RooseveltElk Rooseveltelk are a speciesof concernbecause it is believedthat past clearcutting and forage seedingprograms have resultedin abnormallyhigh populations. Current downward trendsin timber harvestingare expectedto reducefuture amountsof foraging habitat for elk. This may resultin decreasingherd sizesand perhapsdecreased health. It is alsoexpected to causeelk to concentrateon private agricultural lands. Historical Background Rooseveltelk rangedfrom SanFrancisco to British Columbiaand from the PacificOcean to the summit of the Cascades.Many fur trappersand settlersreported them as abundantwithin the river valleysand bottom landsof westernOregon @ailey 1936)including the westernslopes of the Cascades.In 1848,populations began declining due to markethunting for meat,hides and tallow to supporthuman demands associated with the gold rush and settlement.Legislation was passedin 1872to restrict hunting and selling of both elk and deer, betweenFebruary to June,but was not strictly enforced. Beginningaround the 1880s,many elk were killed solelyfor their tusks (uppercanine teeth) which broughtthe selleranywhere from ten to twenty dollarsper pair, a lot of moneyback in thosedays. The situationgot so bad that marketand tusk huntingwere made illegalin 1899. In 1902,statewide hunting restrictions were implementedand the seasonwas officially shut down in 1905. In 1910,Forest Service officials reported Roosevelt elk as very scarcealong the coastalforests and as"formerly abundant"on tlrc UmpquaNational Forest. By the mid-1920s,herd numbers were reportedas increasingon the UmpquaNational Forest, however, the statewidepopulation was still very small(slightly more than 436 head). In the late 1920s,Rocky Mountain elk were beingtransplanted within westernOregon to increaseherd numbers.Herd populationsbecame high enoughto convincethe Oregon StateGame Commission to reopenthe huntingseason in 1938. Today, OregonDepartment of Fish and Wildlife estimatesthe populationof Rooseveltelk residingwithin the UmpquaNational Forest to be approximately5,800 head(Beiderbeck 1994). Becauseof variousgame laws designedto protectthis animal,and areasset asideby the federal goveffrmentfor the protectionof wildlife andtheir habitat,the Rooseveltelk hasmade a steady and significantcomeback. Within the watershed,local long-timeresidents recall that elk usedto be scarcein Little River relativeto today. Most of the elk sign seemedto occur in the higherelevations near Diamond Lake; thesemay havebeen part of a Rocky Mountain elk herd which was locatednear Crater L- Lake. During the 1960sand 70s, a largeherd of Rooseveltelk were transplantedto this area from the CoastRange. Sincethis transplanting,elk numbershave steadily increased within the watershed. Tenestrial- 83 Basedon habitatconditions alone, between the late 1800sand 1930slarger than presentday Rooseveltelk herdscould haveoccurred within this watershedmost likely inhabitingthe valleys and foothillsof the Lower Little River vicinity,the westerntwo-thirds of Middle Little River and the lower andupper reaches of the Cavitt Creekvicinity. Theseherds may haveused summer range locatedin the easternthird of the Emile Vicinity (Willow Flats), the westernthird of Black/Clover@eter Paul Prairie) and the southernhalf of Upper Little River (Yellow Jacket Glade)vicinities (some of thesemay havebeen Rocky Mountain elk). The yearround rangesare locatedon gentleslopes where fire (naturalor aboriginalcaused) provided good grass-forbforage (especiallyduring winter months). Summerranges contained more wet openingsof smallersize providinggood forageand wallows. The highestelk densitieswere probablyalong the Lower Little River valley,especially during the winter months,as habitatconditions seemed to be bestin this area. Elk in higherelevation areas were seasonallymigatory and likely movedwest in Novembertoward their winter rangeswithin the Umpqua Valley and openareas in between. Faunalremains, of elk and"elk-sized" animals, found at two old Indiancampsites located about 6 milesto the southeastand 30 milesto the northwestof the watershedprovide evidence that elk were in this area. However, it is hard (if not impossible)to sayat what herd sizeand densities they existed. It is believedthat AmericanIndians followed the migratorialpanerns of big game from their uplandto lowland haunts(Beckham and Minor 1992)- The settlementof the northwesternmargins of the watershed(and the UmpquaValley in general) by Euro-Americansettlers in the mid 1800'smay haveforced elk to leavetheir historicrange and move eastinto the densertimber or perishas occurredin the WillametteValley @ailey, 1936). Humanpressures in the late 1800smay havekept elk numberslower than the actualhabitat conditionscould sustain. Largepredators, such as the gray wolf and cougar,may havesome effect on elk populations (Hornocker 1970,Taber et al. 1982). This predator-preyrelationship was unbalancedin the early 1900s,when grazing of sheepand cattle increased within the watershed.In the 1930s,over 3,000 headwere beinggrazed in the watershedalong Little River up to Hemlock Lake and further east to Limpy Prairie. During this time, the statetook an aggressiveapproach to largepredator eradication.One methodof eradicationwas to lead old horsesout into the forest,shoot them and then lacethe carcasseswith strychnine(Schloema4 pers. comm.). In additiorUthe statepaid largebounties for wolf, cougar,bobcat and coyotepelts. An old time trapperby the nameof Les Gardenertrapped cougzu and wolf in the late 1940sand early 1950sin the Little River watershed. His trappingrecords are still visibleon one of the woodenposts at Fairy Shelter. Accordingto thisrecord, from 1947to l95l he trapped8 cougar,2 graywoll, l3 bobcatand 7 coyote. Today, the gray wolf are no longerbelieved to existwithin the UmpquaNational Forest, however unconfirmedsightings are reportedoccasionally, even as recentlyas the winter of 1994. Cougar populationsare increasingstate wide (OregonDepartment of Fish and Wildlife newsletter,The Wild Times,surrlmer 1995). Tenestrial- 84 Effects of Timber Hqrvesting Within the Little River watershed,intensive timber harvestingthrough the use of clearcutsbegan in the earlyto mid 1940sand rapidly increasedin the 1960s.Road constructionincreased geatly to allow accessto timber. Someforage seeding and fertilizationof roadsidesand clearcuts occurredbetween 1959 and 1968within ForestService administered land. Overall,forage for elk (and deer)has increased from naturallevels by 29,1l0 acresor over 700 percent. Rooseveltelk are one of the lessmigratory subspecies of elk. Theytend to resideyear round within their establishedhome rangeswith someseasonal dtitudind movement.The averagehome rangefor Rooseveltelk in an unharvestedforest is thoughtto be betrveen1,250 to 2,400 acres. In managedlorests the averagerange was found to be around740acres. This decreasein home rangesize and increasedcarrying capacity of the habitatis probablydue to the improvedspacing of forageand cover resultingfrom staggeredsetting clearcuts. Elk needcover to hide from predators(primarily people) and to regulatetheir body temperatures, allowing them to keepcool during the summerand warmerin the winter. This energy conservationincreases their overall healthand productivity.[n areasthat havehad extensivetree cover through time, elk havebeen shown to avoid good foragingareas that are too far from cover (usuallyover 600 feet from an edge). Openingsof about20 acresin spruce/firforests were found to be the marcimumopening to be fully utilized by elk in Arizona @eynolds, 1962). Clearcutting of large tracks of timber without providinga well distributedcomponent of cover will limit elk use of the availableforage habitat. This is especiallytrue with increasednumbers of openroads which allow humanaccess and increaseharassment and decreaseescapement. The current amountof open roadswithin the watershedlimit the abilityof elk to hide and fully utilize the existingforage habitat. Road densitiesgreater than two milesof road per squaremile can reduceelk use potentialby as muchas 50 percent(Christensen et al. 1993). Roadsalso decreasebull elk survivalduring huntingseasons. Two studiesin Idaho indicatethat increasing road densitiesfrom lessthan I mi/mi2to around4 mrJmizcan double bull mortalityrates. Elk preferto stayat least0.5 miles from humandisturbances such as timber harvestingoperations (Lyon and Ward 1982),but will only moveas far as neededto stayout of sight. Elk will become accustomedto the presenceof humansand their machinesin areaswhere they are protectedfrom hunting(as evidentin nationalparks, g:rme reserves or privatelands) and are commonlyseen in openings. However, in areaswhere huntingoccurs (including illegal poaching), such as on federallymanaged lands, they becomemore wary andwill avoid openilreas next to roads. There are approximately961 milesof road within the Little River watershedfor an overall road density of 4.7 mi/mi2. I Terrestrial- 85 Current Conditions ond Trends The Little River watershedis locatedwithin the northernportion of the State'sDixon Big Game ManagementUnit. Elk herd countsfor this unit peakedat 890 in l99l andwere recordedas733 total headin 1995. However, aerialcounts have not focusedon this watershed(Mike Blach personalcommunication). Bull:cow ratiosfor the northernportion of the Dixon unit peakedat 14.3:100in 1993and were 6.8:100 in 1995.The current calf:cow ratio is 20.100,in 1991the ratio was at its highestrecorded level at 45:100. The OregonDepartment of Fish and Wildlife's long term plansfor this