Wirtz_EMESthesis 2011.pdf
Media
Part of Roosevelt Elk Habitat Assessment in the Skokomish Game Management Unit
- extracted text (extracttext:extracted_text)
-
ROOSEVELT ELK HABITAT ASSESSMENT IN THE
SKOKOMISH GAME MANAGEMENT UNIT
by
Emily C Wirtz
A Thesis
Submitted in fulfillment of the degree requirements for
The Master of Environmental Study
The Evergreen State College
March 2011
© 2011 by Emily Wirtz. All Rights Reserved.
This Thesis for the Master of Environmental Study Degree
by
Emily Wirtz
has been approved for
The Evergreen State College
by
The
aster of Environmental Studies Director
The Evergreen State College
The Master of Environmental
The Evergreen State College
Bryan Murphie
Wildlife Biologist
Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife
March 2011
ABSTRACT
Roosevelt Elk Habitat Assessment in the Skokomish Game Management Unit
Emily Wirtz
The Skokomish Game Management Unit (GMU) is located on the
southeast side of the Olympic Peninsula and has been designated by Washington
State for the purpose of managing harvest and wildlife populations. The
population of Roosevelt elk within the Skokomish GMU has shown signs of
decline over the past 30-40 years, likely caused by land management changes,
over-harvest, human development, and forestry practices. Since 2008, the
Skokomish Tribe's Department ofNatural Resources has been conducting an elk
monitoring project collaring cow elk within the Skokomish GMU to collect
population and mortality data. This thesis builds on that existing monitoring
project to analyze the current status of elk herds in the GMU and to determine the
annual home range and habitat availability for two herds: the South Fork and
Beeville herds.
Ground and aerial surveys were conducted in 2010 to derive counts of
population size and composition ratios of marked elk herds. Bull/cow and
cal£'cow ratios were at acceptable levels to allow for population growth. The
study herds' populations show a slight increase in numbers compared to 2008
estimates. A home range analysis was conducted using Hawth's Tool to derive
Kernel density estimates of95%, 90%, and 50% for the study herds in the GMU.
Over one year, the South Fork herd used an area of approximately 75 square
kilometers and the Beeville herd used an area of approximately 67 square
kilometers. A vegetation analysis within the two herds' home ranges identified
forage availability associated with seven sampled habitat types. There was a high
presence offorage species in the sampled plots within the study herds' home
ranges. The most frequent grass forage species found was Poa Pratensis and the
most common shrub species was Mahonia nervosa. The most common forage
forbs species found was Oxalis oregana and the most common fern species was
Blechnum spicant. Private agricultural fields were important to both study herds'
winter home ranges. Wetlands and riparian areas were vital habitat within the
herds' year-round home ranges.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………………………...iv-vi
LIST OF FIGURES………...……………………………………………………………vii
LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………………...…………viii
LIST OF APPENDICES………………………………………………………………....ix
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……………………………………………………………….x
INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………..…................1-2
CHAPTER 1-HISTORY AND BACKGROUND……...………………...................3-20
HISTORICAL ROOSEVELT ELK POPULATIONS………………………….3-4
SKOKOMISH TRIBAL LANDS……………………………………………….4-6
SKOKOMISH LAND MANAGEMENT………………………...….................6-8
PAST RESEARCH…………………………………………..………………..8-11
STUDY AREA………………………………………………………………11-13
HISTORICAL SKOKOMISH HERD POPULATIONS…………………….13-15
HUNTING EFFECTS…………………….………………………………….15-18
iv
NATURAL MORTALITY EFFECTS……………………………………….18-19
COMPETITION……………………………………………………………...19-20
HUNTING COMMITTEE INTERVIEW………………………..……………...20
CHAPTER 2-ANALYSIS OF ELK POPULATION/HOME RANGE
/HABITAT…………………………………………………………...21-41
INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………21-22
METHODS………………………………………………………………...…22-26
Elk Capture and Monitoring……………………….………………....22-23
Population and Composition………...……………...................................23
Home Range………………………………………………………...........23
Vegetation Surveys………...………………………………................23-26
RESULTS AND ANALYSIS………………………….…………………….26-41
Elk Capture and Monitoring……………………………………………..26
Population and Composition……….………….……………………..26-29
Discussion of Population/Composition………………………………….29
Home Range Analysis………………………………………………..30-33
v
Discussion of Home Range Analysis………………………………...33-34
Vegetation Analysis…………………………………………………..35-40
Discussion of Vegetation Analysis…………………………………...40-41
CHAPTER 3-DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION……………………….……...42-46
DISCUSSION………………………………………………………………...42-43
HABITAT ENHANCEMENT PROJECTS……………………………….....43-44
LAKE CUSHMAN SETTLEMENT…………………………………….…...44-45
FUTURE RESEARCH……………………………………………….………….45
CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………....45-46
LITERATURE CITED……………………………………………………………..46-51
APPENDICES…………………………………………………………………..........52-62
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Page
1
Skokomish Reservation Location and Vicinity Map…………………………......5
2
Game Management Units in the Point No Point Treaty Area………………...….9
3
Game Management Unit 636-2008/2009 Hunting Season…..………………….11
4
GMU 636 Elk Population Estimate 1974-1995………………………………....13
5
WDFW Skokomish GMU Bull Elk Harvest Estimates…………………………16
6
GPS Points of Collared Elk within GMU 636……..……………………………27
7
GPS Points for Marked Elk in Study Herds…..………………………………....31
8
Kernel Density Estimates for Beeville and South Fork Herds……………….....32
9
Spring Kernel Density Estimates for the Study Herds...………………………..33
10
Major Drainages in the Skokomish GMU...…………………………………….34
11
Vegetation Distribution in Seven Habitat Types………………………….…….36
12
High Quality Forage Species Percentages for Each Habitat Type...……………39
13
Biomass Totals for Sampled Habitats and the Date Clipped……….…………..40
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table
1
Page
Historic Population Estimates for Skokomish River Herds in GMU 636.
Population estimates derived from surveys conducted by the Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Point No Point Treaty Council
from 1929-1998………………………………………………………………….14
2
NWIFC Elk Harvest Total in GMU 636 from 2003-2009. Elk harvest totals
based on harvest reports from state and tribal hunters documented by the
Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission………………………………………...17
3
Counts of Elk Population in GMU 636. Population counts conducted by the
Skokomish Department of Natural Resources and the Washington Department
of Fish and Wildlife via aerial and ground surveys in spring and fall 2010…......28
4
Composition Data for Study Herds. Composition ratios calculated from fall
2010 aerial surveys by the Skokomish Department of Natural Resources and
the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife…………………………….....29
5
Proportion of Preferred Forage within Each Habitat Type. Proportion of
preferred forage species for Roosevelt elk identified in each habitat sampled
based off preferred forage species documented in Jenkins and Starkey 1991…...38
viii
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix
A
B
Page
Map of Land Use in Mason County and the Skokomish Reservation..……...…52
USFS Map of Habitat Projects in the South Fork Skokomish Area. Future and
present projects…………………………………………………………………..53
C
Hunting Committee Survey Results. List of responses given by the Skokomish
Tribe’s hunting committee members to five questions about elk and habitat in
the study area. Similar responses given by different members are notated with
a roman numeral……………………………………………………..………......54
D
Occurrences of High Quality Forage Species Found in Each Habitat Type.
Based off previous studies findings of forage species, the listed species offer
the most digestible energy for Roosevelt Elk depending on time year…........55-58
E
All Species Present within Sampled Plots. Forage species are checked…….59-62
ix
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to greatly thank everyone who has assisted me in the completion of
this thesis including:
Martha Henderson, Judy Cushing, Bryan Murphie, Bethany Brinkerhoff, Scott
Harris, Greg Schirato, Shannon Murphie, Betsy Howell, Tim Cullinan, Chris
Madsen, the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, Joseph Pavel, Jon Wolf,
Alex Gouley, Dave Herrera, Ron Figlar-Barnes, Elena Miller, Shane Miller, Guy
Miller, Rick Miller, Ricky Miller, Fred Miller, Dave Johnston, The Skokomish
Tribe, Erin Beardon, Kushiah McCullough, Samantha Price, Ralph Murphy,
Frederica Bowcutt, David Gilbin and the University of Washington Herbarium,
The Evergreen State College-MES Program, The Evergreen State College
Herbarium, The Evergreen State College Lab Stores, Eric Beach, the Green
Diamond Resource Company, Alann and Mali Krivor, Ralph Cook, the Hager
family, my parents, family, and friends.
Many thanks. I am very appreciative for all of your support.
x
INTRODUCTION
This study was conducted within the Skokomish Game Management Unit
(GMU) 636 in the range of Skokomish Tribe’s ceded lands. The analysis of the
general status and trend of elk and herd management in the Skokomish GMU was
completed through the use of interviews, previous studies, harvest reports, and
population and composition analysis. A further study was conducted on two
southeast elk herds in the unit using home range analysis and vegetation surveys
to assess habitat use and forage availability.
Major depletions in elk herds over the last 30-40 years, in the Skokomish
ceded areas, have occurred mostly because of human disturbance factors. The
Skokomish GMU has been heavily logged for many decades, which has severely
changed the dynamic and complexity of the habitat. The original logging activity
in the area opened up areas for foraging and created a boom in elk numbers by the
1970s (WDFW 2005). Burning practices in clear-cuts allowed for recycled
nutrients and increased forage species (WDFW 2005). Currently, forestry
practices in the area have created more even-aged mid-seral tree stands that offer
the least valuable habitat for elk and herbicide spraying has been more commonly
used, limiting forage species growth.
This thesis analyzes the types of habitats most used by the two study
herds and the forage present in seven common Roosevelt elk habitat available in
the Skokomish GMU. Also, data collected from the Skokomish Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) Elk Monitoring Project was used to determine
population size, composition, and home range of two elk herds in GMU 636. This
thesis will add to the limited research about elk in GMU 636 and can benefit the
Skokomish Department of Natural Resource’s Wildlife Program, Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), Northwest Indian Fisheries
Commission (NWIFC), the United States Forest Service (USFS), The Evergreen
State College, and other interested parties. This is an interdisciplinary study using
aspects of biological science, cultural studies, natural resource management,
wildlife management, wildlife ecology, wildlife tracking, forestry, and
1
geographical information systems. Both qualitative and quantitative assessments
are used to analyze the status of elk and their habitat in the Skokomish GMU.
Lastly, a large variety of research and previous studies were used to complete this
study.
Chapter 1 covers historical information about Roosevelt elk herds on the
Olympic Peninsula, about the Skokomish Tribe’s ceded lands, about the location
and management of the traditional Skokomish lands and the Skokomish GMU,
and about historical management of elk in the study area. Chapter 1 describes the
background information and studies used as the basis for analysis of the general
status of the Skokomish herd, including an interview with the Skokomish Tribe’s
hunting committee members. Information derived from previous research and
ecological literature helped to determine variables other than habitat that could be
affecting population growth and helped create the habitat assessment described in
Chapter 2. Chapter 2 explains the habitat assessment of the sampled study area
and study herds. This chapter covers the Skokomish Elk Monitoring Project,
methods used for the study, population results for the whole GMU 636 and
composition ratios for the two study herds, and home range and vegetation
analysis of the habitat use and forage availability for the two southeast elk herds.
Chapter 3 concludes the thesis with a discussion about management practices that
could improve the future population growth of the study herds, future research
that would be valuable to elk management in the area, and with a final discussion
and assessment of the study’s findings.
2
CHAPTER 1
HISTORY AND BACKGROUND
HISTORICAL ROOSEVELT ELK POPULATIONS
Elk or Cervus elaphus have reportedly existed in Washington for at least
10,000 years (McCorquodale 1985; Harpole and Lyman 1999). Roosevelt elk or
Cervus elaphus roosevelti have reportedly existed in western Washington for at
least 7,000 years (Harpole and Lyman 1999), and on the Olympic Peninsula for at
least 3,000 years (Croes and Hackenberger 1988). Studies of western Washington
elk habitat use show they are most commonly found in patchy habitats where
forest canopies provide security and thermal cover and forest openings provide
the highest quality forage (Harpole and Lyman 1999; Maser 1998). Traditional
Native American practices involved burning large sections of forest to improve
berry and ungulate production (McClure 1989). However, modern fire prevention
and land management practices have lessened the natural forest openings causing
more limitations to elk habitats.
Roosevelt elk on the eastern side of the Olympics have typically been in
smaller more isolated groups and the herds on the western side of the Olympics
generally reside in larger groups (WDFW 2005). Native American people
influenced distribution and population of elk herds through the use of fire and
hunting (McCabe 2002). The general distribution of elk in the Olympic Peninsula
has stayed relatively similar to historical distribution, while population size has
varied more because of human influences (WDFW 2005; WDFW 2008).
Native Americans are believed to have existed in Washington for at least
9,000 years (WDFW 2008). The native people of the Olympic Peninsula have
most likely been hunting these animals in their historic range for thousands of
years. By the early 1900s, European settlement brought about the use of modern
firearms and more hunters. This greatly reduced elk populations in western
Washington (WDFW 2004), and eliminated most elk in eastern Washington
(WDFW 2008). From 1905-1915, it was unlawful to hunt elk. Elk predators, like
3
cougars and bear, were targeted for hunting instead in Washington State. In 1909,
Theodore Roosevelt protected all elk residing in the Olympic National Park. This
ban is still in effect today. The 1909 ban led to an overpopulation of elk by 1915
in parts of the Olympic Peninsula, causing depletions in available elk forage
(Schwartz 1945). The populations improved again on the Olympic Peninsula
through the 1970s, because of changes to habitat conditions largely resulting from
forest management practices that opened up forest floor through logging.
However, over time the changes in hunting regulations, forestry management, and
human development decreased the total carrying capacity for Roosevelt elk
(WDFW 2008).
The Olympic Elk Herd is one of the ten major elk herds managed by the
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). The herd is estimated at
about 8,600 animals (WDFW 2005, WDFW 2008). This estimate does not include
the population of the herd located in the Olympic National Park. The Olympic Elk
Herd is believed to be limited by a loss of habitat, increased human development,
and timber management on private and federal lands (WDFW 2008). The
Skokomish GMU is a part of the 15 GMUs that make up the area surrounding the
Park containing the Olympic Elk Herd.
SKOKOMISH TRIBAL LANDS
In 1855, the Treaty of Point No Point was signed by members of the
Skokomish Tribe or Twana people. The Treaty ceded the historic lands of the
Skokomish people, “to the United States Government in exchange for a small
reservation on the mouth of the Skokomish River on the base of the Hood Canal”
(Wray 2002). Prior to the signing of the Treaty, the Twana people hunted and
fished in the lands surrounding the designated reservation for hundreds of
generations. Governor Isaac Stevens assured the tribal members that they would
be able, “to continue to harvest foods from their traditional (ceded) areas”, as long
as they resided on the reservation (Wray 2002).
The Skokomish way of life was highly altered by the arrival of European
settlers and the challenges created by these changes continue into present-day.
4
The priorities for the Skokomish Tribe remain the same: protection of their
marine, freshwater, and land resources, all of which make-up the backbone of
their lifestyle (Wray 2002). However, land management by the Federal
Government, Washington State Government, and other private landowners has
had overwhelming effects on the status of resources in the traditional use areas of
the Twana people.
Figure 1 shows the location of the Skokomish Indian Reservation, which
is approximately 5,000 acres or 7.5 square miles at the delta of the Skokomish
Figure 1: Skokomish Reservation Location and Vicinity Map
Source: Skokomish Department of Natural Resources
River where it empties into the Great Bend of the Hood Canal. The Reservation is
5
bounded on the south by the Skokomish River, on the west by the Olympic
Mountains, on the east by the Puget Lowlands, and on the north by the Hood
Canal. The reservation resides in Mason County, Shelton, Washington.
The ceded lands created by the Point No Point Treaty were described as
the following:
Commencing at the mouth of the Okeho River, on the Straits of
Fuca; thence southeastwardly along the westerly line of territory
claimed by the Makah tribe of Indians to the summit of the
Cascade Range; thence still southeastwardly and southerly along
said summit to the head of the west branch of the Satsop River,
down that branch to the main fork; thence eastwardly and
following the line of lands heretofore ceded to the United States
by the Nisqually and other tribes and bands of Indians, to the
summit of the Black Hills, and northeastwardly to the portage
known as Wilkes' Portage; thence northeastwardly, and following
the line of lands heretofore ceded to the United States by the
Duwamish, Suquamish, and other tribes and bands of Indians, to
Suquamish Head; thence northerly through Admiralty Inlet to the
Straits of Fuca; thence westwardly through said straits to the place
of beginning.
The historical traditional use areas for hunting and fishing purposes have been
negotiated further between the Peninsula tribes. Washington State now takes part in
the enforcement of Peninsula tribes’ traditional use areas; assuring the proper tribal
members are hunting within their designated areas. Negotiations over actual
historical, traditional use areas continue today between Washington State, Puget
Sound tribes, and Olympic Peninsula tribes.
SKOKOMISH LAND MANAGEMENT
Roosevelt elk have been a historically significant species to the people of
the Skokomish Tribe for thousands of years (WDFW 2008). Native American
people used elk for many vital reasons including food, clothing, weapons, and
spiritualism (McCabe 2002). In the early 1900s, there were stories of tribal
members traveling in hunting parties to the hills near Mount Ellinor and Mount
Washington, near Lake Cushman, to hunt large groups of elk (Wray 2002).
Maintaining sustainable elk herds in the Skokomish area is important to the
Skokomish people for cultural, personal, environmental, and subsistence
6
purposes. Therefore, the Skokomish Tribe has taken steps to protect this
important species.
The Skokomish Tribe reserves the right to co-manage all natural resources
within their traditional use areas along with the federal and Washington State
governments. Ownership and management of the traditional use or ceded areas of
the Skokomish are now divided among the Green Diamond Resource Company
(formerly Simpson Timber Company), United States Forest Service (USFS),
Washington Department of Natural Resources, Tacoma Power, and private
landowners. The Skokomish Department of Natural Resources (DNR) now works
with all of these entities to manage resources in their traditional lands.
After the Treaty of Point No Point was signed, Washington State was
responsible for managing natural resources in the areas surrounding the
Skokomish Reservation. During this time the State and tribal managers did not
collaborate well on resource management projects (Nickelson et al. 2001) and
much of the management was carried out by State Government. In 1974, the US
vs. Washington (Boldt decision) reaffirmed Washington tribes’ treaty rights to comanage natural resources (NWIFC 2009). From 1974-2001, natural resources in
the Skokomish area were managed by the Point No Point Treaty Council
(PNPTC) and the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission (NWIFC) that help
support natural resource programs for tribes mostly surrounding or in the Puget
Sound area (NWIFC 2007). The Skokomish Tribe left the PNPTC in 2001 and
established their own Department of Natural Resources in 2003 on the Tribal
Reservation, “to protect Skokomish treaty rights through effective management
that will perpetuate tribal resources for this and future generations” (Skokomish
2010). The Skokomish DNR and other tribal, state, and federal wildlife programs
seek to ensure long-term sustainability for all wildlife using the best available
science (WDFW 2008).
Olympic Peninsula tribes like the Skokomish Tribe have Hunting
Committees to regulate harvest practices and develop management strategies. The
tribes maintain their own hunting regulations, governance, and enforcement. The
tribes and the state work together through management agreements for harvest
7
management such as harvest reports, hunting seasons, and enforcement
regulations (NWIFC 2007).
With the assistance of the PNPTC, the Washington Department of Fish
and Wildlife (WDFW) have conducted much of the monitoring of elk in the
Skokomish area, except for hunters and the Hunting Committee for the
Skokomish that conduct undocumented observations of the herds. Currently,
WDFW and the Olympic Peninsula tribes are combining efforts to manage the
Olympic Peninsula Elk Herd for hunting purposes and improve the herd’s
population and composition. A Cooperative Elk Management Group (CEMG)
was established in 1996, with representatives from the Olympic Peninsula tribes
and WDFW, in an effort to better manage the Olympic Elk Herd. The objective of
the CEMG is to, “reverse the decline in Olympic Herd elk numbers and ensure elk
populations throughout the Olympic Peninsula are sustainable for hunting
purposes” (WDFW 2008).
A Wildlife Program was created in 2008 through the Skokomish Tribe’s
Department of Natural Resources and is still operating today. To accomplish
wildlife management objectives in the area, the Wildlife Staff does cooperative
projects with other entities such as the WDFW, the USFS, and Olympic Peninsula
tribes. Appendix A shows the division of land management in the range of the
Skokomish Reservation. As indicated, the majority of the area is split between the
USFS making up about 75% of the GMU and 25% private land divided between
residential areas and commercial/private forest, which is mostly managed by the
Green Diamond Resource Company.
PAST RESEARCH
Research and analysis of the habitat and wildlife in the Skokomish Game
Management Unit has been limited and inconsistent because of changing resource
managers. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 2005 Olympic Herd
Elk Plan set desired elk population objectives for the Olympic Peninsula Herd.
The Skokomish GMU 636 is included in the fifteen GMUs, shown in Figure 2,
which make up the area containing the Olympic Elk Herd. The population
8
objectives were based on historic population estimates in the designated GMUs
(WDFW 2005) and the desirable population sizes to allow for sustainable harvest
of the Olympic Herd, while maintaining healthy herd sizes for reproductive
purposes. The population objective for GMU 636 was set at 500 animals in 2005.
Figure 2: Game Management Units in the Point No Point Treaty Area
Source: WDFW
Some of the oldest known studies on Roosevelt elk in the Olympic
Peninsula were “Roosevelt Elk of the Olympics” Skinner (1936), and “The
Roosevelt Elk on the Olympic Peninsula” Schwartz (1945). Skinner’s study was
an early introduction to elk in the Olympic Peninsula. Schwartz’s research
involved a three-year study of elk and their habitat preferences. Some of the first
9
population estimates of the Olympic Elk Herd were made during this study. Also,
Schwartz (1945) conducted a forage study on elk herds on the Olympic Peninsula.
Forage preferences found in Schwartz study can still be used as a basis for forage
studies in the area today.
Many studies show the possibility for limited habitat availability and
forage quality to be a leading factor in diminishing Roosevelt elk populations
(Jenkins and Starkey 1991; Happe et al. 1990; Cook et al. 2001; Perez 2006); on
the eastern side of the Olympic Peninsula growing human development creates a
high possibility for human encroachment and a loss of habitat availability to affect
elk populations (WDFW 2005). Forest management practices on the eastside of
the Olympics have created an abundance of mid-seral even aged stands, which
have been documented to offer the least amount of nutritional forage for elk
(Jenkins and Starkey 1991; Happe et al. 1990; Schroer et al. 1993). Some studies
have shown early-seral stands and private agricultural lands will offer a better
quality of forage than coniferous forest stands over 16 years-old (Cook et al.
2001; Perez 2006; Happe et al. 1990).
Elk population studies have shown how changes in land management,
human development, and forestry practices have influenced populations and
changed the dynamic of the Olympic Peninsula Elk Herd (WDFW 2005; Jenkins
and Starkey 1991; Happe et al. 1990). The Olympic Peninsula elk herds have
adapted to habitat types, such as clear-cuts, which can offer more openings with
more nutritious forage species, near forested areas with cover (Weckerly 2005;
Schroer et al. 1993). However, historical forest management practices on the
Olympic Peninsula involved burning undergrowth plant species to encourage tree
growth. More recent forestry practices are instead treating clear-cuts with
herbicides, which may reduce the amount and quality of forage in clear-cuts,
especially winter forage species (Strong and Gates 2006). Clear-cuts may also
increase the amount of tannins in plant species and protein in plants can be
significantly reduced (Happe et. al. 1990; Cook 2002). The quality of the forage
species in clear-cuts could be less than desirable and other habitats could be more
beneficial to elk, because quality and nutrition of forage can limit elk more than
10
abundance of forage (Happe et al. 1990; Cook et al. 2004; Perez 2006).
STUDY AREA
Game Management Units (GMUs) are used by the WDFW as a means of
managing harvest and wildlife populations. The GMUs often have natural and
manmade features rivers, ridges, and roads as boundaries. However, these
boundaries are set based on human recreational use of the area and are not
boundaries for wildlife, which can freely cross in and out of GMUs. Figure 3
shows the borders of the Skokomish GMU 636 as designated by the 2008/2009
hunting regulations for the WDFW.
Figure 3: Game Management Unit 636-2008/2009 Hunting Season
Source: WDFW
The Skokomish Game Management Unit (GMU) 636 is the main study
area for this project. As defined in the 2010 Washington state hunting regulations,
the GMU is approximately 976 square kilometers in area. GMU 636 is located in
11
both Mason and Grays Harbor Counties. As shown in Figure 3, the unit begins at
the Olympic Park boundary and the North Fork Skokomish River; goes South
along the North Fork of the Skokomish River to Lake Cushman; heads Southeast
along the west shore of Lake Cushman to Standsill Dr. (Power Dam Rd.) at the
Upper Cushman Dam; East on Standstill Dr to SR 119; Southeast on Lake
Cushman Rd to US Hwy 101 at the town of Hoodsport; then South on US Hwy
101 to Shelton-Matlock Rd. to the town of Shelton; West on the Shelton-Matlock
Rd to the Matlock-Brady Rd to Deckerville Rd south of the town of Matlock;
West on Deckerville Rd to Boundary Rd; Southwest on Boundary Rd to Kelly
Rd; North on Kelly Rd to US Forest Service (USFS) Rd 2368 (Simpson Timber
500 Line); North on USFS Rd 2368 (Simpson Timber 500 line) to USFS Rd 2260
(Simpson Timber 600 line) to Wynoochee Rd (USFS Rd 22); Northwest on USFS
Rd 22 to USFS Rd. 2294, ¼ mile East of Big Creek; Northwest on USFS Rd
2294 which parallels Big Creek, to junction with USFS Rd 2281; West on USFS
2281, to the watershed divide between the Humptulips River watershed and the
Wynoochee River watershed; North on the ridge between the Humptulips River
watershed and the Wynoochee River watershed to Olympic National Park
boundary; East along the Olympic National Park boundary to the north fork of the
Skokomish River and the point of beginning.
The average snowfall for the study area falls between November and
March with the highest averages in December and January at 1.2 centimeters (cm)
and 3.05cm respectively, with extremes ranging up to 38cm. Average daily
precipitation for the study area ranges between 0.76cm and 1.5cm, between
November and April and between 0.0025cm and 0.38cm, from May through
October. GMU 636 like Western Washington has a Mediterranean climate that
has a relatively heavy rain/snow season and then a drier, warmer summer. The
average temperature of the study area is between 1.6°C and 21.1°C, with extremes
at -1.1°C minimum and 29.4°C maximum (Western Regional Climate Center
2010).
The main coniferous forest overstory species in the area are Douglas fir
(Pseudotsuga menziesii), Western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) and Western
12
Red Cedar (Thuja plicata). The main deciduous forest species is Red alder (Alnus
rubra) and is most present in the riparian areas of the unit. The understory is
mainly composed of shrubs, ferns, moss, fungi, grasses, and small forb species
(Franklin and Dryness 1973).
HISTORICAL SKOKOMISH HERD POPULATIONS
Population estimates have been inconsistently kept on the elk herds in the
Skokomish GMU. WDFW and the Point No Point Treaty Council have conducted
some population studies over the past 30-40 years. Based on the observations in
these population studies, herds in the Skokomish GMU have been in decline the
past few decades (Schirato 1996). Figure 4 shows estimated populations
calculated various ways in GMU 636. Without historical surveys and population
estimates in the area, most of the estimates were calculated by multiplying
estimated harvest by 12.5.
Elk Population Estimate 636
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Year
1974
1977
1979
1980
1981
1982
1995
Figure 4: GMU 636 Elk Population Estimate 1974-1995
Source: WDFW-PNPTC-Skokomish DNR
The two historically monitored herds in the area were the South Fork herd
13
and the North Fork herd. Other smaller groups reportedly existed in the North
Fork-South Fork confluence area of the Skokomish River until at least 1995.
More recent studies have documented a third herd in the vicinity of the
Skokomish River known as the confluence herd (Nickelson 1996). Table 1 shows
the population estimates documented for these herds by the PNPTC and WDFW.
In 1945, Schwartz documented 100 elk in the South Fork Skokomish River area.
150 elk were documented in the North Fork Skokomish herd. In 1977, the
population in the North Fork was over 100 animals and around 100 for the South
Fork herd. Just under 20 years later, there were only 2 elk seen during spring
surveys in the confluence herd, only 26 elk seen in the South Fork Skokomish
area, and the North Fork herd was not located (Nickelson 1996). Then by spring
1996, only 17 elk were found in the South Fork herd, no mature bulls, only one
spike and one calf. The confluence herd has not been found in surveys since
before 1996, and was believed to be extinct from the area. The North Fork herd
has mostly relocated to the Olympic National Park north of Lake Cushman. The
believed low numbers in these three herds led to a complete harvest closure of
GMU 636 for both state and tribal hunters.
Table 1: Historic Population Estimates for Skokomish River Herds in GMU 636
Source: WDFW-PNPTC-Emily Wirtz
Previous closures in nearby GMUs showed prohibiting hunting alone may
14
not be an effective way to assist a herd’s recovery once they have reached
extremely low population levels (Nickelson 1996). In 1997, 24 elk were relocated
into the South Fork Skokomish River area by the WDFW and PNPTC to
supplement the Skokomish herd. These efforts were mostly unsuccessful. There
were high mortality rates post-relocation and some of the relocated animals chose
to disperse towards their previous home ranges causing only a slight increase in
the South Fork herd (Nickelson et al. 2000).
A total population estimate for GMU 636 calculated in 1994-1995 by the
Point No Point Treaty Council biologists using mark-resight counts estimated 258
animals with 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) of the population being between 191
and 325. From 1997-2003 some population counts were conducted by WDFW
and PNPTC. These were mostly varied and inconclusive. The best recorded
observations during this time were from a March 1998 aerial survey documenting
161 elk for the unit. In 2008, the Skokomish wildlife biologist and WDFW
biologists conducted an aerial paintball mark-resight survey estimating a
minimum of 148 elk in GMU 636, and only 16 elk were observed in the South
Fork herd.
HUNTING EFFECTS
Historical population observations of the Skokomish herds showed
dramatic declines since the 1970s (Schirato 1996). There are many factors that
can affect elk herd size. A major mortality factor is legal harvest, which causes an
averaged 80% mortality in the Olympic Peninsula Elk Herd. Only about 10% of
mortality in cows and 14% in bulls in the Olympic Peninsula come from all other
causes including poaching and natural mortality (Nickelson 1997).
European settlement brought more hunters and more advanced weaponry
to the Olympic Peninsula. Historical records of harvest totals are incomplete. The
earliest known estimate in the area is from 1920 (Schirato 1997). According to the
limited hunting records kept by the WDFW, harvest of elk in the Skokomish
GMU peaked until the 1970’s and then fell in the 1980’s. Most likely the decline
in elk population led to lower harvest numbers (Schirato1997). Harvest estimates
15
from 1960-1995 are shown in Figure 5. Because of the believed population
decline, the State added more restrictions to hunting the Skokomish herds. In
1983, the Skokomish GMU was limited to bulls with three or more points because
fewer bulls are needed than cows within a herd to maintain healthy populations.
There was a complete harvest closure for elk in GMU 636 by both state and tribal
hunters from 1996-2003 to assist the herds’ recovery (Nickelson et al. 2000).
However, there was not a noticeable improvement in population size coinciding
with the closure (Nickelson et al. 2000). This suggests there could be other causes
limiting the herds’ population size.
Figure 5: WDFW Skokomish GMU Bull Elk Harvest Estimates
Source: WDFW
In GMU 636, hunting has been limited to special permit only since 2003
for both state and tribal hunters. The Olympic Peninsula tribes are given extended
hunting seasons. The Skokomish tribe’s season runs from mid-August to the end
of January. The Skokomish tribal members are allowed to harvest cows for
ceremonial purposes only.
Table 2 shows totals for elk harvested from the Skokomish GMU since
2003. The reported 63 harvested animals over the course of six years is a fairly
16
low amount. From 2003-2009 over 1,000 animals were harvested from the
Olympic Peninsula GMUs (NWIFC 2009).
Table 2: NWIFC Elk Harvest Total in GMU 636 from 2003-2009
Sex
Bulls
Cows
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
8
1
5
0
9
2
10
0
10
1
9
0
8
0
Source: NWIFC-Skokomish DNR-Emily Wirtz
The increase of roads accessible by hunters can limit habitat areas for the
elk and increase mortality. The effects of increased road distribution on elk
behavior have been well documented (Cole 1997; Skovlin et. al. 2002, Irwin
2002, WDFW 2008). High road densities can cause elk to abandon areas they
would usually inhabit, which can reduce the available range for the population
(Cole 1997). Condensing the amount of roads available to human transportation
can lower the amount of energy used by elk avoiding vehicle movement and
human disturbance and lessen mortality rates because of hunting and poaching
(WDFW 2008).
The USFS and WDFW have been working together to lessen the amount
of accessible roads in GMU 636. Many gate closures exist now, limiting access
for about 6-7 months out of the year as well as year round closures to reduce
human disturbance of elk, especially during breeding season. The USFS map in
Appendix B shows the current elk security areas, current road decommissioning
projects, and plans for future projects in the South Fork Skokomish River
watershed. The Green Diamond Resource Company will also close many gates on
logging roads when logging operations are not underway in the Skokomish GMU.
Poaching is another possible cause for lower population numbers. It is
difficult to understand the effect poaching has had in GMU 636, as in most areas,
because those totals are not well documented. Some poaching activity has been
reported by hunters to the Skokomish wildlife staff in the recent past, but it is
difficult to know exactly how much has actually occurred. According to Smith et
al. (1994) poaching attributes to 15% of mortality statewide, while 59% of
mortality was reportedly caused by legal harvest.
17
A study by Schirato and Murphie (1997) showed that 27% of all
mortalities (n=40) on the eastside of the Olympic Peninsula were caused by
poaching. This study was conducted in a GMU just northeast of the Skokomish
GMU, but it could show that the area has a slightly higher rate of poaching than
other parts of the state. Local hunters and community members have discussed at
least three other poaching incidents in the past year to the Skokomish DNR
wildlife staff.
NATURAL MORTALITY EFFECTS
Mortality studies have not been historically conducted on elk in GMU
636. The current Elk Monitoring Project carried out by the Skokomish DNR and
WDFW will assist in deriving better estimates for causes of mortality in the
Skokomish herd. The main known causes of natural mortality for Roosevelt elk
are malnutrition, predation, disease, parasite infestation, and injury.
Malnutrition has been the highest reported cause of natural mortality for
cow elk in the Olympic Elk Herd (Nickelson 1996). Malnutrition can occur
because of an insufficient availability of high quality forage within a herd’s home
range (Cook et al. 2004). For example cow elk may not find enough spring forage
species to rebuild fat supplies after a harsh winter, when elk will generally lose
significant weight (Cook 2002). Forage in areas like the Skokomish GMU is
influenced by forest management practices that can have appreciable effects on
forage quality and quantity (Cook et al. 2004). Early growth in timber harvested
areas can often increase use and foraging by elk herds in those areas, but the
quality of forage species can reduce with age of forest stand eventually leading to
less nutritional foraging areas (Cook 2002). Another reason for malnutrition could
be disturbance factors, cows with calves may choose to protect their calf over
eating if there are security threats and rapid movement by elk can reduce foraging
efficiency (Cook 2002).
Predator populations are unknown in the GMU. Cougars, bears, bobcats,
and coyotes are the four main predators of elk in the study area (Schwartz 1945;
WDFW 2008). Cougars are the most active elk predator in the area. Cougars and
18
bear would be the only two predators capable of taking down an adult elk and it is
likely only large cougars and bears would be able to do this successfully (Maser
1998). But all predator types mostly focus their efforts on calves. Also, it is
believed cougars feed more on deer than elk, because cougars are more versatile
at hunting deer than elk (Schwartz 1945; Maser 1998).
Complete population estimates for predatory species in the unit have also
not been conducted. Logging and forestry management practices that changed
forest dynamics in the Olympic Peninsula opened up forest floor and habitat for
predators, as well as elk (Maser 1998). Harvest for these species is also generally
very low. Washington state harvest reports over the last ten-years have only been
between 0-5 cougars and for black bear between 10-20 animals. State
reconstruction methods found an increasing trend in cougar populations in the
Olympics from 1987-1994 (WDFW 1999). Cougar studies carried out by
Olympic Peninsula tribes in next few years may provide more knowledge on the
effect these predators have on deer and elk ecology.
Other natural mortality factors are injury, disease, and parasite infestation.
It is unknown how these have affected the Skokomish herds. Currently, there are
no major diseases known to affect elk herds on the Olympic Peninsula. Multiple
parasites inhabit elk on the Olympic Peninsula, such as ticks, lice, lungworms,
and tape worms (Schwartz 1945). Other parasites positively identified in the
Olympic Peninsula, such as Capillaria, Trichuris, and Dictyocaulus, have only
shown up in low quantities (WDFW 2005).
COMPETITION
The Skokomish GMU has historically offered higher quality habitat for
deer than elk (Schwartz 1945). Deer may be more predominant on the eastern side
of the Olympics than on the western side. Schwartz 1945 suggested managing for
deer over elk in the South Fork Skokomish river area, because the habitat favored
deer. However, deer and elk ecology can overlap to some degree and both species
can share an area containing enough available forage. Population counts for deer
have not been well documented in GMU 636, but if they are more abundant than
19
they could compete with elk for food and habitat (McCullough 1971).
HUNTING COMMITTEE INTERVIEW
Interviews and surveys were conducted with the Skokomish Tribe’s
Hunting Committee members. There are 5 members of the committee, who took
part in the qualitative discussion. All members began hunting in the Skokomish
GMU over 20 years ago and most have been hunting for 30-40 years in the GMU.
They have watched the herds change in size and behavior over many decades.
Unlike biologists studying elk herds in the area, the Skokomish Hunting
Committee members rarely get to express their observations about the local herds
to people outside of the tribe. Through the interview and survey, they were able to
communicate their insight about the study area and their thoughts on the status of
elk and their habitat in GMU 636. A table showing the results of the interview
can be found in Appendix C.
Overall, the Hunting Committee members still have much concern about
the status of elk in GMU 636. They have watched the population dramatically
decline during their lifetimes. The main consensus about the causes for the
decline are logging and over-harvesting of elk. They believe adding to forage and
habitat in the area would be greatly beneficial to the herds’ population growth.
The Hunting Committee members feel making adjustments to hunting in the
GMU could be necessary to improve growth. For example, closing down the unit
for both state and tribal hunters as it was from 1996 to 2003 or eliminating the
mature bull only permits for the state. As discussed in Chapter 2 surveys of the
South Fork herd found a very minimal number of branched bulls. A lack of
mature bulls within a herd during breeding season could be highly influential on
the success of reproduction in the herd (Schirato 1996, Noyes et al. 2008).
20
CHAPTER 2
ANALYSIS OF ELK POPULATION/HOME RANGE /HABITAT
INTRODUCTION
Elk are a social species living in matriarchal herds or groups led by a
mature cow (Maser 1998). It is presumed that collaring a cow will assist in
locating the entire herd or group. Female cows will generally only leave the herd
when giving birth (Maser 1998). A Cooperative Elk Monitoring Project was
carried out in September-October 2009 by the Skokomish Tribe’s DNR and the
WDFW. The goal of the Elk Monitoring Project is to derive consistent population
and composition data, home range, and habitat use information on elk within the
Skokomish GMU and surrounding areas. Also, the project involves conducting a
long-term study of mortality causes to assure a sustainable herd for harvesting,
cultural, recreational, and ecological purposes (Tropp 2009).
Through the 2009 Skokomish Elk Monitoring Project, population counts
and herd composition data was collected for herds in the Skokomish GMU.
Home range analysis was conducted on four collared elk representing two distinct
elk herds in the southeast portion of GMU 636. Vegetation surveys were
conducted in the home range of the two groups to document forage species
present within seven known habitat types. This study can assist wildlife managers
in the area to understand the current status of elk in GMU 636, the most important
areas used by the southeast groups, the size of their home range over the course of
a year and daily and seasonal use patterns. The vegetation surveys help identify
high quality forage areas within the herds’ home ranges and the most important
forage species present within each of the sampled habitat types.
Through the home range and vegetation analysis a connection between
high use areas and higher composition of forage species was expected. A trend in
the herds’ habitat selection connecting grass and shrub species availability during
the late autumn through early spring habitats and forb and grass availability being
connected to their habitat selection from late spring through early autumn was
expected (Jenkins and Starkey 1991). More movement and variability in habitat
21
preferences during the late spring through early autumn home ranges was
anticipated. Also anticipated was a higher availability of forage species and
biomass of species within the private farms and open meadow or wetland areas
than within the clear-cut or replanted forest areas (Perez 2006).
METHODS
Elk Capture and Monitoring
Cow elk were captured through the use of a helicopter (Northwest
Helicopters, Olympia, WA, USA) and tranquilized with 3cc (cubic centimeters)
of concentrated Xylazine HCI (Hospira Inc., Lake Forest, IL, USA). Animals
were vaccinated with 10cc of Penicillin (Combi-Pen-48, Bimeda Inc., Le Sueur,
MN, USA) and 5cc Clostridium (Clostidium Perfringens Types C & D Tetanus
Toxoid, Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica Inc., St. Joseph, MO, USA). Cow elk
were outfitted with either Lotek (Lotek Wireless Inc., Newmarket, Ontario,
Canada) collars with Global Positioning System (GPS) and Very High Frequency
(VHF) capabilities or ATS (Advanced Telemetry Systems, Isanti, MN) collars
with only VHF capabilities. The goal was placing at least one of each type of
collar into each herd located. Animals were reversed using 20cc of Tolazaline
HCI (Lloyd Inc., Shenandoah, IA) and were released on site.
We monitored VHF radio-collared elk from October 2009-October 2010
once a week for survival status, location, and population counts using a hand-held
receiver (Communications Specialists, Inc., Orange, CA, Model R-1000) and a 2element “H” type antenna (Telonics, Inc., Mesa, AZ, Model RA-14K from ground
or Model RA-2AK from the air) to locate the marked animals. The Lotek collars
were programmed to take a point location with x, y coordinates and time every
four hours or six times a day beginning at 0800. Through the use of ARGOS
Satellite technology (CLS America Inc. Largo, MD, USA) the x, y point locations
and times taken by the collar were sent to the Skokomish wildlife biologist
biweekly.
The Skokomish wildlife biologist entered the data points into
Microsoft Excel 2003 (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA), and
projected them into maps in ArcGIS9.2 using the Universal Transverse Mercator
22
(UTM) system. Orthographic and US Geological Surveys topographic maps in
datum NAD83 were used to allow for better understanding of the herds’ home
range and for better analysis of the herds’ habitat selection.
Population and Composition
Population counts and herd composition data were collected over the
course of a year by ground and aerial observations of the herd located using radio
(ATS) telemetry equipment. Aerial counts were collected in spring and fall 2010
using a Hughes 500 helicopter (Northwest Helicopters, Olympia, WA, USA).
Ground counts were attempted weekly by the Skokomish DNR. Both total
animals seen and composition of the herd (cow, bull, and calves) were recorded
whenever sighted.
Home Range
Only the Beeville and South Fork herds’ home ranges were used for home
range analysis in this study, because it was presumed they would remain within
636 all year and more data points have been collected on these two herds than any
other in the unit, which would allow for a more complete home range estimate.
This study used a year’s worth of data collected by the collared elk in the two
study herds, from October 2009-2010. Determining the estimated home range of
elk herds and the daily movement of the marked elk within GMU 636 was done
using the GPS locations recorded by the Lotek collars and by using ArcMap9.2
and Hawth’s tools 3.72. The home range was found using Fixed Kernel estimates
with a standard deviation of n=2, with 95%, 90%, and 50% contour lines and
Fixed Kernel utilization distributions (UD) for each elk (Samuel et al 1985,
Worton 1989, Kernohan et al 1998). The size of the home range and the amount
of area used was found for the two study herds.
Vegetation Surveys
For the purposes of this study only the habitats supporting the South Fork
herd and the Beeville herd were sampled for vegetation make-up and availability.
23
I assessed the quality of forage present within each home range by comparing
species present during this survey with forage quality values from other studies
conducted on the Olympic Peninsula (Jenkins and Starkey 1991; Perez 2006). The
vegetation analysis conducted for this study assessed the availability of forage
species within seven habitat types in the home range of two residential herds in
GMU 636 from mid-April until mid-August 2010. The methods for this analysis
were derived from the forage study done by Perez in 2006, “Natural selenium and
planted forages: Effects on mule deer and elk in Washington”, Bonham’s 1989,
“Measurements for Terrestrial Vegetation”, and a former vegetation study
completed with the Nature Conservancy of Oregon on the Clatsop Coastal Prairie
in 2006. All of the plant species were identified in the field using personal
botanical knowledge and/or Pojar’s “Plants of the Pacific Northwest Coast”, or
species were collected and identified using Hitchcock and Cornquist, the
University of Washington Herbarium or the US Department of Agriculture
(USDA) Plant Database (plants.usda.gov).
Available habitat types were divided into 7 categories riparian, wetlands,
private agricultural fields, clear-cuts (0-5 years), early-, mid-, and late-seral
coniferous forests (5-15=early, 15-30=mid, and 30-50=late). The categories of
habitat were determined by previous research on elk habitat use and by looking at
the use of habitat by the collared elk during the first six months of point data
collection. The presence of the habitat types in the study area were determined
using Orthographic maps from USGS 2007 projected using ESRI 2006 from the
Green Diamond Resource Company and verification of the habitat type at the site
of the survey, including forest tree height and age. Each habitat type within the
known home ranges was selected randomly.
Plant species present were recorded within 50m² plots using four transects
each following one of the four cardinal directions North, South, East, and West.
The central point in the plot was chosen using a random number generator in
Microsoft Excel 2003, which randomly selected one of the data points collected
from the Lotek GPS collars. The geographic location of the point would be found
using ArcMap9.2 and the habitat type would be verified using maps or by
24
traveling to the actual point location.
A 1 meter² quadrat was placed at 5 randomly selected points on each
transect, chosen based on the last number on the minutes of a digital watch. For
example if the time was 11:13, the lower-left side corner of the quadrat was
placed at the 3m mark. If the time was 11:10 the corner was placed on the 0. This
was repeated starting again at meters 10-19, 20-29, 30-39, and 40-49. The quadrat
was placed on the right side of the tape from the central point. All species within
the quadrat were recorded and samples of unknown species were collected for
identification purposes. The number of individual plant species per unit area of
plots containing the species was determined through the use of Microsoft Excel
2003.
If when laying out the 50-meter tape, part of it ended up in a stream or on
a road or in some other scenario where vegetation cover was not present, then
whatever was on that spot was recorded instead and another number was chosen,
unless it was large vegetation. For example if a large Douglas fir was covering the
entire quadrat then that species was recorded. If the whole 10-meter mark was
over non-vegetation cover then what was in that section was recorded. If the
entire tape fell out of vegetation coverage then 50m in the opposite direction was
measured and a transect was set-up there. If the entire plot landed somewhere
without vegetation data, such as a river, then another random point was chosen to
navigate to within the same habitat type. If when laying out a transect within a
plot, part of the 50m ended up in a different vegetation type, then another spot in
the middle of the transect was chosen to run a 10-meter line out to the right and
then a random number was chosen for the point to sample.
Biomass samples were taken within each plot. Much of the land within the
study area was under private ownership or managed by the Green Diamond
Resource company. Permission was granted before taking clippings within the
plot areas. A 0.25m² plot within the larger 50m² plot was clipped and dried at 60º
for 24 hours and weighed. Total wet weights were compared to total dry weights
in grams for each plot and then compared within each habitat type.
The location of the biomass sample was determined randomly by
25
designating numbers to the North, South, East, and West transects. N was 0-14, S
was 15-29, E was 30-44, W was 45-59; the minutes on a watch corresponding to
these numbers decided, which transect to clip. The frame was set-up at the central
random point on the transect or point 3 to clip the 0.25 m² plot. The vegetation
present within the 0.25 m² plot was recorded before clipping. Only vegetation
within four feet of the ground was clipped, because elk feed mostly within this
range (Bonham 1989; Perez 2006).
RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
Elk capture and monitoring
Eight mortality sensitive collars were fitted to cow elk within four herds in
the Skokomish GMU 636, by the end of September 2009. We were able to locate
herds on a weekly or bi-weekly basis using radio telemetry and tracking
equipment. Survival of the radio collared elk was identified once the transmitters
were in range of the receivers. A mortality signal (faster than the normal signal),
would transmit if the collar stopped moving for 24 hours. Only one of the collared
elk in the Beeville herd died during the course of this study and the mortality was
determined to be poaching.
Population and Composition
Elk population counts and composition ratios were collected by the
Skokomish DNR and the WDFW through the use of helicopter flights and ground
surveys from the October 2009-October 2010. Only marked groups were found
during aerial or ground surveys. A best available estimate of the number of herds
and numbers within those herds was calculated for 2009-2010. Figure 6 shows
the locations of the marked groups counted during the surveys. There were
approximately 128 elk counted in three residential herds within the boundaries of
636, including a fourth herd that moves in and out of the unit into southern units
is composed of approximately 33 animals, which gives a total population count of
161 animals for the unit. This count is only a slight increase from the 2008
estimate of 148 animals calculated using an aerial paintball mark-resight survey
26
(Tropp 2008). The highest numbers observed in the 2008 survey were 50 total elk
in the Beeville Herd, 16 in the South Fork Skokomish Herd, 52 in the Lake
Cushman (North Fork) Herd, and 30 in the Wynoochee Reservoir Herd (Tropp
2008). The Deckerville Herd was not sighted, possibly because it was in a GMU
south of 636 at the time of the survey. These numbers are greatly reduced from
the 258 total estimated population calculated in 1994-1995 by the Point No Point
Treaty Council biologists using mark-resight methods (Nickelson 1996).
However, the population surveys were conducted using different methods and
study area sizes within 636, which could have influenced the results. There are
other partial residential herds that have not been identified during aerial or ground
surveys that would add at least 50 animals to the count (Murphie 2011), but it
seems the five-year population goal for GMU 636 of 500 animals set by the
“Olympic Herd Plan” WDFW (2005) is still far from being reached.
Wynoochee Herd
South Fork Herd
Beeville Herd
Deckerville Herd
Figure 6: GPS Points of Collared Elk within GMU 636
Source: Skokomish DNR
27
Table 3 shows the results of ground and aerial counts conducted
throughout the year. There was not a large enough sample size to create
confidence intervals for the population estimates. There are currently three main
residential herds that have been identified in 636 from east to west; they are: 1)
the South Fork Herd residing mostly near the South Fork of the Skokomish River
and Vance Creek with approximately 43 animals, 2) the Beeville Herd that resides
mostly near Dry Bed Lakes, Dry Bed Creek, and Rabbit Creek with
approximately 50 animals, and 3) the Wynoochee Herd residing in the
Wynoochee Reservoir with approximately 35 animals. In addition, 4) the
Deckerville herd, which are partial-residents moving in and out of 636 following
the Decker Creek, has approximately 33 animals. Hunters have reported seeing
about 40 elk in the area around Lake Cushman. This group is believed to move
between GMU 636 and the Olympic National Park. The Lake Cushman herd
would be a partial-residential herd and would increase the elk population in GMU
636 to a minimum of 201 animals.
Table 3: Counts of Elk Population in GMU 636
Herd
Counts
Date
South Fork Skokomish Herd
Beeville Herd
Wynoochee Herd
Deckerville Herd
Total
43
50
35
33
161
8/31/2010
9/3/2010
3/5/2010
3/25/2010
Survey
type
Aerial
Aerial
Aerial
Ground
Source: Skokomish DNR-WDFW
Composition ratios especially calf/cow ratios are important for quantifying
reproductive success of elk herds and understanding the general health of the
herds (Hutchins 2006). Healthy bull/cow ratios in the Olympic Peninsula Herd
will vary depending on hunting regulations in the area and time of year the
surveys are collected. On average a healthy elk herd should be at least 15-35
bulls/100 cows to be considered sustainable (WDFW 2008), but post hunting
season a reasonable number could be closer to 12-14 bulls/100 cows (WDFW
2008), especially in a bull only hunting area like GMU 636. Both of the
composition ratios for the two study herds were collected during early hunting
28
season. The compositions found in the fall 2010 aerial surveys of the two study
herds are shown in Table 4. The South Fork Herd has a bull/cow ratio of about 19
per 100 cows and the Beeville Herd bull/cow ratio is about 25 bulls per 100 cows.
No branch bulls were seen with the South Fork Herd, and only one has been
sighted with the herd in the past year. Continual monitoring of the South Fork
Herd will be important to identify if there is a problem with branch bull numbers
and reproductive success. It is uncertain how skewed sex-ratios within herds
affect the reproductive success of the herd (Cook 2004). Population growth within
an elk herd is more dependent on the calf/cow ratios than on bull numbers, but
low mature bull escapement could limit reproductive success of the herd (Schirato
1996; Noyes et al. 2008). The number of branch bulls seen with the Beeville Herd
is within an acceptable range (WDFW 2008). The calf/cow ratios are currently in
acceptable ranges for the Olympic Peninsula Elk Herd, which ranges from 30-50
calves per 100 cows, for preseason surveys (WDFW 2008). The South Fork herd
had 46 calves per 100 cows and 31 calves per a 100 cows in the Beeville Herd.
Table 4: Composition Data for Study Herds
Herd
South Fork
Beeville
Calf/100 Cow
12:26 or 46%
10:32 or 31%
Bull/100 Cow
5:26 or 19%
8:32 or 25%
S
Source: Skokomish DNR/Emily Wirtz
%Spike Bull
5:5 or 100%
6:8 or 75%
%Branch Bull
0:5 or 0%
2:8 or 25%
Discussion of Population and Composition
Aerial and ground surveys are only minimally effective in finding actual
population numbers. Often not all animals in an area will be observed during
surveys, especially in Western Washington where densely forested areas can hide
many individuals and small groups. Continual monitoring of these groups will
allow for more counts that could lead to enough observations to create a
population estimate of statistical significance. It does seem there has been slight
growth in the South Fork and Beeville herds, based on observations made over the
last 10 years. However, the goal of an elk population of 500 animals within the
Skokomish GMU is still far from being reached.
29
Home Range Analysis
From October 2009 to October 2010, the two collared elk in the South
Fork Herd had only about a 54% success rate of points sent and the Beeville
group only a 36% and 27% success rate respectively. However, the amount of
data sent was still more then could have been collected by the wildlife staff using
tracking equipment only and the collars took points during non-work hours that
would have not been easily collected otherwise, such as 4AM. There are many
possible reasons for a GPS collar to not take data points, for example there could
be a satellite positioning or visibility problem, something could obstruct the point
from being taken such as vegetation characteristics like canopy cover, time of
year, animal activity, or slope of the landscape (Friar 2004; WDFW 2001), or
there is some other factor affecting the GPS or satellite technology. Figure 7
shows points that were collected using GPS collars placed on two cow elk in each
of the herds over a year. Each color represents a different collared elk.
Figure 7: GPS Points for Marked Elk in Study Herds
Source: Skokomish DNR
30
One of the GPS collars within the Beeville Herd had a slight malfunction
and was not sending data points for about 3 or 4 months from May until August.
It is unknown why this occurred. There may have been some bias with points
taken by the working collar within the Beeville Herd possibly being used more for
random data point selection than the malfunctioning collar, but it is assumed that
both collared animals within a herd will be together a majority of the time and use
similar habitats and ranges throughout the year. The recorded points for the two
elk in each herd were always found within 250 meters of each other during the
course of the year, with the average distance between the two elk at 50 meters.
Figure 8 shows the home range over the course of a year, from September
2009-2010, the South Fork Herd used an area of approximately 75 square
kilometers and the Beeville Herd used an area approximately 67 square
kilometers. The central, red buffered areas in Figure 8 indicate 95% point density
locations with the highest amount of point locations take by the GPS collars. The
year round high density areas for the collared South Fork elk were about 14km²
and the Beeville Herd’s highest density areas were approximately 20km².
Therefore, the South Fork Herd used only about 22% of its home range the
majority of the year and the Beeville Herd used about 30%.
On a daily basis the collared elk in the South Fork Herd moved anywhere
from 0.75 to 4 km and the Beeville collared cows moved from 0.5 to 3 km per
day; on average the groups appeared to travel about1.5 km a day. The lowest
overall averages for distance travelled occurred during the winter. The highest
distances were recorded during the late summer months. Therefore, the South
Fork herd and the Beeville Herd may only use about 2% of their overall home
range on average per day, although the daily use can vary depending on time of
year.
31
South Fork Herd
Beeville Herd
Figure 8: Kernel Density Estimates for Beeville and South Fork Herds
Source: Skokomish DNR-Emily Wirtz
The spring green-up is an important time to analyze habitat use, because
cows need high quality forage to support calving and recover body fat lost during
winter (Cook 2002; WDFW 2005). Figure 9 shows the home ranges for the two
herds during the spring from March 20th-June 20th. The high point density areas
for this time of year are mostly centered on drainages. The Beeville Herd’s
collared elk were focused around Dry Bed Creek, Rabbit Creek, and Bingham
Creek. The South Fork Herd’s collared cows centered on Vance Creek, the South
Fork of the Skokomish River and other small creek offshoots of the South Fork;
these drainages are shown in Figure 10. The Beeville Herd used a high percentage
of wetlands and riparian areas, while the South Fork Herd used mostly riparian
areas. It is common for elk herds to spend time in drainages, because of the
quality of forage and cover offered in these habitats.
32
Figure 9: Spring Kernel Density Estimates for the Study Herds
Source: Skokomish DNR
During the winter the Beeville Herd continued to use an area about the
same size as the spring high density area, but the South Fork’s high density area
was reduced to about 7 km² and was mostly centered on the private agricultural
field of the Skokomish Farms. Beeville Herd’s range during winter months seems
to concentrate around private fields and wetlands.
Discussion of Home Range Analysis
Home range analysis assists land managers in understanding habitats that
are most important for elk. In the case of the study herds, the areas surrounding
drainages appear to be most important. During the study the South Fork
Skokomish Herd spent the majority of the winter months from November until
March in the Skokomish Valley on the Skokomish Farms and surrounding
riparian and clear-cut areas. The Beeville Herd traveled through a variety of
33
habitat types, including riparian and wetland areas during the winter, but
increased time spent on private agricultural lands, and shows preference to a
private agriculture and tree farm on the North section of the Beeville Loop.
However, the landowner does not favor the presence of the herd damaging his
crop and the group is often deterred from the area.
Figure 10: Major Drainages in the Skokomish GMU
Source: WDFW
Protecting habitat availability in the home range high use areas and adding
to forage in areas less used surrounding high use areas could be important to assist
the Skokomish herds’ population growth. Changes to the highest use areas would
probably be the most influential to the status of the herds. There has been a
reduction of timber harvest in riparian areas in the past few decades to protect for
salmon habitat (WDFW 2005; WDFW 2008), which could affect elk habitat in
riparian areas and be reflected in elk population growth in the area.
34
Vegetation Analysis
The vegetation survey conducted for this project was on a relatively small
scale. Minimal availability of time and resources only allowed for a simple look at
the plant species composition for seven of the main habitat types within the study
herds’ home range. Twenty-eight 50m² plots with 560 1m² quadrats were sampled
or 4 plots per habitat type. The plots were sampled from mid-April through early
August and all sites had evidence of elk use. Precipitation during this time in 2010
ranged between 5-8 centimeters above normal average. Also, 4 biomass samples
per habitat type were sampled. The biomass samples were taken during the
highest period of growth for most vegetation species (Perez 2006). This is the
time of year Roosevelt elk are believed to primarily eat grasses, forbs, and new
growth on shrubs and trees (Cook 2002).
The results from the sampled plots are similar to results found by other
vegetation studies in similar landscape types. Figure 11 shows the distribution of
the vegetation classes found within the 7 habitat types. 169 different plant species
were divided into vegetation classes composed of 36 grass species, including
sedges and rushes, 90 forb species, flowering and non-flowering herbaceous
plants, 27 shrub species were identified and 10 tree species were recorded.
Additionally, there were 6 species classified as ferns including horsetail. Lichen,
moss, and fungi species were located in the plots, but were not documented
regardless of being a possible forage species for Roosevelt elk, because of time
and sampling constraints. Appendix E has a full list of species found within the
sampled plots.
35
Vegetation Classes Found with in Each Habitat Type
300
Occurences of Vegetation Species
250
200
Grass
150
Forbs
Shrubs
Trees
100
Ferns
50
0
open private
ag.
wetland
clear-cut
early-seral
mid-seral
late-seral
riparian
Habitat type
Figure 11: Vegetation Distribution in Seven Habitat Types
Source: Skokomish DNR-Emily Wirtz
The presence of grass species was highest in open agricultural fields and
wetlands; grass species presence diminished with increasing age of forest stands.
Forbs also diminished with increasing age of forest stands, possibly reflecting the
effects of lower light availability coming through the forest canopy (Cook 2002).
There was a higher presence of forbs than other species throughout most of the
habitats with the lowest being in the late-seral forests, while shrubs held the
second highest availability in almost every habitat except for agricultural fields
where they were relatively low. Forbs species were highest in early-seral, riparian,
and wetland habitats, respectively. Results for grass species in clear cuts were
low, but were noticeably higher than in late-seral forests. Forb species in the
clear-cuts were significantly high.
Jenkins and Starkey‘s “Food habits of Roosevelt Elk” (1991), was used as
a reference to understand the importance of forage species identified within the
36
vegetative plots. Based on forage preference studies of Roosevelt elk, this species
of Cervus consumes a variety of vegetation types and their forage selection may
vary even more depending on the time of year. Many forage studies like Jenkins
and Starkey (1991), have quantified the quality of the forage species based on use,
amount available, and amount sought out by elk within a habitat.
The dominant forage species in the Olympic Peninsula found by Jenkins
and Starkey’s study are listed by vegetation type: Preferred grass species are bentgrass (Agrostis spp.), sweet vernal grass (Anthoxanthum odoratum), and orchard
grass (Dactylis glomerata). Forb species preferred are fireweed (Epilobium
angustifolium), hairy cat’s ear (Hypochaeris radicata), Redwood sorrel (Oxalis
oregana) and foamflower trefoil (Tiarella trifoliata). Especially important in
winter diets, are the shrub species such as salal (Gaultheria shallon), huckleberry
(Vaccinium spp.), trailing blackberry (Rubus ursinus), and salmonberry (Rubus
spectabilis). Preferred forage trees species for Roosevelt elk diets are red alder
(Alnus rubra), cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa), Western hemlock (Tsuga
heterophylla), and Western Red Cedar (Thuja plicata). Important fern species
identified are sword fern (Polystichum munitum) and deer fern (Blechnum
spicant). All of these species were present in some proportion within the sampled
plots. Table 5 shows the proportion of each of these preferred forage species
found within each habitat type.
Of the vegetation species identified in all of the sampled plots at least 80%
could be considered desired forage species for elk. Within each of the different
habitat types there were between 89-96% forage species present in the sampled
vegetation. The habitats sampled were almost the same for forage distribution.
Depending on the time of year and growth status of the plants, some forage
species are less significant to elk diet than others. Some of the available forage
species have overall less quality nutrients to offer to elk year round. Therefore,
percentages of highest quality forage would be lower for all habitats sampled.
37
Table 5: Proportion of Preferred Forage Species within Each Habitat Type
Type
Scientific Name
Common Name
Grass
Agrostis spp.
Anthoxanthum
odoratum
bent-grass
Dactylis glomerata
Epilobium
angustifolium
Hypochaeris radicata
Forbs
Shrub
Tree
Fern
Private ag.
Wetland
Clear-cut
Early
Mid
Late
Riparian
0
0.05
0
0
0
0
0
sweet vernal grass
0.03
0.03
0.02
0
0
0
0
orchard grass
0.11
0
0
0
0
0
0
fireweed
0
0
0
0
0.03
0
0.01
hairy cat's ear
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Oxalis oregana
redwood sorrel
0
0
0
0
0.04
0.01
0.04
Tiarella trifoliata
foamflower trefoil
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.01
Gaultheria shallon
salal
0
0
0
0.06
0.04
0.11
0.03
Vaccinium spp.
huckleberry
0
0
0.14
0
0.03
0.04
0.01
Rubus ursinus
trailing blackberry
0.01
0.06
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.15
0.05
Rubus spectabilis
salmonberry
0
0.04
0
0
0.06
0
0.06
Alnus rubra
red alder
0
0
0
0.01
0
0
0
Populus trichocarpa
cottonwood
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Tsuga heterophylla
western hemlock
0
0
0
0.01
0.01
0
0.02
Thuja plicata
western red cedar
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Polystichum munitum
swordfern
0
0.02
0
0.02
0.07
0.15
0.05
Blechnum spicant
deer fern
0
0
0
0.01
0.01
0
0
Source: Skokomish DNR-Emily Wirtz
Having high quality forage available in the high use habitats may be more
important than just having a large amount of forage species present. Higher
quality forage species are most important to provide better nutrients to elk and
increase reproductive success (Cook 2001). A majority of the forage species
found in the vegetation surveys have moderate to low level digestible energy.
Figure 12 shows forage species found within the vegetation plots that have
reported digestible energy of 60% or more at the highest stage of growth
(Schwarz 1945; Jenkins and Starkey 1993; Perez 2006). Plant species are
considered of good nutrient quality to elk with 60% or more digestible energy
(Jenkins and Starkey 1993; Perez 2006; Puget Sound Energy 2003). Many studies
have shown high digestible energy to be an important factor in determining
reproductive success for female elk as well as growth and survival rates in calves
(Cook et. al. 2004; Cook 2002). Managed forests may produce a poorer quality of
forage because of secondary plant compounds called tannins present in many
forest species especially shrubs (Happe et. al. 1990; Cook 2002). Appendix D has
38
a list of the high quality forage species present in each habitat type and the
availability of each species found within the habitat.
Figure 12: High Quality Forage Species Percentages for Each Habitat Type
Source: Skokomish DNR-Emily Wirtz
Biomass can directly represent how much vegetation is present and the
amount available to herbivores in the area (Bonham 1989; Perez 2006). Biomass
calculations showed variations in weight totals with inconsistent patterns within
each habitat type, which may have been affected by the time of year they were
clipped or the specific spot clipped. Figure 13 shows the highest biomass totals
were found in early-seral forests. This may reflect higher biomass in those areas
because of increased sun exposure allowing for more growth. However, as
discussed above, early-seral forest had the lowest high quality forage and the
highest shrub abundance. The high weight totals may have come from the heavier
shrub species found in the early-seral plots, such as Salal (Gaultheria shallon)
that is heavier than grass or forb species but offers very little nutritional benefits
for elk. Most of the totals for the other habitats averaged out about the same in
39
relation to each other. Time of year can affect the biomass weight totals because
the amount of biomass found for each plant type will vary depending on growth
stage. The results from this study show June having the highest weight totals for
most habitat types sampled. June in 2010 would have been the height of the
growing season in the study area.
Grams of Total Biomass in Each Habitat Type
400
Jn
350
Total Grams
300
250
Jl
200
Ap
150
100
50
Jn
Jl
Ma
Ma
Ap
0
clearcuts
Wet Weight
Jn
Ap
Ma
Jn
wetland
Jn
Ap
Jl
Ap
Jn
early
Jn Jl
mid
Jn
late
Jl Au
Jn
Jn
Dry Weight
Jl
Ma
Jl
Au
open ag. riparian
Habitat Type
Figure 13: Biomass Totals for Sampled Habitats and the Date Clipped
Source: Skokomish DNR-Emily Wirtz
Discussion of Vegetation Analysis
Understanding habitat and forage availability is critical for managing elk
population growth (Nickelson1996; Schirato 1996; WDFW 2005; WDFW 2008).
Having higher quality forage available in a range that allows for the least amount
of energy use can be a crucial way to improve reproductive health in elk herds
(Cook 2002). Overall, the forage abundance seemed relatively high for the
sampled areas. However, elk reproductive success will be tied mostly to
nutritional value of the diet not just abundance of forage species (Perez 2006;
Cook et. al. 2001). The availability of high nutritional value species was closely
40
distributed throughout the habitat types. The species with the highest expected
nutritional values were found in private agricultural fields but these values may
fluctuate depending on the season.
Clear-cuts are considered desirable elk habitat, because of the ability of
grass and forb species to grow in the newly open spaces. More recent forestry
practices including clear-cuts in the Skokomish GMU are treated with herbicides,
which can reduce the amount and quality of forage, especially winter forage
species (Strong and Gates 2006). It is possible the quality of forage species in
clear-cuts in the study area is less than desirable, and other habitats could be more
beneficial to elk, because quality and nutrition of forage can limit elk more than
abundance of forage (Happe et al. 1990; Cook et al. 2004; Perez 2006).
Similar habitat types near utilized areas that are not being used are
expected to be limited by human disturbance factors poor quality or low
availability of forage. The main human disturbance factors for habitat in the
GMU are roads, private fences, and private residences. However, it is unclear
from this study how much of a factor these disturbances play in elk habitat
selection in the study area.
41
CHAPTER 3
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
DISCUSSION
Based on the results of the population surveys carried out from October
2009-2010, population size may be slightly increasing in the Skokomish GMU
and composition ratios are at an acceptable level to expect growth within the
herds. Continued monitoring of the herds for at least 5-10 years will be necessary
to find confidence in the growth pattern in the Skokomish herd.
Home range and vegetation analysis was carried out on two residential
southeast elk herds in the 636 unit. The Deckerville group and the Wynoochee
group were left out of the analysis because not enough data had been recorded on
their locations. The Deckerville group shares a similar habitat distribution as the
neighboring Beeville group. However, the Wynoochee reservoir herd uses Forest
Service land containing late coniferous and riparian forest stands aging over 30
years. GMU 636 has a variety of habitat types supporting the Skokomish Herd,
for example a study conducted on the Wynoochee reservoir elk herd showed the
group would select mostly riparian or early-seral forest habitats (Perez 2006),
while the Beeville herd spends more time in wetlands, riparian areas, and early
growth stands, and the South Fork Skokomish herd was mostly divided between
private agriculture and riparian areas. Therefore, when planning habitat
enhancement projects in GMU 636, it will be important to understand different
habitat use between herds.
The study herds' habitat preferences are mostly wetlands, riparian strips,
and agricultural lands. Other studies have shown seasonal variations in elk diet
preferences. In general, Roosevelt elk will consume mostly forb and grass species,
with an increase in eating conifer species during early growth stages of late winter
and early spring (Happe et. al. 1993). The vegetation analysis conducted for the
study herds found the highest quality forage species were present in private
agricultural lands, but that the overall forage availability in each habitat area was
relatively similar. Each of the study herds use about 22-25% of their home ranges
42
the majority of the time, mostly wetland and riparian areas were favored by the
herds. The high use areas will be important habitat areas to protect within the
Skokomish unit.
HABITAT ENHANCEMENT PROJECTS
The USFS in cooperation with the Skokomish Tribe has begun habitat
enhancement projects within the Skokomish GMU. These projects work towards
improving elk habitat through increased forage availability on Forest Service land
and reducing the number of accessible roads. USFS discontinued major logging
operations on these lands by the 1980’s, so the majority of forests managed by
USFS are even aged, late-seral stands. These habitats are believed to be less
attractive to elk herds, unless in range of a more open area with a higher quality of
forage (Jenkins and Starkey 1991).
The USFS has begun thinning and reseeding forage projects in South Fork
Skokomish watershed with intentions of opening up more attractive areas for elk,
deer, and other small game. Also, the USFS has begun decommissioning older,
unused roads in the area and planting forage species where the roads were before,
increasing elk security areas or areas protected from human disturbance. The
thinning projects will include native forage seeding and planting with attempts to
improve the understory forage available in forested areas (Ward and Fiegener
2007). Once these projects are complete they will be monitored by the USFS and
the Skokomish Department of Natural Resources to identify if the areas are
successfully attracting elk and other species. If the habitat enhancement projects
are successful then these types of projects could be a useful tool for improving elk
forage within other Forest Service managed lands. Two of the best known ways
to improve elk habitat are through reduction in road densities and increased
quality of forage, especially during the spring green-up period (WDFW 2004).
There are multiple areas in the range of the Beeville and South Fork Herd
that have gate closures both for purposes of assisting wildlife and to generally
limit human use of older logging roads and disturbance to the herds. Appendix B
has a map of areas being improved for elk habitat enhancement in the range of the
43
South Fork of the Skokomish River. The elk symbol indicates areas where
projects have already begun and areas that have future projects planned. In fall
2010, forage species were planted in the area north of Browns Creek
Campground, future monitoring of the area will indicate the effectiveness of the
project. Areas highlighted yellow on the map indicate potential elk security areas.
LAKE CUSHMAN SETTLEMENT
In 2009, Tacoma Power Company made a settlement with the Skokomish
Tribe as part of the Lake Cushman Dam No. 2 project completed in 1930. Tacoma
Power has agreed to construct, maintain, and monitor up to 200 acres of elk
forage fields in the Skokomish River area to make up for the loss of habitat or
habitat disturbance due to dam construction on the North Fork of the Skokomish
River (Cushman 2009). Currently, the location they would most prefer for the
addition of forage fields is undecided. There are five or six parcels within or near
GMU 636 that have been considered for the addition of forage fields based on the
Wildlife Habitat Enhancement Plan in the Lake Cushman settlement.
Another option for increasing forage quality and availability in the
Skokomish GMU would be adding mitigation or forage fields around the herds’
high use areas. The addition of forage fields would be especially useful for areas
where elk herds use private fields during winter months and cause damage to the
landowners’ crops. It could be useful to both the herd and the landowner to have a
more attractive option away from these private lands. Forage fields have been
shown to contain a high quality of forage that can aid in reproductive success and
assist in elk population growth (Perez 2006).
Forage fields can be a useful way for herds to obtain necessary amounts of
high quality forage during the summer and fall (Perez 2006). Recent studies have
shown the importance in elk herds being able to find high quantities of nutritious
forage during the summer and fall months (Cook et al. 2004). Spring green-up
assists with restocking body fat after the winter, but elk also need enough fat
build-up from summer and fall to survive the winter (Cook 2002; Cook et al.
2004). Poor nutrition in the summer and fall home ranges can lead to later birth
44
dates in calves and can affect reproductive success within a herd (Cook et al.
2004).
FUTURE RESEARCH
Important research for future projects in the study area includes: a larger,
more in depth study of availability, quality, and preference of forage in habitats
both inside and outside the herds’ home ranges and in various soil types, canopy
covers, and other varying landscape characteristics, and a study investigating
barriers or disturbances, other than forage availability, keeping elk herds from
selecting nearby, similar habitats. An analysis of available forage in relation to
nearest cover and size of nearest cover in relation to patch size would be an
important addition to the vegetation analysis in the study area.
Using Resource Selection Function (RSF) could be useful for studying
habitat selection when using GPS collared elk in future studies (Friar 2004). RSF
measures the value of resource units based on the proportion of the probability
that the resource will be used by an organism (McLoughlin et. al. 2010).
Understanding the relationship between deer and elk ecology and cougar and elk
ecology in the area could be helpful future research. Finally, monitoring the
collared herds in the Skokomish unit for at least another 5 to 10 years would
allow for a better management of the herd for harvest purposes and a better
understanding of the causes for natural and unnatural mortality.
CONCLUSION
This thesis assessed the general status of elk in the Skokomish herd and
looked more closely at the habitat availability and use by two elk herds in the
Skokomish GMU 636, and considered factors other than habitat that may affect
elk herds in the area. The Skokomish GMU has been heavily logged for many
decades, which has severely changed the dynamic and complexity of the habitat.
More recent forestry management practices in this area have reduced the amount
of logging and road activity, which may improve the present and future habitat
conditions, but could also leave a large amount of even-aged low quality forage
45
habitats. Also, the use of herbicides to eliminate undergrowth species in fresh
clear-cuts could be affecting the forage availability in these habitats.
Increased habitat enhancement projects could be highly beneficial to the
elk herds in the Skokomish GMU to offer a more stable habitat that will
experience less change and disturbance from logging practices and can allow for
high quality forage species growth. The forage projects are more valuable if high
quality forage species are added at least a quarter-mile or more from a welltraveled road (Potash 2007). In addition, adding forage fields to the Skokomish
GMU could be an important management tool for improving elk herds’
populations and decreasing the damage to private agricultural fields.
Monitoring closely the elk harvest numbers and estimated poaching
numbers will be necessary in the GMU. Increasing enforcement near the known
elk high use areas could possibly assist in regulating elk poaching numbers. Also,
increasing public awareness about poaching could greatly benefit the Skokomish
elk herds. Wildlife managers may need to consider reducing harvest seasons or
tag availability to lessen the burden on the herds. The herds are showing
sustainable composition ratios. However, monitoring the mature branch bull
numbers in the Skokomish GMU may be important, especially in the South Fork
Skokomish Herd.
Monitoring the Skokomish herd and continuing studies in the Skokomish
GMU will be important for the future status of elk populations in the Skokomish
historical hunting areas. Projects combining efforts of the Skokomish Tribe,
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Green Diamond Resource
Company, Tacoma Power, and the US Forest Service could be the best
management practice for meeting the needs of all interested parties, while still
maintaining sustainable wildlife populations, including Roosevelt elk.
LITERATURE CITED
Beautiful Seattle. 2010. Seattle Climate Data. Monthly Summaries.
http://www.beautifulseattle.com/mthsum.asp
46
Beck, J.L, J. M Peek, and E.K Strand. 2006. Estimates of Elk Summer
Range Nutritional Carrying Capacity Constrained by Probabilities of
Habitat Selection.
Bonham, C. D. 1989. Measurements for Terrestrial Vegetation. New
York, Wiley.
Burke Museum of Natural History and Culture. 2010. Herbarium.
www.washington.edu/burkemuseum/collections/herbarium.
Cole, E. K., M. D. Pope, and R. G. Anthony. 1997. Effects of Road
Management on Movement and Survival of Roosevelt Elk. The Journal of
Wildlife Management. 61(4): 1115-1126.
Cook, J.G. 2002. Nutrition and food. Pages 259-349 in D.E. Toweill and J.
W. Thomas (eds.), North American Elk: Ecology and Management.
Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.
Cook, J. G., B.K. Johnson, R.C. Cook, R.A. Riggs, T. DelCurto, L.D.
Bryant, and L.L. Irwin. 2004. Nurtrition and Parturition Date Effects on
Elk: Potential Implications for Research and Management. Transactions of
the North American Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference 69: in
press.
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., J. G. Cook, L. C. Bender, and L. L. Irwin. 2001. Assessing
Nutritional Influences on Elk Herd Productivity on Pacific Northwest
landscapes: First Annual Progress Report. Master’s Thesis.
Croes, D.R. and S. Hackenberger. 1988. Hoko River archaeological
complex: modeling prehistoric northwest coast economic evolution.
Research in Economic Anthropology 3: 19-85.
Cushman Project FERC Project No. 460. 2009. Settlement Agreement
for the Cushman Project.
Frair, L. J., S.E. Nielsen, E. H. Merril, S.R. Lele, M.S. Boyce,
R.H.Munron, G.B. Stenhouse and H.L. Beyer. 2004. Removing GPS
collar bias in habitat selection studies. Journal of Applied Ecology. 41:
201-212.
47
Franklin, J.F. and C.T. Dyrness. 1973. Natural vegetation of Oregon and
Washington. General Technical Report PNW-8. Portland, Oregon: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research
Station.
Happe P. J., K. J. Jenkins, E. E. Starkey, and S. H. Sharrow. 1990
Nutritional quality and tannin astringency of browse in clear-cuts and oldgrowth forests. Journal of Wildlife Managment. 54(4):557-566.
Harpole, J. L. and R. L. Lyman. 1999. The Holocene biogeographic
history of elk (Cervus elaphus) in western Washington. Northwest Science
73:106-113.
Historic Link. The free online encyclopedia of Washington State. 2010.
Treaty of Point No Point, 1855. HistoryLink.org Essay 5637. 2010
Hutchins, Nicole. 2006. Diet, Nutrition, and Reproductive Success of
Roosevelt Elk in Managed Forests of the Olympic Peninsula, Washington.
Humboldt State University. Natural Resources: Wildlife Management.
103pp.
Irwin, L. L. Migration. Pages 506-508 in D.E. Toweill and J. W. Thomas
(eds.), North American Elk: Ecology and Management. Smithsonian
Institution Press, Washington, DC.
Jenkins, K. and E. Starkey. 1991. Food Habits of Roosevelt Elk.
Rangelands. Allen Press and Society for Range Management 13(6): 261265.
Maarel, E. v. d. 2005. Vegetation Ecology. Oxford, Blackwell.
McCabe R. E. 2002. Elk and Indians: Then Again. Pages 121-197 in D.E.
Toweill and J. W. Thomas (eds.), North American Elk: Ecology and
Management. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.
McClure, R. H., Jr. 1989. Alpine Obsidian Procurement in the Southern
Washington Cascades: Preliminary Research. Archaeology in
Washington 59:69.
McCorquodale, S. M. 1985. Archaeological evidence of elk in the
Columbia Basin. Northwest Science 59:192-197.
McCullough, D. R. 1971. The Tule Elk. Its History, Behavior, and
Ecology. University of California Press. Berkeley. 209.
48
McLoughlin, P.D., D. W. Morris, D. Fortin, E. Vander Wal, and A.L.
Contasti. 2010. Considering ecological dynamics in resource selection
functions. Journal of Animal Ecology. 79(1): 4-12.
Maser, Chris. 1998. Mammals of the Pacific Northwest: from the coast
to the High Cascades. Oregon State University Press. 406.
Murphie, B. L. Status of Elk in the Skokomish Game Management Unit
(GMU 636). Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Unpublished
Document.
Myers, W. L. 2001. Job Progress Report Federal Aid in Wildlife
Restoration: ungulate ecology and population dynamics in Washington.
Progress Report. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia
WA. 34.
Nickelson, S. 1996. Elk Relocation Proposal-South Fork Skokomish River
and Elk Management Plan Skokomish Game Management Unit 636. Point
No Point Treaty Council. Wildlife Planning Department Document.
Nickelson, S. General Information on Elk on the Olympic Peninsula.
Unpublished document. Point No Point Treaty Council.
Nickelson, S.A., B.L. Murphie, P.S. Anderson, and G. Schirato. 2000.
Translocating Elk for Site Specific Herd Augmentation: A Case Study of
Two herds. PNPTC and WDFW.
Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. 2009. Comprehensive Tribal
Natural Resources Management. An annual report from the Treaty
Indian tribes in Western Washington.
Noyes J. H., B.K. Johnson, B. L. Dick, J.G. Kie. 2008. Influence of Age of
Males and Nutritional Condition on Short- and Long-Term Reproductive
Success of Elk.
NWIFC. 2007. Comprehensive Tribal Natural Resource Management. An
Annual Report from the Treaty Indian Tribes in Western Washington. 46.
Perez, E. L. 2006. Natural selenium and planted forages: Effects on mule
deer and elk in Washington. Washington State University/Natural
Resource Sciences. Doctoral of Philosophy. 112.
Perry, D. 1994. Forest Ecosystems. Baltimore, John Hopkins University
Press.
Pojar, J. and A. Mackinnon, Ed. 1994. Plants of the Pacific Northwest
49
Coast: Washington, Oregon, British Columbia & Alaska. Vancouver,
Lone Pine Publishing.
Potash L. and C. Aubry, eds. 2007. Olympic National Forest native plant
notebook. Unpublished manuscript on file at U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Olympic National Forest, Olympia, WA. 41.
Puget Sound Energy, Inc. 2003. T21 Final Study Report. Elk Habitat Mapping
Study. Baker River Relicensing Project. Unpublished document.
Schirato, G. 1996. Olympic Peninsula Elk Status Review. Unpublished
document. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Schirato, G. 1997. Skokomish Elk Populations. Washington Department
of Fish and Wildlife. Unpublished document.
Schirato, G. and B. Murphie. 1997. Progress Report: East Olympic herd
status. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Schroer, G., K. Jenkins, and B. Moorhead. 1993. Roosevelt elk selection
of temperate rainforest seral stages in western Washington. Northwest
science. 67(1): 23-29.
Schwartz, J. E. and G.E. Mitchell. 1945. The Roosevelt Elk on the
Olympic Peninsula, Washington. The Journal of Wildlife Management.
9(4): 295-319.
Skinner, M. P. 1936. The Roosevelt Elk of the Olympic Peninsula. The
Murrelet. Society for Northwestern Vertebrate Biology. 17(2&3): 31-35.
Skokomish Tribal Nation. 2010. Skokomish Department of Natural
Resources. www.skokomish.org.
Skovlin, J.M., P. Zager and B. K. Johnson. 2002. Elk Habitat Selection
and Evalutation. Pages 553-554 in D.E. Toweill and J. W. Thomas (eds.),
North American Elk: Ecology and Management. Smithsonian Institution
Press, Washington, DC.
Strong, W.L. and C.C. Gates. 2006. Herbicide-induced changes to
ungulate forage habitat in western Alberta, Canada. Forest Ecology and
Management. 222: 469-475.
Tropp, Bethany. 2008. Skokomish GMU 636 Population Estimate.
Unpublished document. The Skokomish Department of Natural
50
Resources.
Tropp, Bethany. 2009. Skokomish Elk Monitoring Project. Unpublished
document. The Skokomish Department of Natural Resources.
USDA. 2010. Plants Database, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
http://plants.usda.gov
Ward, K. and R. Fiegener. 2007. Focus List for the Olympic National
Forest. Native Seed Network
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2005. Olympic Elk Herd
Plan. Wildlife Program, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,
Olympia. 52.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. 2009-2015 Game
Management Plan. Wildlife Program, Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife, Olympia. 154.
Weckerly, F.W. 2005. Grass and Supplemental Patch Selection by a
Population of Roosevelt Elk. Journal of Mammalogy. 86(3): 630-638.
White, G.C. and R. A. Garrott. 1990. Analysis of Wildlife RadioTracking Data. Academic Press. San Deigo. 383.
Western Regional Climate Center. 2010. Washington Climate
www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/climsmwa.html
Summaries.
Wray, J., Ed. 2002. Native Peoples of the Olympic Peninsula: Who We
Are/ by the Olympic Peninsula Intertribal Cultural Advisory Committee.
Norman, University of Oklahoma Press.
51
Appendix A: Map of Land Use in Mason County and the Skokomish Reservation
Source: WA Department of Ecology
52
Appendix B: USFS Map of Habitat Projects in the South Fork Skokomish Area
Source: US Forest Service
53
Appendix C: Hunting Committee Survey Results
Hunting Committee Survey Results
Number of years hunting GMU 636
30
40
36
20+
Similar Responses
Main changes noticed in the Skokomish herds
Diminished population
Habitat
Poaching
Moved to lower elevations along the rivers
Over harvest
Less large bulls
Main causes of the changes in the herds
Due to logging and development
Lack of enforcement
Overhunting-lack of accurate harvest data
Main improvements necessary to increase population
Better habitat
Smaller season
More enhancement conservation GMU closers
Better communication between state and tribal wildlife managers
Restrictions on hunting permits
Cooperative management-state/tribes
More biological studies/forage projects
Improve mature bull count
III
II
II
III
III
III
II
Other thoughts about management practices
State needs better hunting plans, management practices
Elk are very important to us (the Skokomish Tribe)
Need to make quick improvements to ensure the elk don't go extinct
More restrictive logging practices-control of pesticide spraying
Preserve habitat and increase forage projects
III
Close GMU
Source: Skokomish DNR-Emily Wirtz
54
Appendix D: Occurrences of High Quality Forage Species Found in Each Habitat Type
Grass
Forb
Grass
Forb
Shrub
Ferns
Open/Private
agricultural fields
Scientific name
Poa Pratensis
Dactylis glomerata
Holcus lanatus
Phleum pratense
Elymus glaucaus
Agrostis exarata
Trifolium repens
Plantago lanceolata
Trifolium hybridium
Viola sempervirens
Trifolium dubium
Hypochaeris radicata
Wetland
Poa Pratensis
Agrostis exarata
Holcus lanatus
Carex sitchensis
Agrostis capillaris
Agrostis stolonifera
Dactylis glomerata
Poa palustris
Elymus glaucaus
Carex laeviculmis
Carex arcta
Carex athrostachya
Festuca rubra
Claytonia sibirica
Maianthemum
dilitatum
Galium aparine
Veronica officinales
Dicentra formosa
Oxalis oregana
Stachys cooleyae
Trifolium dubium
Viola sempervirens
Viola palustris
Oenanthe sarmentosa
Symphoricarpos albus
Vaccinium parvifolium
Mahonia nervosa
Equisetum arvenase
Common name
Kentucky Bluegrass
Orchard grass
Common velvet-grass
Timothy
Blue wildrye
Spike bentgrass
White clover
English plantain
alsike clover
Trailing yellow violet
Small hop-clover
Hairy cat's-ear
Occurrences
78
46
17
8
3
2
46
33
12
2
1
1
Kentucky Bluegrass
Spike bentgrass
Common velvet-grass
Sitka sedge
Colonial bentgrass
creeping bentgrass
Orchard grass
fowl bluegrass
Blue wildrye
smooth sedge
northern clusterd sedge
slender-beak sedge
Red fescue
Candy flower
20
17
17
8
5
5
5
4
3
3
2
2
1
13
False lily of the valley
common bedstraw
herbal speedwell
Pacific bleeding heart
Redwood sorrel/Oregon oxalis
Cooley's hedge-nettle
Small hop-clover
Trailing yellow violet
marsh violet
Pacific water-parsley
common snowberry
Red huckleberry
Dull Oregon-grape
Horsetail
10
8
7
6
3
3
3
3
3
2
4
2
1
17
55
Blechnum spicant
Forb
Shrub
Fern
Grass
Forb
Shrub
Fern
Clear-cut
Festuca rubra
Poa pratensis
Dactylis glomerata
Trifolium repens
Epilobium
angustifolium
Trifolium hybridium
Anaphalis
margaritacea
Trifolium dubium
Maianthemum
dilitatum
Viola sempervirens
Veronica officinales
Mahonia nervosa
Vaccinium parvifolium
Symphoricarpos albus
Blechnum spicant
Early-Seral
Poa Pratensis
Holcus lanatus
Elymus glaucaus
Carex sp.
Dactylis glomerata
Poa palustris
Epilobium
angustifolium
Viola sempervirens
Anaphalis
margaritacea
Maianthemum
dilitatum
Oxalis oregana
Veronica officinales
Trifolium repens
Galium aparine
Hypochaeris radicata
Dicentra formosa
Vaccinium parvifolium
Symphoricarpos albus
Mahonia nervosa
Blechnum spicant
Deer fern
1
Red fescue
Kentucky bluegrass
Orchard grass
White clover
11
6
3
50
Fireweed
alsike clover
21
12
Pearly everlasting
Small hop-clover
11
4
False lily of the valley
Trailing yellow violet
herbal speedwell
Dull Oregon-grape
Red huckleberry
common snowberry
Deer fern
3
3
3
28
4
3
3
Kentucky Bluegrass
Common velvet-grass
Blue wildrye
Orchard grass
fowl bluegrass
14
14
9
7
6
2
Fireweed
Trailing yellow violet
17
15
Pearly everlasting
11
False lily of the valley
Redwood sorrel/Oregon oxalis
herbal speedwell
White clover
common bedstraw
Hairy Cat's-Ear
Pacific bleeding heart
Lily Sp.
Red huckleberry
common snowberry
Dull Oregon-grape
Deer fern
8
7
7
3
2
2
1
1
18
7
1
7
Mid-Seral
56
Grass
Forb
Shrub
Tree
Fern
Grass
Forb
Shrub
Carex deweyana
Holcus lanatus
Poa palustris
Dactylis glomerata
Poa Pratensis
Festuca rubra
Agrostis stolonifera
Carex sp.
Carex laeviculmis
Agrostis capillaris
Elymus glaucaus
Oxalis oregana
Viola sempervirens
Claytonia sibirica
Epilobium
angustifolium
Maianthemum
dilitatum
Dicentra formosa
Galium triflorum
Anaphalis
margaritacea
Trifolium dubium
Trifolium repens
Plantago lanceolata
Galium aparine
Lupinus nootkatensis
Lupinus polyphyllus
Trifolium hybridium
Veronica officinales
Vaccinium parvifolium
Mahonia nervosa
Populus trichocarpa
Blechnum spicant
Equisetum arvenase
Late-Seral
Agrostis capillaris
Carex sp.
Dicentra formosa
Maianthemum
dilitatum
Oxalis oregana
Veronica officinales
Viola sempervirens
Galium aparine
Galium triflorum
Claytonia sibirica
Mahonia nervosa
Dewey's sedge
Common velvet-grass
fowl bluegrass
Orchard grass
Kentucky Bluegrass
Red fescue
creeping bentgrass
smooth sedge
Colonial bentgrass
Blue wildrye
Redwood sorrel/Oregon oxalis
Trailing yellow violet
Candy flower
5
4
4
3
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
20
19
15
Fireweed
17
False lily of the valley
Pacific bleeding heart
sweet scented bedstraw
12
7
5
Pearly everlasting
Small hop-clover
White clover
English plantain
common bedstraw
Nootka lupin
Large-leaved lupine
alsike clover
herbal speedwell
Red huckleberry
Dull Oregon-grape
black cottonwood, balsam poplar
Deer fern
Horsetail
5
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
16
4
3
7
4
Colonial bentgrass
Pacific bleeding heart
False lily of the valley
Redwood sorrel/Oregon oxalis
herbal speedwell
Trailing yellow violet
common bedstraw
sweet scented bedstraw
Candy flower
Dull Oregon-grape
1
1
8
5
5
4
3
2
2
2
33
57
Vaccinium parvifolium
Grass
Forb
Shrub
Fern
Riparian
Holcus lanatus
Carex deweyana
Carex sp.
Poa sp.
Elymus glaucaus
Oxalis oregana
Dicentra formosa
Claytonia sibirica
Epilobium
angustifolium
Galium aparine
Galium triflorum
Maianthemum
dilitatum
Viola sempervirens
Anaphalis
margaritacea
Plantago lanceolata
Trifolium repens
Trifolium dubium
Lupinus nootkatensis
Mahonia nervosa
Vaccinium parvifolium
Equisetum arvenase
Blechnum spicant
Red huckleberry
13
Common velvet-grass
Dewey's sedge
4
3
3
3
1
20
13
12
Blue wildrye
Redwood sorrel/Oregon oxalis
Pacific bleeding heart
Candy flower
Fireweed
common bedstraw
sweet scented bedstraw
8
8
6
False lily of the valley
Trailing yellow violet
4
4
Pearly everlasting
English plantain
White clover
Small hop-clover
Nootka lupin
Dull Oregon-grape
Red huckleberry
Horsetail
Deer fern
2
2
1
1
1
15
6
7
1
Source: Skokomish DNR-Emily Wirtz
58
Appendix E: All Species Present within Sampled Plots
Scientific Name
Abies amabilis
Acer circinatum
Acer macrophyllum
Achillea millefolium
Achlys triphylla
Adenocaulon bicolor
Agrostis capillaris
Agrostis exarata
Agrostis stolonifera
Alnus rubra
Amelanchier alnoifolia
Anaphalis margaritacea
Anthoxanthum odoratum
Arctostaphylos columbiana
Arrhenatherum elatius
Arctostaphylos uva-ursi
Asarum caudatum
Athyrium filix-femina
Blechnum spicant
Bromus hordeaceus
Bromus sitchensis
Bromus vulgaris
Cardamine angulata
Carex arcta
Carex athrostachya
Capsella bursa-pastoris
Carex deweyana
Cardamine hirsuta
Carex laeviculmis
Campanula scouleri
Carex sitchensis
Cerastium arvense
Circaea alpina
Cirsium arvense
Cirsium edule
Claytonia sibirica
Cornus canadensis
Corylus cornuta
Cornus stolonifera
Crepis capillaris
Cytisus scoparius
Danthonia californica
Dactylis glomerata
Danthonia intermedia
Common Name
Pacific silver fir
Vine maple
Bigleaf maple
Yarrow
Vanilla-leaf
Pathfinder
Colonial bentgrass
Agrostis exarata
creeping bentgrass
Red alder
Saskatoon
Pearly everlasting
Sweet vernal grass
hairy manzanita
Tall oatgrass
Kinnikinnick
wild ginger
common ladyfern
Deer fern
soft brome
Alaska brome
Columbia brome
angled bittercress
northern clusterd sedge
slender-beak sedge
shepard's purse
Dewey's sedge
hairy bittercress
smooth sedge
pale bellflower/scouler's harebell
Sitka sedge
Field chickweed
enchanter's-nightshade
Canadian thistle
Edible thistle
Candy flower
Bunchberry
beaked hazelnut
Red-osier dogwood
Smooth hawksbeard
Scotch broom
California oatgrass
Orchard grass
Timber Oat-Grass
Forage
Species
√
√
√
√
x
x
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
x
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
x
√
√
√
√
x
√
x
√
√
x
√
√
√
√
√
√
x
x
√
√
√
59
Deschampsia cespitosa
Dicentra formosa
Digitalis purpurea
Dryopteris expansa
Draba verna
Elymus glaucus
Elymus hirsutus
Epilobium angustifolium
Epilobium ciliatum
Equisetum arvenase
Festuca occidentalis
Festuca rubra
Festuca subulata
Fragaria virginiana
Galium aparine
Galium triflorum
Gaultheria shallon
Glyceria elata
Glehoma hederacea
Goodyera oblongifolia
Heracleum lanatum
Heracleum maximum
Heuchera micrantha
Hierchloe occidentalis
Hieracium albiflorum
Holcus discolor
Holcus lanatus
Hypochaeris radicata
Hydrophyllum tenuipes
Juncus effusus
Lapsana communis
Lamiastrum galeobdolon
Linnaea borealis
Leucanthemum vulgare
Lotus pinnatus
Lupinus nootkatensis
Lupinus polyphyllus
Lysichiton americanum
Lycopodium clavatum
Maianthemum dilitatum
Malus fusca
Matricaria discoidea
Mahonia nervosa
Medicago lupulina
Melica subulata
Myosotis sp.
Nothochelone nemorosa
Oemleria cerasiformis
Tufted hairgrass
Pacific bleeding heart
common foxglove
wood fern
Common draba
Blue wildrye
Hairy wildrye
Fireweed
purple-leaved willowherb
Horsetail
western fescue
Red fescue
Bearded fescue
Wild strawberry
common bedstraw
sweet scented bedstraw
Salal
tall mannagrass
creeping charlie
Rattlesnake-plantain
cow-parsnip
common cow-parsnip
Small-flowered alumroot
California sweetgrass
white-flowered hawkweed
Oceanspray
Common velvet-grass
Hairy Cat's-Ear
Pacific waterleaf
common rush
nipplewort
yellow archangel
twinflower
Oxeye daisy
meadow bird's-foot trefoil
Nootka lupin
Large-leaved lupine
skunk cabbage
Running clubmoss
False lily of the valley
Pacific crab apple
Pineapple weed
Dull Oregon-grape
black medic
alaska oniongrass
Forget-me-not
woodland penstemon
Indian Plum
√
√
√
√
x
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
x
x
√
√
x
√
√
√
√
√
x
√
x
x
√
x
√
√
√
√
√
x
x
√
√
√
x
x
√
60
Oenanthe sarmentosa
Oplopanax horridum
Oxalis oregana
Petasites palmatus
Phalaris arundinacea
Phleum pratense
Pinus monticola
Plantago lanceolata
Plantago major
Poa bulbosa
Polystichum munitum
Poa palustris
Poa pratensis
Populus trichocarpa
Prunus emarginata
Pseudotsuga menziesii
Pteridium aquilinum
Puccinellia pumila
Ranunculus occidentalis
Ranunculus repens
Ranunculus uncinatus
Rosa gymnocarpa
Rosa nutkana
Rhododendron albiflorum
Rhamnus purshiana
Ribes lacustre
Rumex acetosella
Rumex crispus
Rubus discolor
Rubus laciniatus
Rubus leucodermis
Rumex obtusifolius
Rubua parviflorus
Rubus spectabilis
Rubus ursinus
Sambucus racemosa ssp.
Pubens
Sanguisorba officinalis
Scirpus microcarpus
Schedonorus pratensis
Senecio jacobaea
Sisyrinchium idahoense var.
macounii
Smilacina racemosa
Smilacina stellata
Spirea douglasii
Stellaria borealis
Stellaria calycanha
Pacific water-parsley
Devil's club
Redwood sorrel/Oregon oxalis
palmate coltsfoot
Reed canary grass
Timothy
western white pine
English plantain
common plantain
bulbous blue grass
Sword fern
fowl bluegrass
Kentucky bluegrass
black cottonwood, balsam poplar
bitter cherry
Douglas fir
Bracken fern
Dwarf alkali grass
Western buttercup
Creeping buttercup
Little buttercup
Baldhip rose/dwarf
Nootka rose
White-flowered rhododendron
Cascara
prickly current/gooseberry
common sheep sorrell
curly or sour dock
himalayan blackberry
evergreen blackberry
whitebark/black raspberry
bitter dock
Thimbleberry
Salmonberry
Trailing blackberry
√
√
√
√
√
√
x
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
x
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
Red elderberry
official burnet
small-flowered bulrush
meadow fescue
tansy ragwort
√
x
√
√
√
blue-eyed grass
false solomon's seal
star-flowered false solomon'sseal
hardhack
boreal starwort
northern starwort
x
√
√
√
√
√
61
Stachys cooleyae
Stellaria crispa
Stachys mexicana
Symphoricarpos albus
Symphoricarpos mollis
Taraxacum officinale
Thalictrum occidentale
Thuja plicata
Tiarella trifolia
Tolmiea menziesii
Trisetum cernuum
Trifolium dubium
Trifolium hybridium
Trientalis latifolia
Trillium ovatum
Trifolium repens
Tsuga heterophylla
Typha latifolia
Urtica dioica
Vaccinium ovatum
Vaccinium parvifolium
Vancouveria hexandra
Veronica americana
Veronica officinales
Veratrum viride
Vicia americana
Viola palustris
Vicia sativa
Viola sempervirens
Vulpia bromoides
Xerophyllum tenax
Whipplea modesta
Cooley's hedge-nettle
curled starwort
mexican hedge-nettle
common snowberry
trailing snowberry
Common dandelion
western meadowrue
Western redcedar
Foamflower
piggy-back plant
nodding trisetum
Small hop-clover
alsike clover
western starflower
western trillium
White clover
Western hemlock
cattail
Stinging nettle
Evergreen huckleberry
Red huckleberry
Inside-out flower
American-brooklime or speedwell
herbal speedwell
green false hellebore
American vetch
marsh violet
Common vetch
Trailing yellow violet
barren fescue
bear-grass
Whipplevine
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
x
√
√
x
√
√
√
x
√
x
√
√
√
√
Source: Skokomish DNR-Emily Wirtz
62
63