Table Of Content

Historic, Archive Document Do not assume content reflects current scientific knowledge, policies, or practices. United States i^Êlk Management the in Department ofAgriculture Northern Region: ForestService Intermountain Research Station Considerations in Forest General Technical Report INT-303 Plan Updates or Revisions November 1993 m Alan G. Christensen y L. Jack Lyon James W. Unsworth — THE AUTHORS Habitat Research Work Unit at the Intermountain Research Station's Forestry Sciences Laboratory, ALAN G. CHRISTENSEN is Northern Region Wildlife Missoula, MT. iPnrtohgeraWimldLleifaedeBrraanncdh,NaNtoirotnhaelrnElRkegIniiotnia,tiFveorCeosotrdSienrvaitcoer, JAMES W. UNSWORTH is Principal Wildlife Research U.S. Department of Agriculture, Missoula, MT. Biologist for the Idaho Department of Fish and Game in Nampa. He has completed an 8-year project on the L. JACK LYON is Wildlife Research Biologist and mortality patterns of elk in the Clearwater drainage. Project Leader forthe Northern Rockies Forest Wildlife Intermountain Research Station 324 25th Street Ogden, UT84401 Elk Management in the Northern Region: Considerations Forest in Plan Updates or Revisions Alan G. Christensen L. Jack Lyon James W. Unsworth D4TRODUCTION plans address the same issues. Elk vulnerabilityis the frameworkissue. IntheWest, alarge percentage ofelkhabitatis man- We present aninitial overview under whichindi- agedbythe Forest Service, U.S. Department ofAgri- vidualforestscancreativelyaddress elkmanagement culture. Elk are a giant economic factorin Montana andyetretain consistent and cohesive approaches and Idaho, easily accountingfor over $100 million an- withinregional andStateboundaries. Emphasis has nually forhunting alone. This activity is especially been placed on process, content, andimplementation importantto many small, rural communities. Atthe ofnewinformation ratherthan on numerical stan- sametime, elkmanagementcanbe controversialwhere dards, althoughthese remain important for measur- it conflicts with otherresource activities such as graz- ingsuccess. Specific process guidance forbiologists ing, logging, andpublic access. Asthehabitatmanager in the Northern Region ofthe Forest Service is pro- forthisvaluableresource,theForest Servicemustde- videdin the appendix. velop management programs based onthe best available information, work closelywith State game man- KEY COMPONENTS OF ELK agers, fullyinform the public and disclose the effects MANAGEMENT ofmanagementactions, andembraceimplementation ofan ecological approachto elk management. The relationship between National Forest lands When the initial forest plans were developed inthe and elk needs to be recognized for the followingkey early 1980's, there was no cohesive direction identify- components: ing a common set ofelk management standards. As planswerewritten, generallyrecognizedkeypiecesof 1. Habitat inwhich elk grow, reproduce, and exist elkmanagementinformationwerecreativelymodified as elements ofbiological diversity. byvirtually every forestin £in attemptto meetlocal 2. The basis upon which State management pro- needs. This often resulted in adjacentforests having gramsdepend. Whilehuntingmortality accountsfor starthnglydifferentgoals, objectives, standards, guide- upward of90 percent ofelk mortality, the States de- lines, andterminology. pend on habitat availability and condition fortheir Inthese forest plans, the approachto elkwas usu- programs to exist. allynarrow andfocused. Because elkwas aregional 3. Sites forthe public to have the opportunityto indicatorspecies, managersestablishedpopulationtar- hunt and view elk. Recreationis an important prod- gets, habitat standards, and monitoringgoals. We uct ofNational Forest lands. In most areas, use of recognizenowthatelkare partofabiggerpicture and forests peaks duringfallhuntingseasons, butinother thatelk habitat management mustbe placedwithin areas wildlife viewingis ayear-around product. The the contextofecosystem management, biodiversity, settingneeds to be considered alongwith other habi- State management strategies and goals, and shifting tatissues. public demand and interest that now embrace non- 4. Maintenanceofelkas a partofthe naturalcom- consumptive and consumptive interests. munity andrecognition ofelk habitat in a landscape This problem hasbeenrecognizedandasolutionpro- context and in response to natural processes. posedfor the Northern Region ofthe Forest Service. These key components can be recognized and Commonterminology, anewperspective onelkvulner- evaluated in the followingthree types ofhabitat ability, and a betterunderstandingofthe application considerations: ofhabitat effectiveness have created the opportunity forforeststobemoreconsistentandintunewith State Habitateffectiveness: This is ameasuretobe applied managementobjectives. In the interest ofbetter elk to nonhunting, summer and fall habitat situations. management, itis imperative State plans and forest Itwas developedfrom researchrelated to the ability 1 — ofhabitat to meet elk needs for growth and welfare 2. Specialfeatures wet sites, riparian habitat, requirements. It has been consistently misapplied licks, movement corridors. — as a measure ofsecurity during hunting season. 3. Cover extent, shape, size, connectiveness. — Elk vulnerability: This deals with security for elk 4. Scale ofanalysis site specific, herd unit, habitat analysis unit. duringthe huntingseason. Thereis arapidlyexpemd- — ingbody ofnew information relatingto this manage- 5. Spatial relationships intermingled owner- ment concept that will be available forinclusion in ships, adjacent administrative units, district or forest"averaging." forestplans asthey areupdated, revised, oramended. — 6. Domestic livestock forage and spatial Winter range: This has been a collective term refer- competition. ringto elk habitat duringthe nonsummer and fall, nonhunting season. However, during some years elk Recommendations will move to winter habitat duringthe fall hunting — season and, in mostsituations, becomevulnerable. In Roads Roads are undoubtedlythe most significant updates, revisions, or amendmentswe mustrecognize consideration on elk summer range. and deal with this possibility as well as deal withtra- 1. Usefigure 1 (Lyon 1983) road model fordetermin- ditional considerations. inghabitat effectiveness relatedto roads. Avoid clas- sifyingroads as primitive and downgradingtheir ef- HABITAT EFFECTIVENESS fect unless they really are. Summerrange includes the habitatusedby elkfrom 2. Discuss methods ofclosure. Forelk, physical clo- about late green-up (May) until they move to winter sure with"trashing"is desirable foryear-longclosure. ranges, but priorto the hunting season. Summer Area closures are needed where terrain features and cover characteristics do not favor closure with gates range is the complete matrix upon which elk herds orbarriers. Honor systems ofclosure have been only depend forgrowth, reproduction, andthrift. Manage- moderately successful, at best. mtaetnttofmoeceutseislkonnemeadisnftoarifnoirnagget,hweataebril,istyecolfustihoen,haabnid- 3. Discuss constructionstandards. Where roadswill be system roads, striveforconstruction and design fea- special features (such as licks and moist areas). For- est Service lands that support summerrange are the tures that lay lightly on the land. Identify temporary roads where they are an option. Avoid "tie through" basis for State elk management; specifically, ifhabi- systems where possible. Strive forminimum miles of tatis degraded or poorlymanaged, the elkpopulation new construction in summer range. Identify logging will be degraded and, thus, directly influence State technology that reduces road construction. Avoid key elk population management programs. habitat features when locatingroads. Habitat effectiveness is defined as the percentage 4. Any motorized vehicle use on roads will reduce ofavailable habitatthat is usable by elk outside the habitat effectiveness. Recognize and deal with all himtingseason(Lyon and Christensen 1992). Thisis forms ofmotorized vehicles and all uses, including the measure ofsuccess in meeting elk needs on sum- administrative use. merrange. Based onyears ofresearch from various sites in Montana and Idaho, relatively sophisticated 5. Levels ofhabitat effectiveness: technologies existforcalculatinghabitat effectiveness. In forest plan revisions, updates, and amendments, this term should be used as a measure ofsummer range ability to support elk. Sources ofinformation for habitat effectiveness and the major factors that influence it are included in Irwin and Peek (1979), Leege (1984), Lyon (1983, 1987), Lyon and others (1985), Thomas and others (1979), and Wisdom and others (1986). (See the References section at the end ofthis publication.) Considerations for Forest Plans Related to Habitat Effectiveness I I I I I 1 1 The following list is not inclusive but does cover the 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 main issues managers need to consider. Miles ofOpen Road perSection — — 1. Roads density(miles persquare mile), construc- Figure 1 Habitateffectiveness forelk tion standards, seasons ofuse, method ofclosure. determined by road density (Lyon 1983). 2 a. For areas intended to benefit elk summer was recommended. However, while road locations, range and retain highuse, habitateffectiveness should special features, and the location ofcover or cutting be 70 percent or greater. units still need project-level analysis, such analysis b. For areas whereelkare one ofthe primary also needs to recognize the project in a broader con- resource considerations habitat effectiveness should text ofherd units (where known), habitat analysis be 50 percent or greater. units, or other meaningful, larger scale perspectives. c. Areaswhere habitateffectivenessis retained Herd units needto be identified in cooperation with atlowerthan 50 percentmustberecognized as making State biologists. Consideration ofproject-level effects onlyminorcontributionstoelk managementgoals. If may necessitate analysis in light ofinfluences on ad- habitat effectiveness is not important, don't fake it. jacent herd units, adjacent forests, or even adjacent Just admit up frontthat elk are not a consideration. States over landscape units from 30,000 to 150,000 d. ReducinghabitateflFectiveness shouldnever acres. be consideredas ameans ofcontrollingelk populations. Another consideration in establishing factors for A population over target is not a Forest Service habi- scales ofanalysis are known movement patterns. If tatproblem. Rememberthatin mostsituations, popu- yourmanagementofsummerrange mayinfluence elk lations can be reduced through hunting. interms oftheir movement to adjacent fall orwinter Special Featxires—Wet drainage heads, saddles, ranges, the scale ofanalysis should be appropriate. — riparian habitats, shadowed draws withcool airmove- Spatial Relationships This criterion has to do ment, andwetmeadows are some examples ofspecial with habitat features, values, or project analyses that featiu-es. Inmany areasthese features supportadis- have arelationship to intermingled ownerships, con- proportionate level ofelk use and contribute signifi- current and adjacent activities, or adjacent features cantly to overall elkuse ofa larger area. Generally, that are significant to your concerns for elk habitat. these sites are highlydesirable forforage, water, tem- When elk habitat crosses intermingled ownerships, perature regulation, movement, or a combination. activities that reduce habitat effectiveness on inter- Suchsites shouldbe recognized and protectedinpre- mingledlands requirethe Forest Service todecidehow scriptions thatdealwithelksummerrange. Logging theywillbe dealtwithin prescriptions. Adjacent and activities, road locations, and siting ofstructures or concurrent activities beyond Forest Service control, activities should all be evaluated. Avoid damaging such as logging and grazing on private land, should these features where elk are a benefitingresource be recognized in prescriptions, and courses ofaction (Lyon and others 1985). for the Forest Service should be identified. Federal Cover—Earlyguidelinesgreatlyemphasizedanalysis managers need to coordinate with State biologists on ofcover, specificallythermal andhidingcover(Thomas these activities. and others 1979). Today, detailed analyses ofhiding Internally controlled activities that affect elk sum- andthermal habitatcomponents are notconsidered as mer range should also be recognized. An example is essential exceptin habitats with high natural levels therelationship ofherd\inits oranalysis areas to each ofopenings orwhere conifer cover is at a premium. other and, collectively, to forest elkhabitat. Each in- Some approaches have createdthe classification"op- dividualunitshould have anidentifiedrole for elkand timal cover" (Wisdom and others 1986) as an aidin alevel ofhabitateffectiveness. Inthis way, the whole analyzing cover from aerial photographs. Another area or forest can achieve an expected level. Itis un- approach, where standanalysis dataare available, is desirabletoplay offone unit against another. Forex- providedbytheHIDE2 hidingcovercomputermodel ample, recognizing high habitat effectiveness values (Lyon 1987). in adjacent wilderness areas should not be ajustifica- While we still needto recognize the importance of tion for excessive reductions in habitat effectiveness maintainingcover blocks and movement corridors, a in managed areas, even ifsome average level forthe more meaningful approachto cover analysis includes forestis met. maintenance ofsecurity, landscape managementof Significant reductions inhabitat effectiveness in coniferous cover, and monitoring elk use withradio areas identified as benefiting elk cannot be recovered telemetry or other means. Recognition that simimer at apaceequaltoour abilityto move activities around coverblocks are also fallhuntingseason securityareas a forest. In addition, patterns ofrecreational activity is an important coordinatingconsideration. relatedto elkcanbe significantly affectedbythistype ofmanagement. Coverunitsize, patternson alandscapebasis, connec- — tiveness with other cover, the amount ofcover avail- Domestic Livestock Current perspective is that able to elk, and known use patterns by elkshouldbe cattle on elksummerrange are notas significanta con- considered in prescriptions. flictas formerlythought and probably only warrant Scale ofAnalysis—Early guidelines tendedto be analysis where local understanding indicates a prob- project specific in scale; often 3,000 to 10,000 acres lemmayexist. Elkappearto avoidareas where cattle 3 are present ifother options exist. Where no other exists, and a great deal ofcooperation between agen- options exist, elk will tolerate some cattle use. cies will be necessary to achieve the goals ofelkvul- Major points ofconflict are wet sites and gentle nerability management. terrainwith succulentvegetation. Season-longcattle The measure ofsuccess for elk vulnerability is the occupation ofthese tjês ofsitesundoubtedlyreduces level ofcompatibility between Forest Service and theirvalue to elk. State management plans. Often, this will be the nimi- Forests where cattle are aconcernneedtoworkwith berofbulls per hundred cows surviving the hunting State biologists onstandards andguidehnes forcattle season or some expression ofthe quality ofthe recre- and elk relationships. ation experience provided. Ofequal concern is the perception that elk herd ex- pansion is causing cattle use reductions on National Considerations for Forest Plans Forests. In developingmanagementguidance, forests Related to Elk Vulnerability should address this issue and strive to gather habitat use datathat will help clarify this situation. The following list is not inclusive but does include the main issues managers need to consider: Summary for Summer Range 1. Roads—season—ofuse, density. 1. Habitat effectiveness is the method of 2. Security areas distance from roads, size, measurement. cover characteristics, closures (area), topographic 2. The presence and motorized use ofroads is the characteristics. — major impact on elk habitat effectiveness. 3. Covermanagement description, connectiveness, scale, terrain relationships. 3. Detailedcover: forage analysis isimportantonly — when cover is at a premium. 4. Mortality models demonstrated predictors of elkmortality based on habitat quality, hunter den- 4. Landscape levels ofanalysis are necessary. 5. Recognition ofadjacent activities, intermingled sity, or other factors. ownerships, and cumulative effects is needed in plan revisions and updates. Recommendations 6. Analysis ofelk and domestic livestock conflicts Roads—Âs with habitat effectiveness, access to is probably warranted where it is considered a prob- and use ofroads appear to be the most significant lem locally. factors in vulnerability analysis. 7. Forests should set standards forhabitateffective- Two studies inIdaho have demonstrateddirectrela- nessthat are congruous with goals for a prescriptive tionshipsbetweenlevels ofroad access andbullmortal- unit. Specific prescriptive guidelines should reflect ity(Leptich andZager 1991; Unsworth and Kuck 1991). the level ofhabitat effectiveness desired. In Montana, Youmans (1991) implicated "road densi- 8. Close coordination with State biologists and ties as the key factor in increased elk vulnerability." recognitionofidentified State managementgoals for Concerning open roads during hunting season, forelk are necessary in all aspects ofsummer range ests should develop criteria that meet State manage- management. ment goals for elk. Information on the relationship 9. Forests should recognize traditional uses ofelk betweenroads and elkvulnerabilityis so newthat spe- aswell as burgeoningnonconsumptiveinterestinelk. cificcriteria are scarce. However, the studies in north- ELK VULNERABILITY ANALYSIS emIdaho provide initial guidance. Unsworth and Kuck(1991) foundbull svu-vival morethan doubledin The primary source ofelk mortality is hunting. situations comparingroaddensities in excess of4 miles per sectionwith densities under 0.5 mile per section. While the State manages hunters,the Forest Service managementofaccess andcover are extremelyinflu- In a different study area, Leptich and Zager (1991) reported bull mortalities of62, 45, and 31 percent in ential in affecting the ability ofhunters to kill elk. Therefore, itis importantthatinforest planrevisions study areas with 4.5, 2.6, and 1.0 miles ofopen road per section. In both these studies, cover duringthe orupdates, prescriptive guidance is identifiedforelk hunting season was not considered limiting. vulnerability analysis. This procedure applies during the huntingseason andis nottobe conftised withhabi- 1. In areaswith heavycover, road managementcan tat effectiveness. Vulnerability is a separate issue be extremely influential in meeting desirable post- thatforests needtorecognize inelkmanagementand season bull:cow ratios. write into prescriptions. Vulnerability results fi-om 2. Where heavy coveris not available, reduced open an extremely complex relationship involving access, road densities contributeto maintaining some level of cover, topography, hunter density, and weather. A quality hunting opportunity through the season and great deal ofintercorrelation amongthese factors to meeting postseason bull:cow ratios. In areas of 4 more open cover and, perhaps, gentlerterrain, roads coveronthelandscape (Lyonand Canfield 1991). A speeduptheharvestofavailablebvdls andmakebulls strongrelationshipexistsbetweenmaintainingcover more vulnerable throughout the season. Increased forsummerrange habitateffectiveness andmaintain- emphasis shouldbe placed on securitywhere poor ingthe same coverfor security duringfall hunting. cover conditions exist. Where coniferous cover maybe a limitingfactor, it 3. Even primitive roads that see little summeruse will be important to develop long-term perspectives are often used extensively duringthe huntingseason. (rotationlength) on cover management that address Area closures with open routes designatedwill most condition, quantity, location, and configuration. hkely providebettersecuritythanindividual closures. MortalityModels—ModelsthatUnkhabitat, hunter Area closures should address all motorized vehicles density, and elk mortality can provide guidelines to including all-terrainvehicles. coordinatinghabitatcondition and State management — SecurityAreas Securityistheresultofacombina- objectives. Unsworth andothers (1993)have developed tionoffactors that allowelktoremainin a specificarea amodelfornorthernIdahothatpredictsbull elkhunt- while under stress fi'om hunting. In Forest Service ingseason mortality using open road density, circular management, such areas are definedby cover blocks standard deviation ofaspect, and hunter intensity androad management. Specifically, these are areas (densityforthelengthofthe season). This modelvirtu- ofconiferous coverlarge enough andfarenough away allyrequires acomputerizedGeographicInformation fi*om openroads to provide security. Therehavebeen System for calculatingthe aspect variable. Butthe efforts onthe Lolo and Deerlodge National Forests to effect can be estimated based on the fact that greater develop criteria for managing security. The "Hillis topographicreliefreduces elkvulnerability. The more paradigm" (Hillis and others 1991) providesthesecri- moderatethe topography(fig. 2), themore impactroad teriaand, withcareful consideration, maybe appropri- density and hunter density have. Ifwe assume aver- ate forotherforests touse as ageneralguide. Briefly, agetopography and around 10hunterdays per section this modelidentifies the size (250 ormore acres), shape spreadover a26-day season, the probabilityofmortal- (nonlinear), anddistancefi-omopenroads (over0.5mUe) ity for abull elkis 60 percent greaterin an area with forsecxirity areas as well ashowmuchofthe area(over 1 mile ofroad per section than in an unroaded area. 30 percent) should be dedicated to security. Likewise, 2miles ofroadper sectionwill morethan Indiscussionswithbiologists in Idaho andMontana, doublethe mortality probability, and athigherroad there appearstobe agradientfi'omwestto eastregard- densities bulls usually do not survive the hunting ingthe significance ofcoverinthis equation. Innorth- season. em Idaho, it appears that openroad density, hunter Using a different measure ofhuntingintensity. numbers, and topographic roughness are the major Vales and others (1991) andVales (1993) presented considerations (Unsworth andothers 1993). Coveris datafrom northeastern Oregon indicatingthat the soubiquitous thatsecuritycanbecontrolledwithroad ratio ofhunters to available elk can also provide an management alone. As you move eastinto Montana estimate ofprobable mortality; basically, there is a and overthe Continental Divide, cover considerations consistentincrease in harvestrate as the number of becomemoreimportantbecause coverisless abundant hunters per elk increases (fig. 3). These data are im- and less contiguous. It is extremely importantforfor- portantbecause they indicate that excessive hunting estbiologiststoworkwiththeir Statecounterparts in pressure can, inthe end, overwhelm all other provi- developingcriteria for security areas, includingtheir sions ofelkvulnerability management. size, extent, distance fiômroads, andvegetative characteristics. Data from radio telemetry studies are the Summary for Elk Vulnerability bestsource fordevelopingsuchcriteria. Cover Management—This criterion is directed 1. Roads appear to be the single most important variablethatthe Forest Service manages. Roads not mostly atthemore naturallyopen elkhabitatincen- onlydirectlyaffectelkmortalitybutalso affecthunter tral and southwestern Monteina and southern Idaho opportunity by acceleratingbull mortality. Forests where care must be taken to recognize and retain ad- mustwork closely with State biologists to identify equate coniferous cover. In developingthis criterion, acceptablelevels andlocations ofmotorizedaccessto alandscape-level perspective is absolutely necessary. meet postseason bullxow ratios and maintain opti- Size, location on the landscape, connectiveness with mum hunter opportunity. othercover, andvegetative composition areimportant considerations (Hillis and others 1991). Datafrom 2. Security area definition is variable across the Montana hunting seasons suggestthat elk are less region. Some forests have developed criteria. It is essential that cooperation and coordinationwith selective aboutthe specificvegetative characteristics State biologists be used to formulate criteria. ofconiferous cover and more responsiveto size ofunits, connectiveness with adjacentunits, andthe scale of 3. Elkvulnerability analysis, a new concept, will be further defined. Hunter density and opportunity 5 2— Figure Elkvulnerability influenced by hunterdensityand road density (Unsworth and others 1993). WINTER RANGE afforded by State regulations are also major components. It is essential that forest biologists and plan- ners and their State counterparts communicate and Management ofwinter range remains the single coordinate extensivelyonthis topic as forest standards most site-specific consideration for elk habitat. Each and guidelines are developed. winter range is unique in some way. In this section, 4. Recently available mortalitymodels can establish webrieflyaddress the traditional considerations that numerical standards for elk mortality. Local data already appear in the majority offorest plans. We bases may exist to help tailor mortality models to againmention, however, thatwinterrange shouldbe specific geographic areas. Numerical standards for evaluated as a part ofthe vulnerability assessment elkmortalitycanbe established through coordination where appropriate to do so. with State biologists. Traditionally, winterranges forelk have beenviewed as geographic sites onwhich animals concentrate sea- sonally because ofsnow depths. Heavy utilization of available plants, and animal die-offin severe winters, 1 have been commonly recorded. For many years, the primary objective ofmanagement was to improve, or at least prevent deterioration of, existing vegetation. In recentyears, ourunderstanding ofanimal physi- ology on winterranges has modified this view. For- age is important, but in severe weather many animals substitute an energy-conservation strategy for forage intake. Thus, management ofvdnter range to improve thermal cover and prevent harassment may be as important as anything done to change forage quantity or quality. Considerations for Forest Plans Hunter/Elk Ratio Related to Winter Range — Figure 3 Elkvulnerability influenced by The followinglist is not inclusive but does include hunterto elk ratio (Vales 1993). the main issues managers need to consider: 6