Laserfiche WebLink
Sixty-two percent (598) of the elk observed were associated with mountain brush habitat. <br />• Sagebrush-grassland habitat contained 24% (236) of the elk observed. The remaining elk were <br />observed in reclaimed grassland (62), natural grassland (37), aspen (29), and fir (5) habitats. <br />TWC has surveyed the expanded area 12 times: December 1994, each January from 1995 <br />through 1998, each February from 1999 through 2002 and in 2005, and March of 2003 and 2004. <br />Elk densities in the expanded area ranged from 1.9 to 16.5 elk/miZ during 1994-2005. With the <br />exception of five yeazs (1994, 1996, 1998, 2003, and 2005), elk densities in the expanded area <br />have remained relatively constant, ranging from 7.3 to 9.2 elk/miZ (Figure 1). The low density <br />recorded during the December 1994 survey was likely due to poor ground conditions (patchy <br />snow cover) and the use of a fixed-wing aircraft for the survey. These factors likely affected the <br />observers' ability to detect animals and resulted in under counting. Considerably more elk were <br />observed one month later, January 1995, when the area was surveyed from a helicopter. The <br />high elk densities observed in 1996 (16.5 elk/miZ) and 2003 (13.0 elk/mi2) were likely influenced <br />by excessive snowpack during those years in the higher elevations of the Williams Fork <br />Mountains. The deep snow likely pushed the ungulates out of the higher elevations and north <br />• into the survey area where reduced snow depths made walking easier and forage more accessible. <br />The elevated densities observed in January 1998 (14.2 elk/mi2) and February 2005 (10.8 elk/mi2) <br />could not be explained by unusually deep snow, as snowfall was minimal during winter 1997- <br />1998 and somewhat lower than average in winter 2004-2005. The elk may have taken advantage <br />of the lower snowfall to feed in grassland and sagebrush-grassland habitats where forage is <br />usually inaccessible in winter due to snow cover. <br />Herds were widely distributed over the expanded area during each of the twelve surveys. <br />However, herds were always conspicuously absent from the agricultural fields and grasslands in <br />the northwest, north central, and southeast parts of the area. Because there were no tall grasses or <br />shrubs in those habitats, the vegetation was typically covered by snow during winter. <br />Consequently, there was little readily available winter forage for big game in those portions of <br />the survey area. <br />A total of 138 mule deer in 20 herds were observed within the expanded survey area in <br />2005. Mule deer herds ranged in size from 1 to 19 animals, and averaged 6.9 individuals. Mule <br />• deer were only observed in two portions of the expanded area, specifically steep mountain slopes <br />2005 Seneca lI Mine Wildlife Monitoring Page 5 <br />