New Elk Models
for Westside Management
Key Summary Points
Presentation

Modeling Results and Significance

Management Benefits and Uses

Next Steps for Management Adoption
Results and Significance
R. Cook
Nutrition Modeling

Nutrition model – Regression predictions of
elk dietary digestible energy based on data
from grazing trials conducted with tame elk
across representative environments.
Nutrition Modeling

The lower the canopy closure, the higher the
nutrition. On forested sites, early-seral
stands provide highest nutrition, as produced
through silviculture (clearcuts, selection
harvest, thinnings) or likely with wildfire.
Modeling Work:
• Work on the nutrition model
successfully re-scaled the fine-scale,
empirical nutrition data to coarsescale landscape predictions across a
vast area (for the first time).
Modeling Work:
• Nutrition model predictions across
regional landscapes are directly
linked to animal and population
performance (for the first time).
Animal Performance
Ingesta-free body fat (%)
14
12
10
8
6
4
r 2 = 0.65
2
0
3
6
9
12
Percent of area with >2.75 DDE
15
Population Performance
100
Pregnant (%)
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
r 2 = 0.64
0
3
6
9
12
Percent of area with >2.75 DDE
15
Habitat Use Modeling
Integrated nutrition model with additional
factors that affect elk use of landscapes.
 Assimilated all available telemetry data in a
meta-analysis (7 study areas, 21 years).

Modeling Work:
• Meta-analysis across a vast region
not done before for elk, almost never
for any species.
• Validation using 5 study areas of
data independent of areas of model
selection provides a compelling basis
for desired model inference space
across the westside.
Modeling Work:
• Model predictions of elk use directly
link landscape choices by elk to the
nutrition-based measures of animal
and population performance (for the
first time)--directly linking animal
behavior to performance.
Which Model Best Supports the Telemetry Data?
“Best Model” Contained 4 Covariates (Model Selection):
1.
Dietary Digestible Energy of Forage (Nutrition).
2.
Distance to Roads Open to Public Motorized Use
(Human Disturbance).
3.
Slope (Nutrition, Energy Efficiency).
4.
Distance to Cover-Forage Edge (Nutrition,
Human Disturbance, or both).
What is the Desired Distribution of Elk across Landscapes and Ownerships?
What is the Desired Productivity of Elk across Landscapes and Ownerships?
Predicted Vs. Observed Elk Use

Green-Cedar: 0.99 (correlation coefficients)

Makah: 0.98

Nooksack: 0.96

Coquille: 0.32 to 0.55
Management Implications

Planning and management for elk habitat
is most effective at landscape scales and
across ownerships.

Elk habitat use will benefit from active
silviculture (thinnings, selection harvest,
clearcuts) to
improve nutrition,
combined with
strategic access
management.
Management Implications

Management to benefit elk habitat use will
also enhance animal and population
performance.

Management to benefit elk habitat use will
also change elk distributions, and can be used
by design to manage distributions on regional
and local landscapes.
Management Implications

Wildfires are likely to produce highly
nutritious elk forage at landscape scales
that are biologically meaningful to elk.

The degree to which elk will benefit from
wildfire-based improvements in nutrition
depends on how motorized access is
managed in these areas.
Management Benefits and Uses
R. Cook
Benefits and Uses

Landscapes can be characterized as
nutritionally rich, depauperate, or sufficient.

Level of elk use can be estimated and
mapped by nutritional condition.

Human disturbance
factors can be managed
to influence elk use in
relation to nutritional
condition.
Benefits and Uses

Landscapes can be managed to affect both
elk performance and elk distributions with
use of the nutrition and habitat use models.

Integrated management of multiple, key
variables affecting elk use can be done
effectively and efficiently.
Benefits and Uses – Example Products

Maps of elk nutrition for all lands across
western Oregon and western Washington.

Maps of elk nutrition at
any desired spatial extents
or land ownerships within
the region.

Supporting GIS files and
programs for any user to
run nutrition model in
ArcGIS.
Benefits and Uses – Example Products

ArcGIS programs and user’s guide enabling
habitat use model 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.
Next Steps for Management Adoption
R. Cook
ArcGIS Program and User’s Guides

Fine-tune the ArcGIS programs and
supporting user’s guide to run the nutrition
and habitat use models for any regional or
local landscapes.

User’s guide includes example management
options, suggested methods of summarizing
results, and interpretations of results for
management.
Next Steps

Continue working with westside managers
on model programs and applications.

Extension of models to southwest Oregon.

Publication of models in a Wildlife
Monograph
Next Steps

Formal adoption of models by federal
agencies in land use planning, and through
agreements with partners.

Formal adoption of new models by state
wildlife agencies as part of state wildlife
unit planning with landowners.

New state and federal partnerships with
hunting and conservation partners and
private landowners.
Next Steps

Finish Blue Mountains models.

Explore potential for similar modeling in
other regions of western U.S.
Special Recognition to:
 Mary
Rowland
 John Cook
 Ryan Nielson
 Jennifer Boyd
 Bridgett Naylor
 Priscilla Coe
Special Recognition to:
 Steve
Mealey
Question and Answer/Discussion Session