Elk and Vegetation Management in Rocky Mountain National Park: Research and Planning. Therese L. Johnson and Ryan Monello

Transcription

1 Elk and Vegetation Management in Rocky Mountain National Park: Research and Planning Therese L. Johnson and Ryan Monello

2 BACKGROUND

3 ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK MISSION The purpose of Rocky Mountain National Park is the preservation of its natural conditions and scenic beauties, conservation of its natural and historic objects and wildlife, and the provision of the freest recreational use consistent with this purpose. RMNP Enabling Legislation, 1915 NPS Organic Act, 1916 NPS Management Policies, 2001

4 RMNP-ESTES VALLEY HISTORY ~ Photo by Todd Jirsa

5 LAND USE AND WILDLIFE CHANGES Land Use Elk Predators Native Americans (seasonal) Elk considered abundant (?) Grizzly bears and wolves present Market hunting, grazing, haying, timber harvest, tourism, Lake Estes, development No elk NPS control Protection NPS reductions Urban Beaver Fire Trapped in early-mid 1800s? Fire (by settlers)? NPS trapping Fire Suppression Pre

6 Statement for Management (1992) RMNP Preserve and Restore Natural Conditions and Processes Natural processes have been interrupted The park must have... active management to mitigate impacts and restore the ecosystem to natural conditions.

7 Average visitation to Rocky Mountain National Park is over 3 million people each year. Tourism and park visitation are vital to the economies of Estes Park and Grand Lake. Visitors enjoy observing elk, with many visitors coming specifically to view elk during the fall mating season. PARK AND AREA VISITATION

8 RESEARCH

9 Vegetation/Elk monitoring (Stevens 1980, 1992) Aspen Studies (Olmsted 1972, 1996; Baker et al. 1997; Suzuki 1997)

10 NPS/USGS-BRD RESEARCH INITIATIVE investigators/13 studies Field experiments and data collection elk population dynamics vegetation conditions (Francis Singer et al.)

11 ELK POPULATION Population size estimate for RMNP and the Estes Valley is approximately 3,000 elk. ~ 1/3 winter inside the park ~ 2/3 winter outside the park Extremely high densities in localized areas. 93% migrate to summer ranges in the park. (Larkins 1997, Lubow et al. 2002)

12 ELK RANGES

13 ELK POPULATIONS: RMNP AND THE ESTES VALLEY No. of Elk Town carrying capacity Park carrying capacity Year Lubow et al. (2001) Town Park

14 WILLOW About a 20% decline in willow cover on core winter range since 1930 >90% decline in beaver 47-69% decline in surface water (Peinetti et al. 2002, Zeigenfuss et al. 2002, Baker et al. 2003)

15 Decreased willow size and growth WILLOW Transition to shorter plants Small, single stems are often old plants (Peinetti et al. 2002, Zeigenfuss et al. 2002, Cooper et al. 2003)

16 WILLOW Decreased reproduction Fewer establishment sites Limited seed production Seedlings susceptible to browsing (Cooper et al. 2003)

17 ASPEN RMNP Regenerating stands Non-regenerating stands Primary Winter Range (Olmsted 1997, Baker et al. 1997, Suzuki 1999) A non-regenerating aspen stand in Upper Beaver Meadows, RMNP

18 Ecosystem Simulation Modeling Comprehensive integration of best available information Objective tool evaluate past predict effects of potential management strategies SAVANNA Model (Coughenour 1990)

19 SUMMARY OF KEY MODEL RESULTS With an intact predator base, elk were limited 15-40% below foodlimited carrying capacity Undisturbed conditions support up to two times the current willow cover Continuing current management would lead to an alternative stable state on core winter range areas Restoring more natural conditions would require a combination of longterm, intensive management interventions (Coughenour 2002)

20 PLANNING

21 ELK AND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Lead Agency Core Team Members Extended Team Members

22 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Social Assessment Survey to determine views held by the general public (Stewart et al. 2004) preferences regarding elk numbers and vegetation conditions acceptability of potential management actions Issues scoping, Sept.-Oct Review of draft alternatives, August 2004

23 ISSUE: ELK NUMBERS AND DISTRIBUTION

24 ISSUE: VEGETATION CONDITIONS

25 ISSUE: BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY

26 ISSUE: ELK-HUMAN CONFLICTS Property damage Safety

27 ISSUE: CHRONIC WASTING DISEASE

28 ISSUE: ELK VIEWING

29 PROJECT PURPOSE Reduce the impacts of elk on vegetation. Reduce human/elk conflicts. Restore, as possible, the natural range of variability in elk population and affected plant communities. Learn about CWD prevalence within context of each alternative. Provide for elk viewing opportunities, associated recreational opportunities, and economic benefits.

30 POTENTIAL MANAGEMENT TOOLS DISTRIBUTION Install fencing or other barriers Use herding or hazing POPULATION SIZE Fertility control methods (contraceptives) Culling by agency staff Culling by public marksmen Hunting outside the Park Reintroduce wolves to RMNP HABITAT AND LAND USE MANAGEMENT Use zoning Use management techniques such as prescribed burns, forest thinning, or planting willows to improve habitat Reintroduce beavers or install dams that simulate beaver dams

31 NEXT STEPS Winter Fully develop alternatives/analyze impacts Summer 2005 Public review of Draft plan/eis Winter Final plan/eis and Record of Decision

32 MANAGEMENT COMPLEXITIES Multiple agencies and objectives Conflicting social values

33 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT APPROACH DEFINE OBJECTIVES DEVELOP MANAGEMENT STRATEGY IMPLEMENT MANAGEMENT STRATEGY MONITOR ECOSYSTEM RESPONSES REFINE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY