New Elk Models for Blue
Mountains Management
Elk Nutrition & Habitat Use
Models for Management
Key Summary Points
and Management Uses
Introduction to
Presentation

Modeling Results and Significance

Management Implications and Uses

Additional Model Evaluations
Results and Significance
R. Cook
Nutrition Modeling

A suite of model predictions of elk dietary
digestible energy based on data from
grazing trials conducted with tame elk
across representative environments.
Nutrition Modeling

Better nutrition is spatially limited in late
summer and does not meet the
maintenance needs of lactating cow elk.

Wet forest types, wet meadows, and
irrigated agricultural lands have higher
levels of DDE during late summer than dry
forest types and rangelands.

Rangelands provide the lowest levels of
late summer nutrition among all types.
Nutrition Modeling


Work on the nutrition model successfully
re-scaled the fine-scale, empirical nutrition
data to coarse-scale landscape predictions
across the entire Blue Mountains.
Also done for westisde
OR-WA modeling.
Nutrition Modeling
• Nutrition model predictions across
regional landscapes are directly linked
to animal performance.
Habitat Use Modeling
Integrated the nutrition model predictions
with additional factors that affect elk use of
landscapes.
 Assimilated all available telemetry data in a
meta-analysis (multiple study areas-years).

Modeling Work:
• Model predictions of elk use directly
link landscape choices by elk to the
nutrition-based measures of animal
performance--directly linking animal
behavior to performance.
Which Model Best Supports the Telemetry Data?
“Best Model” Contained 5 Covariates (Model Selection):
1.
Dietary Digestible Energy of Forage (Nutrition).
2.
Distance to Class 1 or 2 Open Roads (Human
Disturbance).
3.
Distance to Class 3 or 4 Open Roads (Human
Disturbance).
4.
Slope (Human Disturbance?).
5.
Percent Area of Forest Vegetation Types
(Nutrition or Human Disturbance?).
Management Implications and Uses
R. Cook
Management Implications and Uses

Late summer nutrition can be enhanced in
wet forest types through active silviculture
or fire that reduces canopy cover to an
intermediate level (e.g., 35%).
Management Implications and Uses

Elk use of the better late summer nutrition
can be enhanced by focusing motorized
road and trail closures in areas where the
better nutrition is concentrated.
Management Implications and Uses

Planning and management for elk habitat
is most effective at landscape scales and
across land ownerships.
Management Implications and Uses

Management to benefit elk nutrition and
habitat use is likely to enhance animal and
population performance.

Management to increase or decrease elk
habitat use will also change elk distributions,
and can be used in strategic planning to
manage distributions on regional and local
landscapes.
Benefits and Uses – Example Products

Maps of elk nutrition for all lands across the
Blue Mountains of northeast OR and
southeast WA.

Maps of elk nutrition at
any desired spatial
extents or land
ownerships.

Supporting GIS files and
programs for users to
run nutrition model in
ArcGIS.
Benefits and Uses – Example Products

ArcGIS toolbox and user’s guide enabling
nutrition & habitat use models to be run for
any regional landscape of interest.

Capability to produce
maps and summaries of
predicted elk use for any
regional or local landscape.

Maps and summaries of
each model covariate for
any regional landscape.
Benefits and Uses – Multi-Scale Analyses

Regional Landscape: large area (20,000150,000 ac or larger) where habitat use
models are run and regional summaries of
model results are made.

Local Landscape: a subset of the regional
landscape (>2,000 ac) where local
summaries of results from the regional
analysis are made.
Regional Landscape 4-km Buffer
Regional Landscape
Local Landscape 1
Local Landscape 2
Benefits and Uses – Multi-Scale Analyses

Existing Condition: conditions at a starting
point of a regional analysis.

Management Alternative: conditions
projected under any proposed management
in a regional analysis.
Sum of Predicted Level of Use
180
160
140
Sum of Use
120
100
Existing
Alternative 1
80
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
60
40
20
0
Regional
Landscape
Local Landscape 1Local Landscape 2
% Change from Existing Conditions
115
110.2
100
85
% change
70
Alternative 1
55
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
43.9
40
31.9
26.0
25
26.0
8.2
8.8
10
-1.5
0.0
-5
Regional Landscape
Local Landscape 1
Local Landscape 2
Local versus Regional Summaries
Modeling results can be “sliced
and diced” within the landscape
in relation to different
management alternatives
Possible area for
silvicultural treatments
and access management
Additional Evaluations
R. Cook
Additional Evaluations

Evaluating variations in some input data for the
nutrition model (matching inputs to modeling
objectives).

Applying the road classification method to
additional test landscapes to refine protocols.

Conducting additional habitat model validations on
different landscapes to strengthen inference space.

Documenting limits of inference space (are there
areas of the Blue Mountains where model
applications are not appropriate?).
Additional Evaluations

Some evaluations may take 6-12 months.

Additional validation tests of the habitat use
model on independent landscapes will occur if
sufficient telemetry data become available.

Work will continue with management biologists
to improve the use of ArcGIS toolbox to run
the models and to improve guidelines and
management interpretations of results.
What’s Next for Evaluation Tools?

Hunting season model.

Spring nutrition and habitat models.

Integration of all seasonal models.
Special Recognition to:
 Mary
Rowland
 John Cook
 Ryan Nielson
 Rachel Cook
 Jennifer Hafer
 Priscilla Coe
 Bridgett Naylor
 Bruce Johnson
 Marty Vavra
Question and Answer/Discussion Session