Authors MARY M. ROWLAND is a contracting wildlife biologist, La Grande, OR 97850; LARRY

D. BRYANT is the rangeland ecologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Room 2237, P.O. Box 96090, Washington, DC 20090; BRUCE K. JOHNSON and

JAMES H. NOYES are wildlife biologists, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife,

Forestry and Range Sciences Laboratory, 1401 Gekeler Lane, La Grande, OR 97850;

MICHAEL J. WISDOM is regional wildlife ecologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Forestry and Range Sciences Laboratory,

1401 Gekeler Lane, La Grande, OR 97850; and JACK WARD THOMAS was Chief

(now retired), Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and currently is Professor

of Boone and Crockett Wildlife Conservation, University of Montana, Missoula, MT

59812. At the time the work was done, BRYANT was a wildlife biologist, Forestry and

Range Sciences Laboratory, La Grande, OR.
Abstract Rowland, Mary M.; Bryant, Larry D.; Johnson, Bruce K.; Noyes, James H.;

Wisdom, Michael J.; Thomas, Jack Ward. 1997. The Starkey project: history,

facilities, and data collection methods for ungulate research. Gen. Tech. Rep.

PNW-GTR-396. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 62 p.

In the 1980s resource managers were increasingly concerned about effects of timber

harvest on ungulates in National Forests. Land and resource management plans

incorporated restrictions on timber harvest to maintain cover for Rocky Mountain elk

(Cefvus elaphus nelsoni V. Bailey) and mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus hemionus

Rafinesque), and habitat models were used to predict effectiveness of various habitat

components for these ungulates. Many of the assumptions on which these models

were based were untested, however. The Starkey Project, in northeastern Oregon, was

begun to address some of these issues through manipulative experiments in a landscape representative of inland National Forests in the West. A 25,000-acre (10 125-ha)

area was surrounded with game-proof fencing to support studies on elk, mule deer,

and cattle (SOS Taurus). A newly developed telemetry system, using loran-C (long range

navigation-C) signals, tracks distribution of the three species in relation to common

land management activities and habitat variables. Four primary research projects are

underway: animal-unit equivalencies, intensive timber management, effects of roads

and traffic, and breeding efficiency of bull elk. Activities at Starkey include trapping,

feeding, and handling of deer and elk, radio-telemetry data collection, road and traffic

monitoring, hunting, timber harvest, cattle grazing, and vegetation monitoring. An

intensive technology transfer program is also an integral part of the Starkey Project.

The physical site, including handling facilities and telemetry-related structures, and

chronology of events related to the Starkey Project are described. A bibliography of

project publications also is included.

Keywords: Cattle, deer, elk, forest management, ungulates, Blue Mountains, Oregon,

radio telemetry, habitat, Starkey Project, technology transfer, wildlife research.
Contents

1

4

7

7

7

9

11

14

16

16

17

18

23

23

23

23

26

3 1

34

37

38

4 1

42

43

44

46

46

46

47

53

54

56

58

62

Introduction

Origins of the Starkey Project

The Starkey Environment

Research Focus

Animal-Unit-EquivalenciesStudy

intensive Timber Management Study

Effects of Roads and Traffic

Breeding Bull Elk Study

Related Research

Facilities

The Starkey Fence

Handling Facilities

Radio-Telemetry System

Weather Station

Other Facilities

Activities

Cattle Grazing

Handling and Feeding of Deer and Elk

Hunting Seasons

Radio-Telemetry Data Collection

Road and Traffic Monitoring

Vegetation Monitoring

Ungulate Population Estimation

Technology Transfer

New Technologies

Tours and Presentations

Publications

Future Research

Acknowledgments

References

Appendix 1: Starkey Statistics

Appendix 2: Chronology of Major Events in the History of the Starkey Project

Appendix 3: Chronology of Development and Operation of the Automated Animal

Telemetry System

ppendix 4: Bibliography

ppendix 5: Common and Scientific Names of Species
Introduction Land-use planning for National Forests (NFs) in the 1980s illustrated the growing conflict

over public lands management. In land and resource management plans (Forest plans)

for the NFs of the Blue Mountains in Washington and Oregon, interactions of livestock

with wildlife, especially deer’ and elk, were identified as a major concern, as was the

relation of wildlife to timber production. Constraints on timber harvest and road construction were incorporated in several Forest plans to meet objectives for deer and elk

populations and habitats. These constraints may result in restricted timber harvest

(Riggs and others 1993) and thus lower revenues for NFs, local governments, and

timber companies, as well as road closures that potentially reduce opportunities for

recreation and are costly to establish and maintain. During the 1980s models for

predicting habitat effectiveness for deer and elk were being developed and implemented

that promoted closing roads or maintaining certain cover:forage ratios for wildlife (Lyon

1983, Thomas and others 1979, Wisdom and others 1986).

National Forests support, during some part of the year, more than 90 percent of the elk

population in the United States and thus provide habitat essential for the welfare of elk

populations. With increasing pressure on National Forests to provide timber, wildlife

habitat, livestock grazing, and other potentially conflicting resources, better research

was needed to predict outcomes of forest management on deer and elk. Thus was born

the Starkey Project, a long-term research collaboration between the Oregon Department

of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest

Service (FS). Oregon State University (OSU), the National Council of the Paper Industry

for Air and Stream Improvement (NCASI), Boise Cascade Corporation, and the Rocky

Mountain Elk Foundation also have supported various aspects of the research. Launching the project included fencing 25,000 acres (10 125 ha) of the Starkey Experimental

Forest and Range (SEFR) and adjacent FS lands to create a closed population of deer

and elk in a large, natural setting (see appendix 1 for statistics on Starkey in both

English and metric units).

Origins of the Starkey

Project

The idea of fencing land in the Blue Mountains for ungulate research was first broached

in 1982 (see appendix 2). A report by Vavra (1980), commissioned by the Pacific Northwest Research Station (PNW), emphasized the need for forage allocation and elk and

livestock research in the Blue Mountains. Thomas (1983) concluded that the primary

topics to investigate were forage allocation between domestic and wild ungulates and

impacts of roads and traffic on big game habitat effectiveness. Thomas and others

(1979) had previously compiled a landmark work about wildlife and forest management

in the Blue Mountains; models and prescriptions for forage and cover areas from this

document were widely used in forest planning in the 1980s. Yet Thomas and other

authors of this work conceded that better information was needed to reliably prescribe

habitat management for deer and elk in National Forests.

A natural collaboration arose between ODFW and the FS in proposing the Starkey

Project. The two agencies had cooperated on wildlife and forest research for many

years at the La Grande Forestry and Range Sciences Laboratory (FRSL). An ODFW

biologist (Donavin Leckenby) was already housed in the FRSL and had just completed

several years of study on elk habitat relations. Warren Aney, Northeast Region supervisor for ODFW, also supported the Starkey proposal. As ideas about the research

coalesced, the Starkey Project was proposed to address four major problems identified

by ODFW and PNW staff in La Grande: (1) lack of information on site-specific forage

’ See appendix 5 for scientific names of all species mentioned
allocation among elk, mule deer, and cattle in National Forests; (2) insufficient information on effects of intensive timber management on populations of mule deer and elk; (3)

declining elk calf recruitment, perhaps caused by a high proportion of immature bull elk

in the breeding population; and (4) the need for better information on effects of traffic

levels on deer and elk (USDA Forest Service 1985).

Research to address these problems would require fencing to create a “closed system,”

thus eliminating movements of deer and elk into or out of the area; a telemetry system

to locate animals continuously, with resolution to better than 10 acres (4 ha); and a site

where hypotheses about summer range conditions could be tested without the confounding effects of winter weather and forage. The SEFR west of La Grande was proposed

as the best site for the new research. Nearly 30 meetings with private and governmental

groups were held from 1983 to 1985 to discuss the project. Major concerns identified in

these meetings were disruptions of elk migration patterns by erecting the fence, replacement of previously permitted cattle with cattle owned by OSU, water quality and fisheries,

and effects of proposed timber harvest in the intensive timber management area. Some

hunters also anticipated a “shooting gallery” effect, whereby elk would be easily killed

along the fenceline. Others were concerned that elk inside the fence would become

tamed, or be subjected to inhumane treatment for research.

Approval of the multimillion dollar proposal would dictate several changes in the SEFR

area and its operation. More than 1,000 acres (405 ha) in Half Moon pasture, usually

grazed by domestic sheep, would be enclosed by game-proof fencing and thus no

longer be available for sheep. One hundred and fifty cattle, grazing under permits to the

Starkey Cattle and Horse Association, would be replaced with cattle owned by OSU.

This exchange would ensure genetic consistency of the cattle used in research and

make available fistulated cattle, if necessary, for dietary studies. Hunting seasons also

would be altered, with only limited-entry hunting and fewer hunter recreation days.

Following the scoping meetings, the environmental assessment for the project (USDA

Forest Service 1985) was completed in December 1985 and signed in early 1986

(appendix 2). Forest Service Chief Max Peterson approved the project in July 1986 and

denied appeals filed to prevent it. Funding was received in early 1987 to begin construction of the fence, with additional money procured to assemble the radio-telemetry system

and begin the research.

The fence was erected around a large portion of the SEFR and some adjacent FS land

(Wallowa-Whitman NF) to contain the deer and elk herds present when the research

began (Bryant and others 1993). Construction of this fence, encompassing 25,000 acres

(10 125 ha) of summer range, allowed researchers to trap animals on a winter feed

ground, provide them with controlled winter diets, attach radio collars, and collect data

(fig. 1). Concomitantly, the fenced area was large enough to encompass the typical

summer movements of both species in the Blue Mountains (Leckenby 1984, Pedersen

1985), so that hypotheses tested about activities on summer range would be applicable

to free-ranging ungulates. Completion of the fence created one of the largest known

research enclosures for wildlife in the world.
Figure 1 -Construction of the game-proof fence at the Starkey Experimental Forest and Range enclosed

the native herds of mule deer and elk, which became the experimental population.

A combination of certain features makes the Starkey Project exceptional in the realm of

wildlife research:

l The control of winter foraging conditions for ungulates that are free-ranging in summer

(that is, the ability to offer controlled diets to many of the research animals, all subjected to the same winter weather conditions)

l The attempt to simulate the effect of future habitat conditions, resulting from forest

management, on wildlife in a “closed system”

l The scale of operation, which makes the study site one of the largest wildlife research

enclosures in the world

l The first use of loran-C navigational signals for terrestrial wildlife locations, combined

with an unprecedented number of radio locations per animal, all automatically collected

and stored in computers

l The continuous collection of hundreds of thousands of wildlife radio-telemetry locations

at a resolution of about 6.2 acres (2.5 ha) (80 percent confidence interval)

Techniques used in the Starkey Project, as well as hypotheses to be tested, were

developed only after investigating similar operations and research questions around the

world. Starkey scientists traveled throughout the United States and to New Zealand and

Sweden to explore the best technologies available before embarking on the project.

3
The Starkey

Environment

S PROJECT ENCLOSURE

OREGON

[‘--I Forest roads

Figure a--The Starkey Project area, northeast Oregon

As an existing Forest Service research area in the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest,

the Starkey Experimental Forest and Range offered an ideal location for conducting the

Starkey Project experiments. The site, southwest of La Grande, OR (fig. 2), supports a

mosaic of timber and grassland types common in the Blue Mountains of Oregon and

Washington. Just as important, it was deemed “neutral ground” for conducting research

that could affect timber and hunter management across thousands of acres of public

and private land. Other advantages of the site were its public land status, the existence

of baseline vegetation data, the long tradition of livestock grazing, terrain suitable for

construction of a game-proof fence, an area large enough that ungulates inside the

fence would maintain their wild nature, and existing housing and laboratories. It was

chosen as an Experimental Forest and Range by the FS in 1940 because “the area

reflected the history of resource exploitation typical of the ponderosa pine-bunchgrass

forests throughout the West“ (Skovlin 1991: 1). It is, in fact, the only experimental area

encompassing both forest and range in the United States today, the others being solely

experimental forests (Skovlin 1991). A rich history of research in the SEFR on grazing

systems, wildlife, and forest ecology preceded the Starkey Project. Skovlin (1991)

thoroughly summarized this work, recounting the history, research, personnel, and

resources of the SEFR from its inception in 1940 until 1988.
Figure %-The Starkey landscape is characterized by rolling meadows and moderately steep

canyons.

The following description of the Starkey landscape is taken primarily from Skovlin (1991:

app. 1); the reader is referred to this publication for further detail. The SEFR is in the

Blue Mountains province (Franklin and Dyrness 1973), with major vegetation types of

ponderosa pine, pine-Douglas fir, and bunchgrasses such as bearded bluebunch

wheatgrass, Sandberg bluegrass, and onespike danthonia. Elevation within the fenced

portion ranges from 3,681 feet (1122 m) in Meadow Creek Alley to 4,922 feet (1500 m) in

the southern portion, with rolling uplands and several moderately steep canyons (fig. 3).

ajor drainages are Meadow, Smith, Syrup, Battle, and Bear Creeks. Most of the

20 inches (51 cm) of precipitation each year falls as winter snow. June is the primary

month of vegetative growth for herbaceous plants, but fall regrowth often occurs.

The Starkey Project area has been divided by game-proof fencing into four primary

sections: the main study area of 19,180 acres (7762 ha), hereafter referred to as “Main”;

Campbell Flat pasture (1,537 acres [622 ha]); the intensive timber management area, or

northeast study area (Northeast or NE), covering 3,590 acres (1453 ha): and the winter

feeding and handling area of 655 acres (265 ha), hereafter referred to as the “winter area”

(fig. 4; appendix 1). Road densities in the fenced area are typical of Blue Mountains NFs,

averaging 4.2 miles per square mile (2.6 km/km2) in Main and 5.9 miles per square mile

5
\

j 1 -,; . . .

1 Main ~&&ha

*----___.

.--.------7 :*.---’

Figure 4-The Starkey Project is separated by game-proof fence into four primary research

areas: Main, Northeast, Campbell Flat, and the winter area; cattle pastures also are shown.

(3.7 km/km*) in Northeast. (Road densities in the managed portion of the WallowaWhitman NF are 4 to 6 miles per square mile and less than 3 miles per square mile in

the Umatilla NF.) There are about 165 miles (266 km) of roads in Main, Campbell Flat,

and Northeast, with an additional 4 miles (7 km) in the winter area. Public traffic is allowed

only in Main, on 27 miles (44 km) of roads posted with green dots.

The Starkey landscape is traditional summer range for mule deer and elk, with an

average midsummer adult population of about 614 elk (85-Northeast, 475-Main, and

54-Campbell) and 300 deer (70-Northeast, 230-Main). Native mule deer and elk,

like game populations elsewhere, were overharvested at Starkey by early settlers, so

that by the late 1800s game was scarce. Passage of game laws and bounties brought
recovery of herds until they were again self-sustaining and capable of supporting hunting

seasons (Skovlin 1991). Other large mammals in the Starkey area include black bears,

cougars, and coyotes. Bull and Wisdom (1992) list the fauna of the SEFR.

Research Focus Four main studies are underway inside the Starkey enclosure: animal-unit-equivalencies

(AUE), intensive timber management, effects of roads and traffic, and breeding efficiency

of bull elk. All but the bull elk study rely heavily on animal locations determined by the

AATS (automated animal telemetry system, further described below in “Radio-Telemetry

Data Collection”). As mentioned previously, these studies are relevant only to summer

range use and behavior,with winter foraging conditions relatively consistent for all animals

each year.

Animal-UnitEquivalencies StudyIncreasing interest in and conflict over forage allocation among domestic and wild ungulates in the Blue Mountains province are summarized in a report (Vavra 1980) commissioned by PNW. This account served as a catalyst for many of the objectives formalized

in the AUE study at Starkey. Following this summary, Thomas (1983) prioritized wildlife

research for the next 5 years at the La Grande laboratory. He stated, in response to the

elk-livestock problem, that “development and testing of a practical and affordable procedure for judging site-specific animal equivalency between big game (primarily elk) and

livestock is the most important contribution research can make at the moment .”

(Thomas 1983).

Managers of public lands have long recognized the need for better techniques to allocate

forage among ungulates, including cattle, than the traditional use of animal-unit-equivalencies. The AUE standard, as reported in the 1940s equates forage removal by a

1 ,OOO-pound (454-kg) cow-calf pair with that of two elk or six deer (Stoddart and Smith

1943). This equivalency, based solely on relative body weights, offers no adjustment for

habitat preferences or dietary, spatial, or temporal overlap among the species. A simple

division of available forage among estimated numbers of cattle, deer, and elk is unrealistic at best and assumes complete overlap in diets and distribution of animals. Better

management of forested rangelands required the development of a more realistic model

equating effects of these herbivores on forage removal. The AUE study at Starkey was

designed to provide such a model and test other hypotheses about forage use by ungulates and cattle on Blue Mountains rangelands (Johnson and others 1994).

The AUE study has three phases. In the first phase, a model will be developed that

predicts distributions of elk, deer, and cattle in relation to a suite of landscape variables,

such as distance to water or roads, slope, or percentage of cover. In the second phase,

dietary overlap will be determined for the three species in a variety of habitats at Starkey,

by using a combination of tamed animals and previously published information. Intake

rates also will be measured for cattle, deer, and elk. These data will be combined with

animal weights and the distribution model to predict AUEs for various habitats.

In the final phase, project scientists will develop an expert system combining data on

animal distribution and preference, diets, and estimates of forage production to allocate

forage among deer, elk, and cattle. A prototype forage allocation model recently has

been developed for Starkey (Johnson and others 1996).

Intensive Timber

Management Study

Better understanding of the role of forest cover in deer and elk energetics, distribution,

and population demographics is a primary goal of the Starkey Project. Changes in timber

harvest strategies to meet cover guidelines for elk and deer were implemented in Forest

7
plans for the Blue Mountains, yet the role of cover had not been thoroughly investigated.

Although it was well documented that elk move away from timber harvest activities

(Hieb 1976, Lyon and others 1985), it was unknown whether this movement affected

animal welfare and, ultimately, population performance. When initially conceived, the

Starkey Project was intended to create conditions mimicking the “managed forest of the

future,” compressing the changes of more than 30 years of forest management into

IO years. By monitoring a “closed” population of deer and elk and changing coverquantity

and other habitat features, researchers could test effects of these changes on population

performance and animal distribution. The animals could not disperse to other, perhaps

more preferred, habitats as a result of the changes being effected. “Intensive timber

management” was one of four harvest strategies identified in forest plans for the Blue

Mountains in the 1980s. In the Starkey Project, responses of deer, elk, and cattle to

such management could be studied under relatively controlled conditions (Anon. 1987a).

A portion of the Starkey Project (Northeast) was fenced specifically to accommodate

research on effects of timber harvest on deer, elk, and cattle. (The elk and deer in this

part of Starkey are kept separate from elk and deer in Main or Campbell Flat). Of the

3,590 acres (1453 ha) in Northeast, about 2,800 (1134 ha) were forested, primarily with

ponderosa pine and grand fir. Logging was planned for the Syrup Creek drainage and was

to include a series of thinnings and overstory removals, leaving the existing understory

to mimic plantation conditions of the future. However, drought and insect infestations

(primarily western spruce budworm) in the area did not abate as predicted but worsened

after the sale was designed in 1987. By 1989 it was apparent that the amount of timber

available for harvest was less than originally planned. Bought by Boise Cascade Corporation, the sale totaled 6 million board feet (Mbf), down from the proposed harvest of

12 Mbf. Timber removal began in fall 1991 and was completed by the end of 1992 (fig. 5;

appendix 2).

A variety of harvest and postharvest alternatives were incorporated to restore vigor of

stands in this drainage, with 63 cut units ranging from 3 to 55 acres (1 to 22 ha). Cover

requirements for deer and elk were intentionally ignored in planning the sale. The

combined harvest of 1,207 acres (489 ha) entailed mainly seed tree cuts (871 acres or

353 ha); the remainder was in shelterwood cuts, thinning, no cut, and individual tree

selection. Postharvest prescriptions included broadcast burning, grapple-piling, precommercial thinning and stand cleaning, and planting. Seedlings, primarily of ponderosa

pine and western larch, were planted on more than 830 acres (336 ha) in 1994 and 1995,

in accordance with goals of restoring these two species to their former dominance at

Starkey. Other species planted were Douglas-fir, lodgepole pine, and Engelmann spruce.

Seeds were collected from these species before the harvest to provide seedlings for

regeneration.

About 24 miles (38 km) of new roads were built and 4 miles (6.4 km) reconstructed in

Northeast for the timber sale, which tripled the road mileage there. Road traffic was

monitored by collecting data from traffic counters and a camera in Northeast; additional

counters were placed in Northeast in 1992 to closely monitor postsale traffic. Since the

construction of the Starkey Project fence, travel in Northeast has been restricted to

administrative use by La Grande Ranger District (RD) and Starkey personnel, with the

following exceptions: elk hunters in Northeast are allowed to drive in to retrieve animals

killed there, and on occasion, hunters have been allowed to drive into Northeast for

hunts there.
Figure %--The timber sale in Syrup Creek removed over 6 million board feet from the Starkey Project area.

Responses of deer, elk, and cattle to the harvest and associated activities, such as road

construction, were recorded with radio telemetry. Baseline data on elk and cattle locations

were collected for three summers (1989-91) before the sale. During the harvesting period,

4 to 6 deer, 6 to 13 elk, and 12 to 13 cattle were tracked. Postharvest data are being

collected on similar numbers of animals until 1997.

Initially, researchers planned to use cow elk harvested in Northeast to provide data on

pregnancy rates, conception dates, and condition, as is done in Main. The required

sample sizes were not attainable, however, with this smaller herd. Cow hunts, consequently, have been discontinued in Northeast. Animal data collected in Northeast

include calf:cow and fawn:doe ratios, pregnancy rates of cow elk (determined from

blood samples), weights of trapped elk and deer, and estimates of yearling recruitment.

Effects of Roads and

Traffic

Road closures and restrictions on new road construction were incorporated in Forest

plans in the 1980s to accommodate perceived needs of deer and elk for relatively

undisturbed areas. If effects of roads on deer and elk are less adverse than predicted,

these restrictions may have led to unnecessary road closures and the ensuing decrease

in recreational use and associated expense of maintaining the closures. Conversely,

effects of traffic on deer and elk may be more widespread and deleterious than previously believed. Impacts of roads and traffic on deer and elk have been incorporated into

several habitat effectiveness models (for example, Lyon 1983; Thomas and others

1979, 1988; Wisdom and others 1986). In these models, no adjustment is made for

traffic frequency or type of road. All roads are simply considered “open” if there is any

vehicle traffic. Effects of traffic on ungulates are likely confounded by such factors as

amount and type of adjacent cover, level of traffic, season, type of vehicle, type of road,

and time of day. The Starkey Project addresses these effects on deer and elk distribution in a controlled environment.

9
/G

Camera

Road

NGamefence

Figure &--More than 70 traffic counters are placed at road intersections throughout Starkey to monitor frequency

of vehicle traffic.

The initial objective of the roads study was to investigate effects of traffic frequency and

road density on distributions of deer, elk, and cattle (Anon. 1987b). Since 1988, 75 traffic

counters have been established at Starkey (Main, NE, and Campbell Flat) along primary

roads, closed roads, and at road junctions (fig. 6). In addition, an extensive habitat

database has been compiled, with data on more than 100 variables entered for more

10
than 112,000 98- by 98-foot (30- by 30-m) pixels in the Starkey Project area (Rowland

and others, in prep.). Patterns of habitat selection and use are being analyzed for 20 to

60 radio-collared females of each of the three species for summers from 1991 to 1995

(Wisdom and others, in prep., a and b).

To test effects of traffic frequency, roads were stratified into four frequency classes: high,

medium, low, and zero. Each cell (pixel) in the Starkey Project area was characterized

for a variety of continuous variables, including distance to each of the four traffic frequency

classes. Probability of use in each cell, habitat availability, and selection indices were

calculated. A linear model of use and selection index as a function of traffic frequency is

being developed (Wisdom and others, in prep. b).

Distribution of wild and domestic ungulates also is influenced by road density. To analyze

this effect, Starkey was stratified by density of open roads, with three replicates of each

of three open-road density levels: low (less than 0.5 mile per square mile [0.3 km/km*]);

moderate (0.5 to 2.1 miles per square mile [0.3 to 1.3 km/km*]); and high (more than

2.1 miles per square mile [I .3 km/km2]). Hypotheses being tested include whether

(1) elk select habitats with low densities of open roads, (2) deer select habitats independent of road density, and (3) cattle select areas with a high density of roads (Wisdom

and others, in prep. a).

Open road densities and levels and types of traffic in Starkey also will be altered experimentally. Data will be gathered simultaneously on habitats occupied by radio-collared

deer, elk, and cattle. Following development of a draft model based on these tests, the

model will be validated through further experimentation.

Breeding Bull Elk Study During the 198Os, when the scope of the Starkey Project was being defined, wildlife and

public land managers were increasingly concerned about low productivity of elk populations in the Blue Mountains. Declining calf:cow ratios had been observed in many herds

(Schommer 1991), concomitant with low bull:cow ratios-especially mature bulls.

Increased hunter access, removal of hiding cover, and increased hunter pressure were

seen as possible causes for the low numbers of bull elk (Leckenby and others 1991).

The lack of mature bulls was a potential problem in part because younger bulls tend to

breed later in the season than do older bulls (Hines and Lemos 1979, Prothero and

others 1979). Younger bulls also extend the breeding season over a relatively longer

period. Such delayed breeding leads to later birth dates for calves and thus potentially

smaller calves when winter begins. The enclosed elk population at Starkey, where hunting

seasons could be tailored to control elk numbers and herd composition, provided an

opportunity to examine effects of age of bulls on conception dates and pregnancy rates

(Noyes and others 1992).

In 1988 two hunts were held to remove all antlered elk from Main (table 1). Bulls not

harvested were released outside the fence after trapping (table 2), were culled, or were

darted from helicopters, so that an estimated 98 percent of the antlered bulls were

removed before the turnout of elk back into Main in the spring. A similar hunt was held

in Northeast in 1988 to remove antlered bulls (table 1). A single cohort of bull elk in

Main, the male calves born in 1988, was allowed to mature to 5 years (through 1993).

About 70 bulls were in this group, with an average of 350 cows, for a bull:cow ratio of

2O:lOO. Bull calves born in subsequent years were released each spring outside the

fenced winter area. Additional hunts were held in later years to eliminate yearling elk not

11
Table l-Summary of harvest statistics for elk in the Starkey Project area from 1988 to 1995, in

chronological ordera

Number of Estimated animals Hunter

Hunt type Hunt area Year Dates huntersb available Harvest success rate

Antlered Maine NEd 1988

Antlered Main, NE 1988

Antlerede NE 1989

Antlerless Main 1989

Antlerless’ Main 1989-90

Spike Main 1990

Antlerede NE 1990

Antlerless NE 1990

Antlerless Main 1990

Spike Main 1991

Antlerede NE 1991

Antlerless Main 1991

Antlerless NE 1991

Antlered NE 1991

Spike Main 1992

Antlerede NE 1992

Antlerless Main 1992

Antlerles@ NE 1992

Spike Main 1993

Antlerede NE 1993

Antlerless Main 1993

Antlerede NE 1994

Any elk’ Main 1994

Spike Main 1994

Antlered Main 1994

Antlered Main 1994

Antlerless Main 1994

Antlerede NE 1995

Antlerless Main 1995

IO/26 - IO-30 169 51 0.53

11-5 - 11-12 99 118 4 8

Q/2 - Q/IO 1 0 6 3

1219 - 12115 59 565 3 2

12130 - II7 2 8 533 9

8118 - 8126 141 6 5 4 6

8118 - 8126 2 3 1 0 5

12/I - 12r7 1 2 9 1 1 0

12/I - 12r7 8 2 623 519

8117 - 8125 138 7 2 4 3

8117 - 8125 1 4 8 2

III30 - 1216 118 511 5 5

III30 - 1216 1 4 111 9

III30 - 1216 1 0 1 5 3

8115 - 8123 177 5 3 3 3

8115 - 8123 2 6 1 3 9

1215 - 12111 130 522 3 5

1215 - 12111 1 4 4 0

8114 - 8122 131 6 1 3 1

8114 - al22 1 5 1 0 3

1214 - IZIIO 122 413 4 9

8113 - 8121 2 2 1 2 5

ai27 - 9125 7 8 631 1 4

10126 - 10130 130 3 0 1 1

1115 - III13 140 7 9 6 5

III19 - III27 7 5 1 2 5

1213 - 1219 8 4 453 279

a/IQ - 8127 2 5 1 2 a

1212 - 1218 103 490 5 8

.48

.30

.54

.32

.33

.22

.a3

.62

.31

.I4

.47

.64

.30

.I9

.35

.32

.oo

.24

.20

.40

.23

.I8

.08

.46

.07

.32

.32

.56

a Additional harvest statistics, such as daily harvest and percentage of hunters on opening day, are available from ODFW Starkey

personnel.

b Number of hunters afield, not number of tags issued.

’ Main study area, which included Campbell Flat prior to 1992.

d Northeast study area.

F Only branch-antlered bulls with 3 or more points, including the brow tine, on at least 1 antler.

Included an option to harvest any branch-antlered bull seen.

g Project staff harvested additional cows to obtain an adequate sample of reproductive tracts.

* Hunters offered option to switch to antlerless elk hunt in Main; 20 made this change, harvesting 6 elk. These 20 hunters and 6 elk are

included in the harvest statistics for the 1992 antlerless elk hunt in Main.

’ Special archery-only hunt to simulate season structures and dates outside the Starkey enclosure.

1 2
Table 2-Number of elk released from Starkey Project site to adjacent areas

outside the fence, 1989-95

Yea?

Females Males

Calves Yearlings Adults Calves Yearlings Adults Unknownb Total

1988-89 7 2 1 7 1 1 6 6 6 5 5

1989-90 3 2 2 3 10

1990-91 20 9 80‘ 35 1 5 159

1991-92 2 1 4 8 3 18

1992-93 7 7 1 0 9 6 3 4 2

1993-94 1 1 8 1 7 1 4 41

1994-95 22 1 1 21 5 4

Total 40 1 9 112 85 70 47 6 379

a Trapping season runs from about November until April.

b Either yearlings or adults.

c Large number due to inclusion of some elk originally from outside the SEFR, but being held in South pasture to

obtain elk calves for thermal cover research.

captured in the winter area (table I), so that the original cohort of bulls was the primary

breeders of cows in Main from 1989 to 1993. (Yearling bulls that escaped hunters were

released from Starkey after being trapped in the winter area.) Hunts also helped to

maintain bull:cow ratios at similar levels among years of the study. The initial cohort of

bulls was harvested in fall 1994 as 6 year olds, after the completion of the first 5 years

of study (table 1). Antlered bulls that eluded this harvest were removed by trapping,

culling, and helicopter darting and release. The study is being repeated with a second

cohort of bull calves born in 1994; these will be allowed to mature for 5 years, as in the

first study.

Antlerless elk have been hunted in Main since 1989 to collect data on reproduction,

condition, age, and other variables. Conception dates and pregnancy rates were estimated for each year of the study with these data. Recruitment into the population was

measured with helicopter classification counts and records from the winter area (Noyes

and others 1992). Results of comparisons of reproductive parameters with age of

breeding bull elk have been summarized by Noyes and others (1996).

A second phase of the study was begun in 1993 in Campbell Flat (fig. 4), which was

fenced in 1992 to create a separate, game-proof pasture for the experiment (Johnson and

others ?993). (Before 1992 this area was part of Main.) The enclosure totals 1,537 acres

(622 ha) and also is grazed by cattle on a deferred-rotation system (see “Cattle Grazing,”

below). Researchers will examine effects of bull numbers and age and three specific

bull:cow ratios on birth dates of calves and pregnancy rates (Johnson and others 1993).

Paternity of calves will be determined through DNA fingerprinting, so that ages of sires

will be known. Forty cow elk are held in the pasture each spring, summer, and fall, along

with eight yearling bull elk and varying numbers of branch-antlered bulls. Supplemental

feed is offered each year from August 1 to September 15 to offset potential declines in

diet quality in this relatively dry site. The Campbell Flat elk are baited to move to the

winter area and are fed there during winter, as are elk from Main and Northeast (see

“Handling and Feeding of Deer and Elk,” below). Calves from the Campbell cows are

13
I

N Meadow Creek Alley 1. I

Figure 7-Pastures and facilities within the 655acre (265ha) winter area.

born in South pasture (fig. 7), where biological data are collected and radio collars are

attached to monitor survival. Results of this research, to be completed in 2000, will be

used to suggest specific ages and numbers of adult bulls needed for early and synchronous breeding of cow elk. The research will thus help managers design hunting seasons

that continue to offer recreational opportunity, while improving bull ratios, increasing

numbers of mature bulls, and improving productivity of herds.

Related Research The Starkey Project has supported research on ungulates beyond the original four

studies. For example, more than 100 elk calves were captured in South pasture from

1991 to 1993 and used to assess birth weights and dates and neonatal diseases (Cook

and others 1994). About 75 female calves were subsequently tamed for use in a thermal

cover study sponsored by NCASI and the FS (Cook and others 1994). These calves

\/-- \ / CUHNA PASTURE 1

BARN PASTURE

1 . ,, ~~P??tfJ~E

----I

SOUTH PASTURE

I

CAMPBELL

FLAT PASTURE

14
Ca/f exef&e afm

Figure &--Floor plan of barn for rearing tame mule deer and elk in the winter feeding and handling area. (Meters = feet x 0.305.)

were raised in the calf-rearing facilities at the winter area in Starkey (fig. 8), and later

moved to a study area near Kamela, OR. The thermal cover experiment ended in 1995,

but many of these tamed elk are now being used in research at Kamela to investigate

effects of birth date and nutrition on calf growth and subsequent reproduction in cow elk

(Cook and others 1995). This study will directly complement the breeding bull elk

research underway at Starkey. Other research has recently been completed on effects

of preconditioning forage for elk with domestic sheep south of the Starkey Project area

(Clark and others 1996). The AATS was used to track radio-collared elk on winter range

adjacent to the SEFR, but outside the fence.

Biodiversity and forest health are current emphases in forest management in the Blue

Mountains; these issues may bear on the ungulate studies of the Starkey Project in the

future. Several recently completed or ongoing studies in the SEFR are pertinent. Forest

health has been addressed in research on interactions of dwarf mistletoe with western

spruce budworm in affecting growth and mortality of Douglas-fir (Filip and Parks 1987).

Plots established for this study continue to be read every 3 years. Long-term monitoring

of western spruce budworm populations, and associated tree mortality, is ongoing at

Bally Mountain.2 Other work has focused on the creation of wildlife trees by inoculating

’ Personal communication, 1996. Richard R. Mason, principal insect

ecologist, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry and Range

Sciences Laboratory, 1401 Gekeler Lane, La Grande,. OR 97850.

15
Figure 9-Tightlock game-proof fence surrounds 25,000 acres (10 125

ha) of the Starkey Experimental Forest and Range and adjacent FS

lands.

live trees such as western larch with decay-causing fungi (Parks and others 1995). A

wealth of avian research has also been conducted wholly or in part in the SEFR. Recent

studies have focused on pileated woodpeckers (Bull and Holthausen 1993), Vaux’s

swifts (Bull and Beckwith 1993, Bull and Collins 1993), and forest owls (Bull and others

1989, 1990). Finally, long-term studies on relative abundance of larval amphibians in

onds at Starkey were conducted from 1981 through 1 992.3

Facilities One of the most prominent features of the Starkey Project is the game-proof fence

(fig. 9). A safe, long-lasting, and virtually impermeable fence was needed, not only to

contain the valuable research animals but also to keep deer and elk outside the fence

from entering. Construction of the high-tensile woven wire fence, which cost $585,000

for labor and materials, was completed in 6 months in 1987 (Bryant and others 1993).

The fencing was developed originally in New Zealand to contain commercially farmed

red deer. The Starkey fence was the first large-scale use of Tightlock deer fence for wild

ungulates in the United States4 Tightlock fencing was chosen because of its durability,

to large animals, cost-effectiveness, and strength. The Starkey fence is 8 feet

) high and is surveyed larly in its entirety; injuries to deer and elk have been

al (Bryant and others 1 Designed to last 30 years, the fence requires little

maintenance. Details of fence construction, costs, and performance are given in Bryant

and others (1993).

3 Personal communication. 1996. Evelyn Bull, research wildlife

biologist, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry and Range

Sciences Laboratory, 1401 Gekeler Lane, La Grande, OR 97850.

4 The use of trade or firm names in this publication is for reader

information and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Department

of Agriculture of any product or service.

16
Figure 1 O-Holding pens and chutes at the elk handling facility allow efficient

capture and movement of animals.

Most of the current fence was constructed in 1987, including 27 miles (44 km) of perimeter fence and 9 miles (14 km) of interior pasture fence (fig. 4). After the first trapping

season (1987-88) the Starkey crew realized that additional pastures were needed in the

winter area to separate deer and elk and to streamline elk handling. Consequently, the

winter area was further divided in 1988 with the addition of 3 miles (5 km) of elk fence.

Seven pastures, along with smaller catch pens and alleys, now divide the winter area

(fig. 7). Another 2 miles (3 km) of elk fence were added in 1992 when Campbell Flat

(originally part of Main) was enclosed to hold elk apart from the rest of Main (fig. 4).

In addition to the game-proof fencing, there are over 35 miles (56 km) of cattle fence in

the Main study area of Starkey, mostly four-strand barbed wire (fig. 4). Cattle pastures

in Main (Smith-Bally, Bear, and Half Moon) and Campbell Flat are grazed on a deferred

rest-rotation system (see “Cattle Grazing,” below).

dling Facilities A group of buildings constructed between 1987 and 1990, commonly referred to as the

“handling facility,” accommodates hands-on research associated with the Starkey Project

(figs. 10 and 11). The facilities, located within the winterfeeding and handling area, consist

of a surgery-animal handling building, hay barn and feed storage building, corrals, chutes

and pens, calf-rearing barn, and a garage-shop. The surgery-handling building covers

17
Figure 1 I-The handling facilities were constructed in 1987 and 1988 and include chutes, pens, and an

indoor surgery room.

1,620 square feet (151 m2) and is the primary site for data collection on elk. Single elk are

worked through the building via a series of chutes, both inside and outside the building,

where they are restrained while blood samples, weights, and other measurements are

taken (fig. 12; see Wisdom and others 1993 for further details). A surgery room in the

building was incorporated to allow operations such as implants of heart-rate transmitters.

Various holding pens and chutes outside the handling building allow for efficient sorting

and moving of animals before and after they are processed (fig. 10; see “Trapping and

handling,” below).

The calf-rearing barn, constructed in 1990, was designed for rearing juvenile elk and

deer (fig. 8). It was first used for raising elk calves in the NCASI-sponsored research on

thermal cover requirements of elk (Cook and others 1994; see Wisdom and others 1993

for protocols for rearing tame elk). The insulated building is 30 by 60 feet (9 by 18 m),

with 32 stalls for housing juveniles separately. A l-acre (0.4-ha) pen, adjacent to the

building, is available for exercising tame elk. Four enclosures permit separation of

research animals, if necessary (see fig. 10).

Radio-Telemetry System A superior telemetry system was a critical part of the Starkey Project proposal. Research

objectives required data on animal locations with better resolution and in greaterquantities

than were traditionally gathered with conventional radio-telemetry systems. Technology

to analyze large quantities of location data also was needed. A time-of-arrival radiotelemetry system, used in moose tracking, was examined in Sweden by project personnel.

This configuration was rejected because it was more expensive than initially thought,

and lengthy delays were likely in procuring the system for Starkey, especially in obtaining

international government trade and State Department clearances. Global Positioning

Systems (GPS) also were considered but abandoned as being too costly and unreliable

for wildlife tracking. Too few satellites were transmitting signals for GPS systems to

18
Figure 12-Elk are worked through a series of chutes as physiological

data are collected and radio collars removed or attached.

provide constant, 24-hour coverage, and the GPS receivers worked poorly in areas of

steep terrain or dense tree cover. Lightweight GPS collars with adequate battery life

also were unavailable in the late 1980s.

Preliminary testing of a conventional radio-telemetry system at Starkey insummer 1988

demonstrated that location accuracy was still insufficient to meet project objectives

(ODFW 1988; appendix 3). Bryant then consulted with Tracer Aerospace, Inc. (Austin,

TX) staff about adapting loran-C navigational technology for use in wildlife telemetry

(appendix 3). This technology was developed originally to track maritime vessels and

had not yet been applied to wildlife tracking. Potential problems preventing more widespread application of loran-C technology to wildlife telemetry included its use of an

external antenna, the band width required, the relatively high initial cost of the system,

and the perceived future superiority of GPS.

Collaboration between Bryant and Walt Fowler (Tracer) led to development of a prototype

automated animal telemetry system (AATS) that used loran-C to monitor animal movements at Starkey. Initially, 30 collars were built and tested at Starkey on about 20 animals.

Following this successful pilot study, the FS contracted with Tracer to complete the

19
Field Base Station

6 . Base station hardware

computes and displays location

on computer map. Data are stored

on magnetic tape.

5. Relay station transmits

signals back to base station.

I, Base station broadcasts

coded stgnal to radio collar.

2 . Pager inside collar receives

coded signal from base station

and activates loran-c receiver.

4 . Transmitter inside collar

3. Loran receiver inside collar

accepts loran-C signals from

Washington, California, Nevada,

Montana. and British Columbia.

Figure 13-With the automated animal telemetry system (AATS), radio collars on animals at Starkey receive signals from loran stations in several

Western states or provinces, then relay these signals through microwave towers (relay stations) to the base station.

system for $993,000, including 200 collars and loran-C hardware and software to analyze

signal locations (appendix 3). The FS provided the microwave system, towers, and

buildings at the remote tower sites for an additional $300,000.

In loran-based systems, low-frequency (40 MHz) radio pulses are sent by a master

station and at least two slave stations; these stations comprise a “chain.” The collar

receives the loran-C signals, then relays them to the base station on a radio frequency,

where the usable loran-C signals are processed (fig. 13). The time differences between

the master and slave stations are then used to compute the location of the radio collar.

The AATS originally received signals from only the West Coast U.S. chain; however, the

system was upgraded in 1992 by adding the North Central U.S. chain. With this improvement, signals from both chains can be used simultaneously to provide better geometry

and thus improve the level of resolution.

20
HE!AEQUARERS II +

Figure l&Seven remote microwave towers inside the Starkey

Project site relay signals from loran-C radio collars to Headquarters II.

The AATS was first installed in June 1989; two remote microwave relay towers were

constructed to serve Northeast (Mann and Bally; fig. 14; appendix 3) and a temporary

base station was built at the Starkey compound (location of the housing and weathermonitoring facilities at Starkey). Over 50,000 locations were recorded for nine elk and

nine cattle from June through October that year. The AATS now consists of a 195-foot

(59-m) base station tower at Headquarters II (fig. 14) and seven remote microwave

towers, ranging in height from 150 to 195 feet (46 to 59 m; fig. 15). The solar-powered

towers, built in 1989 and 1990 (appendix 3), have high-frequency microwave dishes and

telemetry antennas attached to them. A building at each tower houses the microwave

transmitters and radio-telemetry receivers. Towers were located to optimize coverage of

the entire Starkey area and are generally dispersed around major drainages (fig. 14).

The base station facilities (Headquarters II) include the tower mentioned above, paging

and telemetry antennas, and seven microwave dishes. The building houses the microwave

telemetry and loran-C receivers, a paging system, and two IBM-compatible computers for

data analysis. The paging system operates 24 hours per day, automatically contacting a

different radio collar about every 20 seconds by activating the collar pager. The pager

turns on a loran-C receiver and telemetry transmitter inside the collar. The receiver then

collects signals from loran-C transmitters (six sources, located in British Columbia, California, Montana, Nevada, and Washington) for 16 to 17 seconds. The loran-C signals

are then sent by the collar telemetry transmitter to one or more of the microwave towers

21
Figure IS---Remote microwave tower sites include microwave dishes and

telemetry antennas on the towers; the attached buildings house solar panels,

microwave transmitters, and radio-telemetry receivers.

at Starkey. The receiving towers retransmit the signal to Headquarters II, where loran-C

hardware selects the strongest signal for processing and then determines the collar location. Computer software allows differential correction of the various signals in real time.

Time differences (from the master versus slave stations) are converted with software to

UTM (Universal Transverse Mercator) coordinates for the location, and location status is

coded. A complete rotation of all collared animals takes from 1 to 2 hours, depending on

whether cattle are being paged; however, specific paging sequences can be programmed

if necessary.

At Headquarters II, two computers gather and analyze loran-C data for plotting animal

locations. The “signal” computer is the workhorse of the operation; it pages the collars and

receives the location signals in response to paging. This computer also analyzes data,

plots current locations, and tracks information about the collar and quality and quantity

of received signals. The second computer (also known as the data or map computer)

22
receives location data from the signal computer. It is used primarily for backup and

visual display of location data. Telemetry data from any files on its hard drive can be

mapped onscreen and the image enlarged or otherwise manipulated for better visual

interpretation of animal locations. The UTM coordinates of each telemetry location are

recorded and tagged with the time, status code, and other pertinent signal information.

Telemetry data are transferred weekly from the hard drive to magnetic tape (in triplicate)

and transported to the La Grande laboratory.

For further discussion of the daily operation of the telemetry system at Starkey, error

analysis, and other features, see “Radio-Telemetry Data Collection,” below.

Weather Station Historically, weather data have been collected in the Starkey area since 1910. The

original weather station was at the site of the Starkey Post Office, but it was moved to

the SEFR in the 1940s. Most of the early records are of temperature and precipitation,

although some wind speeds were recorded, along with notes on exceptional weather

events. These data are stored at the La Grande laboratory.

One weather station, established in 1984, now operates in the SEFR across the 2120

road from the Starkey compound. The equipment records temperature and precipitation.

Ambient temperature is logged every 30 minutes with an Omnidata Digital Recorder and

stored in ASCII format on a microchip that is replaced every 21 days. Temperature data

are downloaded to a computer at the La Grande laboratory with a datapod-cassette

recorder. Precipitation is recorded continuously to the nearest 0.01 inch (0.03 cm) with a

wet fall-dry fall sampler supplied by the National AtmosphericDeposition Program (NADP).

(Collections in the dry sampler, such as particulates, are not analyzed.) Precipitation

data are manually transferred from the recording graph paper to a data form and entered

in a spreadsheet. Project staff note the type of precipitation (rain, snow, sleet, or hail).

Water in the wet fall sampler, emptied weekly, is used to measure conductivity and pH.

These data are sent to an NADP contractor, along with the weekly water samples (up to

a liter per sample), for acid rain monitoring. Data summaries and further analysis are

completed by the contractor, including identification of anions and cations.

Other Facilities Housing and administrative buildings have been located at the SEFR since the first

cabin was moved there in the 1940s; this area is commonly referred to as the “Starkey

compound.” Additional residence trailers, office and lab space, and utility sheds have

been added over the years. A proposal to upgrade facilities at the compound would allow

for better accommodation of the present Starkey staff as well as the many,regional and

international scientists who have shown interest in sabbaticals or other long-term cooperative research at the Starkey Project (Dick and others 1993).

Activities

Cattle Grazing

Research activities occur year-round at Starkey (fig. 16), whereas the area is open to

the public only from May 1 to mid-December. The winter closure is scheduled to facilitate

baiting of animals to the winter area and trapping of deer and elk without disruption and

interference from humans. Public recreation at Starkey includes camping, hunting, mushroom picking, hiking, photography, and horseback riding. Firewood gathering, fishing,

and snowmobiling are not allowed.

Cattle have been grazed continuously in the Starkey basin since the 1840s. Long-term

research on cattle grazing began in 1955 at Starkey; riparian research, in particular, was

an integral part of early grazing studies at the SEFR (Skovlin 1991). Data on vegetation,

stream temperature and flow, and streambank conditions are still collected in the

Meadow Creek pastures.

23
Deertrapped ,” wrnter area

(extends from March)

. . . . ..-

Elk calf capture m

Sooth Pasture

. *

Deer and elk fed 1” winter area Elk offered supplementai

(extends from March) feed in Campbell F/at

. ..“......-+ . .

Se‘ondhandirng and m/ease of e/k to Man,

NE, or Campbell Flat (extends from March)

. . . . ..-

Elk and deer trapped I” Main, releasei 7

on-site or trenspotied to winter area

* *

Secondhandlmg I , and release of elk to Mar

NE, or Cempbell Flat (extends into Apnli

9-

Rdease of deer from winier area Release of deer fmm mnter arei

to Main (extends fmm March] to Mar” (extends into Apn,,

. . . . ..- .-.-....

Nk and deer bated

to winter area

. .

First handhng of e,k

in handling fankty

. .

Deer and elk fed m winter

ame (extends mto April)

.

Deer fed 1” Northeast

* .

Deer trapped ,n Northeast

.

Deer trapped in mnter

area (extends into April) 0

) .

.

. . .

.

3

April May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. March

Traff~ counters operalrng

. .

Starkey Prqecf enclosure open to public

. -4

Radio collars placed on elk

(extends from March)

. . . . ..-

Deer radio collars attached

(extends from March)

,.....-

Radio collars placed o

e/k (extends into April)

a--.

Deer radio collars attached (extends into Apni)

.

. . . .

Elk and deer locabons recorded with radio telemetry

l

Cattle locations recorded

wth radio telemetry

. .

Helicopter flight for deer Heiicopter ffight for deer

cattle grazing and elk classification and elk classificabon

. . - -

April May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. March

Antlered elk hunts, Northeast

-

Spike elk hunts, Main (1990-93) Antlerless elk hunts

- t--J,

Deer hunts Northeast and Main

e--e

Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan.

Figure l&--Generalized chronology of major seasonal activities for the Starkey Project

related to (A) feeding and handling of deer and elk; (B) radio-telemetry and traffic data

collection, livestock, aerial surveys, and public use; and (C) hunting seasons. Dates may

differ slightly across years.

24
Figure 17-Radio-collared cows at Starkey are used in studies of forage allocation and competition.

Cattle grazing at Starkey has continued as the Starkey Cattle and Horse Allotment,

formally administered by the La Grande Ranger District of the Wallowa-Whitman National

Forest. Allotment monitoring is carried out by Starkey staff. The two permittees are the

Starkey Cattle and Horse Association (in Main, Campbell Flat, and the SEFR outside

the fence), which formed in the early 19OOs, and OSU (in Northeast and Meadow Creek,

as well as some cows in Main and Campbell Flat). Currently 590 cow-calf pairs are

grazed each summer: 500 in Main (including Campbell Flat), 40 in Meadow Creek, and

50 in Northeast. Cattle are not mixed among these three areas. An additional 90 pairs

are grazed at the SEFR, but outside the Starkey perimeter fence. Before being released

inside the fence each summer, all cattle are ear-tagged, weighed, and vaccinated against

major ungulate diseases. Annually about 60 cows, owned by OSU, wear radio-telemetry

collars (fig. 17; see “Radio-Telemetry Data Collection,” below). Cattle in Meadow Creek

also have worn telemetry collars at times to monitor collar reception and to observe

cattle movements in an area also grazed by deer and elk.

Stocking rates are characteristic of the Blue Mountains and range from 5 to 15 acres per

AUM (animal-unit-month). Cattle are moved in a deferred-rotation system among Campbell Flat and three pastures in Main: Smith-Bally, Half Moon, and Bear. They are grazed

season-long in Northeast, and in the Meadow Creek pastures for 12 weeks on a separate

grazing schedule. In most years, introduction of cattle in Starkey is around June 15, with

an average 120-day grazing season. Typical dates for the grazing rotation in Main are

as follows:

Pasture name Even years Odd years

Smith-Bally 8130 - 1 O/l 5 6/16 - 7130

Half Moon 8122 - 8129 7131 - 817

Bear 7116 - 8121 818 - 9122

Campbell Flat 6116 * 7115 9123 - 10115

25
Cattle in Meadow Creek are weighed monthly for research on weight gains. Location

data are recorded for all radio-collared cattle and used primarily in the AUE study and

development of the forage allocation model (see “Animal-Unit-Equivalencies Study,”

above). Collared cattle in Northeast also are being used to monitor effects of road

construction and timber harvest on elk, deer, and cattle interactions and habitat use.

Use of shrubs and grasses is measured in key riparian areas and uplands, and in Main,

Campbell Flat, Northeast, and Meadow Creek. See “Vegetation Monitoring” (below) for

further details on these measurements and other, similar, data collection.

Handling and Feeding

of Deer and Elk

All handling, feeding, and care of deer and elk at Starkey are reviewed and guided by an

Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC). Protocols for these activities are

described in detail by Wisdom and others (1993) and have been approved by the USDA

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). The protocols are in full compliance

with the Animal Welfare Act of 1966 and provide for the safe, humane treatment of

animals with minimal stress. The IACUC meets at least twice a year to review facilities

and animal care at Starkey and also prepares an annual report of these activities. See

Wisdom and others (1993) for details of handling procedures and immobilization of deer

and elk, as well as the functions of the IACUC.

Feeding and handling of deer and elk in winter are requisite for meeting Starkey Project

research objectives. Handling is necessary to collect biological data, such as weights

and pregnancy status, check for occurrence of diseases, sort animals into correct

pastures, and attach and remove radio collars. Feeding is needed to maintain winter diet

quality at an adequate level to negate any potentially confounding effects of winter diet

on research results. In most winters, native forage at Starkey is inadequate to support

the numbers of deer and elk within the enclosure. (Although the winter area is at the

lowest elevation in Starkey, it is nonetheless summer range for deer and elk.) The feeding

and handling of deer and elk has evolved each year since construction of the Starkey

fence, with reduced handling losses and improvements in handling time, feeding regime,

and overall efficiency of the operation. The following procedures are those now in use by

Starkey staff.

Moving animals to the winter area-Ideally all elk and deer inside Starkey should be

transported or baited to the winter area each year, so that they could be fed similarly

and handled for data collection and attaching radio collars. After several years of experience, however, Starkey staff realized that this was not always feasible. Procedures used

now are as follows: When the cow elk hunt has ended in Main and public access is no

longer allowed, typically by mid-December, deer and elk in Main and Campbell Flat are

lured to the winter area by baiting with alfalfa hay (fig. 16). Feeders are placed by gates

leading into the winter area, with short bait lines, and moved inside the gates when animals begin responding to the bait. Animals in Main that are not responding to bait are

occasionally trapped with panel traps (deer) or portable corral traps (elk) and trucked to

the handling area. In most winters, however, elk trapped in portable corral traps are

moved to the winter area only if needed to meet sample size requirements for a particular

pasture, or if weather is severe. Baiting elk from Main and Northeast to the winter area

may continue through February if animals are still needed for handling and data collection.

The percentage of animals coming to the winter area in any year is highly variable and

dependent on weather and its effects on forage availability.

26
Table 3-Summary of harvest statistics for deer in the Starkey Project area from

1988 to 1995, in chronological ordera

Number of Estimated animals

Hunt type Year Dates hunter9 available Harvest Success rate

Any deer 1988 IO/l - IO/12 118 571 8 2 0.69

Any deer 1989 9130 - 1 O/l 1 8 7 411 6 1 .70

Buck 1990 9129 - lo/loc 2 5 5 0 8 .32

Buck 1991 9/28 - IO/4 2 4 5 7 9 .38

Buck 1992 IO/3 - IO/9 2 1 8 4 6 .29

Buck 1993 IO/Z - 1018 2 2 8 9 9 .41

Buck 1994 IO/l - IO/12 2 4 9 4 9 .38

Buck 1995 9/30 - IO/l 1 2 3 9 2 8 .35

a Hunts held in both Main and Northeast study areas combined.

b Number of hunters afield, not number of tags issued.

’ Hunting allowed in Northeast study area for first 3 days of hunt only; this restriction continued in all subsequent

years.

In Northeast deer are no longer moved to the winter area but are fed and trapped on site

in winter. Elk, however, are baited to the winter area with hay, as in Main, traveling

through Meadow Creek and Bear Alleys en route to the handling facility (fig. 7). Bear

Alley was added in 1991 as a continuation of Meadow Creek Alley; before Bear Alley was

constructed, elk from Northeast were baited into Bear pasture, where they were sometimes impossible to catch and handle. Baiting for deer may begin as early as October in

Northeast, because of the relatively short hunting seasons in that area (tables 1 and 3).

Baiting ceases before any hunt and resumes afterwards. Elk in Northeast that do not

respond to baiting are not trapped or transported to the winter area.

Feeding-Goals of winter feeding include offering feed that does not differ substantially

from diet quality available to deer and elk during an “average” winter in the Blue Mountains; providing adequate forage for animals that are being held on traditional summer,

not winter, range; controlling winter diets and animal distributions so that winter forage

and weather are not experimental variables; and returning animals to test pastures in

“like” condition each year. The public is not allowed in the winter area at any time except

by permit or during tours.

During the first winter of the Starkey Project (1987-88), elk and deer were baited into one

large feeding area, with no separate pastures. Herding elk into pens before they were

handled in the chutes was extremely difficult, however, and behavioral conflicts between

deer and elk during feeding were apparent. The following summer, more pastures were

created in the winter area with the addition of 3 miles (5 km) of Tightlock fence (fig. 7).

Elk now enter the winter area through Upper or Bear pastures (from Main and Campbell

Flat) or Meadow Creek Alley (from Northeast) (fig. 7) and, if possible, are moved directly

to the handling facility for the first data collection of the season (see “Trapping and

handling” [below] for procedures). They are then released into either South or Cuhna pastures to feed through the winter (fig. 7). Deer from Main enter through Upper pasture and

are lured into Barn pasture, where they are fed, separate from elk, through the winter.

In the winter area, elk and deer are fed ad libitum, typically 8 to 12 pounds (4 to 5 kg) of

2 7
hay/(elk.day) and 4 to 6 pounds (2 to 3 kg)/(deer.day), unless weather is severe (fig.18).

Deer also are fed a specialized pelleted supplement in racks. Hay is scattered in long

feed lines from a tractor and also placed in racks. Deer and elk that do not come to the

winter area are fed in place in Main or Northeast; the amount fed varies, depending on

weather and the availability of native forage.

lin -Ideally each elk is handled twice during the winter period:

once when it enters the winter area, which can occur from November through February,

and a second time when it is released in spring (fig. 16). During the first handling, branchantlered bulls are not worked but are released directly into a pasture for feeding. Adult

cow elk are bled, weighed, and checked for ear tags. About 10 percent of the blood

samples are tested for a variety of diseases, including brucellosis; more intensive testing

is done with samples from the Campbell Flat cow elk. Calves are weighed and eartagged.

Any radio collars on these elk are removed for battery replacement, repair, or both.

When elk are handled the second time, in March or April, they are trapped in small

groups by baiting them for several days from a selected pasture into a central hub and

alleyway leading to the handling chutes (fig. 7). Elk are herded with personnel on allterrain vehicles down the alleyway toward the handling facility (figs. 7 and 10). There

they are held in pens and quickly moved singly into a series of chutes and then into the

surges-handling building (fig. 19). As many as 60 elk can be worked in a single day. If a

branch-antlered bull is captured, it is released back into Wing pasture (fig. 7); these bulls

are worked at the end of the season, after they shed their antlers. Spikes and bulls that

have shed are worked with the cows and calves. Data collection during the second

handling is similar to that of the first handling, except that the only cows bled are those

with questionable pregnancy tests from the first handling or cow elk to be released into

Campbell Flat pasture (for phase II of the bull elk study). Radio collars are attached to

the necessary number of adult cows, and the elk are sorted and released into Main,

Northeast, or Campbell Flat. Elk from Main and Northeast return to their respective

pastures (that is, they are kept as separate herds). Different cow elk are released into

Campbell Flat each year to comply with research objectives of the breeding bull study.

Cow elk held in Campbell Flat the previous year are turned into South pasture and fed

there until native vegetation is sufficient to sustain them. These elk are released into

Main by mid-July, after calving and calf searches are completed.

Deer are captured by baiting under a drop net or into individual panel traps and handled

according to protocols described by Wisdom and others (1993). As mentioned earlier,

deer in Northeast are fed there all winter, where they are captured in panel traps and

radio collared as needed to meet sample size objectives. Panel traps also are set in Barn

pasture and in Main; the drop net is in Barn pasture only. When deer are captured, sex

and age are recorded, and a numbered, aluminum ear tag is attached. A blood sample

is drawn from females for pregnancy and disease testing and a plastic identification collar

or radio collar is placed around the neck (does only). Any existing wounds or injuries are

treated topically, and a mixture of vitamin B and selenium is sometimes administered to

reduce effects of capture myopathy. Deer are released where captured or transported

by truck in wooden crates to another area inside the fence and released. Deer trapping

continues until temperatures are too high for safe handling, or when new forage growth

in spring renders baiting ineffective, typically by mid-April.

28
Figure l&-Elk are fed ad libifum with alfalfa hay in

the winter area to control winter foraging conditions

Figure 1 g-Large groups of elk are worked quickly through the pens at the handling

facility and then

released

29
Table 4-Number of handling events and individual deer and elk

handled for the Starkey Project, 1988-g@’

Winterb

Deer Elk

Events Individuals Events Individuals

1988-89 58 58 571 504

1989-90 14 14 113 112

1990-91 39 35 459 418

1991-92 44 44 77 68

1992-93 84 71 885 614”

1993-94 43 43 441 308

1994-95 27 27 946 501

1995-96 60 59 633 322

a Includes animals worked in the handling facility and others trapped, darted, or netted

elsewhere within Starkey.

b Trapping season generally runs from November 1 through April.

’ Includes 66 cow elk trucked to Starkey from surrounding areas to provide calves the

following spring for associated research.

The numbers of animals handled and total handling events since the beginning of the

project are summarized in table 4. Handling mortalities have been minimal, ranging from

0 to 6 percent annually for deer and 0.7 to 2.5 percent for elk. Improvements made in

handling techniques and structures (such as construction of new pens and adding drainage and base rock to the corrals) have decreased injuries even further. Handling records

are stored in database files designed to provide rapid access to all records collected on

elk and mule deer at Starkey. Tables are linked by unique identification numbers for each

animal; data entered include ear tag numbers, handling dates, weights, blood parameters,

pregnancy status, harvest statistics, and fate of animal (for example, harvested, released

into study area, or released outside the perimeter fence). Elk are sometimes released

outside the Starkey fence when they are not needed as part of the experimental population (that is, numbers are above research objectives; table 2). Since the fence was

erected in 1987, Starkey staff have released 379 elk to adjacent SEFR and other FS

lands (table 2).

The following recommendations were provided by Starkey staff after 8 years of trapping

and handling elk:

l Use visual barriers, such as burlap, plastic fencing, tarpaulins, or boards, whenever

possible to reduce excitability of elk and subsequent mortality or injury in high-pressure areas (catch pens, alleys, or corrals).

l When holding animals prior to handling, release, or loading in a truck, confine them to

as small a pen as possible to reduce pacing and stress.

l Increase flexibility in handling and capture by having as many pens, pastures, alleys,

and gates as possible.

Capturing elk calves-Elk calves were captured, primarily in South pasture, from 1990

to 1996 (excluding 1992). Before 1994, calves were captured and tamed for thermal

cover research taking place nearby or to provide data on neonatal elk weights and

diseases (Cook and others 1994). Since phase II of the breeding bull elk study began

(1994), cow elk bred in fall in Campbell Flat have been sequestered in South pasture

30
Figure 20-Elk calves are captured each spring for ongoing studies on effects

of bull elk numbers and age on calf birth dates and survival.

each spring until after parturition. Calf searches are held from late May until early July in

an attempt to capture all calves born to the Campbell Flat cows (fig. 20; see “Breeding

Bull Elk Study” (above) for details on the research with Campbell elk). Wisdom and

others (1993) provide details on protocols used to capture elk calves.

Hunting Seasons Hunting seasons for mule deer and elk have been held since the 1930s in the Starkey

area. Following construction of the game-proof fence around the Starkey Project,

limited-entry hunting seasons continued (fig. 21). (No hunting was allowed in fall 1987

when the fence was being completed, to allow for both establishment of the research

herd and worker safety.) The SEFR is part of lands ceded to the Confederated Tribes

of the Umatilla Indian Reservation for hunting rights. Tribal members have continued to

hunt at Starkey since the fence was constructed and have informally cooperated with

Starkey staff to coordinate their hunts.

A primary reason to continue hunts within the enclosure was to maintain deer and elk

populations at densities similar to those outside the fence, so that results of the research will be relevant to nearby big game herds in the Blue Mountains, Other reasons

for the hunts are biological data collection; to obtain baseline population estimates from

harvest statistics; to provide traditional recreational opportunity; to collect data for input

in an elk vulnerability model; and to subject research animals to hunting pressure and

disturbance similar to that outside the fence. The first bull elk hunts inside the fence

(1988) had a more specific objective of removing all antlered bulls from Main for the first

phase of the breeding bull study (see “Breeding Bull Elk Study,” above). A similar hunt in

1994 was used to remove all antlered elk prior to repeating the breeding bull study in fall

1995 (table 1).

31
Figure 21-Hunting continues as an important recreational activity at Starkey.

Nearly 400 deer tags and over 2,300 elk tags were issued from the beginning of the

Starkey Project through 1995 (see tables 1 and 3). Early fears over animals within the

fence becoming tame and thus easy targets for hunters were unfounded. informal comparisons of hunter success rates for elk inside the fence with rates in the adjacent Starkey

Game Management Unit show that hunter success has been, in fact, somewhat lower

inside the fence. In 1992, for example, harvest rates for antlerless elk were 32 percent

inside the Starkey Project area and 34 to 83 percent outside. In 1994, all elk hunts combined yielded 22 percent success inside Starkey, but 30 percent in the Starkey Unit.

Cow elk hunts were held in Main from 1989 through fall 1993 to collect reproductive tracts

for the breeding bull elk study and to offer recreational opportunity. Hunts for yearling

bull elk also were continued during this period to harvest bulls not of the breeding cohort

in Main. Initial plans called for maintaining only yearling bulls in Northeast, as a “control”

for the Main study; however, this proved impossible. Trapping and hunts in Northeast

have been structured, though, to maintain a relatively young bull population in this area.

Either-sex hunts for deer were offered in 1988 and 1989; subsequent deer hunts have

been limited to bucks. The number of permits available in recent years has been relatively consistent for both deer and elk.

Hunts are closely monitored by Starkey staff to obtain accurate harvest and hunter density

estimates, as well as to collect biological information from animals killed by hunters.

Starkey personnel operate a check station, just inside the main gate, during the hunts

(fig. 22). The only public access into Starkey is through the main gate from State

Highway 244. All hunters in Starkey receive instructions prior to arrival requesting that

they sign in at the check station before they begin hunting. If possible, license numbers

32
Figure 22-Check stations are operated for all hunts at Starkey; hunters participate in research

by providing animal parts and information on kill sites.

and descriptions are recorded for all hunters’ vehicles. Staffing and operation of the

check station vary somewhat, depending on the particular hunt taking place, as well as

how many days have elapsed since opening day. Field checks of hunters also provide

information on harvest and areas hunted.

The perimeter fence is patrolled by FS employees on all-terrain vehicles during the

hunts for enforcement of regulations and to check for injured animals or broken wires in

the fence. A l/4-mile (0.40-km) buffer adjacent to both sides of the perimeter fence is

usually closed to hunting, to prevent hunters from accidentally pushing animals against

the fence, as well as to prohibit hunters from intentionally trapping and then killing elk or

deer along the fence. No off-road vehicle traffic is allowed in Starkey, including during

the hunting seasons, except by project personnel. All motor vehicle traffic is prohibited

in Northeast and in Meadow Creek, except by permit.

Data collection-Extensive data are collected from animals killed by hunters inside

Starkey, especially from cow elk. Hunters in the cow hunts are provided with a collection

bag and diagram of reproductive parts, blood tubes, and instructions. Hunters also must

view a short orientation video before they begin hunting. Animal parts requested from

hunters include kidneys (for kidney fat measurements), a liver sample (to detect selenium

levels), the udder (to see whether the cow raised a calf the previous summer), uterus

with ovaries (to determine pregnancy status and date of conception), and the front lower

jaw, from which a central incisor is removed to estimate age. Two small tubes of blood

are collected by hunters from harvested elk to help validate a technique used to detect

pregnancy in elk (Noyes and others, in press). If a bull is killed, the check station staff

measure the antlers, remove an incisor, and occasionally collect a kidney or liver sample.

Hunters are also requested to turn in any ear tags, identification collars, or radio collars

retrieved from harvested animals.

33
Results of hunting seasons-Eight hunts for deer and 29 for elk were held from 1988

through 1995 (tables 1 and 3). Mean hunter success rates were 0.46 for cow elk, 0.28

for bull elk, 0.70 for either-sex deer hunts, and 0.36 for buck-only hunts. A total of 726 elk

and 192 deer were killed in Starkey hunts between 1988 and 1995. Although no formal

evaluation has been made, hunting conditions inside the fence (for example, animal

densities and hunter:elk ratios) approximate those in areas surrounding the Starkey

enclosure.

The data set from the Starkey hunts, though from a relatively small area, is valuable in

its completeness, especially compared with data from outside the fence. The elk harvest

data have been used in developing a model for elk vulnerability (Vales 1995), and also

will be used to validate this model (Vales 1996). Because of the unique opportunity to

strictly control open-road densities, hunter numbers, and other factors, Starkey is an

ideal site for such validation experiments.

Effects of hunter movement on elk distribution were tested in fall 1990 during two pilot

studies in Northeast (Bryant and others 1991). Ten hunters in each of two hunting

seasons wore backpack frames with AATS transmitting units attached, identical to the

loran-C units worn by ungulates in the study area. Radio-collared cow elk in Northeast

and the hunter backpack collars were paged about every 10 minutes during the two

hunting seasons. Animal and hunter movements were overlaid with a GIS (geographic

information system) program and monitored in real time from a computer screen (Bryant

and others 1991). Further research with this technique could explore several aspects of

elk vulnerability, including relations between hunter and elk densities, energetic effects

on elk from various degrees of hunting pressure, and changes in elk habitat selection

during hunting seasons.

Radio-Telemetry Data

Collection

The AATS operates from April until early December each year. During winter, animals

are fed in or baited to come to the winter area and thus are not tracked. Also, the AATS

was not designed to function in low winter temperatures-the batteries on the microwave

towers are solar-powered and are difficult to recharge when snow covers the solar panels.

Except for special circumstances, all radio-collared deer, elk, and cattle are continuously

paged 24 hours per day. Only females are fitted with the AATS collars. Research objectives for numbers of animals collared at any one time are 10 of each species (deer, elk,

and cattle) in Northeast and 50 of each in Main (table 5).

The radio collars, molded from PVC pipe (Pedersen 1977), accommodate loran-C receivers, telemetry transmitters, pagers, antennas, and batteries. Collar weights range from

about 3.5 pounds (1.6 kg) for deer to 3.7 (1.7 kg) pounds for elk and cattle, and collars

cost about $1,100 each. They also contain sensors that record ambient temperature to

the nearest degree Celsius whenever a collar is paged. Radio collars were reengineered

in 1994 to use three instead of four batteries, decreasing collar weight by about 4 ounces.

The new, more powerful batteries, combined with increased collar efficiency from reengineering, have improved collar longevity.

Radio collars are removed from elk when they are first handled in early winter. Batteries

are replaced and minor repairs made before collars are repackaged in new PVC pipe

and placed on elk in March or April prior to their release back to Main or Northeast. Deer

radio collars are removed whenever possible. If available, a new or retrofitted collar is

placed on the animal during the same capture event, primarily because individual deer

likely will be captured only once during a winter season. Cattle are radio collared in June

prior to their release into Starkey; only research cattle owned by OSU wear radio collars.

34
Table S-Number of functioning loran-C radio collars attached to research

animals for the Starkey Project, midsummer, 1989-95

Species and area

Deer:

Main”

NE?

Total, deer

Elk:

Main

NE

Total, elk

Cattle:

Main

NE

Total, cattle

Year

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995

15 13 14 27 33

4 6 9 7 8

19 19 23 34 41

7” 42 27 37 40 40

9 14 13 6 11 12 13

9 21 55 33 48 52 53

47 47 49 42 46 36d

9 15 13 12 12 13 IO

9 62 60 61 54 59 46

All animals 18 83 134 113 125 145 140

a Main study area, including Campbell Flat.

b Northeast study area.

’ 21 additional collars on elk in Meadow Creek.

d 4 additional collars on cattle in Meadow Creek.

Four heart rate transmitters have been implanted in Starkey research animals (two elk

and two cattle) to test their compatibility with the existing loran-C telemetry system. To

date, two of the transmitters have not functioned consistently, possibly due to faulty electrode contact with muscle tissue in the animals. The interface with the telemetry system

has been successful, however. Once this technology is developed further, researchers

will be able to monitor heart rate response as vehicle traffic or a hunter approaches an

elk or deer, or when cattle move into an area occupied by wild ungulates.

A substantial proportion of time spent in telemetry data collection and analysis is required

for postprocessing the thousands of locations. Postprocessing begins with identifying

and correcting for cycle slips. These are systematic translocations of signals about

1,750 yards (1600 m) north-south or 7,656 yards (7000 m) east-west. Some cycle slips

can be identified mathematically, when four time differences are received; otherwise, the

slips must be removed after visual inspection of the data. Data are summarized by month

and ordered by date and time for each radio collar. After removal of cycle slips, location

data are transferred to Oracle software (FS) for analysis. Animal locations can be displayed at Headquarters II or in the La Grande laboratory on interactive, computerized

maps. Linking animal locations with GIS to the habitat database compiled for Starkey

(Rowland and others, in prep.) allows the user to simultaneously view animal movements

and the cover type, slope, distance to water, or a number of other environmental attributes

in those same pixels.

35
Accuracy and system improvements and failures-The upgrade of the AATS to six

loran-C sources (dual chain) in July 1992 resulted in a maximum of four time differences

received for each animal location, rather than two (that is, four combinations of masterslave transmitting towers). This upgrade, which cost about $250,000, reduced the area

estimate for locations from 8.4 to 7.7 acres (3.4 to 3.1 ha, at 90 percent confidence;

Findholt and others 1996). (It is much more likely that the true position of an animal is in

the center of the area estimate rather than near the perimeter.) Because mean habitat

patch size at Starkey is 36.1 acres (14.6 ha), position estimates from the AATS are

sufficiently accurate to assess habitat relations (Findholt and others 1996). The computer

system at the base station was improved in 1992 by replacing the old model 286 processors with model 486 computers. The new computers are not only faster but also collect

more detailed signal information than did the 286s.

Some gaps have occurred in AATS data collection. A malfunctioning reference collar

rendered 2 weeks of data unusable in September 1991 (appendix 3). Lightning strikes in

July 1993 also reduced the level of coverage of the AATS by disabling two microwave

towers. Further strikes at Headquarters II in June 1994 also disrupted the system

(appendix 3). Otherwise, the AATS has recorded data continuously since July 1989,

except for short periods when the system has been brought down for maintenance or

repairs, or by lightning strikes.

Correcting biases in AATS locations has spanned several years of the Starkey Project.

Position bias (related to effects of topography on loran-C signals) was first measured at

Starkey during field tests in summers 1991 and 1992 by using portable GPS receivers

and loran-C radio collars placed at fixed sites throughout Starkey (Findholt and others

1996). A pilot study in fall 1991 revealed that mean positional errors ranged from 0 to

219 yards (0 to 200 m) and were especially pronounced in the northwest corner of

Starkey (Lachapelle and Townsend 1992). In 1992, differentially corrected GPS bearings

were collected at 386 systematically located points in Starkey, along with loran-C locations. Geostatistics were used to interpolate these results and develop a time difference

correction to apply to loran-C locations throughout Starkey. Finally, 40 loran-C collars

were randomly placed in Starkey to compare bias-corrected loran-C positions with

uncorrected loran-C data. The corrected data were significantly better than uncorrected

data for locations recorded before the AATS was upgraded to the dual chain system.

However, locations since July 1992 were not improved by correcting for positional bias.

Mean position error of the AATS ranges from 148 to 174 feet (45 to 53 m), which is

much less than errors typically reported for loran-C studies (Findholt and others 1996).

An additional complication of the radio-telemetry system was first identified in 1992

when it was discovered that system performance was inconsistent across the Starkey

landscape. Specifically, the probability of receiving a good telemetry location of a radiocollared animal differed slightly across areas of Starkey. Analyses to determine the

source of this bias did not pinpoint any single, predictable source, but the bias was most

closely associated with line-of-sight to a microwave tower, slope position, canopy

closures greater than 40 percent, and slopes greater than 35 percent (Johnson and

others, in press). Corrections for this bias were made, based on performance of collars

placed on animals in 1992 and 1993. The model was further developed and validated

with data on animal locations in 1991, 1994, and 1995 (Johnson and others, in press).

36
Figure 23-Traffic counters record numbers of vehicles

in 1 S-minute blocks and operate continuously from May

through December.

oad and Traffic

Monitoring

Public access is allowed in Starkey from May 1 until about mid-December, after the last

hunt of the year (fig.16). Off-road vehicle use is prohibited, except as needed for research,

and public vehicle traffic is restricted to roads posted with green dots. The right-of-way

along the perimeter fence is also closed to public vehicle traffic. By far the largest influx

of people is during hunting seasons each fall. Traffic is monitored intensively to meet

objectives of the roads research for the Starkey Project (see “Research Focus,” above).

The level of intensity in traffic monitoring for the Starkey Project is likely unparalleled on

National Forest lands. Traffic count data have been collected at Starkey since 1988.

Counters are strategically placed to monitor traffic on all major road segments not physically blocked to vehicle traffic. At each counter site, an inductive loop was installed

several inches below the road surface and connected to the counters. In 1988, counters

were established at 69 sites in Starkey; they now total 75 (figs. 6 and 23). Over the years,

counter sites have been added or dropped as the road system and research needs have

changed. The National Forest System bought the counters, which are maintained by the

Grande Ronde Engineering Zone, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. Counters are set

in place each spring before May 1; they operate continuously (that is, all vehicles are

recorded when a counter is on-line) until their removal in December for winter storage.

37
Traffic volume is recorded in 15minute blocks by each counter, allowing analysis of data

in whatever temporal scale is desired (for example, time of day, week, or hunting season;

Cimon and others, in prep.). Data are stored on microchips and are collected weekly

and downloaded into FS database software (Oracle). Traffic volumes also are monitored

outside the fenced area at additional sites; these “bulk” counters do not record data in

timed intervals but are read for a total tally of vehicles each week.

A relational database has been constructed in Oracle software for managing and analyzing

the Starkey traffic data (Cimon and others, in prep.). Two primary tables make up the

database: one, where the operating periods for each site are listed, and the second for

the nonzero vehicle counts for all sites since the beginning of the project. Over 215,000

nonzero count records were recorded from 1988 to 1993. Additional information, linked

from the Starkey habitat database via GIS, can be incorporated, such as road segment

number and road intersection. Simple graphs depicting daily vehicle counts by counter

can be easily constructed. Much more sophisticated analysis is also possible, given the

level of resolution of the data and the relatively high density of counters at Starkey.

In addition to the counters, two cameras operate at Starkey, one near the main entrance

gate and one in Northeast (fig. 6). The cameras are activated by the counters at these

locations and thus photograph every passing vehicle. Data are categorized by type of

vehicle (all-terrain vehicle, passenger car, pickup truck, bus, single-unit truck, or multipleunit truck), as well as whether the vehicles are commercial, recreational, or administrative.

Vegetation Monitoring Scientists have monitored vegetation in the SEFR since the site was established in the

1940s. Ongoing vegetation studies meet a variety of research objectives, summarized

below.

Campbell Flat-Cattle are grazed in Campbell Flat, along with the three pastures in

Main, in a deferred-rotation grazing system. Cattle grazing is a potentially confounding

factor, however, in ODFW research on cow elk condition and pregnancy. Vegetation

monitoring therefore was begun in Campbell Flat in 1993 to estimate forage use by elk

and cattle, document forage use patterns, and understand effects of forage availability on

elk condition. Thirty-three paired (grazed and ungrazed) vegetation plots were established

that are clipped four to six times each year, beginning in May before cattle are released in

the pasture. Forage usage by elk and cattle combined is measured in riparian, grassland,

and forested sites during each clipping period. Production is also estimated for each of

these three community types, by clipping period. A separate estimate of use by elk only

is made by clipping vegetation before cattle are turned out each year, but after elk have

been released into the pasture. Another usage estimate for elk only has been available

for the Campbell Creek riparian area since it was fenced to exclude cattle in 1994.

Details of this vegetation monitoring are in Cox (nd.).

Main-Within Bear, Half Moon, and Smith-Bally pastures, key riparian areas are measured for shrub and grass use each year, before livestock are turned out, to estimate

forage removal by deer and elk. These measurements are repeated as soon as possible

after livestock are removed, and the sites are photographed. Upland sites are measured

once each year for usage estimates after cattle leave. If possible, grass regrowth in key

areas is assessed in fall by remeasuring stubble height.

38
Figure 24-Vegetation is monitored in the Northeast study area by sampling in 48 macroplots.

Northeast-Forty-seven macroplots have been established in Northeast for measuring

vegetation in relation to experimental timber harvest and animal response (fig. 24;

Coleman and Bobowski 1991). Biomass is clipped, and ground and vegetative cover are

recorded along three transects, totaling 109 yards (100 m) in each macroplot. In addition,

each macroplot site has five shrub plots, which are clipped for biomass, and a single tree

plot, in which all trees are tallied and canopy cover estimated. Macroplots were sampled

in 1991 and in 1995. There also are ‘235 plots (utilization cages) randomly located in

Northeast for monitoring vegetation production, percentage of use, and vegetation

response to silvicultural treatments. These plots are stratified by habitat type and have

been sampled each fall since 1991.

Meadow Creek-Pastures in Meadow Creek were established in the 1970s for long-term

riparian research on the SEFR. Ongoing vegetation monitoring and sampling includes

the riparian habitat of phase Ill, where25 paired-plot cages are clipped to estimate herbaceous production and use after cattle leave each year. A shrub use transect, established

in summer 1993, is measured before and after cattle use each year. Phase IV, primarily

forest and grassland, has 20 paired-plot cages, clipped as in phase III. Before 1991, an

additional 60 cages were clipped annually in phases I and II. Cattle have been excluded

from phases I and II since 1991.

Phenology measurements-Phenological change in herbaceous and shrub species

during the growing season has been monitored at Starkey since 1991 (fig. 25). In June

of that year, 11 transects were established to represent grassland, open forest, and

closed forest areas at two elevations (table 6). Transects are randomly located within

typical sites, and four plots (each 5.4 square feet [0.5 m2]) are sampled at 32.5-foot

(1 O-m) intervals along each transect. Biweekly monitoring usually begins in April and

continues through October.

39
Figure 25--Phenology of vegetation is recorded at selected

sites throughout the growing season at Starkey.

Table (i-vegetation phenology transects established for the Starkey Project

in 1991

Transect Name -Type Elevation Aspect Slope

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1 0

11

Campbell

Turkey Low

Lone Pine

Turkey Upper

HQli

Super Tree

Ray

Bally North

Bally South

Battle

Meadow

Grassland 4180

Grassland 4830

Grassland 4720

Open pine 4880

Open pine 4580

Open pine 4240

Grassland 4360

Dense fir 4600

Dense fir 4640

Dense fir 4500

Dense fir 3840

Feet Degrees

39

210

30

200

196

72

166

340

202

6

5 0

Percent

5

1

2

6

22

1 4

1 5

20

1 0

24

25

40
Table 7-Population estimates of deer

and elk inside the Starkey Project area,

northeast Oregon, 1989-95=

Year Deer Elk

1989 287 487

1990 239 568

1991 246 520

1992 280 501

1993 275 452

1994 281 431

1995 254 406

a Estimates are for adult populations, prior to parturition,

in Main study area only.

The following information is recorded at each visit: percentage of nonvegetated ground

or moss or large tree; percentage of grass and grasslike species; percentage of forbs;

percentage of shrubs; and percentage of evergreens. Phenological stage is recorded for

each type of vegetation in 20-percent increments (for example, 60 to 80 percent). Stages

are defined as growing (preflowering and during flowering); vegetative (postflowering and

green); and cured (plant completely dried). Dominant species in the plot and number of

flowers or flower stalks also are recorded. Hard copies of all phenology data are filed,

and the records also are being summarized in a database.

Ungulate Population Elk-The Starkey environment provides a unique setting for testing population estimaEstimation tion techniques for elk. Starkey elk are free-ranging in a natural area resembling other

landscapes in the Blue Mountains where wildlife managers estimate elk populations, but

a large proportion of the Starkey elk are trapped each year. The combination of harvest

data, trapping records, and aerial classification counts (since 1988) in a closed population yields an estimate that approaches the true population parameter (,u) and thus can

be used to validate population models.

Each year elk are classified by project personnel during two winter helicopter flights. From

1988 through 1996, the same pilot has flown on all flights but one. The first classification

is in late November or early December, typically before elk are baited to the winter area.

Elk in Main are classified separately from those in Northeast. During the second flight, in

March, elk remaining in Main or Northeast for the winter are classified and these totals

are added to the number of elk in the winter area for estimates of sex and age ratios.

(Elk in Campbell Flat are usually in the winter area during the classifications.)

A population model for Starkey elk was built from a combination of data sources: harvest

statistics, including poaching and crippling losses; trapping and handling records; and

helicopter classification counts. The population is quite dynamic; animals are born each

year and others removed by hunting, natural mortality, and trapping and release to

maintain population objectives (tables 2 and 7). Population estimates for cow elk, based

on sightings of radio-collared animals, agree closely with modeled population estimates.

Model estimates for bulls in fall 1994 were very close to numbers actually killed by

hunters during an attempt to remove all antlered elk from Main at the conclusion of the

breeding bull study (phase I):

41
ge class

Yearling

2

3

4

5

6

7

34

13

4

3

4

46

1

ber killed

31

14

4

2

5

47

1

A Lincoln-Petersen index (Lancia and others 1994) also was used in 1991 and 1992 to

estimate the elk herd; marked animals were the radio-collared elk observed during helicopter counts. This index became less reliable in subsequent years, however, because

the exact number of live, marked (collared) animals was unknown. Older collars sometimes break and fall off, and collared elk may die in the forested areas, where t

not visible. Population estimates for Northeast are more precise than those for

some years, nearly all (more than 95 percent) elk in Northeast are trapped in the winter

area, allowing virtually complete enumeration.

The Idaho Department of Fish and Game recently developed a sightability model for

estimating populations of elk in Western mountains (Unswor-th and others 1994). The

model uses predictor variables (group size and number of groups, vegetation cover, and

snow cover) to derive population estimates and confidence intervals. Developed to count

elk from helicopters, the Idaho model was first tested at Starkey in 1989. Model estimates

were much lower than known numbers of elk from winter trapping. After revision, the

sightability model was validated at Starkey during four flights in 1991 and 1992 (Leptich

and others 1995). In a further application of the sightability model, a modified version

was produced for counts made from helicopters other than the Hiller UH-12E, for which

the model was originally developed. This revised model was validated at Starkey in 1994

(Gratson and others, in prep.).

Deer-Deer are classified annually during two helicopter flights, as described above for

elk, and on the winter area. The number of deer that come to the winter area and the

number trapped are highly variable; thus, helicopter counts are the primary source of

population data for deer. When the second flight is made, in March, deer have typically

been released back into Main from Barn pasture. As with elk, deer in Main and Northeast are classified separately. The deer population is estimated with a POP-II model

(Bartholow 1990) based on harvest data and classification counts. The accuracy of the

Starkey deer model is unknown. Mark-recapture estimations have been attempted with

this herd, but collared deer are difficult to find in the dense timber, especially in Northeast, and the number of collared deer dying each year is unknown. The population has

declined somewhat since the project began in 1987 (table 7).

Technology Transfer Technology transfer has been an essential part of the Starkey Project since its inception.

In 1987, Michael Wisdom was assigned to a full-time position established in La Grande

by the National Forest System specifically to coordinate technology transfer for the

Starkey Project. The objective of the technology transfer program was to provide scientific information generated by the project to the National Forest System, the public, and

other resource agencies. The technology transfer program encompasses functions such

as research, development, application, technology transfer, public affairs, and public

education. Material about the purpose of the project and its findings has been dissemi42
nated through public meetings, radio and television broadcasts, tours of the Starkey

facilities for the public and scientists, newspaper articles, fact sheets, scientific publications, popular articles, and videotapes. After 3 years, the technology transfer program

and Starkey Project personnel had:

0 Conducted 197 tours and presentations for over 5,000 people.

* Distributed 32 news releases.

0 Conducted 14 workshops on elk management issues for biologists and managers.

l Provided information to the media, as well as summarized its own information,

resulting in publication of 129 articles in newspapers and magazines.

0 Distributed 15,000 fact sheets about the project to the public and natural resource

agencies.

0 Established a photograph and slide collection about the Starkey Project with more

than 10,000 entries.

In 1993, the Starkey Project received the technology transfer award of the Pacific Northwest Research Station (FS). In winning this award, the Starkey technology transfer

program was eligible for nomination for the Chiefs Award (FS) for Excellence in Technology Transfer, as well as a similar award from the Federal Laboratory Consortium.

The Starkey Project won both in 1993. As the recipient of the Chiefs Award, the project

was cited for “superlative technology transfer of Starkey research and development

products to over 100,000 recipients encompassing local, regional, national and international groups and agencies.”

New Technologies Several technologies used in the Starkey Project were either developed specifically for

the project or are unique in their application or scope as related to the project:

l Tightlock fence-Prior to the Starkey Project this fencing had never been used in the

United States to enclose wildlife. The size of the enclosure also was unprecedented

for wildlife research in this country (Bryant and others 1993). Potential applications of

this fencing in the United States include protection of agricultural fields and orchards

from deer and elk damage, blocking access to highways to prevent cervids from

crossing, and holding elk or other ungulates used in captive breeding programs.

l Telemetry system-The AATS, with its automated computer entry of radio-telemetry

locations, was developed specifically for the Starkey Project. The Starkey AATS has

since been adapted by the National Marine Fisheries Service to track sea turtles.

Their system, tested in the Gulf of Mexico, differs from the Starkey AA,TS in the

antenna used, the lack of a pager, and by containing a microchip to record diving

times of turtles. Several other researchers have expressed interest in adapting the

AATS for their projects.

0 Ice racks-Developed specifically for the Starkey Project, ice racks are a series of

metal gates that span streams to link the Tightlock fence at these junctions (fig. 26).

Six ice racks have been installed over three streams at Starkey. The gates hang from

large metal trusses, which in turn are placed on top of steel pylons. The tubular steel

gates keep animals from crossing the fenceline at streams, yet swing open to allow ice

and debris to pass through, rather than accumulate behind the gates. Such accumulation eventually would knock down the fence and allow research animals to escape or

animals outside the fence to enter the research enclosure. Similar gates built for cattle

fencing at stream crossings fostered the idea for the Starkey ice racks. The technology

43
Figure 261ce racks were built where the fence spans major streams to allow the passage of ice and

debris while barring animal movement into or out of the enclosure.

was developed by engineers working for the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest.

Research, development, and construction were completed in only 4 months in 1987,

creating an effective stream barrier when the perimeter fence was constructed.

l Heart rate implants-A cost-share contract with Starlink, a leader in implanted telemetry systems, led to construction of 13 heart rate transmitters that can be linked with

the AATS at Starkey (see “Radio-Telemetry Data Collection,“ above, for furtherdetails).

Although the Starkey Project has no unique technologies for handling and feeding wild

elk and deer in winter, the large number of animals handled is unusual (table 4). The

data collected are singular in that the animals are essentially wild and are hunted yet,

through their capture, yield abundant information on age and sex ratios, weights,

condition, pregnancy status, and other physiological parameters.

Tours and Presentations More than 350 tours and presentations about the Starkey Project were conducted from

1987 to 1992, with more than 5,000 people visiting the study area (fig. 27). Visitors to the

Starkey Project have included the Chief of the Forest Service, state legislators, congressional staff members, university research scientists, hunters, high school and college

classes, employees of public lands management agencies, state wildlife department

personnel, and members of professional organizations (for example, Society of American

Foresters and Wildlife Management Institute). Many local public and user groups also

have toured the facilities and are generally well acquainted with the project and its scope.

Not only have local and regional audiences observed the Starkey Project but international

visitors also have examined the scope and application of Starkey to other areas and

research problems. Forexample, a contingent of Soviet scientists, including entomologists

and natural resource administrators, visited Starkey in 1989 to learn about the technologies being developed and used for the Starkey Project (fig. 28). Earlier international tours

were conducted in 1988 and 1989, with scientists visiting from over 30 nations. Former

Acting Project Leader Larry Bryant traveled to New Zealand, Mexico, and Poland to

discuss Starkey Project technologies and results with other scientists. A Polish scientist

returned to observe the Starkey Project in 1993.

44
Figure 27-Hundreds of visitors have toured Starkey as part of the ambitious technology transfer

program.

Figure 28-Aoviet entomologists are among the many international scientists who have traveled to

Starkey.

45
Publications Twelve scientific papers about the Starkey Project have been published to date, including

three Forest Service publications (appendix 4). An additional 26 articles are in preparation i

for submission to journals or as Station publications. Several dozen popular articles have

appeared in magazines; a subset of these is listed in appendix 4. Newspaper coverage

has been extensive, especially in the early years of the project. Additional technical

articles are being written as the telemetry data are analyzed and new models are developed and validated with data from Starkey. Publication of scientific and popular articles

should continue well into the next decade.

Future Research The facilities and animals within the Starkey Project area offer ample opportunity to

continue innovative wildlife research, given adequate funding and personnel. Effects of

predators, such as black bears or cougars, on deer and elk could be studied by manipulating either predator or prey populations and monitoring population responses. Another

potential area of research is effects of herbivory by wild and domestic ungulates on plant

communities in the Blue Mountains (Irwin and others 1994). Grazing trials at Starkey,

coupled with long-term grazing exclosures, could be used to test hypotheses related to

herbivory.

An especially suitable area of research in the Starkey environment is elk vulnerability.

With its closely monitored hunts and reliable population estimates, the Starkey site could

host research on effects of hunter harassment on elk behavior and hunter success, effects

of hunter density on harvest rates, or a myriad of other facets related to elk vulnerability

to harvest by hunters.

Other potential research at Starkey that would complement ongoing studies includes:

0 Effects of fire and salvage logging on deer and elk populations.

0 Effects of elk on mule deer distribution and population dynamics.

0 Effects of domestic and wild ungulates on habitats of Neotropical migratory birds and

small mammals.

l Further model validation, such as habitat effectiveness, forage allocation, and population estimation models.

0 Manipulating rates of traffic frequency and measuring direct distributional responses of

ungulates.

Acknowledgments Leonard Erickson and Donavin Leckenby of ODFW played primary roles in proposing

and implementing the initial phase of the Starkey Project-Erickson on the breeding bull

elk study and Leckenby on the animal-unit-equivalencies study-as well as in tests of

potential telemetry systems.

Richard Collins, Evelyn Kalb, John Lipscomb, and Randall Nielsen, engineers for the

Grande Ronde Engineering Zone, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, established the

traffic monitoring system used at Starkey. Collins, in particular, developed the counter

system and reviewed past records for accuracy. Doug Barton (La Grande RD) played a

key role as liaison between the National Forest System and Research in coordinating the

Starkey Project. He was followed in that role by Pete Etchamendy and Paul Boehne; the

latter currently serves as liaison. The ice racks were designed, constructed, and installed

by engineers Dave Dahlstrom and Larry Monical, Grande Ronde Engineering Zone.

4 6
References

The timber sale in Syrup Creek (Northeast) was coordinated by a La Grande RD interdisciplinary team, District Silviculturist Jim Barrett, and project scientists Larry Bryant

and Jack Ward Thomas. Barrett also wrote the sale prescriptions, laid out the sale,

served as harvest inspector, and coordinated the marking with the La Grande RD crew.

Tom Burr-y was sale administrator. Other assistance with the timber harvest (site preparation and planting) was provided by Gary Bruch, John Lipscomb, and Greg Vergari.

Since the project began, permittees with cattle inside Starkey have cooperated by grazing

cattle according to research requirements. Current permittees are Oregon State University (OSU) and three members of the Starkey Cattle and Horse Association: Dick Snow,

Dave Umbarger, and Dennis Waite. Martin Vavra and Tim DelCurto, through the OSU

Agricultural Experiment Station, are responsible for the cattle that are radio collared each

year and data associated with them.

A large, interdisciplinary project such as Starkey requires many people and talents. The

Starkey field crew has worked to maintain healthy elk and deer on the winter area, trap

and radio collar animals, collect data, and keep Starkey operations running smoothly.

Brian Dick has served as area manager since 1992. The field crew also has included

Ben Bobowski, Cheryl Borum, Dale Borum, Dave Carroll, Brett Coleman, Brian Cox,

Scott Feltis, Ryan Kennedy, Paul Kennington, Randy Lewis, Pat Medina, Jack Nothwang,

Brian Swearingen, Kathy Jo Westenskow-Wall, Bill Wallhauer, Tim Westfall, and Wayne

Williams. Other project personnel have worked primarily with data analysis and computer

applications; they include Norm Cimon, Priscilla Coe, Scott Findholt, Catherine Poppenwimer, and Rosemary Stussy. Technology transfer for the Starkey Project was aided by

the work of Jan Abeita, Judith Hector, Les Ozawa, and Mark Patterson; Dan White

produced a videotape depicting the breeding bull study.

We thank Norm Cimon, Priscilla Coe, Brian Dick, Scott Findholt, and Lynn Starr for

reviewing this paper. Cheryl Borum, Norm Cimon, Brian Dick, Randall Nielsen, and Jack

Nothwang also provided information on trapping and handling, facilities, and general

operations at Starkey. We also thank Jan Abeita, Norm Cimon, Priscilla Coe, John Cook,

and Rosemary Stussy for help in preparing figures.

Hugh Black, Jr., Lisa Norris, and Richard Pedersen (Forest Service, Pacific Northwest

Region) provided financial support for the technology transfer program and research.

Additional funding was provided by the Northeast Regional office of ODFW and Federal

Aid in Wildlife Restoration.

Anon. 1987a. Elk, deer, and cattle reaction to intensive timber management on the

Starkey Experimental Forest and Range. 62 p. Draft study plan. On file with: Pacific

Northwest Research Station, Forestry and Range Sciences Laboratory, 1401 Gekeler

Lane, La Grande, OR 97850.

Anon. 1987b. The influence of traffic density on elk, deer, and cattle use of adjacent

areas. 35 p. Draft study plan. On file with: Pacific Northwest Research Station,

Forestry and Range Sciences Laboratory, 1401 Gekeler Lane, La Grande, OR 97850.

Bartholow, John. 1990. POP-II system documentation. [Fort Collins, CO]: Fossil Creek

Software. 51 p.

47
Bryant, Larry D.; Thomas, Jack Ward; Johnson, Bruce K.; Noyes, James H. 1991.

Hunter and Rocky Mountain elk (Cervus elaphus nelsoni) interactions in the Starkey

Experimental Forest and Range. In: Christensen, Alan G.; Lyon, L. Jack; Lonner,

Terry N., camps. Proceedings of elk vulnerability-a symposium; 1991 April 10-q 2;

Bozeman, MT. Bozeman, MT: Montana State University: 168-173.

Bryant, Larry D.; Thomas, Jack W.; Rowland, Mary M. 1993. Techniques to construct

New Zealand elk-proof fence. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-313. Portland, OR: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 17 p.

Bull, Evelyn L.; Beckwith, Roy C. 1993. Diet and foraging behavior of Vaux’s swifts in

northeastern Oregon. The Condor. 95: 1016-l 023.

Bull, Evelyn L.; Collins, Charles T. 1993. Nesting chronology, molt, and ectoparasites

of Vaux’s swifts in northeastern Oregon. Avocetta. 17: 203-207.

Bull, Evelyn L.; Holthausen, Richard S. 1993. Habitat use and management of pileated

woodpeckers in northeastern Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management. 57(2): 335345.

Bull, Evelyn L.; Wisdom, Michael J. 1992. Fauna of the Starkey Experimental Forest

and Range. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-291. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 28 p.

Bull, Evelyn L.; Wright, Anthony L.; Henjum, Mark G. 1989. Nesting and diet of longeared owls in conifer forests, Oregon. The Condor. 91: 908-912.

Bull, Evelyn L.; Wright, Anthony L.; Henjum, Mark G. 1990. Nesting habitat of flammulated owls in Oregon. Journal of Raptor Research. 24(3): 52-55.

Cimon, Norman J.; Collins, Richard K.; Bryant, Larry D.; Thomas, Jack Ward. [In

prep.]. Automated loading of Starkey traffic count data into a relational database and

subsequent use of the database for data validation.

Clark, P.E.; Krueger, WC.; Bryant, L.D.; Thomas, D.R. 1996. Use of livestock to

improve the nutritional quality of elk winter range forage in northeastern Oregon. In:

Evan, K., camp. Sharing common ground on western rangelands: Proceedings of a

livestock/big game symposium; 1996 February 26-28; Sparks, NV. Gen. Tech. Rep.

INT-GTR-343. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 77-80.

Coleman, Brett; Bobowski, Benny. 1991. Methodology: Starkey Experimental Forest

vegetation studies, intensive timber management area. [6 p.]. Unpublished paper. On

file with: Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry and Range Sciences Laboratory, 1401 Gekeler Lane, La Grande, OR 97850.

Cook, John G.; Irwin, Larry L.; Bryant, Larry D. [and others]. 1994. Studies of elk

biology in northeast Oregon: 1993 progress report, 70 p. Unpublished report. On file

with: NCASI, Forestry and Range Sciences Laboratory, 1401 Gekeler Lane, La Grande,

OR 97850.

Cook, John G.; Johnson, Bruce K.; DelCurto, Tim; Bryant, Larry. 1995. Study of

interaction of birth date and summer nutrition on survival of calf elk. [Not paged]. Draft

study plan. On file with: Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry and Range

Sciences Laboratory, 1401 Gekeler Lane, La Grande, OR 97850.

48
Cox, Brian. [nd.]. Campbell monitoring project. 3 p. Unpublished report. On file with:

Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry and Range Sciences Laboratory, 1401

Gekeler Lane, La Grande, OR 97850.

Dick, Brian; Nothwang, Jack; Stumbo, Wes. 1993. Facilities master plan and site

development plan for Starkey Experimental Forest and Range. 26 p. Unpublished

report. On file with: Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry and Range Sciences

Laboratory, 1401 Gekeler Lane, La Grande, OR 97850.

Filip, Gregory M.; Parks, Catherine A. 1987. Simultaneous infestation by dwarf

mistletoe and western spruce budworm decreases growth of Douglas-fir in the Blue

Mountains of Oregon. Forest Science. 33(3): 767-773.

Findholt, Scott L.; Johnson, Bruce K.; Bryant, Larry D.; Thomas, Jack W. 1996.

Corrections for position bias of a loran-C radio-telemetry system using DGPS.

Northwest Science. 70(3): 273-280.

Franklin, Jerry F.; Dyrness, CT. 1973. Natural vegetation of Oregon and Washington.

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-8. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 417 p.

Gratson, Michael W.; Wall, William A.; Johnson, Bruce K. [In prep.] Modifying

aerial survey models for other aircraft.

Hieb, S.R., ed. 1976. Proceedings of the elk-logging-roads symposium; [1975 December

16-171; [Moscow, ID]. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho. [Pages unknown].

Hines, William W.; Lemos, James C. [1979]. Reproductive performance of two ageclasses of male Roosevelt elk in southwestern Oregon. Portland, OR: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife; final report. [Pages unknown].

Irwin, Larry L.; Cook, John G.; Riggs, Robert A.; Skovlin, Jon M. 1994. Effects of

long-term grazing by big game and livestock in the Blue Mountains forest ecosystems.

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-325. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 49 p. (Everett, Richard L., assessment

team leader; Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment; Hessburg, Paul F.,

science team leader; Eastside ecosystem health assessment; Hessburg Paul F.,

science team leader and tech. ed., Volume Ill: assessment).

Johnson, B.K.; Noyes, J.H.; Findholt, S.F. 1993. Effect of age and number of male

elk (Census elaphus) on paternity, birth dates, and survival of calves in Starkey

Experimental Forest and Range. 12 p. Final study plan. On file with: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Forestry and Range Sciences Laboratory, 1401 Gekeler

Lane, La Grande, OR 97850.

Johnson, Bruce K.; Ager, Alan; Crim, Sarah A. [and others]. 1996. Allocating forage

among wild and domestic ungulates-a new approach. In: Olson-Edge, Sally L.;

Edge, W. Daniel, eds. Proceedings of a symposium on sustaining rangeland ecosystems; 1994 August 29-31; La Grande, OR. Spec. Rep. 953. Corvallis, OR: Oregon

State University Extension Service: 166-I 69.

Johnson, Bruce K.; Ager, Alan A.; Findholt, Scott L. [and others]. [In press].

Mitigating spatial differences in observation rate of automated telemetry systems.

Journal of Wildlife Management.

49
Johnson, Bruce K; Findholt, Scott L.; Leckenby, Donavin. 1994. Predicting distributions and animal-unit-equivalencies of elk, mule deer, and cattle for habitats within the

Starkey Experimental Forest and Range. 50 p. Draft study plan. On file with: Oregon

Department of Fish and Wildlife, Forestry and Range Sciences Laboratory, 1401

Gekeler Lane, La Grande, OR 97850.

Lachapelle, G.; Townsend, B. 1992. Calibration of loran-C with a mobile DGPS

system for animal tracking in the Starkey Experimental Forest. 10 p. [plus appendices].

Unpublished final report. On file with: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife,

Forestry and Range Sciences Laboratory, 1401 Gekeler Lane, La Grande, OR 97850.

Lancia, Richard A.; Nichols, James D.; Pollock, Kenneth H. 1994. Estimating the

number of animals in wildlife populations. In: Bookhout, Theodore A., ed. Research

and management techniques for wildlife and habitats. 5th ed. Bethesda, MD: The

Wildlife Society: Chapter 9.

Leckenby, D.A. 1984. Elk use and availability of cover and forage habitat components

in the Blue Mountains, northeast Oregon, 1976-1982. Wildl. Res. Rep. 14. Portland,

OR: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 40 p.

Leckenby, Donavin; Wheaton, Chris; Bright, Larry. 1991. Elk vulnerability: the

Oregon situation. In: Christensen, Alan G.; Lyon, L. Jack; Lonner, Terry N., camps.

Proceedings of elk vulnerability-a symposium; 1991 April 1 O-12; Bozeman, MT.

Bozeman, MT: Montana State University: 225-228.

Leptich, David J.; Garton, Edward 0.; Johnson, Bruce K.; Zager, Pete. 1995. Elk

sightability model validation at the Starkey Experimental Forest and Range, Oregon.

14 p. [plus 3 figs.]. Draft manuscript. On file with: Oregon Department of Fish and

Wildlife, Forestry and Range Sciences Laboratory, 1401 Gekeler Lane, La Grande,

OR 97850.

Lyon, L. Jack. 1983. Road density models describing habitat effectiveness for elk.

Journal of Forestry. 81(9): 592-595.

Lyon, L. Jack; Lonner, Terry N.; Weigand, John P. [and others]. 1985. Coordinating

elk and timber management. [Place of publication unknown]: [publisher unknown];

final report of the Montana Cooperative Elk-Logging Study 1970-I 985. 53 p.

Noyes, J.H.; Johnson, B.K.; Erickson, L.J. 1992. Effects of age of breeding bulls on

elk reproductive performance on the Starkey Experimental Forest, Oregon. 12 p.

Final study plan. On file with: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Forestry and

Range Sciences Laboratory, 1401 Gekeler Lane, La Grande, OR 97850.

Noyes, James H.; Johnson, Bruce K.; Bryant, Larry D. [and others]. 1996. Effects

of bull age on conception dates and pregnancy rates of cow elk. Journal of Wildlife

Management. 60(3): 508517.

Noyes, James H.; Sasser, R. Garth; Johnson, Bruce K. [and others] [In press].

Accuracy of pregnancy detection by serum protein (PSPB) in elk. Wildlife Society

Bulletin.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1988. Feasibility tests of conventional radio

telemetry techniques at the Starkey Experimental Forest and Range. Unpublished

data. On file with: ODFW, Forestry and Range Sciences Laboratory, 1401 Gekeler

Lane, La Grande, OR 97850.

50
Parks, Catherine G.; Bull, Evelyn L.; Filip, Gregory M. 1995. Creating wildlife trees

in managed forests using decay fungi. In: Aguirre-Bravo, Celedonio; Eskew, Lane G.;

Gonzalez-Vicente, Carlos E.; Villa-Salas, Avelino B., tech. eds., camps. Partnerships

for sustainable forest ecosystem management: 5th Mexico/U.S. biennial symposium;

1994 October 17-20; Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-266.

Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain

Forest and Range Experiment Station. 201 p. (English); 218 p. (Spanish).

Pedersen, R.J. 1977. Big game collar-transmitter package. Journal of Wildlife Management. 41: 578-579.

Pedersen, Richard J. 1985. Elk use of an unlogged and logged forest environment.

Moscow, ID: University of Idaho. 142 p. Ph.D. dissertation.

Prothero, Walter L.; Spillett, J. Juan; Balph, David F. 1979. Rutting behavior of

yearling and mature bull elk: some implications for open bull hunting. In: Boyce,

Mark S.; Hayden-Wing, Larry D., eds. North American elk: ecology, behavior, and

management. Laramie, WY: The University of Wyoming: 160-165.

Riggs, Robert A.; Cook, John G.; Irwin, Larry L.; Spicer, James L. 1993. Relating

timber management to cover for big game on interior Northwest winter range: some

thoughts on reducing conflict. In: Callas, Richard L.; Koch, Donald B.; Loft, Eric R.,

eds. Proceedings of the 1990 Western States and Provinces elk workshop; 1990 May

15-17; Eureka, CA. [Place of publication unknown]: California Department of Fish and

Game: 18-36.

Rowland, Mary M.; Coe, Priscilla K.; Stussy, Rosemay J. [and others]. [In prep.].

The Starkey habitat database for ungulate research: construction, documentation, and

use.

Schommer, Tim. 1991. Analysis of big game statistics 1965-90, Wallowa-Whitman

National Forest. [Baker City, OR]: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. 4 p. [25 figs., 14 tables].

Skovlin, Jon M. 1991. Fifty years of research progress: a historical document on the

Starkey Experimental Forest and Range. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-266. Portland,

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research

Station. 58 p.

Stoddart, Laurence A.; Smith, Arthur D. 1943. Range management. New York:

McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. 547 p.

Thomas, Jack Ward. 1983. Priority problems concerning elk habitat and elk/cattle

relationships in the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington. 14 p. Draft position

paper. On file with: Forestry and Range Sciences Laboratory, 1401 Gekeler Lane,

La Grande, OR 97850.

Thomas, Jack Ward; Black, Hugh, Jr.; Scherzinger, Richard J.; Pedersen, Richard

J. 1979. Deer and elk. In: Thomas, Jack Ward, tech. ed. Wildlife habitats in managed

forests-the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington. Agric. Handb. 553. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture: 104-127.

Thomas, Jack Ward; Leckenby, Donavin A.; Henjum, Mark [and others]. 1988.

Habitat-effectiveness index for elk on Blue Mountain winter ranges. Gen. Tech. Rep.

PNW-GTR-218. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Research Station. 28 p.

5 1
Unsworth, James W.; Leban, Frederick A.; Leptich, David J. [and others]. 1994.

Aerial survey: user’s manual. 2d ed. Boise: Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 84 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1985. Controlled elk, deer, cattle,

and timber studies on the Starkey Experimental Forest and Range: environmental

assessment. [Portland, OR]: Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station.

50 p. [plus appendices].

Vales, David J. 1995. Documentation for ELKVULN.EXE. Draft program version 0.90.

21 p. Unpublished report. On file with: Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry

and Range Sciences Laboratory, 1401 Gekeler Lane, La Grande, OR 97850.

Vales, David J. [1996]. Outline for validation of elk vulnerability model, version 1 .OO. 9 p.

[plus 10 figs.]. Draft outline. On file with: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife,

Forestry and Range Sciences Laboratory, 1401 Gekeler Lane, La Grande, OR 97850. I-’

Vavra, Martin. 1980. Problem analysis-forage allocation for big game and livestock in

northeastern Oregon. 60 p. [plus appendices]. Unpublished report. On file with: Pacific

Northwest Research Station, Forestry and Range Sciences Laboratory, 1401 Gekeler

Lane, La Grande, OR 97850.

Wisdom, Michael J.; Bright, Larry R.; Carey, Chris G. [and others]. 1986. A model

to evaluate elk habitat in western Oregon. R6-F&WL-216-1986. Portland, OR: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 36 p.

Wisdom, Michael J.; Cook, John G.; Rowland, Mary M.; Noyes, James H. 1993.

Protocols for care and handling of deer and elk at the Starkey Experimental Forest

and Range. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-311. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 49 p.

Wisdom, Michael J.; Rowland, Mary M. [and others]. [In prep. a]. Elk, deer, and

cattle distributions in relation to road density.

Wisdom, Michael J. [and others]. [In prep. b]. Elk, deer, and cattle distributions in

relation to traffic rate.

52
Appendix 1

Starkey Statistics

Feature

Unit of measure

English Metric

Area:

Maina

Campbell Flat

Northeast

Winter area

Total

Radio-collar weight:

Deer

Elk

Cattle

Pixel size

Game-proof fence:

Perimeter

Interior

Total

Resolution of telemetry locations

Roads:

MainOpen

Closed

RestrictedC

Total roads, Main

Campbell FlatClosed

Restrictedc

Total roads, Campbell Fiat

NortheastdClosed

Restrictedc

Total roads, Northeast

Winter areadClosed

Restrictedc

Total roads, winter area

Total, all roads

Road density:

MainOpen roads

All roads

Campbell Flat

Northeastd

Starkeye

Elevation:

Minimum

Maximum

Average rainfall

Area harvested in NE

19,180 acres 7762 h a

1,537 acres 622 h a

3,590 acres 1453 h a

655 acres 265 h a

24,962 acres 10 102 h a

3.2 lb 1.5 k g

3.7 lb 1.7 k g

4.0 lb 1.8 k g

33 x 33 y d 30 x 3 0 m

27 mi 44 km

14 mi

41 mi

22 km

66 km

7.7 acres 3.1 hab

27 mi

48 mi

44 km

77 km

50 mi

125 mi

80 km

201 km

3 m i 5 k m

4 m i 6 k m

7 m i 1 1 k m

3 m i 5 k m

3 0 m i 4 9 k m

3 3 m i 5 4 k m

1 m i 2 k m

3 m i 5 k m

4 m i 7 k m

169 mi 273 km

0.90 milm? 0.57 km/km*

4.18 milm? 2.59 km/km2

2.92 mi/m? 1.77 km/km*

5.89 mi/mF 3.72 km/km*

4.34 mi/mi* 2.70 km/km2

3,681 ft

4,922 ft

20 in

1,207 acres

1122 m

1500 m

51 cm

489 ha

a Includes 24 ha of Meadow Creek exclosures.

b Area estimate (go-percent confidence interval) of each position from the

upgraded telemetry system, after correction for bias.

’ Includes administrative and other roads closed to the public and rarely used.

d All roads in Northeast and the winter area are closed to vehicular traffic except

for administrative use or for retrieving elk or deer killed during hunts in Northeast.

e All roads in Main, Campbell, and Northeast, open or closed; does not include the

winter area.

5 3
Appendix 2 Date Event

Chronology of Major

Events in the History

of the Starkey Project

1982 initial discussion of research project that would require fencing the

SEFR to test habitat use and interactions of deer, elk, and cattle on

managed forests. Principal figures were Warren Aney (Northeast

Region supervisor for ODFW), Larry Bryant (wildlife biologist at the

La Grande Forestry and Range Sciences Laboratory, Pacific Northwest Experiment Station), Fred Ebel (Boise Cascade Corporation),

William Farrell (county agent, Grant County), Donavin Leckenby

(wildlife biologist, ODFW), John Lowe (Forest supervisor, Umatilla

NF), and Jack Ward Thomas (project leader for wildlife research at

La Grande).

Dec. 1985 Environmental Assessment (EA) for Starkey Project completed.

Jan. 1986 EA approved: allowed fence construction to enclose most of the

SEFR and outlined the four main studies.

July 1986

1987

Fall 1987

Forest Service Chief Max Peterson approves Starkey Project;

appeals filed by local hunters and an environmental group are

rejected.

Initial funding approved for fencing Starkey and conducting research and development. Michael Wisdom assigned to Starkey

Project to lead technology transfer program.

No hunting allowed so that (1) researchers can accurately estimate

populations of deer and elk and (2) animals can acclimate to fenced

area. Initial perimeter fencing completed, enclosing 25,000 acres

(IO 125 ha) of the SEFR and nearby FS lands with high-tensile,

woven-wire, game-proof fence.

Winter 1987-88 Elk fed along roads and in the winter area created in the eastern

portion of Starkey; deer are fed in Main and Northeast, because it is

believed that they will not come into the winter area voluntarily. Mild

winter hampers trapping of elk and deer. Handling facilities under

construction.

Jan. 1988

1988

1988-89

Fall 1988

Starkey area closed to public for 6 weeks to avoid disruption while

animals are baited to winter area.

Sixty-nine traffic counters established in Starkey to monitor traffic

frequency for road effects study. Construction begins on microwave

towers for telemetry system. Handling facilities completed.

Project personnel build interior fences to create separate pastures

for deer and elk in the winter area.

Limited-entry hunting resumes; by end of winter, 98 percent of

antlered bulls are removed from Starkey for beginning of breeding

bull elk study.

54
Date Event

Winter 1988-89

Summer 1989

Dec. 1989

Feb. 1990

Summer 1990

Sept. 1990

Oct. 1990

1991

Summer 1991

Oct. 1991

Winter 1991-92

Summer 1992

July 1992

Nov. 1992

Winter 1992-93

Summer 1993

Deer and elk are baited to winter area and are now fed in separate

pastures. Heavy snows boost capture to more than 75 percent of

deer and elk.

Automated Animal Telemetry System (AATS) now operational,

recording a daily average of 25 locations each for 10 cows and 10

elk in Northeast.

Begin collection of reproductive tracts from cow elk killed by hunters

in Main, to be used in breeding bull elk study. Collection to continue

through 1993.

Timber in Northeast marked for green sale.

Forest Service accepts bid from Boise Cascade Corporation to

harvest 6 million board feet in Northeast by November 1992.

Last microwave relay tower installed, making AATS fully operational

across the entire Starkey Project area.

250,000 radio-telemetry locations recorded to date for ungulates in

Starkey.

Formation of IACUC, a committee that oversees handling and care

of animals fenced within Starkey.

Road construction begins in Northeast, including 24 miles (39 km)

of new roads and reconstruction of 4 miles (6 km) of roads.

Logging begins in Northeast.

Mild winter results in low numbers of deer and elk arriving at the

winter area.

Construction of new game-proof fence creates 1,537-acre (622-ha)

Campbell Flat pasture for phase II of the breeding bull elk study.

Improved AATS installed and tested. New dual-chain system uses

six loran-C transmitter sites, thereby improving accuracy of location

data.

Logging completed in Northeast, with over 7 million board feet

harvested.

Preliminary results from breeding bull elk study show that older bulls

impregnate cows earlier and over a shorter breeding period.

Improvements made in handling facilities to reduce stress and

improve footing for animals in catch pens. Cleanup and burning of

logging residue and site preparation in Northeast.

55
Date

Spring 1994

Event

More burning of logging residue and site preparation in Northeast;

planting of cut units begins.

Summer 1994 Prototype forage allocation model developed for deer, elk, and

cattle.

Fall 1994 Six-year-old bulls in Main available for hunting following completion

of phase I of breeding bull elk study; male calves born this year will

be used to repeat study for 5 more years.

Appendix 3

Spring 1995

Fall 1995

Summer 1996

Date

Planting of cut units in Northeast completed.

Initial analysis of Starkey data for traffic and AUE studies.

Corrections of performance bias of telemetry system finalized;

results submitted for publication.

Event

Chronology of Development and Operation of Oct. 1987

the Automated Animal

Telemetry System

Fall 1987

March 1988

Summer 1988

Fall 1988

Spring 1989

Request for proposals issued for automated telemetry system for

the Starkey Project; Tracer Aerospace, Inc., awarded contract in

September.

Thirty prototype loran-C collars constructed by Tracer Aerospace,

placed on elk and cattle. Completion of first three microwave towers

for loran-C signal reception.

Summer 1989 Automated Animal Telemetry System (AATS) tested and first phase

Donavin Leckenby, Larry Bryant, and Glenn McLaughlin travel to

Sweden to investigate time-arrival telemetry system at the Grismo

Research Center near Stockholm; further pursuit abandoned when

costs and probable delay in construction for Starkey are realized.

Bryant travels to-Texas to investigate “advanced” conventional telemetry system (designed by SW Research); discovers that Starkey

would need 30 or 40 towers for 164- to 230-foot (50- to 70-m) resolution. Also visits Tracer Aerospace, Inc., to discuss possible loran-6

navigational system application for radio telemetry at Starkey.

Bryant writes $50,000 contract for feasibility study of a loran-C

system at Starkey.

Newer, more compact loran-C receivers tested at Starkey. Conventional telemetry system also tested at Starkey but found inadequate

for resolution needed. Construction begins on first three microwave

towers for radio-telemetry system (at Mann, Bally, and Starkey

compound; fig.14).

56
Date Event

1990

Sept. 1990

Fall 1990

Summer 1991 Field testing to assess accuracy of telemetry system. Crystals

replaced in three microwave towers, thus eliminating phase shift

problems.

Sept. 1991 AATS down for about 2 weeks due to malfunctioning local reference

collar.

Fall 1991 System recording up to 2,500 locations per day for over 100 animals;

more than 737,000 locations to date.

Spring 1992 New software written to aid in postprocessing of telemetry data.

July 1992 Upgrade to dual chain loran-C system by Trimble Navigation, with

additional signals from Williams Lake, BC, Haver, MT, and Searchlight, NV, towers. New configuration allows triangulation with foursignals instead of only two, thereby yielding better resolution. Upgrade

cost of $250,000 funded by Washington Office of FS through Pacific

Northwest Region (National Forest System) and Research (Pacific

Northwest Research Station).

Summer 1992

Nov. 1992

of AATS completed. Nine elk and nine cattle collared in Northeast;

receiving signals from three loran-C sources (Middleton, CA; Fallon,

NV; George, WA).

Navigation section of Tracer Aerospace bought out by Trimble Navigation, which fulfills remainder of original AATS contract. Several

former Tracer employees, including Walt Fowler, form Starlink, Inc.,

a navigation hardware company. Starlink supplies and maintains all

future loran-C radio collars for the Starkey Project. Trimble will service loran-C hardware and software; project receives first 200 collars

from Trimble.

Construction completed on five additional microwave towers and a

permanent base station at Headquarters II, making AATS fully operational over Starkey. Fourteen elk and 15 cattle with radio collars in

Northeast; 7 elk and 47 cattle collared in Main.

Over 250,000 animal locations recorded to date. Ten hunters in each

of two hunts outfitted with radio-telemetry backpacks to track their

movements, and responses of elk, during hunting seasons. Pilot study

deemed successful for future use in elk vulnerability experiments.

Position bias in AATS due to topography tested by comparing ground

points as determined with loran-C collars to points determined with

GPS.

Radio collars placed at fixed positions to test corrections of topographic bias.

57
Date Event

Appendix 4

Bibliography

Spring 1993 Helicopters used to capture deer and elk for attaching radio collars.

June 1993 Work begun to test performance bias of telemetry system (“black

hole” effect).

July 1993 Lightning strikes two towers, damaging equipment and temporarily

reducing level of coverage.

Spring 1994 Experimental heart rate transmitters implanted in two elk and two

cattle. Problem with lead attachment to muscles is detected, but

correctable.

June 1994 Lightning strikes Headquarters II, interrupting functionality and synchronizing of equipment, thereby reducing system efficiency for the

remainder of 1994. Problem fixed before 1995 field season.

July 1994 Loran-C collars placed at fixed locations to assess bias in performance of AATS.

Spring 1995 Twenty-five new deer radio collars received from Starlink, Inc.

Jan. 1996 Battery in loran-C collar vents violently while being worked on in

laboratory. Diodes added to all new radio-collar battery packs as

safety measure.

Skovlin’s (1991) summary of the history of and past research in the Starkey Experimental Forest and Range includes a bibliography of scientific publications from 1942 to 1988.

The following list of publications does not duplicate those references and is associated

exclusively with the Starkey Project. The reader is referred to Skovlin’s work for earlier

publications about the SEFR, prior to the start of the Starkey Project. Titles for articles

in preparation are tentative.

Technical papers (complete listing)-

Ager, Alan; Crim, Sarah A.; Johnson, Bruce K.; Wisdom, Michael J. [In prep.].

A linear programming model to allocate forage among domestic and wild ungulates.

Ager, Alan A.; McGaughey, Robert J. [In press]. UTOOLS: microcomputer software

for spatial analysis and landscape visualization. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-397.

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest

Research Station. 15 p.

Ager, Alan A.; Wisdom, Michael J. [and others]. [In prep.]. Ungulate movements

and energy expenditures in relation to traffic and associated human activities.

Bryant, Larry D.; Thomas, Jack W.; Rowland, Mary M. 1993. Techniques to construct

New Zealand elk-proof fence. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-313. Portland, OR: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 17 p.

Bryant, Larry D.; Thomas, Jack Ward; Johnson, Bruce K.; Noyes, James H. 1991.

Hunter and Rocky Mountain elk (Census elaphus nelsoni) interactions in the Starkey

5 8
Experimental Forest and Range. In: Christensen, Alan G.; Lyon, L. Jack; Lonner,

Terry N., camps. Proceedings of elk vulnerability-a symposium; 1991 April 10-12;

Bozeman, MT. Bozeman, MT: Montana State University: 168-173.

Cimon, Norm; Coe, Priscilla. 1992. The map machine: using the structured query

language to produce precisely tailored maps of telemetry observations: Proceedings of

GIS ‘92 symposium; 1992 February; Vancouver, BC. [Location of publisher unknown]:

[Publisher unknown]: 1-7.

Cimon, Norman J.; Collins, Richard K.; Bryant, Larry D.; Thomas, Jack Ward. [In

prep.]. Automated loading of Starkey traffic count data into a relational database and

subsequent use of the database for data validation.

Cimon, Norman J. [and others]. [In prep.]. A system for obtaining vehicle trafficdensity

for a generalized season of use on the Starkey Experimental Forest and Range.

Cimon, Norman J. [and others]. [In prep.]. Obtaining a minimal set of road counters

for monitoring vehicle traffic on the Starkey Experimental Forest and Range.

Clark, P.E.; Krueger, WC.; Bryant, L.D.; Thomas, D.R. 1996. Use of livestock to

improve the nutritional quality of elk winter range forage in northeastern Oregon. In:

Evan, K., camp. Sharing common ground on western rangelands: Proceedings of a

livestock/big game symposium; 1996 February 26-28; Sparks, NV. Gen. Tech. Rep.

INT-GTR-343. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 77-80.

Clark, P.E.; Krueger, W.C.; Bryant, L.D.; Thomas, D.R. [In prep.]. Effect of late spring

livestock grazing on forage and habitat use patterns of wintering elk.

Dana, Peter H.; Fowler, Walt; Hindman, David. 1989. Automated animal-tracking

system: tracking elk with retransmitted loran-c. In: Proceedings of the 18th annual

technical symposium of the Wild Goose Association; 1989 October 29-November 1;

Hyannis, MA. Bedford, MA: The Wild Goose Association: 53-61.

Findholt, Scott L.; Johnson, Bruce K.; Bryant, Larry D.; Thomas, Jack Ward.

1996. Corrections for position bias of a loran-C radio-telemetry system using DGPS.

Northwest Science. 70(3): 273-280.

Findholt, Scott L.; Johnson, Bruce K.; McDonald, Lyman L. [and others]. [In prep.].

Estimating habitat use from error associated with radio-telemetry positions.

Findholt, Scott L.; Johnson, Bruce K. [and others]. [In prep.]. Responses of elk and

deer to changes in the distribution of cattle.

Fried, Brett M.; Adams, Richard M.; Berrens, Robert P.; Bergland, Olvar. 1995.

Willingness to pay for a change in elk hunting quality. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 23(4):

680-686.

Gratson, Michael W.; Wall, William A.; Johnson, Bruce K. [In prep.]. Modifying

aerial survey models for other aircraft.

Johnson, Bruce; Findholt, Scott; Ager, Alan; Wisdom, Mike. 1995. Spatial variation

in performance of the automated animal tracking system at the Starkey Experimental

Forest and Range. 31 p. [plus figs. and tables]. Unpublished manuscript. On file with:

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Forestry and Range Sciences Laboratory,

1401 Gekeler Lane, La Grande, OR 978.50.

59
Johnson, Bruce K.; Ager, Alan; Crim, Sarah A. [and others]. 1996. Allocating forage

among wild and domestic ungulates-a new approach. In: Olson-Edge, Sally L.;

Edge, W. Daniel, eds. Proceedings of a symposium on sustaining rangeland ecosystems; 1994 August 29-31; La Grande, OR. Spec. Rep. 953. Corvallis, OR: Oregon

State University Extension Service: 166-169.

Johnson, Bruce K.; Ager, Alan A.; Findholt, Scott L. [and others]. [In press].

Mitigating spatial differences in observation rate of automated telemetry systems.

Journal of Wildlife Management.

Johnson, Bruce K.; Findholt, Scott L.; Ager, Alan A. [and others]. [In prep.].

Empirical models predicting distributions of elk, mule deer, and cattle in Oregon.

Johnson, Bruce K.; Noyes, James H.; Thomas, Jack Ward; Bryant, Larry D. 1991.

Overview of the Starkey Project: current measures of elk vulnerability. In: Christensen,

Alan G.; Lyon, L. Jack; Lonner, Terry N., camps. Proceedings of elk vulnerability-a

symposium; 1991 April 10-12; Bozeman, MT. Bozeman, MT: Montana State University: 225-228.

Johnson, Bruce K.; Wisdom, Michael J.; Ager, Alan A. [In prep.]. Validation of

forage allocation models for ungulates: theoretical versus empirical approaches.

Leptich, David J.; Garton, Edward 0.; Johnson, Bruce K.; Zager, Pete. 1995. Elk

sightability model validation at the Starkey Experimental Forest and Range, Oregon

14 p. [plus 3 figs.]. Draft manuscript. On file with: Oregon Department of Fish and

Wildlife, Forestry and Range Sciences Laboratory, 1401 Gekeler Lane, La Grande,

OR 97850.

Noyes, Cecilia; Coe, Priscilla; Wales, Barbara [and others]. 1994. Estimates of

canopy cover and defoliation from a Landsat scene for La Grande Ranger District. 19 p.

[plus appendices]. Unpublished manuscript. On file with: Oregon Department of Fish

and Wildlife, Forestry and Range Sciences Laboratory, 1401 Gekeler Lane, La Grande,

OR 97850.

Noyes, James H.; Johnson, Bruce K.; Bryant, Larry D. [and others]. 1996. Effects

of bull age on conception dates and pregnancy rates of cow elk. Journal of Wildlife

Management. 60(3): 508-517.

Noyes, James H.; Sasser, R. Garth; Johnson, Bruce K. [and others] [In press].

Accuracy of pregnancy detection by serum protein (PSPB) in elk. Wildlife Society

Bulletin.

Rowland, Mary M.; Coe, Priscilla; Stussy, Rosemary J. [and others]. [In prep.].

The Starkey habitat database for ungulate research: construction, documentation, and

use.

Stussy, Rosemary [and others]. [In prep.]. Selenium levels and productivity in three

Oregon elk herds.

Thomas, J.W. 1989. The Starkey research project: interactions of elk, deer, cattle, and

timber management in fully managed National Forests of the future. In: [Editor(s)

unknown]. Proceedings of the 1989 Society of American Foresters national convention; 1989 September 24-27; Spokane, WA. Bethesda, MD: Society of American

Foresters: 141-l 43.

60
Wisdom, Michael J.; Ager, Alan A. [and others]. [In prep.]. Using random walk

animals to adjust null hypotheses for tests of habitat selection.

Wisdom, Michael J.; Cimon, Norman J. [and others]. [In prep.]. Indexing traffic

rates from characteristics of forest roads.

Wisdom, Michael J.; Cook, John G.; Rowland, Mary M.; Noyes, James H. 1993.

Protocols for care and handling of deer and elk at the Starkey Experimental Forest

and Range. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-311. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 49 p.

Wisdom, Michael J.; Johnson, Bruce K.; Noyes, James H. [and others]. [In prep.].

Testing radio-collared ungulates as an unbiased sample of population distribution.1 5 p.

[plus figs. and tables]. Draft manuscript. On file with: Pacific Northwest Research

Station, Forestry and Range Sciences Laboratory, 1401 Gekeler Lane, La Grande, OR

97850.

Wisdom, Michael J.; Rowland, Mary M., camps. [In prep.]. Elk habitat and population monitoring in National Forests of the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington.

Wisdom, Michael J.; Rowland, Mary M. [and others]. [In prep.]. Elk, deer, and cattle

distributions in relation to road density.

Wisdom, Michael J. [and others]. [In prep.]. Elk, deer, and cattle distributions in relation

to traffic rate.

Wisdom, Michael J.; Ager, Alan A. [and others]. [In prep.]. Strategies for assessing

animal movements and habitat selection using automated telemetry systems.

Wisdom, Michael J. [and others]. [In prep.]. Validation of habitat effectiveness models

for deer and elk on Blue Mountains summer range.

Popular articles (selected)-

Andersson, Kelly. 1991. The Starkey Project. Washington-Oregon game and fish.

Marietta, GA: Game and Fish Publications; September: 24-27, 68-69.

Anon. 1990. Starkey Project uses hunters, high technology to view forests of the future.

Oregon Wildlife. January-February: 8.

Bagett, Mark. 1990. Is this the forest of the future? Western Outdoors. January: 33-36.

Boone, C.K. 1988. The Starkey Project. Bugle. Fall: 80-84.

Carp, Teresa. 1989. The big fence. Oregon Business. March: 63-64.

Carp, Teresa. 1990. Forest glasnost. American Forests. September/October: 56-57, 73.

Hector, Judy. 1990. The Starkey Project: planning for the future. Forestry Research

West. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, [Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station]; September: 6-11.

Heikkila, Risto. 1989. Maaratietoisen toiminnan tulos: wapiti palasi. Metsastaja. 2: 40-43.

61
Ozawa, Les. 1993. Big bulls: a breed apart. Oregon Hunter. July/August: 24-25.

Sculiy, Michael. 1993. Forest Service and Trimble Navigation: pinpointing animals in the

wild. Technology Transfer Business. Fall 1993: 46.

Sher, Jeff. 1987. The Starkey Project-testing tomorrow’s managed forest. American

Forests. September/October: 37-44.

Wisdom, Michael. 1992. The Starkey Project: new technologies chase old questions

about deer and elk management. Western Wildlands. Spring: 32-38.

Wisdom, Michael J. 1994. The Starkey Project-crystal ball for elk on public lands?

Bugle. ll(3): 67-76.

Wisdom, Mike. 1988. The Starkey Project-questions of multiple use. Oregon Wildlife.

September-October: 5-9.

Appendix 5 Plants

Common and Scientific Grasses and grasslike plantsNames of Species Bearded bluebunch wheatgrass

Onespike danthonia

Sandberg bluegrass

TreesDouglas-fir (interior)

Engelmann spruce

Grand fir

Lodgepole pine

Ponderosa pine

Western larch

Animals

MammalsBlack bear

Cattle

Cougar

Coyote

Red deer

Rocky Mountain elk

Rocky Mountain mule deer

Sheep

BirdsPileated woodpecker

Vaux’s swift

InsectsDouglas-fir tussock moth

Western spruce budworm

Agropyron spicatum (Pursh) Scribn. & Sm.

Danthonia unispicata (Thurb.) Munro ex. Macoun

Poa secunda Presl.

Pseudotsuga menziesii var. glauca (Beissn.) Franc0

Picea engelmannii Parry ex Engelm.

Abies grands (Dougl. ex D. Don) Lindl.

Pinus contorta Dougl. ex Loud.

Pinus ponderosa Dougl. ex Laws.

Larix occidentalis Nutt.

Ursus americanus

Bos taurus

Fe/is concolor

Canis latrans

Cervus elaphus elaphus

Cervus elaphus nelsoni

Odocoileus hemionus hemionus

Ovis aries

Dryocopus pileatus

Chaetura vauxi

Orgyia pseudotsugata

Choristoneura occidentalis

62
Rowland, Mary M.; Bryant, Larry D.; Johnson, Bruce K.; Noyes, James H.;

Wisdom, Michael J.; Thomas, Jack Ward. 1997. The Starkey project: history,

facilities, and data collection methods for ungulate research. Gen. Tech. Rep.

PNW-GTR-396. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 62 p.

In the 198Os, management plans incorporated restrictions on timber harvest to

maintain cover for Rocky Mountain elk &en/us elaphus nelsoni) and mule deer

(Odocoileus hemionus hemionus) in National Forests of the West. The Starkey

Project, in northeastern Oregon, was begun to address questions about habitat

needs and models for ungulates. Activities at Starkey include trapping and

handling of deer and elk, radio telemetry, traffic monitoring, hunting, timber

harvest, and livestock grazing. A bibliography of Starkey publications is included

Keywords: Deer, elk, cattle, forest management, ungulates, radio telemetry,

habitat, Starkey Project, technology transfer, wildlife research, Blue Mountains,

Oregon.

The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture

is dedicated to the principle of multiple use management

of the Nation’s forest resources for sustained yields of

wood, water, forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through

forestry research, cooperation with the States and private

forest owners, and management of the National Forests

and National Grasslands, it strives-as directed by

Congress-to provide increasingly greater service to a

growing Nation.

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)

prohibits discrimination in its programs on the basis of

race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability,

political beliefs, and marital or familial status. (Not all

prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with

disabilities who require alternative means of communication

of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.)

should contact the USDA’s TARGET Center at

(202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint, write the Secretary of Agriculture,

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250,

or call (800) 245-6340 (voice), or (202) 720-I 127 (TDD).

USDA is an equal employment opportunity employer.

Pacific Northwest Research Station

333 SW. First Avenue

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, Oregon 97208-3890