Elk habitat/timber management relationships on eastside forests of the Northern Region, USFS

s

599.657

F2EHT

1978

ELK HABITAT/
TIMBER
MANAGEMENT
RELATIONSHIPS

on Eastside Forests
of the Northern Region;
USFS

MONTANA SIM..,.,,,,,,

North^m Region, USFS and

Montana Department of Fish and Game

MARCH, 1978

MONTANA STATE LIBRARY

3 0864 1002 4477 4

P.ECEIVED

f'.PR 14 1978
Wildlife Djv.

Elk Habitat/Timber Management Relationships
Eastside Forests of the Northern Region, USPS.

March, 1978

Northern Region, USPS
and

Montana Department of Fish and Game

CONTRIBUTORS

Allen, Eugene 0.
Chief of Wildlife Research
Montana Dept. Fish and Game
Bozeman, Montana

Alley, John (Illustrator)
Visual Information Specialist
Deerlodge National Forest
Butte, Montana

Bumstead, Roger
Wildlife Biologist
Northern Region, USFS
Missoula, Montana

Cada, John

Management Biologist
Montana Dept. Fish and Game
Gallatin Gateway, Montana

Cole, Jim (Editor)
Wildlife Biologist
Deerlodge National Forest
Butte, Montana

Erickson, Glenn
Management Biologist
Montana Dept. Fish and Game
White Sulphur Springs, Montana

Evans, Roger L.

Wildlife Biologist

Lewis and Clark National Forest

Great Falls, Montana

Frisina, Michael R.
Management Biologist
Montana Dept. Fish and Game
Butte, Montana

Guthrie, Phillip D.
Silviculturist
Gallatin National Forest
Bozeman, Montana

Jones, Jack
Wildlife Biologist
Butte District, BLM
Butte, Montana

Joy, John
Silviculturist
Deerlodge National Forest
Butte, Montana

Light, Jerome T. , Jr.
Wildlife Biologist
Gallatin National Forest
Bozeman, Montana

Lonner, Terry N.
Research Biologist
Montana Dept. Fish and Game
Bozeman, Montana

Simmons, Claire
Management Biologist
Montana Dept. Fish and Game
Big Timber, Montana

South, Phillip
Wildlife Biologist
Custer National Forest
Billings, Montana

Styskel , Ed
Wildlife Biologist
Helena National Forest
Helena, Montana

Sundstrom, Charles
Wildlife Biologist
Beaverhead National Forest
Dillon, Montana

Worley, Jerry
Silviculturist
Beaverhead National Forest
Dillon, Montana

Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2013

http://archive.org/details/elkhabitattimber1978mont

1

Table of Contents

Page

Introduction 1

Precepts 2

Habitat Preference Relationships 4

Habitat Effectiveness Relationships 20

Application of Models . 25

Management Considerations 38

Glossary 41

Literature Cited .. 44

Appendix 46

INTRODUCTION

The forested environment offers many of the habitat requirements of elk
east of the Continental Divide in Montana. Eastside elk habitats gener-
ally differ from those which occur west of the divide in that they tend
toward climax vegetation. Also, eastside habitats are less characterized
by extensive stands of timber cover than westside habitats. With demands
for forest products on the upswing, coordination to protect elk habitat
as well as maintain diversity of hunting recreation opportunity becomes
increasingly important. These situations, plus the work by Thomas, et.
al. (1976), have prompted this effort to systematically coordinate elk
habitat management with long-range planning, particularly in the area of
timber management.

The Task Force assigned to develop this approach first identified its
objective in this effort. The objective is stated as follows:

To pKovldo, Eadtitidt lone, io^d&t fio^ouJicz manageA^ Mitk a. iy6tm
to undoMtand and display con6zqamcz6 o^ iofi2J>t vzgttation
manipulation on zlk, ThXi, ^y&tm iA}itt be appticjabtz ion. Zand u&e.
pZannlng and pn.ogham ptanntng.

It is the team's intent that this system be applied only at the land use
planning and program development levels. The relationships defined are
general in nature and should not be used as a "cookbook" to treat management
conflicts which may arise at the project implementation level. At the
latter level, evaluation on a case-by-case basis should be made by the
timber manager and the wildlife biologist. No generalized system is a
substitute for professional evaluation of each local situation. Therefore,
it is the Task Force's intent that this document not be construed as
"hard and fast" direction, bet rather as a system which gives the land
manager maximum flexibility to manage elk habitat based on all land
management objectives. The team believes this system incorporates those
data which are most applicable and most up-to-date for the Eastside Zone.

-1-

PRECEPTS

Certain precepts serve as the foundation for the construction of the
functional models of elk habitat relationships. Since these precepts are
based on literature review, research findings, and management experience,
they may not be completely true in every situation, but they are largely
true in most situations east of the Divide. Acceptance of these precepts
requires en understanding of the -above perspective.

A. Adaptability of Elk. The adaptability of the species to a wide
array of habitats has been documented by Murie (1951). In the
Eastside Zone, highly productive elk populations occur in habitats
in which forested cover types range from 30% (Gravelly Range) to 70%
(Little Belt Mountains) of the total area (Basil e and Lonner, in
press). Optimum habitat, as described in terms of cover/forage ratio
by Thomas, et. al. (1976), is a range of values in the Eastside
Zone, thus calculation of a single, precise value is not relevant.
Elk oAz an adaptable. ^pdclzA.

B. Elk Security. Habitat alteration resulting from timber management
activities will cause changes in elk use of the areas affected.
Various Montana studies have documented at least temporary movements
of population segments away from occupied habitats following distur-
bance by may (Lyon, 1975; Marcum, 1975; Lonner, 1974). This has also
been reported from other western states, (Hershey and Leege, 1976;
Rose and Bailey, unknown; Perry and Overly, 1976). Other research
has shown the apparent reestablishment of use in altered (logged)
habitat following the cessation of logging activity (Coop, 1971;
Day, 1973). Also, productivity of elk populations in both logged
and unlogged areas east of the Divide, is, by any measure available
to man, good to excellent. For example, excellent reproduction

(50 to 60 calves per 100 cows) has been recorded in both disturbed
and undisturbed areas (Chrest and Childress, 1976). Field experience
of the team members east of the Divide is coincident with these
findings. Sq.cuAaXu [p/umoAyilLf duAlng tht hunting 4ea4on) ti> thz
habitat <iZmznt iln^t and mo/ot tmpactzd by logging actL\^ttLeJ> ,
although otkeA dlmznt^ aAz aZ&o tn^luznazd 6zcjuAity ti, at p^e^znt,
thz mo6t manageable. a!>pe.cX o^ eJik habttat.

C. Elk Cover Types. Winter range studies (Beall, 1976) indicate the
forest stand structure (the arrangement of vegetative strata)
influences the regulation of animal body temperature. This work
also reported elk are strongly associated with cover types and
weakly associated with forage types during the winter. Lonner 's
(1976) work in the Long Tom Drainage indicates a preference by elk

-2-

for sites with dense regeneration which offers security, especially
during the rut and fall periods. Lyon (1976) has shown use of
clearcuts in eastern Montana by elk is significantly related to the
adjacent forest stand structure. These findings imply that {^o/io^t
6tand ^tAactuAe. AJd tqixaJUiy oh. moKt AjnpofvtaYvt than habAjjout typo, -in
tkz doXoAminioutioYi dtk habitat pH-z^zAtnce. on aZt -i>e£i6onat hanger;
and any lo66 o{^ tkoAmal covet (see Glossary) mIZ be dtthJumQ.ntal on
thxiditionaJt oik M-intoA nange^.

-3-

HABITAT PREFERENCE RELATIONSHIPS

Elk habitat preference is defined as the response of the species to its
environment as related to the fulfillment of biological needs. Habitat
preference is composed of a complex of variables, each of which changes
in value as changes in the other variables occur. Land typing, which in
concept integrates many of the variables of a complete habitat, is
unavailable for the Eastside Zone at an appropriate level of sensitivity.
Habitat types (Pfister, et. al., 1977) are available; however, this
classification focuses on climax rather than serai stages. Photointerpre-
tation Types (USDA, 1977) are also available for the Eastside due to
recent efforts in timber management planning. These photointerpretation
(PI) types are at least a crude delineation of structure or serai stage
in forested types.

The task force combined Habitat Types and PI Types into a vegetation
classification (Elk Habitat Type) which represents various forested elk
habitat situations (Habitat Types and PI Types were previously grouped
to reflect similarities in management implications. See Appendix 1.)
This combination resulted in 23 elk habitat types for which models were
constructed. Use of Elk Habitat Types as described above delineates a
vegetation classification unit which averages 35 to 60 acres in size.
This unit represents a relatively pure stand and, as a result, no con-
sideration is given to the interspersion of types in this classification
system.

Leopold (1933) advanced the concept of "edge-effect" and noted the
importance of type interspersion as it relates to species abundance.
Our vegetation classification system (Elk Habitat Type) does not recognize
the value of interspersion and juxtaposition of types. However, the
summer-fall home range of an elk is 10 to 40 square miles, thus the
number of discrete "units of habitat" within this area probably numbers
in the thousands (the actual p". >ber is dependent on that point at which
a small unit no longer pre- ides significant edge). It is our contention
that species mobility and the numbe. of discrete habitat units within
the large seasonal home range renders small, individual edges relatively
unimportant cut tlit appfiopHJjOLtz tovoX oi appticjitLoyi of the habitat
preference model (See Application of Models). Leopold (1933) contends
"edge-effect" is less significant in highly mobile species. Marcum
(1975), in his work in the Sapphire Range, noted high elk use of areas
near ecotones, yet he also observed summer-fall selection for these
areas in only one year of three.

Models for each Eastside elk habitat group are shown in Figures 1 through
14. These models depict the relationship between elk use and alteration
of the elk habitat group by season and by silvicul tural treatment. The
models developed are based on the following generalized silvicul tural
practices for the Eastside (Phil Guthrie and John Joy, pers. comm.):

-4-

1. In lodgepole pine, clearcutting is the rule. Dwarf mistletoe gener-
ally prevents the application of any other system except at near-
climax situations where multiple species (subalpine fir, spruce,
lodgepole pine) occur.

2. In wet mixed-conifer stands dominated by spruce, selection systems
are most applicable. Selection of "cut" trees can and should be
spread throughout the range of merchantable diameters, removing no
more than 33% of any one diameter group, including the biggest
trees.

3. Moist Douglas-fir habitat types with more or less even-aged stands
would normally be regenerated through clearcutting, shelterwood, or
seed-tree systems. All create "clearcuts" as far as elk are con-
cerned. In dry Douglas-fir habitat types, shelterwood or selection
systems are the rule.

4. Subalpine types, beginning at the point where whitebark pine is
present and Douglas-fir is absent (AF(WBP)/Vasc) , are normally above
the elevation where we would be entering for intensive timber
management. Harvest in these types would normally be salvage adjacent
to existing roads.

The objective of the elk habitat preference models is to predict elk
response to alteration of summer or fall habitat (two models of elk
response to alteration of fall and winter habitats on an Elk Habitat Type
which is restricted to the Hebgen Lake District, Gallatin National Forest
are shown in Appendix II). In the context of "response to habitat alteration,"
response to the resultant integration of aJUi habitat elements, including
foraging areas, bedding sites, water escape areas, thermal cover, etc.,
is implied. The construction of these models is based on research findings,
field experience and, where these are lacking, the expert opinion of
Eastside Zone elk management and research biologists.

-5-

Figure 1:

-1
lU

Z

ui
O

z
<
z
o

100% Increase

90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10

EXISTING

10

20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90

100% Decrease

Elk Habitat Preference Model for Elk Habitat Types 11, 12.
13, and 14* for cue summer and fall periods, Eastside Zone,
Northern Region, USPS.

%0F UNIT ALTERED

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100%

• ,

•

" — —

PA 1 1 1

rALL L

ICC /
Jot

—

•

^^^^

10 20 30 40 50 60 70

*Includes all possible combinations of the following:

80

90 100%

a) Habitat Types:

Pinus Flexilus Series
PP/Agsp; Andro; Feid; Putr; Syal
DF/Agsp; Field; Fesc.
DF/Syal-Agsp; Caru-Agsp

b) P.I. Types:

Includes P.I. types 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23. 25,
27, and 28. All stand heights with 40% to 100% crown
cover (well to medium stocked).

Assumptions

Elk: Fall and winter range only; no summer use.

Silviculture; Selection or shelterwood harvest systems only; normally
salvage along existing roads.

-6-

Figure 2,

D

m
O
Z
<
I

u

100% Increase

90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10

EXISTING

10

20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90

100% Decrease

Elk Habitat Preference Model for Elk Habitat Type 21*
for the summer and fall periods, Eastside Zone, Northern
Region, USPS.

%0F UNIT ALTERED

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100%

1

it

jUMMEF

USE

N

FALL I

..X

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100%

*Includes all possible combinations of the following:

a) Habitat Types:

DF/Caru-Caru; Caru-Aruv; DF/Cage
DF/Arco; Juco; Spbe; Aruv; Phma; Syal

b) P.I. Types:

Includes P.I. Types 11 and 14. Stand height greater than
40 feet. 70% to 100% crown cover (well stocked).

Assumptions:

Elk: Primarily fall range; some early summer use.
Silviculture: Even-aged harvest systems only.

-7-

Figure 3.

Elk Habitat Preference Model for Elk Habitat Type 22*
for the summer and fall periods, Eastside Zone,
Northern Region, USPS.

(/>

D

UJ

a

100% Increase

90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10

EXISTING

10

<

z
o

20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90

100% Decrease

%0F UNIT ALTERED

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100%

A—

^ \

.SUM

MER US

E

/

FAL

_ USE'^

\

i

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100%

*Includes all possible combinations of the following:

a) Habitat Types:

DF/Caru-Caru; Caru-Aruv; DF/Cage
DF/Arco; Juco; Spbe; Aruv; Phma; Syal

b) P.I. Type:

Includes P.I. Types 12, 15, 19, and 21. Stand height
greater than 40 feet. 40% to 70% crown cover (medium
stocking) .

Assumptions:

Elk: Primarily fall range; some early summer use.
Silviculture: Even-aged harvest systems only.

-8-

Figure 4.

UJ
C/)

D

UJ
Z

tu
O

z
<

X

u

100% Increase

90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10

EXISTING'
10

20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90

100% Decrease

Elk Habitat preference Model Elk for Habitat Type 23*
for the summer and fall periods, Eastside Zone, Northern
Region, USPS.

%0F UNIT ALTERED

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100%

\

\

SUMME

^ USE

\

V

V

F

^LL USE

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100%

*Includes all possible combinations of the following:

a) Habitat Types:

DF/Caru-Caru; Caru-Aruv; DF/Cage
DF/Arco; Juco; Spbe; Aruv; Phma; Syal

b) P.I. Type:

Includes P.I. Types 17 and 23. Stand height greater than
40 feet. Stand two-storied and at least 15-20 feet height
difference between overstory and understory. 40% to 100%
crown cover (well to medium stocking).

Assumptions:

Elk: Primarily fall range with key cover value due to forest
structure.

Silviculture: Even-aged harvest systems only.

-9-

Figure 5. Elk Habitat Preference Model for Elk Habitat Type 24*

for the summer and fall periods, Eastside Zone, Northern
Region, USPS.

%0F UNIT ALTERED

CO
3

UJ

Z

lU

O

100% Increase
90
80

70
60
50
40
30
20
10

EXISTING

10

20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90

100% Decrease

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100%

FALL USE

.SUMMER USE

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100%

*Includes all possible combinations of the following:

a) Habitat Types:

DF/Caru-Caru; Caru-Aruv; DF/Cage
DF/Arco; Juco; Spbe; Aruv; Phma; Syal

b) P.I. Type:

Includes P.I. Types 25, 27, and 28. Stand height less
than 40 feet. 40% to 100% crown cover (well to medium
stocked) .

Assumptions:

Elk: Primarily fall range; some early summer use.
Silviculture: Intermediate cuts (commercial and precommercial

thinnings); conversion of "doghair" may result in

clearcut.

-10-

Figure 6. Elk Habitat Preference Model for Elk Habitat Types 31 and
32* for the summer and fall periods. Easts ide Zone,
Northern Region, USPS.

%0F UNIT ALTERED

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100%
100% Increase i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

90

80

70

60 1

50

40

*Includes all possible combinations of the following:

a) Habitat Types:

DF, S, AF/Vaca; Li bo
S/Smst, Phma
DF, AF/Xete. Vagi

b) P.I. Types:

Includes P.I. types 11, 12, 14. 15, 19, and 21. Stand
height greater than 40 feet. 40% to 100% crown cover
(well to medium stocking).

Assumptions:

Elk: Summer and fall range.

Silviculture: Even-aged harvest systems applicable.

-11-

Figure 7.

UJ

(/}

_J

UJ

Z

UJ

O

z
<
z
u

100% Increase

90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10

EXISTING

10

20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90

100% Decrease

Elk Habitat Preferedce Model for Elk Habitat Type 33*
for the summer and fall periods. Easts ide Zone, Northern
Region, USPS.

%0F UNIT ALTERED

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100%

s

— ^

^SU
<—

^MER U

SE

FALL

\

—

\

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

*Includes all possible combination:, of the following:

90 100%

a) Habitat Types:

DF, S, AF/Vaca; Li bo
S/Smst, Phma
DF, AF/Xete, Vagi

b) P.I. Types:

Includes P.I. Types 17 and 23. Stand height greater than
40 feet. Stand two-storied and at least 15-20 feet height
difference between overstory and understory. 40% to 100%
crown cover (well to medium stocking).

Assumptions:

Elk: Summer and fall range.

Timber: Even-aged harvest systems applicable.

-12-

Figure 8. Elk Habitat Preference Model for Elk Habitat Type 34*

for the summer and fall periods, Eastside Zone, Northern
Region, USPS.

UJ

(/)
D

-J
ui

Z

LU

(D
Z
<
X

u

100% Increase

90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10

EXISTING

10

20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90

100% Decrease

%0F UNIT ALTERED

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100%

t m m m

m • « * a

a ■ A • a

« • A A 1

—— • -

•

' • .

S

JMMER

•

* 1

•

F

ALL US

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100%

*Includes all possible combinatioi of the following:

a) Habitat Types:

DP, S, AP/Vaca; Li bo
S/Smst, Phma
DP, AP/Xete, Vagi

b) P.I. Types:

Includes P.I. Types 25, 27, and 28. Stand height
less than 40 feet. 40% to 100% crown cover (well
to medium stocked).

Assumptions:

Elk: Summer and fall range.

Silviculture: Intermediate cuts (commercial and precommercial
thinning); conversion of "doghair" may result in
clearcut.

-13-

Figure 9. Elk Habitat Preference Model for Elk Habitat Type 41*

for the suniner and fall periods, Eastside Zone, Northern
Region, USPS.

UJ
C/3
D

-J

Ui

Z
lU

O

z
<

X

o

100% Increase
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10

EXISTING

10

20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90

100% Decrease

10

20

%0F UNIT ALTERED

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100%

. • •

- •

• •

» * .

•

•

•

•

•

•

UMMER

USE

• • •

• , .
• •

F

ALL US

•

1

1

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100%

*Includes all possible combinations of the following:

a) Habitat Types:

S/Gatr; Clun; Eqar
AF/6atr; Clun; Mefe; Alsi

b) P.I. Types:

Includes P.I. Types 11 and 14. Stand height greater than
40 feet. 70% to 100% crown cover (well stocked).

Assumptions:

Elk: Important summer and fall range.
Silviculture: All harvest systems applicable.

-14-

Figure 10.

UJ

D

ULl

O

z
<

X

u

100% Increase

90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10

EXISTING

10

20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90

100% Decrease

Elk Habitat Preference Model for Elk Habitat Types 42 and 43*
for the summer and fall periods. Easts ide Zone, Northern
Region, USPS.

% OF UNIT ALTERED

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100%

■

SI

JMMER 1

JSE'^

•

•

FA

LL USE-

•

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100%

*Includes all possible combinations of the following:

a) Habitat Types:

S/Gatr; Clun; Eqar
AF/Gatr; Clun; Mefe; Alsi

b) P.I. Types:

Includes P.I. Types 12, 15, 17, 19, 21, and 23. Stand
height greater than 40 feet. Stand may be two-storied
and at least 15-20 feet height difference between over-
story and understory. 40% to 100% crown cover (well to
medium stocking).

Assumptions:

Elk: Important sumiier and fall range; key value is cover.
Silviculture: All harvest systems applicable.

-15-

Figure 11. Elk Habitat Preference Model for Elk Habitat Type 44*

for the summer and fall periods, Eastside Zone, Northern
Region, USPS.

UJ

Z

UJ

(J

Z
<
I

o

100% Increase

90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10

EXISTING

10

20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90

100% Decrease

%0F UNIT ALTERED

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100%

—

S

UMMER

USEv

S

k..

•

FALL USE^

•

•

1

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100%

*Includes all possible combinations of the following:

a) Habitat Types:

S/Gatr; Clun; Eqar
AF/Gatr; Clun; Mefe; Alsi

b ) P.I. Types :

Includes P.I. Types 25, 27, and 28. Stand height less
than 40 feet. 40% to 100% crown cover (well to medium
stocked) .

Assumptions:

Elk: Summer and fall range; key summer habitat.
Silviculture: Intermediate cutting system.

-16-

Figure 12. Elk Habitat Preference Model for Elk Habitat Types 51 and
52* for the summer and fall periods, Eastside
Zone, Northern Region, USPS.

UJ

D

111
Z

UJ

O

z
<
I
o

100% Increase

90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10

EXISTING

10

20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90

100% Decrease

10

20

%0F UNIT ALTERED

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100%

JMMER I

JSE

FALL L

JSE^

1

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100%

*Includes all possible combinations of the following:

a) Habitat Types:

AF/Caru; Cage; Arco; Clps; Vase. S/Sest

b) P.I. Types:

Includes P.I. Types 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18. 19, 21,
26, and 29. Crown cover ranges from 10% to 100%.

Assumptions:

Elk: Summer and fall range.

Silviculture: Even-aged harvest systems; most abundant and widely
distributed type in Eastside Zone.

-17-

Figure 13. Elk Habitat Preference Model for Elk Habitat Type 53*

for the summer and fall periods, Eastside Zone, Northern
Region, USPS.

%0F UNIT ALTERED

Ui

D

UJ

Z

UJ

O

z
<

X

u

100% increase
90
80

70
60
50
40
30
20
10

EXISTING
10

20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90

100% Decrease

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100%

J ivi ivi c n

1 IQP

<

— »•

k

FAL

.L USE^

\

1

i

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

♦Includes all possible combinations of the following:
a)

90 100%

Habitat Types:

AF/Caru; Cage; Arco; Clps; Vase. S/Sest

b) P.I. Types:

Includes P.I. Types 17 and 23. Stand height greater than
40 feet. Stand two-storied and at least 15-20 feet height
difference between overs tory and understory. 40% to 100%
crown cover (well to medium stocking).

Assumptions:

Elk: Summer and fall range.

Silviculture: Even-aged harvest systems; most abundant and
widely distributed type in Eastside Zone.

-18-

Figure 14. Elk Habitat Preference Model for Elk Habitat Type 54*

for the summer and fall periods, Eastside Zone, Northern
Region, USPS.

%0F UNIT ALTERED

UJ

D

Ui

Z

UJ

O

z
<

X

o

100% Increase

90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10

EXISTING

10

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100%

20
30
40

50
60
70
80
90

100% Decrease

* * A fli

• • • ■

•

•

•

— •

•

•

•

su

MMER L

=ALL US

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100%

*Includes all possible combinations of the following:

a) Habitat Types:

AF/Caru; Cage; Arco: Clps: Vase. S/Sest

b) P.I. Types:

Includes P.I. Types 25, 27, and 28. Stand height less
than 40 feet. 40% to 100% crown cover (well to medium
stocked) .

Assumptions:

Elk: Summer and fall range.

Silviculture: Intermediate cuts (conmercial and precommercial
thinning); conversion of "doghair" may result in
clearcut.

-19-

HABITAT EFFECTIVENESS RELATIONSHIPS

The habitat effectiveness model portrays the capability of an area to
provide security based on the density of open roads and the extent of
available hiding cover. Security areas are those which hold elk during
periods of stress. Habitat effectiveness is a concept which describes
the probability that security habitat will be provided by an area.

Human intervention in the life system of elk can generate stress and the
quality and quantity hiding cover influences the degree and duration
of stress. Thus, the interaction of these factors. . .human intervention
and hiding cover qual ity. . . tend to determine the relative effectiveness
of an area to provide security.

The habitat effectiveness model is based on the response of elk to stress
generated during the hunting season. Stress created by other human
activities (i.e., recreation or work activities) may also be a source of
decreased effectiveness of a unit or habitat. Currently, hunting-based
stress is the predominant form of human encroachment into elk security;
however, man's non-hunting activities may be of increasing importance in
the Eastside Zone. Data should be accumulated to describe the relationships
of non-hunting based human encroachment.

The development of the habitat effectiveness model assumes current hunting
regulations will remain relatively unchanged. More stringent hunting
regulations such as the restriction of hunter numbers of the imposition
of harvest quotas, would a'. so reduce stress during the hunting season.
However, these approaches are less desirable from the perspective of
agency objectives (see Appendix III).

The degree of use of a road rather than the road itself, is the basis for
negative impacts on an elk population (Marcum 1975). However, human
access levels on each road are ..t currently manageable on the National
Forests east of the Contin«m;ai Divide. The day has yet to come when
individual vehicle control is part ^ the management technique of the
Forest Officer. We assume an "open" road will accommodate that degree of
traffic which can negatively impact elk use. This assumption is the
basis for use of road density (miles of road per square mile) as the
measure of human intervention in the habitat effectiveness model.

Hiding cover quality, the other variable which affects the security of
elk, is a function of sight distance (see Glossary) and relative expanse
of the cover unit. We define hiding cover (see Glossary) as a vegetation
and topographic complex which essentially hides an elk. However, for
purposes of the development of habitat effectiveness model, timber stands
with 40% or more canopy cover are considered elk hiding cover.

-20-

Telemetry studies (T. N. Lonner, pers. comm.) have shown the home range
for elk during the summer-fall period is an area of approximately ten to
forty square miles. This size is the basis for describing the Habitat
Analysis Unit (HAU). The HAU also conforms to timber management compartment
boundaries so certain inventoried forest characteristics can be easily
retrieved from computer data banks. The model which depicts rocd density
and hiding cover relationships is shown in Figure 15 and is derived as
follows:

1. Road density and corresponding percentage of hiding cover (see
Glossary) within an HAU were calculated from 43 samples from East-
side Zone Forests. (Only half the length of peripheral roads in an
HAU are used in this calculation.)

2. Field biologists determined the capability of these HAU's to "hold
elk" (see Glossary).

3. Zones of probability (that an area will hold elk) were delineated
(see Figure 15) based on similarities in the road density/percent
cover relationship samples. The probabilities noted were devel . -
through application of the binomial probability concept described by
Snedecor and Cochran (1971) to the actual samples which occur in
each probability zone.

-21-

Figure 15. Habitat Effe :1veness Model. The probability of the
maintenance of security based on the relationship
between road density and percentage of hiding cover
in a habitat analysis unit (HAU).

3
</>

(0

O

100

% of hiding cover in a habitat analysis unit

• area does hold elk
o area does not hold elk

-22-

■p

O

>
0)

X>

o

o

U)

<u
c

>

•r-
+J

O

OJ
«f-
M-

•

+J j-i

J3 O)
CO

■o •■-
a> Li-
u

-o s-

s- a.

(/) o
(U u

s- +->

■P fO
to +J

I—

r- «a

u I—

<u
o

+J c

<U Ol
^ E

(U

i-

Z3
O)

-23-

4-> •

Q.<X>

</) r-*

<D

■O <U

4-> 3
C C71
O) T-
E Li.
<D

CD <U

m i~

C fO
(0 Q.
E E
o

■o o
o

S- +J
(O

O 4->

4-> -1-
XI

O) <0

3 x:

T3

in I—

a; o
>

•t- •4->

+J c

u a>
O) E
M- O)

O) (/)

■P (O
<0

■•-> c

•I— "I—

jQ

«a >>

^ •4->
•I—

•o l/>
<u c
> a>
o -o
i-

0.-0

•r- O
i.

V)

<U JC

(O -r-

S_ SI
4->
tn

3 C
r— «d

^ CT>

c

x: •!-
o o>
•1- o>
SI o
5 <—

SI <u

o •«->

+J to

0) s-

^ cu

in "O

o

< e

(U
3

cn

-24-

APPLICATION OF MODELS

A diagram which depicts the relationships of the components of the
system as they relate to the stated objective is shown below. The
overall system focuses, on security habitat and habitat preference
relationships. Bdth models must be employed before full understanding
and display of the consequences of a land management decision on any
unit of elk habitat can be achieved.

OdJECTIVE

A SYSTEM
for Understanding
and Displaying
Consequences

SECURITY HABITAt '
RELATIONSHIPS MODEL

SPACE

ACCESS pv^ CO

HIDING
COVER

HABIW PREFEREMCE
REIATIONSHIPS MODEL

HABITAT
TYPE

OTHER
ELEMEWTS

-25-

I

The intent of the security habitat and elk preference models 1s to serve,
(1) as an aid in alternative duplay and de^c/Uption in the land use
planning process and, (2) as an aid in the determination of potential
projects in program planning (e.g. 5-year timber sale plan). The appli-
cation procedure outlined below uses data from the Little Boulder/Whitetail
Planning Unit, Deerlodge National Forest, as an illustration of the first
application.

1. Define land management objectives with specific emphasis on elk,
timber and road management (See Table 1). This step is unnecessary
if the purpose is simply to describe a management proposal.

2. Delineate habitat analysis units (HAU). These should conform

to timber management compartment boundaries and should range in size
from 10 to 40 square miles. Thought should also be given as to a
unit's manageability (See Figure 18).

3. State predominant or most limiting season of use for each HAU.
Identify the seasonal use pattern which is most common or, if sig-
nificant use occurs during more than one season, identify that which
is most limiting to elk (See Table 2).

4. Establish maximum allowable alteration for each elk habitat

type by season of use and by management alternative (See Table 3).
To accomplish this, simply go to the appropriate elk habitat preference
model for a given elk habitat type (e.g.. See Figure 10 for elk
habitat type 41). Then, select the percentage of unit altered value
which corresponds with the given alternative (e.g., for elk habitat
type 41 and management alternatives III, which is "essentially a
neutral impact," the allowable alteration on summer range is 35% and
on fall range is 0%). NOTE: To determine the current status of a given
elk habitat type, all P.I. Types 31, 32, and 33 (cutover stands of less
than 40 feet in height) should be grouped with adjacent stands which
are classified the same as these P.I. Types 31, 32, and 33 were prior
to their harvest. For exfiple, let us suppose 80 acres of Elk Habitat
Type 41 occurs adjacent uO 20 acres of P.I. Type 31 which was, prior
to harvest, classified as EU Mabitat Type 41. To predict the change
in elk use created by any further alteration the two acreages should
be added (80 + 20 = 100 acres) and the harvested acre divided by the
total acreage to determine the amount of the unit already altered
(20 T 100 = 20%).

5. Summarize acreage of elk habitat type by HAU within the total

area of consideration (See Table 4). This can be accomplished by a
currently available computer program which accesses timber inventory
data files.

6. Calculate maximum allowable alteration for each elk habitat type

by HAU by management alternative (See Tables 5 and 6). This can be
accomplished by a currently available computer program which combines
Steps 4 and 5 of this procedure.

-26-

7. Select alternative or create others. Table 7 summarizes Inaximum
allowable alteration for each HAU by management alternative.
Selection can be based on predetermined alternatives, newly created
alternatives or combination of alternatives by HAU depending on the
overall land management objectives.

8. Calculate road density for each HAU. The road mileage within
each HAU is compared with the percent hiding cover within that HAU
(the latter data is made available from a currently available com-
puter program which accesses timber inventory data files). Table 8
sunmarizes these aspects of elk habitat for the example area.

9. Select maximum road density which corresponds with selected alternative
(Step 7). This procedure will identify road mileage which can be

left open or is required to be closed (Table 9). In essence, it identifies
the road management needs from an elk management perspective.

-27-

Table 1. The stated management alternatives for the Little Boulder/
Whitetail Planning Unit, Deerlodge National Forest.

ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTION

1 ^ —

I

Provide for a maximum area of wilderness study

clli|Jrla:3 1 1 riy a I uw level ui iiiaiNcU uut)JULo aiiu a

high level of non-market outputs (recreation,
wildlife, fisheries, plus soil, air and water
quality) on the remainder of the area.

Von. pu/ipo6£A 0^ modoX. apptLcation, thU obje-ctlvz

lYit<iApn.zt(id to mean 4jnp/iovme.nt ojj maKimm
amount ojj hahiXat with no now n.oad dtveZoprmnt
{1001 kabttat z^idctlvmu^] ,

III

Emphasize minimal road development in support of
iiiaiKcL ouupuLb wn i ic conccn Lrai. 1 Dy inanagcmenT. lor
non-market outputs (dispersed recreation, wildlife,
fish plus soil, air and water quality) on the re-
mainder of the area.

Fo/L puJipoi><Li> oi modoZ apptlcxLtion, tkU objzctivt
uO(U tntoApxzttd to mzmi tmp^ovz ok at tojodt moAjitouin
cuJOitnt hitujitLon — Q^^dYitiaZJUj have, a mivUial impact
[80% luib-Ujot tUzctivmeJi^) ,

V

FmDha<»i7P markpt outnut^ Mivp^tnrk timhpr watpr
and minerals) which provide maximum economic support
for the local area while maintaining current or mini-
mally acce ^.able levels of other market and non-
marke* outputs.

fot puApo^Qyi 0^ modoX apptlcation, tklt> objzctivz
u}a^ lntQApn.(Lt(Ld to mmn aJUL tue, could dzcAzoic {20%
0^ maxAjmum) and A.oad dzveJioptmnt wouid -incAta&z {40%
kabitat Q.iizcXl\Jzn2^J!i) ,

-28-

■t- "

bitat Analysis Units in fe^i

e Little Boulder/White- U^'
il Planning Unit,
er lodge National Forest.

Table 2. Identification of seasonal elk use by Habitat Analysis

Unit (HAU) in the Little Boulder/Whitetail Planning Unit,
Deerlodge National Forest,

PREDOMINANT
SEASON OF USE

HAU

Fall

Coyote
Ratio/Dry
Galena
Bigfoot

Summer

Delmoe
Nez Perce
Whitetail

Summer & Fall *

Little Boulder
Bear/Berrys

* Fall use most limiting

-30-

Table 3. Maximum alteration (%) in elk habitat use by management

alternative in the Little Boulder/Whitetail Planning Unit,
Deerlodge National Forest, based on elk habitat preference
models.

Elk Habitat Alternative

Type _J HI V

Summer

Fal 1

Summer

Fal 1

Summer

Fal 1

1 1

11

0

0

0

5

45

A C

45

12

0

0

0

5

45

A C

45

13

0

0

0

5

A C

45

A r

45

14

0

0

0

5

A C

45

A C

45

21

15

0

0

0

50

30

22

15

0

45

5

65

c c

55

23

0

0

10

0

65

10

24

0

0

0

0

40

10

31

20

15

40

25

60

45

32

20

15

40

25

60

45

33

30

0

40

0

55

10

34

0

0

50

10

90

65

41

25

0

35

0

60

40

42

0

0

60

0

100

30

43

0

0

60

0

100

30

44

0

0

0

0

20

20

51

0

0

30

0

50

30

52

0

0

30

0

50

30

53

0

0

30

0

45

5

54

0

0

50

10

80

50

-31-

o
—)

3>

O
r+
zr
ft)
-J

cn

T3
fD

ro
o
o

U1
O

tncncn4i4:>^-P>cocococororororoi-»i-«»-*
coroi— »4^coroi-~'4s>coroi-'45«coro>-»-P»coro

^ CO ro

yry ^rO U54^0_U)tn

oooocnoooooooooooooousoi
^ j::* ro — '

O>vJOOC0i-^OOOOOOOO-P.OO"^OOCJl4S.

^ (ji (_i ro

coi— "cocn I— "I— » -C^ o cn — i

00 cn tn ^ cj a> 4^ -f^* ^ 5J 29 ^ 1^ ^

tnoiocnooooooocnoocnoooocno

OOOH-' O^OOOl-'t-'OOOOC0OCA>-P.OOCJlO

ro
t— '
ro
ro

00

CO ^

oj CO 00 <T> ro ^ ->J

, CO »-» >^ooo iX)^co roCTt

ooocnooooocnocncnoocn-^oouDro

o
o

cn
a\
o
ro

o
o

ro
o

ro

o
o

00

o

CO

V£5
00

cn

o
o

CO

o

O
O

ro

o
o

i-« ro

i\3oorooooooooooi-»ooouji-»orooo

»«j cn H-"

cn ro i-» ro CO

vD »-» ro cn »vj cn vo ro H-« ^ ^ ^ ^ _ _

rocnoocnoocncncntncnooocnooooo

4S» CO

<^oo-»-JOooot— 'i-'i-'O— »rooooooooo

v£> ro ro H-» t-»

cno ooro *^<t> <X)vo i— »

00 4^ CO 0"^rOCT^"^ coo CO

CAiOOOt-*oocncnoooo-P»OOOOOOcncn

CnOOCOOOO-P>t-'00-P»00000-P»00— 'O

CD i_. ro H-« ro

ro cn cn CO cn <T> ro ro cn

^rocjJUD -^cn^JiO
viDcnocncnoooooocnocnocoooooo

oi^coo-ps.oooooooooco^oro^oo-p»o

cn cni-« t-^"-' i-» I--

co^ vDcn coi-» oro

00 <x) CO cn CO cx> ro I-' C3 9D ^ "i::* 92 ^ /-^ t=J ^
cncnocnroocn»-'000rooocn4:»cnooocn

^rooooooroi— 'OOcncTtoocTicnoo^o

CO OOCO rOH-' 1^^,

00 -^00 t-" cn -P» <X) a> ro i-' oo ro
ooo-p»cnoocncnooocnoocnoocncno

cooooK-*ooroi— 'OO^oooo-^ooooroo

js, CO ro ro

cnro ro^icoro-^

cococo cncocn ro-jcn4s><^o

cnocnoooocnocnocncncooou^oo^XJO

^ ro I-"

oooo^rooooooorocoroorooooo*^"-*

0>

o
,o
f<
o

ro

o

o
a>

TO

a>

N

T3

m
-s
o

fD

CO

O
O

3H

o

o

CZ

o.

CO
fD
Oi
-J

DO
fD

CD

fD
3

cr
—J

(D
4s>

-O C/)
— » C

(u 3

3 3
3 0>

3C^

o

c: -h

3

_j. fD
c+ -J

a 3-

fD 0>

fD cr

-5 -••
— ' c+

o o>

D. r<-
fD r+

0) n>

_J<
O

3 3

O

-$ 3-
fD 0)

v> cr
r<- -J-
• c+
01
c+

O*
3
O)
—J

C/)

c

3

r+
3-
fD

c+

CD

D3
O

c
o.

fD

fD
ri-
ot

-32-

Table 5. Maximum allowable alteration (acres) in the Ratio/Dry

Habitat Analysis Unit by elk habitat type and management
alternative based on habitat preference models.

Elk Habitat

Alternative

11

0

352

617

12

0

946

1655

13

0

0

0

14

0

46

81

21

0

0

203

22

0

195

2142

23

0

0

0

24

0

0

30

31

13

21

38

32

8

15

30

33

0

0

0

34

0

2

11

41

0

0

0

42

0

0

9

43

0

0

0

44

0

0

0

51

0

0

6

52

0

0

38

53

0

0

0

54

0

0

0

TOTAL

21

1577

4860

-33-

Table 6. Maximum allowable alteration (acres) in the Nez Perce

Habitat Analysis Unit by elk habitat type and management
alternative based on habitat preference models.

Elk Habitat

Alternative

Tvoe

,' J; r... 1

I

II

III

11

0

3

5

12

0

27

47

13

0

0

0

14

0

0

0

21

135

315

450

22

290

965

1255

23

0

0

0

24

0

0

0

31

335

670

1088

32

115

269

422

33

0

7

11

34

0

0

0

41

69

96

165

42

0

483

805

43

0

0

0

44

0

0

0

51

0

624

1249

52

0

528

1320

53

0

0

0

54

0

0

0

TOTAL

944

3987

6817

-34-

Table 7. Summary of maximum allowable alteration (acres) by

management alternative based on habitat preference models
in the Little Boulder/Whitetail planning unit, Deerlodge
National Forest.

HAU

I

Al ternati ve
III

V

Coyote

0

936

4057

Delmoe

448

3219

6165

Ratio/Dry

21

1577

4860

Whitetail

116

1919

4272

Nez Perce

944

3987

6817

Bigfoot

91

822

3381

Little Boulder

289

913

3688

Bear/Berrys

243

591

2937

Galena

85

860

4057

TOTAL

2237

14824

40234

-35-

Table 8. Current status of some elk habitat elements by Habitat
Analysis Unit (HAU) in the Little Boulder/Whitetail
Planning Unit, Deerlodge National Forest.

Area

Miles of Road

HAU

(Sq. Miles)

Miles of Road

Per Sq. Mile

% Hiding Cover

Coyote

31.4

97.4

3.1

53

Delmoe

24.7

18.4

0.7

72

Ratio/Dry

33.2

35.1

1.1

58

Whitetail

24.4

8.0

0.3

51

Nez Perce

^1.9

8.7

0.3

55

Bigfoot

28.2

22.9

0.8

54

Little Boulder

31.0

13.8

0.4

73

Bear/Berrys

20.4

10.3

0.5

82

Galena

23.3

27.3

1.2

"70

7Z

TOTAL

251.2

241.9

Unit Mean

27.9

26.9

0.9

63

Unit Median

28.2

18.4

0.7

58

-36-

Table 9. Road management alterations required at hiding cover levels
established by management alternative, in the Little Boulder/
Whitetail Planning Unit, Deerlodge National Forest.

Alternative Alternative Alternative

I

III

IV

HAU

Miles Road/
Sq. Miles Miles

Miles Road/
Sq. Miles Miles

Miles Road/
Sq. Miles Miles

Coyote
Delmoe
Ratio/ Dry
Whitetail
Nez Perce
Bigfoot

Little Boulder

Bear/Berrys

Galena

-2.7* -84.8
-0.2 - 4.9
-0.7 -23.2
+0.1 + 2.4
+0.1 + 3.2
-0.4 -11.3
+0.1 + 3.1

0 0
-0.7 -16.3

-2.2 -69.1
+0.5 +12.4
-0.1 - 3.3
+0.6 +14.6
+0.6 +19,1
+0.2 + 5,6
+0.8 +24.8
+0.7 +14«3
-0.4 - 9.3

-53.4

+0.9 +25.6
+0.4 +13.3
+1.1 +26.8

+L1 +35.1
+0.7 +19.7
+1.2 +37.2
+1.1 -22.4
+0.4 + 9.3

Net Change
Ave. Unit Alter.

-122.0
16.6

+ 8.6
19.2

+136.0

27.0

♦Negative value indicates roads must be closed to meet management
alternative goals, while positive value indicates roads may be added.

-37-

MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS

1. Minimum disturbance of winter range use occurs where the following
are incorporated into logging plans:

a) Avoid logging activities including hauling, in the winter
range zone during periods of elk use (December through April).

b) Any logging system which maintains the integrity of winter
thermal cover is appropriate.

c) Due to the proximity to south-facing forage types, the upper
one-third of the slope is particularly important as winter
thermal cover (Beall, 1976).

2. In known calving areas, avoid logging activities. Including hauling
during calving period (May and June).

3. Road location impacts on elk will be minimized where consideration
is given to the following (Montana Cooperative Elk-Logging Study,
1976):

a) Road crossing by elk is maximized where frequent, dense cover
areas are left intact.

b) Elk frequent low divides when crossing between drainages.

c) Elk use of important habitats is least impacted where road
designs call for low standard, slow speed, single track roads.

d) Elk movements are least impeded where road right-of-way slash
is completely disposed.

e) Roads in riparian zones lessen elk use in this important
habitat situation.

4. Two general types of surr-iier range situations have been identified
by the Montana Cooperative EU-Logging Study (1976). Both of these
situations center on moist habitat types and include those habitat
types found in habitat type group number 4 (Appendix I, Table 1).
The ^lut type occurs where moist sites are found in close proximity
to each other. Here, an area large enough to maintain the overall
integrity of the habitat components to be managed should be determined
by an on-the-ground inspection by land and wildlife managers and
other appropriate resource specialists. A second type of situation
exists, where moist sites are not in close proximity with one

another, but evenly distributed over the summer range. The recommendation
to protect moist sites which are relatively far apart but evenly
distributed over a summer range, as well as a security zone of
cover around each site, may be impractical. However, it should be

-38-

recognized that continual loss of these small units and their
juxtaposition in the forest could in time have a substantial
adverse impact on a local elk herd. Therefore, as many as possible
of these sites should be identified and withdrawn from treatment,
along with a peripheral zone to provide continuous cover with the
uncut forest. New or planned roads passing near these sites should
be closed to summer-fall vehicular traffic, except perhaps for
light intermittent administrative use, following logging in the
area.

5. Clearcuts have maximum elk use potential when the following criteria
are met (Montana Cooperative Elk-Logging Study, 1976):

a) Slash cleanup inside clearcuts should maintain average slash
depths of less than 1.5 feet.

b) Small openings appear to be preferred, but larger openings (up

to 100 acres) may be used where the adjacent forest is relatively
free of understory debris and security is adequate.

c) Design and location of clearcut units should provide for the
shortest possible sight distances (best available cover) at
the unit boundary.

d) Provide for security through appropriate road closures.

6. Natural openings in the forest canopy generally have high value for
elk. Maximum use of such openings can be expected where hiding
cover is preserved within three sight distances (approx. 600 ft.)
of the edge. When timber harvest occurs adjacent to this edge and
a selection system is sllvicul tural ly sound, it should be used to
fulfill this objective. Where clearcutting is necessary, it is
desirable to maintain at least three-fourths of the residual cover
around the opening at any one entry. Subsequent entries should be
delayed until hiding cover is re-established on previously harvested
units. ^

7. Timber management operations are a disturbance to elk. The adverse
consequences can be minimizea by the following (Black, et. al . 1976):

a) Concentrate all management activities (road construction,
logging, slash treatement, planting) within the shortest
possible period of time and the smallest possible area. The
more severe the disturbance, the greater the need to concentrate
these activities.

b) Confine operations to a single drainage at a time, i.e.,

do not log adjacent drainages as the disturbances appear to be

-39-

effectively dampened by ridgelines. Conscious designation of
non-activity zones adjacent to concentrated activity areas is
required.

c) Minimize the duration of the disturbance. An intensive dis-
turbance for a short time probably has less impact than a
lesser disturbance over a long period of time.

-40-

GLOSSARY

A. Elk Habitat Type. The vegetation classification which combines
habitat type and photointerpretation type (PI) is known as elk
habitat group (see Appendix I). This classification best describes
serai vegetation stages.

B. Habitat Analysis Unit (HAU). This unit is a timber management
compartment or combination of compartments which ranges in size
from 10 to 40 square miles. This size approximates the average
seasonal home range for elk during the summer/ fall period.

C. Hiding Cover. Hiding cover is defined as the vegetation and
topographic complex capable of essentially hiding an elk. Hiding
cover includes those areas in excess of 40% canopy coverage with
sight distances up to 200 feet.

D. Holds Elk. An area holds elk when it has the physical characteristics
necessary to provide security such that those elk present will
remain when human encroachment occurs in elk habitat.

E. Road. All roads, trails, or wheel tracks wherever a 4-wheeled
motorized vehicle travels are considered a road for the purpose of
road density computation. When a road is administratively closed
to all vehicle traffic, it is judged as if no road exists.

F. Security Area. An area, because of its geography, topography
and/or vegetation that will hold elk during periods of stress.
Security is a function of space and hiding cover, as influenced by
human access. The size of the area necessary to provide security
will vary with degree of access and hiding cover characteristics.

G. Sight Distance. That distance in which an elk becomes essentially
hiaden.

H. Standard Diameter. An exp'^ession of home range, one standard diameter
describes the diameter ?^ a circle which presumably contains at least
68% of the animal's activity. It is calculated after Harrison (1958).

I. Thermal Cover. Is provided by a stand of coniferous trees which
aids the conservation of energy needed for thermo-regulation of the
species. For elk, optimum thermal cover is at least 40' tall trees
with a minimum of 70% canopy cover. Where such stands are not
present, thermal cover is provided by lesser trees.

The need for thermal cover is critical on all winter ranges but
requirements for thermal cover are not well understood in other
seasonal habitats. Within winter thermal cover, larger diameter
or "wolf trees" may have key values. Also, in some winter range
situations, the timber canopy provides the only means of preventing
crusting of the snowpack which covers forage types. Here, optimum
canopy cover ranges from 40% to 70%.

-41-

LITERATURE CITED

Basile, J.V. and T. Lonner. (In press). Vehicle restrictions influence
elk and hunter distribution in Montana. Submitted to the Journal
of Forestry.

Beall, R.C. 1976. Elk habitat selection in relation to thermal radia-
tion. Ir[ Elk-Logging-Roads Symposium Proc. University of Idaho,
Moscow, Idaho, pp. 97-100.

Black, H., R.J. Scherzinger and J.W. Thomas. 1976. Relationships of
Rocky Mountain Mule Deer Habitat to timber management in the Blue
Mountains of Oregon and Washington. In Elk-Logging-Roads Symp.
Proc. University of Idaho, Moscow, IdaFo. pp. 11-31.

Chrest. H. and D. Childress. 1976. Big Game Survey and Inventory,

Region 3. Montana Department of Fish and Game Prog. Report, Proj.
W-130-R-7, Job 1.3. 92 pp.

Coop, K.J. 1971. Habitat use, distribution, movement, and associated
behavior of elk. Little Belt Mountains. M.S. Thesis. Montana
State University, Bozeman, Montana. 61 pp.

Day, T.A. 1973. Sumner and fall elk distribution movements, and range
use in the Little Belt Mountains (Musselshell Drainage). M.S.
Thesis. Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana. 70 pp.

Harrison, J.L. 1958. Range of movement of some Malayan rats. J. Mammal.
38(3): 190-206.

Hershey, T.J. and T.A. Leege 1976. Influences of logging on elk on
summer range in North-Central Idaho. In Elk-Logging-Roads Symp.
Proc. University of Idaho, Moscow, IdaTio. pp. 73-80.

Leopold, A. 1933. Game management. Chas. Scribner's Sons, New York
and London. 481 pp.

Lonner, T.N. 1974. Montana Cooperative Elk-Logging Study. Job II-B,
Long Tom Creek Study, pp. 51-83. Prog. Report. Jan. 1-Dec 31,
1973. 146 pp.

Lonner, T.N. 1976. Montana Cooperative Elk-Logging Study. Job II-B,
Long Tom Creek Study, pp. 15-56. Prog. Report. Jan. 1-Dec. 31,
1975. 81 pp.

Lyon, L.J. 1975. Montana Cooperative Elk-Logging Study. Job II-A,

Burdette Creek-Deer Creek Study, pp. 7-13. Prog. Report. Jan. 1-
Dec. 31, 1974. 146 p.

-43-

Lyon, L.J. 1976. Montana Cooperative Elk-Logging Study. Job III-B,

Elk Use of Disturbed Areas, pp. 67-77. Prog. Report. Jan. 1 -Dec.
31 , 1975. 81 pp.

Marcum, C.L. 1975. Summer-fall habitat selection and use by a Western
Montana elk herd. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Montana, Missoula,
Montana. 188 pp.

Montana Elk-Logging Research Comnittee, E.G. Allen, Chairman. 1976.

Management Recommendations for the consideration of land managers.
Montana Cooperative Elk-Logging Study. Prog. Report. Jan. 1-Dec.
31, 1975. 81 p.

Murie, O.J. 1951. The Elk of North America. The Stackpole Company,
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. 376 pp.

Perry, C. and R. Overly. 1976. Impact of roads on big game distribution
in portions of the Blue Mountains of Washington. Iji Elk-Logging-
Roads Symp. Proc. University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho, pp. 62-68.

Pfister, R.D., B.L. Kovalchik, S.F. Arno, and R.C. Presby. 1977. Forest
habitat types of Montana. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Report
INT-34. 174 pp.

Snedecor, G. and W. Cochran. 1971. Statistical methods. 6th Edition.
Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa. 593 pp.

Thomas, J.W., R.J. Miller, H. Black, J.E. Rodiek, and C. Maser. 1976.
Guidelines for maintaining and enhancing wildlife habitat in forest
management in the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington. Trans.
Forty-First North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference.

USFS. 1977. Stand Examination Handbook (proposed). Northern Region,
U.S. Forest Service, USDA, Missoula, Montana.

-44-

APPENDIX I

TABLE I. Habitat Type Group Numbers Resulting from Grouping of
Similar Habitat Types.

Habitat Type

Group No. Habitat Types Included

j~« Pinus Flexilus Series

PP/Agsp; Andro; Feid; Putr; Syal
DF/Agspi Feid; Fesc.
DF/Syal-Agsp; Caru-Agsp

2 DF/Caru-Caru; Caru-Aruv; DF/Cage
DF/Arco; Juco; Spbe; Aruv; Phma; Syal

3 PF, S, AF/Vaca; Li bo
S/Smst; Phma
AF/Xete; Vagi; DF/Vagl

4 S/Gatr; Clun; Eqar

AF/Gatr; Clun; Caca; Mefe; Alsi

5 AF/Caru; Cage; Arco; Clps; Vase. S/Sest

e AF/Luhi; AF(WBP)/Vasc. AF/Rimo

WBP. WBP-AF, AL-AF.

7 LPP/Putr

TABLE II, P.I. Type Group Numbers Resulting From Grouping
Similar P.I. Types.

P.I. Type

Group No. Description

1 Includes P.I. Types 11 and 14. Stand height
greater than 40 feet. 70% to 100% crown
cover (well stocked).

2 Includes P.I. Types 12, 15, 19 and 21. Stand
height greater than 40 feet. 40% to 70% crown
cover (medium stocking).

3 , Includes P.I. Types 17 and 23. Stand height

greater than 40 feet. Stand two-storied and
at least 15-20 feet height difference between
overstory and understory. 40% to 100% crown
cover (well to medium stocking).

4 Includes P.I. Types 25, 27 and 28. Stand
height less than 40 feet. 40% to 100% crown
cover (well to medium stocked).

5 Includes P.I. Types 13, 16, 18, 26 and 29.
Crown cover less than 40% (poorly stocked).

6 Includes P.I. Types 31, 32, 33. Stand heights

less than 40 feet. Cutover areas of variable stocking.

-45r

APPENDIX II

Figure 1.

Elk Habitat Preference Model for Elk Habitat Types 71,
72, 73, and 74* for the winter and fall periods, Eastside
Zone, Northern Region, USPS.

%0F UNIT ALTERED

UJ

a

100% Increase

90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10

EXISTING
10

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100%

20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90

100% Decrease

•

FAI 1 Sti

^1 IMMF

OVJ IVIIVI c

R 1 i<;f

"<«

•

^

•

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100%

*Habitat Types:
LPP/Putr

PI Types:

All PI types with crown cover 40% or greater (medium to well stocked).

Assumptions:

Elk: Fall and winter range.

Silviculture: Primarily even-aged harvest but some selection
harvest possible.

-46-

APPENDIX II

Figure 2. Elk Habitat Preference Model for Elk Habitat Type 75*

for the winter and fall periods, Eases ide Zone, Northern
Region, USPS.

%0F UNIT ALTERED

UJ

Z

Z

u

100% Increase

90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10

EXISTING
10

20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90

100% Decrease

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100%

— —

r^- —

FALLi

k SUMM

ER USE'

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100%

*Habitat Types:
LPP/Putr

PI Types:

Includes P.I. Types 13, 16, 18, 26, and 29.
Crown cover less than 40% (poorly stocked).

Assumptions:

Elk: Fall and winter range.

Silviculture: Primarily even-aged harvest but some selection harvest
possible.

-47-

Appendix III. Agency Objectives Relating to Dispersed Recreation.

FOREST SERVICE

"The goal for this system (RECREATION) is to increase the supply of
outdoor recreation opportunities and services through Forest Service
programs which emphasize dispersed recreation." (RPA Summary, USDA
Forest Service).

MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME

"To protect and perpetuate elk and their habitat and to increase the
supply of available, ha rves table elk to meet demands for hunting and
non-hunting recreation. To provide 800,000 days of elk hunting annually
at a hunting success rate of 15 percent and an average hunting effort
of 50 days/elk harvested by 1980."*

PASTy CURRENT AND PROPOSED MANAGEMENT PARAMETERS FOR ELK*

Hunting

Elk Hunting

Success

Recreation Days

1971

16%

514,800

1972

m

552.700

1973

19%

641.700

1974

12%

719,000

1975

16%

650,000

19S0

15%

800,000 {Obje,ctivz)

♦Adapted from Strategic Wildlife Management Plan, Montana Dept. of Fish
and Game, 3rd. Draft.

-48-