Elk Nutrition and Habitat Use
Models Applied to a Timber
Harvest on BLM Lands in the
Coos Bay, Oregon District
By: Lisa Renan and Bryant Mecklem
Umpqua River-Sawyer Rapids Environmental Assessment Area
Umpqua River-Sawyer Regional Analysis Area
Regional and Local Area
Ownership of the Regional Area with Buffer
Siuslaw = 38% Public Land
Bull to Cow ratios are down
Poor calf ratios/production
ODFW changed second season
rifle elk from “any bull” to “spike
only” to address bull to cow ratio
concern
Some controlled “cow” hunts
offered Aug.-March on private
farm/timber lands in south
portion of Siuslaw to address
“damage”
Clear cut areas not showing up on the GNN2006 Vegetation Layer
New Base Vegetation Layer Showing Canopy Cover
Treatment Areas / EA Units
Land Use Allocation and Treatment Types
Percent of Canopy Cover in
EA Units Post Harvest
Percent of Hardwood Component
in EA Units Post Harvest
Categories of Mean Dietary Digestible Energy DDE
Class
Description
Mean DDE (kcal/g)
1
Poor
<2.40
2
Low Marginal
≥2.40 to < 2.575
3
High Marginal
2.575 to <2.75
4
Low Good
≥2.75 to <2.825
5
High Good
≥2.825 to <2.90
6
Excellent
≥2.90
DDE Classes for Existing/No Action and Preferred
Alternative
DDE for No Action and the Preferred Alternative (zoomed in)
Local Area of DDE for Existing/ No Action
Verses the Preferred Alternative
Existing/ No Action
Preferred Alternative
DDE Class
Percent
Acres
Percent
Acres
1
1.87%
271.0
0.44%
64.4
2
80.35%
11631.8
79.72%
11590.9
3
17.07%
2471.0
19.13%
2781.8
4
0.71%
103
0.71%
103
5
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
6
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
Number of Existing/ No Action in Each DDE Class and the Number
of Acres that move into another DDE Class for the Preferred
Alternative in the Local Area
Existing/ No Action
Preferred Alternative
DDE Class
Acres
DDE Class
Acres
1
271.0
1
64.4
2
204.5
3
2
Existing
Alternative
DDE Class
Acres
DDE Class
Acres
2
11631.8
2
11329.1
3
302.6
Existing
Alternative
DDE Class
Acres
DDE Class
Acres
3
2471.0
3
2471.0
Amount of Change in DDE Classes from Existing/No Action
to the Preferred Alternative for the Local Area
Regional Area Distance to Nearest
Edge Comparison
Regional Area Distance to Nearest Edge Comparison (zoomed in)
Regional Area Predicted Elk Use
Regional Area Predicted Elk Use (zoomed in)
Summary of Predicted Level of Use at the Local Area
Percent and Acres for each Prediction Class for Existing/No Action
verses the Preferred Alternative
Existing/No Action
Predicted
Level of Use
Preferred Alternative
Percent
Acres
Percent
Acres
Low
20.0%
2895.4
12.5%
1822.6
Medium-low
20.0%
2895.4
19.6%
2852.5
Medium
20.0%
2895.4
22.2%
3229.7
Medium-high
20.0%
2894.9
22.8%
3311.2
High
20.0%
2895.4
22.9%
3323.5
Summary of Predicted Level of Use at the Local area
Movement of Predicted Level of Use Class Acres from
Existing/ No Action into the Preferred Alternative
Predicted
Level of Use
Existing/
No Action
Acres
Preferred
Alternative
Medium- Medium Mediumlow
High
Low
Low
2895
1776
662
309
143
4
Medium-low
2895
46
2123
420
218
89
Medium
2895
0
58
2441
296
100
Mediumhigh
2895
0
0.22
47
2635
212
High
2895
0
0
0
9
2887
High
Change in Predicted Level of Use at the Local Area
Elk Nutrition and Habitat Use Models
Strengths
Model Strengths






Habitat Use Model can be used to plan, cooperate, and coordinate
with Forests Service, Tribal, State Fish and Wildlife , and other
interested parties/ management agencies to meet needs,
accomplish goals, and address elk predicted use on the landscape.
Relatively easy to run if you have GIS experience
Works across land ownerships
Works well on large projects, in particular, forest plan revisions and
resource management plans.
Nutrition Model can be used to quantify nutritional potential and
limitations across landscapes and effects from management
prescriptions
Habitat Use Model can be applied to all of Oregon when Nutrition
Model is developed for SW Oregon this summer (2011)
Elk Nutrition and Habitat Use Models
Weaknesses
Model Weaknesses





Wildlife Biologist without GIS experience will need GIS assistance
Need to annually update the GNN/ base vegetation layers based
on fire disturbances and other habitat alterations on all
ownerships
Reliance on GNN data to be updated into the future
Habitat Use Model is limited to applications on ~25,000 acres
and greater
Nutrition Model does not take into account variables relating to
post-harvest treatments i.e. stocking densities, herbicide,
regime, fertilizer, slash treatments, scarification, burning, etc.
Questions?
Photo by E. Holman