Elk Management Zones Bear River Zonea123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... · program to keep elk in acceptable areas Provide permanent stack yard fencing to protect

Idaho Department of Fish & Game

Elk Management Zones

107

Bear River ZoneGame Management Units 75, 77, 78

Population Objectives • Current Status • Harvest Information

Bear River Zone Population SurveysSurvey 1 - 2006 Survey 2 - 2010

Cows Bulls Calves Total Cows Bulls Calves Total

379 91 91 561 606 98 205 909

24* 24* 16* 34*

*per 100 cows

Proposed Zone Population ObjectivesObjective

Cows Bulls Adult Bulls

400-700 84-147 48-84

Bear River Zone Elk HarvestBear River Zone

Elk Hunter Numbers

Proposed 10-year Management Direction:

• Maintain the elk population within proposed objectives�

The management direction in the Bear River

zone involves maintaining elk populations at

current levels during the life of this plan� This

zone currently has agricultural crop

and property damage concerns and

winter range limitations, which must be

balanced with elk population goals and

hunter opportunity� Efforts will continue

to address agricultural impacts and

increase landowner tolerance for elk�

Maintaining populations and providing

a diversity of hunting opportunity will

continue to be the direction for this zone�

0

50

100

150

200

250

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Harvest

Antlerless Antlered

0 200 400 600 800

1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Hunter Numbers

Square Miles = 887 3-Year Averages

% Public Land = 52% Hunters per square mile = 1.75

Major Land Type = Forest Harvest per square mile = 0.36

Success Rate = 21%

%6+ Points = 30%

EXHIBIT B

Idaho Department of Fish & Game108

Idaho Elk Management Plan

Bear River Zone – is moderately limited by agricultural concerns

Management Direction Performance Objective Strategy

Implement proactive measures to reduce and minimize elk depredations

By 2022, reduce depredation and baiting-feeding operations by 15%

Expand the lure crop program to keep elk in acceptable areas

Provide permanent stack yard fencing to protect haystacks

Improve key summer, winter, and transitional habitats on public and private lands that provide for elk populations to meet statewide objectives

See Statewide Objectives in Table 7 See Statewide Strategies in Table 7

EXHIBIT B



109

Diamond Creek ZoneGame Management Units 66A, 76


Diamond Creek Zone Population SurveysSurvey 1 - 2009 Survey 2 - 2013


1205 478 285 2220 1218 583 534 2352

40* 24* 48* 44*

*per 100 cows



1500-2200 488-715 315-462

Diamond Creek Zone Elk HarvestDiamond Creek Zone Elk Hunter Numbers


• Maintain bull elk within proposed objectives;

• Increase cow elk numbers to meet proposed objective�

The goal for the Diamond Creek Zone is to

increase elk numbers beyond current population

estimates� While landowners in this

zone experience agricultural crop

and property damage, increasing and

diversifying proactive measures to

address these concerns should allow

for an increase in elk numbers� This

zone’s proposed management direction

involves continuing to provide quality

hunts, with general hunting opportunity

for archery and controlled rifl e hunting

opportunity�

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Harvest

Antlerless Antlered

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Hunter Numbers

Square Miles = 1,659 3-Year Averages



Success Rate = 25%

%6+ Points = 42%

EXHIBIT B



Diamond Creek Zone – is moderately limited by agricultural and habitat concerns



By 2022, reduce depredation and baiting-feeding operations by 15%

Expand the lure crop program to keep elk in acceptable areas

Provide permanent stack yard fencing to protect haystacks

Increase IDFG involvement in long- and short-term land-use planning efforts by providing information, analysis, and recommendations to improve and preserve elk habitats

By 2018, identify and implement strategies to protect important elk linkage corridors

Improve movement corridors across highways to facilitate better dispersal between seasonal ranges – Rocky Point, Georgetown Summit

Continue to work with ITD on wildlife fencing and passages as well as improved signage

Minimize the influence of disease as a limiting factor in elk populations



Recommend or support projects that would treat and/or improve an average >1,000 acres of summer-fall-winter habitat annually

Promote awareness of impacts to elk calving habitat from phosphate mining and transmission line construction

Cooperate with USFS to assure Elk Valley Marsh grazing management optimizes potential habitat benefits for elk and other wildlife

Develop a map of seasonal habitat use with priorities for elk habitat improvement projects by 2016

Purchase Walker property (760a) and BLM parcel (80a) associated with Georgetown Summit WMA

Reseed 20a of Georgetown Summit WMA IDL lease to forage mix by 2020

Work with private landowners, mining companies, power companies and public land managers to restore or mitigate disturbed and degraded areas to improve elk habitat

Provide technical expertise through East Idaho Aspen Working Group to improve aspen habitat

Work with conservation organizations, elected officials, and land managers to provide long-term conservation measures

EXHIBIT B



111

Beaverhead ZoneGame Management Units 30, 30A, 58, 59, 59A


Beaverhead Zone Population SurveysSurvey 1 - 2005 Survey 2 - 2009


2467 706 797 3970 3257 862 1333 5452

29* 32* 26* 41*

*per 100 cows



2050-3075 555-830 330-485

Beaverhead Zone Elk HarvestBeaverhead Zone

Elk Hunter Numbers



Proposed population objectives for the

Beaverhead Zone provide a necessary balance

between hunter opportunity, hunter success

and crop/property damage concerns on

agricultural lands�

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Harvest

Antlerless Antlered

1650

1700

1750

1800

1850

1900

1950

2000

2050

2100

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Hunter Numbers



Major Land Type = Rangeland, Forest Harvest per square mile = 0.36

Success Rate = 38%

%6+ Points = 42%

EXHIBIT B



Beaverhead Zone – moderately limited by agricultural impacts



Acquire budget enhancements by FY16 to provide an additional $10,000 for stack yard material

Provide material to build 10 permanent stack yards over the next 10 years

Maintain greenfield hunt structure as well as trying at least 1 landowner permission hunt

Provide permanent stack yard fencing to landowners to protect hay stacks

Use hunting as the primary tool to manage agricultural depredations


During allotment assessments every 10 years, work with federal land management agencies to determine best long-term utilization rates

Plan annual meetings with federal land management agencies to discuss the allocation of grazing resources among wildlife and livestock

Cooperate with federal, state, and private land managers and owners to provide suitable winter range, including management of disturbance that could displace elk

Engage federal land management agencies regarding drought conditions and emergency drought procedures


Coordinate with the Salmon-Challis National Forest and BLM on all potential summer range elk habitat enhancement projects (technical assistance and funding)

Continue to provide technical assistance to USFS and BLM and consider becoming a Cooperating Agency to formalize our role with our federal partners

EXHIBIT B



113

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Harvest

Antlerless Antlered

Island Park ZoneGame Management Units 60, 60A, 61, 62, 62A


Island Park Zone Population SurveysSurvey 1 - 2006 Survey 2 - 2010


1069 315 364 1748 1476 313 722 2512

29* 34* 21* 49*

*per 100 cows



1200-1800 400-575 250-375

Island Park Zone Elk HarvestIsland Park Zone

Elk Hunter Numbers


• Add unit 62 from the dissolved Teton zone;


The Island Park Zone will now include unit 62

from the dissolved Teton Zone� The unit 62 elk

herd is small and shares part of its range with

some current Island Park Zone elk� The

addition of the unit 62 elk herd will

allow better management of the entire

Island Park Zone elk population, while

providing better hunter opportunity�

Proposed population objectives for

the Island Park Zone balance hunter

opportunity and hunter success with crop and

property damage on agricultural lands�

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Hunter Numbers



Major Land Type = Forest, Rangeland Harvest per square mile = 0.20

Success Rate = 17%

%6+ Points = 26%

EXHIBIT B



Island Park Zone – moderately limited by agricultural impacts and predation









When zones are below objectives, aggressively manage elk and predator populations, and improve habitat capabilities

Maintain or improve calf:cow ratios ≥30 calves:100 cows

Maintain or improve natural adult cow annual mortality at <10%

Maintain liberal black bear and mountain lion hunting opportunities

Maintain wolf season length and harvest quotas

Maintain wolf trapping opportunity

EXHIBIT B



115

Palisades ZoneGame Management Units 64, 65, 67


Palisades Zone Population SurveysSurvey 1 - 2004 Survey 2 - 2009


375 214 99 688 461 195 141 797

57* 26* 42* 31*

*per 100 cows



400-600 125-200 75-125

Palisades Zone Elk Hunter Numbers


• Add unit 65 from the dissolved Teton Zone;


The Palisades Zone will now include unit 65 from

the dissolved Teton Zone� The unit 65 elk herd

is small and shares part of its range

with some current Palisades Zone elk�

The addition of the unit 65 elk herd will

allow better management of the entire

Palisades Zone elk population, while

providing better hunter opportunity�

Proposed population objectives for the

Palisades Zone balance hunter opportunity and

hunter success with crop and property damage

on agricultural lands�

0 20 40 60 80

100 120 140 160 180

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Harvest

Antlerless Antlered

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Hunter Numbers

Palisades Zone Elk Harvest

Square Miles = 771 3-Year Averages


Major Land Type = Forest, Agriculture Harvest per square mile = 0.27

Success Rate = 15%

%6+ Points = 48%

EXHIBIT B



Palisades Zone – is moderately limited by agricultural impacts and habitat






See Statewide Objectives in Table 7

See Statewide Strategies in Table 7

Improve habitat on public and private lands for elk population to meet population goals

See Statewide Objectives in Table 7

See Statewide Strategies in Table 7

Annually, actively manage at least 2,400 acres of aspen or aspen/conifer mix habitat on USFS land to maintain or improve elk summer range

Conduct prescribed fire, thinning, or other active forest management techniques to maintain aspen age diversity and reduce conifer encroachment

Manage beneficial wildfires that will diversify or rejuvenate aspen habitats or reduce conifer encroachment

Annually, restore 1,000 acres of USFS elk winter or transitional range to early successional habitat

Conduct prescribed fire, thinning, or other active management techniques to set back succession in mature conifer, mountain mahogany, and mountain shrub stands below 7,500 ft� elevation

Annually, improve at least 150 acres of elk winter range habitat on private lands on Pine Creek Bench

Utilize Farm Bill programs, or other conservation funding sources, to convert stands of sod-forming grasses to stands of a beneficial grass/forb/shrub mix

Cooperate with BLM on improving elk winter range habitat on their conservation easements and fee-title acquisitions on Pine Creek Bench

Provide technical assistance, funding, and labor (where feasible) to convert stands of sod-forming grasses to stands of a beneficial grass/forb/shrub mix

Annually, improve 400 acres of elk winter forage on private lands from Hwy 33 south to Hwy 31, within four miles of the west side of the Teton River

Utilize Farm Bill programs, or other conservation funding sources, to plant fall annual crops on irrigated land-used for grain production


Annually, improve 400 acres of elk winter forage on private lands adjacent to the Big Hole Mountains between Milk Creek and Moody Creek


EXHIBIT B



117


Protect key elk habitats that are necessary to meet or exceed statewide objectives

Conserve a corridor of habitat that connects USFS lands to the existing BLM, IDFG, and Teton Regional Land Trust conservation easements and BLM lands on Pine Creek Bench west of Hwy 31

Utilize fee-title acquisitions or conservation easements to conserve property

Annually, conserve at least 400 acres of elk winter range between Palisades Creek and Hwy 31 (exclusive of the protected corridor on Pine Creek Bench)


Annually, conserve at least 200 acres of elk winter range on the west side of the Teton River between Hwy 33 and Hwy 31


Annually, conserve at least 200 acres of elk winter range adjacent to the Big Hole Mountains between Milk Creek and Moody Creek


Annually, improve the security cover of at least 800 acres of elk winter range between Moody Creek to Milk Creek

Work with private landowners, public land managers, and county officials to manage access on elk winter range by either road/area closures and/or posting of private property during critical winter months

Annually, improve the security cover of at least 100 acres of elk winter range on the west side of the Teton River between Hwy 33 and Hwy 31

Work with private landowners, public land managers, and county officials to manage access on elk winter range by either road/area closures and/or posting of private property during critical winter months

Improve the security cover of elk summer and transition habitats in the Big Hole Mountains by adhering to road density guidelines outlined in the Caribou-Targhee National Forest Plan

Work with USFS to remove and rehabilitate illegal roads and trails on public land

Work with the IDL to remove and rehabilitate roads created on State lands for timber harvest



Plan annual meeting with federal land management agencies to discuss the allocation of grazing resources among wildlife and livestock



Palisades Zone

EXHIBIT B



Tex Creek ZoneGame Management Units 66, 69


Tex Creek Zone Population SurveysSurvey 1 - 2010 Survey 2 - 2013


2277 577 974 3831 2214 583 1088 3885

25* 43* 26* 49*

*per 100 cows



2000-3000 425-625 250-350

Tex Creek Zone Elk HarvestTex Creek Zone Elk Hunter Numbers


• Maintain elk populations within proposed objectives�

Proposed elk population objectives for the Tex

Creek Zone provide a necessary balance between

hunter opportunity, hunter success and crop/

property damage concerns on agricultural lands�

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Hunter Numbers

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Harvest

Antlerless Antlered



Major Land Type = Agriculture, Rangeland, Harvest per square mile = 0.45

Forest Success Rate = 20%

%6+ Points = 28%

EXHIBIT B



119

Tex Creek Zone – is highly limited by agricultural concerns









Plan annual meeting with federal land management agencies to discuss the allocation of grazing resources among wildlife and livestock



EXHIBIT B



Salmon ZoneGame Management Units 21, 21A, 28, 36B


Salmon Zone Population SurveysSurvey 1 - 2008 Survey 2 - 2010


6182 884 1333 10611 5628 606 1432 7666

14* 22* 11* 25*

*per 100 cows



4850-7400 1020-1560 585-885

Salmon Zone Elk HarvestSalmon Zone Elk Hunter Numbers


• Maintain cow elk population within proposed objectives;

• Increase bull elk population to meet proposed objectives�

Population objectives for the Salmon Zone are

designed to allow the elk population to increase

from current levels to reach biological

carrying capacity while not exceeding

social carrying capacity�

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Hunter Numbers

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Harvest

Antlerless Antlered




Success Rate = 23%

%6+ Points = 22%

EXHIBIT B



121

Salmon Zone – is highly limited by predation and moderately limited by agricultural impacts



Maintain or expand greenfield hunt structure for selected units based on relationship to cow elk objectives

Implement a variety of hunting season frameworks, including greenfield hunts, to reduce depredation

When zones are below objectives, aggressively manage elk and predator populations, and improve habitat capabilities

Maintain or increase wolf hunting seasons and bag limits to achieve wolf harvest limit

Maintain adequate wolf trapping seasons and bag limits to achieve wolf harvest limit

Maintain cow elk population between 4,850-7,400 cows in 2 consecutive aerial surveys conducted at 5-year interval; or estimated lower cow elk population based on modeled population performance

Maintain adequate wolf hunting seasons and liberal bag limits to reduce impacts of wolves

Implement wolf trapping seasons in unit(s) where increased wolf harvest is warranted

Develop and implement a Predation Management Plan if zone antlerless elk population falls below objective, including consideration of professional trappers and aerial removal


Continue coordination and funding for local weed management programs (Lemhi Co� cooperative weed management)

Support and provide funding for invasive weed control


Participate in and support (technical assistance and funding) the local Aspen Working Group to maintain or improve ≥200 acres of aspen per year in GMUs 21A, 28, and 36B

Promote well designed forest management projects that closely resemble natural disturbance


By 2018 identify and implement strategies to protect important elk linkage corridors

Work with vehicle collision database and ITD to identify important elk movement corridors

Provide technical assistance for wildlife fencing and passage to reduce vehicle collisions where elk cross highways

EXHIBIT B



Lemhi ZoneGame Management Units 29, 37, 37A, 51


Lemhi Zone Population SurveysSurvey 1 - 2007 Survey 2 - 2011


3262 1442 1201 5905 2753 1005 1206 4964

44* 37* 37* 44*

*per 100 cows



1850-2950 600-960 370-590

Lemhi Zone Elk HarvestLemhi Zone

Elk Hunter Numbers



Population objectives are designed bring elk

populations within social carrying capacity near

existing levels�

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Harvest

Antlerless Antlered

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Hunter Numbers



Major Land Type = Rangeland, Forest Harvest per square mile = 0.30

Success Rate = 34%

%6+ Points = 40%

EXHIBIT B



123

Lemhi Zone – is moderately limited by agricultural impacts



Maintain greenfield hunt structure and possibly extend it until September 30 in GMU 29

Use hunting as the primary tool to manage depredation levels

Implement a variety of hunting season frameworks, including greenfield hunts, to reduce depredation

Provide material to build 10 permanent stack yards over the next 10 years


Identify whether any landowners in GMUs 37 or 37A will entertain use agreements for elk

Implement long-term continued use agreements with willing landowners, including securing wintering habitat on private rangeland in GMUs 37 and 37A

Cooperate with Federal land managers to assure range conditions provide adequate forage for elk in areas prone to depredations

Fence off agricultural fields with chronic complaints


By 2018, identify and implement strategies to protect important elk linkage corridors

Work with vehicle collision database and ITD to identify important elk movement corridors

Provide technical assistance for wildlife fencing and passage to reduce vehicle collisions where elk cross highways

EXHIBIT B


Management of elk in Idaho is almost

entirely funded by hunters� Although

many non-hunting citizens of Idaho

enjoy the presence of elk, IDFG receives no state

general funds for management� The 2 primary

sources of revenue are state-generated license

and tag sales and federal funding available

through the Pittman-Robertson Aid in Wildlife

Restoration Program administered by the USFWS�

Historically, elk management has received a

disproportionately high percentage of state and

federal funds� Additionally, IDFG implements

a limited number of elk projects funded by

sportsmen organizations and cost-share

agreements with the USFS and BLM�

Management goals in this plan are ambitious and

will require public support and additional funding

to accomplish� Particularly, attainment of long-

term population objectives will require extensive

habitat management activities with associated

Financial Plan

costs� Short-term management objectives can

likely be met with existing funding� The IDFG

will continue to work with the Governor’s Office,

other elected officials, federal land management

agencies, conservation organizations, private

landowners, and sportsmen to secure the

necessary funding for attainment of long-term

management goals� While we anticipate a vast

majority of elk management program costs

will continue to be borne by hunters, IDFG will

actively pursue nontraditional funding sources,

especially for those program activities that

benefit all Idaho citizens� As a priority program

for IDFG, elk management will continue to receive

a disproportionately high percentage of wildlife

management funding�

EXHIBIT B

Idaho Department of Fish & Game 125

Adams, A� W� 1982� Migration� Pages 301–322 in J�

W� Thomas and D� E� Toweill, editors� Elk of

North America: ecology and management�

Stackpole, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, USA�

Almberg, E� S�, P� C� Cross, C� J� Johnson,

D� M� Heisey, and B� J� Richards� 2011�

Modeling routes of chronic wasting

disease transmission: environmental prion

persistence promotes deer population

decline and extinction� PLoS ONE

6(5):e19896� <http://www�plosone�org/

article/info%3Adoi%2F10�1371%2Fjournal�

pone�0019896 >� Accessed 8 Jul 2013�

Asherin, D� A� 1973� Prescribed burning effects

on nutrition, production and big game

use of key northern Idaho browse species�

Dissertation, University of Idaho, Moscow,

USA�

Atwood, M� P� 2009� Interactions between mule

deer and elk on winter range at the Tex Creek

Wildlife Management Area, Idaho� Thesis,

Idaho State University, Pocatello, USA�

Baker, W� L�, J� A� Munroe, and A� E� Hessl� 1997�

The effects of elk on aspen in the winter

range in Rocky Mountain National Park�

Ecography 20:155–165�

Ballard, W� B�, and V� Van Ballenberghe� 1997�

Predator-prey relationships� Pages 247–273

in A� W� Franzmann and C� C� Schwartz,

editors� Ecology and management of

the North American moose� Smithsonian

Institution Press and Wildlife Management

Institute, Washington, D�C�, USA�

Ballard, W� B�, D� Lutz, T� W� Keegan, L� H�

Carpenter, and J� C� deVos, Jr� 2001� Deer-

predator relationships: a review of recent

North American studies with emphasis on

mule and black-tailed deer� Wildlife Society

Bulletin 29:99–115�

Literature Cited

Ballard, W� B�, D� Lutz, T� W� Keegan, L� H�

Carpenter, and J� C� deVos, Jr� 2003� Deer-

predator relationships� Pages 177–218 in J� C�

deVos, Jr�, M� R� Conover, and N� E� Headrick,

editors� Mule deer conservation: issues and

management strategies� Berryman Institute,

Utah State University, Logan, USA�

Barber-Meyer, S� M�, L� D� Mech, and P� J� White�

2008� Elk calf survival and mortality

following wolf restoration in Yellowstone

National Park� Wildlife Monographs 169:1–30�

Basile, J� V�, and T� Lonner� 1979� Vehicle

restrictions influence elk and hunter

distribution in Montana� Journal of Forestry

77(3):155–159�

Beall, R� C� 1976� Elk habitat selection in relation

to thermal radiation� Pages 97–100 in

Proceedings of the Elk-Logging-Roads

Symposium� S� R� Hieb, editor� University of

Idaho, Moscow, USA�

Belli, L� B� 1962� Bovine tuberculosis in a white-

tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus)�

Canadian Veterinary Journal 3:356–358�

Berkley, R�, and J� Short� 2006� Elk population

monitoring methods: review and

recommendations� Idaho Department of

Fish and Game, Boise, USA�

Brodie, J�, H� Johnson, M� Mitchell, P� Zager,

K� Proffitt, M� Hebblewhite, M� Kauffman,

B� Johnson, J� Bissonette, C� Bishop, J�

Gude, J� Herbert, K� Hersey, M� Hurley, P�

M� Lukacs, S� McCorquodale, E� McIntire, J�

Nowak, H� Sawyer, D� Smith, and P� J� White�

2013� Relative influence of human harvest,

carnivores, and weather on adult female

elk survival across western North America�

Journal of Applied Ecology 50:295–305�

EXHIBIT B



Bureau of Land Management (BLM)� 2011�

Invasive species� Education in BLM� <http://

www�blm�gov/wo/st/en/res/Education_

in_BLM/Learning_Landscapes/For_Kids/

homework_helpers/invasive_species�html >�

Accessed 8 Jul 2013�

Canon, S� K� 1985� Habitat selection, foraging

behavior, and dietary nutrition of elk in

burned vs� unburned aspen forest� Thesis,

Utah State University, Logan, USA�

Cary, J� 2007� Some outcomes of a system model

for chronic wasting disease in Wisconsin�

Page 37 in Second International Chronic

Wasting Disease Symposium� 12–14 July

2005, Madison, Wisconsin, USA�

Cassirer, E� F�, D� J� Freddy, and E� D� Ables� 1992�

Elk responses to disturbance by cross-

country skiers in Yellowstone National Park�

Wildlife Society Bulletin 20:375–381�

Caughley, G� 1974� Bias in aerial survey� Journal of

Wildlife Management 38:921–933�

Christensen, A� G�, L� J� Lyon, and J� W� Unsworth�

1993� Elk management in the Northern

Region: considerations in forest plan

updates or revisions� U�S� Forest Service

General Technical Report INT-303, Ogden,

Utah, USA�

Clifton-Hadley, R� S�, and J� W� Wilesmith� 1991�

Tuberculosis in deer: a review� Veterinary

Record 129:5–12�

Coe, P� K�, B� K� Johnson, J� W� Kern, S� L�

Findholt, J� G� Kie, and M� J� Wisdom� 2001�

Responses of elk and mule deer to cattle

in summer� Journal of Range Management

54:A51–76�

Cole, E� K�, M� D� Pope, and R� G� Anthony� 1997�

Effects of road management on movement

and survival of Roosevelt elk� Journal of

Wildlife Management 61:1115-1126

Collins, W� B�, and P� J� Urness� 1983� Feeding

behavior and habitat selection of mule deer

and elk on northern Utah summer ranges�

Journal of Wildlife Management 47:646–663�

Cook, J� G� 2002� Nutrition and food� Pages

259–349 in D� E� Toweill and J� W� Thomas,

editors� North American elk: ecology and

management� Smithsonian Institution

Press and Wildlife Management Institute,

Washington, D�C�, USA�

Cook, J� G�, B� K� Johnson, R� C� Cook, R� A� Riggs,

T� Delcurto, L� D� Bryant, and L� L� Irwin�

2004� Effects of summer-autumn nutrition

and parturition date on reproduction and

survival of elk� Wildlife Monographs 155:1–61�

Cook, R� C� 2011� A multi-regional evaluation of

nutritional condition and reproduction in elk�

Dissertation, Washington State University,

Pullman, USA�

Cook, R� C�, D� L� Murray, J� G� Cook, P� Zager, and

S� L� Monfort� 2001� Nutritional influences on

breeding dynamics in elk� Canadian Journal

of Zoology 79:845–853�

Cooper, A� B�, F� Stewart, J� W� Unsworth, L� Kuck,

T� J� McArthur, and J� S� Rachael� 2002�

Incorporating economic impacts into wildlife

management decisions� Wildlife Society

Bulletin 30:565–574�

Cox, M�, D� W� Lutz, T� Wasley, M� Fleming, B� B�

Compton, T� Keegan, D� Stroud, S� Kilpatrick,

K� Gray, J� Carlson, L� Carpenter, K�

Urquhart, B� Johnson, and M� McLaughlin�

2009� Habitat guidelines for mule deer:

Intermountain West ecoregion� Mule Deer

Working Group, Western Association of

Fish and Wildlife Agencies, USA� <http://

www�muledeerworkinggroup�com/Docs/

IMW_Mule_Deer_Habitat_Guidelines�pdf>�


DeByle, N� V�, P� J� Urness, and D� L� Blank� 1989�

Forage quality in burned and unburned

aspen communities� U�S� Forest Service

Research Paper INT-404, Ogden, Utah, USA�

EXHIBIT B


Literature Cited

127

Decker, D� J�, M� A� Wild, S� J� Riley, W� Siemer,

and M� W� Miller� 2007� Describing the

wildlife disease management system: a

practical perspective on chronic wasting

disease management planning� Page 64

in Second International Chronic Wasting

Disease Symposium� 12–14 July 2005,

Madison, Wisconsin, USA�

Dodd, K� 1984� Tuberculosis in a free-living deer�

Veterinary Record 115:592–593�

Dzialak, M� R�, S� L� Webb, S� M� Harju, J� B�

Winstead, J� J� Wondzell, J� P� Mudd, and L�

D� Hayden-Wing� 2011� The spatial pattern of

demographic performance as a component

of sustainable landscape management and

planning� Landscape Ecology 26:775-790�

Evans, L� 1939� A summary of the history of the

Yellowstone elk herd� Yellowstone Nature

Notes IXV (sic, Volume 16) (1-2):3-13�

Folliott, P� F�, and W� P� Clary� 1972� A selected

and annotated bibliography of understory-

overstory vegetation relationships�

University of Arizona, Agricultural

Experiment Station, Technical Bulletin 198,

Tucson, USA�

Foreyt, W� J�, and B� B� Compton� 1991� Survey

for meningeal worm (Parelaphostrongylus

tenuis) and ear mites in white-tailed deer

from northern Idaho� Journal of Wildlife

Diseases 27:716–718�

Fried, B� M�, R� M� Adams, R� P� Berrens, and

O� Bergland� 1995� Willingness to pay for

a change in elk hunting quality� Wildlife

Society Bulletin 23:680–686�

Friend, M�, E� T� Kroll, and H� Gruft� 1963�

Tuberculosis in a wild white-tailed deer� New

York Fish and Game Journal 10:118–123�

Gary, H� J� 1974� Canopy weight distribution

affects windspeed and temperature in a

lodgepole pine forest� Forestry Science

20:369–371�

Geist, V� 1978� Behavior� Pages 283–296 in J�

L� Schmidt and D� L� Gilbert, editors� Big

game of North America: ecology and

management� Stackpole, Harrisburg,

Pennsylvania, and Wildlife Management

Institute, Washington, D�C�, USA�

Gordon, J�, and D� Mulkey� 1978� Income

multipliers of community impact analyses

- what size is reasonable? Journal of

Community Development Society 9(2):85–93�

Gratson, M� W�, and C� Whitman� 2000a� Road

closures and density and success of elk

hunters in Idaho� Wildlife Society Bulletin

28:302–310�

Gratson, M� W�, and C� Whitman� 2000b�

Characteristics of Idaho elk hunters relative

to road access on public lands� Wildlife


Griffin, K� A�, M� Hebblewhite, H� S� Robinson, P�

Zager, S� M� Barber-Meyer, D� Christianson,

S� Creel, N� C� Harris, M� A� Hurley, D� H�

Jackson, B� K� Johnson, W� L� Myers, J� D�

Raithel, M� Schlegel, B� L� Smith, C� White,

and P� J� White� 2011� Neonatal mortality of

elk driven by climate, predator phenology

and predator community composition�

Journal of Animal Ecology 80:1246–1257�

Gross, J� E�, M� W� Miller, and T� J� Kreeger� 1998�

Simulating dynamics of brucellosis in elk

and bison� Final report to U�S� Geological

Survey, Biological Resources Division,

Laramie, Wyoming, USA�

Gruell, G� E�, and L� L� Loope� 1974� Relationships

among aspen, fire, and ungulate browsing in

Jackson Hole, Wyoming� U�S� Forest Service,

Ogden, Utah, USA�

Gucinski, H�, M� H� Brooks, M� J� Furniss, and R�

R� Ziemer� 2001� Forest roads: a synthesis

of scientific information� U�S� Forest Service

General Technical Report PNW-509,

Portland, Oregon, USA�

Hardin, G� 1960� The competitive exclusion

principle� Science 131:1292–1297�

EXHIBIT B



Hebblewhite, M�, C� A� White, C� G� Nietvelt, J�

A� McKenzie, T� E� Hurd, J� M� Fryxell, S� E�

Bayley, and P� C� Paquet� 2005� Human

activity mediates a trophic cascade caused

by wolves� Ecology 86:2135–2144�

Hobbs, N� T� 1989� Linking energy balance to

survival in mule deer: development and test

of a simulation model� Wildlife Monographs

101:1–39�

Howard, J� L� 1999� Artemisia tridentata subsp�

wyomingensis� Fire effects information

system� U�S� Forest Service, Rocky Mountain

Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory�

<http://www�fs�fed�us/database/feis/plants/

shrub/arttriw/all�html>� Accessed 19 January

2012�

Hunter, D� L� 1996� Tuberculosis in free-

ranging, semi-free ranging, and captive

cervids� Revue scientifique et technique

(International Office of Epizootics) 15:171–181�

Hurley, M� A�, J� W� Unsworth, P� Zager,

M� Hebblewhite, E� O� Garton, D� M�

Montgomery, J� R� Skalski, and C� L�

Maycock� 2011� Demographic response of

mule deer to experimental reduction of

coyotes and mountain lions in southeastern

Idaho� Wildlife Monographs 178:1-33�

Husseman, J� S�, D� L� Murray, G� Power, C�

Mack, C� R� Wenger, and H� Quigley� 2003�

Assessing differential prey selection

patterns between two sympatric large

carnivores� Oikos 101:591–601�

Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG)�

1998� Black bear management plan 1999–

2010: status and objectives of Idaho’s black

bear resource� Idaho Department of Fish

and Game, Boise, USA�


1999� White-tailed deer, mule deer, and elk

management plan� Idaho Department of

Fish and Game, Boise, USA�


2000� Policy for avian and mammalian

predation management� Idaho Department

of Fish and Game, Boise, USA� <http://

fishandgame�idaho�gov/public/

wildlife/?getPage=331>� Accessed 8 Jul

2013�


2002� Mountain lion management plan

2002–2010� Idaho Department of Fish and

Game, Boise, USA�


2004� White-tailed deer management plan

2004–2014� Idaho Department of Fish and

Game, Boise, USA�


2005a� Idaho comprehensive wildlife

conservation strategy� Idaho Conservation

Data Center, Idaho Department of Fish and

Game, Boise, USA�


2005b� The compass: Idaho Department

of Fish and Game strategic plan� Idaho

Department of Fish and Game, Boise, USA�

<http://fishandgame�idaho�gov/public/

about/?getPage=191>� Accessed 8 Jul 2013�


2008� Mule deer management plan 2008-

2017� Idaho Department of Fish and Game,

Boise, USA�


2010� The mule deer initiative action plan�

Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise,

USA� <https://fishandgame�idaho�gov/

content/system/files/groups/2013/3/21/

Mule%20Deer%20Initiative%20Action%20

Plan%202010�pdf>� Accessed10 Jul 2013�

Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) and

Idaho State Animal Damage Control Board�

2005� Memorandum of understanding

between Idaho Department of Fish and

Game and Idaho State Animal Damage

Control Board� Boise, USA�

EXHIBIT B


Literature Cited

129

Idaho Legislative Wolf Oversight Committee�

2002� Idaho wolf conservation and

management plan� Idaho Legislative Wolf

Oversight Committee, as modified by 56th

Idaho Legislature, second regular session�

<http://fishandgame�idaho�gov/public/docs/

wolves/plan02�pdf>� Accessed 10 Jul 2010�

Idaho Weed Coordinating Committee� 2005�

Idaho’s strategic plan for managing

noxious and invasive weeds� <http://www�

idahoag�us/Categories/PlantsInsects/

NoxiousWeeds/Documents/general/

StrategicPlan-10-11-05�pdf>� Accessed 10 Jul

2013�

Johnson, B� K�, J� W� Kern, M� J� Wisdom, S� L�

Findholt, and J� G� Kie� 2000� Resource

selection and spatial separation of elk and

mule deer in spring� Journal of Wildlife

Management 64:685–697�

Jones, J� R�, and N� V� DeByle� 1985� Fire� Pages

77–81 in Aspen: ecology and management in

the western United States� N� V� DeByle and

R� P� Winokur, editors� U�S� Forest Service

General Technical Report RM-119, Fort

Collins, Colorado, USA�

Kaneene, J� B�, C� S� Bruning-Fann, L� N� Granger,

R� Miller, and B� A� Porter-Spaulding� 2002�

Environmental and farm management

factors associated with tuberculosis on

cattle farms in northeastern Michigan�

Journal American Veterinary Medical

Association 221:837–842�

Kistner, T� P�, D� E� Worley, K� R� Greer, and O� A�

Brunetti� 1982� Diseases and parasites� Pages

181–217 in J� W� Thomas and D� E� Toweill,

editors� Elk of North America, ecology

and management� Stackpole, Harrisburg,

Pennsylvania, USA�

Landis, T� D�, and E� W� Mogren� 1975� Tree strata

biomass of subalpine spruce-fir stands in

southwestern Colorado� Forestry Science

21:9–12�

Langenberg, J� 2007� Wisconsin’s control

strategies for chronic wasting disease in

wild deer� Page 66 in Second International

Chronic Wasting Disease Symposium� 12–14

July 2005, Madison, Wisconsin, USA�

Leege, T� A� 1979� Effects of repeated prescribed

burns on northern Idaho elk browse�

Northwest Science� 53(2):107–113�

Leptich, D� J�, and P� Zager� 1991� Road access

management effects on elk mortality

and population dynamics� Pages 126–

131in Proceedings of the Elk Vulnerability

Symposium� A� G� Christensen, L� J� Lyon,

and T� N� Lonner, editors� Montana State

University, Bozeman, USA�

Lindzey, F� G�, W� G� Hepworth, T� A� Mattson, and

A� F� Reese� 1997� Potential for competitive

interactions between mule deer and elk in

the western United States and Canada: a

review� Wyoming Cooperative Fisheries and

Wildlife Research Unit, Laramie, USA�

Lyon, L� J� 1971� Vegetal development following

prescribed burning of Douglas-fir in south-

central Idaho� U�S� Forest Service Research

Paper INT-105, Ogden, Utah, USA�

Lyon, L� J� 1979� Habitat effectiveness for elk as

influenced by roads and cover� Journal of

Forestry 79:658–660�

Lyon, L� J� 1983� Road density models for

describing habitat effectiveness for elk�

Journal of Forestry 81:592–595�

Lyon, L� J�, and A� G� Christensen� 2002� Elk and

land management� Pages 557–581 in D� E�

Toweill and J� W� Thomas, editors� North

American elk: ecology and management�

Smithsonian Institution Press and Wildlife

Management Institute, Washington, D�C�,

USA�

Mackun, P�, and S� Wilson� 2011� Population

distribution and change: 2000 to 2010�

U�S� Census Bureau� <http://www�census�

gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-01�pdf>�


EXHIBIT B



Major, J�, W� Stone, R� Stumvoll, C� Dente, E�

Kautz, P� Martin, and J� Farquhar� 2007�

Chronic wasting disease detection,

monitoring, and management in New York�

Pages14–16 in Second International Chronic

Wasting Disease Symposium� 12–14 July

2005, Madison, Wisconsin, USA�

McConnell, B� R�, and J� G� Smith� 1970� Response

of understory vegetation to ponderosa pine

thinning in eastern Washington� Journal of

Range Management 23:208–212�

McCorquodale, S� M�, K� J� Raedeke, and R� D�

Taber� 1989� Home ranges of elk in an arid

environment� Northwest Science 63(1):29–34�

McLaughlin, W� J�, N� Sanyal, J� Tangen-Foster,

J� F� Tynon, S� Allen, and C� C� Harris�

1989� 1987–1988 Idaho rifle elk hunting

study� Idaho Forest, Wildlife and Range

Experiment Station, Volume 1, Contribution

Number 499, Moscow, USA�

McNab, W� H�, D� T� Cleland, J� A� Freeouf, J� E�

Keys, Jr�, G� J� Nowacki, and C� A� Carpenter,

compilers� 2007� Description of “ecological

subregions: sections of the conterminous

United States�” First approximation� [CD–

ROM]� U�S� Forest Service General Technical

Report WO–76B, Washington, D�C�, USA�

Miller, M� W�, and K� Green� 2007� Chronic

wasting disease policy and management in

Colorado, 2001–2004� Pages 1–4 in Second

International Chronic Wasting Disease

Symposium� 12–14 July 2005, Madison,

Wisconsin, USA�

Miller, M� W�, and E� S� Williams� 2003�

Epidemiology and management of

chronic wasting disease in free-ranging

cervids� Pages 5–6 in International Chronic

Wasting Disease Workshop� Saskatoon,

Saskatchewan, Canada�

Miller, M� W�, J� M� Williams, T� J� Schiefer, and

J� W� Seidel� 1991� Bovine tuberculosis in a

captive elk herd in Colorado: Epizootiology,

diagnosis and management� Proceedings

U�S� Animal Health Association 95:533–542�

Miller, R� F�, and J� A� Rose� 1999� Fire history

and western juniper encroachment in sage-

steppe� Journal of Range Management

52:550–559�

National Research Council� 1997� Wolves, bears,

and their prey in Alaska� National Academy

Press, Washington, D�C�, USA�

Naylor, L� M�, M� J� Wisdom, and R� G� Anthony�

2009� Behavioral responses of North

American elk to recreational activity� Journal

of Wildlife Management 73:328–338�

Noyes, J� H�, B� K� Johnson, L� D� Bryant, S� L�

Findholt, and J �W� Thomas� 1996� Effects of

bull age on conception dates and pregnancy

rates of cow elk� Journal of Wildlife


Parker, K� L�, and C� T� Robbins� 1984�

Thermoregulation in mule deer and elk�

Canadian Journal of Zoology 62:1409–1422�

Parker, K� L�, C� T� Robbins, and T� A� Hanley�

1984� Energy expenditures for locomotion

by mule deer and elk� Journal of Wildlife


Pauley, G� R�, and P� Zager� 2010� Study II: effects

of wolf predation on elk populations� Pages

38–48 in B� B� Compton, compiler and

editor� Project W-160-R-37, Progress Report�

Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise,

USA�

Proffitt, K� M�, J� L� Grigg, R� A� Garrott, K� L�

Hamlin, J� Cunningham, J� A� Gude, and C�

Jourdonnais� 2010� Changes in elk resource

selection and distributions associated with

a late-season elk hunt� Journal of Wildlife


Pybus, M� J� 2001� Liver flukes� Pages 121–149 in

W� M� Samuel, M� J� Pybus, and A� A� Kocan,

editors� Parasitic diseases of wild mammals�

Iowa State University Press, Ames, USA�

Rhyan, J� C�, K� Aune, B� Hood, R� Clarke, J�

Payeur, J� Jarnagin, and L� Stackhouse� 1995�

Bovine tuberculosis in a free-ranging mule

deer (Odocoileus hemionus) from Montana�

Journal of Wildlife Diseases 31:432–435�

EXHIBIT B


Literature Cited

131

Rowland, M� M�, M� J� Wisdom, B� K� Johnson,

and M� A� Penninger� 2005� Effects of roads

on elk: implications for management in

forested ecosystems� Pages 42–52 in M�

J� Wisdom, technical editor� The Starkey

Project: a synthesis of long-term studies of

elk and mule deer� Reprinted from the 2004

Transactions of the North American Wildlife

and Natural Resources Conference, Alliance

Communications Group, Lawrence, Kansas,

USA�

Samuel, W� M�, M� J� Pybus, D� A� Welch,

and C� J� Wilke� 1992� Elk as a potential

host for meningeal worm: implications

for translocation� Journal of Wildlife


Sanyal, N�, E� Krumpe, and A� Middleton� 2012a�

Elk hunting in Idaho: understanding the

needs and experiences of hunters� Prepared

for the Idaho Department of Fish and

Game� Department of Conservation Social

Sciences, University of Idaho, Moscow, USA�

Sanyal, N�, E� Krumpe, and A� Middleton� 2012b�

The 2012 Idaho OHV-hunter study� Prepared

for the Idaho Department of Fish and

Game� Department of Conservation Social

Sciences, University of Idaho, Moscow, USA�

Sargeant, G� A�, D� C� Weber, and D� E� Roddy�

2011� Implications of chronic wasting disease,

cougar predation, and reduced recruitment

for elk management� Journal of Wildlife


Schlegel, M� 1986� Factors affecting calf survival

in the Lochsa elk herd� Study I� Movements

and population dynamics of the Lochsa elk

herd� Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration,

Job Progress Report, Job Number 3,

W-160-R-29� Idaho Department of Fish and

Game, Boise, USA�

Schmitt, S� M�, S� D� Fitzgerald, T� M� Cooley,

C� S� Bruning-Fann, L� Sullivan, D� Berry,

T� Carlson, R� B� Minnis, J� B� Payeur and J�

Sikarskie� 1997� Bovine tuberculosis in free-

ranging white-tailed deer from Michigan�

Journal of Wildlife Diseases 33:749–758�

Shively, K� J�, A� W� Alldredge, and G� E� Phillips�

2005� Elk reproductive response to removal

of calving season disturbance by humans�

Journal of Wildlife Management 69:1073–

1080�

Singer, F� J�, editor� 1996� Effects of grazing by

wild ungulates in Yellowstone National Park�

Technical Report NPS/NRYELL/NRTR/96-

01� U�S� Department of Interior, National Park

Service, Natural Resource Program Center,

Denver, Colorado, USA�

Smith, D� W�, T� D� Drummer, K� M� Murphy, D� S�

Guernsey, and S� B� Evans� 2004� Winter

prey selection and estimation of wolf kill

rates in Yellowstone National Park, 1995–

2000� Journal of Wildlife Management

68:153–166�

Sorg, C� F�, and L� J� Nelson� 1986� The net

economic value of elk hunting in Idaho� U�S�

Forest Service Resource Bulletin RM-12, Fort

Collins, Colorado, USA�

Squibb, R� C�, J� F� Kimball, Jr�, and D� R�

Anderson� 1986� Bimodal distribution

of estimated conception dates in

Rocky Mountain elk� Journal of Wildlife


Stewart, K� M�, R� T� Bowyer, J� G� Kie, N� J� Cimon,

and B� K� Johnson� 2002� Temporospatial

distributions of elk, mule deer, and cattle:

resource partitioning and competitive

displacement� Journal of Mammalogy

83:229–244�

Tausch, R� J�, N� E� West, and A� A� Nabi� 1981� Tree

age and dominance patterns in Great Basin

pinyon-juniper woodlands� Journal of Range


Thoen, C� O�, W� J� Quinn, L� D� Miller, L� L�

Stackhouse, B� F� Newcomb, and J�

M� Ferrell� 1992� Mycobacterium bovis

infection in North American elk (Cervus

elaphus)� Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic

Investigation 4:423–427�

EXHIBIT B



Thorne, E� T�, and J� K� Morton� 1976� Game and

Fish Research: brucellosis transmission

between elk and domestic cattle� Federal

Aid Project FW-3-R-22, Wyoming Game and

Fish Department , Cheyenne, USA�

Thorne, E� T�, M� S� Boyce, P� Nicholetti, and T� J�

Kreeger� 1997� Introduction� Pages xiii–xvi in

E� T� Thorne, editor� Brucellosis, bison, elk,

and cattle in the Greater Yellowstone Area:

defining the problem, exploring solutions�

Wyoming Game and Fish Department for

Greater Yellowstone Interagency Brucellosis

Committee, Cheyenne, USA�

Unsworth, J� W�, and L� Kuck� 1991� Road access

management effects on elk mortality

and population dynamics� Pages 126−131

in Proceedings of the Elk Vulnerability

Symposium� A� G� Christensen, L� J� Lyon,

and T� N� Lonner, editors� Montana State

University, Bozeman, USA�

Unsworth, J� W�, F� A� Leban, D� J� Leptich, E� O�

Garton, and P� Zager� 1994� Aerial survey:

user’s manual� Second edition� Idaho

Department of Fish and Game, Boise, USA�

U�S� Department of Interior (USDI)� 1999�

Glenwood Springs Resource Area, oil

and gas leasing and development, final

supplemental environmental impact

statement� <http://www�blm�gov/pgdata/

etc/medialib/blm/co/programs/land_use_

planning/rmp/archives/glenwood_springs/

amendments�Par�98633�File�dat/990_GA_

FEIS�PDF>� Accessed 13 January 2012�

U�S� Department of Interior (USDI)� 2004�

Draft fire, fuels, and related vegetation

management direction plan amendment and

environmental impact statement� Bureau

of Land Management, Upper Snake River

District, Idaho Falls, Idaho, USA�

U�S� Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)� 2011� U�S�

Fish and Wildlife Service draft land-based

wind energy guidelines: recommendations

on measures to avoid, minimize, and

compensate for effects to fish, wildlife,

and their habitats� <http://www�fws�gov/

windenergy/docs/Final_Wind_Energy_

Guidelines_2_8_11_CLEAN�pdf>� Accessed

13 January 2012�

U�S� Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)� 2012�

2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting,

and Wildlife-Associated Recreation: State

Overview� <http://digitalmedia�fws�gov/cdm/

singleitem/collection/document/id/858/

rec/3>� Accessed 24 December 2012�

Wallmo, O� C�, editor� 1981� Mule and black-

tailed deer of North America� University of

Nebraska Press, Lincoln, USA�

Webb, S� L�, M� R� Dzialak, S� M� Harju, L� D�

Hayden-Wing, and J� B� Winstead� 2011�

Effects of human activity on space use and

movement patterns of female elk� Wildlife


Welch, B� L� 2005� Big sagebrush: a sea

fragmented into lakes, ponds, and puddles�

U�S� Forest Service General Technical Report

RMRS-144, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA�

Welch, D� A�, M� J� Pybus, W� M� Samuel, and C� J�

Wilke� 1991� Reliability of fecal examination

for detecting infections of meningeal worm

in elk� Wildlife Society Bulletin 19:326–331�

Wertz, T� L�, L� E� Erickson, and A� Blumton�

2004� Conflict resolution by adaptive

management: moving elk where they

want to go� Pages 59–66 in Proceedings

2001 Western States and Provinces Deer

and Elk Workshop� J� Mortensen, D� G�

Whittaker, and E� C� Meslow, editors� Oregon

Department of Fish and Wildlife, Portland,

USA�

EXHIBIT B


Literature Cited

133

Whipple, D� L�, P� R� Clarke, J� L� Jarnagin, and J�

B� Payeur� 1997� Restriction fragment length

polymorphism analysis of Mycobacterium

bovis isolates from captive and free-ranging

animals� Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic

Investigation 9:381–386�

Whipple, D�, and M� Palmer� 2000� Reemergence

of tuberculosis in animals in the United

States� Pages 281–299 in C� Brown and C�

Bolin, editors� Emerging diseases of animals�

ASM, Washington, D�C�, USA�

White, C� G�, P� Zager, and M� Gratson� 2010�

Influence of predator harvest, biological

factors, and landscape on elk calf survival

in Idaho� Journal of Wildlife Management

74:355–369�

Wickstrom, M� L�, C� T� Robbins, T� A� Hanley, D�

E� Spalinger, and S� M� Parish� 1984� Food

intake and foraging energetics of elk and

mule deer� Journal of Wildlife Management

48:1285–1301�

Williams, E� S� 2005� Chronic wasting disease - a

review� Veterinary Pathology 42:530–549�

Wisdom, M� J�, R� S� Holthausen, B� C� Wales, C� D�

Hargis, V� A� Saab, D� C� Lee, W� J� Hann, T� D�

Rich, M� M� Rowland, W� J� Murphy, and M� R�

Eames� 2000� Source habitats for terrestrial

vertebrates of focus in the interior Columbia

basin: broad-scale trends and management

implications� Volume 1 – Overview� U�S�

Forest Service General Technical Report

PNW-GTR-485, Portland, Oregon, USA�

<http://www�fs�fed�us/pnw/pubs/gtr485/

gtr485vl�pdf>� Accessed 26 Jul 2013�

Wolfe, L� L� 2007� Preliminary assessment of “test

and cull’ as a CWD management strategy�

Pages 66–67 in Second International

Chronic Wasting Disease Symposium� 12–14

July 2005, Madison, Wisconsin, USA�

Zager, P�, and J� Beecham� 2006� The role of

American black bears and brown bears as

predators on ungulates in North America�

Ursus 17(2):95–108�

Zager, P�, C� White, and G� Pauley� 2007a� Elk

ecology� Study IV� Factors influencing

elk calf recruitment� Federal Aid in

Wildlife Restoration Completion Report,

W-160-R-33� Idaho Department of Fish and

Game, Boise, USA�

Zager, P�, C� White, G� Pauley, M� Hurley� 2007b�

Elk and predation in Idaho: does one size

fit all? Transactions of the North American

Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference

72:320–338�

Zager, P�, G� Pauley, M� Hurley�, and C� White�

2009� Statewide Ungulate Ecology� Pages

7–53 in B� B� Compton, compiler and editor�

Job Progress Report, Project W-160-R-36,

Study I-II� Idaho Department of Fish and

Game, Boise, USA�

Zaret, T� M�, and A� S� Rand� 1971� Competition

in tropical stream fishes: support for the

competitive exclusion principle� Ecology

52:336–342�

EXHIBIT B


Appendix A2012 Idaho Elk Hunter Opinion Survey

Elk Hunting in Idaho

Understanding the needs and experiences of hunters

EXHIBIT B


Appendix A

135

Take this survey online – save your time and our printing and postage costs!

Go to: http://www�cnr�uidaho�edu/idfg

Conducted by: For:

Department of Conservation Social Sciences Idaho Department of Fish and Game

First, some questions about your general hunting behavior.

1� About how many years have you hunted in Idaho? (Please enter number of years)

________ Years

2� How often do you hunt each of the following game species in Idaho?

Game Species How often do you hunt the following species in Idaho?

(Please circle one response for each species)

A� Black Bear Never Some Years Most Years Every Year

B� Moose, Bighorn Sheep, Mountain Goat (one in a lifetime)

Never Some Years Most Years Every Year

C� Mountain Lion Never Some Years Most Years Every Year

D� Mule Deer Never Some Years Most Years Every Year

E� Pronghorn Never Some Years Most Years Every Year

F� Upland Game/ Birds Never Some Years Most Years Every Year

G� White-tailed Deer Never Some Years Most Years Every Year

H� Wolf Never 2009-2010 2011-2012

Now, some questions about your Idaho Elk hunting experiences and preferences.

3� About how many years have you hunted Elk in Idaho? (Please enter the number of years)

______ Years

4� Please circle those years that you did hunt Elk in Idaho during the past 7 years?

(Please circle all that apply)

2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005

EXHIBIT B



5� If you did not hunt Elk in Idaho for 2 or more years during the past 7 years (2005 through 2011),

please tell us why� (Please circle the letters of all that apply)�

A� Poor Health H� Access Limitations

B� Work Schedule I� The Season Length

C� Family Obligations J� The Timing of the Season

D� Low Elk Numbers K� Too Much OHV Activity

E� I Hunted Other Game Species L� Too Many Hunters

F� No Hunting Partner M� Other (please explain)

G� I Couldn’t Afford it _____________________________________________

6� Of those you circled in Q-5, which ONE was the most important reason you did not hunt Elk during

those years?

Enter ONE letter (A-M) from the list in Q-5: ______

7� Excluding your travel to and from your home, how often do you use the following mode of

transportation when you hunt Elk in Idaho?

Travel Mode How often do you use each travel mode when hunting Elk in Idaho?

(Please circle one response for each mode of travel)

A� Car/truck Never Sometimes Usually Always

B� Horse/pack animals Never Sometimes Usually Always

C� Mountain bike Never Sometimes Usually Always

D� OHV Never Sometimes Usually Always

E� On foot Never Sometimes Usually Always

8� What type of weapon do you typically use to hunt Elk in Idaho? (Please check only one response)

❑Shotgun ❑Inline Muzzleloader

❑Rifle ❑Compound Bow

❑Handgun ❑Recurve or Longbow

❑Traditional Muzzleloader ❑Crossbow

EXHIBIT B


Appendix A

137

9� Which of the following Idaho Elk archery, short-range weapons or muzzleloader seasons did you

hunt in during the last 7 years (2005-2011)? (Please check all that apply)

❑None, I Only Hunted Elk With a Rifle ➡ Please Continue with Q-11, on the next page.

❑I Hunted In Archery-Only Seasons

❑I Hunted In Short-Range Weapon Seasons

❑I Hunted In Muzzleloader-Only Seasons

10. How important was each of the following in your decision to hunt in Elk archery, short-range

weapons or muzzleloader seasons?

Reasons for Archery, Short-range Weapons or Muzzleloader Hunting

How important was each reason for hunting in Elk archery, short-range weapons or muzzleloader seasons?

(Please circle one response for each reason)

A� To increase the challenge� Not Important

Somewhat Important

Moderately Important

Quite Important

Extremely Important

B� To hunt when fewer hunters are a-field�

Not Important

Somewhat Important


Quite Important

Extremely Important

C� To improve my chance of harvesting an Elk�

Not Important

Somewhat Important


Quite Important

Extremely Important

D� To expand my hunting season� Not Important

Somewhat Important


Quite Important

Extremely Important

E� To hunt in a zone where rifle Elk hunting opportunity is limited�

Not Important

Somewhat Important


Quite Important

Extremely Important

F� For the adventure� Not Important

Somewhat Important


Quite Important

Extremely Important

G� To engage in traditional forms of hunting�

Not Important

Somewhat Important


Quite Important

Extremely Important

H� To build my confidence as an Elk hunter�

Not Important

Somewhat Important


Quite Important

Extremely Important

I� To hunt Elk during the rut� Not Important

Somewhat Important


Quite Important

Extremely Important

11� What has been your Elk harvesting success in Idaho? (Please check all that apply)

❑I Have NEVER Harvested an Elk in Idaho� ➡Please continue with Q-12, below.

❑I Harvested Elk In Idaho In: (Circle all the years that you harvest an Elk in Idaho)

2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002

12� If you could not hunt Elk in Idaho, how would you react? (Please check only one response)

Not Miss it at All

❑

Miss it a Little

❑

Miss it Somewhat

❑

Miss it Considerably

❑

Miss it a Great Deal

❑

EXHIBIT B



❑Panhandle

❑Palouse

❑Hells Canyon

❑Lolo

❑Dworshak

❑Elk City

❑Selway

❑Middle Fork

❑Salmon

❑Weiser

❑McCall

❑Lemhi

❑Beaverhead

❑Brownlee

❑Sawtooth

❑Pioneer

❑Owyhee-South Hills

❑Boise River

❑Smoky Mountain

❑Bennett Hills

❑Big Desert

❑Snake River

❑Island Park

❑Teton

❑Palisades

❑Tex Creek

❑Bannock

❑Bear River

❑Diamond Creek

13� If you could not hunt Elk in Idaho how would your hunting change?

Changes to your hunting If you could not hunt Elk in Idaho how would your hunting change?

(Please check one response for each change)

A� I would hunt waterfowl more� Very Unlikely Unlikely Neither Unlikely nor Likely

Likely Very Likely

B� I would hunt upland game more� Very Unlikely Unlikely Neither Unlikely nor Likely

Likely Very Likely

C� I would spend more time hunting other big game�

Very Unlikely Unlikely Neither Unlikely nor Likely

Likely Very Likely

D� I would hunt Elk in other states� Very Unlikely Unlikely Neither Unlikely nor Likely

Likely Very Likely

E� I would not hunt at all� Very Unlikely Unlikely Neither Unlikely nor Likely

Likely Very Likely

14� Which of the following best describes where you typically hunt Elk in Idaho?

(Please check only one response)

❑I Typically Hunt In The Same Zone Every Year�

❑I Typically Hunt In Different Zones Each Year�

15� In which zones did you hunt Elk in Idaho during 2011?

(Please check all the zones you hunted in 2011)

EXHIBIT B


Appendix A

139

1

46

4

39

41

40

6

63

38

53

68

50

27

8

17

69

32

5

76

2

5442

28

45

73

12

10

7

3

52A

36

55

10A

51

56

2524

15

22

52

11

61

49

23

29

37

43

33

8A

74

48

31

26

58

60A

14

44

11A

71

21

6236A

20A

34 60

72

67

9

70

75

35

59

64

57

66

47

13

19A

68A

77

19

65

20

30

16

32A36B

73A

18

4A

59A

78

37A

63A

16A

30A

66A

21A

62AYNP

Panhandle

Owyhee-South Hills

Lolo

Bannock

McCall

LemhiPioneer

Selway

Salmon

Big Desert

Palouse

Sawtooth

Boise River

Middle Fork

Elk City

Snake River

Weiser River Island

Park

Tex Creek

Beaverhead

Bennett Hills

Dworshak

Snake River

Teton

Diam

ond Creek

Hells Canyon

Smoky Mtns.

Bear River

Palisades

Brow

nlee

EXHIBIT B



16� What makes that a desirable zone to hunt Elk? (Please check all that apply)

❑It is close to my home or cabin�

❑Tradition—i always hunt there�

❑It provides a good chance of harvesting an elk�

❑It has the seasons i prefer�

❑It is a general zone that i can get every year (not a controlled hunt)�

❑There are not many hunters there competing with me for elk�

❑I can also hunt deer during the same season�

❑It has OHV restrictions�

17� What are your perceptions of Elk numbers in the zone you hunted in 2011? Select the ONE

statement from the list below that most closely matches your perceptions�

(Please check only ONE response)

❑Elk numbers have declined abruptly in the last 10 years and Elk are scarce in the zone�

❑Elk numbers have declined in the last 10 years, but still remain relatively abundant�

❑Elk numbers have remained stable in the last 10 years�

❑Elk numbers have increased slightly in the last 10 years�

❑Elk numbers have increased substantially in the last 10 years and Elk are over-abundant�

18� If you hunted in more than one zone in the past 10 years please list them below� (Please write in the

Zone names)

____________________________________________________________________________________

19� If you have hunted in more than one zone in the past 10 years please tell us why you changed zones�

(Please write in your answer)

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________

20� How long have you hunted Elk in each of the zones you listed in Q-18?

(Please write in the name of the zone and number of years)

I Have Hunted in the ______________________________Zone for _________ Years�




EXHIBIT B


Appendix A

141

21� Do you also hunt for Elk in other states? (Please check one response)

❑ Yes ❑ No, Please continue with Q-22 on the next page�

If YES, please list the states:

_____________________ _____________________ _____________________

22� What do you believe is the primary factor limiting Elk numbers in the zone you hunted in 2011?

(Check only ONE response)

❑Predators

❑Habitat

❑Disease

❑Hunter Harvest

❑Weather

23� Would you like to be able to hunt in multiple zones in a year for a single Elk?

(Please check one response)

❑Yes ❑ No

If YES, would you be willing to pay a higher fee ($100 more for non-residents; $30 more for residents)

to do so? (Please check one response)

❑Yes ❑ No

25� When the zone system was implemented the mechanism for reducing unlimited over-the-counter

opportunity called “capping the zone” was developed by the department with the help of legislators,

sportsmen and outfitters� This “capping the zone” is an allocation formula to distribute Elk tags to

hunters (residents, nonresidents and outfitted residents) based on the historical use of the previous 5

years� What has been your experience with this management strategy?

(Please circle one response for each question)

A� Do you hunt in a capped zone? Yes No

B� Has “capping a zone” affected where you hunt? Yes No

C� Has “capping a zone” caused you to change the zone you hunt in?

Yes No

D� Do you think the allocation formula based on the previous 5 years of use by the 3 groups is appropriate?

Yes No

26� If you hunt in a “capped zone” has the Elk hunting changed since it was capped?

(Please check one response)

❑Elk Hunting has Improved�

❑Elk Hunting has Stayed the Same�

❑Elk Hunting has Become Worse�

EXHIBIT B



In this section we seek an understanding of what you consider when deciding what kind of Elk to hunt and where to hunt them.

27� How desirable is it to you to harvest the following kinds of Elk

Kind Of Elk How desirable do you find harvesting each kind of Elk?

(Please circle one response for each kind of Elk)

A� Large Bull (greater than 350 Boone & Crocket points)

Not Very Desirable

Moderately Desirable

Quite Desirable

Extremely Desirable

B� Mature Bull (6 points a side) Not Very Desirable


Quite Desirable

Extremely Desirable

C� Raghorn Bull (4-5 points a side) Not Very Desirable


Quite Desirable

Extremely Desirable

D� Spike Elk Not Very Desirable


Quite Desirable

Extremely Desirable

E� Cow Elk Not Very Desirable


Quite Desirable

Extremely Desirable

F� Calf Not Very Desirable


Quite Desirable

Extremely Desirable

G� Any Elk Not Very Desirable


Quite Desirable

Extremely Desirable

28� Below is a list of possible reasons for hunting Elk in Idaho� How important to you is each of the

following reasons for hunting Elk in Idaho?

Reasons For Hunting How important is each reason for hunting Elk in Idaho?

(Please circle one response for each reason)

A� Being close to nature� Not Important

Somewhat Important


Quite Important

Extremely Important

B� Harvesting an antlerless Elk Not Important

Somewhat Important


Quite Important

Extremely Important

C� Viewing the scenery� Not Important

Somewhat Important


Quite Important

Extremely Important

D� Harvesting any Elk� Not Important

Somewhat Important


Quite Important

Extremely Important

E� Seeing Elk in a natural setting� Not Important

Somewhat Important


Quite Important

Extremely Important

F� Testing my abilities� Not Important

Somewhat Important


Quite Important

Extremely Important

G� Harvesting a large bull� (greater than 350 Boone & Crocket points)

Not Important

Somewhat Important


Quite Important

Extremely Important

H� Sharing what I have learned with others�

Not Important

Somewhat Important


Quite Important

Extremely Important

I� Being with friends� Not Important

Somewhat Important


Quite Important

Extremely Important

J� Harvesting a raghorn bull� (4 or 5 points on a side)

Not Important

Somewhat Important


Quite Important

Extremely Important

K� Learning more about nature� Not Important

Somewhat Important


Quite Important

Extremely Important

L� Doing something with my family� Not Important

Somewhat Important


Quite Important

Extremely Important

EXHIBIT B


Appendix A

143

M� Putting meat on the table� Not Important

Somewhat Important


Quite Important

Extremely Important

N� Keeping physically fit� Not Important

Somewhat Important


Quite Important

Extremely Important

O� Harvesting any bull� Not Important

Somewhat Important


Quite Important

Extremely Important

P� Developing close friendship with my hunting companions�

Not Important

Somewhat Important


Quite Important

Extremely Important

Q� Harvesting a mature bull� (6 points on a side)

Not Important

Somewhat Important


Quite Important

Extremely Important

R� Just being outdoors� Not Important

Somewhat Important


Quite Important

Extremely Important

29� Each of the following characteristics may be things you consider when deciding where to hunt Elk

in Idaho� How does each characteristic affect your choice of where to hunt Elk in Idaho?

Characteristics How does each characteristic affect where you decide to hunt Elk in Idaho?

(Please circle one response for each characteristic)

A� An area with few other Elk hunters� Not Important

Somewhat Important


Quite Important

Extremely Important

B� An area that has many Elk but few mature bulls�

Not Important

Somewhat Important


Quite Important

Extremely Important

C� An area where I have hunted Elk for many years�

Not Important

Somewhat Important


Quite Important

Extremely Important

D� An area where my family can also hunt Elk with me�

Not Important

Somewhat Important


Quite Important

Extremely Important

E� Ability to hunt Elk every year� Not Important

Somewhat Important


Quite Important

Extremely Important

F� An area where I can also hunt deer during the Elk season�

Not Important

Somewhat Important


Quite Important

Extremely Important

G� An area close to my home or cabin� Not Important

Somewhat Important


Quite Important

Extremely Important

H� An area with a long Elk season� Not Important

Somewhat Important


Quite Important

Extremely Important

I� An area that is remote and hard to reach� Not Important

Somewhat Important


Quite Important

Extremely Important

J� An area that has an early start to the season� Not Important

Somewhat Important


Quite Important

Extremely Important

K� An area where I have access to public lands (Forest Service, BLM)�

Not Important

Somewhat Important


Quite Important

Extremely Important

L� An area where I also have access to private lands�

Not Important

Somewhat Important


Quite Important

Extremely Important

M� An area where I think I have the greatest chance of harvesting an Elk�

Not Important

Somewhat Important


Quite Important

Extremely Important

N� An area that has a late end to the Elk season�

Not Important

Somewhat Important


Quite Important

Extremely Important

O� An area where I will not encounter motorized hunters using OHVs�

Not Important

Somewhat Important


Quite Important

Extremely Important

P� An area where I am able to use my OHV or other motorized vehicle while hunting Elk�

Not Important

Somewhat Important


Quite Important

Extremely Important

EXHIBIT B



Q� An area where I can hunt Elk with the weapon of my choice�

Not Important

Somewhat Important


Quite Important

Extremely Important

R� An area where I have the best chance of getting drawn for an Elk hunt�

Not Important

Somewhat Important


Quite Important

Extremely Important

S� An area where Wolves are not present� Not Important

Somewhat Important


Quite Important

Extremely Important

T� An area where I can also hunt Wolves� Not Important

Somewhat Important


Quite Important

Extremely Important

30� Are there any times during the general Elk hunting season in Idaho that you prefer or avoid?

(Please check as many as apply)

I Prefer I Avoid

A� Opening Day ❑ ❑

B� First Weekend ❑ ❑

C� First Week ❑ ❑

D� Any Weekend ❑ ❑

E� Any Weekday ❑ ❑

F� Last Week ❑ ❑

G� Last Weekend ❑ ❑

H� Last Day ❑ ❑

31. What attributes are important to a quality Idaho Elk hunting experience?

Attributes of an Idaho Elk Hunting Experience

How important is each attribute to the quality of your Idaho Elk hunting experience?

(Please circle one response for each attribute)

A� Low Elk hunter densities� Not Important

Somewhat Important


Quite Important

Extremely Important

B� Harvesting an Elk� Not Important

Somewhat Important


Quite Important

Extremely Important

C� Seeing harvestable Elk� Not Important

Somewhat Important


Quite Important

Extremely Important

D� Being able to hunt for mature bulls� Not Important

Somewhat Important


Quite Important

Extremely Important

E� Being able to hunt Elk with family and friends�

Not Important

Somewhat Important


Quite Important

Extremely Important

F� Being able to hunt Elk every year� Not Important

Somewhat Important


Quite Important

Extremely Important

G� Being able to hunt Elk using an OHV� Not Important

Somewhat Important


Quite Important

Extremely Important

H� Competing only with other Elk hunters on foot or horseback�

Not Important

Somewhat Important


Quite Important

Extremely Important

I� Not having competition from other Elk hunters using other forms of transportation (OHV, mountain bike, etc.)�

Not Important

Somewhat Important


Quite Important

Extremely Important

EXHIBIT B


Appendix A

145

J� Having the opportunity for reduced price nonresident junior mentored tag�

Not Important

Somewhat Important


Quite Important

Extremely Important

K� Having a long Elk season� Not Important

Somewhat Important


Quite Important

Extremely Important

Next, your opinions about some possible management options.

32� Managing to produce more large bull Elk would require reductions in bull harvest� Managers need

to know whether hunters are willing make trade-offs between the size of bulls and the amount of

opportunity to hunt� (For each of the following pairs of opportunity choices please indicate which one

is most favorable to you by circling the appropriate letter) Please answer every one, even if you do

not like either option.

The opportunity to hunt for a raghorn bull (4 or 5 points a side) every year

A OR BThe opportunity to hunt for a mature bull (6+ points a side) once every 10 years

The opportunity to hunt for a mature bull (6+ points a side) once every 3 years

A OR BThe opportunity to hunt for a raghorn bull (4-5 points a side) every year


A OR BThe opportunity to hunt for a spike bull every year

The opportunity to hunt for a spike bull every year A OR B

The opportunity to hunt for a raghorn bull (4 or 5 points a side) once every 3 years

The opportunity to hunt for a cow Elk every year A OR B

The opportunity to hunt for a raghorn bull (4 or 5 points a side) once every 3 years


A OR BThe opportunity to hunt for a cow Elk every year

The opportunity to hunt for a cow Elk every year

A OR BThe opportunity to hunt for a spike bull every year

33� Were there times during your 2011 Elk season when the numbers of other hunters seriously

detracted from the quality of your hunting experience? (Please check one response)

❑Yes ❑No ❑I Did Not Hunt Elk in 2011

34� How do you feel about each of the following potential ways of improving Elk hunting, if needed?

Potential Management Options How do you feel about the following potential ways of Elk hunting?

(Please circle one response for each option)

A� Longer Seasons� Favor it Do Not Favor, But Acceptable

Not Acceptable

Need More Information

B� Choose only one weapon (archery, muzzleloader, rifle)�

Favor it Do Not Favor, But Acceptable

Not Acceptable


C� Choose only one species—Deer or Elk�


Not Acceptable


EXHIBIT B



D� Controlled hunts� Favor it Do Not Favor, But Acceptable

Not Acceptable


E� Stratified hunts (a choice of one of several short seasons (example 5- 7 days)�


Not Acceptable


F� Choose an area with the Motorized hunting rule or other travel restrictions�


Not Acceptable


G� Choose an area with a capped zone (limited first come first served)�


Not Acceptable


35� We would like to know how you feel about the following potential restrictions to increase the

quality and size of Elk in Idaho and improve Elk hunting opportunities� Please indicate your opinion

on the following potential restrictions�

Potential Restrictions How you feel about the following potential restrictions?

(Please check one response for each restriction)

A� Restricting the use of OHVs� Favor it Do Not Favor, But Acceptable

Not Acceptable


B� Making some Elk zones foot and horse access only�


Not Acceptable


C� Retaining the current spike-only regulations� Favor it Do Not Favor, But Acceptable

Not Acceptable


D� Instituting a brow-tine restriction� Favor it Do Not Favor, But Acceptable

Not Acceptable


E� Choosing a single weapon for the entire Elk season�


Not Acceptable


F� A shorter Elk season (less than 10 days) but being able to hunt Elk every year�


Not Acceptable


G� More controlled hunts that provide more and/or larger bulls and higher harvest success, but not being able to hunt Elk every year�


Not Acceptable


H� More controlled hunts that provide more and/or larger bulls and higher harvest success, and not being allowed to hunt for Elk if you did not draw a tag�


Not Acceptable


I� Being able to purchase an Elk tag only every other year�


Not Acceptable


36� IF Idaho Fish and Game introduces restrictions that reduce Elk hunting opportunities to improve

Elk populations, how would your hunting behavior change?

Changes to your hunting How likely would you change your behavior?

(Please check one response for each attribute

A� I would hunt in different zones� Very Unlikely Unlikely Neither Unlikely nor

Likely

Likely Very Likely

B� I would quit hunting Elk� Very Unlikely Unlikely Neither Unlikely nor

Likely

Likely Very Likely

C� I would shift to hunting other species�

Very Unlikely Unlikely Neither Unlikely nor

Likely

Likely Very Likely

EXHIBIT B


Appendix A

147

D� I would not change my hunting behavior�


Likely

Likely Very Likely

E� I would change my weapon type for increased Elk hunting opportunity�


Likely

Likely Very Likely

Now, some questions about the satisfaction you experienced with Elk hunting in Idaho in 2011.

37. How satisfied were you with each of the following aspects of your 2011 Elk hunting experience?

If you DID NOT Hunt Elk in Idaho in 2011, Please Check Here ❑ and Skip to Q-38 on the next page➡Attributes of Your 2011 Idaho Elk Hunting Experience

How satisfied were you with your 2011 Idaho Elk hunting experience?

(Please check one response for each attribute)

A� The number of Elk you saw� Very Dissatisfied

Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied Very Satisfied

B� The number of harvestable Elk you saw� Very Dissatisfied


C� The numbers of bulls you saw� Very Dissatisfied


D� The length of the Elk season� Very Dissatisfied


E The timing of the Elk season� Very Dissatisfied


F� The number of other Elk hunters you encountered�

Very Dissatisfied


G� The amount of access� Very Dissatisfied


H� The number of OHVs encountered� Very Dissatisfied


I� The amount of Elk hunting opportunity� Very Dissatisfied


J� Elk harvest success� Very Dissatisfied


K� The opportunity for friends and family to hunt Elk together�

Very Dissatisfied


38� How would you feel about a big game regulation that sets the general season conditions for 2

years in advance, just like the current Moose, Mountain Goat, Bighorn Sheep, upland game, Turkey and

fishing regulations? (Please check one response)

❑Favor it ❑Do Not Favor, But Acceptable ❑Not Acceptable ❑Need More Information

EXHIBIT B



Two questions about predators in Idaho.

39� How do Wolves affect your Idaho Elk hunting experience?

(Please circle one response for each item)

A� Does the presence of Wolves affect where you hunt Elk? Yes No

B� Is the opportunity to hunt Wolves along with Elk important to you? Yes No

C� Did you choose your Elk zone because the negative effect of

Wolves have had on your Elk hunting experience? Yes No

D� Do you hunt Elk in zones with few Wolves? Yes No

40� Do you anticipate Elk numbers to increase now that Idaho Fish and Game is responsible for

managing wolves? (Please check one response)

❑ Yes ❑No

Finally, some questions about you!

41� Where did you live in 2011? (Please check one response)

❑Developed Area (city, town, suburb) in Idaho

❑Rural Area in Idaho

❑Developed Area (city, town, suburb) Out-of-State ➡Please Continue with Q-43

❑Rural Area Out-of-State ➡Please Continue with Q-43

42� How long have you lived in Idaho? (Please enter the number of years) ________ Years

43� When were you born? (Please enter the year) I was Born in 19______

44� Do you have any physical conditions such as vision or hearing impairment, or any condition that

limits your ability to perform activities such as walking, climbing, reaching, lifting, or carrying?

(Please check one)

❑ Yes ❑No

45� Are you: (Please check one)

❑Male ❑Female

46� Are you: (Please check all that apply)

❑American Indian/Alaskan Native ❑Hispanic or Latino/Latina

❑Asian ❑Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander

❑African American ❑White

EXHIBIT B


Appendix A

149

47� During the 2011 hunting season were you: (Please check all that apply)

❑Employed Full-Time

❑Employed Part-Time

❑Student

❑Retired

❑Homemaker

❑Unemployed

We would appreciate your answering the last question� If, however you feel this is a private matter we

respect your decision to not answer�

48� Which of the following best describes your gross family income before taxes in 2011?

(Please check only one response)

❑Less Than $20,000

❑$20,000-$39,999

❑$40,000-$59,999

❑$60,000-$79,999

❑$80,000-$99,999

❑$100,000-$119,999

❑$120,000-$139,999

❑$140,000-$159,999

❑$160,000-$179,999

❑$180,000 or More

EXHIBIT B



Thank you for your help� Is there anything else you’d like to tell us about Elk hunting in Idaho?

We would appreciate any comments�

To return your completed questionnaire, simply mail it back in the enclosed postage-paid envelope to:

ELK HUNTER SURVEY

STATE OF IDAHO

PO BOX 25

BOISE, ID 83707-9973

Thank you

Department of Conservation Social Sciences; College of Natural Resources; University of Idaho

EXHIBIT B


Appendix A

151

2� Elk hunting preferences and motivations;

3� Acceptability of current and proposed man-agement strategies and the trade-offs in-volved;

4� Decisions about where to hunt;

5� Attributes of a quality Elk hunting experience;

6� Hunting satisfaction; and

7� Perceptions of predators

Methods

Survey research using a mail back and web-based

instrument was used to collect data from strati-

fied random samples of hunters licensed to hunt

Elk in 2011 Idaho� This study uses a differential

design (Graziano & Raulin, 2007), seeking to un-

derstand selected characteristics of groups des-

ignated on the basis of preexisting variables� The

questionnaire (survey instrument) was designed

with input from representatives of the Idaho De-

partment of Fish and Game� The instrument was

pre-tested on a convenience sample of Moscow,

Idaho, residents who had similar recreational pro-

pensities that the study required�

Sampling

The sample was a stratified random sample of

Idaho residents:

• Mailed to 6,200 hunters who purchased a

general Elk tag in 2011�

• Sample was stratified by the 29 Elk hunting

zones

• Random sample of 200 resident and 20 non-

resident hunters in each of the 29 elk zones�

• N=6,200 hunters (18 or older) from all Idaho

Elk hunting licenses in 2011 (data from Idaho

Department of Fish and Game)

A total of 2,786 useable questionnaires were re-

turned and used in the analyses, which is a 48�5%

response rate after accounting for undeliverable

instruments and refusals� This response is judged

to be adequate to produce a statistically repre-

sentative sample of the population of Idaho Elk

hunters at ± 10% level of accuracy�

Executive Summary

Elk Hunting in Idaho: Understanding the Needs and

Experiences of Hunters

Prepared by:

Nick Sanyal, Ph.D., Associate Professor,

Ed Krumpe, Ph.D., Professor, and

Alexandria Middleton, Research Assistant

Department of Conservation Social Sciences,

College of Natural Resources,

University of Idaho,

For:Idaho Department of Fish and Game

August 2012

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Overview

The main goal of this study of Idaho Elk hunters

is to provide the Idaho Department of Fish and

Game representative information about the views

of elk hunters in Idaho� Descriptions of who they

are, what their preferences and motivations are,

how they make decisions about where to hunt,

and their opinions on various Elk management

issues were collected in the summer of 2012� This

study is the first comprehensive investigation of

Idaho Elk hunters since a similar study was con-

ducted by the University of Idaho over 20 years

ago in 1988-89, and provides an important update

to knowledge about Elk hunters� The results pro-

vided here, in combination with biological data,

are key to continuing to improve wildlife planning

and management in the state of Idaho�

Survey Objectives

This current study was designed to provide con-

temporary data for the quantification of the

following characteristics of a sample Idaho Elk

hunters:

1� Hunting Elk hunter profiles (basic demograph-ics, travel patterns, hunting history, harvest success, zone use);

EXHIBIT B



Elk Hunter Profiles

• Idaho Elk hunters are very experienced, the

majority of whom have hunted Elk in Idaho

every year since 2005�

• Hunters most frequently travel on foot when

hunting, and they almost never use mountain

bikes�

• The majority of Elk hunters typically use a rifle

to hunt� About a third use a compound bow�

• The 3 primary reasons hunters decide to hunt

during Elk archery, short-range weapons or

muzzleloader seasons is to hunt when fewer

hunters are afield, to hunt during the rut, and

for the adventure of hunting with these types

of weapons�

• Overall, hunters are fairly successful in har-

vesting Elk in Idaho, averaging about 23%

over the past 10 years�

• Almost all Idaho Elk hunters are dedicated to

the sport, and if for some reason they could

not hunt Elk in Idaho, they would miss it a

great deal� If they could not hunt Elk in Idaho,

hunters reported they would spend more time

hunting other big game, or they would hunt

Elk in other states�

• The majority of Elk hunters typically hunt in

the same zone every year�

• When asked what makes the zone they hunt-

ed in 2011 desirable, half the hunters said a

zone that was close to their home or cabin,

and half said a general zone that they can get

every year (not a controlled hunt) was most

desirable�

• One-half of the Elk hunters perceive that in

2011 Elk numbers have declined abruptly in

the last 10 years and Elk are scarce in the zone

they hunted�

• Elk hunters have hunted in their preferred

zones on average for over 14 years� Those

who hunted Elk in other states most frequent-

ly did so in Montana, Colorado and Wyoming�

• Three-quarters of the hunters believe preda-

tors are the primary factor limiting Elk num-

bers in the zone they hunted�

• A large majority would like to be able to hunt

in multiple zones, and over one-half would be

willing to pay a higher fee to do so�

• Almost half of the Elk hunters have experi-

ence hunting in a capped zone� Generally,

capping has not had much effect on hunt-

ing behavior� A majority of hunters felt that

Elk hunting has become worse since the zone

they hunt in was “capped�”

Elk Hunting Preferences and Moti-vations

• Hunters reported that harvesting a mature

bull (6 points a side) or a large bull (greater

than 350 Boone & Crockett points) was most

desirable�

• When asked how important various reasons

were to them for hunting Elk, the top 6 rea-

sons were “just being outdoors,” “seeing Elk

in a natural setting,” “being close to nature,”

“viewing scenery,” “being with friends,” and

“doing something with my family�”

• The motivations associated with harvesting

Elk were of less importance than these rea-

sons that describe being immersed in the

natural setting� In almost every case, Idaho

Elk hunters prefer to preserve the amount of

opportunity to hunt over hunting for large bull

Elk�

Acceptability of Current and Pro-posed Management Strategies and the Trade-Offs Involved

• Elk hunters generally favored 5 of 7 potential

ways to improve Elk hunting, if needed� The

most favorable or acceptable was to choose

only 1 weapon such as archery, muzzleloader,

or rifle�

• A majority of Elk hunters clearly found 3 po-

tential restrictions to increase the quality and

EXHIBIT B


Appendix A

153

to hunt for Elk every year and seeing a har-

vestable Elk�

Hunting Satisfaction

• One-third of hunters felt that there were times

when the numbers of other hunters seriously

detracted from their hunting experience� The

4 aspects Elk hunters were most satisfied with

in 2011 were the opportunity for friends and

family to hunt Elk together, the timing of the

Elk season, the length of the season, and the

amount of Elk hunting opportunity�

• They were least satisfied with the number

of bulls seen, the number of harvestable Elk

seen, the number of Elk seen, and Elk harvest

success�

Perceptions of Predators

• Three-quarters of the Elk hunters reported

that the presence of wolves affected where

they hunt Elk, and just over one-half said the

opportunity to hunt Wolves along with Elk is

important to them�

• Close to one-half (46�5%) hunt Elk in zones

with few Wolves�

• Over two-thirds (64%) said they did not

choose their Elk zone because of the negative

effect Wolves have had on their Elk hunting

experience�

• Almost two-thirds of the Elk hunters antici-

pate Elk numbers will increase now that IDFG

is responsible for managing wolves�

Demographics

• The respondents have a considerable amount

of experience hunting in Idaho, averaging al-

most 50 years of Idaho hunting experience�

• Idaho Elk hunters also hunt for other species,

notable Mule deer and upland game/birds�

• Idaho Elk hunters have lived in Idaho an

average of 33 years and have an average age

of 49�3 years�

size of Elk in Idaho and to improve Elk hunting

opportunities to be favorable or acceptable�

Over 70% favored making some Elk zones

foot and horse access only, restricting the use

of OHVs, and choosing a single weapon for

the entire Elk season�

A clear majority found it unacceptable to be re-

stricted to being able to purchase an Elk tag only

every other year, having more controlled hunts

that provide larger animals but not being able to

hunt Elk every year, and more controlled hunts

but not being able to hunt Elk every year if you

did not draw a tag�

• Seventy-two percent of the Elk hunters said

that that it was unlikely or very unlikely that

they would quit hunting Elk if IDFG introduces

restrictions that reduce Elk hunting opportu-

nities to improve populations�

• A majority of the Elk hunters feel it would be

acceptable to have a big game regulation that

sets the general season conditions for 2 years

in advance, but almost 30% said that they

would need more information�

When and Where to Hunt

• The top 5 characteristics that affected their

choice of where to hunt Elk in Idaho were the

ability to hunt every year, an area where they

have access to public lands, an area where

they think they have the greatest chance of

harvesting an Elk, an area where wolves are

not present, and an area with few other Elk

hunters�

• Elk hunters primarily prefer to hunt on any

weekday, on the last week of the season or

the first week of the season� They tend to

avoid the first weekend, any weekend in gen-

eral and opening day�

Attributes of a Quality Elk Hunting Experience

• Attributes that define a quality Elk hunting

experience center on preserving the hunting

opportunity� Most important were being able

EXHIBIT B


Appendix B2013 Idaho Elk Hunter Opinion Survey

IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME 600 South Walnut/P.O. Box 25 C.L. “Butch” Otter / Governor Boise, Idaho 83707 Virgil Moore / Director

April 2013

Name Control#: Address City, ST ZIP

Dear Idaho Elk Hunter,

The Idaho Department of Fish and Game is revising the Statewide Elk Management Plan. This process started with a Phase I survey to ask the opinions and attitudes of Idaho elk hunters. In June 2012, in cooperation with the University of Idaho, the survey was mailed to Idaho elk hunters. The survey was mailed to a random sample of 6,160 general elk hunters statewide. The elk hunters were asked a variety of questions about their preferences and motivations for hunting elk in Idaho. We heard that most Idaho hunters would like to be able to hunt in multiple zones. The “2012 Elk Hunter Survey Results” can be seen on our website on the Elk Management page under “More Information” at http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/?getpage=324.

The following survey is Phase 2 of our study. You were randomly selected to receive this survey. This survey deals specifically with two different options for expanding your general elk hunting opportunity, to allow you to hunt in 2 or more zones. Your input is very important to determine which option we move forward with in 2014. Please take a few minutes to complete the survey on the following pages and return it in the enclosed prepaid envelope by May 10th, 2013.

Thank you for your time and interest in Elk Hunting and Management in Idaho.

Sincerely,

Toby Boudreau, State Deer and Elk Coordinator 208-334-2920 [email protected]

Enclosure

EXHIBIT B


Appendix B

155

1� About how many years have you hunted in Idaho? (Please write number of years.)

__________Years

2� How often do you hunt for each of the following game species in Idaho?

Game Species How often do you hunt the following species in Idaho?

(Please circle one response for each species)

I� Black Bear Never Some Years Most Years Every Year

J� Moose, Bighorn Sheep, Mountain Goat (once in a lifetime)

Never Some Years Most Years Every Year

K� Mountain Lion Never Some Years Most Years Every Year

L� Mule Deer Never Some Years Most Years Every Year

M� Pronghorn Never Some Years Most Years Every Year

N� Upland Game/ Birds Never Some Years Most Years Every Year

O� White-tailed Deer Never Some Years Most Years Every Year

P� Gray Wolf Never Some Years Most Years Every Year

Now, some questions about your Idaho Elk hunting experiences and preferences.

3� About how many years have you hunted ELK in Idaho? (Please enter number of years.)

____________Years

4� Please check those years that you did hunt ELK in Idaho during the past 7 years�

(Please check all that apply.)

❑ 2012 ❑ 2011 ❑ 2010 ❑ 2009 ❑ 2008 ❑ 2007 ❑ 2006

5� If you did not hunt Elk in Idaho for 2 or more years during the past 7 years (2006 through 2012),

please tell us why� (Please circle all that apply.)

A� Poor Health H� Access Limitations

B� Work Schedule I� The Season Length

C� Family Obligations J� The Timing of the Season

D� Low Elk Numbers K� Too Much Off-Highway Vehicle Activity

E� I Hunted Other Game Species L� Too Many Hunters

F� No Hunting Partner M� Other (please explain)

G� I Couldn’t Afford It _____________________________________________

6� Of those you circled in Question 5, which ONE was the most important reason you DID NOT hunt

Elk during those years�

Enter ONE letter (A – M) from the list in Question 5:___________

EXHIBIT B



Expanding Elk Hunting Opportunity to Multiple Zones

In the statewide elk hunter survey last year, elk hunters were asked if they were interested in the

opportunity to hunt in 2 zones in a given year to harvest a single elk� Eighty-two percent said “yes”,

they would be interested in the opportunity� We also asked if they would be willing to pay an extra

$30 for residents and $100 for nonresidents to have the additional opportunity� Sixty-seven percent of

respondents said they would be willing to pay more for the added opportunity� We have developed 2

options to expand general elk hunting opportunity in Idaho� Please tell us what you think about the 2

options�

Option 1: 2-Zone Hunt – Allows you to hunt in 2 general elk zones with one elk tag�

• This tag would allow you to harvest only one elk�

• This would be available only in certain zones that are meeting or exceeding population goals for

the upcoming hunting season�

• The whole state would not be included� Please see Page 4, Question 8, for a list of

proposed zones included for the 2014 hunting season�

• The zones available could change from year to year as elk numbers fluctuate�

• This tag would allow you the option of selecting a capped zone as one of the zones you could

hunt in�

• The 2-zone option would cost hunters for the additional opportunity�

• In addition to general elk tag fees, the cost would be $30�00 for residents and $100�00 for

nonresidents�

• Hunters would be able to hunt in the open seasons for the 2 zones they choose�

• Any combination of A-tag and B-tag hunts from the available zones could be selected� (See Page

4, Question 8 for proposed zones for the 2014 hunting season�)

For example, in 2014 you could select:

• A-tag Tex Creek and A-tag Bannock

• B-tag Bear River and B-tag Boise River

• A-tag Diamond Creek and B-tag McCall

• Hunters would be able to change their choices of 2 zones, before the season opens in either of the

2 zones�

• Hunters must use the weapon types that are legal during the season they are hunting� For

example, the hunter must use archery equipment during archery season in that zone�

• Hunters who draw a controlled elk hunt tag would not be eligible to participate in the 2-zone hunt opportunity�

EXHIBIT B


Appendix B

157

7. What is your opinion of the 2-Zone Option to expand elk hunter opportunity? (Please check one.)

Extremely Unfavorable

Moderately Unfavorable

No opinion Moderately Favorable

Highly Favorable

❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑

The following are the zones that are meeting or exceeding objectives including some capped zones�

Only these zones would be eligible for the 2-Zone Option for the 2014 hunting season�

8� Which zones would you consider hunting with the 2-Zone Option? (Please check all that apply.)

❑ Panhandle Zone

❑ Palouse Zone

❑ Elk City Zone

❑ Salmon Zone

❑ Weiser River Zone

❑ McCall Zone

❑ Lemhi Zone

❑ Beaverhead Zone

❑ Brownlee Zone

❑ Pioneer Zone

❑ Boise River Zone

❑Smoky Mountains Zone

❑ Bennett Hills Zone

❑ Big Desert Zone

❑ Snake River Zone

❑ Island Park Zone

❑ Palisades Zone

❑Teton Zone

❑ Tex Creek Zone

❑Bannock Zone

❑ Bear river Zone

❑ DiamonD Creek Zone

1

46

4

39

41

40

6

63

38

53

68

50

27

8

17

69

32

5

76

2

5442

28

45

73

12

10

7

3

52A

36

55

10A

51

56

2524

15

22

52

11

61

49

23

29

37

43

33

8A

74

48

31

26

58

60A

14

44

11A

71

21

6236A

20A

34 60

72

67

9

70

75

35

59

64

57

66

47

13

19A

68A

77

19

65

20

30

16

32A36B

73A

18

4A

59A

78

37A

63A

16A

30A

66A

21A

62AYNP

Panhandle

Owyhee-South Hills

Lolo

Bannock

McCall

LemhiPioneer

Selway

Salmon

Big Desert

Palouse

Sawtooth

Boise River

Middle Fork

Elk City

Snake River

Weiser River Island

Park

Tex Creek

Beaverhead

Bennett Hills

Dworshak

Snake River

Teton

Diam

ond Creek

Hells Canyon

Smoky Mtns.

Bear River

Palisades

Brow

nlee

EXHIBIT B



9� Of those zones listed above please pick the top 3 zones that you would potentially consider hunting

in a 2-Zone option?

_______________________ _______________________ _______________________

The following zones are NOT included in the 2-Zone Option:

Dworshak Zone, Lolo Zone, Selway Zone, Hells Canyon Zone, Middle Fork Zone, Sawtooth Zone and

Owyhee-South Hills Zone�

Option 2: C-tag Option – Allows you to hunt in any of the designated C-tag units with one elk

tag�

• This tag would allow you to harvest only one elk�

• Would apply only in units within zones that are meeting or exceeding population goals� The whole

state would not be included�

• Hunters would be allowed to hunt in any season within the C-tag units� Proposed units for

the 2014 season are:

• Units 1, 2, 3, 4, 4A, 6, 8A, 11A, 19A, 22, 23, 24, 25, 31, 32, 32A, 36A, 50, 52A, 53, 67, 68,

70, 71, 72, 73, 73A, 74�

• For example, a person could hunt the archery A-tag in Unit 1, and then if unsuccessful, go

to Unit 67 and hunt the rifle bull B-tag season�

• Capped zones would not be included in the list of available zones or units�

• The C-tag option would cost hunters for the additional opportunity�

• In addition to general elk tag fees, the cost would be $30�00 for residents and $100�00 for

nonresidents�

• Hunters may only hunt during the open season and with the weapon type allowed for the zone or

units they are hunting in�

• Hunters would be able exchange their C-tag for an A-tag or B-tag until the season in any one of

the zones or game management units within the C-tag has started�

• Hunters who draw a controlled elk hunt tag would not be eligible to participate in the C-tag

opportunity�

10� What is your opinion of the C-tag Option to expand elk hunter opportunity? (Please check one.)




Highly Favorable

❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑

EXHIBIT B


Appendix B

159

The following is a list of proposed Units that could be available for the C-tag Option for the 2014

hunting season�

11� Please check the Units that you would most likely hunt� (Please check all that apply.)

❑ Units 1, 2, 3, 4, 4A, 6 (Most of the Panhandle Zone)

❑ Units 8A, 11A (Part of the Palouse Zone)

❑ Units 22, 32, 32A (Weiser River Zone)

❑ Units 19A, 23, 24, 25 (McCall Zone)

❑ Units 31 (Brownlee Zone)

❑Units 36A, 50 (Part of the Pioneer Zone)

❑ Units 52A, 68 (Big Desert Zone)

❑ Units 53 (Small part of the Snake River Zone)

❑ Units 67 (Part of the Palisades Zone)

❑ Units 70, 71, 72, 73, 73A, 74 (Bannock Zone)

These two options to increase elk hunting opportunity by allowing hunting in more than one zone may

have unintended consequences, such as reducing the quality of the elk hunting experience� Crowding

and increased harvest could occur in some general hunt zones� This might result in future restrictions

to offset increased pressure�

Here are three examples to illustrate the possible range of impacts:

1� If Diamond Creek A-tag holders could also hunt on the Pioneer A-tag, few impacts are anticipated�

These seasons are concurrent and both restricted to archery only� We do not expect an increase in

the number of hunters�

2� If Diamond Creek A-tag holders could also hunt on the Tex Creek A-tag, we anticipate that

crowding could be an issue� These zones offer different hunting opportunities at different times�

We expect an increase in hunter numbers and harvest in both zones�

3� If hunters could use both A-tags and B-tags within one zone, we anticipate an increase in the

number of hunters and harvest in that zone�

12� Would you be in favor of expanding your hunting opportunity into 2 or more zones if it might cause

these zones to become more restrictive in the future (such as tag quotas, shortened seasons, etc�)?

(Please check one.)




Highly Favorable

❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑

EXHIBIT B



13� Based on the descriptions of the two options, 2-Zone and C-tag, which would you be more likely to

participate in? (Please pick one choice.)

❑ 2-Zone Option ❑ C-Tag Option ❑ Neither

14� Do you think we should move forward with these options to hunt in multiple zones?

❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ No Opinion

15� What weapon type(s) are you most likely to use while elk hunting? (Please choose all that apply.)

❑ Rifle

❑ Muzzleloader

❑ Archery

16� Do you have any additional comments or opinions about the 2 different options?

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

Finally, some questions about you!

We understand that these questions are personal� However they will help us better understand who

our customers are� We would appreciate it if you would answer these questions� We will not publish

your personal information in any identifiable way�

17� Where did you live in 2012? (Please check one response)

❑Developed Area (city, town, suburb) in Idaho

❑Rural Area in Idaho

❑ Developed Area (city, town, suburb) Out-of-State ➡ Please Continue with Q-19, below�

❑ Rural Area Out-of-State ➡ Please Continue with Q-19, below�

18� How long have you lived in Idaho? (Please write the number of years.) __________ Years

19� Do you have any physical conditions such as vision or hearing impairment, or any condition that

limits your ability to perform activities such as walking, climbing, reaching, lifting, or carrying?

(Please check one.)

❑ Yes ❑ no

EXHIBIT B


Appendix B

161

20� Are you: (Please check one)

❑American Indian/Alaskan Native ❑Hispanic or Latino/Latina

❑Asian ❑Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander

❑African American ❑White

21� During the 2012 hunting season were you: (Please check all that apply)

❑Employed Full-Time

❑Employed Part-Time

❑Student

❑Retired

❑Homemaker

❑Unemployed

22. Which of the following best describes your gross family income before taxes in 2012:

(Please check one.)

❑ Less than $20,000 ❑ $100,000 – $119,999

❑ $20,000 – $39,999 ❑ $120,000 – $139,999

❑ $40,000 – $59,999 ❑ $140,000 – $159,999

❑ $60,000 – $79,999 ❑ $160,000 – $179,999

❑ $80,000 – $99,999 ❑ $180,000 or more

23� Is there anything else you’d like to tell us specifically about Elk hunting in Idaho?

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

Thank you for your help!

EXHIBIT B


Ecological Section descriptions and Table A-1 showing the percentage of ecological sections in each elk management zone (IDFG 2005a, McNab et al� 2007)�

Okanogan Highland Section

This is a mountainous area in which glacial lakes,

rivers, and streams are prevalent� Rivers and

streams are rapid-flowing, particularly during

spring runoff� The Pend Oreille River, Pend Oreille

Lake, and Priest Lake are major waterbodies�

Creeks are prevalent, and many flow through

glacial outwash and debris material within narrow

valleys; glacial lakes and wet meadows are also

common� Rock strata are characterized by

extreme metamorphism and deformation, and

deposits of glacial till, outwash, and debris cover

much of the landscape�

The climate is maritime-influenced� Precipitation

occurs mostly as snow; the area receives 76–203

cm (30–80 in) of precipitation per year� Rain on

snow is common at lower elevations� June and

July are wet months, and the months of August

through November are dry� Annual average

temperature ranges from -1° C to 14° C (30°–58°

F), with a mean temperature of 7° C (44° F)�

Warmest months are late July through August�

The growing season varies with elevation, lasting

45 days at the highest elevations and up to 140

days in lower valleys� Cover types include forests

of western white pine (Pinus monticola), western

larch (Larix occidentalis), and Douglas-fir, as well

as mountain grasslands�

Communities are mostly small and rural,

but populations and development in some

municipalities have been greatly increasing

during recent years� Sandpoint, Bonners Ferry,

and Post Falls are the largest population centers�

Summer residences are common at lakes and

large river systems� Forestry, livestock grazing,

mining, and localized agriculture are principal

land uses� Participation in outdoor recreation is

rapidly increasing�

Flathead Valley Section

The Purcell and Cabinet mountains are dominant

landforms� Perennial streams are common, as

well as small lakes, bogs, and wetlands� The

Kootenai River and Clark Fork River are major

waterbodies that pass through� Soils are generally

moderately deep to deep with loamy to sandy

textures� Most of the soil contains volcanic ash�

Annual precipitation ranges from 46 cm to

>254 cm (18 to >100 in); most precipitation falls

as snow; summers tend to be dry� Climate is

cool-temperate with some maritime influence�

Temperature averages 2–7° C (36–45° F), and

the growing season ranges from 45 to 120 days�

While maritime influences create relatively

mild winter conditions, influxes of arctic air are

frequent� Forests of hemlock (Tsuga spp�)-Sitka

spruce (Picea sitchensis), larch, fir-spruce, and

western white pine dominate the section�

Communities are small and sparsely distributed�

Timber harvest and recreation are important land

uses, and livestock grazing and farming occur in

some valley areas�

Bitterroot Mountains Section

This area comprises steep, dissected mountains

with sharp crests and narrow valleys� Elevation

ranges from 366 m to 2,135 m (1,200–7,000 ft)�

Soil is shallow to moderately deep with loamy to

sandy textures and usually contains volcanic ash�

Perennial streams are generally fairly steep and

deeply incised� Major rivers include the Coeur

d’Alene, St� Maries, St� Joe, and Clearwater�

Appendix CEcological Sections

EXHIBIT B


Appendix C

163

Annual precipitation averages 102–203 cm

(40–80 in)� Most precipitation falls as snow,

and summers are relatively dry� Annual average

temperature ranges from 2° C to 7° C (36–45°

F)� Climate is maritime-influenced, having cool

and moist overall conditions with relatively mild

winters and drier summers� The growing season

varies with elevation and ranges from 45 to

100 days� Dominant cover types are Douglas-

fir and lodgepole pine (P. contorta) forests, and

mountain grasslands�

Communities are generally small and many are

situated along major waterbodies� Coeur d’Alene

is the major population center� Mining, timber

harvest, and recreation are dominant land uses;

livestock grazing is locally important�

Blue Mountains Section

Hells Canyon of the Snake River is a major feature

on this landscape� A wide, uplifted plateau

occurs in the western portion, and mountains

characterize the eastern portion� In addition to

the Snake River, waterbodies include the lower

reaches of the Salmon River, portions of the

Payette and Weiser rivers, and numerous streams,

as well as several reservoirs, springs, and alpine

lakes� Elevation ranges from 225 m to 3,100

m (750–9,400 ft)� Most mountains are 1,200–

2,300 m (4,000–7,500 ft) in elevation� Soil often

contains volcanic ash� An ash mantle is relatively

undisturbed on gentle north slopes under forest

canopies, but on southerly exposures ash has

been mostly removed by erosion�

Annual average precipitation is 23–46 cm (9–18

in) in valleys and 43 to 254 cm (17–100 in) in

mountains� Annual average temperature ranges

from -2° C to 11° C (28–52° F)� The growing

season varies considerably with elevation

and lasts for 30–130 days� The varied climate

and landscape supports diverse cover types:

ponderosa pine (P. ponderosa), fir-spruce,

lodgepole pine, sagebrush, and larch�

Human settlements are small and scattered,

occurring primarily in valleys along rivers� Mining,

timber harvest, agriculture, livestock grazing, and

recreation are primary land uses�

Idaho Batholith Section

This area is characterized by extensive

mountainous terrain; alpine ridges, cirques, and

large U-shaped valleys with broad bottoms,

and other features of glacial origins dominate

many areas, such as the Sawtooth Mountains�

Waterbodies are predominant, including major

portions of the Salmon, Clearwater, Payette, and

Boise rivers� Many perennial streams and lakes

are present, as well as a number of reservoirs�

Elevation ranges from 425 m to 3,400 m

(1,400–11,000 ft)� Soils are generally shallow to

moderately deep loam and sand� Volcanic ash

accumulations in some soils have caused them

to be especially productive� Dominant vegetation

communities include Douglas-fir and lodgepole

pine forests, and sagebrush�

Annual precipitation ranges from 51 cm to 203

cm (20–80 in), much of which falls as snow

during fall, winter, and spring� Climate is maritime-

influenced with cool temperate weather and dry

summers� Average annual temperature ranges

from 2° C to 7° C (35–46° F) but may be as

low as -4° C (24° F) in the high mountains� The

growing season lasts 45–100 days�

The northern portion of the section is primarily

wilderness, with few small communities�

Communities in southern areas are typically small

and concentrated along rivers� Larger towns, such

as Stanley and McCall are the focus of tourism

and recreation� Timber harvest and recreation are

dominant land uses, with livestock grazing and

mining of local importance�

Challis Volcanics Section

This section is dominated by mountain ranges,

including the White Cloud Peaks, Pioneer

Mountains, Smoky Mountains, Boulder Mountains,

White Knob Mountains, and portions of the

Salmon River Range� There are some glaciated

areas� Major waterbodies include the Wood River,

Big Lost River, and the Salmon River, and many

perennial streams and alpine lakes exist� Elevation

ranges from 1,200 m to 3,600 m (4,000–11,800

ft)� Douglas-fir and lodgepole pine forest

EXHIBIT B



dominate higher elevations; sagebrush-steppe

occurs from valley bottoms to timberline�

Climate is influenced by prevailing winds from the

west and the general north-south orientation of

mountain ranges� Precipitation ranges from 25

cm to 120 cm (10–45 in) annually with an average

of 56 cm (22 in)� The majority of precipitation

occurs during fall, winter, and spring� A rain

shadow effect from high mountain barriers to

the west reduces precipitation in this section�

Summers are dry with low humidity� Much of the

precipitation that falls at lower elevations during

summer months evaporates� Average annual air

temperature is 3–10° C (34–50° F) but may be as

low as -4° C (24° F) in the high mountains� The

growing season ranges from 70 to 120 days�

Approximately one-half of the land is forested

and major land uses are timber harvest, livestock

grazing, and recreation� Mining for gold and

silver is also an important use� The Wood River

Valley, including Ketchum, Hailey, and Bellevue,

is the population center� Development in this

scenic valley has been rapid and extensive during

recent decades�

Beaverhead Mountains Section

This area includes the highest mountain ranges

in the state� Landscapes are characterized by

sharp alpine ridges, cirques, and glacial valleys

at higher elevations, contrasting with wide dry

valleys, alluvial terraces, and flood plains at lower

elevations� Intermittent streams are common,

indicating the arid nature of the area� Lakes occur

in glaciated areas at higher elevations� Major

rivers include the Lemhi, Beaverhead, Big Lost,

and Little Lost� Elevation ranges from 1,100 m

to 3,860 m (3,600–12,662 ft)� Mountain soils are

generally shallow to moderately deep loam and

sandy containing rock fragments� Valley soils are

moderately deep loam and clay�

Annual precipitation ranges from 25 cm to 127 cm

(10–50 in) with most precipitation falling as snow

in fall, winter, and spring� Winters are cold, and

growing season conditions are dry� Soil moisture

is not sufficient for tree growth on some south

and west aspects below timberline, and shrub-

steppe communities often extend from valley

floors to mountain tops� Primary forest types are

lodgepole pine and Douglas-fir� Average annual

temperature is 2–8° C (36–46° F)� The growing

season ranges from 45 to 100 days�

Communities occur primarily at lower elevations

along rivers and are sparse and small� Livestock

grazing is the dominant land use� Timber

harvesting, mining, and recreation are also

important land uses�

Palouse Prairie Section

This section is characterized by dissected loess-

covered basalt plains, undulating plateaus, and

river breaklands� Elevation ranges from 220 m to

1,700 m (720–5,700 ft)� Soils are generally deep,

loamy to silty, and have formed in loess, alluvium,

or glacial outwash� Lower reaches and confluence

of the Snake and Clearwater rivers are major

waterbodies�

Climate is maritime influenced� Precipitation

ranges from 25 cm to 76 cm (10–30 in) annually,

falling primarily during fall, winter, and spring;

winter precipitation is mostly snow� Summers are

relatively dry� Average annual temperature ranges

from 7º C to12º C (45–54º F)� The growing season

varies with elevation and lasts 100–170 days�

Historically, mountain grasslands dominated, with

areas of ponderosa pine� However, the landscape

has been largely converted to agricultural

production (primarily wheat)�

Population centers include Lewiston and Moscow,

and small agricultural communities are dispersed

throughout�

Owyhee Uplands Section

This area is characterized by deeply dissected

canyons formed through the combination of

erosion and geologic uplifting� Lava formations

are prevalent and are older than those of the

Snake River Plain� The Owyhee Mountains are

composed primarily of granite, and most of the

uplands are rhyolites, ash deposits, and wind-

blown loess� Elevation ranges from 1,200 m to

2,500 m (4,000–8,000 ft)� The Snake, Owyhee,

EXHIBIT B


Appendix C

165

growing season ranges from 60 to 165 days,

decreasing from west to east and with elevation�

Enough precipitation falls in some foothills for dry

farming� Desert shrub and sagebrush cover types

dominate the area�

Population centers include Idaho Falls and

Pocatello, and small communities are dispersed

primarily along the Snake River corridor� Livestock

grazing and dryland and irrigated farming are

major land uses� Recreation is also important�

Northwestern Basin and Range Section

This area is characterized by north-south

trending mountain ranges and volcanic plateaus

interspersed with broad, nearly level basins and

valleys� The elevational range is 1,200–2,200

m (4,000–7,200 ft)� Large alluvial fans have

developed at the mouths of most canyons, and

playas and marshes occur in valleys and basins�

Water is scarce except at higher elevations� Few

streams are present, and groundwater is a major

water source for agricultural and residential uses�

Sagebrush-steppe and desert shrub are dominant

cover types�

Summers are hot and dry, and winters are cold

and dry� Precipitation ranges from 10 cm to 79

cm (4–20 in) annually� Precipitation is evenly

distributed throughout fall, winter, and spring�

Average annual temperature is 5–10° C (41–50° F)�

The growing season ranges from 30 to 140 days�

Residential communities are small and sparsely

distributed� Livestock production is the primary

land use� Mining occurs in some areas�

Overthrust Mountains Section

Landscapes are characterized by minor mountain

ranges and broad valleys� Mountain ranges

include the Webster, Aspen, Portneuf, Bannock,

and Bear River ranges� Linear valleys and ridges

are products of thrust faults� Rivers are of 2

major drainage basins, flowing either into the

Snake River or into the Great Salt Lake in Utah�

Important rivers include the South Fork of the

Snake River, Portneuf River, and Bear River� A

and Bruneau rivers are the major waterbodies

and are among the few perennial waterbodies

represented� Small streams are typically

intermittent and arise from snow accumulation

at higher elevations, but some streams are

fed by springs� Few small lakes and reservoirs

are present�

Precipitation ranges from 20 cm to 40 cm

(7–15 in) annually� Much precipitation is lost to

evaporation during summer months� Average

annual temperature ranges from 2° C to 8° C

(35–45° F)� The growing season varies with

elevation, ranging from 120 days to <60 days

at higher elevations� Vegetation communities

are sagebrush and pinyon (Pinus spp�)-juniper

(Juniperus spp�)�

Residential communities are small and sparsely

distributed in the central and southern parts of

the region, but the northern part of the section

is the urban center of the state containing about

one-half of the state’s population� Livestock

grazing, dryland and irrigated agriculture, and

recreation are major land uses�

Snake River Basalts and Basins Section

The landscape comprises extensive plains,

isolated buttes, and block-faulted mountains� The

surface is a lava plateau with a thin windblown

soil layer covering it� Lava flows prevalent

throughout the area vary in thickness from <30 m

(100 ft) to thousands of meters� Shield volcanoes,

cinder cones, and lava ridges are common�

Craters of the Moon National Monument is an

example of the recent volcanic features� Elevation

ranges from 900 m to 2,000 m (3,000–6,000 ft)�

The Snake River, American Falls Reservoir, Lake

Walcott, and Mud Lake are major waterbodies,

and few other perennial surface waterbodies

are present�

Precipitation ranges from 12 cm to 30 cm (5–12

in) annually and is evenly distributed throughout

fall, winter, and spring, but is low in summer�

Precipitation during summer months is generally

lost to evaporation� Average annual temperature

ranges from 4° C to 13° C (40–58° F)� The

EXHIBIT B



few lakes and wet meadows are associated

with higher elevations above 1,500 m (5,000

ft)� Large waterbodies include Bear Lake and

Palisades Reservoir� Elevation ranges from 1,300

m to 3,000 m (4,400–9,900 ft)� Sedimentary

rock formations, such as limestones, siltstone,

sandstones, and shales, are predominant�

Climate is influenced by prevailing winds and

general north-south orientation of mountain

ranges� Precipitation ranges from 40 cm to 100

cm (16–40 in) annually with most occurring

during fall, winter, and spring� Precipitation occurs

mostly as snow above 1,800 m (6,000 ft)� The

majority of precipitation falls as snow in winter�

Summers are dry� Annual average temperature

is 2–10° C (35–50° F)� The growing season lasts

80–120 days�

Population centers are primarily along the

Portneuf and Bear rivers and include Pocatello

and Preston� Approximately 70% of the land

is forested with fir-spruce or lodgepole pine;

sagebrush dominates lower elevations and

small pockets of alpine tundra occur on high

mountains� Timber harvest, livestock grazing, and

recreation are major land uses� Phosphate mining

is an important land use in some areas�

Yellowstone Highlands Section

This area comprises the western margins of the

Yellowstone Plateau� Much of this area has been

glaciated and moraines are common� Perennial

streams, wet meadows, and lakes are numerous

and prevalent� Major waterbodies include Henrys

Lake, Henrys Fork of the Snake River, and Island

Park Reservoir� Elevation ranges from 1,500

m to 2,500 m (5,100–8,500 ft)� Soils in basins

and valleys are generally coarse and shallow to

moderately deep�

Precipitation ranges from 51 cm to 114 cm (20–

45 in) annually with most occurring during fall,

winter, and spring� Precipitation occurs mostly as

snow above 1,800 m (6,000 ft) and mostly as rain

during the growing season� Climate is cold, moist

continental� Temperature averages 2–8° C (35–47°

F)� The growing season lasts 25–120 days with

a shorter growing season at higher elevations�

Dominant cover types are lodgepole pine or fir-

spruce forests, sagebrush, and alpine tundra�

Communities are small and primarily scattered

along the Henrys Fork� Recreation, timber

harvest, and livestock grazing are dominant land

uses� A small amount of forage and other crops

are grown in some valleys�

Bear Lake Section

This section comprises Bear Lake, Bear Lake

Valley, and dry hillsides and ridges to the east

of Bear Lake� Bear Lake drains through Bear

River, which is eventually a tributary of Great Salt

Lake� Elevations range from 1,800 m to 2,400 m

(5,900–7,800 ft)�

Precipitation ranges from 40 cm to 100 cm (16–

40 in) annually with most occurring during fall,

winter, and spring� Precipitation occurs mostly as

snow above 1,800 m (6,000 ft)� Summers are dry

with low humidity� Temperature averages 1–9° C

(34–48° F)� The growing season ranges from 50

to 180 days� Sagebrush and chaparral-mountain

shrub cover types are common� Livestock

grazing, agriculture, and recreation are primary

land uses�

EXHIBIT B


Appendix C

167

Table A-1. Ecological Sections for Idaho elk zones.

Elk zone Ecological Sections* Percentage of zone

Panhandle

Flathead Valley

Okanogan Highlands

Bitterroot Mountains

Palouse Prairie

10�1

33�4

53�2

3�4

PalouseBitterroot Mountains

Palouse Prairie

28�5

71�5

Dworshak

Bitterroot Mountains

Palouse Prairie

Idaho Batholith

66�7

33�0

0�3

Hells CanyonPalouse Prairie

Blue Mountains

37�2

62�8

LoloBitterroot Mountains

Idaho Batholith

61�4

38�6

Elk City

Palouse Prairie

Blue Mountains

Idaho Batholith

8�8

10�0

81�2

Selway Idaho Batholith 100

Middle ForkIdaho Batholith

Challis Volcanics

51�8

48�2

Salmon

Idaho Batholith

Challis Volcanics

Beaverhead Mountains

50�7

20�0

29�3

Weiser River

Blue Mountains

Owyhee Uplands

Idaho Batholith

78�5

18�7

2�8

McCall

Blue Mountains

Idaho Batholith

Challis Volcanics

9�9

82�6

7�5

LemhiBeaverhead Mountains

Snake River Basalts

98�3

1�7

BeaverheadBeaverhead Mountains

Snake River Basalts

89�1

10�9

BrownleeBlue Mountains

Owyhee Uplands

92�1

7�9

SawtoothIdaho Batholith

Challis Volcanics

89�0

11�0

Pioneer

Challis Volcanics


Owyhee Uplands

Snake River Basalts

77�2

19�8

1�0

2�0

EXHIBIT B



Elk zone Ecological Sections* Percentage of zone

Owyhee-South Hills

Owyhee Uplands

Northwestern Basin Range

Snake River Basalts

74�7

17�3

8�0

Boise RiverIdaho Batholith

Owyhee Uplands

Blue Mountains

83�8

15�3

0�9

Smokey Mountains

Idaho Batholith

Challis Volcanics

Owyhee Uplands

54�3

33�3

12�4

Bennett Hills

Owyhee Uplands

Snake River Basalts

Challis Volcanics

Idaho Batholith

83�4

15�5

0�3

0�8

Big DesertSnake River Basalts

Challis Volcanics


99�5

0�4

0�1

Island Park


Snake River Basalts

Yellowstone Highlands

18�3

47�0

34�7

Teton

Snake River Basalts

Yellowstone Highlands Overthrust Mountains

70�3

22�3

7�4

Palisades

Snake River Basalts

Overthrust Mountains Northwestern Basin Range

36�7

62�2

0�1

Tex Creek


Snake River Basalts

Overthrust Mountains

48�0

10�0

42�0

Bannock


Snake River Basalts


50�5

12�7

36�8

Bear River



Bear Lake

87�7

6�3

6�0

Diamond Creek



Bear Lake

79�2

3�2

17�6

EXHIBIT B

EXHIBIT B

Idaho ElkManagement Plan2014-2024

EXHIBIT B

Predation Management Plan for the Middle Fork Elk Zone

February 2014

Idaho Department of Fish and Game

EXHIBIT C

EXHIBIT C

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1

DEFINITION OF PROBLEM .........................................................................................................1

ELK POPULATION OBJECTIVES AND CURRENT STATUS ............................................2

Background – Middle Fork Elk ...........................................................................................4

Habitat Potential...................................................................................................................4

Annual Survival of Elk ........................................................................................................5

Cause-specific Mortality of Elk ...........................................................................................5

EFFORTS TO ADDRESS MIDDLE FORK ZONE ELK DECLINE ......................................5

Changes in Elk Habitat ........................................................................................................5

Changes in Elk Hunting Seasons and Harvest Strategies ....................................................6

Black Bear and Mountain Lion Populations and Harvest ....................................................7

Wolf Population Size ...........................................................................................................7

Wolf Harvest ........................................................................................................................9

PREDATION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ..............................................................................10

Proposed Actions .....................................................................................................................10

OBJECTIVE AND MEASURES OF SUCCESS ..........................................................................10

MONITORING ..............................................................................................................................11

Elk ............................................................................................................................................11

Bears and Mountain Lions .......................................................................................................11

Wolves .....................................................................................................................................11

Budget ......................................................................................................................................12

RISK ASSESSMENT ....................................................................................................................12

Predator Population ..................................................................................................................12

Prey Populations ......................................................................................................................13

Wildlife-Associated Recreation Opportunity ..........................................................................13

Management Actions in Federally-designated Wilderness......................................................13

LITERATURE CITED ..................................................................................................................14

EXHIBIT C

ii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Population objectives and status of Middle Fork Zone elk 1989 – 2011 (elk sightability surveys). ...........................................................................................................................................2

Table 2. Middle Fork Elk Zone harvest statistics, 2003-2012. ........................................................6

Table 3. Human-caused mortality in the MFZ since 2009-2010. ....................................................9

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Total number of cow elk in the Middle Fork Zone, 1989-2011. ......................................3

Figure 2. Total number of antlered elk in the Middle Fork Zone, 1989-2011. Prior to the adoption of the 2014-2024 Elk Management Plan, the population objectives for males was 950-1,550 and adult males was 600-900 (IDFG 1999). IDFG adjusted this objective to better reflect realistic potential for population growth over the scope of the 2014-2023 elk plan. ....................................3

Figure 3. Juveniles:100 females in Middle Fork Elk Zone, 1989-2011. .........................................4

Figure 4. Approximate extent of detected wolf pack activity in the MFZ, 2011-2012. ..................8

EXHIBIT C

1

INTRODUCTION

Consistent with the Fish and Game Commission’s (Commission) "Policy for Avian and Mammalian Predation Management (IDFG 2000)," this management plan identifies actions and objectives to stabilize and recover elk populations in the Middle Fork Zone (MFZ), and identifies approaches to monitor effects of these actions on elk and predator populations. Most of the MFZ is comprised of the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness and in federal ownership, managed by the U. S. Forest Service (USFS). Actions will be taken in consideration of congressional wilderness designation and in conjunction with state management plans for individual species (gray wolf [Canis lupus], black bear [Ursus americanus], mountain lion [Puma concolor], and elk [Cervus elaphus]) to ensure species management objectives are met.

DEFINITION OF PROBLEM

Total elk numbers in the MFZ declined from 7,485 to 6,958 (-7%) from 2002 to 2006, and then to 4,229 by 2011 (an additional 39% for a total loss of 43% since 2002). Cow elk and bull elk numbers in the MFZ have declined 35% and 45%, respectively, between the 2006 and 2011 aerial surveys and are below population management objectives. The ratio of calves to cow elk during in the 2011 winter survey was less than 13 calves per 100 cows, suggesting further decline beyond 2011. This low level of reproductive success is well below that needed to recover the herd, and at its current level, the elk population will continue to decline. Based on research on causes of elk mortality conducted in the elk management zones immediately adjacent to MFZ to the north

EXHIBIT C

2

(Lolo and Selway) and to the south (Sawtooth), wolves are likely a major source of juvenile and female elk mortality especially during winter, thus reducing the recruitment of juveniles into the herd and preventing the female elk component of the population from reaching management objectives (Pauley and Zager 2011). Based on population modeling, the MFZ elk population is expected to continue to decline at 3 to 7% annually if predation rates are not reduced. ELK POPULATION OBJECTIVES AND CURRENT STATUS

Management objectives for elk in the MFZ call for maintaining 3,850 – 5,750 female elk and 690 - 1,030 male elk, of which 390 - 810 are adult males (defined as branched-antler bulls during winter) (IDFG 2014). The most recent survey (2011) indicated that all components of the elk population were below population objectives (Table 1, Figs. 1-2). The cow to calf ratio in the MFZ declined substantially after 1995 (Fig. 3). Table 1. Population objectives and status of Middle Fork Zone elk 1989 – 2011 (elk sightability surveys).

Objectivea F M Adult M M:100 F Ad M: 100 F 3,850-5,750 690-1030 390-810 25-29 14-18

Year 1989 4,225 933 543 22.1 12.9 1992 5,525 1,217 691 22.0 12.5 1995 6,365 1,314 865 20.6 13.6 1999b 6,383 855 619 13.4 9.7 2002 4,613 875 475 19.0 10.3 2006 5,137 834 450 16.2 8.8 2011 3,341 462 276 13.8 8.3

a Prior to the adoption of the 2014-2024 Elk Management Plan, the population objectives for males was 950-1,550 and adult males was 600-900. IDFG adjusted this objective to better reflect realistic potential for population growth during this 10-year period. b Values for GMU 26 portion of this estimate based on a partial survey.

EXHIBIT C

3

Figure 1. Total number of cow elk in the Middle Fork Zone, 1989-2011.

Figure 2. Total number of antlered elk in the Middle Fork Zone, 1989-2011. Prior to the adoption of the 2014-2024 Elk Management Plan, the population objectives for males was 950-1,550 and adult males was 600-900 (IDFG 1999). IDFG adjusted this objective to better reflect realistic potential for population growth over the scope of the 2014-2023 elk plan.

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 2010

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 2010

Objective range

EXHIBIT C

4

Figure 3. Juveniles:100 females in Middle Fork Elk Zone, 1989-2011. Background – Middle Fork Elk

The Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) has defined some movement patterns of elk in the MFZ via radio-telemetry of elk calves. This information, combined with radio-telemetry studies of elk in the adjacent zones to the north and south of the MFZ, and historical observations within the MFZ, indicates that greater than 60% of elk in the MFZ remain resident within the zone, occupying higher elevation ranges during summer and moving to lower elevations along the Middle Fork Salmon River, main Salmon River and major tributaries during winter. Population objectives were established based on habitat potential, harvest opportunity, and moderate predation rates (IDFG 2014). Habitat Potential

Pregnancy rates and body condition of females are indicators of carrying capacity (Murphy et al. 2011). In addition, forage quality and its effect on animal condition regulate elk population vital rates, and recruitment rates in particular (Cook 2002, Cook et al. 2004). Higher quality forage typically promotes higher recruitment rates, while in a habitat-limited situation, rates decline in response to lower or declining forage conditions. Granitic and weathered volcanic formations underlying the MFZ provide fewer nutrients, and lower precipitation in the MFZ limits vegetative productivity. Similar to the situation in the Lochsa and Lolo areas (to the north), elk habitat quality in the MFZ has declined in general since

0.27

0.30 0.29

0.15

0.22 0.20

0.13

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 2010

Ratio

of C

alve

s to

Cow

s

Year

EXHIBIT C

5

the 1980s through the early 2000s due to a lack of disturbance (fires), and has been a factor contributing to population decline. Recent fires in the MFZ have provided some relief from long-term habitat declines. Perimeters of fires occurring since 2000 encompass >400,000 acres, accounting for roughly 20% of the area. In general, large-scale wildfires promote increased forage production and forage quality, particularly on summer ranges. A significant acreage of wildfire in the MFZ has occurred on winter and transition range; however, on some winter ranges there is potential for reduced forage quantity and quantity as a consequence of increased prevalence of invasive noxious weeds and other species with lower or no nutritional value. Annual Survival of Elk

Elk population growth rates are sensitive to adult female survival, and populations that are stable or increasing typically exhibit female survival rates >90% (Eberhardt 1985). Cow survival rates averaged 81% in the nearby Lowman area, 2008-2012; and 83% in the North Fork Clearwater River drainage, 2009-2012 (Pauley et al. 2012, IDFG unpublished data 2014). Poor juvenile survival also contributes substantially to population decline (Gaillard et al. 1998, Raithel 2005). The most recent mid-winter estimate of less than 13 calves per 100 cows is inadequate to maintain a population given observed cow elk survival rates. Female and juvenile elk survival rates appear inadequate to stabilize or provide growth of the elk population, preventing it from reaching management objectives within the MFZ. Cause-specific Mortality of Elk

IDFG has collected data through the use of radio-collars regarding the causes of elk mortality between 2006 and 2012 from the Sawtooth, Lolo, and Selway Zones, which are located immediately south and north of the MFZ. Legal harvest was documented as the primary cause of mortality for adult male elk, while wolf predation and malnutrition were documented as the leading causes of mortality for both females and calves ≥ six months (Pauley and Zager 2011). Neonate elk (< 6 months) are killed primarily by predation from bears and lions (Schlegel 1986, Zager and White 2003), although predation by wolves, malnutrition, and other causes can be important factors (Zager et al. 2007). EFFORTS TO ADDRESS MIDDLE FORK ZONE ELK DECLINE

Changes in Elk Habitat

Most of the MFZ is comprised of the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness and in federal ownership, managed predominately by the USFS. Habitat alteration in this area is largely in the form of natural disturbance such as wildfire. Approximately 20% of the MFZ has burned in wildfires since 2000. However, colonization of the Wilderness by invasive plant species in recent years is an important factor in the deterioration of elk habitat in some areas. IDFG will make recommendations regarding invasive plant control and other habitat-related issues to the USFS consistent with the directives of the 1980 federal wilderness designation and interagency

EXHIBIT C

6

agreements. IDFG will also continue to evaluate appropriate measures for habitat management on the relatively small acreage of parcels it owns in the MFZ. Changes in Elk Hunting Seasons and Harvest Strategies

In response to declines in elk numbers, especially bull elk, IDFG implemented caps on the A and B zone tags in the MFZ in 2000 and restricted take to a smaller segment of the elk population (only bull elk with at least a brow tine) in GMU 27 in 2001. Antlerless elk hunting was reduced over time and completely eliminated in the MFZ in 2011 (Table 2). Table 2. Middle Fork Elk Zone harvest statistics, 2003-2012.

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Antlerless harvest 110 73 78 119 78 42 67 57 0 0

'A' Tag 71 72 78 119 77 42 67 55 0 0 'B' Tag 39 1 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 CH Tag 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Antlered harvest 309 307 355 419 296 295 250 158 145 155 'A' Tag 75 110 76 112 93 61 65 50 38 43 'B' Tag 234 197 279 307 203 234 185 108 107 112 CH Tag 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hunter numbers 1,878 1,841 1,678 1,611 1,512 1,752 1,511 1,133 821 757 'A' Tag 752 782 678 647 654 706 588 471 285 197 'B' Tag 1,126 1.059 990 964 858 1,046 923 662 536 560 CH Tag 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6+ points (%) 39 36 47 43 40 42 49 56 44 50

EXHIBIT C

7

Black Bear and Mountain Lion Populations and Harvest

Spring and fall bear seasons in the MFZ were relatively conservative in the late 1980s and early 1990s, consisting of a standardized season of April 15 to June 15 in spring and September 15 to October 31 in fall. Lion seasons ran from September 15 to March 31. Only 1 bear and 1 lion could be taken in a calendar year. Between fall 1999 and spring 2001, the Commission made incremental changes to bear and lion seasons and bag limits to address declining elk recruitment in the MFZ. Bear seasons were expanded to August 30 to November 18 in fall and April 1 to June 30 in spring. Lion seasons were expanded to August 30 through April 30. Extra bear and lion tags were allowed, along with discounted non-resident bear and lion tags. Non-resident deer and elk tags could also be used on bear and lions. These changes resulted in a doubling of black bear harvest by 2002, and black bear harvest has since remained at these higher levels. The management objective for bears in the MFZ (bear data analysis unit 3B) is to increase harvest from a light to moderate harvest regime (IDFG 1998). Despite the higher harvest levels since 2002, the bear population in the MFZ continues to exhibit characteristics of a lightly harvested population. By contrast, mountain lion harvest demonstrated an initial increase, and then a declining trend in harvest after 2000. This pattern occurred simultaneously over most of Idaho. Potential factors include a reduced lion population driven by a declining prey base for this obligate predator, and a decline in participation by hound hunters (concerns with turning dogs loose in wolf country). Although alternate prey, primarily white-tailed (Odocoileus virginianus) and mule deer (O. hemionus), are available to lions in these GMUs, whitetails are uncommon and mule deer occur at moderate densities. The current lion harvest (average of 10 lions/year, 2011 – 2013) is below the objective described in the Idaho Mountain Lion Plan (IDFG 2002) for a harvest of 15 or more lions annually from the Warren Data Analysis Unit, which also includes GMUs 19A and 25. This DAU includes some of the oldest mountain lions in Idaho, with 55% of the male harvest constituted of lions 5 years of age or older. Wolf Population Size

Radio-telemetry, non-invasive genetic sampling, hunter observation and harvest information (e.g., location and number observed by hunters, location and age-class data obtained from harvested wolves) provide insight into pack activity in the MFZ. Based on this information, IDFG has documented 6 to 8 resident packs in the MFZ in recent years (2008 – 2012), and an additional 2-3 packs whose territories include significant area within the MFZ (Fig. 4). However, additional packs that have not been detected may use the MFZ, and annual minimum population estimates generated for such a vast and remote back-country area should be treated as conservative estimates.

EXHIBIT C

8

Figure 4. Approximate extent of detected wolf pack activity in the MFZ, 2011-2012. The 2,884 mi2 MFZ is large enough to accommodate approximately 12 wolf packs, based on an average territory size of 240 mi2 (Ausband et al. in review). Given the range of 6 (minimum documented) to 12 (based on territory size) packs in the MFZ, management will initially be based upon the midpoint of 9 packs assumed present in the MFZ.

EXHIBIT C

9

To comply with federal post-delisting monitoring requirements, IDFG develops a minimum population estimate for wolves by using information based on documented packs, estimated pack size, number of wolves documented in small groups not considered packs, and a percentage of the population expected to be lone wolves. The formula is presented as:

[(# Wolves in known packs with complete counts) + (# Packs with incomplete counts *mean pack size) + (# Wolves in other documented groups)]* (lone wolf factor)

This minimum population estimate is calculated at the end of the calendar year, during the hunting and trapping seasons. It is more useful to management, however, to calculate this estimate the following summer, after harvest has concluded and packs have demonstrated success in recruitment of pups. Given a summer mean pack size of 9.2 wolves per pack (IDFG unpublished data 2012), an additional 12.5% lone wolf factor (see Holyan et al. 2013), 9 packs represent approximately 93 wolves present in the MFZ during summer. Wolf Harvest

The state is divided into wolf zones based on current wolf densities and distribution, elk zones and prey base, livestock conflict areas, ecological or administrative similarities, and linkage concerns. The Middle Fork Wolf Zone is identical to the Middle Fork Elk Zone. During the first Idaho wolf hunting season in 2009, IDFG developed harvest limits for individual wolf zones as well as a statewide limit. Seasons closed in individual zones when harvest limits were met, or the end of the established season date, whichever occurred first. A harvest limit of 17 was adopted for the MFZ for the 2009-10 season (this was reached January 31, 2010); no harvest limits were deemed necessary for subsequent years. Hunting and trapping are the primary causes of human-caused mortality in the MFZ (Table 3). Table 3. Human-caused mortality in the MFZ since 2009-2010.

Biological Yeara Hunting Trapping Other Human-Caused Mortalityc Total

2009-2010 16 0 4 20 2010-2011 0 0 0 0 2011-2012 27 12 1 40 2012-2013 6 10 0 16 2013 - 2014b 11 2 9 22

a May 1 – April 30 b Through January 31, 2014 only c Includes other legal kills, illegal kills, control actions, etc.

EXHIBIT C

10

IDFG has incrementally increased wolf hunting and trapping opportunity under an adaptive framework consistent with Commission direction. The hunting season ran from 30 August through 31 March for the first 3 seasons and was extended to a 30 June closure beginning in 2013-14. Trapping was permitted 15 November to 31 March beginning with the 2011-12 season. Hunters and trappers can use up to 5 wolf tags in the MFZ (each method, plus hunting tags may be used for trapped wolves). Additionally, non-resident elk and deer tags may be used instead for taking a bear, lion, or wolf if that season is open.

PREDATION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

PROPOSED ACTIONS

Regulated harvest by licensed hunters is IDFG’s preferred tool for reducing black bears and mountain lions in the MFZ. IDFG will continue to support longer seasons and additional tags in the MFZ for managing bear and lion to improve elk survival. IDFG plans no additional actions beyond regulated harvest for bear and mountain lion management. Regulated harvest by licensed hunters and trappers is IDFG’s preferred tool for reducing wolves in the MFZ. When regulated harvest, despite changes to seasons, bag limits, and regulations, is insufficient to achieve wolf reduction in the MFZ, and consistent with the federal wilderness designation of most of the MFZ, IDFG will approach management from a “minimum tool” perspective, initially using one or more wilderness trappers on foot or horseback to remove wolves from the MFZ. Wolf removal rates of 29% or less typically do not cause any short-term changes in wolf abundance (Adams et al. 2008). Wolf populations tend to compensate for low removal rates, potentially within a year. Where higher levels of removal occur and wolf populations decline, the wolf population would be expected to return to pre-removal levels rapidly once removals end (National Research Council 1997: Table 3.1). Consequently, after a wolf population is reduced to a desired level, it is necessary to sustain a removal level during subsequent years to maintain reduced wolf abundance. Proposed future management actions will be designed to maintain approximately 40% of the existing wolf population in the MFZ. Wolf management in the MFZ is extremely challenging considering the remote country, rugged terrain, and limited access. Consequently, hunting and trapping pressure is lower than front country areas that are easier to access and travel. Any reduction in the MFZ wolf population will likely take longer than most other zones. Management will be necessarily adaptive, relying upon monitoring to determine the appropriate management. IDFG will monitor legal harvest and adjust future efforts accordingly.

OBJECTIVE AND MEASURES OF SUCCESS

The objective of the Predation Management Plan is to affect an increase in elk survival and elk numbers in the MFZ to move the population towards stabilization and eventual recovery. To achieve this objective, IDFG seeks to reduce predator populations without affecting their viability. IDFG will manage wolf numbers to 40% of the 2012 population, from a summer population of approximately 93 wolves to approximately 35-40 wolves. Success will be

EXHIBIT C

11

measured by comparing elk status in relation to IDFG 2014 elk plan population objectives and consistency with species management plans for black bear and mountain lion, and the Idaho Wolf Conservation and Management Plan (Idaho Legislative Wolf Oversight Committee 2002).

MONITORING

Monitoring is a key component of any predation reduction plan and integral to adapting and refining management. Both predators and prey must be monitored to provide an adaptive framework for decisions. ELK

Harvest characteristics will continue to be monitored annually through a mandatory hunter report card. A zone-wide elk survey was conducted in the MFZ in 2011 and a subsequent survey is planned after 5 years, during winter 2016. Recruitment will be indexed through estimation of calf:cow ratios biennially. BEARS AND MOUNTAIN LIONS

IDFG will monitor black bear, mountain lion, and wolf populations through required harvest checks and Big Game Mortality Report forms. These forms are required for each successful hunter and for other discovered mortality and provide detailed information for each individual animal harvested regarding animal age, sex, location, and condition. Forms for wolves also include information regarding observation of other wolves. Harvest checks involve the extraction of a tooth for aging, collection of DNA, and attachment of an identification tag to each pelt. These data provide population trends regarding male/female ratios and age class distribution of the harvest. WOLVES

In addition to measures outlined above for bears and lions, IDFG will continue statewide monitoring of the wolf population to ensure compliance with post-delisting population criteria and monitoring requirements. IDFG will estimate a minimum number of wolves and breeding pairs on an annual basis from observations of unmarked and radio-collared packs, and wolf tracking and aerial surveys. Depending on the efficacy of maintaining radio-collared animals in the MFZ, IDFG may also conduct non-invasive genetic surveys of historic and predicted rendezvous sites (Ausband et al. 2010) to assess pack presence, size, recruitment, and rate of (reported) human-caused mortality. Additional methods may include conducting howl box surveys to verify presence or absence (Ausband et al. 2011), using trail cameras to verify production, and linking harvest data to specific packs.

EXHIBIT C

12

BUDGET

The funds required to implement actions in this plan are available as part of larger, ongoing IDFG programs. Aerial surveys as listed are funded though statewide ungulate monitoring budgets. Funds for these efforts come from a combination of Pittman-Robertson funds, federal wolf appropriations, and IDFG license dollars. Only license funds would be used for lethal removal of wolves in the MFZ.

RISK ASSESSMENT

PREDATOR POPULATION

IDFG’s actions under this plan will be limited to black bear, mountain lions, and wolves. Bear season changes and associated actions that were implemented previously were intended to increase bear harvest rates to meet a “moderate” harvest goal. However, “light” harvest rates continue to be documented, and the geographic ruggedness and isolation of this area may make a moderate harvest rate unattainable even with liberal hunting seasons. Declines in elk numbers were followed by declines in numbers of mountain lions, which in turn led to lower hunter participation and harvest rates (White 2010). Lion harvest remains low and more liberal lion seasons are unlikely to reduce lion populations substantially. As of December 31, 2012, there were ≥117 wolf packs and ≥35 documented breeding pairs in Idaho (Holyan et al. 2013). Of the 117 packs documented in 2012, 111 documented packs were completely outside the MFZ and would not be affected by actions authorized under this predation management plan. None of the 35 breeding pairs documented during 2012 would be affected by the proposed actions. More than 600 wolves reside in areas of Idaho outside the MFZ proposed action. Of note, the MFZ was the site of the initial 35 wolves released in Idaho during 1995 and 1996. Idaho’s current wolf population is the result of these releases, dispersal from releases in Wyoming the same years, and natural colonization from established populations in Montana and Canada. A majority of introduced wolves established territories outside the MFZ, and most wolves in Idaho currently exist outside the MFZ. Potential emigration from these areas into the MFZ and wolf population resiliency in general make it very unlikely that reductions proposed under this plan would present any significant short- or long-term risk to the persistence of wolves in the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness, MFZ, or overall wolf population viability. Wolf population reduction in the MFZ will not affect the ability to maintain Idaho’s wolf population well above the recovery criteria of 15 breeding pairs and 150 wolves statewide. In summary, these described management efforts are intended to help improve elk survival in the MFZ and will not affect the viability of the resident wolf, bear, and mountain lion populations within the MFZ nor adjacent zones.

EXHIBIT C

13

PREY POPULATIONS

Elk will be the primary species benefitting from the proposed actions in this plan. Mule deer, bighorn sheep, and other prey may benefit as well. WILDLIFE-ASSOCIATED RECREATION OPPORTUNITY

Elk have been managed for hunting and viewing by the public since the 1950s in the MFZ. The participation in hunting peaked in the 1990s as elk reached population levels that were meeting or exceeding IDFG objectives. Since that time, calf recruitment has steadily declined along with the total elk population. IDFG has substantially reduced elk hunting opportunity in the MFZ since 2000. During the past 10 years, the number of elk hunters in the MFZ declined from 2,105 to 797, a loss of 62% participation. Implementation of actions designed to reduce impacts of predation on elk may result in a subsequent increase in opportunities for sportsmen and for other wildlife-associated recreationists whose focus is elk. The continued presence of wolves, black bear, and mountain lions in this area also provides an opportunity for hunting, trapping (in the case of wolves), and viewing (directly or indirectly), which maintains the wilderness character and values of the MFZ. These opportunities will continue in a sustainable fashion as IDFG manages predation on elk consistent with the objectives of this plan. MANAGEMENT ACTIONS IN FEDERALLY-DESIGNATED WILDERNESS

Most of the MFZ lies within the federally designated Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness. IDFG will consider the values underlying the Central Idaho Wilderness Act of 1980 as they apply to its actions in the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness. IDFG will also evaluate the “minimum tool” concept for performance of additional agency actions in the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness, should they be needed to reach population objectives under this plan.

EXHIBIT C

14

LITERATURE CITED

Adams, L.G., R.O. Stephenson, B.W. Dale, R. T. Ahgook, and D. J. Demma. 2008. Population dynamics and harvest characteristics of wolves in the Central Brooks Range, Alaska. Wildlife Monographs 170.

Ausband, D. E., M. S. Mitchell, K. Doherty, P. Zager, C. M. Mack, and J. Holyan. 2010. Surveying predicted rendezvous sites to monitor gray wolf populations. Journal of Wildlife Management 74:1043–1049.

Ausband, D. E., J. Skrivseth, and M. S. Mitchell. 2011. An automated device for provoking and capturing wildlife calls. Wildlife Society Bulletin 35:498-503.

Ausband, D. E., L. N. Rich, E. M. Glenn, M. S. Mitchell, P. Zager, C. M. Mack, D. A. W. Miller, and B. B. Ackerman. In review. Monitoring wolf populations using multiple survey methods. Journal of Wildlife Management.

Cook, J. G. 2002. Nutrition and food. Pages 259–349 in D. E. Toweill and J. W. Thomas, editors. North American elk: ecology and management. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C., USA.

Cook, J. G., B. K. Johnson, R. C. Cook, R. A. Riggs, T. Delcurto, L. D. Bryant, and L. L. Irwin. 2004. Effects of summer-autumn nutrition and parturition date on reproduction and survival of elk. Wildlife Monographs 155.

Eberhardt, L. L. 1985. Assessing the dynamics of wild populations. Journal of Wildlife Management 49:997–1012.

Gaillard, J. M., M. Festa-Bianchett, and N. G. Yoccuz. 1998. Population dynamics of large herbivores: variable recruitment with constant adult survival. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 13:58–63.

Holyan, J., J. Husseman, J. Struthers, and B. Thomas. 2013. 2012 Idaho wolf monitoring progress report. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, Nez Perce Tribe Wolf Recovery Project, Lapwai, USA.

Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 1998. Black bear management plan 1999–2010: status and objectives of Idaho’s black bear resource. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, ID.

Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG). 1999. Idaho elk management plan: status and objectives of Idaho’s elk resources. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, USA.

Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG). 2000. Policy for Avian and Mammalian Predation Management web site. <http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/?getPage=331>. Accessed 6 February 2014.

EXHIBIT C

15

Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG). 2002. Mountain lion management plan 2002–2010. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, ID.

Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 2014. Idaho Elk Management Plan. Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Boise, ID.

Idaho Legislative Wolf Oversight Committee 2002. Idaho wolf conservation and management plan. Boise, ID.

Murphy, K. M., M. S. Nadeau, and T. K. Ruth. 2011. Cougar-prey relationships. Pages 41–70 in J. A. Jenks, editor. Managing cougars in North America. Jack H. Berryman Institute, Utah State University, Logan, USA.

National Research Council. 1997. Wolves, bears, and their prey in Alaska. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., USA.

Pauley, G. R., and P. Zager. 2011. Effects of wolf predation on elk populations. PR11 S11 9-13 Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Boise, USA.

Pauley, G.R., P. Zager, and L. Bischoff. 2012. Effects of wolf predation on elk populations. PR12 S11 9-13 Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Boise, USA.

Raithel, J. D. 2005. Impact of calf survival on elk population dynamics in west-central Montana. University of Montana, Missoula, USA.

Schlegel, M. W. 1986. Movements and population dynamics of the Lochsa elk herd. Factors affecting calf survival in the Lochsa elk herd. Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration, Job Completion Report, Project W-160-R, Subproject 38. Idaho

White, C. 2010. Mountain lion. Job Progress Report, Project W-170-R-33, Study I: Big game population status, trends, use, and associated habitat studies. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, USA.

Zager, P., and C. White. 2003. Elk ecology, study IV: Factors influencing elk calf recruitment, federal aid in wildlife restoration, job progress report, project W-160-R-30, subproject. 31. Boise, Idaho: Idaho Department of Fish and Game.

Zager, P., G. Pauley, M. Hurley, and C. White. 2007. Statewide elk ecology. Progress Report, Project W-160-R-34. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, USA.

EXHIBIT C

Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, Missoula, MT 59801 http://leopold.wilderness.net

USDA - Forest Service and USDI - Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, Geological Survey, and National Park Service

August 22, 2014 Prospectus: State-of-science on the impact of wolves on elk populations in the Northern Rockies Background: Wolf restoration in the Northern Rocky Mountains has been an amazing success thanks to both the resiliency of wolves and the cooperative efforts of Federal, State, and Tribal agencies, conservation groups, and

private citizens; including ranchers, sportsmen, and outfitters. In the past year, the U.S. Forest Service permitted a hunter to enter the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness to kill two packs of wolves. The Forest Service permitted the killing of two packs based on information provided by Idaho Fish and Game that suggested wolves play a significant role in the 44% decline of the elk population in that region. Proposal: The Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute will convene a panel of experts on wolf biology (population dynamics) and wolf ecology to evaluate the state-of-knowledge about wolf predation, specifically on elk, and elk populations and the factors that influence elk population fluctuations. This information will be useful to state and federal land managers in addressing wolf and elk populations in the Northern Rockies. Specific questions to be addressed through a comprehensive review of the peer reviewed scientific literature include:

1) What factors contribute to population fluctuations in elk? wolves?

a. Include considerations of hunting

b. Include statements about strength of evidence and uncertainties

2) In the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness (FCRONR), what are the historic and current

population status and trends of elk? wolves?

a. Include considerations of hunting


3) Is there a causal relationship between wolf predation and elk decline in the FCRONR? From other

locations?

a. Include statements about strength of evidence and uncertainties

4) Has wilderness character been described for the FCRONR?

5) How does the current FCRONR management plan describe

a. Current conditions, with respect to wildlife communities overall, and wolves and elk?

b. Desired future conditions, with respect to wildlife communities overall, and wolves and elk?

c. Jurisdictional authority over wildlife populations?

Benefits and Uses: Given a preliminary review of the literature, we anticipate that this assessment will identify significant knowledge gaps. Federal and state agencies may find this information useful in establishing research projects to address knowledge gaps before making addition decisions about management of wolf and elk populations. Process: We will seek out a group of experts on wolf and elk biology and ecology and charge them with compiling a review of the scientific literature. Results of their review will be published as a peer reviewed journal article in a respected scientific journal. Timeframe: Since this is a review of the literature and not original science, we will request the article be completed for peer review by April 15, 2014.

Providing scientific leadership to sustain the enduring values and benefits of wilderness

Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute

EXHIBIT D

Funding: We anticipate that this review activity will cost the Institute $15,000 in travel and research fees by the authors.

Contact: Susan Fox Director Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute 790 East Beckwith Avenue Missoula, MT 59801 [email protected] 406-396-4149

EXHIBIT D

mailto:[email protected]

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Rasure, Nora -FS 15 Mar 2015 04:12:05 +0000 Fox, Susan -FS;Hahn, Beth -FS FW: FS R&D project on wolves-elk in Northern Rockies

Susan and Beth,

There has been some emails about the proposal you spoke with us about last year. However, I don't see you in the emails.

I am not sure we are all working with the same information. Sue Spear's note below indicates IOFG is a

partner. However, I don't see that in the part of the email from Beth.

How can we get everyone on the same page?

Nora B. Rasure

From: Dawe, Christine -FS Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 8:33 AM To: Madrid, Colleen -FS; Johnston, Eric -FS; Probert, Cheryl -FS; Schmid, David -FS Cc: Harper, Robert -FS; Koppenol, Patricia -FS; Rasure, Nora -FS; Iverson, Chris -FS Subject: RE: FS R&D project on wolves-elk in Northern Rockies

Rob and Colleen,

Faye, Dave, Eric J and I met with Susan and Beth on this a couple months ago. As you are well aware the management of wolves is a particu larly sensitive issue in Idaho and we have been working closely with IDFG to make progress on some challenges issues. At that meeting we expressed some concerns about how this moves forward with particular awareness about the relationship building going on around this. I will of course defer to Dave and Nora, but my take is that we definitely need a conversation before this

proceeds.

Chris, I couldn't find Kim Pearson in the directory ....

Christine Dawe Director, Renewable Resource Management

Forest Service Northern Region

p: 406·329·3604 c: 406·370-8865 [email protected] 200 E Broadway Missoula. MT 59807 www.fs.fed.us

��rr Caring for the land and serving people

EXHIBIT E

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Phipps, John -FS 17 Apr 2015 19:58:46 +0000 Fox, Susan -FS RE: Heads Up - R1/R4 Concerns

Thanks for your notes Susan. Let's discuss next week.

John Phipps Station Director

Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station

p: 970-498-1353 c: 202·302·7252 [email protected] 240 West Prospect Fort Collins, CO 80526 wwwJsJed.us

��IJ Caring for the land and serving people

From: Fox, Susan ·FS Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 1:25 PM To: Phipps, John -FS Subject: RE: Heads Up . R1/R4 Concerns

Hello John, Thank you for the heads up. Late Wednesday I heard that Mark Hurley, IDFG, who was going to be a member of our expert panel had withdrawn from the panel for two reasons; 1) changed lDFG leadership and 2) the FS was not '100% supportive of the paneL' That the FS was cautious/concerned, I knew. We briefed first Sam, then R1 1eadership under Faye Kruger, David Schmid, Christine Dawe before the holidays, then R4 1eadership, Nora Rasure and then Sue Spear when she came on board WWSR in early February. We briefed David Schmid (again) when he

became Acting RF and then, of course you when you joined RMRS. The issue of wolf/elk dynamics is hotly debated and I understand that. But I believed it was still a rock

solid idea to provide a state-of·the·science review by a blue ribbon panel. With a new review of understandings and uncertainties including an outline of the most critical science needs, I thought that

both IDFG and the FS, would have better confidence in the decisions they needed to make. That said I was not going to proceed if any of the key players did not wish us to-IDFG, R1, R4 or RMRS. The head of the blue ribbon panel was to be Mark Hebblewhite with UM. He stated in an email yesterday, "I am not entirely sure I see the benefit of convening such a workshop without IDFG

participation for a few reasons. First, we will be unable to really focus on the Middle fork specific situation, or Idaho wilderness elk/wolf data at all. Second, it will be viewed as an external USFS thing by the IDFG because they were not involved."

I was going to speak to you next week, since I just learned of FS concern from Mark. It was good to get the heads up from you. I do wonder why R1 or R4 didn't just call us and ask us not to proceed? So it will be good to get your insight on this. 1 list below the specific questions the panel was going to cover:

EXHIBIT E

Specific questions to be addressed through a comprehensive review of the peer reviewed scientific literature included:

1) Which factors contribute to population fluctuations in elk? wolves?

a. Include considerations of consumptive harvest (e.g., trapping, recreational hunting,

predator control)


2) In the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness, what are the historic and current population

status and trends of elk? wolves?

a. Include considerations of consumptive harvest (e.g., trapping, recreational hunting,

predator control)


3) Is there a causal relationship between wolf predation and elk decline in the Frank Church River

of No Return Wilderness? From other locations?

a. Include statements about strength of evidence and uncertainties

4) What is the functional significance of natural predator-prey interactions to ecosystem health

and ecological integrity?

From: Phipps, John -FS Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 7:58 AM To: Fox, Susan -FS Subject: Heads Up - R1/R4 Concerns

Hi Susan,

I wish I could give you more information, but I don't understand the concerns myself. At a meeting this

week of the senior fire leaders, the RF's from Rl & R4 mentioned some vague concerns about the Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute and Wolf issues. It was just in passing and I did not have the time to inquire further. They didn't seem to understand the mission of the Institute. I suggest that you try to visit with the acting Rl RF David Schmid and call R4 RF Nora Rasure to introduce the institute and inquire about how things are going.

Best Regards, John

John Phipps Station Director

Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station

p: 970-498-1353 c: 202·302-7252 [email protected] 240 West Prospect Fort Collins. CO 80526 wwwJsJed.us

EXHIBIT E

Caring for the land and serving people

EXHIBIT E

From: Spear, Susan J -FS Sent: 5 May 2015 04:10:10 +0000 To: Dawe, Christine -FS;Schmid, David -FS;Bain, George M -FS;Packard, Joni -FS;Seim, Sharon G -FS;Rasure, Nora -FS;Phipps, John -FS;Fox, Susan -FS Cc: Hahn, Beth -FS;Tricker, James R -FS;Senn, Sara -FS Subject: RE: State of the science on what we know about wolf/elk population dynamics in the Northern Rockies

Thanks Susan and Bethl

Sent from my Android phone using Symantec TouchDown (www.symantec.com)

-----Original Message-----

From: Fox, Susan -FS [[email protected] Received: Monday, 04 May 201S, 1:28PM

To: Dawe, Christine -FS [[email protected]; Schmid, David -FS [[email protected]; Bain, George

M -FS [[email protected]; Packard, Joni -FS [email protected];Seim, Sharon G -FS ([email protected]]; Rasure, Nora -FS ([email protected]]; Spear, Susan J -FS

([email protected]]; Phipps, John -FS [email protected]] CC: Hahn, Beth -FS ([email protected]]; Tricker, James R -FS [email protected]; Senn, Sara -FS

([email protected]] Subject: State of the science on what we know about wolf/elk population dynamics in the Northern Rockies

Hello Christine - good conversation last week. Thanks for making time. As we discussed, we will postpone the expert panel to review the state of science on wolf/elk population dynamics in the Northern Rockies for a year. We too would like to have IDFG as a participant in this project and maybe they will be ready to rejoin this panel next Spring. Once we gear back up to do this panel we will again first brief leadership (R1, R4, RMRS, and WWSR) before we launch. Meantime, any questions or concerns just let me know.

Susan FOx, Director

Aldo leopold Wilderness Research Institute

790 East Beckwith Ave., Missoula, MT 59801

Phone: 406-542-4193

Cell: 406-396-4149

[email protected]

www.leopold.wllderness.net

ALDO LE.orOLD WlI..DE� RLSEAR01 INSTITUTE ·r�$denUfr"'.,.J.,,!.p.,_sWn�

EXHIBIT E

EXHIBIT E

From:

Sent: To:

Cc:

Subject:

Hi Susan,

Moore, Carol J -FS 4 May 2015 15:12:21 +0000 Fox, Susan -FS

Packard, Joni -FS;Bain, George M -FS RE: Your returned call about wolf/elk project

)001 Packa,d is coo,dinating the ) u ly 9 portion of the RLC Meeting at Nine Mde. DUring YOll' meeting with GeOige and )onl thIS week please discuss the possibil ity of,nciuding a short ove�view o( Leopold Institute activities. Have a great day, Carol

Carol J. Moore Executive Assistant to the Regional Forester

Forest Service Northern Region (R1)

p: 406-329-3315 c: 406·370-3084 f: 406-329-341 1 [email protected]. us 200 E Broadway Missoula. MT 59802

Caring for the land and serving people

From: Fox, Susan -FS Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2015 11:05 AM To: Moore, Carol J -FS Cc: Phipps, John -FS; Hahn, Beth -FS Subject: Your returned call about wolf/elk project

Hello Carol, t just got your message returning my call from yesterday afternoon. Thank you. Since t left my message I was able to contact Christine Dawe and she asked the Leopold Institute to postpone the wolf/elk expert panel for a year which we are happy to do especially since it will help the Region. t also spoke with George Bain. I am going to meet with George and Joni Packard on this topic late next week. George can let us know if any follow up meeting with Dave is needed at this time. I expect it won't be necessary. George also suggested t attend the July Regional leadership Council meeting at 9 Mile and present a short overview of Leopold Institute activities. So if the agenda permits that will be a good opportunity to share our priority projects that are relevant to R1.

EXHIBIT E

Susan Fox, Director

Aldo leopold Wilderness Research Institute

790 East Beckwith Ave .• Missoula. MT 59801

Phone: 406-542-4193

Cell: 406-396-4149

[email protected]

www.leopold.wllderness.net

ALDO LEorOLD Y,'LDE� RESEAR01 r-:sTTTUTE ·rro.lJng_'"'Iic�., ....... ..tJ..._

EXHIBIT E

Infrared cam spies suburban elkBy Mike Koshmrl Jackson Hole Daily | Posted: Monday, November 16, 2015 4:30 am

Counting elk and other ungulates in hard-to-accessresidential and agricultural areas south of Grand TetonNational Park has been a consistent challenge for wildlifemanagers.

But late last month the Wyoming Game and FishDepartment tried a new technique that promises toincrease the precision of estimates of a growing portion ofthe Jackson Elk Herd. Flying more than a half-mile abovethe valley floor, a contracted plane fitted with a $150,000military-grade infrared camera detected an average of 840elk on two flights.

Doug Brimeyer, Game and Fish’s regional wildlifemanagement coordinator, said the infrared count affirmedthat elk south of the park are thriving and growing in number.

“It still is a concern from a management standpoint,” Brimeyer said of the near-town elk, “because thatpopulation has approximately 50 calves per 100 cows and reproduces at twice the rate as other herdsegments in the Jackson Elk Herd.

“It has the potential to double its size every five years,” he said.

In 2011, the last time Brimeyer and his colleagues tried to comprehensively assess the elk populationsouth of the park, they counted about 600 animals from the ground and sky. Using the old technique, it’slikely that only about 60 percent of the animals were seen and tallied, he said.

With the infrared camera count, Brimeyer estimated that there’s a 90 percent detection rate.

Because of the high cost, the plane last month surveyed a smaller area than in 2011.

“The density of animals is probably a little bit higher now — probably near 1,000 animals,” Brimeyersaid.

The herds surveyed south of the park generally kept their distance from the Tetons.

“There were smaller numbers along the slopes,” Brimeyer said. “The larger groups were near theresidential and agricultural areas in [hunt] area 78.”

Elk survey - Infrared camera

Counting elk on private lands south ofGrand Teton National Park is easier withinfrared imaging, wildlife managers say.The elk are the white spots.

EXHIBIT F

Infrared technology is better at detecting elk and other animals in forested or brushy terrain because itcaptures the heat and outlines their bodies when they would otherwise be concealed. The camera also letthe pilot cruise at 3,000 feet, above airspace closely controlled around Jackson Hole Airport and lessdisturbing to households below.

Infrared cameras had helped assess sage grouse near Lander but before last month’s flight had never beenused in Wyoming to count a big-game species, Brimeyer said. This winter the technique will beemployed to find moose in riparian areas, he said.

Although the Jackson Elk Herd is near its 11,000-animal population objective, the four herd segments areout of whack.

Long-distance migrants that spend summers in the Teton Wilderness and Yellowstone National Park arein steady decline, while elk from southern Teton park and adjacent private land have flourished. Since thelate 1970s, elk that spend summers not far from their National Elk Refuge wintering grounds have grownfrom 2 percent of the overall herd to 40 percent.

EXHIBIT F

Status of the Science

On Questions that Relate to BLM Plan Amendment Decisions and Peninsular Ranges Bighorn Sheep

Updated March 14, 2001

EXHIBIT G

Table of Contents

A. Causal Links Between Mortality, Fecundity, Survival and Land Uses ................................. 3

B. Disturbance Response of Bighorn Sheep ................................................................................ 31. Generalized sheep response to human disturbance ................................................. 32. Generalized response of bighorn to recreation use ................................................... 33. Effects of Recreation Use Relative to Season ............................................................ 44. Effect of Position of Disturbance Relative to Reaction of Bighorn ......................... 45. Bighorn Response Relative to Distance at Encounter .............................................. 46. Bighorn Response to Domestic Dogs .......................................................................... 47. Bighorn Response to Hiking .......................................................................................... 58. Response of Bighorn to Roads ..................................................................................... 59. Response of Bighorn to Human Disturbance at Watering Areas ............................. 510. Bighorn Response to Cattle Grazing .......................................................................... 611. Bighorn Response to Wild Horses ............................................................................. 612. Bighorn Response to Helicopters ............................................................................... 6

C. Habitat and Population Management Concerns and Issues .................................................. 61. Loss of Connectivity: ...................................................................................................... 62. Response to Artificial Water Sources: ......................................................................... 63. Potential Effects of Fire Suppression: ......................................................................... 7

D. Study Area Characteristics: ........................................................................................................ 7Krausman, P. R., W. C. Dunn, L. K. Harris, W. W. Shaw, and W. M. Boyce. 2000.

Can mountain sheep and humans coexist? In prep. 10pp. ............................. 7Hamilton, K., Holl, S. A., and Douglas, C. L. 1982. An evaluation of the effects of

recreational activity on bighorn sheep in the San Gabriel mountains,California. Desert Bighorn Council Transactions. 26: 50-55. .......................... 7

MacArthur, R. A., V. Geist, R. H. Johnston. 1982. Cardiac and behavioralresponses of mountain sheep to human disturbance. Journal of WildlifeManagement 46: 351-358. ...................................................................................... 8

Papouchis, C.M., F. J. Singer, W. Sloan. 2000. Effects of increasing recreationalactivity on desert bighorn sheep in Canyonlands National Park, Utah. Inpress. ........................................................................................................................ 8

Purdy, K. G. and W. W. Shaw. 1981. An analysis of recreational use patterns indesert bighorn habitat: the Pusch Ridge Wilderness case. Desert BighornCouncil Transactions 25: 1-5. ............................................................................... 8

Disclaimer: .......................................................................................................................................... 8

Literature Cited ................................................................................................................................... 9

EXHIBIT G

3

A. Causal Links Between Mortality, Fecundity, Survival and Land Uses

The cause and effect relationships between human disturbance and bighorn sheep populationsare not well understood. General information and systematic research studies are lacking. Moststudies have focused on one aspect of disturbance (generally sheep responses to humanencounters) while few have clear ties to population level effects, known levels of human use, orhistoric factors influencing response of bighorn sheep to disturbance (King and Workman 1986).

Factors suggested as contributors to bighorn population declines includes roads, trails, housingdevelopments, and fire suppression (Etchberger et al. 1989, Krausman et al. 2000, Kelly andKrausman et al. 2000). Some of the evidence appears to conflict (Kelly and Krausman 2000). Between 1991 and 1996, 34% of adult bighorn mortalities in the northern Santa Rosa Mountainswere directly attributed to the effects of urbanization. Five sheep were killed by automobiles, 5 byeating toxic plants, and 1 by strangulation in a wire fence (Bighorn Institute 1997). Conversely,lamb productivity at a construction site in Nevada did not depart from the average productivitymeasured since 1969 (Leslie and Douglas 1980). The authors were concerned however thatrecruitment may have been affected (Leslie and Douglas 1980). In addition, the same study didfind that 9 of 17 marked ewes abandoned historical watering sites for alternate sites in apparentresponse to construction activity (Leslie and Douglas 1980).

The present population size of peninsular bighorn sheep argues for action, in combination withfurther study, to ensure recovery. Given the current level of knowledge and publicly-availabledata, the potential for population effects resulting from management actions will largely beinferential based on judgments made from literature and data on the indirect effects of humanactivities on bighorn sheep populations.

The following literature review summarizes some of the more important literature on the impacts tobighorn sheep.

B. Disturbance Response of Bighorn Sheep

1. Generalized sheep response to human disturbance

Many authors have found that human disturbance can alter habitat use and activity patterns ofbighorn sheep (e.g., Van Dyke et al. 1983, Miller and Smith 1985, King and Workman 1986,Etchberger et al. 1989, Papouchis et al. 2000). Population declines (Van Dyke et al. 1983,Etchberger et al. 1989, Harris 1992), shifts in habitat use (Van Dyke et al. 1983), interruption ofseasonal migration routes (Ough and deVos 1984), has been linked to human disturbance. Disturbance is often tied to recreation use and urban interface issues. Timing and location ofrecreation in bighorn habitat, the distance between sheep and humans, and the presence ofdomestic dogs has a role in the impact of human activities on bighorn sheep.

2. Generalized response of bighorn to recreation use

Many researchers have illustrated that sheep exhibit a response to recreational activities. MacArthur et al. (1979 and 1982) found that bighorn sheep exhibited elevated heart rates inresponse to the presence of people, especially when people were approaching with a dog or fromover a ridge. Miller and Smith (1985) found that bighorn had a stronger adverse reaction to 1 or 2humans on the ground than to parked vehicles or a light airplane circling overhead. Papouchis etal. (2000) found that bighorn sheep had a greater flight response to hikers than to mountain bikersor cars. King and Workman (1986) noted that responses may be more severe in areas whereanimals have historically been exposed to relatively high levels of human activity. In addition, thehistory of hunting bighorn sheep may be an important variable to consider when evaluating theimpacts of human disturbance in bighorn habitat (King and Workman 1986, see also Hansen

EXHIBIT G

4

1970, Geist 1971, Horesji 1976). Krausman et al. (2000) postulate that human recreation was acontributing factor in the decline of bighorn sheep in three southwest populations. However, not all researchers agree that recreation has a detrimental effect on bighorn sheep. Hamilton et al. (1982) found that there was no difference in levels of sheep disturbance whenheavy use recreation areas were compared to light use recreation areas in the San GabrielMountains of California. However, they also noted that sheep avoided using a salt lick whilehumans were in the vicinity. Hicks and Elder (1979) found that recreation users had no negativeeffect on bighorn sheep in the Sierra Nevada; however, they cautioned land managers to monitorthe amount of recreation and to instigate or continue to regulate recreation use in bighorn habitat.

3. Effects of Recreation Use Relative to Season

Timing of recreation use relative to the life cycle of bighorn sheep is important. Impacts to ewesthat are pregnant or lactating can have the most deleterious effects (Geist 1971, Light and Weaver1973, King and Workman 1986, Wagner and Peek 1999). Flight responses can be very severewhen ewes are with young lambs. King and Workman (1986) and Wehausen (1980) documenteda heightened awareness to human activity when lambs were present. Ewes with lambs tend toremain close to dependable water sources (Leslie and Douglas 1980, McCarty and Bailey 1994)with density and proximity to water increasing during the summer months (BLM 1980, Blong andPollard 1968). Travel corridors between lambing areas and watering areas are also importantand disruption could impede access to important resources (Ough and deVos 1984, Van Dyke etal. 1983).

4. Effect of Position of Disturbance Relative to Reaction of Bighorn

Research has shown that bighorn sheep exhibit a stronger, adverse reaction to humansapproaching from above them than humans approaching from below (MacArthur et al. 1982, Hicksand Elder 1976, Geist 1971). Approaching from over a ridge may limit escape options for bighornsheep. MacArthur et al. (1982) found that sheep withdrew when a human was approaching fromover a ridge (> 50 meters away) 27.6% of the time but withdrew only 3.6 % of the time whenapproached from a road not above the bighorn.

5. Bighorn Response Relative to Distance at Encounter

Response based on distance between the bighorn and the source of disturbance has beengenerally documented. Both flight and cardiac responses seem to be stimulated between about50 and 100 meters (Holl and Bleich 1983, MacArthur et al. 1982, Miller and Smith 1985). Theexception is helicopter disturbance where the distance is above 400 meters (Bleich et al. 1994). The distance at which sheep become aware of the disturbance can also affect how far they moveaway from the disturbance (Miller and Smith 1985). Distance alone is a poor predictor ofbehavioral response to disturbance. Responses are variable and group size and gendercompositions are also important factors (Miller and Smith 1985).

6. Bighorn Response to Domestic Dogs

Bighorn sheep evolved with canine predators (Geist 1971) and thus react very strongly todomestic dogs. Disturbance of bighorn by dogs causes heart rate increases and flight response(MacAruthur et al. 1979, MacArthur et al. 1982, Purdy and Shaw 1981). Sheep will remainnervous and alert for up to 30 minutes following a dog encounter, responding to subtle stimuli withotherwise evoked no response (MacArthur et al. 1982). Goodson et al. (1999) noted that theelimination of camping and dogs in important sheep habitat resulted in a reduction in the effects ofhuman disturbance to bighorn.

EXHIBIT G

5

7. Bighorn Response to Hiking

Researchers have shown that bighorn sheep exhibit a response to hikers (e.g., Hicks and Elder 1979, Miller and Smith 1985, Papouchis et al. 2000). Miller and Smith (1985) found that sheep had a strong reaction (immediate flight response) to the presence of 1 or 2 humans on foot (38% and 49% of the total responses respectively). MacArthur et al. (1982) also found that sheep had a strong behavioral and cardiac response when approached from over a ridge by a human or a human with a dog. In addition, Hamilton et al. (1982) found that sheep avoided using areas while humans were present but were not permanently displaced by hikers. Bighorn behavior wasmodified to avoid human interactions at salt licks or waterholes, visiting each earlier or later in the day when humans were not present (Campbell and Remington 1981, Hamilton et al. 1982).The level of response seems to be affected by a number of factors such as direction of approach(I.e., from above, across a ridge, below, or level) or the presence or absence of a dog (MacArthuret al. 1982), levels of previous disturbance and the history of hunting (King and Workman 1986),composition of the bighorn group (i.e., presence of ewes with lambs) (Wehausen 1980, Miller andSmith 1985, King and Workman 1986), and the size of the group of sheep (Berger 1978, Millerand Smith 1985). Papouchis (2000) found a more frequent flight response from hikingdisturbance than from mountain biking or vehicles. Conversely, Hamilton et al. (1982) did notdetect any significant difference in bighorn distribution between heavily-used and lightly-usedrecreation areas. Hicks and Elder (1976) concluded that foot trails did not affect sheep movementon summer range in the Sierra Nevada mountains. To date, research has not established a linkbetween hiking and population level effects on bighorn sheep.

Studies indicate that roads adversely impact bighorn sheep by inducing flight, causing mortality,elevating heart rate, and fragmenting habitat by cutting off traditional movement corridors. Roads impede movement between habitat patches (Cunningham 1982, Ough and deVos 1984).Back country roads that receive low use may have little or no effect on bighorn sheep, but otherroads have caused bighorn to alter traditional migration routes (Van Dyke et al.1983, Ough anddeVos 1984). Stress responses can occur and flight responses are possible. MacArthur et al.(1982) found that 8.8% of vehicle passes in sheep habitat elicited an increase in heart rate, whichthe authors interpreted as a stress response. In addition, they found that flight responses wereinduced in only 0.9% of those vehicle passes (MacArthur et al. 1982). Papouchis et al. (2000)reported that the average distance maintained from a road increased along heavily used roadsthat went through remote areas. Human use of a road along or through lambing, bedding, orwatering areas eliminates the solitude and security for bighorn (Van Dyke et al. 1983, Jorgensen1974). Cunningham and deVos (1992) found that ewes with home ranges bisected by a state highway had a 24% probability of being killed while crossing the highway. MacArthur(1979) found that ewe heart rates increased decreased as distance from roads increased and thatat less than 200 meters from the road heart rates were elevated above average.

9. Response of Bighorn to Human Disturbance at Watering Areas

Bighorn sheep typically range within 2 miles of free water (Geist 1971, Van Dyke et al. 1983) andare highly dependent upon reliable water sources especially during the hot season (BLM 1980).Bighorn activity has been found to decrease on days when vehicle use interrupts access to water (Jorgensen 1974). Constant or frequent human use (e.g., cross country travel, camping, off-road vehicles) at or near water sources, particularly during the summer months, may adversely affectsheep and may cause them to abandon the water source in favor of less disturbed areas (Blong1967, DeForge 1972, Cunningham 1982, Miller and Smith 1985). Leslie and Douglas (1980)recorded alterations in behavior and movement coincident with construction activity near a sheep water source.

EXHIBIT G

6

10. Bighorn Response to Cattle Grazing

“Cattle grazing can be detrimental to bighorn sheep populations, either through direct competitionfor forage or water, or through vegetation changes in response to cattle grazing” (reviewed by McQuivey 1978 and Jones 1980 in USFWS 2000). In addition, Goodson et al. (1999) found thatbighorn sheep used areas less after intensive cattle grazing.

11. Bighorn Response to Wild Horses

Competition between feral horses and bighorn sheep has not been extensively studied. However, increasing horse populations were reported to coincide with decreasing bighorn Populations in the Silver Peak Range of Nevada (McQuivey 1978). Coates and Schemitz (1994 in USFWS 2000) suggested that association with feral horse herds may result in increased foraging efficiency for bighorn rams because rams may spend less time watching for predatorsand more time foraging. However, the overall fitness of these rams was not examined. Goodsonet al. (1999) noted an increase in sheep use of an area after the feral horse herd was reduced.

12. Bighorn Response to Helicopters

“Helicopter surveys may adversely affect populations of mountain sheep…by altering themovement, habitat use, and foraging efficiency of sheep so that survivorship or reproductionis reduced” (Stockwell 1991 in Bleich et al. 1994). Bighorn can respond so dramatically to helicopter use that it may override other factors affecting sheep movement (Bleich et al. 1990, Bleich et al. 1994). Sheep do not habituate or become sensitized to repeated helicopter flights (Bleich et al. 1994). MacArthur et al. (1982) reported no heart rate responses in bighorn sheep to helicopters above 400 meters in altitude. Helicopter flights at 90-250 meters above the ground increased the heart rate in ewes 2.5 - 3 times above normal. Bleich et al. (1994) found that radiocollared bighorn moved significantly farther following a helicopter survey than on the day prior to asurvey. Helicopter overflights may also reduce foraging efficiency during winter (Harris 1992). Miller and Smith (1985) recommended that helicopter flights be kept at over 100 meters aboveground level to minimze impacts to bighorn sheep.

C. Habitat and Population Management Concerns and Issues

1. Loss of Connectivity:

Anecdotal and genetic evidence suggests potential for historic connections between peninsularbighorn sheep and bighorn to the north (Boyce et al. 1997, Guitierrez-Espleleta et al. 1998, Boyceet al. 1999). Urban development along the floor of the Coachella Valley, Highways 111 and 74,and Interstates 10 and 8, may prevent movement of sheep and reduce genetic mixing which otherwise may have occurred when bighorn crossed the desert flats between ranges (Leslie andDouglas 1980, Bleich et al. 1990, Bleich et al. 1996,). This lack of connectivity and geneticexchange may have long term implications for both persistence, recolonization, and themaintenance of fitness and population viability (Berger 1990).

2. Response to Artificial Water Sources:

It has been suggested that water is a major limiting factor to abundance of peninsular bighorn sheep in the Santa Rosa Mountains (Blong 1967, BLM 1980). Bighorn abandoned the Magnesia Spring water source as development encroached and began using a new water source in nearby Bradley Canyon (Blong 1967). It has been suggested that bighorn sheep summer useareas could be extended by providing artificial water sources in portions of the range lackingreliable water sources (Blong 1967, Leslie and Douglas 1980, BLM 1980).

EXHIBIT G

7

3. Potential Effects of Fire Suppression:

Bighorn sheep rely on keen vision to detect predators (Geist 1971, Wakelyn 1987, Risenhoover Bailey (1985) and avoid areas of dense vegetation that obscure visibility (Geist 1971, McCann1956, Oldemeyer et al. 1971, Risenhoover and Bailey 1980). Wakelyn (1987) andRisenhoover and Bailey (1985) found that foraging efficiency was reduced in bighorn sheepforaging in dense cover. It has been suggested that visual obscurity has a measurable impact onhabitat use and range expansion by bighorn sheep (Ough and deVos 1984, Risenhoover andBailey 1985, Fairbanks, et al. 1987, Wakelyn 1987). Fire suppression has been identified as amajor cause of change in vegetation density in the western United States (Miller and Wigand1994, Miller 1999) and has been causally related to habitat avoidance and abandonment bybighorn sheep (Shannon et al. 1978, Risenhoover and Bailey 1985, Etchberger et al. 1989, Bleichet al. 1997, Andrew 1994).

D. Study Area Characteristics:

Each research study included in this literature review has a unique design and study area. Theseunique characteristics increase the difficulty in isolating causal factor which represent therelationship between observed population trends and the nature and amount of disturbance. Variables assessed include the amount of habitat available to the bighorn, herd size (Van Dyke etal. 1983, Berger 1990, Harris 1992), connectivity to other population groups (Leslie and Douglas1980) and differences in the type or amount of human use. The synopses provided below aretaken from a few of the studies cited in this review to provide a contextual framework.

Krausman, P. R., W. C. Dunn, L. K. Harris, W. W. Shaw, and W. M. Boyce. 2000. Can mountain sheep and humans coexist? In prep. 10pp.

This paper reviews population declines in bighorn sheep in three areas in the southwest:the Sandia Mountains, New Mexico, the Santa Catalina Mountains, Arizona, and theNorthern Santa Rosa Mountains, California. Similarities exist among the study areas,including similar vegetation associations, steep slopes and cliffs, canyons, and washeswhich characterize bighorn habitat in each range. Each of the areas assessed areadjacent to human habitation. The Sandia Mountains are near Albuquerque, NM, theSanta Catalina mountains are adjacent to Tucson, AZ and include the Pusch RidgeWilderness, and the Santa Rosa mountains are adjacent to Palm Springs, CA. Humandisturbance was examined using human population growth and recreation in sheephabitat as an index to disturbance. Differences among these populations include thesubspecies of bighorn sheep present (Sandia Mountains - Rocky Mountain bighornsheep), native vs. introduced population (Sandia Mountains bighorn introduced in 1939and 1941), and amount of bighorn habitat identified (Sandia Mountains 40 km2, SantaCatalina mountains 20 km2, Northern Santa Rosa Mountains not available).

Hamilton, K., Holl, S. A., and Douglas, C. L. 1982. An evaluation of the effects ofrecreational activity on bighorn sheep in the San Gabriel mountains, California. DesertBighorn Council Transactions. 26: 50-55.

This study examined the effects of recreation activities on bighorn sheep in the SanGabriel mountains of southern California. Two trails crossing summer bighorn sheeprange were used to assess whether high numbers of hikers were influencing habitat useby bighorn sheep. Trail use by hikers was monitored in August 1980 and June throughSeptember 1991 using time lapse cameras, direct observation, and trail registers.

EXHIBIT G

8

MacArthur, R. A., V. Geist, R. H. Johnston. 1982. Cardiac and behavioral responses ofmountain sheep to human disturbance. Journal of Wildlife Management 46: 351-358.

This study was conducted at the Sheep River Wildlife Sanctuary in Alberta, Canada. There is a gravel road that runs through the Sheep River valley and bighorn sheep maybe exposed to 25-30 vehicles per hour during peak recreational use. The authorsimplanted heart monitors in 8 bighorn sheep to assess physiological effects of humandisturbance on bighorn sheep. Disturbance was induced by researchers walking towardthe sheep from a vehicle, sitting in a parked vehicle, or approaching with a dog on aleash.

Papouchis, C.M., F. J. Singer, W. Sloan. 2000. Effects of increasing recreational activity ondesert bighorn sheep in Canyonlands National Park, Utah. In press.

Situated in a remote area of Canyonlands National Park, Utah, this study assessed theimpacts of recreation activities on desert bighorn sheep. Behavioral responses of bighornsheep to hikers, mountain bikers, and vehicles were recorded to address twocontradictory hypotheses: 1) bighorn sheep will avoid or abandon habitat when humansare present, 2) bighorn sheep will habituate to predictable human activities or maycompensate by using alternate habitat away from the disturbance. Field assistantsinitiated 98% of the hiking disturbance trials, 24% in high-use areas and 77% in low-useareas. Recreational use was disproportionate across the types of use, hikers (9%),mountain bikers (67%), and vehicles (24%).

Purdy, K. G. and W. W. Shaw. 1981. An analysis of recreational use patterns in desertbighorn habitat: the Pusch Ridge Wilderness case. Desert Bighorn Council Transactions25: 1-5.

The Pusch Ridge Wilderness is located near Tucson, Arizona and in 1980 receivedapproximately 34,000 visitors. Photoelectric trail traffic counters, unmanned registrationstations, voluntary survey forms, telephone surveys, and direct observations were used toassess recreation use patterns and the response of bighorn sheep to human disturbance.

Disclaimer: Caution should be exercised when making inference from case studies to other sitesor situations. Circumstances are rarely identical and often are very different. For example, thePusch Ridge Wilderness receives more than 1,000,000 visitors use days per year and issurrounded by urban development, whereas in the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains urbanencroachment is confined to the north side of the range west of Thermal and visitor use levels aremuch lower. In Canyonlands National Park hiking is a less common form of recreation than it is inthe San Jacinto and Santa Rosa mountains. Urban encroachment was not a factor in the Hicksand Elder study from 1976 whereas in the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa mountains urbanizationplays a major role. In the San Gabriel mountains, the large urban expanse of Los Angeles doesnot encroach directly on sheep habitat, but the large L.A. population supplies many visitors to themountains. Differences exist between most of the case studies cited in this review. Cautionshould be used when comparing these case studies to bighorn sheep and human interactions inthe Peninsular Ranges.

EXHIBIT G

9

Literature Cited

Andrew, N. G. 1994. Demography and habitat use of desert-dwelling mountain sheep in the eastChocolate Mountains, Imperial County, California. MS thesis. University of Rhode Island. 135pp.

Berger, J. 1978. Group size, foraging, and antipredator ploys: an analysis of bighorn sheepdecisions. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 4: 91-99.

Berger, J. 1990. Persistence of different sized populations: an empirical assessment of rapidextinctions in bighorn sheep. Conservation Biology 4: 91-98.

Bighorn Institute, 1997. Bighorn Institute -Year End Report to the California Department of Fishand Game, Sacramento.

Bleich, V. C., J.D. Wehausen, and S.A. Holl. 1990. Desert-dwelling mountain sheep:conservation implications of a naturally fragmented distribution. Conservation Biology

4: 383-390.

Bleich, V. C., R. T. Bowyer, A. M. Pauli, M. C. Nicholson, and R. W. Anthes. 1994. Mountainsheep Ovis canadensis and helicopter surveys: Ramifications for conservation of large mammals. Biological Conservation 70 : 1-7.

Bleich, V. C., J. D. Wehausen, R. R. Ramey II, and J. L. Rechel. 1996. Metapopulation theoryand mountain sheep: implications for conservation. Pages 353-373 in Metapopulations andWildlife Conservation. D.R. McCullough, ed. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 429pp.

Bleich, V.C., R. T. Bowyer, and J. D. Wehausen. 1997. Sexual segregation in mountain sheep:resources or predation? Wildlife Monographs. No. 134. The Wildlife Society. 50pp.

Blong, B. 1967. Desert bighorn and people in the Santa Rosa Mountains. The Wildlife SocietyTransactions. California-Nevada Section. Pages 66-70.

Blong, B. and W. Pollard. 1968. Summer water requirements of desert bighorn in the Santa RosaMtns., Calif., in 1965. California Fish and Game 54 : 289-296.

Boyce, W.M., P.W. Hedrick, N.E. Muggli-Cockett, S. Kalinowski, M.C.T. Penedo, and R. R.Ramey, II. 1997. Genetic variation of major histocompatibility complex and microsatellite loci: acomparison in bighorn sheep. Genetics 145: 421-433.

Boyce, W. M., R. R. Ramey II, T. C. Rodwell, E. S. Rubin, and R. S. Singer. 1999. Populationsubdivision among desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) ewes revealed by mitochondrial DNAanalysis. Molecular Ecology 8: 99-106.

Bureau of Land Management. 1980. Santa Rosa Mountains Wildlife Habitat Management Plan: ASikes Act Plan. Riverside District Office. 56 pp + app.

Campbell B. and R. Remington. 1981. Influence of construction activities on water-use patterns ofdesert sheep. Wildlife Society Bulletin 9: 63-65.

Cunningham, S. C. 1982. Aspects of the ecology of Peninsular desert bighorn sheep (Oviscanadensis cremnobates) in Carrizo Canyon, California. M. S. thesis. Arizona State University,Tempe. 76 pp.

EXHIBIT G

10

Cunningham and J.C. deVos. 1992. Mortality of mountain sheep in the Black Canyon area ofnorthwest Arizona. Desert Bighorn Council Transactions 36 : 27-29.

DeForge, J. R. 1972. Man's invasion into the bighorn's habitat. Desert Bighorn Council 16 :112-116.

Etchberger, R. C., P. R. Krausman, and R. Mazaika. 1989. Mountain sheep habitatcharacteristics in the Pusch Ridge Wilderness, Arizona. Journal of Wildlife Management 53 :902-907.

Fairbanks, W. S., J. A. Bailey, and R. S. Cook. 1987. Habitat use by a low-elevation, semi-captive bighorn sheep population. Journal of Wildlife Management 51: 912-915.

Geist, V. 1971. Mountain sheep: a study in behavior and evolution. The University of ChicagoPress. Chicago and London. 383 pp.

Guitierrez-Espeleta, G. A., S. T. Kalinowski, W. M. Boyce, and P. W. Hedrick. 1998. Geneticvariation in desert bighorn sheep. Desert Bighorn Council Transactions 42: 1-10.

Goodson, N. J., D. R. Stevens, K. McCoy, J. Cole. 1999. Effects of river based recreation andlivestock grazing on desert bighorn sheep on the Navajo Nation. Second North American WildSheep Conference April 6-9, 1999 Reno, NV.

Hamilton, K., S. A. Holl, C. L. Douglas. 1982. An evaluation of the effects of recreational activityon bighorn sheep in the San Gabriel Mountains, California. Desert Bighorn Council Transactions26 : 50-55. Hansen, C. G. 1980. The desert bighorn: its life history, ecology, and management in G. Monsonand L. Sumner, eds. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. 370 pp.

Harris, L. K. 1992. Recreation in mountain sheep habitat. Ph. D. Dissertation. University ofArizona, Tucson. 156pp.

Hicks, L. L. and J. M. Elder. 1976. Human disturbance of Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep. Journalof Wildlife Management 43 : 909-915.

Holl, S. A. and V. C. Bleich. 1983. San Gabriel mountain sheep: biological and managementconsiderations. USDA Forest Service San Bernadino National Forest. Administrative Report136pp.

Horesji, B. L. 1976. Suckling and feeding behavior in relation to lamb survival in bighorn sheep(Ovis canadensis canadensis Shaw). Ph.D. Dissertation University of Calgary, Alberta. 265pp.

Jorgensen, P. 1974. Vehicle use at a desert bighorn watering site. Desert Bighorn CouncilTransactions 18 : 18-24.

Kelly, K. A. and P. R. Krausman. 2000.

King, M. M. and G. W. Workman. 1986. Response of desert bighorn sheep to humanharassment: management implications. Transactions 51st North American Wildlife andNatural Reource Conference.

Krausman, P. R., W. C. Dunn, L. K. Harris, W. W. Shaw, and W. M. Boyce. 2000. Can mountainsheep and humans coexist? In prep.

EXHIBIT G

11

Leslie, D. M., Jr., and C. L. Douglas. 1980. Human disturbance at water sources of desertbighorn sheep. Wildlife Society Bulletin 8 : 284-290.

Light, J. T., and R. Weaver. 1973. Report on bighorn sheep habitat study in the area for which anapplication was made to expand the Mt. Baldy winter sports facility. USDA Forest Service CajonRanger District, San Bernadino National Forest. 39 pp.

MacArthur, R.A., R.H. Johnston, and V. Geist. 1979. Factors influencing heart rate in free-ranging bighorn sheep: a physiological approach to the study of wildlife harassment. CanadianJournal of Zoology 57 : 2010 - 2021.

MacArthur, R. A. , V. Geist, and R. H. Johnston. 1982. Cardiac and behavioral responses ofmountain sheep to human disturbance. Journal of Wildlife Management 46:351-358.

McCarthy, M. C. and J. A. Bailey. 1994. Habitat requirements of desert bighorn sheep. Specialreport No. 69. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, CO.

McQuivey, R. P. 1978. The desert bighorn sheep of Nevada. Nevada Department of Fish andGame, Biological Bulletin No. 6. 81 pp.

Miller, M. E. 1999. Use of historical aerial photography to study vegetation change in the Negritowatershed, southwestern New Mexico. Southwestern Naturalist 44: 121-137.

Miller, G. D. and E. L. Smith. 1985. Human activity in desert bighorn habitat: what disturbssheep? Desert Bighorn Council Transactions 1985 : 4-7.

Miller, R. F. and P. E. Wigand. 1994. Holocene changes in semiarid pinyon-juniper woodlands:Response to climate, fire, and human activities in the U.S. Great Basin. Bioscience 44: 465-476.

Oldemeyer, J. L., W. J. Barmore, and D. L. Gilbert. 1871. Winter ecology of bighorn sheep inYellowstone National Park. Journal of Wildlife Management 35: 257-269.

Ough, W. D. and J. C. deVos. 1984. Intermountain travel corridors and their managementimplications for bighorn sheep. Desert Bighorn Council Transactions 28 : 32-36.

Papouchis, C. M., F. J. Singer, and W. Sloan. 2000. Effects of increasing recreational activity ondesert bighorn sheep in Canyonlands National Park, Utah. Pages 364 - 391 in Singer, F. J. andM. A. Gudorf. Restoration of bighorn sheep metapopulations in and near 15 national parks:conservation of a severely fragmented species. USGS Open File Report 99-102, MidcontinentEcological Science Center, Fort Collins, CO.

Purdy, K. G. and W. W. Shaw. 1981. An analysis of recreational use patterns in desert bighornhabitat: The Pusch Ridge Wilderness case. Desert Bighorn Council Transactions 25: 1-5.

Risenhoover, K. L. and J. A. Bailey. 1985. Foraging ecology of mountain sheep: implications forhabitat management. Journal of Wildlife Management 49: 797-804.

Shannon, N.H., R. J. Hudson, V. C. Brink, and W. D. Kitts. 1975. Determinants of spatialdistribution of Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep. Journal of Wildlife Management 39: 387-401.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants:Proposed rule to list the Peninsular Ranges population of the desert bighorn sheep asendangered. Federal Register 57(90) : 19837 - 19843.

EXHIBIT G

12

U.S. Fish and Wildife Service. 2000. Recovery plan for bighorn sheep in the Peninsular Ranges,California. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Portland, OR. xv + 251pp.

Van Dyke, W. A., A. Sands, J. Yoakum, A. Polenz, and J. Blaisdell. 1983. Wildlife habitats inmanaged rangelands - the Great Basin of southeastern Oregon: bighorn sheep. USDA ForestService and USDI Bureau of Land Management General Technical Report PNW-159. 37pp.

Wagner, G. D. Wagner and J. M. Peek. Activity patterns of Rocky Mountain bighorn ewes incentral Idaho. Second North American Wild Sheep Conference April 6-9, 1999 Reno, NV.

Wakelyn, L. A. 1987. Changing habitat conditions on bighorn sheep ranges in Colorado. Journalof Wildlife Management 51: 904-912.

Wehausen, J. D. 1980. Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep: history and population ecology. PhDdissertation. University of Michigan. 243 pp.

EXHIBIT G

Biological Conservation 56 (1991) 317-328

Conflicts in National Parks: A Case Study of Helicopters and Bighorn Sheep Time Budgets at the Grand Canyon

Craig A. Stockwell*, Gary C. Bateman

Department of Biological Sciences, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona 86011, USA

&

Joel Berge r

Program in Ecology, Evolution and Conservation Biology, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada 89557, USA

(Received 27 June 1989; revised version received 25 July 1990; accepted 7 September 1990)

A BSTRA CT

Wildlife in numerous national parks of the United States experience frequent overflights by aircraft. Such activities may disturb wildlife populations. We analysed time budgets for desert bighorn sheep Ovis canadensis nelsoni in the presence and absence of helicopter overflights at Grand Canyon National Park (GCNP) to determine the extent to which food intake may be impaired. Bighorn were sensitive to disturbance during winter (43% reduction in foraging efficiency) but not during spring (no significant effect). This seasonal difference may have arisen because the sheep were farther from helicopters during the spring after they had migrated to lower elevations. Further analyses indicated a disturbance distance threshold of 250-450m. The conservation implications of these results are discussed.

I N T R O D U C T I O N

As habitats become fragmented, the importance of national parks as refugia for wildlife increases. In many US national parks the popular i ty of

* Current address: Program in Ecology, Evolution and Conservation Biology, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada 89557, USA.

317 Biol. Conserv. 0006-3207/91/$03" 50 © 1991 Elsevier Science Publishers Ltd, England. Printed in Great Britain

EXHIBIT H

318 Craig A. Stockwell, Gary C. Bateman, Joel Berger

sightseeing via private and commercial aircraft has increased with the demand for outdoor recreation. Because aircraft have varying impacts on large ungulates (MacArthur et al., 1979, 1982; Krausman & Hervert, 1983; Miller & Smith, 1985; Krausman et al., 1986), the goals of sightseeing via aircraft and the maintenance of undisturbed wildlife populations may be incompatible.

Bighorn sheep at Grand Canyon National Park (GCNP) experience heavy helicopter traffic, with estimates ranging from 15 000 to 42 000 flights per year (R. Ernenwein, pers. comm., 1987; ADOT, 1991, respectively). Helicopter traffic is expected to double by 1995 and triple by 2010 (ADOT, 1991). Although few data exist regarding its influence on wildlife populations at GCNP, such data are needed to allow mitigation of potential negative impacts.

The behavior of wildlife has been used to assess the influence of human activities (Hicks & Elder, 1979; Berger et al., 1983; King & Workman, 1986). Because large ungulates devote much time to feeding, foraging behavior and time budgets may be important parameters to evaluate disturbances. Bighorn sheep spend up to 7 h a day feeding (Stockwell, 1989), and may require 1 h of rumination for every hour of active feeding (Belovsky & Slade, 1986). The amount of time allocated to foraging is influenced by a variety of environmental and social variables including forage quality and density, and group size (Berger et al., 1983). The coefficient of foraging efficiency measures the relationship between feeding and scanning, and has been applied to a wide variety of topics including the costs and benefits of sociality (Berger, 1978; Knight & Knight, 1986; Stacey, 1986), habitat utilization (Risenhoover & Bailey, 1985; Warrick & Krausman, 1987) and human disturbance (Berger et al., 1983; King & Workman, 1986). Long-term disturbances may lead to acute or chronic reduction in foraging efficiency (Berger et al., 1983; King & Workman, 1986). In this paper we examine the extent to which helicopter overflights affect the time budgets of bighorn sheep and determine the threshold of distance sufficient to cause disturbance.

STUDY AREA AND METHODS

We observed bighorn sheep between November 1985 and July 1986 in the central region of GCNP in Hermit, Horn, Monument and Salt Canyons. Observations were limited to sheep occurring in the upper strata of the Grand Canyon--Supai, Hermit Shale and Toroweap strata (Fig. 1). Thirty- five sheep were counted during a survey from the rim in the vicinity of the study site in September 1987 (Stockwell, 1989). This group represents a small portion of the total population at Grand Canyon. The distribution of

EXHIBIT H

Helicopter effects on bighorn sheep 319

1 , 1 , 1 , I [ I [ I

K A I B A B I I [ ] I I [ , , , I I I

I I I [ I I i i I I I I I I

, l 1 J ' [ , I I T O R O W E A P i ] , , , , , [ i I

I I I I I l l I i i I I i i

11 !

I t

I % . I &

I • I I

" ii[ • ":~::!:... • . -

COCON~NO . . . . i ;:f

I I

I I I I I I

S U P ~ - I • • . . . ' . , , ' , , ' ~ , ,

Fig. 1. A schematic cross-section of the strata of Grand Canyon in which animals were observed. Bighorn occupied the Supai, Hermit Shale and Toroweap strata, and occasionally were observed on the rim. During the spring bighorn migrated to lower elevations and did not use the Toroweap stratum. The cylinder represents the relationship between helicopter overflights and their relative proximity to bighorn occupying various strata of the canyon. Helicopters were considered to be overhead if they were flying at rim level or lower and were

within 400 m horizontal distance.

bighorn throughout G C N P appears to be patchy and the population size is not known (Stockwell, 1989).

Data collection

Individual animals were located by scanning side canyons with spotting scopes (20-45 x) from the rim of the Grand Canyon. Upon locating bighorn sheep, data were collected via scan sampling and focal animal sampling (Altmann, 1974). During each 15-min scan sample, data were collected on date, location, group size, group composi t ion and activity patterns of all band members. Observations generally lasted 2 to 3 h.

Animals were classified according to Geist (1971), but class one males and male yearlings were grouped together. Lambs less than six months old were not included for analyses of group size, activity pattern or foraging efficiency data.

Sheep were categorized as either resting (lying down) or active. The total hours of daily activity were determined following the methodology outlined by Hansen (1984) and analysed by season.

Focal animal sampling (Altmann, 1974) was used to record data only on

EXHIBIT H


active animals for 300-s periods, using a micro-recorder and later transcribed onto data forms. Foraging bouts were analysed for animals that were in view and active for more than 180s (>60% of the bout). Animals were considered active if they engaged in any of the following three activities--foraging (F): animal's head down in a foraging or searching position, or animal foraging with neck extended into a tall bush; head up (HU): animal's head was up (vigilance and scanning were included here); walking (W): movement between two different activity patterns. If walking occurred between two foraging bouts, it was included with F unless the animal was vigilant while walking, or if more than five consecutive seconds were allocated to walking.

A foraging efficiency index (FE) was calculated by dividing F by the sum o f F a n d HU, and multiplying by 100 (Berger et al., 1983). Foraging efficiency is an index of time allocated to feeding or searching for food relative to time spent scanning; it is not intended to convey information about assimilation efficiency.

Sheep in a group were observed systematically to avoid potential observer bias. Foraging bouts were recorded for females first, rams second and juveniles last. Furthermore, selection procedure was standardized by beginning at the right side of the band and proceeding toward the left. To decrease pseudoreplication, only one foraging bout was recorded for each animal on a given day.

Data were collected when helicopters were flying overhead and when helicopters were absent. Observations during which helicopters were audible but not overhead were omitted.

Helicopters were visually determined to be overhead if they were flying at the canyon's rim level or lower and were within a horizontal distance of 400 m (Fig. 1). The flight generally originated (or terminated) at rim level and gradually descended below (or ascended to) the rim. Most helicopters flew at altitudes which corresponded with levels between the rim and the top of the Coconino stratum as they flew over the band (Fig. 1). Thus, for bighorn occupying the Toroweap, Hermit Shale and Supai strata, helicopters were generally 50-200 m, 100-450 m and 250-700 m distant, respectively. These values overlap because of the variable altitude flown. Although crude, this measure provides the best possible estimate of helicopter proximity, because monitoring the behavior of the bighorn and the simultaneous path of the helicopter was not possible.

Analyses

We partitioned data into two seasons, winter (October-February) and spring-summer (March-July), which corresponded to bighorn sheep

EXHIBIT H


migrations. Bighorn used upper portions of the canyon during winter, but they migrated to lower strata at the commencement of lambing in March, and the upper Toroweap stratum was virtually unused until August (Stockwell, 1989). The migration also appeared to be related to the lack of free water in the Toroweap stratum (Stockwell, 1989).

Foraging efficiency data were transformed by arcsin transformation and then analysed by two-way ANOVA to examine possible seasonal and other interactive effects. Except where noted, one-tailed t-test was used in all pairwise comparisons.

Helicopter presence may be correlated with weather (e.g. helicopters usually flew during calm conditions), yet precipitation had no interactive effect with helicopter overflights on foraging efficiency (F< 0-01, n = 307, p = 0.970). Therefore data obtained under various weather conditions were included in the analyses.

Although foraging bouts in the absence of helicopters were recorded during all diurnal hours, in the presence of helicopters they were recorded only between 0700 and 1100 h, and 1300 and 1700 h. Therefore we compared foraging bouts in the presence or absence of helicopters during these time periods only.

When the foraging efficiencies of treatment and control groups were significantly different, the reduction in foraging efficiency was determined by using the control group as a standard. For instance, if the mean foraging efficiencies of treatment and control animals were 60% and 80%, respectively, treatment animals were considered to be 25% less efficient than the control animals.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Seasonal patterns in activity

Bighorn were active 6-9 h/day during the winter and 6.4 h/day during the spring (Fig. 2(a) and (b)). During winter, they were active throughout the day, but activity was greatest in the morning, late afternoon and evening (Fig. 2(a)). Within each 1-h time period at least 50% of the animals observed were active. During spring, most activity occurred in early morning and late evening (Fig. 2(b)). Other studies have also shown that bighorn sheep reduce activity in the middle of the day (Chilelli & Krausman, 1981; Hansen, 1984).

Time budgets

Data for all animals were combined because helicopter overflights had no interactive effect with age and sex classes of bighorn (males, females and

EXHIBIT H


WINTER ACTIVITY

IO0

9O

80

70

3O

10

0

8 9 10 11 12 t 3 14 15 16 17

HOUR

(a)

TOTAL

SPRING ACTIVITY

9O

80

70

10

0

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 l g

HOUR

(b)

TOTAL

Fig. 2. The diurnal activity patterns of bighorn sheep in winter (a) and spring (b). One point was assigned for each animal during each 15-min scan sample.

EXHIBIT H


lambs older than six months) ( F = 0-52, n = 297, p = 0-593). The presence or absence of helicopters also had no interactive effect with group size (group sizes 1-4, 5-8, 9-13) on foraging efficiency (F= 1.81, n = 268, p = 0"166).

Helicopters had a seasonal effect on foraging efficiency ( F = 6-64, n = 320, p = 0.01). During winter bighorn foraged 43% less efficiently in the presence of helicopters, FE = 42-7% _+ 7.8 (n = 16) (mean _+ SEM), than when they were absent, FE = 74-6% _+ 1.7 (n = 160) (t = 4.83, p < 0.001). During spring helicopters had no effect on foraging efficiency, which averaged 79.3% _+ 4.6 (n = 24) and 84-2% _+ 2"0 (n = 120) in the presence and absence of helicopters, respectively (t = 1-42, p = 0-079).

Because group size influences bighorn foraging behavior (Berger, 1978) and varies seasonally in other areas (Leslie & Douglas, 1979; Chilelli & Krausman, 1981), the seasonal relationship reported here could be related to variation in group size. However, group sizes did not differ between seasons for either undisturbed desert bighorn (t = 0.52, p = 0.607 (2-tailed p), n = 254) or for sheep foraging in the presence of helicopters (t = 0.64, p--- 0.529 (2- tailed p), n = 34).

Proximity of disturbance

Helicopters were closer to bighorn sheep during winter than spring because bighorn used the Toroweap s tratum in winter. Thus the seasonal relationship may have been related to differences in the relative proximity of helicopters between seasons, indicating a possible threshold in disturbance distance. To address this possibility, the data were analysed by strata, holding season constant.

Helicopter overflights had no interactive effect with strata usage on foraging efficiency in winter (F=0.23, n = 169, p=0 .63) or in spring ( F = 2.52, n = 140, p = 0.115). Nevertheless, because effects may be subtle we also examined (1) treatment and control bighorn foraging efficiencies within each stratum; (2) inter-strata foraging efficiencies of control bighorn; and, if no difference existed between these groups, (3) inter-strata foraging efficiencies of t reatment bighorn.

Winter Winter strata comparisons were limited to Toroweap and Hermit Shale bighorn because few bands were observed in the Supai stratum. Within- stratum comparisons showed that helicopters had a significant effect on the foraging behavior of both Toroweap bighorn (t=4.04, p<0.001) and Hermit Shale bighorn (t = 2.8, p = 0.003) (Table 1).

Inter-strata comparisons revealed that in the absence of helicopters, sheep in the Hermit Shale foraged more efficiently than animals in the Toroweap

EXHIBIT H


T A B L E I The Influence of Proximity of Helicopters on Bighorn Foraging Efficiency, during Winter

Control Treatment a

Toroweap bighorn 71.8 _+ 2.7 (51) a* 35.1 _+ 11.1 (7) b Hermit shale bighorn 76-6 _+ 2"2 (103) c 50"2 _+ 12'2 (8) b

Helicopters were within 50-200 m and 100~50 m of" bighorn in the Toroweap and Hermit Shale strata, respectively. * Groups with the same letter are not significantly different from each other.

(t---- --1"93, p = 0"056) (2-tailed p) (Table 1), suggesting possible habi ta t differences between these two strata. Therefore inter-strata compar i son of experimental bighorn is no t justified. Because helicopters influenced the foraging behavior o f bighorn sheep within each stratum, a dis turbance distance could not be determined.

Spr ing

Spring compar isons were limited to bighorn occupying the Hermit Shale and Supai strata, because the Toroweap s t ra tum was virtually unused by bighorn during this period. The within-s t ra tum comparisons also illustrate that only bighorn closest to helicopters were sensitive to disturbance. Hermit Shale bighorn foraged 17 % less efficiently in the presence of helicopters than when helicopters were absent ( t = 1.91, p=0-03) (Table 2). In contrast , foraging efficiencies were similar for Supai bighorn irrespective of the presence of helicopters (t = -0-35, p = 0"366) (Table 2).

Inter-s trata compar isons of control bighorn revealed similar foraging rates for b ighorn in the Hermit Shale and Supai (t = 0-90, p = 0-370) (2-tailed p) (Table 2). This justifies an inter-strata compar ison of the foraging efficiencies o f bighorn in the presence o f helicopters. In the presence of helicopter overflights, foraging efficiencies for Hermit Shale and Supai bighorn were 71"3% _+ 9"1 (n = 11) and 89'5% _+ 2"0 (n = 11), respectively (t = - 1.40, 0-05 < p < 0"10).

T A B L E 2 The Influence of Proximity of Helicopters on Bighorn Foraging Efficiency, during Spring

Control Treatment ~

Hermit shale bighorn 86"0 +_ 2"4 (66) a* 71"3 + 9"1 (I 1) b Supai bighorn 82.2 _+ 3-5 (52) ac 89.5 _+ 2-0 (11) c

a Helicopters were within 100~50m, and 250-700m for bighorn in the Hermit Shale and Supai strata, respectively. * Groups with same letter are significantly different from each other.

EXHIBIT H

Helicopter eO'ects on bighorn sheep 325

Because only those sheep using the Toroweap or Hermit Shale strata were disturbed by helicopters, these results indicate a disturbance distance threshold of 250-450 m. Other studies have also shown that the degree of disturbance is a function of proximity to the stimulus (Altmann, 1958; Berger et al., 1983; Krausman & Hervert, 1983; Knight & Knight, 1984; Miller & Smith, 1985; Krausman et al., 1986). Physiological data also report this relationship. Heart rates of Rocky Mountain bighorn O. c. canadensis did not respond to high-flying aircraft (>400 m), but those exposed to low- flying aircraft (90-250 m) ran and incurred up to a 3"5-fold increase in heart rate (MacArthur et al., 1979, 1982).

Implications

If bighorn do not habituate to helicopters, the impacts will be cumulative; as the frequency of flights increases, so will impacts, which would be most severe in winter.

An animal may compensate for an energy loss by foraging longer if time is not limiting. However, ruminants require sufficient time to consume and ruminate large quantities of food. During winter, time constraints may be acute because bighorn were active approximately 69% of the daylight hours (Stockwell, 1989), and additional time may be required for rumination since bighorn often ruminate while lying down. Therefore additional compensatory activity may have an important influence on the total time budget of Grand Canyon bighorn.

Determining the average number of helicopters a bighorn may experience is problematic because helicopter traffic is spatially and temporally variable, and the distribution of bighorn at GCNP is not well documented. Following this study, the Federal Aviation Administration adopted Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) 50-2 on 1 November 1988, which created flight-free zones and flight corridors (Mazzu, 1990). This has effectively concentrated helicopter traffic over designated regions, which now may experience as many as 15 helicopter flights/hour during the fall (Mazzu, 1990). How these flight corridors overlap with areas occupied by bighorn throughout the park is not known; however, bighorn inhabit the strata below one flight corridor (Dragon Corridor) which experiences the heaviest helicopter traffic in the park (Stockwell, 1989; Mazzu, 1990).

Although helicopters caused a notable reduction in foraging efficiency, the long-term effects of such modified behavior are difficult to assess. Under ideal conditions one may design an experiment to compare the reproductive rates of populations exposed to varying levels of helicopter overflights while controlling for other variables. However, environmental factors that influence lamb survival are poorly understood (DeForge & Scott, 1982;

EXHIBIT H


DeForge et al., 1982), and the control of such variables in free-ranging populations will always remain difficult. Therefore, time budgets offer an alternative method for the determination of potential impacts of human activities on wildlife populations.

In summary, our data indicate that helicopter overflights alter the foraging behavior of desert bighorn--impacts which may be minimized by either restricting the number of flights or by regulating the flight altitudes of helicopters.

Restricting the number of flights during the winter appears to be a good strategy because impacts on bighorn foraging occurred only in winter. However, potential impacts may also occur during spring if helicopters haze bighorn during lambing. Although the frequency of such events is not known, at least one incident of hazing bighorn has been reported at Grand Canyon (Steve Carothers, pers. comm.).

Flights could also be restricted during specified periods of the day, especially in the spring when bighorn are most active during early morning and late afternoon. During winter, helicopters would be likely to encounter active sheep during all hours since at least 50% of the animals were active during every hour.

Alternatively, current regulations of helicopter flight altitudes could be modified to reduce impacts on bighorn. Current altitude regulations vary throughout GCNP, but generally helicopters must fly 152.4m (500ft) above the south rim; however, such altitudes are often below the north rim of the canyon. Because our data indicate a disturbance distance of approximately 250-450 m, impacts would be minimized if helicopters were to fly no nearer to bighorn habitat than 500m.

The information reported here illustrates how time budget data may be used to mitigate impacts in national parks. Such an approach should prove useful in other areas where conflicts between human activities and wildlife populations may exist. As the demand for outdoor recreation continues to increase, data on potential human-induced impacts will become essential to mitigate possible long-term impacts.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank Brad Dexter, Medha Devare, Heather Henter, Diane Leuniz, Catherine Lindell, Penny Myers, Jim Stockwell and Rick Sweitzer for assistance in collecting field data. Graydon Bell, Bill Boecklen, Charles Douglas, Heather Green and the Conservation Biology Group at Northern Arizona University all provided insightful information regarding data collection and interpretation. Personnel at GCNP helped in numerous ways

EXHIBIT H


and we are grateful for their logistical assistance. The illustration was drawn by Emilee Mead. Funded through grants from the Grand Canyon Natural History Association and the National Wildlife Federation Environmental Conservation Fellowship program to C.S. Neil Cobb, Charles Douglas, Paul Krausman, Gary Miller, Kristine Mobley-Brenneman, John Goodrich, Linda Kerley, Rick Sweitzer, Tom Whitham and an anonymous reviewer commented on earlier drafts of this manuscript.

R E F E R E N C E S

ADOT (Arizona Department of Transportation) (1991). Master plan for Grand Canyon National Park Airport. Arizona Department of Transportation, Phoenix.

Altmann, J. (1974). Observational study of behavior: sampling methods. Behaviour, 49, 227-67.

Altmann, M. (1958). The flight distance in free-ranging big game. J. Wildl. Manage., 22, 207-9.

Belovsky, G. E. & Slade, J. B. (1986). Time budgets of grassland herbivores: body size similarities. Oecologia Berl., 70, 53-62.

Berger, J. (1978). Group size, foraging and anti-predator ploys: an analysis of bighorn sheep decisions. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol,, 4, 91-100.

Berger, J., Daneke, D., Johnson, J. & Berwick, S. H. (1983). Pronghorn foraging economy and predator avoidance in a desert ecosystem: implications for the conservation of large mammalian herbivores. Biol. Conserv., 25, 193-208.

Chilelli, M. & Krausman, P. R. (1981). Group organization and activity patterns of desert bighorn sheep. Desert Bighorn Council Trans., 25, 17-24.

DeForge, J. R. & Scott, J. E. (1982). Ecological investigations into high lamb mortality. Desert Bighorn Council Trans., 26, 65-76.

DeForge, J. R., Jessup, D. A., Jenner, C. W. & Scott, J. E. (1982). Disease investigations into high lamb mortality of desert bighorn sheep in the Santa Rosa Mountains, California. Desert Bighorn Council Trans., 26, 76-81.

Geist, V. (1971). Mountain Sheep: A Stud), in Behavior and Evolution. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

Hansen, M. C. (1984). Activity patterns of bighorn sheep on the Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge. Desert Bighorn Council Trans., 28, 14-17.

Hicks, L. L. & Elder, J. M. (1979). Human disturbance of Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep. J. Wildl. Manage., 43, 909-15.

King, M. M. & Workman, G. W. (1986). Response of desert bighorn sheep to human harassment: management implications. Trans. N. Amer. Wildl. Nat. Resour. Conf., 51, 74-85.

Knight, R. L. & Knight, S. K. (1984). Responses of wintering bald eagles to boating activity. J. Wildl. Manage., 48, 999-1004.

Knight, S. K. & Knight, R. L. (1986). Vigilance patterns of bald eagles feeding in groups. Auk, 103, 263-72.

Krausman, P. R. & Hervert, J. J. (1983). Mountain sheep responses to aerial surveys. Wildl. Soc. Bull., 11, 372 5.

EXHIBIT H


Krausman, P. R., Leopold, B. D. & Scarbrough, D. L. (1986). Desert mule deer response to aircraft. Wildl. Soc. Bull., 14, 68-70.

Leslie, D. M. Jr & Douglas, C. L. (1979). Desert bighorn sheep of the River Mountains, Nevada. Wildl. Monogr., 66, l 56.

MacArthur, R. A., Johnston, R. H. & Geist, V. (I 979). Factors influencing heart rate in free ranging bighorn sheep: a physiological approach to the study of wildlife harassment. Can. J. Zool., 57, 2010-21.

MacArthur, R. A., Geist, V. & Johnston, R. H. (1982). Cardiac and behavioral responses of mountain sheep to human disturbance. J. Wildl. Manage., 46, 351 8.

Mazzu, L. (1990). Fall 1989 aircraft monitoring program, final report. United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona.

Miller, G. & Smith, E. L. (1985). Human activity in desert bighorn habitat: what disturbs sheep? Desert Bighorn Council Trans., 29, 4-7.

Risenhoover, K. L. & Bailey, J. A. (1985). Foraging ecology of mountain sheep: implications for habitat management. J. Wildl. Manage., 49, 797-804.

Stacey, P. B. (1986). Group size and foraging efficiency in yellow baboons. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol., 18, 175-87.

Stockwell, C. A. (1989). The behavior of desert bighorn at Grand Canyon National Park: implications for conservation. MS thesis, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ.

Warrick, G. D. & Krausman, R R. (1987). Foraging behavior of female mountain sheep in western Arizona. J. Wildl. Manage., 51, 99-104.

EXHIBIT H