Elk management in the Northern Region : considerations in forest plan updates or revisions

14 Pages·1993·0.84 MB·English

by  Christensen, Alan G

Historic, Archive Document
Do not assume content reflects current
scientific knowledge, policies, or practices.

United States i^^Elk 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 avail-
able 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 tj^es 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—^As 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, for-
elk 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 fi^omroads, andvegetative char-
acteristics. 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 compo-
nents. 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 ani-
mals 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