To beat a dead horse (because some dont seem to understand what effects roads have on elk):
Wildlife: Elk in Greater Yellowstone
Totalling some 93,000 elk, Greater Yellowstone’s spectacular herds are the largest in the world. Their many migration routes knit together the national parks, forests, and state and private lands of the Ecosystem. Their abundance attracts large numbers of visitors, both wildlife observers and sportsmen. Elk are the most sought-after game in the Ecosystem and elk hunting, along with non-consumptive recreation, contributes millions of dollars annually to local economies.
At least 10 major elk herds have been identified. A number of smaller herds, some of them non-migratory residents of a particular area, are also found. While these herds differ greatly in numbers, type of habitat and migratory patterns, they share common problems. An accelerating threat is the loss or deterioration of winter range. For example, nearly 75% of the winter range in Jackson Hole, Wyoming has been occupied by housing developments, leading to the loss of more than a third of the elk that historically wintered there.
The disruption of migration routes, loss of seasonal habitat, and the reduction in habitat security on summer and fall range from logging, roads, livestock grazing, etc., are serious problems for some elk herds. Extensive timber harvest and road construction on the Targhee National Forest, for example, has disrupted the timing and dynamics of a major elk migration out of Yellowstone Park to the Sand Creek winter range. Large-scale logging disrupts migration routes by eliminating protective timber cover and increasing the density of roads and the frequency of other disturbances beyond the level tolerated by elk. Of these impacts, roads are the greatest concern, displacing elk from preferred habitat, creating long-term stress, and increasing human-caused mortality.
On the other side of the ledger, the management of some elk herds has become controversial because of concerns about elk and overgrazing. Many people believe the Northern Yellowstone elk herd has become so large that intense browsing pressure is damaging the available range. This herd, which winters in the northern portion of Yellowstone Park and adjacent national forest and private lands, now numbers more than 20,000. At issue are changes in the visual landscape, loss of aspen regeneration, and hedging of cottonwoods, willows and other shrubs. There is substantial disagreement in the scientific community and among the public as to the causes and consequence of such change.
Management of the Jackson Hole elk herd has also been heavily debated. The dispute centers on the supplemental feeding of elk on the National Elk Refuge. The negative consequences of animals congregating on artificial feedgrounds include disease transmission, lowered nutritional status, and altered migratory and behavior patterns. To maintain the Jackson herd’s numbers at present levels despite the loss of much of its historical winter range and disruption of its migration routes has required large-scale artificial feeding. Besides the National Elk Refuge in Jackson Hole, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department maintains a network of elk feedgrounds throughout western Wyoming.
Maintaining Elk Security
A major factor in the quality of elk habitat is the availability of suitable security areas. The value of a security area depends on a number of conditions, including distance from traveled roads, general ease of access, amount and type of cover, topography, and forage quality. As prime elk habitat comes under increasing pressure, the importance of identifying and protecting elk security areas is critical.
Many biologists believe that elk vulnerability increases when less than 30% of a herd’s seasonal range is secure. Additionally, the connectivity of secure habitat is very important during hunting season so elk can move between units without traversing large areas of low security habitat.
Agency definitions of what constitutes a “security area” vary widely, but the following definition (based on Idaho Fish and Game Dept. guidelines for portions of the Targhee National Forest, and on the work of Hillis et al. for forests in southwestern Montana) provides a starting point for rating security areas:
“To effectively provide for elk security, an area must have at least 250 contiguous (nonlinear) acres of densely forested land and must be at least 1/2 mile from open roads, trails or areas open to motorized travel. “Densely forested” equates to effective elk hiding cover which, according to the definition of Lyon and Christensen (1992, ibid) is vegetation capable of concealing 90% of a standing elk at 200 feet or less.”
o Using the above definition, all elk fall/early winter ranges on public lands should be analyzed to identify and map effective elk security areas.
• Ideally, the elk habitat analysis unit should represent the seasonal range of the herd, specifically the local herd’s range during the hunting season (Hillis et al. 1991, Proceedings of the Elk Vulnerability Symposium). In cases where it is known or suspected that the present range of a herd has been significantly altered due to logging or other development, two habitat analysis units should be delineated: historic range and present areas of use.
• When the area of interest does not encompass the entire seasonal range of a herd, smaller analysis areas may be used, but the minimum acceptable size for a habitat analysis area is 5,000 acres.
• The spatial arrangement, topography, elevation, exposure and habitat type of the security areas should also be evaluated to determine if they meet the needs of the herd. In many cases, the best indicator that an area is capable of providing security for elk during times of stress is the actual presence or absence of elk (using radiotelemetry data).
o Agencies should take remedial action in habitat analysis areas (herd unit ranges) where security areas do not comprise at least 30% of the area and/or are not arranged so elk can travel safely between them. Possible mitigating measures include closing roads and/or restoring roadbeds to pre-construction condition, area closures (where offroad travel limits the effectiveness of road closures), assisting regeneration where necessary, closing certain areas to hunting, and deferring timber harvest until the analysis area meets or exceeds elk security requirements. Orders restricting access or recreation use are less effective solutions.
o Agencies should review, and modify as necessary, all proposals for future timber sales, road construction, or other resource development to ensure that herd unit ranges are maintained at no less than the minimum 30% security guideline, with satisfactory connectivity between security areas. The 30% standard does not represent a target. Where existing security areas exceed 30%, managers should not assume there is unneeded or surplus security.
o In addition to the security area standards described above, the following standards should apply on all public lands identified as a) migratory corridors, b) fall (hunting season) or early winter range, or c) other key components of elk range. Standards would include:
• Total cover: forage ratios (including security areas and other forest patches which do not meet the preceding definition of a security area) must not be permitted to fall below 60:40. To qualify as cover, an area must have at least 60% canopy cover of pole sized or larger conifers. In determining if an area meets this criteria, road density must also be considered. Any area which has a road density of greater than 2 miles of open road per square mile should not be considered as effectively providing security cover even if it meets all other criteria.
• A maximum of 25% of the analysis area in natural or artificially created openings.
• An overall road density for the entire analysis area below 0.5 miles of “open” road per square mile (as calculated over the entire habitat analysis area).
• For each analysis unit, &Mac179;30% must qualify as a security area as defined above.
These guidelines should serve as minimum standards for long-range agency planning documents.
They should be applied or adjusted as necessary according to the herd objectives established by state wildlife agencies.
Timber Harvest in Elk and Deer Range
The potential for negative impacts on elk herds through excessive or poorly planned timber harvest has been well researched and fully documented. Similarly for deer, the displacement which occurs from post-harvest human use of logging roads (even when they have been reportedly “closed”) and the loss of reproductive habitat from logging mature Douglas fir can outweigh potential benefits accrued from improved forage production which follows logging. The following silvicultural guidelines, based primarily on the recommendations of the Montana Cooperative Elk-Logging Study (Lyon et al. 1985) and the Idaho Fish and Game Department, should be adopted and implemented by all agencies involved with timber management in Greater Yellowstone.
o No timber harvest should be allowed directly along or within 0.5 miles of well-defined, primary migration routes unless topographic barriers effectively isolate elk use areas from the disturbance.
o In areas of potential elk summer range, no treatment which reduces canopy cover to less than 20% shall exceed 40 acres. All other types of silvicultural treatments should not exceed 100 acres.
o Where harvest is slated on essential deer summer range, cutting units should avoid large stands of mature and old-growth Douglas fir which are important to mule deer fawn survival, and should focus instead on large even-aged stands of lodgepole pine. Cutting units should be small (1 – 5 acres), irregularly shaped and loosely distributed across the landscape to protect deer security needs.
o Leave strips of at least 600 feet in width should be retained around all silvicultural treatments (including selection cuts, clearcuts or other even-aged management systems). These leave strips must provide cover capable of hiding 90% of a standing elk at 200 feet and should be retained until the treated area has revegetated to the same criteria.
o Slash depths should be less than 1.5 feet in order to minimize the impact on elk movements, distribution and habitat use. However, proposals that purport to improve elk habitat by reducing slash, or other downed material, must be thoroughly supported by studies in the area of the proposed sale.
o No winter logging, road construction or associated disturbance should be allowed within two miles of important elk winter range unless topographic barriers adequately insulate elk from disturbance. Conversely, logging on important units of elk summer range should be conducted during winter, where feasible.
o Timber harvest should be minimized on essential units of mule deer winter range as identified by intensive, multi-year monitoring of mule deer herds. “Accessory areas” (areas not part of the normal winter range but providing essential resources during periods of extreme resource stress) should also be protected from harvest.
o Timber sales should be planned so the maximum duration of disturbance in an area is two years.
o Elk security can be maintained during logging operations by adhering to the following practices as proposed by the Montana Cooperative Elk Logging Study:
• Heavy equipment use should be accomplished in the shortest possible time.
• Make adjacent drainages more secure by road or area closures.
• At any one time, logging activity should be confined to the smallest area possible within a single drainage and logging should not occur in two adjacent drainages during the same season.
• Reduce access to the sale area and control non-logging traffic; prohibit use of firearms in the sale area.
• Plan timber sales to minimize potential problems arising from redistribution of elk onto adjacent property.
• Use information about elk movement patterns and the distribution of elk harvest to plan timing of timber cuts and placement of roads.
• Require consultation with an elk management biologist from the affected state agency as a routine part of timber sale design to ensure satisfactory mitigation in elk habitat.
o Agencies should adhere to the following guidelines when designing roads for timber sale areas or for other uses in elk habitat:
• Locate permanent and high-volume traffic roads in areas least used by elk and avoid road construction in major elk crossings and high-use areas such as saddles, low divides, riparian areas and ridgetops.
• Design roads to facilitate later effective closure, whether permanent or temporary.
• Maintain dense cover areas along roads. Vegetation removal along road sides should not extend farther than necessary for safety.
• Construct roads to the lowest standard able to meet management objectives; use temporary or service level D roads whenever possible.
• Dispose of road slash; keep slash depths in road right-of-way at less than 1.5 feet. In areas where this is impossible, provide for 16 foot widths of cleared slash at intervals of 200 feet, especially along ridges and trail crossings.
• Provide for effective closures by installing gates at the onset of road construction (to prevent human use patterns from developing) and locking gates during all 24-hour periods of non-use. After logging is completed, replace gates with permanent barriers and revegetate road beds and fill slopes for permanent closure.
o Logging road construction in deer habitat should generally follow the same guidelines as described in the section on elk management.
o Timber harvest, road construction, livestock grazing or other activities which might displace elk should not be permitted in elk calving habitat during the period May 15-June 30.
Ungulate Winter Range Protection and Habitat Acquisition
As the human population of Greater Yellowstone expands, the pressures on lower-elevation ungulate winter range have increased. Much of the critical ungulate winter range is found outside parks, forests and refuges on private agricultural lands in the foothills. Development trends in these areas portend a grim future for ungulate populations. Among the many areas where ungulate winter range is threatened are the northern Yellowstone winter range north of Gardiner, Montana, the southeast flank of the Absarokas, Jackson Hole, along Buffalo Fork of the Snake River east of Moran, Wyoming, and the Sand Creek winter range in Idaho.
Many winter range areas cannot be incorporated into the preserve system (National Parks, Wildlife Refuges, Wilderness Areas and other special designations). Consequently, wildlife agencies need to identify key parcels of habitat to be protected through cooperative efforts with private landowners, conservation easements or direct purchase from willing sellers.
o To protect key winter wildlife range on private lands, agency wildlife biologists should provide maps of key ungulate winter range, calving areas and other habitats which are currently unprotected and may be threatened by subdivision or other development, to planning boards, task forces, and citizen groups.
o On public lands where existing or potential recreational activity creates significant disturbance or displacement on ungulate winter range, managers should consider the use of area closures to minimize conflicts.
o Winter range improvement projects may be required to correct for the absence of natural processes now suppressed or eliminated by human activities. For example, roto-beating or limited burning of sagebrush-bitterbrush habitat (once every 25-30 years, with burning in small patches over multiple years) can be a valuable habitat improvement tool for deer and elk. Such manipulations should only be permitted when they are consistent with broader biodiversity objectives.
