2139 Ski Hill Road Division of Conservation Planning & Policy
P.O. Box 2139 1011 East Tudor Road
Soldotna, Alaska 99669-2139 Anchorage, Alaska 99503-6199
ii
This page intentionally left blank.
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Purpose for Action ................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Background............................................................................................................................. 1
1.3 Public Involvement .................................................................................................................. 3
1.4 Decision .................................................................................................................................. 5
Chapter 2: Existing Conditions
2.1 Physical Environment .............................................................................................................. 6
2.1.1 Landforms ..................................................................................................................... 6
2.1.2 Air Quality .................................................................................................................... 6
2.1.3 Geology and Soils......................................................................................................... 6
2.1.4 Water Resources ........................................................................................................... 7
2.2 Biological Environment ........................................................................................................... 8
2.2.1 Vegetation..................................................................................................................... 8
2.2.2 Wildlife ....................................................................................................................... 16
2.3 Human Environment.............................................................................................................. 26
2.3.1 Brief History of the Area ............................................................................................ 26
2.3.2 Local Population ......................................................................................................... 27
2.3.3 Summary of Current Use ............................................................................................ 27
2.3.4 Public Use Access....................................................................................................... 28
2.3.5 Public Uses and Related Facilities.............................................................................. 30
2.3.6 Significant Concerns................................................................................................... 42
Chapter 3: Management Direction
3.1 Management Direction........................................................................................................... 43
3.2 Coordination with the State Of Alaska .................................................................................. 51
Chapter 4: Implementation .......................................................................................................... 52
Bibliography ................................................................................................................................ 59
Appendix A: Decision Notice...................................................................................................... 63
Appendix B: Alaska Board of Game Regulatory Proposal ......................................................... 75
Appendix C: Preparers................................................................................................................. 77
ii
List of Tables
Table 2.1: Lakes............................................................................................................................ 7
Table 2.2: Streams and Rivers ....................................................................................................... 8
Table 2.3: Habitat Modifications ................................................................................................. 13
Table 2.4: Forest Age Class ......................................................................................................... 15
Table 2.5: Trails ........................................................................................................................... 29
Table 2.6: Access to Public Use Facilities................................................................................... 32
Table 2.7: Campgrounds and Boat Launches .............................................................................. 33
Table 2.8: Bulletin Boards, Interpretive Panels, and Kiosks ....................................................... 34
Table 2.9: Sport Fish by Location................................................................................................ 36
Table 2.10: Parking Areas............................................................................................................. 39
Table 2.11: Sanitary Facilities ...................................................................................................... 40
Table 2.12: Popular Scenic Viewing Locations............................................................................ 41
Table 2.13: Popular Wildlife Viewing Locations ......................................................................... 42
List of Figures
Figure 1.1: Location Map .............................................................................................................. 2
Figure 2.1: Vegetation Communities............................................................................................. 9
Figure 2.2: Vegetation Classification .......................................................................................... 10
Figure 2.3: Habitat Disturbance................................................................................................... 12
Figure 2.4: Forest Age Class........................................................................................................ 14
Figure 2.5: Moose Composition .................................................................................................. 19
Figure 2.6: Existing Recreation Facilities.................................................................................... 31
Figure 2.7: Existing Firearm Restrictions.................................................................................... 37
Figure 2.8: Moose Population, Permits, and Harvest Data.......................................................... 38
Figure 3.1: Administrative Boundaries........................................................................................ 44
Figure 3.2: Recreation Facilities .................................................................................................. 45
Figure 3.3: Firearm Restrictions .................................................................................................. 47
1
Chapter 1: Introduction
This chapter identifies the purpose for developing the Skilak Wildlife Recreation Area (Skilak
WRA) Management Plan; provides information on the events that have led the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) to undertake this planning effort; public involvement in the planning
process; and the final decision of the Service’s Alaska Regional Director.
1.1 Purpose for Action
The purposes of this final management plan are:
1. To describe wildlife viewing, interpretation, and photography opportunities within the
Skilak WRA;
2. To identify development of compatible facilities and programs to facilitate wildlife
viewing, interpretation, and photography opportunities within the Skilak WRA; and,
3. To identify other wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities that do not conflict with
#1 & #2 above.
1.2 Background
The Refuge Administration Act, as amended, establishes wildlife-dependent recreational uses
(hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and
interpretation) as priority general public uses of the Refuge System, and that if found compatible
with refuge purposes, should receive enhanced and priority consideration in refuge planning and
management over other general public uses.
The 1.98 million acre Kenai National Wildlife Refuge (Kenai NWR) (Figure 1.1) is unique
among Alaskan refuges in that it includes wildlife-oriented recreation, interpretation, and
environmental education among the major purposes for which the refuge was established as
identified in Section 303(4) of the Alaska
National Interest Lands Conservation Act
(ANILCA) of 1980.
Section 304(g) of ANILCA directs the
Secretary of the Interior “to prepare, and
from time to time, revise, a comprehensive
conservation plan…for each refuge (in
Alaska)…”. Kenai Refuge’s Comprehensive
Conservation Plan was developed in 1984.
The planning process involved several years
of data collection and analysis. The general
public and various federal, state, and local
agencies participated in the process, helping
1-0-1: Location Map
3
to identify issues and provide comments on Service proposals. In 1985, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service Alaska Regional Director signed the Record of Decision to begin
implementation of the plan. The Comprehensive Conservation Plan directed the Service to
establish a special area within the refuge that would be managed to increase opportunities for
wildlife viewing, interpretation and photography:
“The entire refuge would remain open to hunting and trapping, except for areas
where public safety is a concern (i.e., campgrounds, the headquarters/visitor
center in Soldotna, etc) and in the Skilak Loop Special Management Area, where
special restrictions on hunting and trapping apply. This area…would be managed
to provide enhanced opportunities for wildlife viewing.” (Kenai NWR
Comprehensive Conservation Plan)
To fulfill management direction identified in the Comprehensive Conservation Plan, the Service
developed a species management plan for the area in December 1986. The plan identified specific
goals for providing wildlife viewing and interpretation opportunities, and hunting and trapping
opportunities were restricted so wildlife would become more abundant, less wary, and easily
viewed. The Service worked closely with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) to
develop regulatory proposals that prohibited trapping, allowed taking of small game by archery,
and provided a moose hunt by special permit. In 1987, the Alaska Board of Game approved these
regulations that provided a framework for achieving the wildlife population objectives for
enhanced wildlife viewing opportunities.
To further support development of wildlife viewing, environmental education, and interpretation
opportunities in the Skilak area, the Service adopted a contractor’s recommendation (Land
Design North, Inc) to name it the Skilak Wildlife Recreation Area, and in 1988, developed a
public use facilities step-down management plan for the area. The Service worked to implement
the plan over a 17 year period as funding permitted.
In March 2005, the Board of Game adopted regulations providing for the use of firearms to hunt
small game and fur animals in the Skilak WRA. In September 2005, the Board delayed
implementation of the authorization until July 2007, supporting efforts of the Service to prepare
a Skilak WRA Management Plan.
1.3 Public Involvement
Scoping (Identification of Issues)
The planning process began in November 2005 with distribution of a planning update and
“issues workbook” to approximately 2,500 individuals, businesses, agencies, and organizations
on the Kenai Peninsula and in the city of Anchorage. The workbook contained a combination of
multiple-choice and open-ended questions that provided a forum for respondents to identify
aspects of refuge management or other issues that concerned them. The Service also hosted
public open house meetings in the towns of Soldotna and Cooper Landing, and in the city of
Anchorage; and invited members of the public to provide comment in any other format (e.g.,
email, fax, phone) that suited them. In addition, the Service met with representatives from the
State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources and Department of Fish and Game on
4
December 8, 2005 to solicit their input on issues to consider in the plan. Over 220 responses
were submitted, and many of the responses identified more than one issue for consideration.
Three issue statements were identified through analysis of public comments. The issue
statements described the primary values and uses the planning team focused on to develop
management alternatives identified in the draft plan. These issue statements were:
• How can facilities that support wildlife viewing, interpretation and photography be
enhanced while preserving the natural character of the Skilak WRA while minimizing
impacts to visitors who prefer less development?
• How can trailhead and campground interpretation be enhanced while maintaining the
natural character of the Skilak WRA?
• How can the Service address demand for expanded road maintenance and recreation
support facilities while maintaining the natural character of the Skilak WRA?
• How can the Service address hunting-related opportunities within the Skilak WRA
without conflicting with the area’s priority intended uses?
Public Review and Comment of the Draft Plan
The Service completed the Skilak WRA Draft Management Plan and Environmental Assessment
in October 2006. Approximately 2,500 copies were distributed to individuals, businesses,
agencies, and organizations that had expressed an interest in receiving Kenai NWR planning-related
documents. Notices of availability were distributed to radio stations, television stations,
and newspapers on the Kenai Peninsula and in the city of Anchorage. An electronic version of
the plan was made available on the Kenai NWR planning website, and a Skilak email address
was created to facilitate public comment on the draft plan. Presentations were made to the Alaska
Board of Game and the Friends of Alaska National Wildlife Refuges.
The draft plan and environmental assessment were made available for public review and
comment during a 30-day period ending November 17, 2006. The plan described three
alternatives, including the Service’s preferred alternative, for managing wildlife viewing,
interpretation, photography and other wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities. The
accompanying environmental assessment described the environmental and social consequences
of implementing the alternatives. Eighty-one responses were received by mail, email, and
telephone before the deadline. The majority of responses came from private citizens located in
the greater Soldotna-Kenai area. Sixteen non-governmental organizations, one federal agency,
two local businesses, and the State of Alaska also responded. Just over half of all respondents
expressed support for or opposition to a specific alternative. Of those, the majority supported the
Service’s Preferred Alternative or a modified version of it.
Summary of Substantive Comments
Substantive comments centered on four themes: firearm use and hunting, Skilak Loop Road
maintenance, threats to wildlife and wildlife corridors, and facilities.
Firearm Use and Hunting Opportunities
The single most common opinion expressed among the responses was support for retaining
existing firearm restrictions. Respondents who favored continuing to restrict firearms expressed
concern that wildlife viewers and other non-consumptive users needed a place where they could
recreate free from the perceived dangers associated with hunting. A few respondents indicated
5
their concern that calls to expand hunting in the Skilak WRA would lead to expanded hunting
opportunities contrary to a wildlife viewing area. Respondents who favored relaxing firearm
restrictions and/or expanding hunting opportunities typically suggested that conflicts with other
users were unlikely because hunting takes place in the fall and winter when non-consumptive
recreation use is low. Most advocates of expanded hunting called for limited expansion in the
form of small game opportunities and smaller buffer zones, although a few called for virtually
unrestricted hunting.
Skilak Loop Road Maintenance
Maintenance of the Skilak Loop Road was the second-most prevalent topic in respondent’s
comments. Most respondents who commented on this topic were strongly opposed to paving the
road. They suggested that paving would encourage drivers to travel at unsafe speeds and
collisions with wildlife and other vehicles would result. A few respondents worried that the
Service would restrict use of the road if it were to take over management responsibility from the
State of Alaska. Among the respondents that explicitly supported paving, half suggested the
Service should consider speed control measures such as speed bumps or increased speed limit
enforcement. The main reason given for supporting paving was decreased wear and tear on
vehicles and trailers.
Threats to Wildlife and Wildlife Corridors
Respondents who expressed concerns about wildlife impacts typically suggested that one or
more formal “wildlife movement corridors” be identified – one west of Skilak Loop Road to the
refuge’s westernmost boundary, and one along the north shore of Skilak Lake. They suggested
facilities development should be limited or prohibited in these areas to minimize adverse impacts
to wildlife. They cited the vital location of the Skilak WRA within the larger Kenai Peninsula
region, and the potential cumulative impacts to wildlife from current and future developments
and recreation facilities.
Facilities
A relatively small proportion of respondents commented specifically on visitor facilities. Among
those that did, opinions regarding the collection of visitor facilities and upgrades proposed in the
draft plan tended to be negative. Most of those respondents felt that proposed facilities were
unnecessary or too numerous. A few suggested management resources should be aimed at
improved maintenance of existing infrastructure rather than building more.
1.4 Decision
On December 7, 2006, the Alaska Regional Director signed a Decision Notice – a Finding of No
Significant Impact – for the Skilak WRA based on the environmental assessment completed for
the draft plan and comments received during the public review period (Appendix A). The notice
identified, among other things, the Regional Director’s decision and rationale for selecting a
modified version of the Service’s preferred alternative which was described in the draft plan.
Chapter 3 of this final plan reflects the Regional Director’s decision.
6
Chapter 2: Existing Conditions
This chapter describes the physical, biological, and social settings of the Skilak WRA prior to
implementation of this plan.
2.1 Physical Environment
2.1.1 Landforms
The Kenai NWR is located in south-central Alaska on the Kenai Peninsula. Three major
landforms are present on the Refuge: the Kenai Lowlands, the Kenai Mountains, and the
Tustumena Benchlands. The Kenai Lowlands and Kenai Mountains are found within the
boundaries of the Skilak WRA.
The west and central portions of the Skilak WRA lie within the Kenai Lowlands which fall
within the Cook Inlet Basin ecoregion. This landform consists of ground moraine and stagnant
ice terrain with low ridges, hills, muskeg, lakes, and ponds. Relief ranges from 50 to 250 feet.
The eastern portion of the Skilak WRA lies within the Kenai Mountains which fall within the
Chugach-St. Elias Mountains ecoregion. The Kenai Mountains rise to 3,000 feet in the Skilak
WRA and over 6,000 feet elsewhere on the refuge.
2.1.2 Air Quality
Kenai Refuge, including the Skilak WRA, is designated a Class II air quality area under the
Clean Air Act. Class II areas allow some incremental increase in pollution over base-line
concentrations. Air quality in the Skilak WRA is generally excellent; however, vehicles using
the Skilak Loop Road during dry periods stir up dust which deteriorates air quality. In addition,
exhaust from these vehicles degrades air quality along the road corridor, particularly during
periods of high public use.
2.1.3 Geology and Soils
Two geologic terranes are found within the Skilak WRA: Tertiary rock found within the Kenai
Lowlands (or western and central portions of the area) known as the Alaska Peninsular terrane,
and Mesozoic rock found in the Kenai Mountains (or eastern portion of the area) known as the
Chugach-Prince William terrane.
The Alaska Peninsular terrane is covered by glacial deposits consisting of siltstone, fine
sandstone, and shale. Lowland soils are mantled by glacial deposits that vary in texture and are
overlain by well-drained to poorly drained silt loams. Depression areas, such as muskeg, are
usually covered by peat soils produced by the slow decomposition of organic materials. Sloped
areas are vulnerable to erosion, especially if vegetation is removed. The Mesozoic rock of the
Chugach-Prince William terrane is mostly greywacke, a marine sandstone derived from igneous
rock, with lesser amounts of basalt, radiolarian chert, and limestone.
7
2.1.4 Water Resources
Lentic systems (i.e., lakes, ponds, and wetlands) and lotic systems (i.e., streams and rivers)
account for more then 4,630-acres or approximately 10% of the Skilak WRA. Aquatic and
ripar
Greening of Recently Deglaciated Lands on the Kenai Peninsula
No full textPoleward vegetation expansion has affected Alaska for decades and due to recently increased rates of warming, the expansion will accelerate. Glacier recession in the region has exposed land that was previously ice covered. Within a few years, initial succession begins to take place over the newly exposed land. Changes in land cover of recently deglaciated areas are affected by surface-air interactions, temperature gradients, and ecosystem development. Using data gathered from Landsat 5, 7 and 8 and previous extents of select, retreating glaciers within the Kenai Peninsula, this research examines the relationship between glaciation rates and greening. Combining historic glacier extents with Landsat images gathered from Google���s Earth Engine platform I was able to identify annual summer changes in NDVI for locations deglaciated by 1995, 2005 and 2015. The glaciers were selected based on location and average retreat rate measured between 1950 and 2005. Dinglestadt, Chernof, Petrof, Yalik, Killey, Kachemak, Lowell, and Exit are all land or lake terminating glaciers within the Kenai Peninsula. The faster retreating glaciers exhibited higher mean and maximum NDVI in their longest deglaciated regions while slower retreating glaciers showed a near constant, lower NDVI throughout the recently deglaciated foreground
Satellite-Based Assessment of Grassland Conversion and Related Fire Disturbance in the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska
No full textSpruce beetle-induced (Dendroctonus rufipennis (Kirby)) mortality on the Kenai Peninsula has heightened local wildfire risk as canopy loss facilitates the conversion from bare to fire-prone grassland. We collected images from NASA satellite-based Earth observations to visualize land cover succession at roughly five-year intervals following a severe, mid-1990's beetle infestation to the present. We classified these data by vegetation cover type to quantify grassland encroachment patterns over time. Raster band math provided a change detection analysis on the land cover classifications. Results indicate the highest wildfire risk is linked to herbaceous and black spruce land cover types, The resulting land cover change image will give the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge (KENWR) ecologists a better understanding of where forests have converted to grassland since the 1990s. These classifications provided a foundation for us to integrate digital elevation models (DEMs), temperature, and historical fire data into a model using Python for assessing and mapping changes in wildfire risk. Spatial representations of this risk will contribute to a better understanding of ecological trajectories of beetle-affected landscapes, thereby informing management decisions at KENWR
SEASONAL ACTIVITY PATTERNS OF MOOSE ON THE KENAI PENINSULA, ALASKA
No full textWe obtained monthly estimates of 24-hour activity patterns on moose (Alces alces) on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska, during winter and summer. Activity levels of moose during winter overlapped between areas of high and low deciduous browse availability. Shorter resting periods occurred during summer months (x = 105 min), than during winter months (x = 171 min), resulting in increased activity levels from winter (x = 486 min) to summer (x = 622 mine). No consistent pattern was found in the difference in active period length between summer (x = 80 min) and winter (x = 81 min). estimates are useful for predicting total energy expenditure of moose. Large variations in activity levels among individual moose point out the importance of obtaining unbiased samples from populations
Satellite-Based Assessment of Grassland Conversion and Related Fire Disturbance in the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska
No full textSpruce beetle-induced (Dendroctonus rufipennis (Kirby)) mortality on the Kenai Peninsula has been hypothesized by local ecologists to result in the conversion of forest to grassland and subsequent increased fire danger. This hypothesis stands in contrast to empirical studies in the continental US which suggested that beetle mortality has only a negligible effect on fire danger. In response, we conducted a study using Landsat data and modeling techniques to map land cover change in the Kenai Peninsula and to integrate change maps with other geospatial data to predictively map fire danger for the same region. We collected Landsat imagery to map land cover change at roughly five-year intervals following a severe, mid-1990s beetle infestation to the present. Land cover classification was performed at each time step and used to quantify grassland encroachment patterns over time. The maps of land cover change along with digital elevation models (DEMs), temperature, and historical fire data were used to map and assess wildfire danger across the study area. Results indicate the highest wildfire danger tended to occur in herbaceous and black spruce land cover types, suggesting that the relationship between spruce beetle damage and wildfire danger in costal Alaskan forested ecosystems differs from the relationship between the two in the forests of the coterminous United States. These change detection analyses and fire danger predictions provide the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge (KENWR) ecologists and other forest managers a better understanding of the extent and magnitude of grassland conversion and subsequent change in fire danger following the 1990s spruce beetle outbreak
Hettangian marine invertebrates from the Kenai Peninsula near Seldovia, Alaska
No full textA sequence of Late Triassic to Early Jurassic marine sedimentary and volcanic deposits compose the sea cliffs west and south of Seldovia on the southwestern portion of the Kenai Peninsula in Alaska. Informally known as the Pogibshi formation and assigned to the island-arc Peninsular terrane, the middle July member of the Pogibshi is an understudied fossiliferous unit perhaps encompassing the Triassic-Jurassic boundary (TJB). A paleontological and geochronological search for the TJB has resulted in the establishment of the earliest Jurassic (Hettangian) pectinid bivalve Weyla (Lywea), solitary stylophyllid scleractinian corals, and gastropods including Pleurotomaria. These fossils are significant because they may be the oldest known Jurassic occurrences in North America. To confirm the age of the fossils, detrital zircons were extracted from two fossiliferous sandstones from an upper potentially Sinemurian location and lower potentially Hettangian location. An analysis of the uranium-lead dates resulted in maximum depositional ages of 198.9 ± 0.62 ± 2.2 and 200.5 ± 2.5 ± 1.8 Ma, respectively. These dates were compared to ages derived from established ammonite zones. The combination of these geochronologic and biochronologic constraints establishes a middle Hettangian age for the fossils occurring at the base of the July member.Fil: Hodges, Montana S.. California State University; Estados UnidosFil: Hodges, Christopher L.. California State University; Estados UnidosFil: Blodgett, Robert B.. Blodgett & Associates; Estados UnidosFil: Stanley, George Jr.. University of Montana; Estados UnidosFil: Ferrari, Silvia Mariel. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Centro Nacional Patagónico. Instituto Patagónico de Geología y Paleontología; Argentin
- …
