Plan for Development of Rocky Mountain Elk Habitat

Walla Walla District

Design Memorandum No. 15

Plan For Development of
Rocky Mountain Elk Habitat
Dworshak Dam and Reservoir

North Fork Clearwater River, Idaho

artist's drawing of a Rocky Mountain Elk

4 November 1977

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Walla Walla District

NPDPL-ER (10 Nov 77) 5th Ind
SUBJECT: Dworshak Dam and Reservoir, Design Memorandum 15, Plan for Development of Rocky Mountain Elk Habitat

DA, North Pacific Division, Corps of Engineers, P. 0. Box 2870,
Portland, OR 97208 2 January 1979

TO: District Engineer, Walla Walla

1. Walla Walla District's responses to NPD's 3rd Indorsement questions are satisfactory.

2. The following comments are furnished for your information and guidance:

a. Any contract for O&M funding for elk mitigation with state or other agencies shall provide a statement that the level of funding for the elk program in any year is dependent on the congressional appropriation and funds available for that year.

b. All contracts for O&M funding for elk mitigation shall be submitted to NPD for review prior to finalizing and execution with the state or other agencies.

c. We agree that continuity in habitat development should be maintained even if it requires the use of construction funds in FY 79 and FY 80 as indicated in the response to paragraph 3. We are in the process of arranging for Construction General funds to cover voids in availability of timber receipts and will advise you when the details have been worked out.

d. The Public Land Order (withdrawal) has been issued on the "hard core" area.

e. OCE waiver of DOD timber requirements and NPD waiver of additional disposal plans were furnished NPW by NPDRE 3rd Ind dated 9 Nov 78.

f. Your revised Table 5 has been inserted in our copies of Dworshak DM No. 15.

FOR THE DIVISION ENGINEER:

2 Incls. VINCENT E. BROWNELL

nc Executive Assistant

Walla Walla District letterhead

SUBJECT: Dworshak Dam and Reservoir, Design Memorandum 15, Plan for Development of Rocky Mountain Elk Habitat

Division Engineer, North Pacific

Copies 1 thru 9 of subject DM are inclosed for approval.

FOR THE DISTRICT ENGINEER:

1 Incl (9 cys)
W. E. SIVLEY

as
Chief, Engineering Division

NPDPL-ER (10 Nov 77) 1st Ind

SUBJECT: Dworshak Dam and Reservoir, Design Memorandum 15, Plan for Development of Rocky Mountain Elk Habitat

DA, North Pacific Division, Corps of Engineers, P.O. Box 2870, Portland, OR 97208 30 January 1978

TO: District Engineer, Walla Walla

1. Subject DM 15 is approved as a conceptual plan for development of elk habitat at Dworshak Project and as a basis for design subject to the following comments and requirements.

2. Responses to the following questions contained in this paragraph (2a. through 2h.) will be furnished by return endorsement.

a. It is unclear who will fund the development and operation and maintenance. It is implied that the five-year development phase would be funded totally by the Corps at the estimated costs shown in Table 5 and that the operation and maintenance thereafter would be funded by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Is this accurate interpretation, and if so, what assurances do you have that the Fish and Wildlife Service will fund the operation and maintenance?

b. What will the long-term impact of the proposed habitat development, operation and maintenance be on Corps manpower resources?

c. There is no mention in the DM or its cost estimate to indicate any fencing during the development stage to control cattle grazing. Is any fencing contemplated, and if so, who will be responsible for its accomplishment and cost?

d. The DM indicates timber sale receipts could reach $4,250,000 or double the required construction funding through FY 84. Have ways of accomplishing the proposed elk habitat development without using fiscal year construction and O&M funds been investigated? Sale of timber to include habitat development as a contract requirement may be one acceptable procedure. Management of timber sales receipts by the District Office may be another.

e. Experience with prior timber sales in this area has shown that only marginal success can be expected. Considering the restrictions shown in paragraph B4b(3)(a), page 17; the mosaic type pattern of cutting areas discussed in paragraph B4b(2), page 14; the probable restrictions required for environmental considerations; the problems of accessibility to the cutting areas; and the possible restrictions stemming from the DOD-SBA agreement pertaining to this type action, there is a distinct possibility that no acceptable bids would be received. This would result in a potential reduction in timber revenue and possible drastic increases in Corps costs associated with the sales. What alternative courses of action would be available in such an instance and to what degree would Corps costs be affected?

f. Paragraph C, page 28. Only about 30% of the total 13,000 acres of wildlife mitigation land is presently under Corps jurisdiction. The anticipated 4 to 6 months completion of the public land withdrawal is considered to be very optimistic. The 4,680 acre Smith Ridge acquisition appears to be even more remote from the standpoint of the proposed exchange completion. A timber sale can, of course, only be accomplished on land under jurisdiction of the Corps. What is the current status of land exchanges with BLM and the Forest Service? If such exchanges cannot be completed, what alternative plans will be considered? What is the total acreage of wildlife mitigation lands presently under Corps jurisdiction?

g. With regard to paragraph B4b(6)(e) and note 5, Table 5, Elk Management Headquarters estimated to cost $50,000; what trailer modifications are anticipated; how many people will live and be headquartered here; what will be the nature of the water supply development and distribution system and what will be the source of electrical energy?

h. What conflicts exist, if any, between the proposed habitat development on project lands and long-range recreation site plans for project lands?

3. Paragraph D, page 29, indicates each sale would exceed 10,000,000 MBF of timber. ER 405-23-912 requires that any proposed timber disposal in excess of 5,000,000 MBF be submitted to OCE for a determination of DOD requirements for the timber. In addition, a disposal plan must be submitted for NPD approval prior to any sale. The information to be included in the disposal plan is not given in the subject DM. The above actions must be taken prior to contracting for removal or sale of timber.

4. Other comments are as follows:

a. Paragraph B2a, page 7. Livestock grazing as discussed in this paragraph would be by lease rather than permit.

b. Basic authority for this work is contained in the project documents (H.D. 403, 87th Congress, 2nd Session, paragraph 19b of the Chief of Engineers' letter to the Secretary of the Army).

c. It is noted the list of estimated receipts on page 29 shows an actual receipt of $500,000 on Hughes Point. It is assumed this refers to a BLM timber sale. If this is correct, this amount should not be shown.

d. The EIS for Dworshak Project should be carefully examined to be certain that it adequately covers the extensive timber removal and sales contemplated. If it does not adequately address this matter, a supplement would have to be prepared and the cost estimates for the habitat development.revised to cover this effort.

e. Page 25, paragraph C, 1st sentence, the meaning of the phrase "under the auspices of the Walla Walla District" is unclear.

5. The District is to be complimented on the preparation of an excellent biological plan for protection and maintenance of the indigenous elk herd at Dworshak Project. It is professionally done with appropriate documentation and support references. As you can see from the nature of our comments and questions, we are primarily concerned about clarification of this proposal's impact on Corps financial and personnel resources.

FOR THE DIVISION ENGINEER:

Incl wd EDWIN S. TOWNSLEY

Colonel, Corps of Engineers

Deputy Division Engineer

NPWEN-DB (10 Nov 77) 2nd Ind
SUBJECT: Dworshak Dam and Reservoir, Design Memorandum 15, Plan for Development of Rocky Mountain Elk Habitat

DA, Walla Walla District, Corps of Engineers, Bldg. 602, City-County Airport, Walla Walla, Washington 99362 17 April 1978

TO: Division Engineer, North Pacific

1. Inclosed are revised pages for copies 1 thru 9 of subject D. M. which has been revised to include all comments of Idaho Fish and Game Department and U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This has been accomplished in order to provide a cooperative approach to the initial development work.

2. Responses to 1st Ind. comments are as follows.

2a. This subject has been rewritten to include the positions of the agencies involved (Corps and F&W Service). Table 5 is an estimate of initial development costs only for which the project is responsible and does not include any O&M funds for O&M purposes. Construction funds lapse with FY 1980 and initial development will not be complete; thus, the notion of O&M funds utilized for initial development for the final four years of development work through FY 1984.

2b. There should not be any appreciable impact if, under paragraph 15b(3) of ER 1105-2-129, we assume management and O&M funding, as we would contract with the State Fish and Game Department to perform the O&M.

2c. This was in error and has been corrected in the present revision to be performed under initial development.

2d. There is a problem in utilization of timber sale receipts for elk browse initial development work in that the receipts are out of time phase with development work. Sale of timber (logging) is not compatible with elk browse development work, since the aim of logging is to produce merchantable logs at all possible speed. Further, elk browse work requires a work step be done; then an evaluation must be made as to which of several possible alternate next steps should be implemented. We could very possibly perform all initial development work with timber receipts if we were permitted to keep the receipts for the period of development, some eight years. A separate letter is being submitted on the subject of timber sales and receipts.

2e. Since it has been decided that the project is responsible for initial development, we intend to carry out the timber removal, even to the point of funding such removal with no receipts. This could be the case if the wildlife agencies insist on helicopter logging. We do not have a method of estimating costs in such a situation.

2f. By agreement, the BLM has performed two timber sales on their land (in "hard core" area not transferred to the project at this time), which is destined for browse development. Current status of "hard core" exchange (Potlatch Corp. to BLM to Corps) is now awaiting an environmental assessment and should be complete with PLO issued this summer. Smith Ridge proposed exchange (State-USFS to Corps) was initiated in March 1978 and should be completed in 1979, since we do have Congressional support in this action. The total acreage of designated mitigation land presently under Corps jurisdiction is 1,112 acres and, in addition, about 3,993 acres of adjacent project land (also under Corps jurisdiction) will be managed for wildlife.

2g. One trailer modified for wood fuel heat will be living quarters and the other trailer will be stripped for storage. Utilities include water piped from a nearby spring, electricity from a state-supplied portable generator, heat from a wood-burning stove, and sewer to be a drainfield.

2h. We do not anticipate any problems since, at the wildlife agencies' requests, we have deferred any recreation development in the wildlife area.

3. Concur

4a. Concur

4b. Concur

4c. This was a BLM timber sale. As there was Corps property involved, the Corps' share was $436,000.

4d. Concur

4e. In this case "auspices" means support since it has been assumed that F&W Service will take over future O&M responsibility.

5. Acknowledged.

17 Incl (9 cys) C. J. Allaire

Added 17 Incl Colonel, CE

2-18 Rev. pages District Engineer

NPDPL-ER (10 Nov 77) 3rd Ind

SUBJECT: Dworshak Dam and Reservoir, Design Memorandum 15, Plan for Development of Rocky Mountain Elk Habitat

DA, North Pacific Division, Corps of Engineers, P.O. Box 2870, Portland, OR 97208 19 July 1978

TO: District Engineer, Walla Walla

1. The Districts responses to NPD comments contained in the preceding endorsements and revised Design Memorandum pages are satisfactory subject to the following comments:

2. You note that the matter of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service assuming 0&M responsibilities for Dworshak elk mitigation area is unresolved. It is requested that you provide us with a chronology of steps taken to have the Service accept 0&M responsibilities and your recommendations for concluding this matter favorably.

3. We do not entirely agree with your response to our 1st indorsement comment 2d. Some of the appropriations requirements for this work have already been reduced by the receipts from timber sales at Hughes Point. We believe that timber sales revenues should continue to be utilized to the maximum extent possible as an appropriation credit for the proposed habitat development work. ER 37-2-10, page 8-21, Acct No 01.17 provides guidance on this matter. Consideration should also be given to time phasing the habitat development to insure maximum use of timber sales revenues as they become available. If such an approach is deemed workable it would substantially minimize the Corps' request to Congress for funds.

4. With reference to your response to NPD Comment 2e, the manner of log removal and costs involved should be resolved quickly to permit necessary funding in a timely manner. Commercial experience in helicopter logging should be sufficient to facilitate reasonable cost estimating if this method of log removal is required.

5. Table 5 - Cost Estimate:

a. We do not believe that we can approve the use of 0&M funds to complete the habitat development started under the Construction, General program. This would have to be a feature item in the budgetary documents presented to Congress for funds appropriations and it would be difficult to explain why we would be funding construction of new work from the 0&M appropriations. We are not committed to terminating the use of Construction General funds after FY 1980 and suggest that in addition to optimum use of timber sales revenues, Construction General funds be utilized to complete initial habitat development.

b. The column headed "Total All Funds" does not include funds previously expended as shown in the first column headed "FY." To give a true and complete picture of what this habitat development is going to cost, this table should be revised so that the total is the entire cost including funds previously expended. Also, the "TOTALS" line only reflects the features totals. Another line should be added to show the total cost including E&D and S&A.

6. The latest approved project schedule (PB-2a) dated 1 January 1978, shows a total estimated cost of $545,000. As you will recall our NPDEN-TE 1st Indorsement, dated 5 June 1978, subject "Dworshak Dam and Reservoir, Design Memorandum No. 14.1, Letter Supplement No. 10, Modification of Reuse System III," confirms agreement reached in the January Budget Review Conference that the total cost for Fish and Wildlife Facilities (feature 06.) at the Dworshak project would not be increased. The subject DM 15 shows a total developmental cost of approximately $2.5 million presumably including the proposed funding from O&M sources and excluding receipts from timber sales. Accordingly, unless other adjustments can be made in the 06. feature (Fish and Wildlife Facilities) to offset the additional costs noted in the DM, the DM, as required by ER 1110-2-1150, Appendix B, paragraph 1h, should contain a comparison of the current cost estimate with the latest approved estimate. Any significant changes should be explained and justified.

FOR THE DIVISION ENGINEER:

Incls
VINCENT E. BROWNELL

wd
Executive Assistant

NPWEN-DB (10 Nov 77) 4th Ind
SUBJECT: Dworshak Dam and Reservoir, Design Memorandum 15, Plan for Development of Rocky Mountain Elk Habitat

DA, Walla Walla District, Corps of Engineers, Bldg. 602, City-County Airport, Walla Walla, Washington 99362 23 October 1978

TO: Division Engineer, North Pacific

Inclosed for your review are answers to 3rd Indorsement, and revised cost estimate, Table 5.

2 Incl
C.J. Allaire

Added 2 incl
Colonel, CE

19. Answers to 3rd Ind
District Engineer

20. Rev. Est., Table 5

INCLOSURE To 4TH INDORSEMENT

ANSWERS TO 3rd INDORSEMENT TO DM 15
PARAGRAPHS - SAME AS 3rd INDORSEMENT

Paragraph 2.

At the interagency meeting of 29 March 1974 in Boise, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Director stated they would fund for Wildlife O&M when areas had been developed. Since that time, the statement has not been repeated and, in fact, the opposite has been reiterated as noted in paragraph B3 of this DM. We understand the Chief's position is for the Corps to fund Wildlife O&M on existing project which we intend to do and implement the management through contract with the State Fish and Game Department.

Paragraph 3.

The intent is to utilize timber sale receipts to the maximum and reduce appropriations accordingly. Status at present is: Long Creek Unit timber sale receipts went to Bureau of Land Management as landowners; Hughes Point Unit receipts of $435,000 received in FY 1978 and FY 1978 expenditures have been $433,000; Robinson Creek Unit sold for $877,000 in September 1978 will not produce any receipts until FY 1981. This means we will need appropriations in FY 1979 and 1980 to continue initial development work. Delaying further development work until timber receipts are received in FY 1981 would not be acceptable to the wildlife agencies.

Paragraph 4.

We have agreement with wildlife agencies to restrain timber sales to conventional methods except in extreme terrain areas in order to maximize receipts. We know that helicopter logging requires a sale of at least 5 MMBF to be profitable and cost of helicopter logging is $100-$150 per MBF versus $35-$55 per MBF conventional logging methods.

Paragraph 5a.

We are changing Project budgetary documents (PB-3, PB-2A) for the next submittal to indicate estimated construction funding requirements for browse development of feature 06 through FY 1984.

Paragraph 5b.

Table 5 has been revised and is inclosed for insertion in your copies of DM.

Paragraph 6.

NPDEN-TE 1st Indorsement dated 5 June 1978, Letter Supplement to DM 14.1, "Modification of Reuse System III" refers to the Fish Hatchery portion of 06 feature. This has also always been our understanding especially since an actual estimate of wildlife mitigation had not been made until this DM was prepared. Wildlife agencies did not define project mitigation until late 1972 and were then asked to prepare the initial development plan so that an estimate could be made. The agencies did not prepare such plan, so this DM was done by this District and represents the first cost estimate prepared on Project Wildlife Mitigation. To provide budgetary clarification, we are separating the fishery and wildlife items under feature 06 of the project PB-2A.

Table 5 - Cost Estimate (Initial Development Only) October 1977
	Annual Cost	Total Cost¹ (7 Years)

Timber Sale (inc. cruise app., sale, insp.)	$57,140	$400,000
Soils Analysis	2,360	16,520
Plants-Stock-Bare Root	10,000	70,000
Stock Seed	19,600	137,200
Plant-Bare Root	19,001	133,009
Aerial Seeding	525	3,675
Burn, Erosion Control, Slash	27,857	194,999
Secondary Snagging and Slash Work	54,875	384,125
Fertilization	13,160	92,120
Refertilization	6,580	46,060
Erosion Control, Final	1,804	12,626
Evaluation²	50,000	350,000
Management Headquarters FY 79 Only		50,000
Fencing, FY 80-81		275,000
Subtotal	262,902	2,165,334
Contingency	46,400	324,800
Subtotal	309,302³	2,490,134
Real Estate - Smith Ridge Exchange - FY 80 est.		135,000
E&D	34,877	244,136
S&A	34,877	244,136
Total Cost This DM		3,113,406⁴
Previous Wildlife Costs Including Real Estate		1,702,183
Total Cost Wildlife Portion of .06		4,815,589
¹Construction funds, FY 78 thru FY 84. ²Start 1st year of development, may continue 3-5 years after development, estimate based on existing contracts with Idaho Fish and Game Department. ³If emergency feeding of animals becomes necessary during the initial habitat development period, unexpended funds noted above will be so utilized. ⁴As noted in paragraph D, the Government will receive an unknown amount of timber receipts from logging activities to provide elk habitat. These receipts should be at least equal to the estimated costs.
Rev. 18 Nov 77 Rev. 6 Apr 78 Rev. 11 Aug 78

Dworshak Dam and Reservoir
Design Memorandums

No. Design Memorandum Cover Date

1 Hydrology 15 December 1960

2 Type and Height of Dam
Volume 1
Volume 2

20 July 1960
1 July 1959

3 General Design Memorandum (3 Volumes)

Supp. 1 - Site Selection and Type of Concrete Dam

Supp. 2 - Power Plant Studies

Supp. 3 - Hydrologic Reporting Network

Letter Supp. 4 - Boundary Surveys and Marking

Letter Supp. 5 - Deletion of Left Abutment Access Road

Letter Supp. 6 - Main Dam Debris Boom

Supp. 7 - Dam and Powerhouse Completion
15 September 1961
24 October 1962
13 November 1964
21 May 1971
18 November 1975
26 May 1971
6 July 1972
10 December 1976

4 Deleted

5 Powerplant, Preliminary Design Report

Supp. 1 - Transmission Facilities and Station Service Power Supply
December 1966
November 1968

5.1 Powerhouse Architectural Design July 1967

5.2 Powerhouse Structural Design January 1968

5.3 Powerhouse Mechanical Design October 1968

5.4 Powerhouse Electrical Design

6 Main Dam, Grouting and Drainage, and Instrumentation 3 November 1964

6.1 Main Dam Ancillary Features

Supp. 1 - Penstrocks, Penstock Emergency Gates,

and Cathodic Protection

Supp. 2 - Multi-Level Power Intake Structures
16 April 1965

19 January 1966
3 October 1969

6.2 Main Dam Gantry Crane

6.3 Main Dam Postcooling Facilities 13 April 1966

7 Initial Relocations, Access, and Detour Road

Supp. 1 - Relocations, Access, and Detour Road,

Lower Reservoir Area

Supp. 2 - Right Bank Access and Detour Roads
8 January 1965

18 August 1964
5 February 1965

7.1 Deleted

7.2 Deleted

7.3 Powerhouse Access Road 2 July 1969

7.4 Left Abutment Access Road (Cancelled; see Letter Supp. 5 to DM 3)

7.5 Dent Bridge July 1966

7.6 Relocation of Clearwater Highway District Road

Letter Supp. 1 - Paving Highway District Road
22 November 1966
7 September 1976

7.7 Relocation of Clearwater County Road

Letter Supp. 1 - Boat Ramp, Dent Bridge Area

Letter Supp. 2 - Paving County Road
20 February 1967
2 February 1968
7 September 1976

7.8 Deleted

7.9 Deleted

8 Real Estate, Part 1 - Damsite Construction Area, Access Roads,

Related Borrow and Spoil Areas, Partial Flowage and

Public-Use Areas

Letter Supp. 1 - Fish Hatchery

Letter Supp. 2 - Ahsahka Railroad Siding
31 December 1962
8 August 1966
8 September 1967

8 Real Estate, Part 2 - Remander of The Project, Remaining

Public-Use Areas, Flowage Requirements,

and Relocations

Letter Supp. 1 - Big Game Replacement Range

Letter Supp. 2 - Clearwater Highway District and

Clearwater County Road Relocations
10 December 1963
1 August 1966

17 March 1967

9 Diversion Tunnel, Temporary Fish Facilities, Cofferdams

Supp. 1 - Design and Cost Revisions, Temporary Fish Facilities
22 April 1964
14 October 1964

10A Reservoir Preliminary Master Plan 20 June 1966

10 Reservoir Public Use Plan 17 April 1970

10.1 Recreation Facilities and Public Use Area

Letter Supp. No. 1 - Mini-Recreation Sites

Letter Supp. No. 2 - Dent DOrchards Day-Use Area
1 December 1971
29 August 1972
29 March 1977

10.2 Freeman Creek Recreation Development

10.3 Group Camps 1 and 3 29 October 1976

11 Resident Office Facilities 8 January 1965

12 Spillway and Outlets

Letter Supp. 1 - Stilling Basin Repair
2 June 1965

13 Log Handling Facilities

Letter Supp. 1 - Interim Log Facilities

Letter Supp. 2 - Project Log Handling Elements
5 March 1966
20 February 1974
24 August 1977

14 Permanent Fish Facilities at Dam 3 June 1966

14.1 Steelhead Fish Hatchery

Supp. 1 - Conversion of Rearing Facilities and Provision

For Resident Fishery Mitigation
Letter Supp. 2 - State Highway Drainage Repair

Letter Supp. 3 - Laboratory Facilities

Letter Supp. 4 - Water Treatment Facility Aerators

Letter Supp. 5 - Additional Construction Requirements

Supp. 6 - Building For Nursery Tanks

Supp. 7 - Two-Year Rearing Facility

Supp. 8 - System IV Reuse for Nursery Tanks

Supp. 9 - Modification of Reuse System II

Supp. 10 - Modification of Filterbed System III
July 1966
25 November 1970

24 February 1971
30 April 1971
17 June 1974
18 December 1974
27 October 1977

5 August 1977

15 Plan for Development of Rocky Mountain Elk Habitat 4 November 1977

16 Concrete Aggregate and Concrete Properties Investigations 17 November 1966

17 Concrete Temperature Investigations 22 November 1966

18 Upper Reservoir Roads 4 December 1969

18.1 Grandad Creek Bridge December 1968

19 Reservoir Clearing

Supp. 1 - Clearing Below Minimum Pool

Letter Supp. 2 - Debris Gathering and Disposal
3 December 1963
10 December 1969
13 June 1974

20 Visitor Facilities and Project Restoration

Supp. 1 - Access Features for Visitors and Operations
January 1972

20.1 Architectural Treatment

Letter Supp. 1 - Elevator on Downstream Face of Dam
16 June 1965
13 September 1971
Deleted 6 May 1974

20.2 Damsite Visitor Viewpoint Development 29 March 1966

20.3 Left Abutment Accessory Features

21 Relocation Washington Water Power Company Electrical Facilities 30 October 1970

22 Cost Allocation Studies June 1975

23 Engineering Control During Construction 16 November 1965

24 Reservoir Filling Plan 12 November 1970

No.	Design Memorandum	Cover Date

1	Hydrology	15 December 1960
2	Type and Height of Dam Volume 1 Volume 2	20 July 1960 1 July 1959
3	General Design Memorandum (3 Volumes) Supp. 1 - Site Selection and Type of Concrete Dam Supp. 2 - Power Plant Studies Supp. 3 - Hydrologic Reporting Network Letter Supp. 4 - Boundary Surveys and Marking Letter Supp. 5 - Deletion of Left Abutment Access Road Letter Supp. 6 - Main Dam Debris Boom Supp. 7 - Dam and Powerhouse Completion	15 September 1961 24 October 1962 13 November 1964 21 May 1971 18 November 1975 26 May 1971 6 July 1972 10 December 1976
4	Deleted
5	Powerplant, Preliminary Design Report Supp. 1 - Transmission Facilities and Station Service Power Supply	December 1966 November 1968
5.1	Powerhouse Architectural Design	July 1967
5.2	Powerhouse Structural Design	January 1968
5.3	Powerhouse Mechanical Design	October 1968
5.4	Powerhouse Electrical Design
6	Main Dam, Grouting and Drainage, and Instrumentation	3 November 1964
6.1	Main Dam Ancillary Features Supp. 1 - Penstrocks, Penstock Emergency Gates, and Cathodic Protection Supp. 2 - Multi-Level Power Intake Structures	16 April 1965 19 January 1966 3 October 1969
6.2	Main Dam Gantry Crane
6.3	Main Dam Postcooling Facilities	13 April 1966
7	Initial Relocations, Access, and Detour Road Supp. 1 - Relocations, Access, and Detour Road, Lower Reservoir Area Supp. 2 - Right Bank Access and Detour Roads	8 January 1965 18 August 1964 5 February 1965
7.1	Deleted
7.2	Deleted
7.3	Powerhouse Access Road	2 July 1969
7.4	Left Abutment Access Road (Cancelled; see Letter Supp. 5 to DM 3)
7.5	Dent Bridge	July 1966
7.6	Relocation of Clearwater Highway District Road Letter Supp. 1 - Paving Highway District Road	22 November 1966 7 September 1976
7.7	Relocation of Clearwater County Road Letter Supp. 1 - Boat Ramp, Dent Bridge Area Letter Supp. 2 - Paving County Road	20 February 1967 2 February 1968 7 September 1976
7.8	Deleted
7.9	Deleted
8	Real Estate, Part 1 - Damsite Construction Area, Access Roads, Related Borrow and Spoil Areas, Partial Flowage and Public-Use Areas Letter Supp. 1 - Fish Hatchery Letter Supp. 2 - Ahsahka Railroad Siding	31 December 1962 8 August 1966 8 September 1967
8	Real Estate, Part 2 - Remander of The Project, Remaining Public-Use Areas, Flowage Requirements, and Relocations Letter Supp. 1 - Big Game Replacement Range Letter Supp. 2 - Clearwater Highway District and Clearwater County Road Relocations	10 December 1963 1 August 1966 17 March 1967
9	Diversion Tunnel, Temporary Fish Facilities, Cofferdams Supp. 1 - Design and Cost Revisions, Temporary Fish Facilities	22 April 1964 14 October 1964
10A	Reservoir Preliminary Master Plan	20 June 1966
10	Reservoir Public Use Plan	17 April 1970
10.1	Recreation Facilities and Public Use Area Letter Supp. No. 1 - Mini-Recreation Sites Letter Supp. No. 2 - Dent DOrchards Day-Use Area	1 December 1971 29 August 1972 29 March 1977
10.2	Freeman Creek Recreation Development
10.3	Group Camps 1 and 3	29 October 1976
11	Resident Office Facilities	8 January 1965
12	Spillway and Outlets Letter Supp. 1 - Stilling Basin Repair	2 June 1965
13	Log Handling Facilities Letter Supp. 1 - Interim Log Facilities Letter Supp. 2 - Project Log Handling Elements	5 March 1966 20 February 1974 24 August 1977
14	Permanent Fish Facilities at Dam	3 June 1966
14.1	Steelhead Fish Hatchery Supp. 1 - Conversion of Rearing Facilities and Provision For Resident Fishery Mitigation Letter Supp. 2 - State Highway Drainage Repair Letter Supp. 3 - Laboratory Facilities Letter Supp. 4 - Water Treatment Facility Aerators Letter Supp. 5 - Additional Construction Requirements Supp. 6 - Building For Nursery Tanks Supp. 7 - Two-Year Rearing Facility Supp. 8 - System IV Reuse for Nursery Tanks Supp. 9 - Modification of Reuse System II Supp. 10 - Modification of Filterbed System III	July 1966 25 November 1970 24 February 1971 30 April 1971 17 June 1974 18 December 1974 27 October 1977 5 August 1977
15	Plan for Development of Rocky Mountain Elk Habitat	4 November 1977
16	Concrete Aggregate and Concrete Properties Investigations	17 November 1966
17	Concrete Temperature Investigations	22 November 1966
18	Upper Reservoir Roads	4 December 1969
18.1	Grandad Creek Bridge	December 1968
19	Reservoir Clearing Supp. 1 - Clearing Below Minimum Pool Letter Supp. 2 - Debris Gathering and Disposal	3 December 1963 10 December 1969 13 June 1974
20	Visitor Facilities and Project Restoration Supp. 1 - Access Features for Visitors and Operations	January 1972
20.1	Architectural Treatment Letter Supp. 1 - Elevator on Downstream Face of Dam	16 June 1965 13 September 1971 Deleted 6 May 1974
20.2	Damsite Visitor Viewpoint Development	29 March 1966
20.3	Left Abutment Accessory Features
21	Relocation Washington Water Power Company Electrical Facilities	30 October 1970
22	Cost Allocation Studies	June 1975
23	Engineering Control During Construction	16 November 1965
24	Reservoir Filling Plan	12 November 1970

Table of Contents

A. Introduction

1. Authority

2. Regional History

3. Elk Biology
B. Management

1. Human Disturbance

2. Livestock Grazing

3. Elk Regulation

a. Agreements

(1) Corps of Engineers

(2) Idaho Department of Fish and Game

(3) Fish and Wildlife Service

b. Contingencies

(1) Number

(2) Starvation

(3) Competition

4. Habitat Management

a. Components

(1) Water

(2) Openings

(a) Location

(b) Orientation

(3) Cover

(a) Thermal

(b) Hiding

b. Development

(1) Public Relations

(a) Interpretive Signs

(b) Regulatory Signs

(2) Field Layout

(a) Timber Survey

(b) Soils Survey

(3) Deforestation

(a) Merchantable Timber

(b) Non-Merchantable Timber

(4) Disposal

(a) Fire

(b) Physical

(5) Propagation

(a) Species Selection

(b) Site Preparation

(6) Administration

(a) Unit Tasks

(b) Sub-Unit Tasks

(d) Resource Limitations

(e) Elk Management Headquarters

c. Maintenance

(1) Annual Report

(a) Elk Data

(b) Past Activities

(2) Modification

(a) Thermal Cover

(b) Travel Lanes

(d) Dead Tree Areas

(3) Practices

(a) Fertilizer

(b) Brush Cutters

(d) Herbicides
C. Habitat Lands Status
D. Construction Schedule and Funds
E. Recommendation

Tables

1 The Number and composition (Sex and Age) of Rocky Mountain Elk Observed Wintering Within or Near the Boundary of the Dworshak Project, U.S. Army Engineer District, Walla Walla

2 The Approximate Acreage and Percent of Cover and Forest Opening Currently Existing Within the Elk Management Area at Dworshak Dam and Reservoir, U.S. Army Engineer District, Walla Walla

3 The Approximate Acreage and Percent of Timber to be Retained as a Cover Type or Deforested as an Opening Within Each Elk Management Unit at Dworshak Dam and Reservoir, U.S. Army Engineer District, Walla Walla

4 A List of Potential Grasses and Legumes to be Propagated in Abandoned Road Systems, Log Landings, and Sub-Units Being Developed As Meadows

5 Cost Estimate

Exhibit

1 Literature Cited

Plates

1 Elk Habitat Mitigation - Management Units

2 Elk Habitat Mitigation - Robinson Creek

3 Elk Habitat Mitigation - Long Creek

4 Elk Habitat Mitigation - Hughes Point

5 Elk Habitat Mitigation - South Hughes Point

6 Elk Habitat Mitigation - Grandad Creek

7 Elk Habitat Mitigation - Benton Creek

8 Elk Habitat Mitigation - Homestead Creek

9 Elk Habitat Mitigation - Boehls Butte

10 Elk Habitat Mitigation - Whiskey Creek

11 Elk Habitat Mitigation - Rooney Creek

12 Elk Habitat Mitigation - Long Bar

13 Elk Habitat Mitigation - Management Headquarters

Dworshak Design Memorandum No. 15

PLAN FOR DEVELOPMENT OF ROCKY MOUNTAIN ELK HABITAT

A. INTRODUCTION. The primary purpose of this report is to present a plan for the development and maintenance of winter range for Rocky Mountain Elk (Cervus elaphus nelsonii) at Dworshak Dam and Reservoir. However, additional items such as water and pasture development that influence the annual distribution of Rocky Mountain Elk are incorporated into the plan.

1. Authority. Reportedly, the completed construction of Dworshak Dam in 1972 resulted in the inundation of 15,000 acres of river bottom lands formerly used as winter range by Rocky Mountain Elk, White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and Mule deer (0. hemious). Under guidelines established in the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (Public Law 85-624) and Department of the Army Engineer Regulations (ER 1105-2-129, ER 1120-2-400, and ER 1165-2-104), the wintering habitat lost through construction will be replaced (in part) by the development and improvement of selected lands acquired specifically for elk mitigation and the intensive management of those adjoining lands upstream of ~Grandad Creek Bridge already owned in fee by the Corps of Engineers. The number of elk selected as a management goal for the intensive manipulation of elk habitat on both the project and mitigation lands adjacent to Dworshak Reservoir is 915 animals (25 August 1972 letter from Fish and Wildlife Service to District Engineer, U. S. Army Engineer District, Walla Walla). The environmental impact of the management practices to be used in developing winter range for the Dworshak elk herd is discussed in the Dworshak Final Environmental Impact Statement (U.S. Army Engineer District, Walla Walla, 1975: 4-37 - 4-39). Public notice for the Dworshak Final Environmental Impact Statement was published in the Federal Register on 19 December 1975.

2. Regional History. Dworshak Dam and Reservoir are situated within a region of Idaho where fire is a major factor in influencing both plant succession and big game populations (Dworshak Final Environmental Impact Statement, 1975: 2-18 - 2-19). Presumably, large fires have occurred throughout various portions of the Bitterroot Mountains for as long as the climate provided electrical storms and an annual, dry season. In addition, some fires were started by the American Indian attempting to appease weather spirits and others by prospectors seeking legendary lost gold mines. Between the early 1900's and mid-1930's, a series of wild fires removed many acres of timber from portions of the Clearwater, Lochsa, Saint Joe, and Selway drainages. After 1910, elk populations began to increase and use the mixed brushfields and meadows that had resulted from the many fires (McCulloch, 1975: 206-209). By the late 1930's the elk population in the various drainages appears to have peaked and grossly exceeded the deer in number. Since the late 1930's, elk populations in most drainages have decreased. Wildlife biologists attribute the decline to the loss of forest openings that once contained the preferred forage and browse needed to sustain a wintering population (Leege and Hickey, 1977: 2).

3. Elk Biology. Biological considerations that need to be understood in the manipulation and development of elk habitat are:

The Rocky Mountain Elk is a wilderness animal, intolerant of most agricultural land use practices and human disturbance (Leege and Hickey, 1977: 20; Leopold, 1933: 134; Moran, 1973: 78).

In general, the elk is a migratory animal, spending the summer months at high elevations (summer range), the spring and fall at intermediate elevations (transition range), and the winter at low elevations (winter range) (Dalke et al., 1965: 337; Knight, 1970: 13-24; Murie, 1951: 59-67). Inclement weather at high elevations in the fall tends to move elk downward for the duration of the storm or the season. Deep snow restricts elk movement and forces many animals to winter in narrow yards along river and canyon bottoms (Craighead et al., 1972, 1973; Dalke et al., 1965). The pace of the spring movement toward summer range is dictated by the development of grasses, sedges, and forbs (any herb not grasslike), referred to colloquially as "spring greenup" (Dalke et al., 1965: 336; Goodwin, 1975: 27). Barriers to elk movement include hunters, interstate highways, and fenced farmland (Craighead et al., 1972: 11; Goodwin, 1975: 52; Mace, 1971: 9; Ward et al., 1973: 337).

Authorities agree that elk are most visible in the first and last 231 hours of daylight (Mackie, 1970: 38). Two factors thought to influence the daily activities of elk are temperature and relative humidity (Harper, 1971: 6). On days characterized by high temperatures and low relative humidity, elk normally feed during the early morning and late evening hours, retreating into timber during the heat of the day. On rainy or cool days with higher relative humidity, elk are active throughout the day, spending little time in timber. High winds cause elk to seek the shelter of timbered ravines and slopes, forcing elk to the leeward side of ridges (Harper, 1971: 6; Morin, 1973: 82). Supposedly, elk move to sheltered openings away from timber when the wind increases enough in force to break tree limbs.

Seasonal range (summer, transition, and winter) utilized by a population of elk may support both migratory and non-migratory (resident) animals during the same or different months of the year (Craighead et al., 1972 and 1973; Dalke, et al., 1965; Martinka, 1969; Peek and Lovaas, 1968). Because the majority of the elk in a summer or winter population return to the same seasonal range each year, the areas occupied by the animals can be managed as separate ranges once the areas are identified (Craighead et al., 1972: 41; Knight, 1970: 62-63). Elk do not respond to the management of a single plant type but respond to the locations of all types as each is developed in juxtaposition to one another (Mackie, 1970: 75; Thomas et al., 1976). The optimum habitat for elk is generally accepted to consist of 60 percent openings and 40 percent cover (Thomas et al., 1976). Cover is utilized for escape (hiding) from predators and man and for protection from the weather (thermal) in both summer and winter (Harper, 1971: 3, 6; Knight, 1970: 14, 29; Moran, 1973: 82; Murie, 1951: 132). On summer and transition range the optimal mixture of cover type approaches 10 percent thermal, 20 percent hiding, and an additional 10 percent in either thermal or hiding cover (Thomas et al., 1976). But on winter range, thermal cover is developed in preference to hiding cover. Water should always be present.

Home range is defined as that area traversed by the individual elk in its normal activities of food gathering, mating, and caring for young (Burt, 1943). It is recognized that the home range need not cover the same area throughout the life of the individual and that migratory animals such as elk have different home ranges in summer and winter. The accumulated area identified as seasonal (summer or winter) home range for a collective number of individual elk represents the composite range utilized by a seasonal herd (Craighead et al., 1973: 15-21). Only a portion of the total summer or winter range that is available to the elk is used annually because of changes in the size and location of the individual home ranges within the composite range each year. Factors influencing the size of both the annual and composite home range include food availability, habitat requirements, population density, ambient temperature, insect abundance, terrain, and activities related to breeding and parturition (Craighead et al., 1973: 15: Knight, 1970: 32-34: Peek and Lovaas, 1968: 553).

The breeding season for elk begins in late August, when the sexually mature males begin to disperse and establish territories (Dalke, et al., 1965: 337; Knight, 1970: 32-34; Peek and Lovaas, 1968: 553). Sexually active males pursue mature females and attempt to claim any cow unattended by a formidable harem master (Craighead et al., 1973: 30; Moran, 1973: 47; Murie, 1951: 130). A male elk must be 2½ to 3½ years old before it is mature enough in size and strength to establish and defend both a territory and harem of sexually mature females (Knight, 1970: 32-32; Moran, 1973: 45). Young and old. harem masters differentially maintain groups of one to three and one to 21 females, respectively (Knight, 1970). Mating is completed within the territory of the male and when the individual female comes into estrus. Normally, September is regarded as the month when the most intensive breeding occurs and October or November as the time when breeding terminates, after which the cows comprising the harem disperse for the winter (Altman, 1960; Knight, 1970; Moran, 1973; Murie, 1951; Struhsaker, 1967). Reportedly, the successful harem master leaves the area to replenish depleted energy reserves in surrounding forested tracts during the time the harem is dispersing for the winter (Harper, 1971: 3; Knight, 1970: 14, 29; Murie, 1951: 132). Unfortunately, the excessive harvest of the larger bulls in some western areas has led to the dissolution of harem bands (Dr. Jack Ward Thomas, 19 July 1977, personal communication). In these areas the cows are mated by the younger bulls that comprise the largest segment of the breeding-male population.

Following a gestation period of about 239 days, parturition occurs sometime between mid-May and late June on areas used as transition range (Martinka, 1969: 472; Moran, 1973: 79; Peek and Lovaas, 1968: 553). Usually, one calf is born per pregnant female, with twins being uncommon. Calving areas consist of a gentle, sloping bench (15 percent) with a southern exposure, containing water, grasses, and forbs, surrounded by an immediately adjacent stand of trees and shrubs (Davis, 1970; Roberts, 1974; Rust, 1946; Young and Robinette, 1939). The cows use the trees for both escape and thermal cover and the grass-like plants for nourishment to support lactation. The newborn calves use shrubs, dead trees, and downed logs for hiding cover.

Winter range is usually regarded as the measure of an elk herd (Murie, 1951: 292). Severe weather conditions on poor winter ranges result in the loss of mature bulls, pregnant cows, and yearlings due to starvation and malnutrition. In cervid females, a restricted diet during pregnancy can cause stillbirths, abortions or, more commonly, resorptions (Thorne et al., 1976: 333-335). But the problem is not restricted entirely to winter range; both transition and summer range are important to producing a healthy calf crop (Knight, 1970: 62). Robinette et al. (1955), speculate that summer range is of greater importance than the condition of winter range in determining the fertility of sexually mature females. Forage conditions during and shortly before ovulation determine ovulation rate in the female (Longhurst, 1951). Likewise, the nutrition plane prior to and during pregnancy affects both the growth, weight, and survival, of the calf after birth (Thorne et al., 1976: 333). Hence, the total range situation influences the productivity of an elk population.

In a steep and mountainous region such as the Clearwater Drainage, the distance between winter and summer range can be close, with the winter and transition range possibly occurring at the same or a similar elevation (Dalke et al., 1965; Knight, 1970). The use of winter range by elk appears to be heaviest on 0- to 10-degree slopes with either a southern, southwestern, or western exposure at elevations between 1,600 and 3,000 msl (Goodwin, 1975: 25; Leege and Hickey, 1977: 18; Mackie, 1970: 43). Maximal elevations in the Clearwater Drainage range between 5,000 and 7,500 feet msl.

Maximum-minimum counts of elk actually seen within or near the boundary of the Dworshak project are 579 and 40 for the winters of 1955-1956 and 1948-1949, respectively (Table 1). 134 elk were counted during the 1975-1976 winter. Portions of Smith Ridge are reported to be used far both calving and foraging purposes by female elk during the late spring and early summer months. Mature males appear to be seasonally scarce, with the exception of the breeding and wintering periods.

Table 1 The Number and Composition (Sex and Age) of Rocky Mountain Elk Observed Wintering Within Or Near the Boundary of the Dworshak Project U.S. Army Engineer District, Walla Walla
Winter	Elk Count	Composition Ratio			Percent		Information Source
Winter	Elk Count	Bulls	Cows	Calves	Cows	Calves	Information Source

1948-49	40						Exhibit 24*
1955-56	579						DACW68-71-C-0027**
1960-61	272						DACW68-71-C-0021**
1968-69	110						DACW68-71-C-0021**
1973-74	81	12	100	25	73	19	DACW68-74-C-0044**
1974-75	106	38	100	38	57	22	DACW68-75-C-0095**
1975-76	134	16	100	36	66	24	DACW68-76-C-0027**
1949 elk and deer census conducted by Forest Service and Idaho Fish and Game Department, filed as Exhibit 24 in permanent records maintained by Dworshak Project Coordinator, U.S. Army Engineer District, Walla Walla. *Contractual agreements between architect/engineer firms (state and Federal) and the U.S. Army Engineer District, Walla Walla.

B. MANAGEMENT. All Corps of Engineers' lands either immediately (project) or distantly (mitigation) adjacent to Dworshak Reservoir upstream of Grandad Creek Bridge and the two downstream units (Grandad Creek and Robinson Creek) located near the bridge shall be managed primarily to sustain a wintering habitat for a population of about 915 elk. The elk management area is divided into habitat units whereby each unit is identified by the local name of the principal drainage (see Plate 1). Each unit is further divided into sub-units and identified by an alphabetical progression of letters that represents the chronological sequence of development. Hence, each opening will be identified as a sub-unit by an alphabetical letter. Although habitat development is the most important facet being considered in this management scheme, additional items relating to the regulation of human disturbance, livestock grazing, and elk number will be addressed.

Elk habitat mitigation - management units

1. Human Disturbance. Most authorities agree that the presence of recreationists, either consumptive or non-consumptive, tends to shift the occupancy of elk from an open grassland situation to the more protected escape cover provided by timber (Knight, 1970: 14; Moran, 1973: 81-82). Continued harassment during periods of parturition and winter stress may either discourage elk use in a specific area or result in the unnecessary loss of animals on winter range. The following precautions should be taken to minimize the harassment of elk which occurs on the lands surrounding Dworshak Reservoir.

a. All trails and secondary roads above Grandad Creek Bridge will be closed to off-road vehicles, including snowmobiles.

b. Future recreation development beyond Grandad Creek Bridge will be primitive in nature and constructed in a manner compatible with the natural environment.

c. No roads will be constructed to provide access to the minicamps surrounding Dworshak Reservoir.

d. Only visitor travel by foot and horseback will be permitted on project and mitigation lands identified for elk management.

2. Livestock Grazing. A potential conflict exists at Dworshak between the feeding habits of elk, deer, and livestock (Constan, 1972; Stevens, 1966; Thienius and Hungerford, 1967). In order to minimize any conflict that could arise between the elk and livestock on transition (spring and fall) and winter range, the following management practices are recommended.

a. The grazing of domestic livestock on any Dworshak land identified for elk management will not be allowed except by permit.

b. Grazing will only be recognized as an interim management practice to be used in the maintenance of a grass-sedge-forb plant community being developed or maintained for elk utilization.

(1) No grazing will be permitted on any elk management unit until a removable type of cross fence is constructed around each unit, unless a natural barrier already exists that will restrict the movement of livestock to the prescribed area.

(2) Each unit will be managed as a separate paddock in a rotation grazing plan.

(3) Management recommendations will be based upon standard rangeland inventories expressed as animal unit months (aum's) following a semi-annual (spring and fall) determination to estimate the number of elk (elk number or elk-use days) seasonally (summer and winter) utilizing each unit.

(4) Until a comprehensive range inventory is completed, all grazing will be deferred on all winter and transition range. No grazing will be permitted on any management unit identified as a "calving area."

c. To preclude domestic livestock from entering the wildlife management areas, "lay-down" type fence will be constructed around the entire area.

3. Elk Regulation. A Memorandum of Understanding between the Corps of Engineers, the Idaho Department of Fish and game, and the Fish and Wildlife Service will be written that explains the responsibility and position of each agency toward the "management" of elk within the Clearwater Drainage, noted hereafter. The question of responsibility for future O&M costs has not been decided at this time and is still under discussion in Washington, D.C. Therefore, the positions of the two principal agencies are herein stated. Corps of Engineers: "If a Federal or State fish and game agency will not accept fish and wildlife features for management and the associated funding responsibility, the feature should remain under Corps of Engineers jurisdiction and be managed by the Corps of Engineers." U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: "As an integral part of the project, operation and maintenance costs for mitigation features become a Corps responsibility, as are other 'integral' features of the project."

a. Agreements. The context of the Memorandum should be:

(1) Corps of Engineers. The Corps of Engineers will meet its obligation to mitigate the loss of winter habitat previously used by Rocky Mountain Elk along the North and Little North Forks of the Clearwater River by completing the following tasks:

Write an initial wildlife habitat development plan in accordance with F&WL Coordination Act of 1958 that provides for the development and maintenance of a habitat (water, food, and cover) that will support a maximum of 915 wintering elk estimated as project mitigation (this plan).
Attempt to develop all the acreage indicated in the management plan as wintering habitat for elk by 30 September 1984.
Develop contingency plans from data furnished by Idaho Department of Fish and Game that will deal with either low elk use or severe winter starvation situation as the need arises.
Provide for the evaluation of the elk habitat before and after development under a contractual agreement separate from this management plan.
Provide for the Idaho Department of Fish and Game to complete an annual inventory and evaluation of the range used by both elk and livestock under a contractual agreement separate from this management plan.

(2) Idaho Department of Fish and Game. The Idaho Department of Fish and Game will meet its responsibility for attaining the objectives of maintaining specified elk population in the wildlife mitigation area of Dworshak project. This will be accomplished through complying with stated goals specified in the Idaho Game Department Policy Plan and the Department's Elk Species Management Plan, which includes the five game management units in which project wildlife find habitat throughout the year.

(3) Fish and Wildlife Service. The Fish and Wildlife Service will meet its responsibility to the mitigation action by performing the following tasks:

Make a determination for all parties, including the general public, that each of the specific items being addressed in the development of wildlife habitat is in full accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (Public Law 85-624).
Write a Project General Plan for Wildlife and subsequent comprehensive Wildlife Management Plan detailing responsibilities of the three involved agencies; Corps of Engineers, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

b. Contingencies. The following items relating to low elk number, winter starvation, and intraspecific competition will be negotiated and resolved between the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Corps of Engineers, and entered into the Memorandum of Understanding.

(1) Number. When elk are fewer in number than the mitigated figure, the Corps of Engineers will develop additional habitat in an attempt to increase elk use, if habitat is determined to be-the limiting factor by standard habitat evaluation procedures. The Idaho Department of Fish and game will regulate hunting pressure to allow elk numbers to attain levels compatible with both the desired mitigation level and the state species plan. If methodical research in the area indicates the mitigated maximum figure of 915 cannot be reached as needed by both migrant and non-migrant elk, a new mitigated value will be negotiated between the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, and the Corps of Engineers.

(2) Starvation. An emergency feeding plan will be developed and used by the agency responsible for elk management, as long as the number of elk wintering at Dworshak is maintained at or below the habitat carrying capacity. The plan will be implemented during harsh weather conditions that cause portions of the elk population wintering at Dworshak to become trapped or isolated from their food by either deepening, drifting, or freezing snow cover. When the Idaho Fish and Game Department, through investigation by field personnel, determines that a critical situation exists, the following policy will apply:

When feasible, animals will be directed, by baiting or other means, into adjacent areas where more natural food is available.
In areas where adjacent natural foods are not available and suitable conditions exist elsewhere, animals will be trapped and moved to more favorable locations.
In the event that the aforementioned operations cannot be conducted due to site locations and/or other methods have proven infeasible, the Department will provide artificial feed to wintering game animals only during those periods of critical stress.

The intention of this policy is to provide emergency feed for big game animals only during those periods of critical stress and not as a sustaining program which would carry larger game populations than the range can normally support.

(3) Competition. The presence of Rocky Mountain Elk, mule deer, and white-tailed deer on the project and mitigation lands confounds the primary objective of providing habitat for wintering elk. Potentially, a heavy winter kill of deer may occur if the deer substantially increase as the result of habitat development and are forced to compete with the elk for the available winter browse in a "worst-of-winters" situation. The Idaho Department of Fish and Game will manage each wildlife unit in conformance with its Plan for Wildlife Management (Vol. II).

4. Habitat Management. In order to provide the water, food, and cover requirements needed by wintering elk while meeting the seasonal needs of a relatively non-migratory population, the following components will be developed in the elk management area: water, forest openings, cover, and travel lanes.

a. Components. About 60 percent of the elk management area will be developed into openings, with 40 percent of the standing timber being retained as either thermal, hiding, or travel cover (see Thomas et al., 1976). Usable water will be made available through the development of springs and seeps. An adequate stand of timber, 300 to 600 feet wide, will be left at the lowest elevation bordering the reservoir to provide thermal cover for the elk in the "worst-of-winters" situation.

(1) Water. Regardless of the season, elk use is highest on range located near a Water source and decreases in use as the distance between the area and the water increases (Mackie, 1970:43-44). Water appears to be especially critical for the calving areas and summer range. The following water development practices are recommended to increase elk use and better distribute the animals over the management area (Thomas et al., 1976).

All openings and cover types developed as a complex in close association to one another will have usable water within 0.5 mile. Particular attention will be paid to the presence or development of a water source on transition range serving as a calving area.
All springs, seeps, and wet meadows will be developed in such a fashion as to allow easy access for drinking from either a pool or trough. In those areas lacking naturally occurring creeks, springs, or seeps, self-collecting water cisterns (guzzlers) will be installed to provide water between the months of June and November (U.S. Forest Service, 1969: 41.1-41.32).
All water development projects will be protected from all domestic livestock in such a manner as to prevent the trampling of surrounding cover and the contamination of water.

(2) Openings. Openings. Initially, enough timber will be removed by clear cutting to deforest about 60 percent of the total elk management area (Thomas et al., 1976). Although some authorities feel an ideal cutting program would be every three years so as to provide mixed age units for the elk, the Dworshak management area will be cut in its entirety in two to four years (Harper, 1971: 41). The openings will provide both forage (grasses, sedges, and forbs) and browse (ceanothus, Mountain maple, serviceberry, and willow) as food for the elk, all in accordance with Idaho Fish and Game Department Elk Species Management Plan.

(a) Location. Winter elk use is highest in clear cuttings located on south-facing slopes immediately adjacent to timber being used as thermal cover (Leege and Hickey, 1977:20, Mackie, 1970: 39-43; Moran, 1973:70). The use decreases as the distance from cover increases, becoming non-existent at a distance between 300 and 600 feet, depending upon the hiding cover, food availability, and topography of the sub-unit (Reynolds, 1962 and 1966). The use of a particular elevation, slope, and exposure by elk is influenced by the amount of snow that either covers their food or restricts their movement. The majority of the openings within the management area at Dworshak should be laid out in the following manner (Thomas et al., 1976).

Each cutting will be laid out as an irregularly shaped opening at an elevation between 1,900 and 3,000 feet msl.
The width of each cutting should be between 300 and 900 feet, but less than the total length of the opening.
The cuttings will be located primarily on either south-, southwest-, or west-facing exposures, roughly perpendicular to the predominant slope.

(b) Orientation. Although elk can reportedly "paw" through a loose snow pack to a depth of 24 inches, movement is severely restricted when the snow depth exceeds 67 percent (20 to 25 inches) of the chest height (Craighead et al., 1973: 28; Leege and Hickey, 1977:18). The problem is further compounded when a crust is formed or the underlying snow strata becomes frozen and the forage is no longer obtainable. Because the intent of the management plan is to maximize elk use, all openings should be developed in the following fashion.

Openings will be oriented into the prevailing wind as much as possible to allow the site to be "scoured" of freshly fallen snow.
All shrub development should be restricted to the outside perimeter of each opening in an attempt to minimize the entrapment of drifting snow to the interior of the cutting, while providing additional habitat for other desirable wildlife such as the ruffed grouse.
Where prevailing air currents cannot be manipulated by retaining selected strands of timber to prevent the "fall-out" of snow within the sub-unit, the entire opening should be developed as a brush field.

(c) Dead Tree Area. A stand of dead and dying timber will be retained within each sub-unit to provide hiding cover over a sustained period of time for elk, while increasing the habitat for other species of wildlife such as bluebirds, waxwings, flycatchers, and woodpeckers that need nesting sites, song posts, and foraging areas. The location for each dead tree area will be determined before cutting while the site intended for dead management exists as a stand of living trees. A selected number of the hardwood conifers with the largest diameters will be girdled and retained as dying snags. The other trees in designated dead tree areas that are either too small or softwood conifers will be cut and left in place to decay on the ground.

About 15 percent or more of each sub-unit will contain a selected number of standing snags that are either dead or dying.
The selected stand should be centered at a leeward position near the edge formed between the canopied forest and the shrub strip.
Softwood conifers such as Western Red Cedar, Spruce, Grand Fir, and White Pine will be felled, and the hardwood species such as Larch, Douglas fir, and Ponderosa pine with the largest diameter (DBH) will be left standing.

(3) Cover. Three types of cover (thermal, hiding, and travel) will be either retained or developed for elk use as a result of clear cutting operations (Thomas et al., 1976). Naturally occurring stands of timber identified as having potential as either thermal or hiding cover will be retained as contiguous blocks to each opening. Those timbered areas identified as thermal cover will be favored for retention over that of hiding cover because of the emphasis to develop a wintering habitat for elk. Because elk movement rapidly drops off at a distance of about 450 feet into a timbered stand, most of the cover developed as either thermal or hiding cover will be laid out as irregular openings in order to maximize elk use. The cover that is to be retained as travel lanes will be laid out as "fingers" that separate portions of the various sub-units within each unit and as "stringers" that interconnect the various units between drainages and elevations. Whenever the development of hiding or travel cover described in this plan is precluded by an insufficient amount or density of standing timber to conceal a hiding elk, the difference between the recommended and actual area will be made up by planting a shrub border.

(a) Thermal. The abundance of thermal cover (10 to 20 percent) in the form of coniferous trees located as contiguous blocks next to forage areas can be the limiting factor when such a habitat component is absent from winter range (Thomas et al., 1976). Cover that serves as thermal cover maintains the ambient temperature and moderates radiational heat loss while providing insulation against the-winds and temperatures that seasonally tend to raise or lower the normal body temperature of elk (Moen, 1973: 273-296; Verme, 1968: 571-573). Hence, the energy utilized by the elk to maintain homeostasis is conserved when adequate thermal cover is present. In the development of thermal cover, the following recommendations will be observed:

All stands of coniferous timber 40 feet or more in height, containing a crown exceeding 70 percent, will be retained as thermal cover.
Each timbered stand identified as thermal cover will have a diameter ranging between 300 and 600 feet and contain a surface area between 30 and 60 acres.
When cover is in short supply, any type of coniferous timber will be preserved as thermal cover when the existing stands within a single unit cannot meet the above thermal specifications.
Blocks of thermal cover deficient in a multiple-storied canopy that contains low-growing trees that would act as a windbreak will have a mixture of shrub species developed around them in order to minimize the "wind chill" resulting from the wind blowing through the stand during low temperature periods.
All timbered stands containing enough Western Red Cedar to be identified as the dominant site species and having the minimal specifications for thermal cover will be retained as elk habitat regardless of their saleability as merchantable timber.

(b) Hiding. Many authorities agree that hiding cover must be present to maximize elk use within an area, even in the absence of man and predators. In areas with heavy vehicular traffic (present or future), hiding cover will be specifically developed, if not specifically provided for in development of thermal or other cover, using the following guidelines.

Hiding cover should be capable of hiding 90 percent of an elk in either a horizontal or vertical plane at a distance of 200 feet.
Hiding cover will be developed by retaining standing timber as a "screen" or block ranging in width between 800 and 1,600 feet and containing a surface area between 11.5 and 46.0 acres.
Hiding cover developed with less than the minimum specifications provided above will include a shrub border consisting of a mixed composition so as to increase the capability of the screen to hide elk.

(c) Travel. Cover in the form of either continuous bands or interrupted patches of timber separated by a distance of 300 feet or less provides concealment for elk traveling between thermal or hiding cover and forage areas (Thomas et al., 1976). The following recommendations will be used in the development of travel lanes.

The optimum width of travel lanes is between 450 and 600 feet, depending upon the ability of the retained cover to conceal an elk at a distance of 200 feet. Traditional travel lanes will be protected during development by retaining the surrounding vegetation along both sides of the trail for a minimum distance of 150 feet.
Travel lanes will be used to interconnect all water developments and cover types that are not laid out as contiguous blocks or within 300 feet of one another.
Some travel lanes will be arranged as bands of cover that interconnect the different management units (drainages) by means of retaining timber along selected ridges and contours of elevation.
Other travel lanes will be arranged as "fingers" that separate the different sub-units within each management unit and as "stringers" that provide cover for elk movement along water courses and through mountain passes or saddles.

b. Development. Clearcutting will be the primary deforestation practice used in the development of habitat on the lands identified for elk management at the Dworshak project. Mechanical cutters and rollers will be used to rejuvenate the senescent brushfields already existing in parts of the elk management area. Other practices such as rough plowing and drill seeding may be used under the proper set of circumstances to develop contour strips of grasses and legumes. But some timbered areas will be maintained by retaining selected stands of timber having the characteristics already described for thermal, travel, and hiding cover. Table 2 presents the approximate acreage and percent of cover to forest openings existing within the elk management area. The magnitude of deforestation that is recommended for each unit is presented in Table 3.

Table 2 The Approximate Acreage and Percent of Cover and Forest Opening Currently Existing Within the Elk Management Area at Dworshak Dam and Reservoir U.S. Army Engineer District, Walla Walla
Management Unit	Total Acreage	Cover						Openings
		Reserve		Unit		Subtotal		Reserve		Unit		Subtotal
		Acres	Pct	Acres	Pct	Acres	Pct	Acres	Pct	Acres	Pct	Acres	Pct

Benton Creek	1,155	185	16	774	67	939	83	46	4	150	13	196	17
Boehls Butte	900	189	21	531	59	720	80	0	0	180	20	180	20
Grandad	1,050	105	10	745	71	850	81	158	15	42	4	200	19
Homestead	545	120	22	256	47	376	69	16	3	153	28	169	31
Hughes Point	500	NA		170	34	170*	34	NA		330	66	330	66
Long Bar Creek	650	91	14	175	27	266	41	72	11	312	48	384	59
Long Creek	975	88	9	819	84	907**	93	29	3	39	4	68	7
Robinson Creek	1,255	301	24	389	31	690	55	63	5	502	40	565	45
Rooney Creek	1,125	124	11	450	40	574	51	112	10	439	39	551	49
South Hughes Point	540	216	40	221	41	437	81	70	13	33	6	103	19
Whiskey Creek	1,105	110	10	597	54	707	64	33	3	365	33	398	36
Total	9,800	1,529	16	5,127	52	6,656	68	599	6	2,545	26	3,144	32
The only cover remaining in the unit is provided in four partial cuts totaling 170 acres. *A portion of the cover retained in the unit includes a single partial cut of 310 acres. NA = Not Appropriate

Table 3
The Approximate Acreage and Percent of Timber to be Retained as a Cover-Type
Or Deforested as an Opening
Within Each Elk Management Area at Dworshak Dam and Reservoir
U.S. Army Engineer District, Walla Walla

Management
Unit Total
Acreage Retained Timber Surplused Timber

Reserve Unit Subtotal Unit
Timber
(Acres) Unit Deforestation
Acres Pct Acres Pct Acres Pct Acres Pct

Benton Creek 1,155 185 16 335 29 520 45 774 436 56

Boehls Butte 900 189 21 216 24 405 45 531 313 59

Grandad 1,050 105 10 368 35 473 45 745 380 51

Homestead 545 120 22 125 23 245 45 256 133 52

Hughes Point 500 None 0 170* 34 170* 34 170* None 0

Long Bar Creek 650 91 14 176 27 267 41 175 None 0

Long Creek 975 88 9 351 36 439 45 819** 467 57

Robinson Creek 1,255 301 24 264 21 565 45 389 124 32

Rooney Creek 1,125 124 11 382 34 506 45 450 72 16

South Hughes Point 540 216 40 27 5 243 45 221 194 88

Whiskey Creek 1,105 110 10 387 35 497 45 597 209 35

Total 9,800 1,529 16 2,801 29 4,330 44 5,127 2,328 24

*The only cover remaining in the unit is provided in four partial cuts totaling 170 acres.
**A portion of the cover retained in the unit includes a single partial cut of 310 acres.
NA = Not Appropriate

Table 3 The Approximate Acreage and Percent of Timber to be Retained as a Cover-Type Or Deforested as an Opening Within Each Elk Management Area at Dworshak Dam and Reservoir U.S. Army Engineer District, Walla Walla
Management Unit	Total Acreage	Retained Timber	Surplused Timber
Reserve	Unit	Subtotal	Unit Timber (Acres)	Unit Deforestation
Acres	Pct	Acres	Pct	Acres	Pct	Acres	Pct

Benton Creek	1,155	185	16	335	29	520	45	774	436	56
Boehls Butte	900	189	21	216	24	405	45	531	313	59
Grandad	1,050	105	10	368	35	473	45	745	380	51
Homestead	545	120	22	125	23	245	45	256	133	52
Hughes Point	500	None	0	170*	34	170*	34	170*	None	0
Long Bar Creek	650	91	14	176	27	267	41	175	None	0
Long Creek	975	88	9	351	36	439	45	819**	467	57
Robinson Creek	1,255	301	24	264	21	565	45	389	124	32
Rooney Creek	1,125	124	11	382	34	506	45	450	72	16
South Hughes Point	540	216	40	27	5	243	45	221	194	88
Whiskey Creek	1,105	110	10	387	35	497	45	597	209	35
Total	9,800	1,529	16	2,801	29	4,330	44	5,127	2,328	24
The only cover remaining in the unit is provided in four partial cuts totaling 170 acres. *A portion of the cover retained in the unit includes a single partial cut of 310 acres. NA = Not Appropriate

(1) Public Relations. A number of signs should be constructed and installed at various locations throughout the elk management area to explain both the management objective for the area and the purpose of the different management practices being used in the development of elk habitat

(a) Interpretive Signs. Situations where signs should be installed include any area where the altered forest is visible from either the reservoir or pullouts located along the road leading to the Grandad Creek Bridge. A small interpretive station should be constructed at both the Grandad Bridge recreation area and Grandad Bridge. Each station should consist of a pictorial layout of the management units and present the management objectives, a description of the various management practices being used, and a list of the cooperative agencies involved in the development and management of the area.

(b) Regulatory Signs. Other signs explaining road and trail closures to off-road vehicles, including snowmobiles, should be placed near the entranceways to all major logging roads and trails entering the elk management area. All signs restricting vehicular traffic should be developed under authority of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game. The language used in development of signs should be reviewed by the Walla Walla District prior to installation.

(2) Field Layout. The elk management area will consist of 11 units (drainages) (see Plates 1-12), with each unit being developed in a mosaic pattern of rectangular-shaped openings (60 percent) and irregular-shaped cover types (30 percent), all interconnected by numerous travel lanes (10 percent). Each management unit will have enough water development to provide usable water for the elk within one-half mile of each sub-unit (opening) from June through October.

(a) Timber Survey. A survey will be made of each unit to determine the specific forest type that is to be retained as cover. The order of priority for retaining timber as cover will be (1) thermal (20 percent), (2) travel (10 percent), and (3) hiding (10 percent). All established travel routes, water sources, and the location for each dead tree area within the sub-units will be identified and incorporated into the final field layout before cutting. Dead tree locations will be selected from existing stands of living trees. In general, clearcutting will not be allowed on any area known or suspected to conceal a soil slippage problem, geologic fault, or rare and endangered species of plant or animal. Clearcutting will not be permitted on any soils of a shallow depth containing freshly weathered outcroppings of rock or low density stands of plants such as Douglas Fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), ninebark (Physocarpus capitatus), and oceanspray (Holodiscus discolor).

(b) Soils Survey. A single set of soil samples will be collected from each sub-unit, road system, and log landing, and analyzed by a soils testing laboratory in order to make recommendations on the treatments (fertilizer and lime type, rate, and frequency) applies within each unit to meet the requirements of the plants selected for use in this management plan. The minimal chemical determinations should include pH, nitrogen, phosphorus, potash, and lime requirements. An additional determination should be made on the abundance of ceanothus seed within each sub-unit prior to "slash disposal."

(c) Snow Accumulation. The decision to develop a specific sub-unit to either a grass or shrub community may be determined late within the created by the amount of snow that could potentially accumulate within the created opening. A collection of aerial photographs taken in the snowfall period will be used to determine the relative depth between sub-units. Grass and forb meadows may be planted on all shallow snow depth areas, including roads and log landings, with the brushfields being developed on only deep snow sites. Final decision as to grass or forb planting is dependent upon evaluation results.

(3) Deforestation. Timber within each sub-unit (opening or clearcut) will be removed under a contractual agreement between that Corps of Engineers and a private or public organization. The openings will be developed in two separate operations: (a) cutting the merchantable timber, and (b) "hand slashing" all the remaining non-merchantable vegetation.

(a) Merchantable Timber. Merchantable timber, excluding the trees in the dead tree management area, will be cut and then removed by "skidding" the sawed logs with either a crawler tractor or a high lead following the forestry management practices outlined in the Forest Practices Act of the State of Idaho. In addition, the following procedures and precautions will be observed in the removal of merchantable trees from the elk management area.

Crawler tractors will be prohibited on any slope averaging more than 40 percent where a 45-degree slope equals 100 percent.
The skidding of logs and the pushing of debris across, down, or into any stream will be prohibited.
All logging roads and trails will be laid out and constructed to have the least impact on either wintering or calving areas.
Any embankment two feet or more in height created during the construction of logging roads and trails will have an elk passageway cut through the bank at one-fourth-mile intervals.
All roads and trails developed and used during the logging operation will be closed to visitor use after completion of initial development.
Upon termination of the logging operation, all drains and culverts will be removed and the roads will be seeded to a mixture of grasses and legumes.
A strip of vegetation, no narrower than 150 feet in width, will be retained along both sides of all waterways in order to provide travel lanes for the elk and to prevent erosion on the adjacent slopes.
Another strip of timber, 300 to 600 feet wide, will be retained at the lowest elevation within each unit that borders the reservoir to serve as thermal cover in a "worst-of-winters" situation.

(b) Non-Merchantable Timber. Any vegetation remaining after the harvest of merchantable timber will be felled by a "handslashing" operation and left in place for disposal, in accordance with management priorities. The exception to the total removal of all standing vegetation is the preservation of a small area to the interior of the fire lane for the-management of dead trees.

All hardwood conifers such as larch (Larix spp.), Douglas Fir, and Ponderosa Pine (pinus ponderosa) will be left standing at a centralized location on no less than 15 percent of the total area within each unit.
All the living hardwood conifers within the designated dead tree area will be girdled to assure death and eventual windfall.
All softwood conifers such as Western Red Cedar (Thuja plicata), Spruce (Picea spp.), Grand Fir (Abies grandis), and White Pine (Pinus monticola) will be felled and left on the ground to become a permanent part of the natural surroundings.
Whenever the hardwood conifers are low in number, a large portion of the softwood conifers will be retained as girdled trees, with the remainder being felled.

(4) Disposal. Slash and debris deposited in each sub-unit during deforestation will be removed by either fire or hand under the auspices of the U. S. Army, Corps of Engineers, or the Clearwater Potlatch Timber Protection Association. However, a consideration and an exception will be made in preparing the sub-units for slash disposal. No slash or debris will be piled along or supported against the forest edge located outside the fire lane, because barriers two feet or more in height can restrict elk movement (Thomas et al., 1976). No fallen tree within the "dead tree management area" of a sub-unit will be removed or piled for burning. The debris deposited on the forest floor in designated dead tree areas will be disposed of by means of a broadcast burn whenever fire conditions permit. The selection of a disposal method will be based upon both seasonal fire hazards and the management priority to create a plant community composed of either one or many different plant species.

(a) Fire. Burning will be used as a tool for the disposal of all slash, debris, and ground litter during the spring, fall, and winter months whenever the situation (fire hazards, weather, and topography) and environmental regulations permit. All burning, however, will be conducted under the direct supervision of a representative from the Walla Walla District.

Broadcast burning should be used during low fire danger periods to dispose of ground litter and to establish monotypic stands of Red Stem Ceanothus (ceanothus sanguineus). In order to develop a brushfield dominated by ceanothus, a fall burning is recommended whenever seeds are abundant enough in number to warrant the method. All dead tree management areas will be burned using only this method.
Windrow burning should be used during moderately dangerous periods to dispose of slash stacked in rows toward the interior of the sub-unit. This method-will be used to develop a mixed shrub community, with the location for the, Red Stem Ceanothus stand being preselected based upon the presence of seed. The use of this method will be considered whenever a shrub border is being developed adjacent to either thermal, travel, or hiding cover.
Pile burning should be used to burn handstacked piles of brush in either steep terrain or during extreme fire periods, or to develop a stand of Red Stem Ceanothus at a specific location within a mixed shrub community being established beside a block of cover.

(b) Physical. Prior to burning, all slash and debris pushed against the forest edge during deforestation or fire line development will be removed by hand. Also, all slash and debris will be physically removed under the worst of fire hazards or extremes of terrain and transported to a designated area for disposal by any means approved by the Corps of Engineers.

(5) Propagation. Final recommendations by the Corps of Engineers on the selection of plant species and the methods used in site preparation will be based upon an interpretation of aerial photographs and data furnished through field reconnaissance that identifies the cover types, soil characteristics, seed abundance, and relative snow depths present within each management unit.

(a) Species Selection. Each sub-unit (opening) will contain shrubs, grasses, and forbs. But in most sub-units, only 40 percent of the area will be developed as a shrub community. Twenty-five percent of the shrubs will be established in the form of a border around the outside edge of each opening and 15 percent within the dead tree area. Sod-forming grasses will be selected over bunchgrasses in the revegetation of all subunits in an attempt to maximize forage production while retarding forest encroachment.

A list of recommended grass and forb species to be used on the Dworshak Elk Management is presented in Table 4.
The important species of shrubs that will be managed in the elk area are: Chittim (Rhamnus purshiana), Mountain Maple (Acer glabrum), Red Stem Ceanothus, Serviceberry (Amelanchier alnifolia), and Willow (Salix spp.).

Table 4 A List of Potential Grasses and Legumes to be Propagated In Abandoned Road Systems, Log Landings, And Sub-Units Being Developed as Meadows
Scientific Name	Common Name

Agropyron cristatum	"Fairway" Crested Wheatgrass
A. desertorum	"Nordan" Crested Wheatgrass
A. intermedium	Intermediate Wheatgrass
A. trichophorum	"Luna" Pubescent Wheatgrass
Arrhenatherum elatius	Tall Oatgrass
Bromis inermis	"Manchar" Smooth Brome
Dactylis glomerata	"Latar" Orchardgrass
Festuca idahoensis	Idaho Fescue
F. ovina var. duriuscula	Hard Fescue
Poa spp.	Bulbous, Canby, or Sherman Bluegrasses
Trifolium pratense	Red Clover
T. repens	"New Zealand" White Clover
Vicia tennifolia	Bramble Vetch

(b) Site Preparation. Following deforestation, timber removal, and slash disposal, a mixture of grasses and forbs will be seeded into all units, road shoulders, log landings, and dry but disturbed sites so as to provide elk forage, minimize erosion, and retard plant succession. Based upon the results furnished in the soils analysis, either lime or fertilizer will be broadcast over each sub-unit at the time of planting or at a later date if needed, following recommendations made by the Soil Conservation Service. In addition, the following recommendations should be considered in the development of the management area.

The highly disturbed condition created by a crawler tractor removing fallen timber is desirable in preparing a "rough" seedbed for broadcast seeding and stimulating native plant production and should be used in the "yarding" of logs whenever desirable as a management technique.
Established log landings, skid trails, and logging-roads with a compacted surface soil should be broken up by plowing or disking, harrowed, and drilled with a suitable seed mixture of grasses and inoculated legumes following cessation of the logging operation. If any road system or log landing contains enough litter to support a fire, the area should first be "hand stacked," windows burned, and then broadcast or drill seeded.
Dry sites (including ridge tops and rocky outcrops) incapable of producing merchantable timber or serving as either thermal, travel, or hiding cover but located on the correct slope and containing a sufficient acreage to fit management needs should be broadcast burned and seeded to grasses and legumes.
Most sub-units containing the seed of Red Stem Ceanothus will be encouraged to germinate in the shrub border by burning windrows of slash beside the timber stands being retained as either thermal, travel, or hiding cover.
The remaining sub-units with depths of snow exceeding 20 inches along the central axis of the rectangular opening will be broadcast burned and planted with either willow cuttings in the moist sites or Mountain Maple, Red Stem Ceanothus, and Serviceberry seed on the drier sites. Ceanothus will not be planted when a sub-unit has an abundance or absence of seed. The absence of any seed within a subunit will be regarded as an indication that the area is poorly suited for the production of ceanothus.

(c) Contractual Support. Any propagation method identified by the Walla Walla District that requires fertilizer, root stock, or seed should be obtained under a separate contract and supplied to the development firm as a Government-furnished service or material. The following materials and services will be required to develop each management unit.

The seed of all the grasses, forbs, and shrubs (Mountain Maple, Red Stem Ceanothus, and Serviceberry) that will be sown following slash disposal or during the winter in each sub-unit needs to be located and purchased.
A source for any root stock of the shrubs (Mountain Maple, Red Stem Ceanothus, Serviceberry, and Willow) that will be transplanted during the early spring or late fall into each sub-unit needs to be identified.
The "cuttings" of any willow that will be propagated during the "wet months" in each sub-unit should be cut in the spring or fall and temporarily stored in water or moist sand for planting in the same season.
The fertilizer and lime that will be applied as a single or multiple treatment to each sub-unit at the time of planting or at a later date (spring and/or fall) recommended by either the Soil Conservation Service or the Extension Service should be obtained and stored for eventual use.
A three- to four-year contract should be awarded in the fall of 1977 to a firm specializing in aerial applications of seed (winter) and fertilizer (spring and/or fall).

(6) Administration. In order for the Walla Walla District to complete the development of winter habitat for Rocky Mountain Elk at Dworshak Dam and Reservoir, many tasks need to be performed in accordance with the specifications presented in the management plan.

(a) Unit Tasks. Six tasks that must be performed on each of the 11 elk management units are presented below.

Survey timber for available cover types.
Cruise timber for merchantable stands.
Appraise timber for market value.
Develop a logging plan that includes the layout of all access roads.
Conduct and administer timber sale.
Conduct routine inspection of timber harvest.

(b) Sub-Unit Tasks. In addition, the following six tasks must be performed on each of the multiple sub-units (openings) developed within the 11 management units composing the elk management area.

Coordinate and administer the five contractual agreements proposed under "Contractual Support."
Collect soil sample and analyze for soil fertility under contractual agreement and interpret results in light of the shrubs, grasses, and legumes being recommended for planting.
Determine snow depth, precipitation, wind pattern, aspect and slope relative to logging practices, and the selection of the proper plant species and propagules to be used on the site.
Administer and supervise the individual logging, brush removal, slash disposal, burning, and water development contracts awarded to develop each sub-unit.
Administer and supervise the planting of all shrubs, grasses, and legumes under contractual agreement with either a public or private agency.
Periodically, reevaluate progress, including logging, burning, seeding, transplanting, and fertilizing programs relative to the goals presented in the elk management plan.

(c) Procurement Tasks. Procurement functions influencing the rate of development on the elk management area include:

Writing, drafting, and specifying the service or materials required for each management unit.
Issuing the solicitation and waiting an appropriate amount of time for response.
Receiving, opening, recording, and evaluating all offers responding to-the solicitation.
Awarding contracts for each management unit by specific service or material.
Managing the various contracts awarded to develop the elk management area.

(d) Resource Limitations. Extraneous factors that will influence the rate of development of the elk management area include:

The rate at which timber can be harvested, removed, stored, or sold.
The number of mills, equipment, and personnel that can be employed in the timber removal program.
The number of sub-units that can be burned in one season to dispose of slash based upon available manpower and firefighting equipment.

(e) Elk Management Headquarters. Included in the project wildlife mitigation requirements is a headquarters building for use in year-round elk management. Present management plan of Idaho Fish and Game Department is for 6-8 personnel working out of the building in summer and two biologists part-time in the winter. This headquarters will be provided by two surplus trailers (10'x6O') from Portland District with an additional roof for snow loads ( Plate 13). The area will be near the Grandad Creek boat launching ramp for access to roads and water. There is a spring for water supply less than one-half mile away and sewage can be handled by a clivus multrim with gray water processed through a sand filter. A small reservoir will be developed near the spring with overflow pipe and water supply pipe to the building. Cooking and heating will be primarily with wood fuel which may be supplemented by butane and solar energy. The State has indicated that they will supply a small portable generator if electrical energy is required.

c. Maintenance. It is now assumed by the Corps that the elk management area will be maintained by the Fish and Wildlife Service following completion of development in 1984 (see paragraph B.3). All habitat components (water, forage, browse, and cover) developed on the area will be maintained using the procedures and practices described in this management plan.

(1) Annual Report. The agency responsible for the maintenance of the elk management area shall submit to the O&M funding agency by 1 April each year two copies of an annual report that describes in detail the management activities conducted on the area. Each of the three sections, indicated below for enclosure in the report, should contain a tabular presentation of facts, an interpretation of the information, identification of problems, and recommendations for resolving those problems.

(a) Elk Data. All biological information collected on the elk population inhabiting the Upper Clearwater Drainage should be presented in this report. Information that is anticipated in such a report includes the following items:

Elk number and density.
Sex and age composition.
Pellet group counts.
Elk and deer harvest figures.

The above data should be presented by management unit. Following the annual recommendation made by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game and the setting of the hunting season and harvest by the State, two copies of a short letter report should be sent to the Walla Walla District that explains the number of animals by species that are expected to be harvested at Dworshak Dam and Reservoir.

(b) Past Activities. All management activities and practices completed over the past year should be presented in each report in sufficient detail to maintain an accurate record of the elk management program at Dworshak Dam and Reservoir. Each item addressed should be broken down by management unit, effort (man and equipment hours), personnel (name, title, and salary or wage schedule) materials (amount), and cost. Items that should be considered for presentation include the following:

Fencing and fence maintenance.
Burning.
Cutting (trees and brush).
Planting (seeding and transplanting).
Fertilizing (including soil analysis).
Spraying (insecticides and herbicides).
Water development and maintenance.

A base map that presents both past and present activities and improvements on each of the 11 elk management units should be inclosed in each annual report.

(c) Proposed Activities. For budgeting purposes, anticipated work shall be programmed two years in advance. All work should be laid out in a format similar to the procedure recommended under "Past Activities." Upon approval, these costs will be included in the project budget.

(2) Modifications. Any additions or changes to the management plan or the annual report will be resolved between representatives of the Fish and Wildlife Service, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, and the Walla Walla District, and entered into the plan as a written amendment or modification. Plant and cover types that shall be inviolable to change or manipulation include the following:

(a) Thermal Cover. All cover retained to protect elk during extremes of temperature and wind shall not be changed and will be maintained in accordance with the specifications presented in this plan.

(b) Travel Lanes. All cover either retained or developed to provide travel routes for elk movement between habitat components (water, food, and cover) and drainages shall not be altered and will be maintained in accordance with the specifications presented in this plan.

(c) Shrub Borders. All shrub borders developed to increase the isolating and concealing capabilities of either thermal, travel, or hiding cover shall not be cut, burned, or sprayed, nor altered in any other manner.

(d) Dead Tree Areas. All dead tree management areas being retained within each unit will be only manipulated using either a broadcast burning, "hand slashing," or herbicide program that only affects the shrub community. No fallen timber or slash will be removed from the area or piled prior to burning.

(3) Practices. All water (pools, troughs, and guzzlers) and cover (thermal, travel, and hiding) developments will be maintained in a condition that maximizes elk use. The production of forage and browse on appropriate sub-units (openings) will be manipulated by implementing fertilizing, brush cutting, burning, and "spraying" programs. Any sub-unit developed as a meadow but observed consistently covered with snow exceeding 20 inches in depth along the longest axis of the opening will be replanted in either the spring or fall with shrubs, following a broadcast burn. All replanting operations will be approved and supervised by a Corps of Engineers' representative.

(a) Fertilizer. Artificially created or naturally occurring openings (sub-units) dominated by grasses and forbs will be treated annually with either single or multiple aerial applications of fertilizer or lime as required and/or identified by routine analysis for soil fertility. Recommendations as to the compound, rate, frequency, and season(s) of application will be based upon the interpretation of a forest agronomist reviewing the chemical analysis of soils. Samples should be collected from each management unit once every two years by the Governmental agency responsible for the management of the area.

(b) Brush Cutters. Any hand (slashing, thinning, or girdling) or mechanical (choppers, mowers, cables, or chains) method approved by the Corps of Engineers may be used to reduce plant height in brush fields exceeding an average stand height of eight feet. All cutting operations will be conducted in full accordance with the safety regulations prescribed by the Corps of Engineers.

(c) Fire. Broadcast or windrow burning will be used to maintain winter browse and forage for elk on any sub-unit dominated with either Red Stem Ceanothus exceeding eight feet in height or a senescent stand of grasses and forbs. Any sub-unit incapable of reproducing an adequate meadow type after burning will be reseeded with a mixture of grasses and inoculated legumes. All sub-units with brushfields consisting of a mixed shrub composition should be rejuvenated, using either an herbicide or cutting program. All burning will be conducted under the auspices of the Corps of Engineers or the Clearwater Potlatch Timber Protection Association. Aerial ignition techniques tan be used upon approval of the Corps of Engineers (Leege and Fultz, 1972).

(d) Herbicides. Like girdling, herbicides should be selectively used to obtain a "top kill" of stems and shoots while allowing a regrowth of sprouts from the root crown. Several species, such as Wild Cherry (Prunus spp.), Mountain Maple, Serviceberry, and Willow, occurring in the dead tree management areas and mixed brush fields, should be treated in this fashion. Herbicides that produce a total kill should be reserved for a select number of species, such as ninebark (Physocarpus capitatus and P. malvaceus). A partial list of herbicides used in the control of brush in Idaho is presented by Lyon and Mueggler (1968). All herbicide applications will be made with only a hand-operated applicator attached to a backpack or a hand-held canister. Prior to application, all herbicides identified by trade name and active ingredient will be approved by the Corps of Engineers. All spraying will, be conducted in full accordance with the safety precautions and environmental regulations prescribed by both State and Federal Governments and adhered to by the Corps of Engineers.

C. Habitat Lands Status. (See plate 1). In August 1972, the Fish and Wildlife Service, after 12 years of negotiations, defined project wildlife mitigation as 5,120 acres of "hard-core" land, plus 3,217 acres (recomputed by the Corps as 3,993 acres) of project land in the same vicinity, plus 4,680 acres of Smith Ridge, all to support 915 elk through severe winters.

1. The "hard core" lands (so named by the Fish and Wildlife Service as core lands to be owned in fee from which to base all project mitigation activities) include 5,120 acres surrounding the confluence of the Little North Fork with the North Fork of the Clearwater River. Acquisition started on this land and 1,113 acres of private land were purchased, but fee purchase of the final one-owner block of 4,007 acres raised objections from local governments as a loss to their tax base. The problem was overcome by Congressional direction to effect a land exchange between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and private owner, with the Corps of Engineers to file withdrawal on the lands when they became public lands. The exchange was started on 17 June 1971, with the Corps reimbursing BLM for appraisal and administrative costs ($143,711 to date). A BLM final field report, required under Organic Act (PL 94-579) was submitted to their state office on 7 October 1977. Therefore, we expect the withdrawal to be complete in four to six months. Under the Corps-BLM exchange agreement, the Corps has right-of-entry, with BLM approval, on the land for construction purposes after appraisals are complete. Therefore, in order not to delay initial development mitigation work of logging clearcut areas, a supplemental agreement with BLM was made for their preparation and administration of timber sales. The District recently suggested to BLM that since the lands were being acquired for fish and wildlife purposes, it appeared logical the timber sales receipts from such lands should be utilized for fish and wildlife. BLM noted that they believed receipts from public lands are by law required to be placed in the "reclamation fund." In this case, we will now await withdrawal of the lands to the project before initiating any more timber sales, as the sale receipts would tend to offset the initial development costs.

2. The 3,993 acres of project land located in the mitigation lands area have all been acquired. These lands will be developed for wildlife at the same time as the abutting wildlife mitigation land.

3. The 4,680 acres of Smith Ridge managed by the Idaho State Land Board were designated prime wildlife mitigation land in 1972 by the Fish and Wildlife Service. A Walla Walla District report on the necessity and justification for this land was submitted on 23 March 1973 and approved by OCE on 15 May 1974. Due to pre-report negotiations, the recommended and approved method of acquisition was to be by land exchange between BLM and the Idaho State Land Board. Since that time, the State has indicated the only acceptable exchange would be for a block of land of equal value to Smith Ridge. BLM has noted that no blocks of public land remain in the State suitable for exchange. Subsequent negotiations culminate in an interagency meeting near Smith Ridge on 17 June 1977, at which the State indicated that the U. S. Forest Service appeared to have several large blocks of land outside the National Forest boundary that might be acceptable to exchange for Smith Ridge. At that meeting it was decided that the State would identify four to five possible USFS blocks of lands for exchange for Smith Ridge and, if acceptable to both parties, an exchange would be initiated. After completion of that exchange, the USFS would then include the Smith Ridge land in a pending USFS-Corps land interchange. At this time, the State has identified a block of USFS land acceptable for exchange, although the land is located within the proclaimed boundary of the St. Joe National Forest, which would require Congressional action for the USFS to exchange.

D. Construction Schedule and Funds. The first step for development of wildlife habitat is timber sales for necessary clear-cut areas. This is also the major constraint to speedily developing elk browse due to the time involved, as timber sales will average 10-15 MMBF and normally a 36-month contract is required. Therefore, timber sales and other browse work have been scheduled for FY 1978 through FY 1984. Construction appropriation funds will be required for FY 1978 through FY 1980 and O&M funds for FY 1981 through FY 1984. The cost estimate notes $302,000 per year required expenditure which can vary up to 100 percent due to the number of contracts in force in any fiscal year, although the total ($2,116,000) is assumed to be correct. Due to logging of the clear-cut areas, certain receipts are expected from the timber sales as follows:

Total	$4,186,000
Hughes Point	$436,000 (actual)
Long Creek	--
Robinson Creek	440,000
South Hughes Point	200,000
Grandad Creek	600,000
Benton Creek	600,000
Boehls Butte	700,000
Homestead	500,000
Long Bar	100,000
Rooney Creek	300,000
Whiskey Creek	300,000

Although these receipts will lag the browse development work, it is believed that the entire program will pay for itself.

E. Recommendation. It is recommended that all initial development work described in this plan at an estimated annual construction cost of $302,000 be approved for implementation as noted herein. It is also recognized that implementation work will necessarily follow land acquisition.

Table 5 - Cost Estimate October 1977
	FY	Required¹ Construction Funds	Required² O&M Funds	Total All Funds

Timber Sale (inc. cruise app., sale, insp.)	$57,140	$171,430	$228,570	$400,000
Soils Analysis	2,360	7,080	9,440	16,520
Plants-Stock-Bare Root	10,000	30,000	40,000	70,000
Stock Seed	19,600	58,800	78,400	137,200
Plant-Bare Root	19,001	57,004	76,005	133,009
Aerial Seeding	525	1,575	2,100	3,675
Burn, Erosion Control, Slash	27,857	83,571	114,428	194,999
Secondary Snagging and Slash Work	54,875	164,625	219,500	384,125
Fertilization	13,160	39,480	52,640	92,120
Refertilization	13,160	39,480	52,640	92,120
Erosion Control, Final	1,804	5,411	7,215	12,626
Evaluation³	50,000	150,000	200,000	350,000
Contingency @ 15%	39,435	118,295	157,730	276,025
Totals	$302,337^5,6	$907,011⁷	$1,209,348	$2,116,359⁴
E&D	$30,234	$90,701	$120,935	$211,636
S&A	$30,234	$90,701	$120,935	$211,636
¹Construction funds, FY 78 thru FY 80. ²O&M funds, FY 81 thru FY 84. ³Start 1st year of development, may continue 3-5 years after development, estimate based on existing contracts with Idaho Fish and Game Department. ⁴As noted in paragraph D, the Government will receive an unknown amount of timber receipts from logging activities to provide elk habitat. These receipts should be at least equal to the estimated costs. ⁵In addition to this FY cost, the management headquarters installation (plate 13) will be a one-time cost of $50,000. ⁶If emergency feeding of animals becomes necessary during the initial habitat development period, unexpended funds noted above will be so utilized. ⁷In addition to cost estimate there will be a one-time cost of $275,000 for fencing, estimated to be in FY 79.
Rev. 18 Nov 77 Rev. 6 Apr 78

Literature Cited

Altman, M., 1952.

Social behavior of elk (Cervus canadensis nelsoni) in the Jackson Hole area of Wyoming. Behavior 4(2):116-143

Burt, W.H., 1943.

Territoriality and home range concepts as applied to mammals. J. Mamml. 24(3):346-352.

Constan, K.J., 1972.

Winter foods and range use of three species of ungulates. J. Wildl. Manage. 36(4):1068-1076.

Craighead, John J., Gerry Atwell, and Bart W. O'Gara, 1972.

Elk migration in and near Yellowstone National Park. Wildlife Monograph No. 29. 48 pp.

Dalke, Paule D., R.D. Beeman, F.J. Kindel, R.J. Robel, T.R. Williams, 1965.

Home ranges and activity patterns of nonmigratory elk of the Madison Drainage Herd as determined by biotelemtry. Wildlife Monograph No. 33. 50 pp.

Dalke, P.D., R.D. Beeman, F.J. Kindel, R.J. Robel, and T.R. Williams, 1965.

Use of salt by elk in Idaho. J. Wildl. Manage. 29(2):319-332.

Davis, J.L., 1970.

Elk use of spring and calving range during and after logging. M.S. Thesis, University of Moscow. 51 pp.

Goodwin, J.G., Jr., 1975.

Big game movement near a 500-kV transmission line in northern Idaho. Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon. 52. pp.

Harper, J.A., 1971.

Ecology of Roosevelt elk. Oregon State Game Commission, Portland, Oregon. 44 pp.

Knight, Richard R., 1970.

The Sun River elk herd. Wildlife Monograph No. 23, 66 pp.

Leege, T.A. and M.C. Fultz, 1972.

Aerial ignition of Idaho elk ranges. J. Wildl. Manage. 36(4):1332-1336.

Leege, T.A., and W.O. Hickey, 1977.

Elk-snow relationships in the Pete King drainage, Idaho. Wildlife Bulletin No. 6. Idaho Fish and Game Department, Boise, Idaho. 33 pp.

Leopold, Aldo, 1933.

Game management. Charles Scribner's Sons, New York. 481 pp.

Longhurst, W.M., 1951.

Range conditions as an influence on big game productivity. Proc. 31st Ann. Conf. West Assoc. State Game Fish Comm., pp. 190-194.

Lyon, L.J., and W.F. Mueggler, 1968.

Herbicide treatment of north Idaho browse evaluated six years later. J. Wildl. Manage. 32(3):538-541.

Mace, R.U., 1971.

Oregon's elk. Oregon State Game Commission. Wildl. Bull. 4. 29 pp.

Mackie, Richard J., 1970.

Range ecology and relations of mule deer, elk, and cattle in the Missouri River breaks, Montana. Wildlife Monograph No. 20. 79 pp.

Martinka, C.J., 1969.

Population ecology of summer resident elk in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. J. Wildl. Manage. 33(3): 465-481.

McCulloch, C.Y., Jr., 1955.

Utilization of winter browse on wilderness big game range. J. Wildl. Manage. 19(2):206-215.

Moen, A.N., 1975.

Wildlife ecology. W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco. 458 pp.

Moran, R.J., 1973.

The Rocky Mountain Elk in Michigan. Research and development report No. 267, Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Lansing, Michigan. 93 pp.

Murie, O.J., 1951.

The elk of North America. The Stackpole Company, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania and Wildl. Manage. Inst., Washington, D.C. 376 pp.

Peek, J.W., and A.L. Lovaas, 1968.

Differential distribution of elk by sex and age on the Gallatin Winter Range, Montana. J. Wildl. Manage. 32(3):553-557.

Reynolds, H.G., 1962.

Use of natural openings in a Ponderosa pine forest of Arizona deer, elk, and cattle. U.S. Dep. Agric. For. Serv. Res. Note RM-78, 4 p. Rocky Mt. For. and Range Exp. Stn., Fort Collins, Colo.

Reynolds, H.G., 1966.

Use of openings in spruce-fir forests of Arizona by elk, deer and cattle. U.S. Dep. Agric. For. Serv. Res. Note RM-78, 4 p. Rocky Mt. For. and Range Exp. Stn., Fort Collins, Colo.

Roberts, H.B., 1974.

Effects of logging on elk calving habitat, Moyer Creek, Salmon National Forest, Idaho. U.S. Department Agricul. For. Service, Salmon Nat. Forest. 22 pp.

Robinette, W.L., J.S. Gashweiler, D.A. Jones, and H.S. Crane, 1955.

Fertility of mule deer in Utah. J. Wildl. Manage. 19(1):115-135.

Rust, H.G., 1946.

Mammals of northern Idaho. J. Mammal. 27(4):308-327.

Stevens, D.R., 1966.

Range relationships of elk and livestock, Crow Creek Drainage, Montana. J. Wildl. Manage. 30(2):349-946.

Struhsaker, T.T., 1967.

Behavior of the Cervus canadensis during the rut. Z. Tierpsychol. 24(1):80-114.

Thilenius, J.G., and K.E. Hungerford, 1967.

Browse use by cattle and deer in northern Idaho. J. Wildl. Manage. 31(1):141-145.

Thomas, J.W., H. Black, R.J. Scherzinger, and R.J. Pederson, 1976.

Relationships of Rocky Mountain Mule Deer and Rocky Mountain Elk habitat to timber management in the Blue Mountains. In: Forest-Wildlife Relationships in the Blue Mountains of Washington and Oregon (Draft Copy). U.S. Forest Service (Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station and Region 6), Bureau of Land Management, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Wildlife Management Institute.

Thorne, E.T., R.E. Dean, and W.G. Hepworth, 1976.

U.S. Army Engineer District, Walla Walla, 1975.

Dworshak Final Environmental Impact Statement.

U.S. Forest Service, 1969.

Wildlife Habitat Improvement Handbook. U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Verme, Louis J., 1968.

An index of winter weather severity for northern deer. J. Wildl. Manage. 32(3):566-574.

Ward, A.L., J.J. Cupal, A.L. Lea, C.A. Oakley, and R.W. Weeks, 1973.

Elk behavior in relation to cattle grazing, forest recreation, and traffic. Trans. N. Am. Wildl. Nat. Resourc. Conf. 38:327-337.

Young, V.A., and W.L. Robinette, 1939.

A study of the range habits of elk on the Selway Game Preserve. University of Idaho Bulletin. 34 (16):1-48.

Return to the Reports Page


Incl wd	EDWIN S. TOWNSLEY
	Colonel, Corps of Engineers
	Deputy Division Engineer


17 Incl (9 cys)	C. J. Allaire
Added 17 Incl	Colonel, CE
2-18 Rev. pages	District Engineer


2 Incl	C.J. Allaire
Added 2 incl	Colonel, CE
19. Answers to 3rd Ind	District Engineer
20. Rev. Est., Table 5

1	The Number and composition (Sex and Age) of Rocky Mountain Elk Observed Wintering Within or Near the Boundary of the Dworshak Project, U.S. Army Engineer District, Walla Walla
2	The Approximate Acreage and Percent of Cover and Forest Opening Currently Existing Within the Elk Management Area at Dworshak Dam and Reservoir, U.S. Army Engineer District, Walla Walla
3	The Approximate Acreage and Percent of Timber to be Retained as a Cover Type or Deforested as an Opening Within Each Elk Management Unit at Dworshak Dam and Reservoir, U.S. Army Engineer District, Walla Walla
4	A List of Potential Grasses and Legumes to be Propagated in Abandoned Road Systems, Log Landings, and Sub-Units Being Developed As Meadows
5	Cost Estimate

1	Elk Habitat Mitigation - Management Units
2	Elk Habitat Mitigation - Robinson Creek
3	Elk Habitat Mitigation - Long Creek
4	Elk Habitat Mitigation - Hughes Point
5	Elk Habitat Mitigation - South Hughes Point
6	Elk Habitat Mitigation - Grandad Creek
7	Elk Habitat Mitigation - Benton Creek
8	Elk Habitat Mitigation - Homestead Creek
9	Elk Habitat Mitigation - Boehls Butte
10	Elk Habitat Mitigation - Whiskey Creek
11	Elk Habitat Mitigation - Rooney Creek
12	Elk Habitat Mitigation - Long Bar
13	Elk Habitat Mitigation - Management Headquarters

Altman, M., 1952.
	Social behavior of elk (Cervus canadensis nelsoni) in the Jackson Hole area of Wyoming. Behavior 4(2):116-143
Burt, W.H., 1943.
	Territoriality and home range concepts as applied to mammals. J. Mamml. 24(3):346-352.
Constan, K.J., 1972.
	Winter foods and range use of three species of ungulates. J. Wildl. Manage. 36(4):1068-1076.
Craighead, John J., Gerry Atwell, and Bart W. O'Gara, 1972.
	Elk migration in and near Yellowstone National Park. Wildlife Monograph No. 29. 48 pp.
Dalke, Paule D., R.D. Beeman, F.J. Kindel, R.J. Robel, T.R. Williams, 1965.
	Home ranges and activity patterns of nonmigratory elk of the Madison Drainage Herd as determined by biotelemtry. Wildlife Monograph No. 33. 50 pp.
Dalke, P.D., R.D. Beeman, F.J. Kindel, R.J. Robel, and T.R. Williams, 1965.
	Use of salt by elk in Idaho. J. Wildl. Manage. 29(2):319-332.
Davis, J.L., 1970.
	Elk use of spring and calving range during and after logging. M.S. Thesis, University of Moscow. 51 pp.
Goodwin, J.G., Jr., 1975.
	Big game movement near a 500-kV transmission line in northern Idaho. Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon. 52. pp.
Harper, J.A., 1971.
	Ecology of Roosevelt elk. Oregon State Game Commission, Portland, Oregon. 44 pp.
Knight, Richard R., 1970.
	The Sun River elk herd. Wildlife Monograph No. 23, 66 pp.
Leege, T.A. and M.C. Fultz, 1972.
	Aerial ignition of Idaho elk ranges. J. Wildl. Manage. 36(4):1332-1336.
Leege, T.A., and W.O. Hickey, 1977.
	Elk-snow relationships in the Pete King drainage, Idaho. Wildlife Bulletin No. 6. Idaho Fish and Game Department, Boise, Idaho. 33 pp.
Leopold, Aldo, 1933.
	Game management. Charles Scribner's Sons, New York. 481 pp.
Longhurst, W.M., 1951.
	Range conditions as an influence on big game productivity. Proc. 31st Ann. Conf. West Assoc. State Game Fish Comm., pp. 190-194.
Lyon, L.J., and W.F. Mueggler, 1968.
	Herbicide treatment of north Idaho browse evaluated six years later. J. Wildl. Manage. 32(3):538-541.
Mace, R.U., 1971.
	Oregon's elk. Oregon State Game Commission. Wildl. Bull. 4. 29 pp.
Mackie, Richard J., 1970.
	Range ecology and relations of mule deer, elk, and cattle in the Missouri River breaks, Montana. Wildlife Monograph No. 20. 79 pp.
Martinka, C.J., 1969.
	Population ecology of summer resident elk in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. J. Wildl. Manage. 33(3): 465-481.
McCulloch, C.Y., Jr., 1955.
	Utilization of winter browse on wilderness big game range. J. Wildl. Manage. 19(2):206-215.
Moen, A.N., 1975.
	Wildlife ecology. W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco. 458 pp.
Moran, R.J., 1973.
	The Rocky Mountain Elk in Michigan. Research and development report No. 267, Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Lansing, Michigan. 93 pp.
Murie, O.J., 1951.
	The elk of North America. The Stackpole Company, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania and Wildl. Manage. Inst., Washington, D.C. 376 pp.
Peek, J.W., and A.L. Lovaas, 1968.
	Differential distribution of elk by sex and age on the Gallatin Winter Range, Montana. J. Wildl. Manage. 32(3):553-557.
Reynolds, H.G., 1962.
	Use of natural openings in a Ponderosa pine forest of Arizona deer, elk, and cattle. U.S. Dep. Agric. For. Serv. Res. Note RM-78, 4 p. Rocky Mt. For. and Range Exp. Stn., Fort Collins, Colo.
Reynolds, H.G., 1966.
	Use of openings in spruce-fir forests of Arizona by elk, deer and cattle. U.S. Dep. Agric. For. Serv. Res. Note RM-78, 4 p. Rocky Mt. For. and Range Exp. Stn., Fort Collins, Colo.
Roberts, H.B., 1974.
	Effects of logging on elk calving habitat, Moyer Creek, Salmon National Forest, Idaho. U.S. Department Agricul. For. Service, Salmon Nat. Forest. 22 pp.
Robinette, W.L., J.S. Gashweiler, D.A. Jones, and H.S. Crane, 1955.
	Fertility of mule deer in Utah. J. Wildl. Manage. 19(1):115-135.
Rust, H.G., 1946.
	Mammals of northern Idaho. J. Mammal. 27(4):308-327.
Stevens, D.R., 1966.
	Range relationships of elk and livestock, Crow Creek Drainage, Montana. J. Wildl. Manage. 30(2):349-946.
Struhsaker, T.T., 1967.
	Behavior of the Cervus canadensis during the rut. Z. Tierpsychol. 24(1):80-114.
Thilenius, J.G., and K.E. Hungerford, 1967.
	Browse use by cattle and deer in northern Idaho. J. Wildl. Manage. 31(1):141-145.
Thomas, J.W., H. Black, R.J. Scherzinger, and R.J. Pederson, 1976.
	Relationships of Rocky Mountain Mule Deer and Rocky Mountain Elk habitat to timber management in the Blue Mountains. In: Forest-Wildlife Relationships in the Blue Mountains of Washington and Oregon (Draft Copy). U.S. Forest Service (Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station and Region 6), Bureau of Land Management, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Wildlife Management Institute.
Thorne, E.T., R.E. Dean, and W.G. Hepworth, 1976.

U.S. Army Engineer District, Walla Walla, 1975.
	Dworshak Final Environmental Impact Statement.
U.S. Forest Service, 1969.
	Wildlife Habitat Improvement Handbook. U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Verme, Louis J., 1968.
	An index of winter weather severity for northern deer. J. Wildl. Manage. 32(3):566-574.
Ward, A.L., J.J. Cupal, A.L. Lea, C.A. Oakley, and R.W. Weeks, 1973.
	Elk behavior in relation to cattle grazing, forest recreation, and traffic. Trans. N. Am. Wildl. Nat. Resourc. Conf. 38:327-337.
Young, V.A., and W.L. Robinette, 1939.
	A study of the range habits of elk on the Selway Game Preserve. University of Idaho Bulletin. 34 (16):1-48.