Delineation and Assessment of
Big Game Winter Range
Associated with the Hells
Canyon Hydroelectric Complex:
Mule Deer, Elk, Mountain Goats,
and Rocky Mountain Bighorn
Sheep
Alan Christensen
VP Lands
Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
Technical Report
Appendix E.3.2-31
Hells Canyon Complex
FERC No. 1971
August 2001
Revised July 2003 (Minor Typographical Changes)
Final Report
Delineation and Assessment of Big Game Winter
Range Associated with the Hells Canyon
Hydroelectric Complex:
Mule Deer, Elk, Mountain Goats, and
Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep
Prepared by Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation Principle Investigator:
Alan Christensen, VP Lands
August 21, 2001
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table Of Contents ................................................................................................................ i
List of Tables......................................................................................................................iii
List of Figures ....................................................................................................................iv
List of Appendices .............................................................................................................. v
Abstract ............................................................................................................................... 1
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 4
1.1. Background ............................................................................................................. 4
1.2. Objectives................................................................................................................ 4
1.3. Future Uses of Study Results .................................................................................. 5
2. Study Area...................................................................................................................... 5
2.1. General Study Area ................................................................................................. 5
2.2. Sub-area Descriptions ............................................................................................. 6
2.2.1. Southeast Idaho Sub-Area Description ............................................................ 6
2.2.2. South-central Idaho Sub-Area Description ...................................................... 7
2.2.3. West-central Idaho Sub-Area Description ....................................................... 8
2.2.4. Northeast Oregon Sub-Area Description ......................................................... 9
2.2.5. Hells Canyon Sub-Area Description .............................................................. 10
3. Information and Literature Review .............................................................................. 12
4. Methods........................................................................................................................ 13
4.1. Identification of Key Resource Specialists ........................................................... 13
4.2. Habitat Delineation and Evaluation ...................................................................... 14
4.2.1. Prework and Initial Participant Contacts........................................................ 14
4.2.2. Identification of Habitat Effectiveness Factors.............................................. 14
4.2.3. Compilation of Base Working and Reference Maps...................................... 14
4.2.4. Habitat Mapping Sessions.............................................................................. 15
4.2.5. Delineation of Habitat Polygons .................................................................... 16
4.2.6. Assignment of Habitat Effectiveness Factors ................................................ 19
4.3. Digitizing the Habitat Polygons ............................................................................ 20
4.4. Habitat Delineation and Evaluation Review and Modification ............................ 20
4.5. Identification of Mitigation Measures and Management Recommendations ....... 21
4.6. Analysis and Acreage Summaries......................................................................... 21
5. Results and Discussion................................................................................................. 22
5.1. Elk Winter Range Habitat Data............................................................................. 22
5.1.1. Southeast Idaho Sub-Area Elk Habitat........................................................... 24
5.1.2. South-central Idaho Sub-Area Elk Habitat..................................................... 24
5.1.3. West-central Idaho Sub-Area Elk Habitat...................................................... 25
5.1.4. Northeast Oregon Sub-Area Elk Habitat Data ............................................... 26
5.1.5. Hells Canyon Sub-Area Elk Habitat .............................................................. 26
5.2. Mule Deer Winter Habitat Data ............................................................................ 27
5.2.1. Southeast Idaho Sub-Area Mule Deer Habitat............................................... 28
5.2.2. South-central Idaho Sub-Area Mule Deer Habitat......................................... 29
5.2.3. West-central Idaho Sub-Area Mule Deer Habitat .......................................... 30
5.2.4. Northeast Oregon Sub-Area Mule Deer Habitat ............................................ 30
i
5.2.5. Hells Canyon Sub-Area Mule Deer Habitat................................................... 31
5.3. Mountain Goat Habitat Data ................................................................................. 32
5.3.1. West-central Idaho Sub-Area Mountain Goat Habitat................................... 33
5.3.2. Northeast Oregon Sub-Area Mountain Goat Habitat..................................... 33
5.3.3. Hells Canyon Sub-Area Mountain Goat Habitat ........................................... 33
5.4. Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep Habitat Data...................................................... 34
5.4.1. Southeast Idaho Sub-Area Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep Habitat ............ 36
5.4.2. West-central Idaho Sub-Area Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep Habitat ....... 36
5.4.3. Northeast Oregon Sub-Area Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep Habitat ......... 37
5.4.4. Hells Canyon Sub-Area Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep Habitat ................ 37
6. Management Implications ............................................................................................ 38
6.1. Southeast Idaho Sub-Area..................................................................................... 38
6.2. South-central Sub-area .......................................................................................... 39
6.3. West-central Sub-Area .......................................................................................... 39
6.4. Northeast Oregon Sub-Area .................................................................................. 40
6.5. Hells Canyon Sub-Area......................................................................................... 40
7. Acknowledgement........................................................................................................ 41
8. Literature Referenced................................................................................................... 42
9. Tables ........................................................................................................................... 47
10. Figures........................................................................................................................ 63
11. Appendices ................................................................................................................. 77
ii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.
Table 2.
Table 3.
Table 4.
Table 5.
Table 6.
Table 7.
Table 8.
Table 9.
Table 10.
Table 11.
Table 12.
Table 13.
Table 14.
Table 15.
Table 16.
Table 17.
Table 18.
Table 19.
Table 20.
Habitat Delineation by Big Game Species...................................................... 49
Summary of Elk Habitat (Hectares) ................................................................ 49
Summary of Elk Habitat (Hectares) by Land Ownership ............................... 50
Elk Habitat (Hectares) by the Most Important National Land Cover
Classes............................................................................................................. 51
Summary of Mule Deer Habitat (Hectares) .................................................... 52
Summary of Mule Deer Habitat (Hectares) by Land Ownership.................... 53
Mule Deer Habitat (Hectares) by the Most Important National Land Cover
Classes............................................................................................................. 54
Summary of Mountain Goat Winter Range Habitat (Hectares)...................... 55
Summary of Mountain Goat Habitat (Hectares) by Land Ownership ............ 55
Summary of Mountain Goat Habitat (Hectares) by the Most Important
National Land Cover Classes .......................................................................... 56
Summary of Currently Occupied Bighorn Sheep Habitat (Hectares) ............. 57
Summary of Currently Occupied Bighorn Sheep Habitat (Hectares) by Land
Ownership ....................................................................................................... 57
Summary of Currently Occupied Bighorn Sheep Habitat (Hectares) by the
Most Important National Land Cover Classes ................................................ 58
Summary of Potential Bighorn Sheep Habitat (Hectares) .............................. 59
Summary of Potential Bighorn Sheep Summer Habitat (Hectares) by Land
Ownership ....................................................................................................... 59
Summary of Potential Bighorn Sheep Summer Habitat (Hectares) by the Most
Important National Land Cover Classes ......................................................... 60
Summary of Potential Bighorn Sheep Winter Habitat (Hectares) by Land
Ownership ....................................................................................................... 60
Summary of Potential Bighorn Sheep Winter Habitat (Hectares) by the Most
Important National Land Cover Classes ......................................................... 61
Summary of Potential Bighorn Sheep Lambing Habitat (Hectares) by Land
Ownership ....................................................................................................... 61
Summary of Potential Bighorn Sheep Lambing Habitat (Hectares) by the Most
Important National Land Cover Classes ......................................................... 62
iii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
Figure 5.
Figure 6.
Figure 7.
Figure 8.
Figure 9.
Figure 10.
Figure 11.
Figure 12.
Hells Canyon Hydroelectric Complex Sub Area Map ................................. 65
Idaho Power Hydroelectric Facilities........................................................... 66
Ecological Reporting Units .......................................................................... 67
State Wildlife Management Units ................................................................ 68
National Land Cover Database .................................................................... 69
Delineated Winter Habitat and Important Movement Connectivity Areas for
Elk (Cervus elaphus) .................................................................................... 70
Delineated Winter Habitat and Important Movement Connectivity Areas for
Mule Deer (Odocoileus hemionus) .............................................................. 71
Delineated Habitat for Mountain Goats (Oreamnos americanus)................ 72
Occupied Habitat for Bighorn Sheep (Ovis candensis) ............................... 73
Potential Summer Habitat for Bighorn Sheep (Ovis candensis) .................. 74
Potential Winter Habitat for Bighorn Sheep (Ovis candensis) .................... 75
Potential Lambing Habitat for Bighorn Sheep (Ovis candensis) ................. 76
iv
LIST OF APPENDICES
A:
List of Key Resource Specialists and Their Agency Affiliations
B:
List of Habitat Effectiveness Factors - HCHC Project List
C:
List of Limiting Factors (M.A.P. ™ Habitat Project Origin)
D:
List of Habitat Effectiveness Factors - Mule Deer Working Group
E:
Pro-Cite™ Database with Literature Review Results
F:
Terms, Definitions, and Mapping Conventions: Directions to
Key Resources Specialists
G:
Mapping Sessions – Participants, Location of Meetings and Dates
H:
ProCite™ Database - Key Resource Specialist Comments
from Habitat Mapping Meetings
I:
Summary of Habitat Effectiveness Factors for Elk
J:
Summary of Habitat Effectiveness Factors for Mule Deer
K:
Mitigation Measures and Management Recommendations Provided by
Resource Specialists - Excel File
v
vi
Final Report
Delineation and Assessment of Big Game Winter
Range Associated with the Hells Canyon
Hydroelectric Complex:
Mule Deer, Elk, Mountain Goats, and
Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep
Prepared by Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation Principle Investigator:
Alan Christensen, VP Lands
August 21, 2001
Delineation and Assessment of Big Game Winter
Range Associated with the Hells Canyon
Hydroelectric Complex:
Elk, Mule Deer, Mountain Goats and
Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep
ABSTRACT
Idaho Power Company (IPC), a privately-owned utility company, operates and
maintains hydroelectric facilities, including transmission lines and service roads, in the
Hells Canyon Hydroelectric Complex (HCHC) (Figure 1). IPC is in the process of
relicensing the HCHC with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). The
FERC, which regulates the HCHC, requires that license applicants describe important
wildlife resources associated with hydroelectric projects and address operational impacts
to these resources. The Terrestrial Resources Work Group (TRWG) of the Collaborative
Process for relicensing the HCHC recommended that elk (Cervus elaphus), mule deer
(Odocoileus hemionus), mountain goat (Oreamnos americanus), and Rocky Mountain
bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) winter range habitat and important movement areas be
delineated and evaluated because of their importance as HCHC area resources (Table 1).
FERC regulations recognize the economic and recreation values of these species. All four
ungulate species are managed as big game species by Idaho and Oregon state wildlife
management agencies. These ungulate species are managed by the states for both their
consumptive and non-consumptive recreational values (USFWS 1998).
The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (RMEF) contracted with IPC to conduct
this study. The RMEF worked with state and federal wildlife biologists (key resource
specialists) familiar with the study area and the study species in a workshop setting to
accomplish the study objectives. Working together in small groups, key resource
specialists identified and evaluated important big game habitat areas, and provided
management recommendations and potential mitigation measures. Information needed to
perform this work was derived from existing field data and did not require additional
fieldwork or research. Results from the delineation and evaluation components of this
study are available for use by IPC in the development of protection, management and
enhancement (PM&E) measures for the HCHC.
Study objectives were applied within a 48-kilometer (km) distance of the HCHC
generation and transmission facilities, stretching for a distance of approximately 2,024
km (Figure 2). The study area corridor starts near Pocatello, Idaho, and follows HCHC
transmission lines and generation facilities in a southeast to northwest direction to a point
just beyond the confluence of the Snake and Salmon rivers. The corridor was divided
into five sub-areas. The Hells Canyon sub-area forms the core of the HCHC and includes
IPC’s dams and power-generating facilities. It is defined as the area between the east and
west rims of the canyon from Weiser, Idaho, to the area north of the Snake and Salmon
1
river confluence. The Southeast, South-central, and West-central Idaho sub-areas and the
Northeast Oregon sub-area define the remainder of the study area.
A total of 1,888,475 hectares (ha) of elk winter range (regular and crucial winter
range) and important movement areas were delineated in the HCHC study area. Regular
winter range accounted for 883,443 ha, and crucial winter range for 906,095 ha. Another
98,937 ha were delineated as important movement areas (Table 2). Privately owned land
accounts for 889,196 ha (47%) of the delineated elk winter range (Table 3). The Forest
Service manages 496,744 ha (26%) of elk winter range and important movement areas
and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands account for another 389,099 ha (21%)
of elk habitat within the study area (Table 3). Using the National Land Cover Data
(NLCD) to represent vegetation of the area, elk habitat was associated with 1,026,542 ha
(56%) of shrubland, 424,101 ha (23%) of evergreen forest, and 325,479 ha (18%) of the
grassland/herbaceous cover type in the study area (Table 4).
A total of 2,178,556 ha of mule deer winter range (regular and crucial winter
range) and important movement areas were delineated in the study area. Regular winter
range accounted for 876,131 ha (40%) and crucial winter range for 1,044,142 ha (48%)
of the habitat delineated. Another 258,283 ha (12%) were delineated as important
movement areas (Table 5). Privately owned land accounts for 1,002,781 ha (46%) of
mule deer winter range (Table 6). The BLM manages 690,451 ha (32%) of delineated
mule deer winter range and the Forest Service manages 348,163 ha (16%) of mule deer
winter range, in the study area. Overlaying the NLCD, the majority of delineated mule
deer habitat, 1,305,328 ha (60%) is associated with shrublands, 405,300 ha (19%) were
associated with grassland/herbaceous cover types and another 252,874 ha (12%) with
evergreen forest cover types (Table 7).
For mountain goats, resource specialists delineated currently occupied and
potential winter range. However, due to the movement and use by mountain goats of the
habitat in the study area, delineated habitat in the study area represents year-round habitat
not just winter range. A total of 53,296 ha of currently occupied mountain goat habitat
were delineated in the study area. Another 193,873 ha were delineated as potential
mountain goat winter habitat (Table 8). Close to 100% of mountain goat habitat is
located on Forest Service-managed lands; 53,014 ha (99%) are currently occupied and
190,181 ha (98%) are potential habitat (Table 9). Overlaying the NLCD, the majority of
delineated mountain goat habitat or 26,384 ha (50%) of currently occupied habitat and
117,888 ha (63%) of potential habitat is associated with evergreen forest (Table 10). The
next highest cover class is shrubland, with 10,346 ha (20%) of the currently occupied
habitat and 32,320 ha (17%) of the potential habitat in this class. All delineated mountain
goat winter range in the study area is crucial habitat. Resource specialists did not identify
any important movement areas in the study area for mountain goats.
For Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, resource specialists delineated occupied and
potential bighorn sheep range and important movement areas. However, due to the
seasonal movement and habitat use of Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep in the study area,
occupied habitat delineated in the study area represents year-round habitat not just winter
2
range. Occupied Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep habitat, totaling 217,214 ha, was
delineated in four sub-areas in the HCHC study area. Ninety-eight percent of the
occupied year-round habitat was rather evenly distributed between the Hells Canyon and
Northeast Oregon sub-areas (Table 11). Less than one percent of Rocky Mountain
bighorn sheep habitat delineated in the study area was located in the West-central and
southeast Idaho sub-areas. All occupied important movement areas (30,332 ha) were
delineated in the Hells Canyon and Northeast Oregon sub-areas. Forest Service-managed
lands accounted for 57% of the currently occupied Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep
habitat. Privately owned land was next with 20% of the currently occupied Rocky
Mountain bighorn sheep habitat (Table 12). Overlaying the NLCD, shrubland cover was
associated with 99,425 ha (46%) of currently occupied Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep
habitat, followed by evergreen forest cover type with 61,048 ha (28%) and then
grassland/herbaceous cover type with 42,985 ha (20%) of currently occupied habitat
(Table 13).
A total of 229,862 ha of potential Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep habitat was
modeled in the west-central Idaho sub-area (Table 14). Summer sheep habitat constituted
the greatest amount of potential habitat, with 105,417 ha, followed by winter sheep
habitat with 87,970 ha, and lambing with 36,475 ha. The majority of potential summer
and winter habitats were located on private lands, 54,971 ha (52%) and 54,280 ha (62%),
respectively (Table 15 and 17). Public lands (BLM and Forest Service) supported
another 45,309 ha of potential summer sheep habitat and 29,306 ha of potential winter
sheep habitat in this sub-area (Table 15 and 17). Two-thirds of the potential summer and
winter sheep habitats modeled in this sub-area were associated with the NLCD shrubland
cover type (Table 16 and 18). Of the 36,475 ha of potential lambing habitat modeled in
this sub-area, 17,091 ha were located on Forest Service lands and 12,639 ha on privately
owned lands (Table 19). Three NLCD cover types, shrubland with 11,765 ha, evergreen
forest with 15,635 ha, and grassland/herbaceous with 8,168 ha, were associated with 98%
of this potential habitat class (Table 20).
The HCHC study area represents some of the most important big game habitat in
the region, particularly in the Snake River Canyon. Factors that lessen the effectiveness
of this habitat includes noxious weed invasion, urbanization into surrounding wildlands,
natural changes in the plant community, and recreation-related impacts, for example.
Management of big game populations in the study area are also affected by non-habitat
related factors such as depredation of surrounding agricultural lands and reduced human
tolerance of mule deer and elk because of this depredation and predation of big game by
mountain lion, coyote and black bears. No significant impacts were associated with the
facilities and operations of the IPC along the transmission line corridor (Southeast, southcentral, west-central, and northeast Oregon sub-areas).
Impacts from the facilities and operations of the IPC in the Hells Canyon sub-area
were identified by resource specialists. IPC-managed roads, IPC-managed lands and
reservoir pools were all identified as factors that impacted big game and the effectiveness
of their habitat in this sub-area. Numerous habitat protection and restoration measures
were identified by the resource specialist as means that IPC could mitigate its impacts
(Appendix L).
3
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background
Idaho Power Company (IPC), a privately-owned utility company, operates and
maintains hydroelectric facilities, including transmission lines and service roads in the
Hells Canyon Hydroelectric Complex (HCHC). IPC is in the process of relicensing the
HCHC with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). The FERC, which
regulates the HCHC, requires that license applicants, such as IPC, describe important
wildlife resources associated with hydroelectric projects and address operational impacts
to these resources. The Terrestrial Resources Work Group (TRWG) of the Collaborative
Process for relicensing the HCHC recommended that elk (Cervus elaphus), mule deer
(Odocoileus hemionus), mountain goat (Oreamnos americanus), and Rocky Mountain
bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) winter range habitat and important movement areas be
delineated and evaluated because of their importance as HCHC area resources. FERC
regulations recognize the economic and recreation values of these species. All four
ungulate species are managed as big game by Idaho and Oregon state wildlife
management agencies. These big game species are managed by the states for their
consumptive and non-consumptive values desired by the public (USFWS 1998).
Information from this study will help describe the current understanding of the
distribution, connectivity, and status of big game winter range and important movement
areas. Habitat evaluation study results will also be used to assess the operational impacts
of the HCHC on elk, mule deer, bighorn sheep and mountain goats. Results from the
delineation and evaluation components of this study are available for the development of
protection, management and enhancement (PM&E) measures for the HCHC. This big
game habitat study is part of a comprehensive study of wildlife resources associated with
IPC’s relicensing of the HCHC.
1.2. Objectives
Study objectives were to delineate and evaluate, with “habitat effectiveness
factors” (HEF), current elk, mule deer, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, and mountain
goat winter range, crucial winter range and important movement areas. Specialists
mapped potential mountain goat winter range habitat and modeled potential Rocky
Mountain bighorn sheep winter range habitat. Habitat effectiveness factors were used to
evaluate and describe current habitat conditions in the HCHC. Lists of habitat
effectiveness factors and definitions are found in Appendices B, C, and D.
Specific study objectives were to:
1. Delineate elk and mule deer winter habitat and important movement areas;
2. Delineate crucial elk and mule deer winter habitat;
3. Delineate potential mountain goat and Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep
year-round;
4
4. Evaluate influences of IPC’s operations and maintenance of the HCHC;
5. Evaluate influences of resource uses and landscape processes.
1.3. Future Uses of Study Results
The study report and geographic information system (GIS) data will eventually
become public domain. At that point, results will be available for use in conservation
efforts within the study area. IPC intends to apply the findings of this study to the
development of effective protection, mitigation and enhancement measures, which are
part of FERC’s relicensing regulations.
These study results represent the most updated evaluation information for big
game winter range habitat within the study area and therefore could be used by state and
federal agencies in the management of big game species and their habitat.
The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (RMEF) will benefit from integrating this
information into the existing M.A.P.™ Habitat Program for use in its conservation work
for elk and elk country. One specific example of the use of this study’s results relates to
the Western Deer mapping project, which is being initiated in the fall of 2001 by the
Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA), with RMEF’s assistance.
2. STUDY AREA
2.1. General Study Area
The study area, known as the Hells Canyon Hydroelectric Complex (HCHC) was
that area of the Snake River Plain from Pocatello in southeastern Idaho, to the confluence
of the Salmon and Snake Rivers, near the corner of the states of Idaho, Oregon and
Washington (Figure 1). The study area of this project was more explicitly defined by the
generation and transmission components under relicensing as the HCHC. Brownlee,
Oxbow and Hells Canyon dams and associated reservoirs located in the southern portion
of Hells Canyon of the Snake River make up the generation components. The
transmission component is made up of lines that convey electrical power to southeastern
Idaho and northeastern Oregon from the Hells Canyon area. Hundreds of kilometers of
service roads used for maintenance of transmission lines are also part of the study area
(Figure 2).
The study area sits within the larger ecological area referred to as the Interior
Columbia River Basin. In the Interior Columbia River Basin Assessment (ICRBA),
conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service, the Interior
Basin was divided into 13 Ecological Reporting Units (ERU), made up of subwatersheds
of similar ecological and hydrological characteristics (Figure 3). Portions of the Blue
Mountains, Owyhee Uplands, Upper Snake and a relatively small sliver of the Central
Idaho Mountains ERU,smake up the study area (Quigley and Arbelbide 1997).
5
Study objectives were applied within a 48-kilometer (km) distance of the HCHC
licensed generation and transmission facilities, stretching for a distance of approximately
2,024 km. The study area corridor starts near Pocatello, Idaho, and follows the
transmission lines across the Snake River Plain, trending generally from southeast to
northwest to a point just beyond the confluence of the Snake and Salmon rivers. The
corridor was divided into five sub-areas for the purpose of this study and the descriptions
in this report. The Hells Canyon sub-area forms the core of the HCHC and includes
IPC’s dams and power-generating facilities. It is defined as the area between the east and
west rims of the canyon stretching from Weiser, Idaho, to the area beyond the confluence
of the Snake and Salmon rivers. Four other sub-areas define the remainder of the study
area, including the Southeast, South-central, and West-central Idaho sub-areas and the
Northeast Oregon sub-area (Figure 1).
Jurisdiction of private lands in the HCHC falls within Adams and Washington
counties in Idaho, and Wallowa, Baker and Mahleur counties in Oregon. The U.S.
Department of Interior (USDI) Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the USDA
Forest Service manage most public lands in the HCHC. These lands fall into the
jurisdictional boundaries of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, Oregon; Payette and
Nez Perce National Forests of Idaho; Cascade Resource Area (RA) of the Boise District,
BLM-Idaho; Cottonwood RA of the Coeur d’ Alene District, BLM-Idaho; and the Boise
RA and Northern Malheur RA of the Vale District, BLM-Oregon. Idaho Department of
Lands, USDI National Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nez Perce Tribe, and USDI Fish and
Wildlife Service are other agencies with jurisdiction in the HCHC.
2.2. Sub-area Descriptions
More detailed descriptions of the study area, study results and management
recommendations are presented from here forth in the context of each of five sub-areas
mentioned above. These sub-areas loosely align with regional topographic, geologic and
vegetative characteristics. The five sub-areas are: 1) Southeast Idaho, 2) South-central
Idaho, 3) West-central Idaho, 4) Northeast Oregon, and 5) Hells Canyon (Figure 1).
2.2.1. Southeast Idaho Sub-Area Description
Southeast Idaho was the most easterly sub-area of the study and extends from
Pocatello to just east of Twin Falls, Idaho. The analysis in this sub-area focused on a 48km buffer along the transmission line corridor. Notable features and places in the area
include American Falls Reservoir, Minidoka National Wildlife Refuge, a portion of Fort
Hall Indian Reservation, and the communities of Pocatello, American Falls, Rupert,
Heyburn and Burley, Idaho. Farming and livestock husbandry are dominant land uses in
the sub-area and the major source of economic prosperity to local communities. The
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is responsible for most of the land to the north of
the Snake River known as the Big Desert. The BLM and the Sawtooth National Forest
both manage small, disjunct parcels of public lands south of the Snake River.
6
Described as the Upper Snake ERU (Quigley and Arbelbide 1997), the geology
and climate favor an extensive shrub-steppe ecosystem. The Big Desert and the
surrounding area are geologically defined by extensive, highly fragmented beds of
surface lava, with occasional buttes (defunct cinder cones) that rise above a relatively flat
landscape. The climate is consistent with the Intermountain West with dry, warm
summers and snowy, cold winters. During December and February, approximately 30%
of the mean annual precipitation of 40 cm occurs. A second bout of moisture may occur
between July and September. Big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) is the dominant
woody plant, followed in abundance by other woody shrubs such as bitterbrush (Purshia
tridentata), snowberry (Symphoricarpos spp.) and curl-leaf mahogany (Cercocarpus
ledifolius). Utah juniper (Juniperus osteosperma), aspen (Populus tremuloides) and
Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) are found scattered throughout in areas of higher
moisture and deeper soils. A typical diversity of grasses and forbs common to
intermountain shrub-steppe communities also contributes to the plant community in the
area. Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) and medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae.)
(noxious weed) are two dominant annual grasses that have invaded the area and created
detrimental ecological impacts in this system.
Mule deer and elk are the evaluation species found in the area. They are managed
by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDF&G) as big game. Game Management
Units (GMU) 52A, 53, 55, 56, 68, 68A, 70, 71 and 73A are in this sub-area and are the
context in which elk and mule deer herds are managed by the state (Figure 4).
2.2.2. South-central Idaho Sub-Area Description
The South-central Idaho sub-area extends westward from Cottonwood Creek,
south of Twin Falls, Idaho, to an area between Caldwell and Emmett, Idaho. The
southeastern border runs along a line that starts on its north end where the Little Wood
River intersects the study area boundary and then proceeds southwesterly more or less
along the Little Wood River and then along Dietrich Main Canal and the canal, Lateral
702. It then continues southwest to a point about 4 km northeast of Flat Top Butte where
it turns south, crossing the Snake River east of Twin Falls, Idaho. Then it veered slightly
to the south-southwest until it intersects the south boundary of the study area corridor.
The analysis in this sub-area was focused on a 48-km buffer on either side of the
transmission line corridor. The transmission line corridor is at its greatest distance from
the Snake River in this sub-area.
The Snake River sinks into the surrounding steep-sided lava-rock canyon through
this sub-area and is the setting of many notable natural features. Thousand Springs,
Hagerman Fossil Beds National Monument, Bliss Reservoir, C.J. Strike Wildlife
Management Area, the Snake River Birds of Prey Management Area, and the Deer Flat
National Wildlife Management Refuge are in this sub-area. This sub-area sits in the heart
of the Snake River Plain, where 3 million acres of the approximately 4 million acres of
irrigated farm ground in Idaho are found (Palmer 1991). Farming and ranching are
dominant land uses in the area. Major communities in the sub-area, include Twin Falls,
7
Gooding, Jerome, Mountain Home, Boise, Burley, Caldwell, and Nampa, Idaho. The
BLM is the dominant public land management agency in the sub-area, although the
Sawtooth and Boise national forests, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also manage
public lands in the sub-area. The Mountain Home Air Force Base has gunnery and
training grounds between Mountain Home, Idaho, and the Snake River to the southwest.
The plant and animal communities of the region are products of the local weather,
geology, topography, and natural disturbance regimes. Consistent with uplands
throughout the Snake River Plain, sagebrush-dominated shrub-steppe best describes this
vegetative community (Tisdale and Hironaka 1981). Big sagebrush, rabbitbrush
(Chrysothamnus spp.) and bitterbrush are the dominant woody shrubs. Native grasses of
this same community include fescues (Festuca spp.), bluegrasses (Poa spp.) and
wheatgrasses (Agropyron spp.). Cheatgrass increasingly dominates the herbaceous plant
community within the sub-area and has indirectly, through its effect on the frequency and
intensity of fire, changed the shrub-steppe community along the Snake River Plain. Prior
to this intrusion by cheatgrass, agricultural land-use practices were the primary agent of
change on the landscape. Today, agriculture is still a dominant force in the economic,
cultural and political environment of the region.
Mule deer and elk, managed by IDF&G as big game species, are the evaluation
species in the area. Game Management Units 38, 39, 45, 46, 52, and 53 overlap with this
sub-area and are the context in which the state manages elk and mule deer herds.
2.2.3. West-central Idaho Sub-Area Description
Located east of the rim above Hells Canyon, the West-central Idaho sub-area is
the most northerly sub-area. Hells Canyon is a sub-area in itself and will be described in
the following section. The West-central Idaho sub-area extends from Weiser north to just
below Lewiston, Idaho. This sub-area was bounded on the south by a line that starts
where the South Fork Payette River intersects the eastern side of the IPC study area, and
extends downstream along the South Fork. The boundary continues downstream along
the Payette River, up a ridge where Schafer Creek joins the Payette River and then
follows the ridge between the Payette River and Willow Creek until it reached the Snake
River Valley. Here the boundary veers southwest until it intersects the western side of
the study area near the Watson Lateral Canal where it meets the Snake River. The area
was bounded on the northwest side by the eastern rim of Hells Canyon (east side of Hells
Canyon sub-area).
Analysis in this sub-area focused on a 48-km buffer along the east side of the
Snake River and includes analysis of some short transmission lines that extend away
from the river corridor. Land ownership is a mixture of private, tribal (Nez Perce Tribe),
state, and federal. Hells Canyon wilderness and national recreation area lands, primarily
managed by the Payette and Nez Perce National Forests, are part of this sub-area. The
Seven Devils Mountains, and the Salmon and Rapid rivers are other notable natural
features of the sub-area. Larger communities in the sub-area are Emmett, Payette,
Weiser, Cascade, Riggins and White Bird, Idaho. Ranching, recreational outfitting, and
8
tourism make up the dominant land uses and major sources of economic prosperity to
local communities.
Steep and dissected slopes of high relief (300 meters (m) to 3,700 m) best
describes the topography of the area. The mixture of wind and water erosion on
surrounding mountain ranges, such as the Seven Devils, Sturgill, West and Cuddy
mountains, has formed a very complex landscape. Considered part of the Central Idaho
Mountains ERU, it is described as a series of breaks, narrow valleys and mountains
(Quigley and Arbelbide 1997). Precipitation comes in the form of winter snow and spring
rains and averages 68 cm per year.
A mixture of complex topography, a moderately long growing season and good
precipitation has resulted in very diverse vegetation. Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis),
bluebunch wheatgrass (Pseudoroegneria spicata), Sandberg bluegrass (Poa secunda),
and Junegrass (Koeleria cristata) comprise extensive bunchgrass communities in the subarea. The physical and biological conditions of the Central Idaho Mountains ERU result
in cold (25%) and dry (27%) forests dominating the forest vegetation types of the area.
Pine (Pinus contorta and P. ponderosa) and fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) species comprise
forests. Shrub communities of curleaf mahogany, serviceberry, bittercherry (Prunus
emarginata), wild rose (Rosa woodsii), snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus), and
hackberry (Celtis reticula) extend between grasslands and forests. The area has been
susceptible to invasions of spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa) and leafy spurge
(Euphorbia esula) in addition to cheatgrass, medusahead, and yellow starthistle
(Centaurea solstitialis).
Mule deer, elk, mountain goats, and Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep are
evaluation species found in the sub-area. They are all managed by the IDF&G as big
game animals. Game Management Units (GMU) 11, 14, 18, 22, 22A, 23, 24, 31, 32, 33,
38, and 39 are in this sub-area and provide the context in which these big game are
managed by the state.
2.2.4. Northeast Oregon Sub-Area Description
The Northeast Oregon sub-area is across the Snake River and state line from the
West-central Idaho sub-area. This sub-area extends from Ontario, Oregon, to the
northeast corner of the state where it abuts Washington. Analysis in this sub-area
focused on a 48-km buffer along the west side of the Snake River and the transmission
lines that extend from Brownlee, Oxbow and Hells Canyon dams. These transmission
lines extend to the communities of Baker, Imnaha, and Enterprise, Oregon. This area
includes the Hells Canyon Wilderness and National Recreation Area. The Imnaha and
Lostine rivers, numerous reservoirs and lakes, the Eagle Cap Wilderness and the Blue
Mountains are other notable features of the sub-area. Public lands managed by the
Wallowa-Whitman National Forest and the Bureau of Land Management are intermixed
with private lands. Cattle and sheep ranching and farming are the dominant land uses and
economic bases of the local communities. Tourist-based businesses add to the economic
diversity of the area.
9
As part of the Owyhee ERU of the Interior Columbia Basin, this sub-area is
described as plains with breaks and valleys surrounded by foothills and mountains.
Topographic relief ranges from 640 m to 3,200 m. Headwaters and downstream reaches
of numerous watersheds further dissect the terrain of this sub-area. Precipitation
averages 29 cm per year, and ranges from 19 cm to 67 cm from desert and breaklands to
mountainous areas, respectively. The Cascade Mountain rain-shadow and intermountain
storm patterns from the southwest greatly influence the climate of the sub-area. Droughts
occur frequently (Quigley and Arbelbide 1997).
Vegetative diversity is naturally low in this ERU. Cool and dry shrub
communities dominate potential vegetation groups (PVG) in the area (Quigley and
Arbelbide 1997). Sagebrush, bitterbrush and rabbitbrush are the dominant shrub species.
Mixed conifer forests (pine and fir) occupy the area’s more mountainous reaches.
Periodic drought conditions, excessive livestock grazing pressure and the exclusion of
fire have left this area particularly vulnerable to the unwanted invasion of non-native
plants. Unwanted non-native plants and introduced grasses such as crested wheatgrass
have further reduced the natural biodiversity of the area.
Mule deer, elk, mountain goats and Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep are the big
game species found in this sub-area that were addressed in this study. They are managed
by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODF&W) as big game species. Oregon
Wildlife Management Units (WMU) Chesnimnus, Snake River, Imnaha, Pine Creek,
Keating, Lookout, Sumpter, Owyhee, and Buelah make up this sub-area and are the
context in which these species are managed by the state
2.2.5. Hells Canyon Sub-Area Description
The Hells Canyon sub-area lies along the Snake River from Weiser, Idaho,
downriver to the Brownlee Reservoir, continuing a distance of 166 km to Hells Canyon
Dam, another 95 km to the confluence of the Salmon River, and finally north to the
corner with the state of Washington. Extending from River Mile (RM) 351.2 to
approximately RM 178 for a total of 277 km, this sub-area is between the West-central
Idaho and Northeast Oregon sub-areas. Analysis in this sub-area focused on the
hydroelectric facilities, and reservoirs. The uniquely deep and narrow Hells Canyon
Gorge is the most notable natural feature in this sub-area.
Hydroelectric generation facilities and Brownlee, Oxbow, and Hells Canyon dams
and pools are included. The most upstream reach of this sub-area is a 19-km
unimpounded reach that extends from Weiser, Idaho, to Cobb Rapids. Just above the
beginning of this low-gradient reach, the Boise, Payette and Weiser rivers enter the Snake
River. Next, Brownlee Reservoir reach (88 km long) extends from Cobb Rapids to
Brownlee Dam at RM 283.7. The shoreline of this reservoir is variable from steep sides
with large rock outcrops to large alluvial fans. The maximum reservoir depth is
measured near the dam at approximately 100 m. For flood control purposes this reservoir
has a potential maximum reservoir draw down of 34 m, as regulated by the U.S. Corp of
10
Engineers. The Oxbow Reservoir reach measures approximately 23 km long from below
Brownlee Dam to Oxbow Dam at RM 269.5. The surrounding sides of the reservoir are
considered moderate to steep at 20% to 75% slopes. The maximum depth of Oxbow
Reservoir is reported at 34 m and is generally considered to be a relatively shallow and
narrow pool. Reservoir shorelines are mostly basalt rock outcrops with some alluvial
fans at the mouths of small tributaries. Daily water level fluctuations upward of 1.5 m
are common. The last pool in the HCHC is Hells Canyon Reservoir, which measures 35
km from below Oxbow Dam to Hells Canyon Dam at RM 247.5. Shorelines consist of
very steep basalt outcrops and talus slopes. Maximum depths reach 75 m with slow and
shallow reaches. The Snake River flows another 95 km from the Hells Canyon Dam to
the confluence with the Salmon River.
The unimpounded reach of the Snake River has earned the title “deepest gorge in
North America” (Ashworth 1977). Another 11 km downriver of Hells Canyon Dam, the
Snake River Canyon reaches from 488 m at the river to 2,400 m at the canyon rim.
Federal lands make up most of the sub-area, which also includes a mixture of
private, tribal (Nez Perce Tribe), and state lands as well. Most of the public land in and
above the gorge is managed as wilderness and national recreation areas. Hydroelectric
generation, ranching, and recreational outfitting, are the dominant land uses.
By its proximate location to the West-central Idaho and Northeast Oregon sub
areas, this sub-area bears a similar ecological resemblance. Hells Canyon measures from
approximately 500 m in elevation to peaks along its rim towering at over 2,000 m within
the sub-area (Ashworth 1977). Rugged terrain, stony soils and dry climate give rise to
extensive bunchgrass communities from low- and mid-elevations. Idaho fescue,
bluebunch wheatgrass, Sandberg bluegrass, and junegrass are dominant grasses in the
area. Pine and fir forests cloak the higher elevations and shrub communities of curlleaf
mahogany, serviceberry, wild rose (Rosa woodsii and R. nutkana) and snowberry extend
along the canyon walls to the rim. Sagebrush and bitterbrush are also found along the
walls and benches of the canyon. White alder (Alnus rhombifolia) is a dominant shrub
found in the narrow riparian edge of the Snake River (Tisdale 1979). Basalt columns and
other exposed volcanics allude to a geologic history of igneous origin. But it is erosion
by the Snake and other old rivers that created the gorge and its signature features.
Precipitation averages 29 cm and comes in the form of winter rain and snow and spring
rains.
Mule deer, elk, mountain goats and Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep are the study
big game species found in the sub-area. They are managed as big game species by the
ODF&W in WMUs Chesnimus, Snake River, Pine Creek, Lookout, and Buelah on the
west side of the Snake River. On the east side of the Snake River, IDF&G manages these
species as big game in GMUs 11, 13, 18, 22, and 31.
11
3. INFORMATION AND LITERATURE REVIEW
Existing published and unpublished literature and professional protocols were
reviewed to determine the best method(s) for delineating and evaluating big game habitat
in the HCHC. The literature search emphasized professional reports and published
information for the local area more so than other geographic areas. This review was
conducted to: 1) become acquainted with pertinent literature on the study species and
their relationship to the environment and landscapes of the study area, 2) identify habitat
effectiveness factors that could influence big game habitat in the study area, 3) identify
documented impacts of hydroelectric generation and transmission activities on big game
species and their habitat, and 4) provide a foundation to discuss the study results in the
context of accepted resource management methods and theories.
Prior to all mapping sessions, participating key resource specialists were asked to
provide papers and reports pertinent to the study and study objectives. A computerized
literature search was conducted at the Mike Mansfield Library, University of Montana,
Missoula. This computerized search included review of the following databases,
abstracts and indices:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
ABSEARCH
AGRICOLA
Animal Behavior Abstracts
Biological Abstracts
Biological Sciences Database
Biological and Agricultural Index
BIOSIS
Cambridge Scientific Abstracts (NTIS Database)
Dissertation Abstracts
Ecology Abstracts
Forestry Abstracts
Reserve Loan Services
Special Collective Archive
U.S. Government Documents Archive
Documents reviewed and/or referenced in the report have been incorporated into a
Pro-Cite™ database. Pro-Cite™ is an electronic data management program that provides
efficient management of numerous documents and allows for a quick search of data. In
addition to author, title, and reference information, an abstract of each report (paper) is
included. The Pro-Cite database includes some reports and papers reviewed but not
referenced in the study report. Referenced literature is so noted in the study report. A
thorough but not exhaustive literature review was performed (Appendix E).
12
4. METHODS
The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (RMEF) contracted with IPC to conduct
this study. The RMEF worked with state and federal wildlife biologists (key resource
specialists) familiar with the study area and the study species in order to accomplish the
study objectives. Mapping sessions were held in four cities within the study area.
Information needed to complete the contract was derived from existing field data and did
not require additional fieldwork or research. Working together in small groups, key
resource specialists identified and evaluated important big game habitat areas, and
provided management recommendations and potential mitigation measures. A list of the
key resource specialists and their affiliations are found in Appendix A. The RMEF
facilitated the gathering of habitat information during mapping sessions, kept notes, and
made staff available to help key resource specialists perform their tasks by providing
additional information when needed. Geodata Services Inc. performed all GIS and
digitizing services. All habitat delineation and evaluation information was incorporated
with other data layers into a GIS program. The RMEF used a similar process when
conducting the M.A.P.™ (Measure and Prioritize) Habitat project, whereby occupied elk
habitat was delineated and evaluated, across North America (Wall et al. 1998).
4.1. Identification of Key Resource Specialists
The RMEF with the assistance of IPC and regional wildlife managers and
biologists, developed the first list of resource specialists for consideration as participants
in this study. Recommended individuals were contacted to determine their interest and
availability to participate in the study. Some individuals were interested but unable to
focus time on the study, but offered to participate by reviewing work or providing
information through means other than the collaborative mapping sessions. All
recommended resource specialists with a willingness to participate were included in the
study. We looked for a combination of state big game population and habitat biologists
and public land management biologists to provide the most updated and accurate
assessment of big game use and habitat in the area.
Idaho and Oregon state wildlife habitat and population managers comprised most
of the key resource specialists. On occasion, Bureau of Land Management and Forest
Service biologists attended habitat mapping sessions. Specialists were encouraged to
communicate with their peers and associates in order to bring added information pertinent
to mapping sessions and this study.
13
4.2. Habitat Delineation and Evaluation
4.2.1. Prework and Initial Participant Contacts
Each participant was provided the following information as preparation for
mapping sessions: 1) terms, definitions, and criteria used to map big game winter range
and important movement areas; 2) a preliminary list of habitat effectiveness factors; 3)
description of the habitat evaluation process using habitat effectiveness factors
(Appendix F); and 4) study area reference maps. Providing this information at the start
and prior to its use in the mapping sessions informed and prepared participants, and
enhanced consistency of the process.
Terms and definitions, such as “occupied winter range,” “crucial winter range”
and “important movement areas,” defined through the original M.A.P.™ Habitat project
were made available for key resource specialists to review and modify. Key resource
specialists made no substantial changes to the original set of terms and definitions used in
the M.A.P.™ Habitat project.
4.2.2. Identification of Habitat Effectiveness Factors
The evaluation of IPC’s operations and maintenance, and other resource
management land uses, and landscape processes on delineated habitat in the study area
was accomplished through the application of Habitat Effectiveness Factors (HEF)
(Appendix B). HEFs are defined as factors, conditions or events that currently have an
impact or have the near term (3 to 5 years) potential to negatively or positively influence
big game habitat. The RMEF developed a preliminary list of HEFs for use in this project
from the following sources. The first source was the M.A.P Habitat™ project list of
HEFs, then called “limiting factors” (Wall et al. 1998). These factors were developed by
elk experts who participated in the original M.A.P ™ Habitat project and were further
refined during actual elk habitat mapping sessions held across North America (Appendix
C). The second source was from the Mule Deer Working Group of the Western
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA), which developed a list of
pertinent HEFs for a western deer project (Appendix D). A third source was new HEFs
directly related to IPC’s operation and maintenance activities in the HCHC. This
information arose from information from IPC and the literature search.
All three sources contributed to a single list of HEFs used in the project
(Appendix B). Resource specialists were provided the complete list of HEFs prior to
mapping sessions. However, explicit directions were also given to review and modify the
list to best meet the objective of habitat evaluation for this study.
4.2.3. Compilation of Base Working and Reference Maps
Base working maps, on which big game habitat was delineated by key resource
specialists, were plotted at a scale of 1:250,000. The base working maps included
information such as digital elevation information shown as shaded relief, roads, streams,
14
rivers and lakes, IPC service roads and transmission lines, and populated places, to aid in
orienting ones location on a map. All base working maps were printed on 34" x 44"
("E" Size) paper. Plots were prepared using ArcInfo™ software. The base working
maps used for elk habitat mapping differed slightly from the other map sets. Elk habitat,
previously defined by the RMEF, was plotted on base working maps, along with
annotation indicating the habitat effectiveness codes assigned during the previous
M.A.P.™ Habitat project. New big game habitat data delineated on base working maps
was converted to digital form using standard methods and provided as ArcInfo™
coverages.
Geodata Services Inc. also prepared a number of reference maps at a scale of
1:1,000,000 and compiled them into an atlas for use in orienting resource specialists
during the actual mapping sessions. Information used to populate reference maps was
obtained from IPC and derived by the ICRBA project. These maps included fire risk,
historic fire locations, noxious weed risk, and livestock allotment information. All GIS
data layers used in this project were obtained in digital form from IPC and were not
modified. Reference maps of existing vegetation were also made available at 1:250,000
scale for use by key resource specialists. The source of vegetation information was the
U.S. Geologic Survey GAP Analysis program for Idaho and Montana. During the first
mapping sessions, key resource specialists identified the need for a reference map with
public land ownership, which was used in subsequent mapping sessions. Public land
ownership maps were derived from the Idaho Department of Natural Resources
1:100,000 scale ownership map. These were plotted on a set of the 1:250,000 scale maps
with identical data layers as the base working maps.
4.2.4. Habitat Mapping Sessions
Habitat mapping sessions were held in 4 cities in the study area (Appendix G).
Resource specialists familiar with the study area came together during these sessions to
delineate (map) and evaluate (assign HEFs) big game habitat. The mapping sessions
were not considered public meetings and no one other than the key resource specialists
was invited. IPC and RMEF representatives also attended the meetings.
A workshop approach to the data gathering (habitat delineation and evaluation)
used in this study was similar to the approach used in the earlier M.A.P. ™ Habitat
project conducted by the RMEF (Wall et al. 1998). The process used to gather
information for this study is similar but not identical to the Delphi Method or Nominal
Group Technique. The purpose of hybridizing these data-gathering methods was to 1)
get the broadest range of expert information on the distribution and quality of big game
habitat in the study area, 2) get a relatively pooled agreement on the HEFs affecting
habitat, and 3) pool experience and information, under the assumption that the combined
information was more accurate and complete than the addition of individual input (Judge
and Podgor, Jr. 1983, Schuster et al. 1985). Consensus was not a requirement of our
process. Participants agreed that working together in groups and allowing free-flowing
dialogue, thoroughness and relative agreement in defining and evaluating habitat would
15
be enhanced. An added advantage of this process is that biologists learned from each
other and enhanced their own knowledge relative to the objectives of the study.
RMEF representative(s) participated in the mapping sessions to the extent needed
to ensure that discussion was thorough, and terms and mapping conventions were
consistently applied. The RMEF representative(s) were responsible for taking notes of
important discourse. During most mapping sessions key resource specialists worked in
groups of two or three on one of the five individual map tiles. One key resource
specialist, unable to attend mapping sessions, worked individually and later provided data
to the RMEF for inclusion in the study results. He provided deer and elk information for
the Southeast Idaho sub-area not provided by other resource specialists.
4.2.5. Delineation of Habitat Polygons
During habitat mapping sessions and regardless of jurisdictional or ownership
boundaries, key resource specialists delineated: 1) currently occupied regular and crucial
elk and mule deer winter range, 2) currently occupied year-round habitat for Rocky
Mountain bighorn sheep and mountain goats, 3) potential mountain goat year-round
range, and 4) important movement areas (Table 1). Potential year-round Rocky
Mountain bighorn sheep habitat was later identified through the use of a rule-based
habitat model.
Using felt-tip pens, big game habitat was drawn on the 1:250,000 scale base
working maps. Each habitat category was drawn in a different color for ease in
differentiating the type of habitat (i.e.., red for winter range, blue for crucial winter range,
and green for important movement areas). Each species’ habitat was mapped on a
separate copy of a base working map to avoid confusion in digital conversion.
Some variance in size and shape of habitat polygons was expected. When
specialists assigned different polygon boundaries in the same area, the cumulative extent
(outer-most boundaries) was used. To accomplish this, a series of ArcInfo™ process
steps results in a union of each digitized polygon and subsequent dissolving of all interior
polygon boundaries. Differences of opinion related to HEFs were also captured.
Elk Winter Range Delineation - Elk winter range and important movement area
information, mapped as part of the original M.A.P. ™ Habitat project by the Rocky
Mountain Elk Foundation, was made available for use in this study. This original elk
habitat data was transcribed onto study area base working maps and key resource
specialists were asked to review this data for corrections and make appropriate
modifications. Participants were asked to specifically review the existing HEFs to ensure
they were accurate. This included consideration of IPC-related HEFs for each delineated
elk habitat area (polygon). Habitat delineation information is presented in Figure 6.
Mule Deer Winter Range Delineation – The Mule Deer Working Group of the
WAFWA, working in conjunction with the RMEF developed a preliminary set of terms,
16
definitions, mapping conventions and habitat effectiveness factors for a future habitatmapping project (unpublished data). Key resource specialists working on this project
used the information developed by WAFWA as they delineated occupied mule deer
winter and crucial winter range habitat and assigned habitat effectiveness factors,
including those related to IPC’s operation and maintenance activities. Habitat delineation
and evaluation information is presented in Figure 7.
Mountain Goat Winter Range Delineation - Mountain goat specialists followed
the same mapping protocol used for elk and mule deer in delineating currently occupied
mountain goat habitat. Potential mountain goat habitat, based on expert opinion was also
mapped during the mapping sessions. Mountain goats in the study area typically reside
in a single mountain range and so entire year-round mountain goat habitat was usually
delineated. Habitat delineation information is presented in Figure 8.
Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep Winter Range Delineation – Rocky Mountain
bighorn sheep specialists followed the same mapping protocol used for elk, mule deer
and mountain goat, in delineating currently occupied habitat. In most cases, the entire
seasonal range of wild sheep herds was mapped (Figure 9).
Potential Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep Winter Range Modeling - Potential
Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep habitat (summer, winter and lambing habitats) were
identified through the use of a rule-based habitat suitability model. The model developed
in 1999 for IDF&G provided the rules for this habitat model (Cassirer et al. 1997). The
Wildlife Spatial Lab (WSL) at the University of Montana conducted the GIS analysis for
this earlier model. The only difference between the earlier model run in 1997 and the
model reported here was in the land cover or existing vegetation layer.
The potential Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep range model required additional
GIS modeling at the request of the biologists. ArcInfo™ grid layers, including a more
detailed 1:24,000 scale digital elevation model provided by IPC were used to prepare the
potential habitat model for bighorn sheep summer range, winter range and lambing areas.
The model was run only within the Hells Canyon area and portions of the Northeast
Oregon and West-central Idaho sub-areas. Escape routes, topographic features and
existing vegetation and land use were the critical components of the model for potential
summer range for Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep. The winter range model included the
summer range below 4,800 ft in elevation and the southerly aspects above that elevation.
Lambing areas were selected from escape terrain within a specified distance of water, and
a large enough area to support lambing. Two other map layers depicting constraints to
potential bighorn sheep habitat were also generated. These included human activity
zones and areas with low visibility barriers.
The vegetation data used in the 1997 model was a custom-supervised
classification done by the WSL as a precursor to the northern portion of the Idaho GAP
project. Brush-like vegetation, specific to the area, received additional classification not
received in the final Idaho GAP analysis or the NLCD.
17
The digital vegetation map source used for the model in this study was derived
from the National Land Cover Database (NLCD). The NLCD data is classified into
twenty-two land cover classes, and is consistently applied from state to state. A more
detailed land classification (with 36 classes) was developed for a part of the IPC study
area by the Montana and Idaho GAP analysis project, but a quite different GAP cover
classification existed in Oregon and Washington. The larger size of the study area and its
position, spanning two states create problems with the GAP analysis data, since the
methodology differed between states. The NLCD database is consistent across the entire
US and was selected to provide the existing vegetation map layer for the model. As a
result we used the NLCD classification for this study area and bighorn sheep modeling.
Potential Bighorn Sheep Summer Habitat - The rules used in this modeling effort are
described below followed by the ArcInfo™ GRID active markup language commands
(AML) used to run the model. FGDC compatible metadata was also prepared.
1. Determine escape terrain from as areas with slopes greater than 31° and less than 85°
and areas greater than 1.6 ha in size. The slope values were derived from a digital
elevation model composed of tiled 1:24,000 scale, 7.5 minute, 30 meter USGS digital
elevation model files. The original model publication was not clear at which step the
1.6 ha filter was applied. Since it made little difference if applied after step 2 buffer
criteria, we applied this filter during this first step.
2. Add buffers with a width of 300 m from escape terrain, or areas of escape terrain less
than or equal to 1000 m wide bounded on two sides by escape terrain. To develop
this layer in an automated manner, we applied a 500 m buffer to the escape terrain. A
subsequent 500 m buffer from the outer perimeter of the first 500 m buffer ensured
that areas bounded on two sides and < 1000 m wide of escape terrain were selected.
In areas where habitat came close to this 1000 m buffer (i.e., in narrow horseshoe
shapes), some “pinch offs” created small oval shaped habitat polygons.
3. Select areas from steps 1 and 2 that fall within preferred land cover (vegetation with
horizontal visibility). Select the following NLCD cover classes: Ice/Snow, Bare
Rock/Sand, Transitional, Shrubland, and Grasslands/Herbaceous; overlay these
selected cover classes on the grid resulting from steps 1 and 2 and subset the
intersection of the two grids. The grid ”nlcdipcutm” is the NLCD developed by the
USGS and EPA. It was unmodified, except for a projection transformation to UTM,
NAD27 for compatibility with other data layers used in the project.
Potential Bighorn Sheep Winter range:
1. Determine areas of escape terrain on all aspects below 1463.04 meters (4,800 feet),
and all escape terrain on south facing aspects between 135° and 225° on areas above
1463.04 meters (4,800 feet).
18
Potential Bighorn Sheep Lambing areas
1. Determine areas selected from escape terrain on non-northerly aspects (between 46°
and 314°) less than 1km from water, and larger than 2 contiguous hectares. To
maintain consistency with the 1997 Hells Canyon bighorn sheep suitability model, we
used perennial streams selected from the 1:100,000 national hydrologic database
(NHD) as the water source.
Constraints to potential bighorn sheep habitat (Each layer below is a separate grid or
polygon coverage)
A. Human activity zones: To maintain consistency with the 1997 Hells Canyon
bighorn sheep suitability model, we used a Landsat satellite image based on
identification of human activity zones, as expressed through the NLCD. Two
classes from the NLCD database, Low Intensity Residential and High Intensity
Residential were used for this layer. A 150 m buffer was added around all
residential areas to define the final human activity zones.
B. Low visibility vegetation barriers: Low visibility vegetation greater than 100m
wide. NLCD vegetation types used to define low visibility included deciduous,
conifer and mixed forest types. A buffer was extended 50 m inside the outer
perimeter of all vegetation types except the three low visibility classes. This
resulted in any low visibility area less than 100 m wide being “pinched off” and
excluded from the selection.
4.2.6. Assignment of Habitat Effectiveness Factors
Once big game habitat was mapped, resource specialists assigned HEFs to
delineated habitat areas or groups of polygons. Evaluation of habitat effectiveness
considered the influences of HEFs such as 1) hydroelectric operation and maintenance
activities, 2) transmission line and service road operation and maintenance, 3) livestock
grazing, 4) mining, 5) urbanization, 6) wildfire, 7) plant succession, 8) movement barriers
and habitat fragmentation. Resource specialists were also asked to specifically consider
the effects of IPC activities and operations. Resource specialists were asked to attribute
habitat areas with what they perceived to be the most important HEFs. Importance was
defined as those HEFs that should receive the highest level of attention because they
provide the greatest benefit versus those receiving the lowest attention and giving the
correspondingly lowest benefit to the effectiveness of the delineated habitat. Reaching a
consensus on the most important HEFs was not expected. There was no limit to the
number of HEFs that could be assigned to a habitat area.
We asked that each HEF be assigned in order of importance to a habitat polygon,
but this did not always happen, and factors in data tables should not be construed as in a
priority order. The best that can be stated is that the key resource specialists ascribed the
most important HEFs to the big game habitat they delineated based on their current
19
perception. Each HEF was assigned a unique code. Two additional codes (A1 and A2)
were added during the course of the meetings, bringing the total number of unique factors
to 28 (Appendix B).
Some HEFs could not be adequately documented by assigning a code. Resource
specialists used index cards for documenting their additional and more qualifying
comments. The cards included the participant’s name, date, and sequential map comment
identification number, and the name of the map tile or some reference back to a specific
map. Comments were summarized in Pro-Cite™ as a separate database accompanying
this report and mapped as a separate GIS point layer (Appendix H).
4.3. Digitizing the Habitat Polygons
The mapping sessions resulted in base working maps with hand-drawn lines and
attribute annotation overlays to be digitized. We followed standard digital conversion
procedures to insure that any original data created for the project would meet National
Mapping Standards. All maps were digitized with registration tolerances not exceeding a
skew error less than 0.1% and scale mismatch less than 0.3%. If a map exceeded those
tolerances, it was registered up to three times and the error accepted if the error factors
were consistent. Incomplete polygons were identified and subsequently corrected. All
polygons were "cleaned" in ArcInfo® with a tolerance of .01 inch to ensure topologically
correct map coverages. Polygon and arc-node topology was created for each map layer.
The polygons from each map tile were merged into a single layer for each species
through the entire study area. Habitat Effectiveness Factors were entered in a database
accompanying each layer. The final map layers were provided in ArcInfo® format to
IPC, accompanied by metadata and documentation prepared to the Federal Data
Geographic Committee standard.
Geodata Services Inc. posted the results of the mapping sessions, along with the
base layers, on an Internet map service, using ArcIMS software. The data was available
for review for several months by the resource specialists on the Internet, using standard
browsers, such as Internet Explorer or Netscape. This allowed resource specialists to
review the results, turn on or off data layers, pan and zoom to change scales and query
underlying data values. Subsequent changes or modifications were printed on resource
specialist’s local computer and faxed or mailed to RMEF for modification.
4.4. Habitat Delineation and Evaluation Review and Modification
Resource specialists were provided an opportunity to review their original input
and provide corrections or modifications. Participants of each habitat mapping session
were sent a letter (8/8/00) explaining that original maps were sent to a key resource
specialist in the area. They could either meet together to go over the information or they
could review the data on an Internet map service, ArcIMS. A number of the resource
specialists chose to meet in person for this review. RMEF personnel did not rejoin these
20
review meetings. Resource specialists made only a few modifications during this review
period, which lasted from August until early November, 2000.
4.5. Identification of Mitigation Measures and Management
Recommendations
Resource specialists were provided another opportunity to review their work
during the phase when management actions and mitigation measures were requested of
them. Not all mapping session participants were involved in this phase. Between
February and March 2001, RMEF personnel contacted some of the key resource
specialists from each sub-area to review the working map data and HEFs, and to provide
management and mitigation measure recommendations. Most of this work was
performed through the combination of phone and Internet communications. Using ESRI
Internet map server and ArcIMS software, both RMEF personnel and the key resource
specialists mutually reviewed digital map information and corresponding databases for
the purpose of identifying appropriate management and mitigation measures.
Another collaborative mapping session took place February 23, 2001, in Baker
City, Oregon, in order to delineate mule deer habitat that was not previously mapped. At
this same time the Northeast Oregon sub-area resource specialist group identified
management and mitigation measures recommendations.
Management and mitigation measures recommended by the key resource
specialists are presented in the results and discussion sections of this report. They are
also recorded in Appendix K. Results include recommendations that are unrelated to the
HCHC relicensing project but may be of value to state and federal agencies involved in
the management of big game in the region of the study area.
4.6. Analysis and Acreage Summaries
After all reviews were completed, Geodata Services Inc. calculated acreages for
all big game habitat polygons using ArcInfo® GIS software. Each big game habitat
polygon was overlaid separately on public land ownership layers and on the NLCD, using
a union process, in order to analyze each species’ habitat by public land ownership
categories and land cover classes.
Acreage totals (by habitat class, NLCD and ownership) are represented in tables
for each species by sub-area in Section 8 of the final report. Please note that differences
between the acreage totals by species between NLCD and public land ownership exist.
These differences occur because the NLCD data layer is a more complete coverage over
the study area, whereas the public land ownership information is missing a small area in
the state of Washington. The more complete and accurate acreage summary is found in
the tables representing NLCD data layer integrated with the big game habitat polygons.
21
RMEF staff reviewed the HEFs for each species on a polygon-by-polygon basis,
using standard GIS thematic display techniques to analyze the importance of each factor
to wildlife management within each sub-area. Importance was based on ocular estimates
of which HEFs appeared with the greatest frequency in a sub-area. Acreages for
important HEFs were then summarized and presented as part of the results.
5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Habitat results are presented by individual big game species within each sub-area.
There are a number of figures and tables provided to elucidate this data. Using
definitions applied during the mapping sessions, “crucial winter range” is that part of
winter range where 90% of the individuals of a big game population are located when the
annual snow pack is at its maximum and/or temperatures are at a minimum, in the two
worst winters out of 10. “Regular winter range” is that part of the overall range where
90% of the individuals are located during the average five winters out of 10, from the
period of the first heavy snowfall to spring green-up (Appendix F).
Key resource specialists were asked to provide mitigation measures and
management recommendations that apply to this hydroelectric relicensing project and
that could apply to other related projects in the area at some future date. These comments
are found in Appendix K.
In reviewing this information, it is inappropriate to compare the data between subareas. Each sub-area stands alone, with important and sometimes unique big game
populations, habitat conditions and management issues. Within each sub-area, key
resource specialist identified and evaluated habitat specific to the big game populations in
the sub-area.
5.1. Elk Winter Range Habitat Data
Elk habitat was delineated in each sub-area of the HCHC study area. However,
elk habitat varies among sub-areas and is a reflection of vegetation and management
within sub-areas. A total of 1,888,475 hectares (ha) of elk winter range (regular and
crucial winter range and important movement areas) were delineated in the HCHC study
area (Figure 6). Regular winter range accounted for 883,443 ha, and crucial winter range
for 906,095 ha. Another 98,937 ha were delineated as important movement areas
(Table 2). Elk habitat in relation to landownership was examined (Table 3). Privately
owned land supported 889,196 ha (47%) of elk habitat (winter range and important
movement areas) in the study area. This is not surprising, since elk typically move to
lower elevations as winter progresses. In the West these lower elevation areas are more
likely to be private land. The Forest Service is responsible for 496,744 ha (26%) of
delineated elk habitat. The Bureau of Land Management is responsible for 389,099 ha
(21%) of elk habitat in the study area. Using the NLCD to identify any association
22
between delineated elk habitat and land cover it was found that shrubland land cover was
associated with 1,026,542 ha (56%) of the delineated elk habitat, evergreen forest cover
type was associated with 424,101 ha (23%), and grassland/herbaceous cover type was
associated with 325,479 ha (18%) of delineated elk habitat (Table 4). These three cover
types accounted for 97% of the delineated elk habitat in the study area.
Historically, elk were one of the most widely distributed and abundant large
mammals in the western United States. Unregulated harvest and habitat loss in the mid
1800s to early 1900s reduced elk numbers. Recently, laws and habitat management
practices have favored elk. Currently, western populations are increasing, which
increasingly causes more complicated issues associated with elk management (Picton
1991). Elk provide important economic and recreational opportunities through hunting
and non-consumptive uses (Duffield 1991, Brooks et al. 1991). States like Idaho,
Oregon, and Washington invest substantial resources into elk management, which include
seasonal surveys (ground and aerial) for monitoring population status and distribution.
Methods used by each state wildlife agency vary and wildlife management survey areas
are not directly comparable to the study area boundary. These factors do neither allow
for comparison of results, nor an assessment of the total number of elk in the HCHC
study area.
Relative to other wildlife species, elk are considered habitat generalists. They
favor a mix of grassland/shrub landscapes and forested landscapes that provide important
security cover. Habitat adaptability has allowed for the wide distribution of elk in the
west. Generally considered grazing animals, elk feed on grasses, sedges, and forbs all
year. They shift to more shrubs in the winter as non-woody plants become less available
and nutritious. Sagebrush, bitterbrush, serviceberry, curl-leaf mahogany, and aspen
increase in importance as elk foods in the winter (Kufeld 1973, Wambolt 1998). In
search of winter habitat, elk move to areas with less snow depth typically at relatively
low elevations. And finally, areas of little human disturbance also comprise of elk winter
range habitat.
Elk habitat in the HCHC study area changes among sub-areas, which reflect a
landscape gradient from east to west. Elk habitat is patchy in the sagebrush/junipersteppe and relatively simple-elevational landscapes of the Southeast Idaho sub-area. Elk
habitat becomes increasingly continuous to the west where deeply incised mountains
support large conifer forests. Nonetheless, elk have shown the ability to successfully
exist along this entire landscape gradient.
Important elk movement areas, which includes both dispersal and seasonal
movement routes were identified as part of this study. Many elk populations have both
migratory and non-migratory components. Migratory behavior is thought to be more
common in mountainous areas where vegetative and climatic conditions, considered
driving forces in migration, can vary widely (Adams 1982). The ability of animals to
successfully move between seasonal habitats can be critical to the condition of elk, and
ultimately a herd’s long-term existence in certain areas. Available and secure important
movement areas allow animals a wider distribution and selection of habitats, including
23
the ability to distant themselves from situations or factors that directly or indirectly
impact individuals and herds.
5.1.1. Southeast Idaho Sub-Area Elk Habitat
A total of 40,016 ha of elk habitat were delineated within the Southeast Idaho
sub-area (Table 2). Of that total, 29,448 ha (73%) of regular elk winter habitat and
10,568 ha (26%) of important movement areas were delineated. No crucial winter elk
habitat was delineated in this sub-area. Forty-three percent, or 17,320 ha of delineated
elk habitat in this sub-area, are located on private land. Another 13,218 ha (33%) are
identified as “other federal land” ownership (Table 3). Shrubland cover type was
associated with 21,736 ha (61%) and grassland/herbaceous cover type was associated
with 9,313 ha (26%) of the delineated elk habitat in the Southeast Idaho sub-area.
Hay/pasture land cover types were associated with 2,395 ha (7%) of the delineated elk
habitat in the sub-area, and only 1,272 ha (4%) of elk habitat were associated with
evergreen forest cover types (Table 4).
Urban sprawl along the Pocatello to Inkom, Idaho, front was one of six HEF’s
recognized as affecting elk in the area (Daryl Meints, IDF&G, pers. com.). Related to
this, depredation (HEF H), and artificial feeding (HEF J) are growing issues
(Appendix J). Elk, because of their herd structure and preference for grass and shrubland
habitats, can have greater impact than deer, and be less tolerated by private landowners
(Daryl Meints, IDF&G, pers. com.). Recent large fires have destroyed nearly 250,000 ha
of big game habitat in the Big Desert, which is on the north side of the Snake River in the
sub-area (BLM staff pers. com.). The increase of fires in the area has had a detrimental
effect on sagebrush steppe communities (Peters and Bunting 1994). Though Idaho Power
Company activities were not considered a “major source of problems” (D. Meints, B.
Palmer, IDF&G, pers. com.), transmission line road access (HEF U) associated with IPC
transmission lines was identified as detrimental to big game management in the sub-area
(Appendix I). These transmission line roads provide human access into elk habitat at a
level and time that is not desired by the IDF&G. Other HEFs associated with localized
issues were recognized as impacting elk habitat in this sub-area. For example,
snowmobiling as high-density recreation (HEF P) was recognized as a factor impacting
elk winter range habitat in the Pocatello area (Appendix H, I, and K).
5.1.2. South-central Idaho Sub-Area Elk Habitat
Approximately 300,000 ha of elk winter range habitat were delineated in the
South-central Idaho sub-area. Approximately, two-thirds or 207,919 ha of the delineated
habitat was identified as regular elk winter range and the other 91,880 ha (31%) were
defined as crucial winter range. No important movement areas were identified in this
sub-area by the resource specialist at this time (Table 2). BLM manages 112,424 ha of
delineated elk habitat (37%), followed by private land ownership at 88,774 ha (30%) in
this sub-area (Table 3). The NLCD shrubland cover type was associated with 183,869 ha
24
(64%), and the grassland/herbaceous cover type was associated with 79,003 ha (27%) of
the delineated elk habitat in the sub-area (Table 4).
Depredation (HEF H) and social carrying capacity exceeded (HEF L) affect
almost 25% (65,944 ha) of the delineated habitat in this sub-area (Appendix H, I, and K.).
Domestic livestock competition (HEF A), habitat loss or conversion from agricultural
practices (HEF K), detrimental effects of fire (HEF T), and urban sprawl (HEF C) are
important issues throughout the entire sub-area. Along the Boise Front, urban sprawl
(HEF C) and other associated factors like noxious weeds (HEF A1), and high-density
recreation (HEF K) were recognized as important factors limiting the effectiveness of elk
winter range in the area. Issues related to urban sprawl are appearing in the Porter Creek
drainage north and west of Boise and as far as the South and Middle Forks of the Payette
River drainage (Appendix K). In rural areas, native elk habitat continues to be converted
through agricultural land uses (L. Nelson, IDFG, pers. com.). This results in a cycle of
habitat loss followed by depredation losses on private land and intolerance to elk.
5.1.3. West-central Idaho Sub-Area Elk Habitat
In the West-central Idaho sub-area, 705,862 ha of elk habitat were delineated, of
which 442,638 ha (63%) were defined as crucial winter range, 190,971 ha (27%) as
regular winter range and 72,253 ha (10%) as important movement areas (Table 2).
Privately owned land supported 399,356 ha (57%) of the delineated elk habitat in the subarea, followed by BLM-managed land with 165,640 ha (23%)(Table 3). It is in this subarea that the shift to more mountainous, rugged terrain becomes apparent, creating larger
differences in vegetation, snow depth, and temperature along an elevational gradient.
This difference motivates elk to move to lower elevations as winter severity increases
and, why despite the large amount of public lands in the sub-area a substantial level of
elk use on private lands in the winter. Of the delineated elk habitat in the sub-area,
427,066 ha (62%) were associated with the shrubland cover types (Table 4). Evergreen
forest cover types were associated with 128,352 ha (23%) of delineated elk winter range
habitat in this sub-area. This differs from the previous two downriver sub-areas, where
the second-most associated cover type on delineated elk habitat was the
grassland/herbaceous cover type.
Habitat effectiveness factors of concern in this sub-area include domestic
livestock competition (HEF A), urban sprawl and habitat conversion (HEF C), and access
to public lands (HEF I) (Appendix K). Encroachment of Douglas fir into shrublands
(HEF B) was identified as a public land-related HEF. Noxious weed invasion (HEF A1)
was also identified as an important HEF on private and public lands. Cheatgrass,
medusahead and scotch thistle were identified as the unwanted vegetation affecting elk
winter range in this sub-area.
25
5.1.4. Northeast Oregon Sub-Area Elk Habitat Data
In the Northeast Oregon sub-area, 582,571 ha of elk habitat were delineated, of
which 203,383 ha (35%) were identified as crucial winter range, 375,373 ha (64%) as
regular winter range and 3,815 ha (7%) as important movement areas (Table 2).
Privately owned land supports 307,199 ha (53%) of delineated elk habitat in the sub-area,
followed by Forest Service-managed land with 212,763 ha (37%) (Table 3). Combining
the 266,564 ha associated with the shrubland cover type and the 208,565 ha associated
with the evergreen forest cover type accounts for 85% of the delineated elk habitat in this
sub-area (Table 4).
Although an important big game animal in the area, elk create a number of
management conflicts related to land uses and ownership in this sub-area. Depredation
(HEF H), social carrying capacity exceeded (HEF L), and public land availability (HEF
D) were the most important HEFs recognized in the sub-area (Appendix I). Domestic
livestock competition (HEF A) on private lands and urban sprawl (HEF C), which relate
to this complex management situation, were also identified for this sub-area. Agencies
are having to manage for hunting opportunities and the desire by some publics for
growing herds in the midst of land use and ownership changes that do not support
increased elk numbers (Appendix H). Due to size, preference for herbaceous cover
classes and large group size, elk cause significant damage to (private) land, particularly in
the face of diminishing native range (W. VanDyke, Oregon Department of Fish and
Wildlife [ODF&W] pers. com.). These HEFs and related issues are prevalent in the Pine
Valley, Keating, North and South Sumpter, East Beulah, and Lookout Mountain Big
Game Management Units (Figure 4). In Snake River, Imnaha and Chesnimnus Big
Game Management Units, where there is more public land, predation by mountain lions
(identified as HEF H) is a more significant issue. In areas where public lands are
prevalent, predators can reach high densities. Predators are more likely to be held at low
densities by landowners where there is a lot of private land, as in the southern parts of
this sub-area (W. VanDyke, ODF&W, pers. com.).
5.1.5. Hells Canyon Sub-Area Elk Habitat
In the Hells Canyon sub-area, 260,227 ha of elk habitat were delineated, of which
168,194 ha (66%) were defined as crucial winter range, 79,732 ha (31%) as regular
winter range, and 12,301 ha (4.7%) as important movement areas (Table 2). The Hells
Canyon sub-area was identified by a number of the resource specialists as having the
most important big game winter habitat in the study area. Jeff Rohlman, Idaho Fish and
Game biologist, explained that elk persist throughout much of the surrounding area based
on the capacity of the Snake River Canyon to provide winter range and support these
surrounding herds and populations.
The Forest Service manages 117,122 ha (45%) of the delineated elk habitat in the
sub-area, followed by 76,547 ha (29%) on private land, and 43,256 ha (17%) on BLMmanaged lands (Table 3). This sub-area has a higher proportion of public lands than any
26
of the other four sub-areas. The NLCD shrubland cover type was associated with
127,307 ha (50%) of delineated elk habitat. Other important cover types were 64,968 ha
(25%) of the evergreen forest type, and 60,301 ha (24%) of the grassland/herbaceous type
(Table 4).
This sub-area is the center of many IPC facilities and activities associated with the
HCHC. Key resource specialists identified a number of IPC activity and facility-related
HEFs in this sub-area. They were; IPC transmission line access (HEF U), invasion of
noxious weeds due to IPC (HEF X), and undesired effect of water levels on habitat and
animal behavior (HEF Z) (Appendix H & K). The first two factors relate to IPC
transmission lines that act as a conduit, facilitating the movement of humans and noxious
weeds into elk habitat in the sub-area. Excessive human access as it relates to human
disturbance of animals while on their winter range can be detrimental. The issue of
undesired levels of human access is more of an issue for elk, which are warier of humans,
than other big game species (G.Keister and W.VanDyke, ODF&W, pers. com.). Access
management is an important component of elk management. Undesired effect of water
levels on habitat and animal behavior (HEF Z) relates to the physical dimensions of
Brownlee Reservoir. Resource specialists believe that the width of the reservoir hampers
elk migration and may cause hypothermia when animals attempt to cross in the winter.
Domestic livestock competition (HEF A), depredation (H), public land
availability (HEF D), and social carrying capacity exceeded (HEF L) were also identified
as important factors impacting elk winter habitat in the sub-area (Appendix I).
5.2. Mule Deer Winter Habitat Data
A total of 2,178,556 ha of mule deer winter range (regular and crucial winter range)
and important movement areas were delineated in the study area (Figure 7). Regular
winter range accounted for 876,131 ha (40%) and crucial winter range for 1,044,142 ha
(48%) of the habitat delineated. Another 258,283 ha (12%) were delineated as important
movement areas (Table 5). Mule deer habitat in relation to landownership was examined
(Table 6). A little over one million hectares (1,002,781 ha) of mule deer winter habitat is
located on private land. Thirty-two percent, (690,451 ha), of delineated mule deer winter
range is managed as public land by the BLM. The Forest Service is responsible for
348,163 ha (16%) of mule deer habitat (winter range and movement connectivity areas)
in the study area. Integrating the NLCD, 1,305,328 ha (60%) of the delineated mule deer
habitat (winter range and movement connectivity areas) in the study area was associated
with shrublands, 405,300 ha (19%) were associated with grassland/herbaceous cover
types and another 252,874 ha (12%) with evergreen forest cover types (Table 7).
Mule deer are thought to have been less abundant throughout the West prior to
European settlement. As browsing animals, mule deer feed on shrubs primarily, and
forbs and grasses, depending on the season and location. Historic habitat conditions
favored grassland communities and grazing animals, such as bighorn sheep and elk, and
less so mule deer. With the increase in domestic livestock grazing and changes in
27
wildfire regimes during the late 1800s and early 1900s, native range conditions changed
to more shrub-like communities. As shrublands increased, so did mule deer populations.
With the advent of big game management in the West, mule deer populations have swung
high and low, influenced by habitat management, predator control, and hunting
regulations. Most recently, mule deer populations reached another low in the late 1980s
and early 1990s. Western deer populations are on the upswing again but are not expected
to reach previous population levels, as more and more native habitat is lost at the hands
of human development.
Mule deer are widely distributed in a variety of habitats across the HCHC study
area. At a site-specific level, mule deer distribution can be explained by the presence or
absence of particular forage species. Traditionally, winter range habitat was described as
big sagebrush and bitterbrush shrublands that occur across steep and rough terrains
(Mackie et al. 1982, Austin and Urness 1983, Griffith and Peek 1989). Sites with
minimal snow accumulation and that minimize energy expenditure, such as south-facing
slopes with high solar radiance, are important in the selection of winter range habitat. A
strategy of selecting sites that have favorable abiotic features or orientation is considered
a means of compensating for a lack of nutritionally adequate forage. A number of studies
identify mule deer use of grasses and forbs in the winter, including planted grasses such
as crested-wheatgrass (Wallmo and Regelin 1981, Bartman et al. 1982, and Austin and
Urness 1983). Winter food studies identify the following plants as important winter
foods: bitterbrush, big sagebrush, ninebark, (Physocarpus malvaceus), serviceberry, curlleaf mahogany, maple (Acer spp.) and snowberry (Constan 1972, Wallmo and Regelin
1981).
Movement areas are important to mule deer that need to move between and within
mountain ranges throughout the year. Their long-term survival depends upon the ability
to successfully move between ranges and use an area. This behavior allows animals to
exploit and pioneer additional habitats, and avoid situations that threaten their survival.
Of course, not all individuals in a herd are migratory and not all herds migrate each year.
Brown (1992) examined mule deer migration and movement patterns in
southeastern Idaho. He found both migratory and non-migratory deer in the study area.
In terms of the characteristics of migration or movement corridors, his results suggest that
mule deer avoid crossing broad agricultural valleys. Movements across a four-lane
interstate were rare and sometimes unsuccessful. Wide expanses, with little security
cover and areas with repeated occurrences of traffic or human activity are considered
significant interference to mule deer movement.
5.2.1. Southeast Idaho Sub-Area Mule Deer Habitat
The Southeast Idaho sub-area had the least amount of delineated mule deer
habitat: 78,608 ha (51%) of crucial winter range, 59,691 ha (39%) of regular winter
range, and 14,386 ha (9%) of important movement areas, totaling 152,685 ha (Table 5).
Privately owned land supports 64,020 ha (42%) of the delineated mule deer habitat in this
sub-area. BLM is responsible for 54,703 ha (36%) of deer winter range (Table 6).
Shrubland cover types were associated with 96,621 ha (70%) of mule deer habitat,
28
grassland/herbaceous cover types with 25,480 (18%), and pasture/hay ground with 8,477
ha (6%) associated with the pasture/hay cover type (Table 7). This is reflective of the
overall landscape of the sub-area, where sagebrush steppe as the dominant native plant
community intermingles with agricultural lands.
Urban sprawl along the Pocatello to Inkom, Idaho front was one of the HEFs
recognized as affecting mule deer in the sub-area (Daryl Meintz, Idaho Dept. Fish and
Game (IDF&G), pers. com.). Related to this, depredation (HEF H) and artificial feeding
(HEF J) are growing issues (Appendix K). Recent large fires have resulted in the loss of
nearly 250,000 ha of big game habitat in the Big Desert, which is on the north side of the
Snake River in the sub-area (BLM staff pers. com). The increased frequency and
occurrence of fires in the area have had a detrimental effect on sagebrush steppe
communities (Peters and Bunting 1994).
Although IPC activities were not considered a “major source of problems” (D.
Meintz, B. Palmer, IDF&G, pers. com), transmission line access road (HEF U) associated
with IPC transmission lines, were identified as detrimental to mule deer management in
the sub-area (Appendix I). The impact associated with the transmission line access roads
centers on their facilitation of increased motor vehicle use of the area and the associated
stress to wintering and migrating animals. Other HEFs, associated with the localized
issues were recognized as impacting mule deer habitat in the sub-area. For example,
snowmobiling as high density recreation (HEF P) was recognized as a factor impacting
mule deer winter range habitat in the Pocatello area (Appendices H, J, and K).
5.2.2. South-central Idaho Sub-Area Mule Deer Habitat
Approximately 600,000 ha of mule deer habitat were identified in the Southcentral Idaho sub-area. Crucial winter range was delineated on 221,979 ha (38%),
192,274 ha as regular winter range, and 173,790 ha (30%) as important movement areas
(Table 5). BLM manages 282,466 ha of the delineated mule deer habitat in the sub-area
and privately owned land supports an additional 189,159 ha (Table 6). Mule deer habitat
was associated with 364,726 ha (65%) of shrubland cover types, 123,603 ha (22%)
grassland/herbaceous cover types, followed by 30,994 ha (6%) associated with
pasture/hay cover types (Table 7).
Depredation (HEF H) and social carrying capacity exceeded (HEF L) affect
almost 25% (65,944 ha) of the delineated habitat in this sub-area (Appendices I, K and
L.). Domestic livestock competition (HEF A), habitat loss or conversion from
agricultural practices (HEF K), detrimental effects of fire (HEF T), and urban sprawl
(HEF C) are important issues throughout the entire sub-area. Issues related to urban
sprawl are appearing in the Porter Creek drainage north and west of Boise and as far as
the South and Middle Forks of the Payette River drainage (Appendix K).
This sub-area includes the Boise Front and the Bennet Hills, further east, which
are considered in the top five mule deer winter range areas in Idaho (L. Nelson, IDF&G,
pers. com.) and of special concern. These areas are within Unit 45, which receives some
29
of the highest mule deer hunting demand in the state. The Boise Front continues to
experience the negative impacts of urban sprawl (HEF C), expansion of noxious weeds
(HEF A1), high-recreational activity (HEF P) and extensive wildfires (HEF T). All of
these events and conditions have negatively impacted the native shrub-steppe
communities and mule deer habitat.
5.2.3. West-central Idaho Sub-Area Mule Deer Habitat
In the West-central Idaho sub-area, 688,963 ha of mule deer habitat were
delineated, of which 329,231 ha (48%) were identified as crucial winter range, 289,625
ha (42%) as regular winter range, and 70,107 ha (10%) as important movement habitat
(Table 5). Private ownership accounted for 367,376 ha (53%) and BLM-managed lands
supported 219,393 ha (32%) of the mule deer habitat delineated in the sub-area (Table 6).
It is in this sub-area that terrain becomes mountainous, creating larger differences in
vegetation, snow depth, and temperature along an elevational gradient. This gradient
stimulates mule deer to move to lower elevations, which are typically privately owned.
NLCD cover types account for 676,499 ha of delineated mule deer habitat in the
sub-area of which 427, 927 ha (63%) were shrubland, 129,069 ha (20%) were
grassland/herbaceous cover types, and 88,185 ha (13%) were associated with evergreen
forest cover types (Table 7). Pasture/hay and small grain types were associated with
22,022 ha and 9,297 ha, respectively, for a combined 5% of the delineated mule deer
habitat in this sub-area.
Habitat effectiveness factors of concern in this sub-area include: domestic
livestock competition (HEF A), urban sprawl and habitat conversion (HEF C), and a lack
of adequate access to public lands (HEF I) (Appendix I). Encroachment of Douglas fir
into shrublands (HEF B) was identified as a public-land-related HEF. Noxious weed
invasion (HEF A1) was also identified as an important HEF on private and public lands.
Cheatgrass, medusahead and scotch thistle comprise the unwanted vegetation affecting
mule deer winter range in this sub-area.
5.2.4. Northeast Oregon Sub-Area Mule Deer Habitat
In the Northeast Oregon sub-area, 497,953 ha of mule deer habitat were
delineated. Crucial winter range habitat was delineated on 279,042 ha (56%) and regular
winter range on 218, 911 ha (44%) in the sub-area. No important movement areas were
delineated for mule deer in this sub-area (Table 5). Most delineated mule deer habitat,
303,318 ha (61%) is found on privately owned land. Public lands include 105,983 ha
(21%) of Forest Service-managed lands and 83,893 ha (17%) of BLM-managed lands
(Table 6). The NLCD shrubland cover type is associated with 289,011 ha (60%) of mule
deer habitat, evergreen forest cover type with 92,082 ha (19%), and grassland/herbaceous
cover type with 63,865 ha (13%). Pasture/hay (30,050 ha) and small grain (8,596 ha)
30
cover types were associated with the remaining 8% of the delineated mule deer habitat
(Table 7).
Depredation (HEF H), social carrying capacity exceeded (HEF L), and public
land availability (HEF D) were the most important HEFs recognized in the sub-area
(Appendix J). Other factors like domestic livestock competition (HEF A) on private
lands and urban sprawl (HEF C) were identified for this sub-area (Appendix I). Though
these HEFs apply most significantly to elk, they are also relevant to mule deer in this subarea (W. VanDyke, ODF&W, pers.com.). These HEFs are of particular concern in the
PineValley, Keating, North and South Sumpter, East Beulah and Lookout Mountain Big
Game Management Units (Figure 4). In Snake River, Imnaha and Chesnimnus Wildlife
Management Areas, where there is more public land, predation by mountain lions
(identified as HEF H) becomes a more significant issue. In areas where public lands are
more prevalent, predators can reach higher densities. Predators are more likely to be held
at low densities by landowners where there is a lot of private land, as in the southern parts
of this sub-area (Pat Matthews, ODF&W, pers.com.).
5.2.5. Hells Canyon Sub-Area Mule Deer Habitat
In the Hells Canyon sub-area, 250,911 ha of mule deer habitat were delineated.
Crucial winter range accounted for 135,282 ha (54%) and regular winter range for
115,629 ha (46%). Resource specialists did not delineate important movement areas in
this sub-area (Table 5). Forty percent of the delineated mule deer habitat in the sub-area
is located on Forest Service-managed lands (99,224 ha), followed by private land with
78,908 ha (31%), and BLM-managed lands at 49,996 ha (20%)(Table 6). This sub-area
has a higher proportion of public lands than any of the other four sub-areas. The
shrubland cover type represented 127,044 ha (53%) of delineated mule deer habitat in
this sub-area. The second and third most important cover types were 63,283 ha (21%) in
the grassland/ herbaceous and 44,932 ha (19%) in the evergreen forest cover types
(Table 7).
The Hells Canyon sub-area was identified by a number of the resource specialists
as having the most crucial big game winter habitat in the study area. Jeff Rohlman, Idaho
Fish and Game biologist, explained that deer and elk persist throughout much of the
surrounding area based on the capacity of the Snake River Canyon to provide winter
range and support these populations.
This sub-area is the center of many IPC facilities and activities associated with the
HCHC. A number of IPC activity and facility-related HEFs were identified in this subarea. They were: IPC transmission line access (HEF U), invasion of noxious weeds due
to IPC (HEF X), and undesired effect of water levels on habitat and animal behavior
(HEF Z)(Appendices H & K). The first two factors relate to IPC transmission lines that
act as a conduit for humans and noxious weeds onto mule deer habitat in the sub-area.
Excessive human access can be very detrimental to mule deer populations, especially as it
relates to disturbances that result in increased energy expenditure on wintering animals
(G. Keister and W. VanDyke, ODF&W, pers. com.). Undesired effect of water levels on
31
habitat and animal behavior (HEF Z) relates to the physical dimensions of the Brownlee
Reservoir. Resource specialists believe that the width of this reservoir hampers mule
deer migration and may cause hypothermia of animals attempting to cross in the winter
(G. Keister, W. Van Dyke, ODF&W, and J. Rohlman, IDF&G, pers.com.) (Appendix K).
Domestic livestock competition (HEF A), depredation (H), public land availability
(HEF D), and social carrying capacity exceeded (HEF L) were also identified as
important factors impacting mule deer winter range in the sub-area (Appendix J).
5.3. Mountain Goat Habitat Data
Resource specialists were asked to delineate winter range, occupied and
potential, and important movement areas (Figure 8). Most of the habitat delineated in the
study area represents year-round habitat. Brandborg (1955) noted that the goat
populations he studied in Idaho and Montana showed evidence of winter to summer
range migrations. In many cases this movement was an elevational movement within a
single mountain range, along well-defined trails. Resource specialists did not identify
any important movement areas in the study area. Habitat currently occupied by mountain
goats in the study area totaled 53,296 ha. Another 193,873 ha were delineated as
potential mountain goat winter range habitat (Table 8). Resource specialists distinguish
these areas as having adequate mountain goat habitat, of quality and quantity, but
mountain goats do not currently occupy them. No one particular factor is known to
preclude goat occupation of this potential habitat. A number of factors currently affect
the complete occupation of potential mountain goat habitat in the study area. They are a
lack of suitable quality winter habitat, habitat succession and plant maturation as it
pertains to shrub communities in Hells Canyon, inbreeding depression, dispersed
recreation in the Hells Canyon sub-area and that current populations have not reached a
population density and distribution to occupy these areas as yet (Matthew and Coggins
1994, Jeff Rohlman, IDF&G, pers. comm., Tim Schommer, USFS, pers. com.).
Resource specialists identified all delineated mountain goat habitat as crucial habitat.
Archeological records identified mountain goats as inhabitants of the Hells
Canyon area. By the mid-1900s mountain goats in Idaho were estimated at fewer than
3,000 animals and were centered in the central mountains of Idaho (Brandborg 1955).
Unregulated hunting was the major cause of mountain goat extirpation (Kuck 1977, Kuck
1986). Mountain goats are currently present in Hells Canyon due to successful
transplants in the early 1960s to late 1980s (Coggins et al. 1996) (T. Schommer,
Wallowa-Whitman, National Forest, pers. com.). Within the study area today, mountain
goats are mostly confined to the Seven Devils Mountain Range of Idaho and Eagle Cap
Wilderness, Hurricane Ridge, Chief Joseph Mountain, Goat Mountain, and the Mule
Peak areas of the Wallowa Mountains in Oregon (T. Schommer, Wallowa-Whitman,
National Forest, pers. com.).
Mountain goats inhabit subalpine or alpine mountain zones. Grassy slide-rock
slopes, alpine meadows, and rocky ridgetops, along with a variety of other plant
communities, make up mountain goat habitat (Saunders 1955, Brandborg 1955). Adept
32
at surviving on a variety of plants, mountain goats have been documented eating grasses,
forbs, sedges, mosses, lichens, shrubs, and conifer trees. Their dietary shift to conifers
and shrubs (e.g., willow, serviceberry, dogwood, dwarf birch [Betula glandulosa],
mountain mahogany, and conifers ) occurs primarily in the winter when other plants are
less available and nutritious (Brandborg 1955, Chadwick 1983). Bunchgrasses, such as
bluebunch wheatgrass, remain important winter foods when available.
5.3.1. West-central Idaho Sub-Area Mountain Goat Habitat
Only potential mountain goat habitat, 2,683 ha, were delineated in the Westcentral Idaho sub-area. This potential habitat is an extension and is immediately adjacent
to the potential and occupied mountain goat habitat in the Hells Canyon sub-area, in the
Seven Devils. Close to half, 1,211 ha (45%) of the potential goat habitat in this sub-area
is associated with the evergreen forest cover type, 678 ha (25%) are associated with the
grassland/herbaceous cover type, and 578 ha (22%) are associated with the shrubland
cover types. This sub-area does not currently have any occupied mountain goat habitat.
5.3.2. Northeast Oregon Sub-Area Mountain Goat Habitat
Potential mountain goat habitat was delineated on 151,151 ha (82%) of the land in
the Northeast Oregon sub-area. Another 32,913 ha of occupied mountain goat habitat
were delineated in this sub-area. The Forest Service manages more than 180,000 ha
(95%) of both potential and occupied mountain goat habitat in this sub-area (Table 9).
Occupied mountain goat habitat was primarily associated with evergreen forest at 13,914
ha (43%), shrubland with 6,067 ha (19%), and grassland/herbaceous cover types with
2,001 ha (6%) (Table 10). Evergreen forests, shrubland, and bare rocks were the three
most commonly occurring potential habitat cover types in this sub-area (Table 10).
The status of mountain goats as indigenous or exotic to Oregon has been well
disputed (Matthews and Coggins 1994). Anecdotal reports, coupled with archeological
findings provide a strong case for mountain goats being considered indigenous to
Northeast Oregon. Four transplants to the Wallowa Mountains in Oregon are responsible
for the herds currently present (Matthews and Coggins 1994, Coggins et al. 1996).
Despite attempts to reestablish healthy mountain goat herds back into the Wallowa
Mountains, populations remain stifled. A lack of suitable winter range was considered
one of the major factors limiting population growth, along with inbreeding depression
(Matthew and Coggins 1994).
5.3.3. Hells Canyon Sub-Area Mountain Goat Habitat
Approximately, 20,000 ha of current mountain goat habitat were delineated in the
Hells Canyon sub-area. Another, 40,000 ha of potential mountain goat habitat were also
delineated. The Forest Service manages almost 100% of the delineated mountain goat
33
habitat (currently occupied and potential) in this sub-area (Table 9). Less than 1% of
potential habitat occurs on state land, and another 2% of potential mountain goat habitat
is located on private land. The majority (61%) of currently occupied mountain goat
habitat, 12,470 ha, is associated with evergreen forests. Another 4,279 ha (21%) were
associated with shrubland and 3,406 ha with grassland/herbaceous cover types
(Table 10). Evergreen forests (21,033 ha), shrubland (9,203 ha) and
grassland/herbaceous (8,525 ha) were the three most commonly occurring cover types
associated with potential mountain goat habitat in this sub-area (Table 10).
Despite earlier noted concerns with a lack of adequate quality winter range, the
following HEFs were the only factors identified as limiting mountain goats in the study
area. Jeff Rohlman (IDF&G) recognized habitat succession and maturation (HEF B) as
they pertain to maturing shrub communities in Hells Canyon as an important habitatlimiting factor for goats. And Tim Schommer identified dispersed recreation (HEF O), as
affecting potential mountain goat habitat in the Hells Canyon sub-area
5.4. Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep Habitat Data
Key resource specialists were asked to delineate, for Rocky Mountain bighorn
sheep, occupied habitat and important movement areas. Most of the habitat delineated in
the study area represents year-round habitat since most herds move seasonally along an
elevational strata within a single mountain range. Most habitat effectiveness factors were
assigned to herd units by resource specialists. In addition, GeoData Services Inc. was
asked through the HCHC relicensing project to rerun a potential habitat model previously
developed by Idaho Fish and Game and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
(Cassirer et al. 1997).
Occupied Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep habitat (year-round habitat and
important movement areas) totaled 217,214 ha in four sub-areas in the HCHC study area
(Figure 9). Ninety-eight percent (183,899 ha) of the occupied year-round habitat was
evenly distributed between the Hells Canyon and Northeast Oregon sub-areas. Less than
one percent of Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep habitat occupied in the study area was
located in the West-central and Southeast sub-areas. All of the total 30,332 ha of
important movement habitat was delineated in the Hells Canyon and Northeast Oregon
sub-areas (Table 11).
The historic occurrence of bighorn sheep in the Hells Canyon area is well
documented (Smith 1954, Buechner 1960, Coggins and Matthews 1996, Cassirer et al.
1997). The pattern of over exploitation, introduction of fatal diseases associated with
domestic livestock and human encroachment in the Hells Canyon area mimics the history
of wild sheep herds across the entire West (Smith 1954). In an effort to restore bighorn
sheep populations back to historic numbers and allow for hunting, wild sheep from other
western locations were introduced into the Hells Canyon area. Currently, 14 populations
are recognized within Hells Canyon. Ten populations were established through
transplants and four by dispersal. The populations are estimated at about 700 bighorn
34
sheep, which reside on both sides of the Snake River around Hells Canyon (Cassirer et al.
1997). Outbreaks of diseases such as Pasturella associated pneumonia as recently as
1995 still affect the Hells Canyon herds and hamper reestablishment efforts in Hells
Canyon (Cassirer et al. 1996).
A description of Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep habitat requirements is like
reading a description of the Hells Canyon area: steep and sharply dissected canyons,
extensive perennial bunchgrass communities, scattered deciduous shrubs, and mild
winters (Cassirer et al. 1996). Tilton and Willard (1982) noted that bighorn sheep were
not random in their use of winter habitats, but selected open forest and
grassland/shrublands near escape terrain of cliffs, and where snow accumulations were
not extreme. Bighorn sheep are highly mobile. The unhindered movement areas are
critical to herds in pursuit of seasonal habitats, as well as a necessity for dispersal and the
genetic robustness of herds (Geist 1971, Berger 1990). There is some dispersal of
animals between herds, as mentioned earlier (Cassirer et al. 1997).
Potential summer, winter and lambing habitat defined by the model are illustrated
in Figures 10, 11, and 12, respectively (Cassirer et al. 1997). Over one millions acres
were modeled as potential Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep habitat in three of the subareas of the study area (Table 14). A total of 521,834 ha of potential Rocky Mountain
bighorn sheep summer habitat were modeled in the study area (Table 14). Close to half,
or 254,128 ha of potential bighorn sheep summer habitat are located on Forest Service
lands, and another 175,443 ha are located on privately owned lands (Table 15). The
NLCD shrubland cover type is associated with 334,091 ha (64%) of potential summer
habitat and grassland/herbaceous cover type is associated with 154,783 ha (30%)
(Table 16). A total of 429,569 ha of potential Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep winter
habitat was modeled (Table 14). This potential winter habitat is almost evenly divided
between Forest Service-managed lands (171,444 ha), and privately owned lands (169,079
ha) (Table 17). The NLCD shrubland cover type is associated with 291,384 ha (68%) of
potential winter habitat and grassland/herbaceous cover type is associated with 130,496
ha (30%) (Table 18). A total of 194,676 ha of potential Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep
lambing habitat was modeled (Table 14). Most (68%) of potential lambing habitat was
located on Forest Service (131,182 ha) (Table 19). The NLCD shrubland cover type was
associated with 75,511 ha (39%), evergreen forest cover type with 65,187 ha (33%), and
grassland/herbaceous cover type with 43,885 ha (23%) of modeled potential lambing
habitat (Table 20).
A number of habitat effectiveness factors associated with bighorn sheep habitat in
the study area were identified (Appendix H). They included domestic livestock
competition (HEF A) particularly on private land. The concern for disease transmission
between wild bighorn sheep and domestic sheep resulted in identification of HEF A2 and
was often represented by assigning HEF C and HEF A to herd units. This concern was
identified for the Redbird, Big Canyon, Black Butte, and Upper Hells Canyon herd units,
where domestic sheep are on private lands next to wild sheep populations. Private
domestic sheep herds are out of the management control of wild bighorn sheep managers.
Noxious weeds (HEF A1 and HEF X) were consistently identified as a habitat-limiting
35
factor in all herd units (Big Canyon, Redbird, Muir Creek, Black Butte, Lost Prairie/Mnt.
View herds, Upper and Lower Hells Canyon, McGraw, Sheep Mountain, and Wenaha
herds). Noxious weed invasion related to IPC activity (HEF X) was specifically
identified in the Imnaha herd area (F. Cassirer, IDF&G, pers. com.). Urban sprawl and
habitat conversion (HEF C) was identified as an issue for the Wenaha, Lower Hells
Canyon, Redbird and Lost Prairie/Mt. View herds. The concern with HEF C is both the
loss of native habitat to human development and the inability of wildlife managers to
control activities on privately owned lands that are unfavorable to wild bighorn sheep
population management.
5.4.1. Southeast Idaho Sub-Area Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep Habitat
Delineated occupied bighorn sheep habitat in the Southeast Idaho sub-area is
associated with an introduced herd of California bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis)
(R.Smith, IDF&G, pers. com.). This habitat area of 1,231 ha, is completely disjunct from
other bighorn sheep and their habitat within the study area. This herd and its habitat are
not managed as part of the Hells Canyon sheep population (Cassirer et al. 1997). No
potential bighorn sheep habitat was identified in this sub-area. No potential Rocky
Mountain bighorn sheep habitat was modeled in this sub-area.
5.4.2. West-central Idaho Sub-Area Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep Habitat
Approximately 1,752 ha of occupied Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep habitat was
delineated in this sub-area (Table 11). The majority of this habitat, 1,271 ha (73%), is
located on privately owned land. Another 437 ha (25%) of occupied Rocky Mountain
bighorn sheep habitat is located on BLM lands (Table 12). The NLCD shrubland cover
type is associated with 1,213 ha (70%) of occupied Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep
habitat in this sub-area. Grassland/herbaceous cover type was associated with 293 ha
(17%) of occupied Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep habitat (Table 13).
A total of 229,862 ha of potential Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep habitat was
modeled in this sub-area (Table 14). Summer sheep habitat constituted the greatest
amount of potential habitat, with 105,417 ha, followed by winter sheep habitat with
87,970 ha, and lambing with 36,475 ha. The majority of potential summer and winter
habitats were located on private lands, 54,971 ha (52%) and 54,280 ha (62%),
respectively (Table 15 and 17). Public lands (BLM and Forest Service) supported
another 45,309 ha of potential summer sheep habitat and 29,306 ha of potential winter
sheep habitat in this sub-area (Table 15 and 17). Two-thirds of the potential summer and
winter sheep habitats modeled in this sub-area were associated with the NLCD shrubland
cover type (Table 16 and 18). Of the 36,475 ha of potential lambing habitat modeled in
this sub-area, 17,091 ha were located on Forest Service lands and 12,639 ha on privately
owned lands (Table 19). Three NLCD cover types, shrubland with 11,765 ha, evergreen
forest with 15,635 ha, and grassland/herbaceous with 8,168 ha, were associated with 98%
of this potential habitat class (Table 20).
36
5.4.3. Northeast Oregon Sub-Area Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep Habitat
Approximately 109,688 ha of occupied Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep habitat
was delineated in this sub-area (Table 11). This represents close to 50% of the total
occupied bighorn sheep habitat in the entire study area. Currently occupied year-round
range accounts for 93,154 ha and important movement areas account for 16,534 ha. The
majority of this habitat, 65,346 ha (60%) is located on Forest Service lands. Another
20,097 ha (18%) of occupied Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep habitat is located on
privately owned lands (Table 12). The NLCD shrubland cover type is associated with
50,217 ha (46%) of occupied Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep habitat in this sub-area.
Evergreen forest cover type was associated with 36,320 ha (34%) and
grassland/herbaceous cover type was associated with 12,292 ha (14%) of the occupied
Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep habitat in this sub-area (Table 13).
A total of 526,614 ha of potential Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep habitat was
modeled in this sub-area (Table 14). Summer sheep habitat constituted the greatest
amount of potential habitat, with 246,274 ha, followed by winter sheep habitat with
183,906 ha, and lambing with 96,434 ha. The majority of potential summer sheep habitat
was located on Forest Service lands, 143,817 ha (60%) (Table 15). Potential winter
sheep habitat was more evenly divided between Forest Service managed lands, with
87,602 ha, and privately owned lands, with 70,827 ha (Table 17). Two-thirds or more of
the potential summer and winter sheep habitats modeled in this sub-area were associated
with the NLCD shrubland cover type (Table 16 and 18). Of the 94,922 ha of potential
lambing habitat modeled in this sub-area, 73,979 ha were located on Forest Service lands
and 16,493 ha on privately owned lands (Table 19). Three NLCD cover types, shrubland
with 37,163 ha, evergreen forest with 34,123 ha, and grassland/herbaceous with 17,052
ha, were associated with 92% of this potential habitat class (Table 20).
5.4.4. Hells Canyon Sub-Area Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep Habitat
Approximately 104,543 ha of occupied Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep habitat
was delineated in this sub-area (Table 11). Currently occupied year-round habitat
accounts for 90,745 ha and important movement areas account for 13,798 ha. The
majority of this habitat, 58,998 ha (56%) is located on Forest Service lands. Another
21,133 ha (20%) of occupied Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep habitat is located on
privately owned lands (Table 12). The NLCD shrubland cover type is associated with
46,890 ha (45%) of occupied Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep habitat in this sub-area.
Evergreen forest cover type was associated with 24,599 ha (24%) and
grassland/herbaceous cover type was associated with 30,309 ha (29%) of the occupied
Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep habitat in this sub-area (Table 13).
A total of 389,603 ha of potential Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep habitat was
modeled in this sub-area (Table 14). The acreage of summer sheep habitat was slightly
higher, at 170,143 ha, than potential winter sheep habitat with 157,693 ha, followed by
potential lambing habitat with 61,767 ha. The majority of the potential summer sheep
habitat (67%) and potential winter sheep habitat (65%) was located on public lands
37
(BLM and Forest Service) (Table 15 and 17). Approximately, two-thirds of the potential
summer and winter sheep habitats modeled in this sub-area were associated with the
NLCD shrubland cover type (Table 16 and 18). Of the 61,287 ha of potential lambing
habitat modeled in this sub-area, 40,111 ha were located on Forest Service lands, 9,689
ha were located on BLM lands, and 9,492 ha on privately owned lands (Table 19). Three
NLCD cover types, shrubland with 26,583 ha, evergreen forest with 15,429 ha, and
grassland/herbaceous with 18,665 ha, were associated with 98% of this potential habitat
class (Table 20).
6. MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS
6.1. Southeast Idaho Sub-Area
Elk and mule deer winter range of statewide importance are located in the
Southeast Idaho sub-area of the HCHC study area (Appendix H). For example, mule
deer winter range just south of Hailey, Idaho, in this sub-area is recognized as the secondmost important deer winter range in the state (B. Palmer and D. Meints, IDF&G., pers.
com.). Most of the habitat and herds in this sub-area are managed for quality elk and
mule deer hunting opportunities. Urban sprawl and habitat conversion between Pocatello
and Inkom was recognized as an important HEF. In many areas urbanization was
considered “out of control.” However, resource specialists recommended that purchase
or protection (e.g., conservation easements) of private land that are important big game
winter range and important movement areas was still a viable mitigation measure.
Medusahead and cheatgrass were both recognized as impacting the biodiversity,
quality and quantity of important big game winter range throughout the area. Cheatgrass,
as a fuel of repeated large fires, has resulted in the widespread loss of sagebrush-steppe
communities. Control of noxious weeds and unwanted annual grasses on private and
public lands is an important management recommendation for this sub-area. Reducing
annual grasses will also enhance sagebrush-steppe communities by allowing fire to return
to more normal regimes. Juniper encroachment into shrubland communities was
mentioned as having a negative impact to elk winter range in this sub-area. However, it
was also recognized that junipers are an important component of mule deer winter range
as security cover. The situation is not deemed serious enough to recommend any
management actions yet.
Daryl Meints (IDF&G) stated that the most effective habitat management practice
to benefit elk in this sub-area would be aspen enhancement (HEF B – habitat
succession/maturation), to improve calving habitat. Most of the aspen-elk calving habitat
occurs on higher elevation ranges away from the Snake River and outside the HCHC
study area. It was recommended that, on private Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)
lands, stands that have become monocultures be reseeded to enhance the forb and desired
grass components. Many CRP lands provide important transition habitat for elk and mule
38
deer between summer and winter ranges. No IPC-related HEFs were recognized as
important in the sub-area, though there are a few transmission line access points that
could be managed to better serve IDF&G big game objectives.
6.2. South-central Sub-area
This sub-area supports important elk and mule deer winter range and herds that
are managed to provide quality hunting opportunities (L.Nelson , IDF&G, pers. com.).
For example, big game winter ranges in the areas of the Boise Front, Bennet Hills, Black
Creek and Danskins are some of the most important mule deer habitat in the state,
supporting over 25,000 animals. These ranges unfortunately are in the heart of the fastest
growing community in the state of Idaho. Urban sprawl and habitat conversion are the
most critical issues for elk and mule deer management in the area. Loss of important
winter habitat around the Boise Front has led to significant depredation problems on
neighboring agricultural lands. Purchase or protection of private lands for wildlife
purposes will reduce depredation issues and provide management options in areas where
private lands dominate the landscape. This is of particular importance for elk and mule
deer winter range, which often occurs on private land. A number of properties and
general locations of private land, that are winter range keystones, were suggested for
protection or purchase (Appendix K).
Control of cheatgrass and noxious weeds was viewed as a critical management
recommendation for the area. Sagebrush-steppe communities are diminishing
significantly as a result of fire regime changes in the area fueled by cheatgrass. Shrub
replanting will be necessary since removal of cheatgrass alone will not bring back
sagebrush, bitterbrush and other shrubs critical to big game winter habitat. No significant
IPC-related HEFs were identified for this sub-area, though there are a few transmission
line access points that could be managed to better serve IDF&G big game objectives.
6.3. West-central Sub-Area
Big game winter ranges along the Weiser, Payette and Salmon rivers provide
important crucial elk and mule deer habitat. These ranges unfortunately are along the
fringes of expanding communities in the state of Idaho. Urban sprawl and habitat
conversion are the most paramount issues facing the state relative to management of elk
and mule deer for quality herds and hunting opportunities. There is a substantial public
land component in this sub-area. However, many wintering big game that move to lowelevation private land are not protected from this issue. Private lands recommended for
purchase or protection for wildlife purposes include areas in the Salmon River drainage,
around Cascade, Idaho, and in Hog, Scott and Jenkin creeks, north of Weiser, Idaho
(Appendix K).
Control of cheatgrass, medusahead and scotch thistle was viewed as a critical
management recommendation for the area. Competition with domestic livestock,
particularly on low elevation private lands, is an important issue in the sub-area.
39
Purchase or protection of private lands for wildlife purposes was again recognized as the
most appropriate mitigation for this factor. There are opportunities on public lands to
reintroduce fire into dry pine communities and along south-facing shrubfields to
reestablish more mixed-age stands of shrubs and understory vegetation. No significant
IPC related HEFs were identified for this sub-area.
6.4. Northeast Oregon Sub-Area
The Northeast Oregon sub-area historically provided significant elk and mule deer
habitat relative to other areas. However, more recently, the state has not been able to
manage elk and mule deer at State Management Objectives due to current land use
patterns and ownership. Depredation, social intolerance, and ultimately insufficient
public lands to support desired elk and mule deer populations are paramount issues to
ODF&W in this sub-area. Conflicts between big game populations and private
landowners are mostly focused on private lands in farming or agricultural use, and not so
much with urban sprawl. Noxious weeds were recognized as a problem, but again the
management of weeds is complicated by the fact that so much of the winter range land
base is privately owned. No significant IPC-related HEFs were identified for this sub
area.
Recreation relative to mountain goat habitat in this sub-area was an acknowledged
HEF on public lands (T. Schommer, Wallowa Whitman National Forest, pers. com.). No
management recommendations were made specific to this issue. The Wallowa-Whitman
National Forest, which manages this mountain goat habitat is revising its Forest Plan,
which is the appropriate and most effective vehicle for such recommendations
6.5. Hells Canyon Sub-Area
Of the winter range throughout all of the HCHC study area, Oregon and Idaho state
wildlife biologists believe that the Snake River Canyon is some of the most crucial winter
range for all four big game species in their respective states. Biologists note that the
Snake River Canyon offered some of the lowest elevation winter range habitat in the
area. This low-elevation winter range was where animals moved in the most severe
winters. Although some of this crucial winter habitat has been lost under impounded
pools behind hydroelectric dams in the canyon, the area is still crucial to elk and mule
deer due to its low-elevation shrubland and bunchgrass communities. Oregon and Idaho
State wildlife biologists noted that the Hells Canyon area provides important habitat to
surrounding herds and populations particularly in severe winters.
Numerous IPC-related HEFs were identified for this area, along with appropriate
mitigation measures. These factors include undesired noxious weed invasions, human
access and impingement of animal movement around the HCHC dams, and especially at
the Brownlee pool area. Direct mitigation of these factors include control of noxious
weeds through spraying and use of biological agents, and control of access along IPCmanaged roads. Other management or mitigation measures are less directly related to the
40
HEFs but are viewed as compensation for losses that cannot be directly mitigated.
Protection or purchase of any private lands in the canyon was recognized as the most
important mitigation measure that could be applied in this sub-area. This measure would
mitigate many issues in the area, including control of domestic livestock uses
inappropriate to big game management objectives, control of weeds and undesired plants,
and prevention of direct loss or conversion of winter range habitat.
Relative to the management of Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep habitat in the area
the removal of domestic livestock, domestic sheep in particular, is one of the most
important measures that could be taken to reestablish wild sheep. Domestic sheep
removal would mitigate a number of HEFs such as competition for vegetation and the
transmittal of diseases fatal to bighorn sheep. There are currently a number of private
domestic sheep and goat herds adjacent to Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep herds that are
pertinent to this mitigation suggestion. Where possible, it is recommended that these
private properties be purchased or protected for wildlife purposes. Four domestic sheep
allotments, administered by the Payette National Forest are also considered a conflict
with the restoration of wild Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep; they are the Snake
River/Indian Creek, Deep Creek, Eccles Mountain, and the Curren Mountain allotments.
Attempts have been and continue to be made to work with the Forest and permittees to
reduce potential conflicts between domestic and wild sheep. Again the most appropriate
and most effective means of handling this issue is through the appropriate national forest
and their planning process. Appropriate private and public lands that should be
considered in mitigation of impacts to Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep can be more
clearly identified through the use of the potential Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep maps
and data (Figures 10, 11, 12).
7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation wishes to acknowledge the contributions of
data and time of Francis Cassirer, Jay Crenshaw, Daryl Meints, Lou Nelson, Bruce
Palmer, Jeff Rohlman, Gregg Servheen, Randy Smith, and Tim Shelton of the Idaho
Department of Fish and Game; Todd Calloway, Vic Coggins, Colleen Fagan, Milton Hill,
George Keister, Pat Matthews, Ken Rutherford, and Walt Van Dyke of the Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife; Craig Johnson, Paul Makela, Dorothy Mason, and Gary
Wright of the Bureau of Land Management; Steve Bouffard of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, and Linda McEwan, Tim Schommer, and Lon Schultz of the U.S. Forest
Service. The contributions from these key resource specialists were crucial to meeting
the study objectives. Dan Pletcher and Jack Lyon reviewed the study plan and provided
meaningful recommendations.
Ken Wall, Robin Wall, and Joe Grigsby of Geodata Services, Inc. provided all of the
Geographic Information System (GIS) and data support for this project. They were
developed all of the supporting information for the mapping sessions, gathered and
integrated all GIS layers needed to accomplish the project, performed all of the data
analysis, and produced all of the GIS products for this project.
41
8. LITERATURE REFERENCED
Adams, A.W. 1982. Pgs. 301-321 in J.W. Thomas and D.W. Toweill, editors. Elk of
North America: ecology and management. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, PA.
Ashworth, W. 1977. Hells Canyon, the deepest gorge on earth. Hawthorn Books, Inc.
New York, NY. 246 p.
Austin, D.D. and P.J. Urness. 1983. Overwinter forage selections by mule deer on
seeded big sagebrush-grass range. J. Wildl. Manage. 47(4): 1203-1207.
Bartman, R.M., A.W. Alldredge, and P.H. Neil. 1982. Evaluation of winter food choices
by tame deer. J. Wildl. Manage. 46:807-812,
Bedanuh, D.J. 1992. The complex ecology of weeds, grazing and wildlife. Western
Wildlands 18: 6-11.
Berger, Joel. 1990. Persistence of different-sized populations: an empirical assessment
of rapid extinctions in bighorn sheep. Conservation Biology Vol. 4(1): 91-98.
Bodurtha, T.S., J.M. Peek, and J.L. Lauer. 1989. Mule deer habitat use related to
succession in a bunchgrass community. J. Wildl. Manage. 53(2): 314-319.
Brandborg, Stewart M. 1955. Life history and management of the mountain goat in
Idaho. Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game, Wildl. Bull. No. 2, 142 p.
Brooks, Rob, Cindy S. Swanson, and John Duffield. 1991. Total economic value of elk
in Montana: an emphasis on hunting values. Pgs. 186-189 in A.G. Christensen,
L.J. Lyon, and T.N. Lonner, comps. Proceedings of a symposium on - Elk
vulnerability; April 10 –12, 1991; MSU, Bozeman, MT. 330 p.
Brown, C.G. 1992. Movement and migration patterns of mule deer in southeastern
Idaho. J. Wildl. Manage. 56(2): 246-253.
Buechner, H.K. 1960. The bighorn sheep in the United States, its past, present and
future. Wildlife Monogr., No. 4.
Cassirer, F., L.E. Oldenburg, V. L. Coggins, P. Fowler, K. Rudolph. D.L. Hunter and
W.J. Foreyt. 1996. Overview and preliminary analysis of a bighorn sheep dieoff, Hells Canyon 1995-1996. Pgs 78-86 in Kevin Hurley, Dale Reed, and Nancy
Wild, comps. Northern wild sheep and goat council, proceedings of the 10th
biennial symposium. Silverthorne, Colorado.
42
Cassirer, F., J. Beecham, V. Coggins, D. Whittaker, P. Fowler, R. Johnson, K. Martin, T.
Schommer, E. Taylor, A. Thomas, D. Gilchrist, and L. Oldenburg. 1997.
Restoration of bighorn sheep to Hells Canyon. Idaho Department of Fish and
Game, Lewiston, ID. 60 p.
Chadwick, Douglas H. 1983. A beast the color of winter – the mountain goat observed.
Sierra Club Books. 208 p.
Christensen, A.G., L.J. Lyon, and T.N. Lonner, comps. 1991. Proceedings of elk
vulnerability symposium. MSU., Bozeman. 330 p.
Coggins, Victor L. and Patrick E. Matthews. 1996. Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep in
Oregon, history and present status. Pgs. 87-92 in Kevin Hurley, Dale Reed, and
Nancy Wild, comps. Northern wild sheep and goat council, proceedings of the
10th biennial symposium. Silverthorne, Colorado.
Coggins, Victor L. and Patrick E. Matthews. 1996. History of transplanting mountain
goats and mountain sheep - Oregon Pgs. 190-195 in Kevin Hurley, Dale Reed,
and Nancy Wild, comps. Northern wild sheep and goat council, proceedings of
the 10th biennial symposium. Silverthorne, Colorado.
Constan, K.J. 1972. Winter foods and range use of three species of ungulates. J. Wildl.
Manage. 36:1068-1076.
Duffield, John W. 1991. Elk economics: implications for managing elk security. Pgs.
55-59 in A.G. Christensen, L.J. Lyon, and T.N. Lonner, comps. Proceedings of a
symposium on - Elk vulnerability; April 10 –12, 1991; Montana State University,
Bozeman, MT. 330 p.
Eberhardt, L.E., E.E. Hanson, and L.L. Cadwell. 1984. Movement and activity patterns
of mule deer in the sagebrush-steppe region. J. Mammal. 65:404-409.
Gilbert, P.F., O.C. Wallmo, and R.B. Gill. 1970. Effects of snow depth on mule deer in
Middle Park, Colorado. J. Wildl. Manage. 34:15-23.
Griffith, B., and J.M. Peek. 1989. Mule deer use of seral stage and habitat type in
bitterbrush communities. J. Wildl. Manage. 53:636-642.
Judge, Robert M. and Joseph E. Podgor, Jr. 1983. Use of the Delphi in a citizens
participation project. Environmental Management, Vol. 7 (5) 399-400.
Keay, J.A. and J.M. Peek. 1980. Relationships between fires and winter habitat of deer
in Idaho. J. Wildl. Manage. 44(2): 372-380.
43
Knick, S.T. and J.T. Rottenberry. 1997. Landscape characteristics of disturbed shrub
steppe habitats in southwestern Idaho (USA). Landscape Ecology 12: 287-297.
Kuck, Lonn. 1977. Status and management of the mountain goat in Idaho. Pgs. 37-40 in
W. Samuel and W.G. Macgregor, eds. Proceedings of the first international
mountain goat symposium. Kalspell, MT.
Kuck, Lonn. 1986. Mountain goat hunting strategies in Idaho. Pgs. 63-67 in Gayle
Joslin, ed. Northern wild sheep and goat council, proceedings of the 5th biennial
symposium. Missoula, MT.
Kufeld, R.C. 1973. Foods eaten by Rocky Mountain elk. J. Range Manage. 26:
106-113.
Mackie, R.J. 1970. Range ecology and relations of mule deer, elk and cattle in the
Missouri River Breaks, Montana. Wildlife Monographs 20.
Mackie, R.J., K.L. Hamlin, and D.F. Pac. 1982. Mule deer. Pgs 862-877 in J.A.
Chapman and G.A. Feldhamer, eds. Wild mammals of North America. John
Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.
Matthews, Patrick E. and Victor L. Coggins. 1994. Status and history of mountain goats
in Oregon. Pgs 69-74 in Margo Pybus, ed. Northern wild sheep and goat council,
proceedings of the 9t biennial symposium. Cranbrook, British Columbia, Can.
Palmer, Tim. 1991. The Snake River window to the west. Island Press, Washington
D.C. 322 p.
Peters, Erin F. and Stephen C. Bunting. 1994. Fire conditions pre-and post-occurrence
of annual grasses on the Snake River Plain. Pgs. 31-36 in Stephen B. Monsen and
Stanley G. Kitchen, comps. Proceedings – ecology and management of annual
rangelands; 1992 May 18-21; Boise, ID. Gen. Tech. Rep INT-GTR-313. Ogden,
UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research
Station. 416 p.
Picton, Harold D. 1991. A brief history of elk: the hunt, research and management. Pgs.
10-15 in A.G. Christensen, L.J. Lyon, and T.N. Lonner, comps. Proceedings of a
symposium on - Elk vulnerability; April 10 –12, 1991; Montana State University,
Bozeman, MT. 330 p.
Quigley, Thomas, and Sylvia J. Arbelbide. Tech. Eds. 1997. An assessment of
ecosystem components in the interior Columbia basin and portions of the Klamath
and Great Basins: Volume 2. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-405. Portland, OR Pg.
337 to 1055.
44
Riitters, K.H., J.D. Wickham, J.E. Vogelmann, and K.B. Jones. 2000. National landcover pattern data. Ecology, 81: 604, Ecological Archives
Saunders, J. K. 1955. Food habits and range use of the Rocky Mountain goat in the
Crazy Mountains. J. Wildl. Manage. 19:429-437.
Schuster, E. G., S. S. Frissell, E. E. Baker, and R. S. Loveless, Jr. 1985. The Delphi
method: application to elk habitat quality. USDA, Forest Service, INT- 353.
Ogden, UT. 28 p.
Smith, D.R. 1954. The bighorn in Idaho, its status, life history and management. Idaho
Fish and Game Dept., Wildlife Bulletin 1. 154 p.
Stewart, G. and A.C. Hull. 1949. Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum L.) – an ecological
intruder in southern Idaho. Ecology 30:58-70.
Telfer, E.S. 1978. Cervid distribution, browse and snow cover in Alberta. J. Wildl.
Manage. 42(2) 352-361.
Thomas, T.R. and L.R. Irby. 1990. Habitat use and movement patterns by migrating
mule deer in southeastern Idaho. Northwest Science, Vol. 64(1): 19-27.
Tilton, M.E. and E.E. Willard. 1982. Winter habitat selection by mountain sheep. J.
Wildl. Manage. 46(2): 359-366.
Tisdale, E.W. 1979. A preliminary classification of Snake River Canyon grasslands in
Idaho. U. of Idaho, Moscow, Forest, Wildlife and Range Exp. Sta. Notes 32. 8 p.
U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, and U. S. Department of
Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1998. 1996 National survey of fishing,
hunting, and wildlife-associated recreation.
Vogelmann, J.E., T. Sohl, S.M. Howard, and D.M. Shaw. 1998. Regional land cover
characterization using Landsat Thematic Mapper data and ancillary data sources.
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 51:415-428.
Vogelmann, J.E., T. Sohl, and S.M. Howard. 1998. Regional characterization of land
cover using multiple sources of data. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote
Sensing, 64:45-57.
Vogelmann, J.E. and J.D. Wickham. 2000. Implementation Strategy for Production of
National Land-Cover Data (NLCD) from the Landsat 7 Thematic Mapper
Satellite. EPA 600/R-00/051 Office of Research and Development, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
45
Wall, Ken, Allan Cox and Kirk Horn. 1998. Status of elk habitat project. 4 p.
Wallmo, O.C. and W.L. Regelin. 1981. Food habits and nutrition. Pgs. 347-365 in O.C.
Wallmo, ed. Mule and black-tailed deer of North America. University of
Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NE.
Wambolt, C.L. 1998. Sagebrush and ungulate relationships on Yellowstone’s northern
range. Wildlife Society Bull. 26(3): 429-437.
46
9. TABLES
7DEOH +DELWDW'HOLQHDWLRQE\%LJ*DPH6SHFLHV
+DELWDW&ODVVHV
2FFXSLHG 3RWHQWLDO
\HDU
\HDU
URXQG
URXQG
UDQJH
UDQJH
6SHFLHV
(ON
2FFXSLHG
2FFXSLHG FUXFLDO
ZLQWHU
ZLQWHU
UDQJH
UDQJH
;
;
,PSRUWDQW
PRYHPHQW
FRQQHFWLYLW\
DUHDV
;
0XOH'HHU
;
;
;
%LJKRUQ
6KHHS
0RXQWDLQ
*RDWV
;
;
;
;
;
7DEOH 6XPPDU\RI(ON+DELWDW+HFWDUHV
6XEDUHDV
+DELWDW
&ODVVHV
&UXFLDO
:LQWHU
5DQJH
5HJXODU
:LQWHU
5DQJH
0RYHPHQW
&RUULGRUV
+HOOV
&DQ\RQ
1RUWKHDVW
2UHJRQ
:HVW
FHQWUDO
,GDKR
6RXWK
FHQWUDO
,GDKR
6RXWKHDVW
,GDKR
7RWDO
7RWDO
7DEOH 6XPPDU\RI(ON+DELWDW+HFWDUHVE\/DQG2ZQHUVKLS
6XEDUHDV
/DQG
2ZQHU
%/0
+HOOV
&DQ\RQ
1RUWKHDVW
2UHJRQ
:HVW
FHQWUDO
,GDKR
2WKHU
)HG
)RUHVW
6HUYLFH
6WDWH
3ULYDWH
8QNQRZQ 7RWDO
6RXWK
FHQWUDO
,GDKR
6RXWKHDVW
,GDKR
7RWDO
7DEOH (ON+DELWDW+HFWDUHVE\WKH0RVW,PSRUWDQW1DWLRQDO/DQG
&RYHU&ODVVHV
6XEDUHDV
1/&'/D\HU
1R
(YHUJUHHQ
)RUHVW
6KUXEODQG
+HOOV
&DQ\RQ
:HVW
1RUWKHDVW FHQWUDO
2UHJRQ
,GDKR
*UDVVODQG+HUE
DFHRXV
'HFLGXRXV
)RUHVW
3DVWXUH+D\
%DUH5RFN
7RWDOV
7RWDO
RI
KDELWDW
ZLWKLQ
6RXWK
LPSRUWDQW
FHQWUDO 6RXWKHDVW FRYHU
,GDKR
,GDKR
FODVVHV
7DEOH 6XPPDU\RI0XOH'HHU+DELWDW+HFWDUHV
6XEDUHDV
6RXWK
FHQWUDO
,GDKR
6RXWKHDVW
,GDKR
7RWDO
+DELWDW
&ODVVHV
&UXFLDO
:LQWHU
5DQJH
+HOOV
&DQ\RQ
1RUWKHDVW
2UHJRQ
:HVW
FHQWUDO
,GDKR
5HJXODU
:LQWHU
5DQJH
0RYHPHQW &RUULGRUV
7RWDO
7DEOH 6XPPDU\RI0XOH'HHU+DELWDW+HFWDUHVE\/DQG2ZQHUVKLS
6XEDUHDV
/DQG
2ZQHU
%/0
+HOOV
&DQ\RQ
1RUWKHDVW
2UHJRQ
:HVW
FHQWUDO
,GDKR
2WKHU
)HGHUDO
)RUHVW
6HUYLFH
6WDWH
3ULYDWH
8QNQRZQ 7RWDO
6RXWK
FHQWUDO
,GDKR
6RXWKHDVW
,GDKR
7RWDO
7DEOH 0XOH'HHU+DELWDW+HFWDUHVE\WKH0RVW,PSRUWDQW1DWLRQDO/DQG
&RYHU&ODVVHV
6XEDUHDV
1/&'/D\HU1R
(YHUJUHHQ)RUHVW
:HVW
+HOOV 1RUWKHDVW FHQWUDO
&DQ\RQ 2UHJRQ
,GDKR
6KUXEODQG
*UDVVODQG+HUEDFHRXV 6RXWK
FHQWUDO
,GDKR
6RXWKHDVW
,GDKR
6PDOO*UDLQ
3DVWXUH+D\
7RWDO
7RWDO
RIKDELWDW
ZLWKLQ
LPSRUWDQW
FRYHU
FODVVHV
7DEOH 6XPPDU\RI0RXQWDLQ*RDW:LQWHU5DQJH+DELWDW+HFWDUHV
6XEDUHDV
+DELWDW&ODVVHV
&UXFLDO:LQWHU5DQJH
:HVW
FHQWUDO
,GDKR
+HOOV
&DQ\RQ
&XUUHQW 1RUWKHDVW
2UHJRQ
3RWHQWLDO 7RWDO
7RWDO
7DEOH 6XPPDU\RI0RXQWDLQ*RDW+DELWDW+HFWDUHVE\/DQG2ZQHUVKLS
&XUUHQW
+HOOV
&DQ\RQ
6XEDUHDV
:HVW
1RUWKHDVW
FHQWUDO
2UHJRQ
,GDKR
3RWHQWLDO
&XUUHQW
3RWHQWLDO
&XUUHQW
3RWHQWLDO
&XUUHQW
3RWHQWLDO
&XUUHQW
/DQGRZQHU
%/0
)RUHVW
6HUYLFH
6WDWH
3ULYDWH
7RWDO
3RWHQWLDO
7RWDO
7DEOH 6XPPDU\RI0RXQWDLQ*RDW+DELWDW+HFWDUHVE\WKH0RVW,PSRUWDQW
1DWLRQDO/DQG&RYHU&ODVVHV
6XEDUHDV
7RWDORI
:HVW
KDELWDWZLWKLQ
+HOOV 1RUWKHDVW FHQWUDO LPSRUWDQW
1/&'/D\HU1R
&DQ\RQ 2UHJRQ
,GDKR FRYHUFODVVHV
&XUUHQW (YHUJUHHQ)RUHVW
3RWHQWLDO &XUUHQW 6KUXEODQG
3RWHQWLDO &XUUHQW *UDVVODQG+HUEDFHRXV
3RWHQWLDO &XUUHQW %DUH5RFN
3RWHQWLDO &XUUHQW 7RWDO
3RWHQWLDO 7DEOH 6XPPDU\RI&XUUHQWO\2FFXSLHG%LJKRUQ6KHHS+DELWDW+HFWDUHV
6XEDUHDV
:HVW
FHQWUDO
,GDKR
6RXWKHDVW
,GDKR
+DELWDW
&ODVVHV
<HDU
5RXQG
5DQJH
0RYHPHQW
&RUULGRUV
+HOOV
&DQ\RQ
1RUWKHDVW
2UHJRQ
7RWDO
7RWDO
7DEOH 6XPPDU\RI&XUUHQWO\2FFXSLHG%LJKRUQ6KHHS+DELWDW+HFWDUHVE\
/DQG2ZQHUVKLS
/DQG
RZQHU
%/0
)RUHVW
6HUYLFH
6WDWH
3ULYDWH
8QNQRZQ
7RWDO
6XEDUHDV
+DELWDW
&XUUHQW
:HVW
+HOOV 1RUWKHDVW FHQWUDO 6RXWKHDVW
&DQ\RQ 2UHJRQ
,GDKR ,GDKR
7RWDO
0RYHPHQW 7RWDO
+DELWDWE\
/DQGRZQHUVKLS
0RYHPHQW &XUUHQW
0RYHPHQW
7RWDO KD
&XUUHQW
0RYHPHQW &XUUHQW
0RYHPHQW &XUUHQW
0RYHPHQW &XUUHQW
7DEOH 6XPPDU\RI&XUUHQWO\2FFXSLHG%LJKRUQ6KHHS+DELWDW+HFWDUHVE\
WKH0RVW,PSRUWDQW1DWLRQDO/DQG&RYHU&ODVVHV
6XEDUHDV
1/&'
/D\HU
1R
+DELWDW
:HVW
+HOOV 1RUWKHDVW FHQWUDO 6RXWKHDVW
&DQ\RQ 2UHJRQ
,GDKR ,GDKR
7RWDO
&XUUHQW
(YHUJUHHQ
)RUHVW 0RYHPHQW 7RWDODQG
RI
KDELWDW
ZLWKLQ
LPSRUWDQW
FRYHU
FODVVHV
&XUUHQW
'HFLGXRXV
)RUHVW 0RYHPHQW &XUUHQW
2SHQ
:DWHU 0RYHPHQW &XUUHQW
%DUH5RFN
0RYHPHQW 6KUXE
ODQG
*UDVVODQG
+HUE
DFHRXV
&XUUHQW
0RYHPHQW &XUUHQW
0RYHPHQW 7RWDO&XUUHQW
7RWDO0RYHPHQW
7DEOH 6XPPDU\RI3RWHQWLDO%LJKRUQ6KHHS+DELWDW+HFWDUHV
6XEDUHDV
+DELWDW
&ODVVHV
6XPPHU
:HVW
FHQWUDO
,GDKR
+HOOV
&DQ\RQ
1RUWKHDVW
2UHJRQ
7RWDO
:LQWHU
/DPELQJ
7RWDO
7DEOH 6XPPDU\RI3RWHQWLDO%LJKRUQ6KHHS6XPPHU+DELWDW+HFWDUHVE\
/DQG2ZQHUVKLS
6XEDUHDV
:HVW
FHQWUDO
,GDKR
+HOOV
&DQ\RQ
1RUWKHDVW
2UHJRQ
7RWDO
6WDWH
86)6
/DQGRZQHU
%/0
2WKHU)HG
3ULYDWH
8QNQRZQ
7RWDO
7DEOH 6XPPDU\RI3RWHQWLDO%LJKRUQ6KHHS6XPPHU+DELWDW+HFWDUHVE\WKH
0RVW,PSRUWDQW1DWLRQDO/DQG&RYHU&ODVVHV
1/&'/D\HU1R
3HUHQQLDO,FH6QRZ
%DUH5RFN6DQG&OD\
7UDQVLWLRQDO
6KUXEODQG
*UDVVODQG+HUEDFHRXV
7RWDO
:HVW
FHQWUDO
,GDKR
6XEDUHDV
+HOOV
&DQ\RQ
1RUWKHDVW
2UHJRQ
7RWDO
7DEOH 6XPPDU\RI3RWHQWLDO%LJKRUQ6KHHS:LQWHU+DELWDW+HFWDUHVE\/DQG
2ZQHUVKLS
6XEDUHDV
:HVW
FHQWUDO
,GDKR
+HOOV
&DQ\RQ
6WDWH
86)6
/DQGRZQHU
%/0
2WKHU)HG
3ULYDWH
8QNQRZQ
7RWDO
1RUWKHDVW
2UHJRQ
7RWDO
7DEOH 6XPPDU\RI3RWHQWLDO%LJKRUQ6KHHS:LQWHU+DELWDW+HFWDUHVE\WKH
0RVW,PSRUWDQW1DWLRQDO/DQG&RYHU&ODVVHV
:HVW
FHQWUDO
,GDKR
1/&'/D\HU1R
3HUHQQLDO,FH6QRZ
%DUH5RFN6DQG&OD\
7UDQVLWLRQDO
6KUXEODQG
*UDVVODQG+HUEDFHRXV
7RWDO
6XEDUHDV
+HOOV
&DQ\RQ
1RUWKHDVW
2UHJRQ
7RWDO
7DEOH 6XPPDU\RI3RWHQWLDO%LJKRUQ6KHHS/DPELQJ+DELWDW+HFWDUHVE\
/DQG2ZQHUVKLS
6XEDUHDV
:HVWFHQWUDO
,GDKR
+HOOV
&DQ\RQ
1RUWKHDVW
2UHJRQ
7RWDO
6WDWH
86)6
/DQGRZQHU
%/0
3ULYDWH
8QNQRZQ
7RWDO
7DEOH 6XPPDU\RI3RWHQWLDO%LJKRUQ6KHHS/DPELQJ+DELWDW+HFWDUHVE\WKH
0RVW,PSRUWDQW1DWLRQDO/DQG&RYHU&ODVVHV
1/&'/D\HU1R
0LVFHOODQHRXV&ODVVHV
WRDODUHD
%DUH5RFN6DQG&OD\
(YHUJUHHQ)RUHVW
0L[HG)RUHVW
'HFLGXRXV)RUHVW
6KUXEODQG
*UDVVODQG+HUEDFHRXV
7RWDO
:HVW
FHQWUDO
,GDKR
6XEDUHDV
+HOOV
&DQ\RQ
1RUWKHDVW
2UHJRQ
7RWDO
10. FIGURES
11. APPENDICES
$33(1',;$
LIST OF KEY RESOURCE SPECIALISTS AND THEIR
AGENCY AFFILIATION
$
$33(1',;%
LIST OF HABITAT EFFECTIVENESS FACTORS HCHC PROJECT LIST
%
$33(1',;&
LIST OF LIMITING FACTORS
(M.A.P. HABITATTM PROJECT ORIGIN)
&
7KLVSDJHOHIWEODQNLQWHQWLRQDOO\
$33(1',;'
LIST OF HABITAT EFFECTIVENESS FACTORS MULE DEER WORKING GROUP
'
7KLVSDJHOHIWEODQNLQWHQWLRQDOO\
$33(1',;(
PRO-CITE
TM
DATABASE WITH LITERATURE
REVIEW RESULTS
(
7KLVSDJHOHIWEODQNLQWHQWLRQDOO\
$33(1',;)
TERMS, DEFINITIONS, AND MAPPING CONVENTIONS:
DIRECTIONS TO KEY RESOURCE SPECIALISTS
)
7KLVSDJHOHIWEODQNLQWHQWLRQDOO\
$33(1',;*
MAPPING SESSIONS – PARTICIPANT,
LOCATION OF MEETINGS AND DATES
*
7KLVSDJHOHIWEODQNLQWHQWLRQDOO\
$33(1',;+
PRO-CITE
TM
DATABASE
KEY RESOURCE SPECIALISTS COMMENTS
FROM HABITAT MAPPING MEETINGS
+
7KLVSDJHOHIWEODQNLQWHQWLRQDOO\
$33(1',;,
SUMMARY OF
HABITAT EFFECTIVENESS FACTORS
FOR ELK
,
$33(1',;-
SUMMARY OF
HABITAT EFFECTIVENESS FACTORS
FOR MULE DEER
-
$33(1',;.
MITIGATION MEASURES
AND MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
PROVIDED BY RESOURCE SPECIALISTS
EXCEL FILE
.
'DUO\0HLW]B0LWLJDWLRQ0HDVXUHV
%UXFH3DOPHU5DQG\6PLWKB0LWLJDWLRQ0HDVXUHV
/RX1HOVRQB0LWLJDWLRQ0HDVXUHV
-D\&UHQVKDZB0LWLJDWLRQ0HDVXUHV
-HII5RKOPDQB0LWLJDWLRQ0HDVXUHV
-HII5RKOPDQB0LWLJDWLRQ0HDVXUHV
2UHJRQ5HVRXUFH6SHFLDOLVWVB0LWLJDWLRQ0HDVXUHV
7KLVSDJHOHIWEODQNLQWHQWLRQDOO\