COLORADO DIVISION OF WILDLIFE HABITAT PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM

Transcription

1 COLORADO DIVISION OF WILDLIFE HABITAT PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM WHITE RIVER HPP COMMITTEE HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN Approved by Colorado Wildlife Commission: November 12, 2009 This plan is valid for 10 years from the approval date.

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Cover/Title Page and Table of Contents White River HPP Committee Members Introduction White River HPP Area Boundary Map and History Land Ownership in WR HPP Area Scope of HPP Plan Big Game Dispersal/Hunting Management Strategies Description of Habitat Types DAU Descriptions and Conflict Assessment Section: Overview/Introduction White River Elk Herd DAU E-6 Yellow Creek Elk Herd DAU E-10 White River Deer Herd DAU D-7 Book Cliffs Deer Herd DAU D-11 Maybell/Axial Basin Antelope Herds DAU A-10/34 Flattops Moose Introduction Project HPP Project Types, Priorities, Locations & Guidelines White River HPP Budget Goals, Guidelines, & Priority Areas State Wildlife Areas and WRHPP Summary/Conclusion Appendix A: Rio Blanco Herald HPP article

3 WHITE RIVER HABITAT PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM COMMITTEE The WRHPP currently has one administrative assistant and seven committee members: three representing local livestock growers, one representing U.S. Forest Service, one representing Bureau of Land Management, one representing Colorado Division of Wildlife, and one representing the sportsmen of Colorado. The WRHPP is also fortunate to have three members who have served on the Committee since its inception in 1993 (15+ years): Michael Grady (chairperson and livestock grower representative), Greg Glasgow (U.S. Forest Service representative), and Angelo Theos (livestock grower representative). We believe this is an indication of the extreme dedication of our HPP Committee to the wildlife habitat resources in the White River area. 1. Mike Grady Landowner/Livestock Grower Representative and Committee Chairman Started HPP Term: 1/15/ Joe Collins Landowner/Livestock Grower Representative Started HPP Term: 5/03/ Angelo Theos Landowner/Livestock Grower Representative Started HPP Term: 1/15/ Mary Taylor BLM Representative Started HPP Term: 5/15/ Greg Glasgow USFS, Blanco Ranger District Representative Started HPP Term: 1/15/ Rich Parr Sportsmen Representative Started HPP Term: 3/15/ Bailey Franklin CDOW Representative Started HPP Term: 10/15/ Ann Franklin Administrative Assistant Started HPP Term: 11/15/2005

4 INTRODUCTION The White River Valley is home to the largest herds of elk and deer in the state and also has small herds of antelope, bighorn sheep, and moose. The White River area supports a vibrant agricultural community in addition to active coal mining and oil and gas development. The White River Valley experiences long, cold, winters with occasional above average snowfall which results in annual migrations of big game from the high elevation summer ranges at the headwaters to the lower elevation transition/winter ranges which lie to the west. With so many wild ungulates that inhabit the White River area year-round it is inevitable that conflicts arise with agricultural producers and private landowners. Therefore, in 1990, CDOW Director Perry Olsen appointed two pilot Habitat Partnership Program (HPP) Committees. These committees were to establish programs to resolve big game/livestock forage and fence conflict issues in accordance with guidelines passed by the Colorado Wildlife Commission (CWC). In January of 1993, the original Yampa/White River Habitat Partnership Committee (YWRHPP) was appointed by the CWC to help resolve similar conflicts specifically between the White River elk herd and livestock producers. The appointment of the Yampa/White River HPP Committee in Meeker was also in conjunction with the appointment of the Upper Yampa River and Lower Colorado River HPP Committees in These three committees encompassed the entire DAU/range for White River Elk Herd. The purpose was to help with fencing and reduce forage damage from big game to forage crops. This would allow the CDOW to work in conjunction with livestock producers to reduce the elk population within this area. While conflicts between big game and livestock still exist in the White River area today, the HPP committee in Meeker believes that conflicts have been reduced and the HPP program has been successful and is well received in the local communities that are currently served by the White River HPP committee (Meeker, Rangely, and Buford). The need to preserve and perpetuate habitat has become more evident in recent years. Any activity that serves to fragment large, contiguous blocks of land into smaller tracts of multiple ownership, are thought to have negative influences on wildlife habitat, reproductive success, and long-term survival of wildlife populations. This is especially true on private land, and more specifically, on private land bordering public lands where small parcels of land are sold and converted into housing developments. While this is not happening in the White River Valley on a large scale, it is occurring incrementally and has the potential to intensify. Additionally, absentee ownership, summer homes, and trophy ranches can modify wildlife habitat that may cause crop/structural damage, disrupt migration patterns, and create artificial sanctuaries. Recent and historical interest in oil and gas development is having significant impacts on wildlife in portions of the White River HPP area (i.e., the Piceance Basin and Roan Plateau/Unit 22 and Douglas Creek/Unit 21) as these activities further fragment important wildlife habitat. The majority of the mineral rights under the Piceance Basin, Roan Plateau, and Douglas Creek areas have been leased to oil and gas companies, which serves as important seasonal habitat for big game animals and many other wildlife species. The oil and gas development in the western portion of the WRHPP area has and will continue to present many challenges to managing all wildlife populations, including sage grouse and non-game species in the future.

5 HPP AREA MAP/BOUNDARY AND HISTORY The Yampa/White River Habitat Partnership Program Committee (YWRHPP) was originally appointed by the Colorado Wildlife Commission in 1993 to address and resolve big game rangeland forage and fence conflicts. From 1993 to 2005, the geographic area assigned to the YWRHPP Committee included the eastern portions of the Yampa River drainage south of the Yampa River and the White River drainage. Game management units (GMU) which were originally included in the YWRHPP area were units 11, 211, 12, 23, 24, and 22. The Moffat county portion of GMU 13 was also originally included in the YWRHPP area from However, in 2006, in cooperation with the Northwest Colorado HPP committee, the geographic boundaries were revised between the two adjacent HPP committee areas. The Northwest CO HPP and Yampa/White River HPP Committees both felt that landowners along the Yampa and Williams Fork River drainages would be better served if the assigned geographic areas for each HPP committee were modified. In addition, the landowners in the Rangely area (units 10 and 21) were not currently participating in the HPP

6 program and it was felt that some changes needed to be made to address those concerns as well. The areas of greatest concern to both HPP committees were the Williams Fork River area (unit 13 and majority of unit 12), the Axial Basin area (northern portion of unit 211), the Bitterbrush/Maybell area (northern portion of unit 11), and the Rangely area (units 10 and 21). Therefore, in March, 2006, permanent HPP area/boundary changes were implemented to address these concerns within this area of northwestern Colorado. In addition, it was requested that the YWRHPP Committee s name be formally changed from the Yampa/White River HPP to the White River HPP Committee (WRHPP). The committee s name was changed to White River HPP in order to reflect the new geographical area of responsibility for the HPP committee, as the Yampa River drainage was included within the NW Colorado HPP committee s area after In March, 2009, additional minor modifications were again proposed to the HPP boundary between the White River and the NW Colorado HPP committees in order to simplify matters for those areas along the northern portion of the WRHPP area where the HPP boundary did not follow or coincide with specific GMU boundaries. The two proposed boundary changes only impacted two areas in particular where the HPP boundary split units 11 and 12 between the HPP committee areas. The justification provided for those two fairly minor HPP boundary changes/revisions are as follows: 1) Moving the boundary a little farther north of the county line between Wolf Creek and MCR 57 in unit 11 would encompass a fair amount of very important mule deer and elk winter range habitat that technically drains into the White River drainage and should be included in the White River HPP area rather than in the Northwest CO HPP area. This change would be an addition of some acreage/habitat into the White River HPP area within the southern portion of GMU 11. 2) Moving the boundary so that it simply follows the GMU 12/24 boundary at the far northeast corner of the current White River HPP area would remove a very small portion of unit 12 at the headwaters of the Williams Fork River drainage from the White River HPP area. This area drains into the Yampa River and should therefore be included in the Northwest CO HPP area rather than the White River HPP area. This change would be a reduction of some acreage/habitat from the White River HPP area in GMU 12. Therefore, after multiple revisions over the years, the geographic area for the WRHPP includes the entire White River Drainage from the headwaters which originate above Trappers Lake in the Flat Tops Wilderness Area and flow west all the way to the Utah state line. The WRHPP area is primarily located within Rio Blanco county, although small portions of Moffat and Garfield counties are also included. Game management units (GMU) for the White River HPP area include units 21, 22, 23, 24, and the southern portions of units 11, 211, and 12. For the most part, the White River HPP area boundary is consistent with GMU boundaries which have specific legal descriptions (see boundary descriptions for GMU s 21, 22, 23, and 24 for further details about majority of the WRHPP area). For those areas along the northern portion of the WRHPP area where the boundary does not follow or coincide with specific GMU boundaries, the WRHPP area boundary is described as follows (starting in NW corner of map): White River northeast to Wolf Creek (along GMU 10/21 & 10/11boundaries); then northeast on Wolf Creek to northern end of Pinyon Ridge; east from Pinyon Ridge to top of the Citadel Plateau; east from Citadel Plateau to Deception Creek Road (Moffat County Road 57; GMU 211/11 Boundary); north on Moffat County Road 57 to Moffat County Road 32; southeast along MCR 32 to Highway 13 (GMU 211/12 Boundary); northeast along Highway 13 to Milk Creek and then southeast along Milk Creek to the headwaters at Sleepy Cat Peak; then southeast along the Williams Fork White River divide (GMU 12/24 boundary). Local communities which are currently served by the White River HPP Committee include primarily Rangely, Meeker, and Buford. The White River HPP Committee also works closely with the NW Colorado

7 HPP Committee to the north (Craig) as well, since many of the big game conflicts are shared by both committees and there is significant movement/exchange of big game animals across and between these two HPP areas in the northwestern corner of the state. LAND OWNERSHIP IN WHITE RIVER HPP AREA The White River HPP Area consists of approximately 4,000 square miles of prime wildlife habitat and includes 2,205,143 acres. This area is incredibly diverse and ranges from semi-arid desert shrub habitat at approximately 5,000 feet in elevation along the lower White River at the Utah/Colorado state line west of Rangely, Colorado, to lush alpine habitat at over 12,000 feet in elevation on top of Trappers Peak, in the Flat Tops Wilderness. Of the total acreage/habitat included within the White River HPP Area, 27% are privately owned lands, 54% is BLM, 16% is USFS, 2% is CDOW, and less than 1% is owned by other federal entities or State Land Board. Ownership Acres % of Total Bureau of Land Management 1,182,422 54% U.S. Forest Service 362, % Colorado Division of Wildlife 41, 475 2% State Land Board 12, 805 <1% Federal (Other) 2, 727 <1% Private Land 602, % 2, 205, % Land Ownership (%) in White River HPP Area BLM Private USFS CDOW Other (SLB, etc)

8 SCOPE OF HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN WHITE RIVER HPP COMMITTEE VISION: TO WORK COOPERATIVELY WITH LANDOWNERS AND LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES TO ESTABLISH STRATEGIES TO RESOLVE IMMEDIATE FENCE, WATER AND FORAGE CONFLICTS CAUSED BY BIG GAME; AND TO DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT LONG- TERM STRATEGIES THAT RESOLVE CONFLICTS WHILE MAINTAINING HEALTHY AND SUSTAINABLE RANGELANDS. WHITE RIVER HPP COMMITTEE GOALS: GOAL: TO WORK COOPERATIVELY WITH LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES TO IMPROVE HABITAT CONDITIONS AND TO REDUCE CONFLICTS WITH FENCING, FORAGE AND BIG GAME. GOAL: TO IMPROVE BIG GAME DISTRIBUTION AND HARVEST TO MINIMIZE CONFLICTS WITH LOCAL LANDOWNERS AND TO PROVIDE A QUALITY HUNTING EXPERIENCE. GOAL: TO IMPROVE HABITAT CONDITIONS TO ENSURE HEALTHY AND SUSTAINABLE RANGELANDS. GOAL: TO MITIGATE LANDOWNER FENCE CONFLICTS DUE TO DAMAGE CAUSED BY BIG GAME. GOAL: TO MONITOR ALL PROJECTS TO DETERMINE EFFECTIVENESS. GOAL: TO DEVELOP AN INFORMATION AND EDUCATION PROGRAM TO INCREASE PUBLIC AWARENESS OF THE HPP PROGRAM AND THE IMPORTANCE OF WILDLIFE HABITAT TO COLORADO S WILDLIFE. GOAL: TO GIVE CONSIDERATION TO PLANS THAT REDUCE FENCE AND FORAGE CONFLICTS AND ALSO POSITIVELY AFFECT OTHER SPECIES OF WILDLIFE. GOAL: TO PROMOTE EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES THAT IMPROVE KNOWLEDGE OF HABITAT CONDITIONS AND FACILITATE HEALTHY RANGELAND MANAGEMENT. GOAL: TO UTILIZE THE HUNTER RESOURCE AS A BIG GAME MANAGEMENT TOOL FOR REDUCING CONFLICTS.

9 GOAL: TO WORK COOPERATIVELY WITH LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES TO IMPROVE HABITAT CONDITIONS AND TO REDUCE CONFLICTS WITH FENCING, FORAGE AND BIG GAME. Objectives: 1. Conduct habitat management projects to attract and hold wildlife in preferred areas. 2. Conduct habitat management projects to control timing of migration to and from winter range. 3. Implement grazing management strategies to sustain livestock grazing and wildlife use. 4. Alternative fence design that is wildlife friendly and reduces potential future projects. 5. Disperse excessive concentrations of animals to reduce conflicts. 6. Cooperate to reduce and control noxious weeds through integrated weed management efforts. Strategies: A. Utilize distribution and harvest hunts primarily to move animals away from conflict areas. B. Fertilization and seeding to improve forage quality and quantity. C. Develop grazing systems through associated projects such as water development, fence construction, etc. D. Burning, mechanical, chemical, and silviculture treatments to control noxious weeds and shrubs, increase forage, and enhance wildlife habitat. E. Hi-tensile fence. F. Lay down fence. G. Reduced wire height and increased spacing. H. Remove fencing impeding migration routes. GOAL: TO IMPROVE BIG GAME DISTRIBUTION AND HARVEST TO MINIMIZE CONFLICTS WITH LOCAL LANDOWNERS AND TO PROVIDE A QUALITY HUNTING EXPERIENCE. Objectives: 1. Develop and maintain quality big game herds in Northwest Colorado through dispersal of concentrated herds and change in season structure. 2. Travel management/controlled access to distribute big game. Strategies: A. Utilize distribution and harvest hunts primarily to move animals away from conflict areas. B. Manage critical big game winter range to the appropriate level of use. C. Implement coordinated cow elk hunts on private and public lands. D. Make recommendations to DOW about possible harvest strategies. E. Establish lists of landowners for hunters to be referred to. F. Work with landowners that harbor elk during hunting season. G. Work with Ranching for Wildlife entities to increase an overall harvest during regular big game seasons. H. Encourage management of motor vehicles to maintain big game population on public lands.

10 GOAL: TO IMPROVE HABITAT CONDITIONS TO ENSURE HEALTHY AND SUSTAINABLE RANGELANDS. Objectives: 1. Conduct habitat management projects to attract and hold wildlife in preferred areas. 2. Conduct habitat management projects to control timing of migration to and from winter range. 3. Implement grazing management strategies to sustain livestock grazing and wildlife use. 4. Develop partnerships with groups that deal with wildlife habitat related issues. 5. Focus on long-term protection of critical wildlife habitats. Strategies: A. Fertilization and seeding to improve forage quality and quantity. B. Develop grazing systems through associated projects such as water development, fence construction, etc. C. Burning, mechanical, chemical, and silvicultural treatments to control shrubs and weeds, increase forage and enhance wildlife habitat. D. Work with groups on joint projects to improve habitat including, but not limited to: Rio Blanco County Weed Management, Local Sage Grouse Working Groups, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Sharptail Conservation Plan, Northwest Colorado Stewardship Partnership, NRCS, BLM, and USFS. E. Support appropriate conservation easements on critical wildlife habitats and participate in funding of conservation easements where feasible. F. Salting to distribute big-game populations. G. Work with projects to improve and protect critical mule deer habitat. H. Enhance and develop available water for wildlife and domestic grazing animals. GOAL: TO MITIGATE LANDOWNER FENCE CONFLICTS DUE TO DAMAGE CAUSED BY BIG GAME. Objectives: 1. Alternative fence design that is wildlife friendly and reduces potential future projects. 2. Forage Purchase arrangements when the Committee and landowner agree that leaving animals on a certain area of private property will alleviate conflicts in other areas. 3. Reduce annual maintenance costs. Strategies: A. High-tensile fence. B. Gate Options. C. Wildlife Crossing Passes. D. Lay down fence. E. Reduced wire height and increased spacing. F. Provide damaged fence repair materials. G. Hire fence contractors for repair. H. Visible, vinyl coated hi-tensile top wire. I. Provide information on low maintenance fence design.

11 GOAL: MONITOR ALL PROJECTS TO DETERMINE EFFECTIVENESS. Objectives: 1. Follow monitoring protocols for key habitat manipulation projects to provide consistent data collection to analyze the effectiveness of projects in key areas where manipulations are made and vegetation data/response needs to be measured and compared over time. 2. Maintain the cost effectiveness of all projects. 3. Record project locations and completion of projects. 4. Track overall progress toward Habitat Management Plan goals. Strategies: A. A variety of vegetation monitoring methods have been utilized in the past, ranging from very quick and easy subjective/qualitative methods to very intensive objective/quantitative methods depending on the overall project goals, site characteristics/habitat type, land ownership, funding/labor available for monitoring, type of habitat treatment, etc. In 2009, on key projects involving landscape scale habitat treatments within juniper and mountain shrub habitats on Oak Ridge SWA, pre and post-treatment monitoring protocols were specifically developed and implemented with the assistance of a private consulting firm. Permanent photo points, shrub density/age/height transects, and pellet counts were implemented on Oak Ridge SWA to measure the response and monitor habitat changes and wildlife utilization over time on these key treatment sites. Other vegetation monitoring methods that may be used by the White River HPP committee depending on the project goals, habitat/site characteristics, funding/labor available, and land ownership may include but will not be limited to photo points, steppoint frequency method, Daubenmire cover-frequency method, and Line Point Intercept method. B. Evaluate how HPP funds are spent. C. Send required surveys to project participants to evaluate project effectiveness for minimum of 10 years, characterized in general terms and include, as a minimum, an assessment of landowner and Committee satisfaction; the short and long term impact on target animals and environment; and project utility, quality and cost. D. Utilize photos, video, and photo points to record project completion. E. Maintain file on each project with cooperative agreement outlining roles and responsibilities, locations, dimensions, and timing of implementation. Also, included will be photos, maps, budget, actual expenses, in-kind cost share information, and all monitoring information. F. Complete annual reports. G. Work with federal, state, and county agencies for assistance with monitoring. GOAL: DEVELOP AN INFORMATION AND EDUCATION PROGRAM TO INCREASE PUBLIC AWARENESS OF THE HPP PROGRAM. Objectives: 1. Keep community and land managers informed about the Habitat Partnership Program. Strategies: A. Sponsor workshops to assist landowners and land managers and to inform the community about land use issues. B. Develop brochures, newsletters, demonstrations, and tours to further understanding about livestock/big

12 game needs and interactions, and land health issues. C. Work with the Statewide HPP Council to test the DAU computer model to assess its appropriateness for HPP. GOAL: TO GIVE CONSIDERATION TO PLANS THAT REDUCE FENCE AND FORAGE CONFLICTS AND ALSO POSITIVELY AFFECT OTHER SPECIES OF WILDLIFE. Objectives: 1. Encourage cooperators to assist in the conservation of species of wildlife that are of special concern (i.e. sage grouse). Strategies: A. Work to build fences that reduce perches for raptors in sage grouse habitat. B. Water projects with guzzlers for wildlife species. C. Habitat treatments to increase critical winter forage for all wildlife. D. Design projects that maintain adequate habitat for other species. E. Cooperate with NRCS on WHIP and EQIP projects. GOAL: TO PROMOTE EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES THAT IMPROVE KNOWLEDGE OF HABITAT CONDITIONS AND FACILITATE HEALTHY RANGELAND MANAGEMENT. Objectives: 1. Provide educational opportunities to promote understanding of wildlife habitat needs and facilitate healthy rangelands. Strategies: Sponsor workshops and cooperatively fund educational training for landowners, as examples: range management, fence design, etc. GOAL: TO UTILIZE THE HUNTER RESOURCE AS A BIG GAME MANAGEMENT TOOL. Objective: 1. Use the hunting public as a management tool in identified conflict areas. Strategies: A. Provide input to Wildlife Commission regarding season structure. B. Work with local landowners for access onto private property. C. Encourage hunting at specific times and places to reduce big game conflicts through dispersal and game damage hunts, as well as regular big game season hunts.

13 STRATEGY OPTIONS FOR DISTRIBUTION MANAGEMENT HUNTS The White River Habitat Management Plan will utilize distribution and harvest hunts primarily to move animals away from conflict areas. The following criteria will be applied: 1. The WR HPP committee will work closely with the Division of Wildlife to recommend distribution management hunts for specific conflict areas. Such recommendations include number of licenses needed, time/date for hunt to occur in, specific private land locations to be included, etc. 2. Hunts will be conducted as provided for in Wildlife Commission regulations and in HPP guidelines approved by the Wildlife Commission. 3. As the number of licenses available for these hunts is restricted by the Division of Wildlife, this strategy will be used in most cases not to reduce big game populations per se, but to effect positive animal distribution. Where practiced, ranch specific population decreases will be accomplished through the use of the hunter referral system. 4. As these hunts are designed to provide conflict resolution, participating ranches will be considered only if they do not charge a fee of any kind to hunters with these special licenses. This also includes guides or outfitters or any other representative of the property owner. 5. Other harvest strategies include providing recommendations to the Colorado Division of Wildlife on a variety of subjects, including season structure, antlerless harvest limits, PLO hunts, harvest strategies, and review and comment on land use activities. 6. HPP could be used for coordination and implementation of a DMH if approved by the committee. STRATEGIES FOR COORDINATED BIG GAME MANAGEMENT The purpose of this strategy is to provide for coordinated management of big game herds which cross State, Data Analysis Unit and Habitat Partnership Program boundaries. Wildlife populations are dynamic and do not recognize political boundaries in habitat utilization. Numerous identified conflicts involve big game populations that seasonally migrate. Conflict resolution mandates a coordinated approach to species management. STRATEGIES FOR LANDOWNERS WHO HARBOR BIG GAME: Meet with landowners who harbor big game during hunting season and allow little or no hunting on their property to agree to some method of wildlife management on their deeded land, which will help achieve harvest objectives in Northwest Colorado. STRATEGIES FOR FORAGE PURCHASE: 1. The purpose of this management strategy is to provide forage, cover, and/or holding areas for big game animals. 2. Forage purchase arrangements will be a low priority. The Committee will submit a lease request through the Habitat Biologist when other strategies are deemed ineffective or when leasing land in connection with other strategies is necessary to resolve a conflict.

14 DESCRIPTION OF HABITATS IN WHITE RIVER HPP AREA HABITAT A variety of vegetative habitats occur in the program area. The area west of Highway 13 on the lower White River, from the Utah/Colorado state line and Rangely area towards Meeker, is predominantly semiarid, lower elevation winter range habitat dominated by sagebrush and pinyon-juniper communities with a mosaic of mountain shrub and limited aspen/conifer communities mixed in at the higher elvations. The vast majority of the area west of Highway 13 has seen and continues to be experiencing dramatic development from oil and gas explorations which have a significant impact on wildlife and their habitats in this area. Many of the creek bottoms and side drainages are now roads, oil/gas infrastructure, etc., replacing former agricultural fields. The upper White River area to the east of Highway 13 near Meeker is a very diverse area that ranges from sagebrush and pinyon-juniper woodlands at the lower elevations to lush agricultural cropland and livestock pastures along the valley floor, to vast expanses of mountain shrub, aspen, and conifer forests and eventually to alpine tundra at the highest elevations in the Flat Tops Wilderness. Limited development is currently occurring in the White River corridor near and east of Meeker but these areas have been identified as potential growth centers. Elevation, precipitation, and aspect largely determine the vegetation and habitat types that are found in the White River HPP area. The mountain peaks above approximately 11,000 feet contain mostly bare rock or

15 alpine communities. Spruce-fir occurs mostly between the elevations of 8,000 and 12,000 ft. Aspen forest and mountain shrub mixes dominate the slopes from 7,000 to 8,500 feet with some mixed conifer forest. Sagebrush and pinyon-juniper woodlands dominate the slopes below 7,000 feet. In the western two-thirds of the unit, pinyon-juniper covers the foothills, and sagebrush parks appear on the more level sites as elevation drops. Aspen, an early successional species, is found mostly on sites that have been burned or disturbed within the past 150 years. Riparian vegetation parallels creeks and rivers. Big game species prefer areas with a diversity of vegetation types in close proximity to each other. These areas occur because of disturbance and changes in slope, aspect and microclimates. The best habitat areas generally have a ratio of 40% cover to 60% open foraging habitat. The vegetation within the White River HPP boundaries can be categorized into five main groups: cropland/agricultural areas, riparian, shrublands, woodlands, and alpine. Croplands and agricultural areas are found in the valleys, primarily at lower elevations and are mostly hay fields of timothy, smooth brome, orchard grass, wheatgrasses, and alfalfa. Riparian vegetation is found along the major creeks and rivers. These riparian communities support the greatest abundance and diversity of plant and animal species. Shrublands consist of sagebrush, mountain shrubs, and grassland communities. Sagebrush is the most common land cover at the lower elevations. Rabbitbrush, western and slender wheatgrass, and native broadleaf plants commonly grow with the sagebrush. Mountain shrubs include serviceberry, snowberry, mountain mahogany, chokecherry, bitterbrush and Gambel s oak brush. The mountain shrub communities typically serve as critical transitional range/habitat for big game with diverse herbaceous understories. Grasslands occur on the more level sites throughout the area. At lower elevations grasslands are dominated by western wheatgrass, prairie junegrass, Indian ricegrass, needle and thread, squirreltail, and a variety of bluegrasses. In forested mid-elevation areas, grassland parks and openings are dominated by large bunchgrasses such as Thurber s fescue, wildrye, needlegrass, slender wheatgrass, and mountain brome. Grasslands in the higher elevation and alpine areas are dominated by Idaho and Thurber s fescue, Sandberg bluegrass, and blue bunch wheat grass. Grasslands are incredibly important foraging habitats for a variety of wildlife species, especially elk. Woodlands fall into five major groups: pinyon-juniper, aspen and aspen-conifer mix, Douglas fir, lodgepole pine, and spruce-fir. Pinyon-juniper woodlands occur in the lower elevation foothills. They provide good thermal and hiding cover but poor forage because pinyon-juniper communities generally lack a productive and diverse herbaceous understory. Aspen and mixed aspen-conifer woodlands occupy the middle elevations. The understory consists of emerging conifers (where aspen is not the climax species), grasses and forbs, and some shrubs. The aspen community provides some of the most important calving/fawning habitat during the early summer, and also provides cover and forage during the critical spring and fall transitional periods for deer, elk and other big game species. Douglas fir shares the middle elevation zone mostly on the moister sites usually on north facing aspects, but is less represented than the aspen woodlands. It is a long-lived species valued for wildlife habitat diversity, scenic value, and big game cover. Lodge pole pine grows in even aged stands and below the spruce-fir. In mature stands, the dense overstory limits the growth of understory forage, but provides good thermal and hiding cover for big game. Spruce-fir (Engelmann spruce and subalpine fir) dominates the higher elevations up to tree line. This habitat provides excellent summer cover for elk and other big game species.

16 Alpine sites occur on mountain peaks. Grasses, sedges, and numerous forbs are present. Short willows grow in moister areas. These sites provide important summer range for a variety of big game species including bighorn sheep, deer, and elk. Vegetation/Habitat Type (%) Pinyon Juniper Woodland Sagebrush Mountain Shrub Aspen forest Conifer Forest Agriculture Riparian Alpine DAU MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES Historically, big game seasons have been set either as a result of traditions or outside influences and the resulting seasons often were not related to herd levels, habitat conditions, or even balanced by the interest of the affected publics. However, current public involvement strategies used by the CDOW require that these affected publics be included into the process. As a part of this, and recognizing the importance and diversity of members on the White River HPP committee, the committee was informed about the proposed DAU plans and submitted a letter of support for the management direction being proposed. Each individual herd (deer, elk and pronghorn) is grouped into a Data Analysis Unit (DAU). The DAU boundaries are drawn so that they approximate an individual herd unit where most of the animals are born, rose, and die with as little egress or ingress from other herds as possible. The unit contains all the habitat necessary for wildlife to breed, rear young, migrate, and forage. The DAU Plan deals with two primary decisions (based upon several biological and political decisions) how many animals should the DAU contain within a range (post-hunt population objective), and to a lesser extent, what should be the desired sex ratio (number of males per 100 females or male: female ratio). These numbers then become the DAU population and sex ratio objective. Secondarily, the DAU plan organizes most of the important management data for a particular herd into one utilitarian, planning document which identifies DAU issues from the public and agency scoping process, identifies solutions to the issues and problems, and recommends the desired population and sex ratio objective. This DAU objective is used in

17 the annual cycle of information collection, analysis, and providing information to the decision-makers, the CWC, that culminates each year in determining the type, number of licenses, etc. for the annual hunting season. All the DAUs included within the White River HPP committee s boundaries have similar management objectives, which are discussed in detail below. Furthermore, the White River HPP committee will assist the CDOW to meet DAU plans within the committee s area. The Habitat Partnership Program and its role in the DAU planning process Colorado's Habitat Partnership Program (HPP) was initiated in 1990 to better address the problems private landowners and federal land management agencies have with big game animals. The program is designed to directly solve forage and fence problems with local input. A committee of local livestock growers, sportsmen and federal agency personnel is established to ensure appropriate public involvement in identifying range management problems and recommending solutions to these problems. The committee produces a 5-year Habitat Management Plan. This plan identifies locations and seasons of big game concentrations, which the landowner/land manager considers to be conflict areas. For each conflict area identified, the plan includes a strategy by which the CDOW and the landowner/land manager agree to eliminate or reduce the conflict. Another significant portion of each committee's involvement in local big game management is participation in the DAU planning process. They insure that private land habitat issues are considered in setting the DAU objectives and that conflict areas and solution strategies are identified and appropriate. Habitat Assessment Model In 2001, HPP and the Natural Resources Ecology Lab at CSU designed the Habitat Assessment Model as a tool to aid HPP committees in discerning the relationships between wildlife populations and habitat sustainability. Current habitat model projections for DAU E-6 using a mean precipitation rate, an estimated pronghorn population of 2,000 and 10 year average livestock numbers are consistent with the current modeled population estimates of approx. 38,500 elk for DAU E-6 post-hunt Additional information about the habitat assessment model can be found at

18 White River Elk Herd - DAU E-6 Game Management Units: 11, 12, 13, 23, 24, 25, 26, 33, 34, 131, 211, and 231 Current Population Estimate: 38, 539 (post-hunt 2008) Old Population Objective: 28,500 Current Population Objective: 32,000-39,000 Current Sex Ratio: 21 bulls: 100 cows (post-hunt 2008) Old Sex Ratio Objective: 19 bulls: 100 cows Current Sex Ratio Objective: bulls: 100 cows Land Ownership: 41% Private, 34% USFS, 22% BLM, 4% State The E-6 DAU plan was written and approved by the Colorado Wildlife Commission in 2005.

19 E-6 Posthunt Population Estimate/Trend Estimated Posthunt Population Population Objective Range 32-39, Posthunt Population Estimate DAU E-6 Post Hunt Elk Population # of Elk 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10, Year Post Hunt Population Objective

20 DAU E-6 Harvest # of Elk Harvested 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1, Year Antlerless Harvest Antlered Harvest DAU E 6 Sex Ratio: # Bulls per 100 Cows Sex Ratio Objective: Bulls per 100 Cows Bull to Cow Sex Ratio

21 DAU E-6 Background/History Data Analysis Unit (DAU) E-6 known as the White River Elk Herd and includes game management units 131, 231, 12, 13, 23, 24, 11, 211, 25, 26, 33 and 34. DAU E-6 is the largest migratory elk herd in the world and consists of 12 GMU's. The current estimated population of elk within this large geographic area is approximately 37,000 to 40,000. It is reasonable to assume that approximately one half of this elk population occupies GMU s 12, 23, and 24 during the summer and early fall. A large percentage of the elk in the White River herd migrate westward into units 11 and 211, depending on fall/winter weather conditions. Hunting pressure on public lands in GMU s 12, 23, and 24 during the fall season often results in mass movements of the elk onto private lands where hunting pressure is much less. The current population objective range for DAU E-6 the White River Elk Herd is 32,000 to 39,000. The old population objective of 28,500 was set in Recent refinements to the CDOW computer modeling procedures have substantially increased modeled estimates of post-season elk populations. These changes were largely due to more accurate estimates of adult and calf survival, which appear to be much higher than previously thought. In 2005, it was proposed that the long term population objective for this herd be managed as a population range as opposed to a point estimate number. The flexibility to manage this elk herd within a range would allow the CDOW to be more adaptive in their management and take the appropriate steps needed to increase or decrease elk numbers. Several different management strategies have been implemented to increase antlerless harvest and control elk numbers. These include, additional antlerless licenses, extended PLO antlerless seasons, RFW special management licenses, late season antlerless hunts, over the counter 4 th season antlerless licenses, coordinated HPP antlerless hunts, and 1 st season bull licenses were changed to an either sex license to increase antlerless harvest without increasing hunting pressure. Reductions in this elk herd should produce an elk herd that is healthier and more productive, decrease site specific range degradation, and reduce elk/livestock competition. Computer modeling data as well as other information, including harvest and aerial surveys, show that the elk herd has been increasing since the late 1950 s. The highest population estimate was in 2001 when the DAU was estimated to contain 53,800 elk. The lowest population estimate was in 1953 (7,700 elk.) The CDOW has used different population objectives over the years. During the 1980's the population objective was 18,000 elk. In 1987, the CDOW raised the population objective to 25,000 elk. In 1989, the DAU was expanded to include GMU 211 and the population objective was increased to 26,500 elk to include the estimated 1,500 elk that occurred in GMU 211. In 1994, the DAU was expanded again to include GMU 11 and the population objective was raised to 28,500 elk. The White River elk herd has averaged 28,700 elk since The herd appears to have been steadily increasing except after severe winters such as and The population average by decade are: 8,500 elk in the 1950 s, 15,300 elk in the 1960 s, 28,800 elk during the 1970's, 30,100 elk in the 1980's, and 42,100 elk in the 1990 s. During the past 5 years ( ) the post-hunt population has averaged 48,300 elk and the 10 year average is 46,600. Starting in 1985, the Wildlife Commission approved antler point restrictions (APR) for the White River Elk Herd. This was the first DAU in the state to have this restriction and all bull elk hunters were required to only harvest elk that were 4 points or larger on one antler. Since then, the bull:cow ratio trend has been upward averaging 20.6 bulls:100 cows, ranging from bulls:100 cows. The old sex ratio objective for the DAU is 19 bulls per 100 cows; in 2005 the CDOW recommended the current sex ratio objective for the DAU which is a range of bulls per 100 cows. The post-hunt age ratio (calves:100 cow ratio) has averaged 55 since The highest age ratio was 97 calves per 100 cows in 1960 and the lowest was 43 calves per 100 cows in The long-term trend for the cow:calf ratios appears to be stable, with lows in the early 1980s and mid-1990s.

22 In 2002, a draft DAU Plan for E-6 was written and public comment was received. However, due to management concerns associated with the discovery of CWD on the western slope of Colorado in DAU E-6 the DAU planning process for E-6 was put on hold until The preferred management alternative for the Plan at that time was status quo with a proposed increase in the population objective to 42,000. This was a 20% reduction from the estimated 2001 post hunt population estimate of 53,800 elk. Since 2002, record harvests have been achieved in DAU E-6 and elk population levels have been reduced to the provisional objective levels proposed in DAU E-6 Significant Issues and Conflicts The issues identified in this DAU are primarily associated with elk distribution, winter range habitat capability, and early spring elk use on public lands as elk migrate back to summer ranges. The conflicts with elk in the White River area involve several different components. Early movement toward summer ranges in the spring result in premature forage depletion causing delays of livestock pasture usage. Early migration from National Forest lands onto adjoining private property has resulted in significant loss of livestock forage available for fall use. Finally, early and sustained migration has begun to cause significant impacts to critical big game winter range. When elk from the White River Herd stage up on private lands in large bunches prior to their migration to winter ranges in the fall, or before their migration back to summer ranges in the spring, significant conflicts often occur. Conflicts include elk using irrigated hay meadows, fence damage, elk getting into unfenced hay stacks, and over-utilization of spring livestock pasture. The elk generally begin moving eastward in the spring following the green-up. Now that the White River elk herd is within the population objective, conflicts will primarily be a result of problems with elk distribution rather than an overabundance of elk. Hazing elk in the spring and summer along with damage hunts have helped to alleviate some of the damage. Our HPP Committee has cooperated on water development projects to lessen elk concentrations. We have also provided fencing and cooperated on some hi-tensile fence construction along migratory routes and provided several stackyards to prevent concentrations of elk in agricultural areas. We have also temporarily loaned wire panels to landowners during winter conflict periods to protect unfenced hay stacks until permanent fences could be built. Summer conflicts with elk in GMU's 23 and 24 have generally been negligible. Our Committee did cooperate with the US Forest Service on a fencing project in the Lost Park area where there is a large late spring and summer population of elk. A grazing plan is in place where the Lost Park permittee can graze the Oak Ridge State Wildlife Area. This has helped to alleviate some of the conflict in Lost Park. Overall, elk conflicts in these two units have not been great over the last number of years, generally due to very mild winters. There is a considerable resident elk population summering in the Danforth Hills area of units 11 and 211. ColoWyo coal company has done a great deal of habitat work on their property to benefit deer, elk, and sage and sharp-tailed grouse. Portions of the Colowyo Coal Company are currently enrolled in the Ranching for Wildlife program (Morgan Creek RFW). A large portion of upper Strawberry Creek and Price Creek are in Ranching for Wildlife Program. Conflicts with elk in this area have been very limited. Upper areas of Strawberry Creek on both the east and west sides also have a summering elk population. The majority of conflicts in units 11 and 211 are during winter and spring when many of these elk move to lower elevations and join other elk moving from GMU's 12, 23, and 24. The White River HPP Committee has joined with the Northwest HPP Committee to coordinate HPP dispersal/distribution hunts in the Maybell area to put some pressure on elk which are causing damage to pastures, haystacks, and fences on private lands. We have also cooperated with some hi-tensile fencing and hazing efforts. Multiple stackyards have also been built/funded through White River HPP over the years to protect hay stacks along major migration corridors and to reduce winter elk conflicts on private lands. Many of the conflicts in the past have been the result of an overpopulation of elk, as the White River Elk Herd was over objective until post-hunt Post-hunt 2001, the elk population in DAU E-6 was estimated to be over 50,000 elk. However, due to extremely aggressive and creative licensing and harvest

23 management strategies by the CDOW (i.e., including either-sex 1 st rifle season licenses, and antlerless private land only and late seasons/licenses), record breaking elk harvests from brought the booming White River elk population back to within objective. The current population objective for the White River elk herd (E-6 DAU) is 32,000 to 39,000. Currently, the elk population in DAU E-6 is estimated to be nearing the population objective at approximately 38,500 elk post-hunt 2008 and prior to the 2009 hunting season. Every reasonable effort will continue to be made over the long-term to bring the E-6 elk population down to objective and maintain the elk population within the E-6 DAU objective of 32,000 to 39,000. Eventually over the long-term, the CDOW plans to continue to reduce the elk population in DAU E-6 towards the lower end of the population objective range (32,000 elk) in order to further reduce fence and forage conflicts and other habitat related impacts. Fence damage remains a problem in localized areas and the WRHPP Committee plans to continue to take a proactive role in promoting new fencing methods, which could reduce fence damage. One of the biggest challenges in achieving an adequate harvest annually in the DAU is elk seeking refuge on large blocks of private lands to avoid hunting pressure. This is particularly a problem in this DAU since 41% of the land is privately owned, almost 60% of which is elk winter range. Elk hunting is big business in northwestern Colorado for some landowners, while other landowners do not allow hunting. Private landowners with hunting operations can make a substantial portion of their income from leasing to or outfitting for hunters. The demand is for bull hunting. Many landowners will not jeopardize their bull hunting operations by allowing cow hunters on their property during the regular seasons. The minimal hunting pressure on private land during the regular hunting seasons often results in sanctuary situations for antlerless elk, making them unavailable for harvest and increases the potential for these elk to become problem/damage causing animals later in the winter as the elk migrate west. For management purposes, due to the inaccessibility of elk to hunters during earlier regular rifle seasons, more of an emphasis has been placed on 3 rd, 4 th, and late season hunts to achieve antlerless harvest objectives. In order to manage this population to the long term DAU population objective, it is important for the CDOW to be able to work cooperatively with private landowners and federal land management agencies. In addition to elk distribution issues created by the private land refuge situations, changing climate patterns resulting in range expansions and year round elk use in non-traditional areas, habitat loss and encroachment to development, and summer recreational use on public lands have all contributed to the challenges of managing elk in this DAU. It should be recognized that local issues and problems associated with elk distribution can and will occur at any population level and it is beyond the scope of this DAU plan to address some of these distribution issues. DAU E-6 Elk Population Objectives Several post hunt population objective alternatives were proposed to the Colorado Wildlife Commission in 2005 for E-6 along with the stipulation that the CDOW did not recommend managing for more than 42,000 elk in E-6 because of habitat and conflict concerns. The majority of public comments received at that time supported no change to a slight decrease (1-25%) from elk population levels for E-6 in (approx. 50,000 elk). The steadily increasing elk population trend in DAU E-6 has caused the CDOW as well as the Forest Service and BLM to be concerned with maintenance of acceptable range and forage conditions. Evidence presented in this document indicates that negative range impacts associated with elk distribution may be occurring in localized areas. Record elk harvests obtained in resulted in a 20% reduction from peak population estimates in Mild winter conditions over a 10 year period from combined with the adaptive nature of elk allowed for herd expansion and continued maintenance of a stable reproductive status. The consensus of

24 the management agencies recommendations based on concerns regarding drought stressed range conditions, the potential impacts of oil and gas development on winter ranges, and winter range elk/mule deer competition was a reduction in the White River elk herd from the 2004 population levels. The CDOW was in agreement with that management recommendation. The CDOW recommendation of managing this elk population in an objective range of 32,000 39,000 elk represented a reduction of approximately 25%, to the lower end of the objective range, from the 2004 population estimates of elk in DAU E-6. Furthermore, the short term goal was for this elk population to be managed to the lower end of this population objective range (32,000) to allow for range rest and recovery from the drought period of As discussed earlier in this document, the current population objective range proposed in 2005 was higher than the previous population objective of 28,500 set in Some of the increase in the population objective was a result of modeled estimates based on more accurate and updated data and some of the increase was due to growth in the elk population since As a comparison to the 1993 model, the 2004 model shows a 1993 post-hunt population of 38,323 elk. This is about 10,000 more elk than CDOW was estimating in 1993 and is due to improvements in modeling and more reliable population parameters used in models. At 2004 population levels of 50,000-60,000 elk there were concerns regarding catastrophic impacts to elk and deer populations in a severe winter. Issues in this regard include actual loss of elk, damage to range, game damage to livestock forage and hay, and associated loss of herd health in subsequent years due to range damage. In order to continue to reduce this elk population, it will be necessary to maintain the elk harvest numbers the Division has achieved in recent years through innovative harvest regimes including additional cow licenses, late season hunts, HPP distribution hunts, and liberal numbers of public and private antlerless licenses. DAU E-6 Elk Sex Ratio Objectives and Management Alternatives Management alternatives that were proposed in 2005 to the Colorado Wildlife Commission for DAU E-6 included (1) status quo with limited 1 st and 4 th season either sex and antlerless licenses and OTC bull licenses for the 2 nd and 3 rd seasons (the range of possible sex ratio objectives for this alternative would be bulls:100 cows, (2) OTC elk units for all seasons,(the range of possible sex ratio objectives for this alternative would be bulls:100 cows, (3) making the DAU totally specified and managing for quality (the range of possible sex ratio objectives for this alternative would be bulls:100 cows, and (4) manage for moderate antlered license limitations (the range of possible sex ratio objectives for this alternative would be bulls:100 cows). The CDOW recommendation in 2005 was to slightly increase the sex ratio objective to a range of bulls:100 cows. The lowest sex ratio was 4 bulls per 100 cows in 1982 and During a 5-year period ( ), the herd averaged 23 bulls:100 cows with a range of bulls:100 cows. The Division recognized it may be difficult to manage within this sex ratio range when elk populations are reduced to near 32,000 with over the counter bull licenses available 2 nd and 3 rd regular rifle seasons, however, limited either sex licenses in the 1 st and 4 th rifle seasons will allow for some management flexibility within this range. The DAU management strategy recommended to the Colorado Wildlife Commission by the CDOW in 2005 was status quo. At that time E-6 was a combination of management strategies including seasons managed for a quality hunting experience and seasons managed for hunter opportunity. Archery and muzzleloader

25 seasons were limited on public lands in GMUs 12, 23, 24, and 33. The archery and muzzleloader limitation on public lands has proved successful in holding elk on the National Forest and increasing harvest and success during the 1 st rifle season. The 1 st and 4 th rifle seasons provide hunters a quality hunting experience with limited either-sex and antlerless licenses available. Unlimited antlered licenses are available during the 2 nd and 3 rd rifle seasons. Various antlerless hunts outside the regular seasons have been implemented in an effort to reduce the elk population in E-6. Private land only hunts, early hunts, late hunts, damage hunts, and distribution hunts all provide hunters with several different opportunities to harvest an elk. Hunter success in the DAU would remain relatively high under this strategy. Success has averaged 37% from Hunter pressure would be moderate during archery, muzzleloader, and 1 st and 4 th rifle seasons with higher hunter pressure experienced during the 2 nd and 3 rd combined rifle seasons. The opportunities created by the various types of non-traditional hunts and liberal numbers of antlerless licenses made available in an effort to reduce the E-6 elk population have resulted in significant economic benefits for local businesses, landowners, guides and outfitters, and the CDOW. It is important to note that as the herds approach long term population objectives, the numbers of licenses issued for regular season hunts and late season opportunities will be reduced to maintain the elk population at the long term objective levels. Maintaining this elk population at a desired population level will require significantly fewer licenses than the number needed to reduce elk population levels. Elk Research on Movement/Distribution of elk between DAU E-6 and E-2 CDOW biologists in the Meeker/Craig area began an elk research study in the winter of in the area along the boundary between the White River Elk Herd DAU E-6 and the Bears Ears Elk Herd DAU E-2. The objectives of this study were to utilize radio/gps collars on elk that were trapped on winter range sites along the DAU boundary in order to: quantify how much movement of elk was occurring across the DAU boundaries; monitor elk distribution/habitat selection on a seasonal basis to assess impacts of weather, habitat, hunting pressure, etc.; determine migration patterns and corridors; and to assess elk survival rates. During the winter of , the CDOW radio-collared 35 adult cows and ear-tagged 21 calves and 7 bulls using clover traps. Adult cow survival rates during the winter of was 86% (30/35). 3 radiocollared cows were harvested during 2008 hunting seasons. Annual survival for adult cows in 2008 was 77% (27/35). During the winter of , the CDOW radio-collared an additional 25 adult cows (8 clover-trapped, 17 net-gunned). Adult cow survival rates during the winter of was 100% (52/52). Annual survival for adult cows in 2009 is yet to be determined. This elk research/study is going to continue but early trends that have been observed include a movement of DAU E-6 elk into DAU E-2 during the winter months. So far there seems to be annual variation in migration patterns, primarily due to weather and hunting pressure; however, the summer elk distribution patterns seem to be fairly consistent thus far in the research. Summer distribution patterns for elk collared this past winter, , are similar to elk collared in , with a relatively even split of elk summering in E2 and E6. All elk collared over the course of both years in the portion of GMU 301 south of Hwy 40 continue to summer in E6. There are a few more elk summering on public lands in 2009 than in 2008, so it will be interesting to see how they respond to the hunting seasons. One of the more interesting movements in 2009 is a cow elk collared last winter on Bald Mtn in DAU-E2that is now summering up near Pyramid Pk in DAU-E6; when this cow was located in May of 2009, she was north of Craig, near Fortification Rocks, so a pretty interesting migration path she apparently takes every year to get to the Bald Mtn/Godiva Rim area. There also seems to be some significant private land distribution/access issues that are being observed from the seasonal patterns of elk movements; the results of this study could help to further identify conflict areas that the HPP committees need to address with long-term solutions such as landscape scale habitat treatments in strategically located areas.

26 Figure 1. Calving/summer locations in 2008 for adult female elk radio-collared winter 07-08, represented by colored circles. Colors correspond to trap location, represented by colored flags to the west. Figure 2: Calving/summer locations in 2008 for adult female elk radio-collared winter 08-09, represented by colored circles. Colors correspond to trap/net-gun location, represented by colored flags to the west.

27 Figure 3. Radio-collared elk distribution in November 2008, between the 2 nd and 3 rd rifle seasons. Figure 4. Radio-collared elk distribution in January, Fig. approximately 1 year after capture. (Note elk distributed much more widely to the east and off of river bottom areas)

28 Figure 5. Net-gunning locations (represented by blue diamonds) of 17 adult female elk collared along the Yampa River corridor (E2/E6 boundary) in February Clover trap sites where 8 adult cows were collared in Jan/Feb 2009 are represented by red flags, while clover trap sites where 35 adult cows were collared in Jan/Feb 2008 are represented by yellow flags. Figure 6. Calving/summer locations in June, 2009 for adult female elk radio-collared during 1 st year of study in January/February of 2008, represented by colored circles. Colors correspond to trap location, represented by colored flags to the west.

29 Figure 7: Calving/summer locations in June, 2009 for adult female elk radio-collared during 2 nd year of study in January/February of 2009, represented by colored circles. Colors correspond to trap/net-gun location, represented by colored flags to the west.

30 Yellow Creek/Roan Plateau Elk Herd - DAU E-10 Game Management Units: 21, 22, 30, 31, 32 Current Population Estimate: 11, 429 (post-hunt 2008) Current Population Objective: 7,000 9,000 elk Previous Population Objective: 8,000 10,000 elk Current Sex Ratio: 17 bulls per 100 cows (post-hunt 2008) Current Sex Ratio Objective: bulls per 100 cows Land Ownership: 29% Private, 70% BLM, 1% State The E-10 DAU plan was revised/approved by the Colorado Wildlife Commission in 2006.

31 E-10 Posthunt Population Size Number of Elk E-10 Bull: Cow Ratio Bulls: 100 Cows

32 E-10 Harvest Number of Elk Antlerless Harvest Antlered Harvest DAU E-10 Backround/History/Objectives The Yellow Creek E-10 DAU is located in west-central Colorado and includes the Bookcliffs, Piceance Basin, Roan Plateau areas. The WR HPP area contains a portion of the Yellow Creek Elk herd (E- 10 DAU) which is comprised of GMU's 21, 22, 30, 31, and 32. The current population estimate for DAU E- 10 is approximately 11,000, with a long-term population objective of approximately 7,000 to 9,000 elk. The portion of the elk herd which occupies GMU 21 and 22 varies throughout the year. The majority of elk probably summer in the Roan Plateau area with smaller numbers scattered along the western portion of GMU 22 (Cathedral Rim) and eastern portions in the upper Dry Fork Piceance and Thirteen-mile and Fourteen-mile areas. Elk will move into the lower elevations of the Piceance Basin depending on the severity of the winter and there can be an influx of elk from GMU 23 which is to the east. The elk population in DAU E-10 was relatively low in the 1950 s and has shown steady growth in recent years to where it is currently approximately 11,000 elk (post-hunt 2008). The early/historic population objective for the Yellow Creek DAU of 3,000 elk has never been formalized. The objective was based on early models that underestimated the population and is unrealistically low. More advanced and sophisticated models estimate a current population size of approximately 11,000 elk. The population objective was established prior to the development of DAU plans and process of development of population objectives. Thus, there has not been extensive public review or review by the BLM of the old population objective of 3,000 elk. A more realistic population objective is probably 8,000-10,000 elk. This objective was first introduced during the DAU planning process begun in 1999 and was selected as the preferred alternative, prior to the postponement of plan approvals due to CWD concerns. This population objective was the basis for the DAU planning process in 2006.

33 The current DAU E-10 composition objective is bulls per 100 cows. In the past it has been 18 bulls per 100 cow; the change reflects an awareness of the inherent vacillations associated with unlimited bull harvest and is not a significant change in management strategy. The CDOW has conducted aerial sex and age composition surveys in E-10 since Early records in the 1980 s show that total bull to cow ratios were around 10 bulls per 100 cows. These ratios have steadily increased to average approximately 18.4 bulls per 100 cows. Post-hunt 2008 aerial sex composition surveys estimated that E-10 is currently at approximately 17 bulls per 100 cows. Calf production in DAU E-10 has been excellent over the years, as high as 61 calves: 100 cows. However, calf production has been declining in recent years, and is currently around 50 calves per 100 cows (post-hunt 2008). Elk harvest in the DAU E-10 has changed substantially over time, increasing with the population. About 40 times more animals were killed in 1998 as in In 1953 the harvest was 39 antlered and 10 antlerless. By 1998 the harvest had increased to a record 2042 elk, of which 845 were antlered and 1197 were antlerless elk. Approximately 1700 animals were harvested in 2004, of which 880 were antlered and 820 were antlerless. DAU E-10 Significant Issues and Conflicts: Although GMU 21 is mostly comprised of the Yellow Creek Elk herd (E-10 DAU) there is significant emigration and immigration of elk from both GMU 10 (E-21 DAU) and Utah s Bookcliff Elk herd. This exchange occurs most prominently along the Northern border of GMU 21, along the White River near T2N, R100W. This local accounts for the vast majority of elk related conflicts. These conflicts are mostly limited to growing alfalfa and fence damage during summer and early fall. The past efforts to address these conflicts have been limited to hazing the animals with propane canons and cracker shells along with game damage and HPP dispersal hunts. These measures have had limited, short term desired effects. Habituation to hazing and avoidance of damage hunt hunters by becoming nocturnal, have defeated a long term solution to this problem area. Recently the HPP committee has been cost-sharing with one particular landowner on alfalfa fertilization to offset the heavy utilization and crop damage caused by elk in hayfields along the White River. Effective manipulation of the elk herd behavior in this area may be accomplished by a continuation of these practices, along with strategic water development, reduction of nearby Pinyon-Juniper bedding areas and patches of isolated hiding cover (i.e., tamarisk patches along White River). In addition, the use of prescribed fire or mechanical habitat treatments designed to set back the seral stages of the mountain shrub communities in select areas of surrounding BLM may also be effective at reducing these conflicts with elk. Heavy utilization of spring pastures by elk in the East Douglas Creek, West Douglas Creek, and Park Canyon areas also create conflict with landowners. These conflicts seem to be much shorter in duration than those on the White River hay fields and mitigating efforts such as hazing, when timed with higher elevation snow melt, have more effective results. In recent years, there has been little elk conflict in the winter months due primarily to mild winters. There has been conflict with livestock during the summer months due mainly to the drought conditions. This is an area where we have cooperated in some water projects on BLM permits to help improve water distribution/availability and resolve conflicts. These projects have included pipelines, tanks, and spring development. The Piceance Basin is an area where there are lots of additional habitat related projects (grazing management, water development, prescribed burns, hydro-axing, etc.) could potentially be done to mitigate forage and water related conflicts in unit 22 and other nearby GMU s. There is also concern among some landowners that the increase in Oil and Gas Development in the nearby Piceance Creek Basin (GMU

34 22) will displace more of E-10 elk into GMU 21 and result in an increase in spring pasture and cropland conflicts. The most important aspect of the DAU planning process is obtaining input from all segments of the affected local populations, including the BLM and interested public. Public meetings were held to solicit input from the BLM, the local public, and the Boards of County Commissioners. A questionnaire was available at these public meetings and on the DOW web site to solicit opinions from the public. BLM concerns were focused primarily on maintaining the elk population numbers at current levels and the potential impact of future oil and gas development on elk numbers and distribution. Primary public concern centered on loss of elk habitat, competition with livestock, and the revenues that elk hunting produces. Various issues regarding this DAU have also arisen internally. The most significant issues involve habitat quality on winter range, wild horse competition with wildlife, and oil and natural gas development. The most significant of these is the oil and gas development. Proposed oil and gas development in this DAU, particularly on the Roan Plateau and in the Piceance Basin has and will continue to significantly increase. These impacts may have a dramatic and potentially negative effect on the quality of elk habitat, thereby affecting this herd in the future. Although the scope of this document does not include anticipating the impacts of proposed projects, the potential impacts must be recognized and an adaptive management strategy must be employed to most effectively account for impacts caused by oil and gas development.

35 White River Deer Herd - DAU D-7 Game Management Units: 11, 12, 13, 22, 23, 24, 131, 211, and 231 Current Population Estimate: 55,000 60,000 (post-hunt 2008) Current Population Objective: 67,500 Current Sex Ratio: bucks per 100 does (post-hunt 2008) Current Sex Ratio Objective: 22 bucks per 100 does The D-7 DAU plan is currently being updated and revised in Land Ownership: 41% Private, 21% USFS, 33% BLM, 5% State

36 Estimated Posthunt Population Population Objective 67,500 deer D-7 Post-Hunt Population Estimate/Trend Posthunt Population Estimate DAU D 7 Sex Ratio: # Bucks per 100 Does Buck to Doe Sex Ratio

37 D-7 Harvest Harvest Bucks Does Faw ns

38 White River Deer DAU D-7 Background/History The current population objective for DAU D-7 the White River mule deer herd is 67,500. This population objective was set in The current population estimate for D-7 is 55,000 60,000 deer, post-hunt It is proposed that the long term population objective for this herd be managed as a population range as opposed to a point estimate number. The flexibility to manage this deer herd within a population range would allow the CDOW to be more adaptive in their management and take the appropriate steps needed to increase or decrease deer numbers based on habitat carrying capacities. Managing the deer population within a population range that is more in line with habitat carrying capacities should produce a deer herd that is healthier, more productive, increase winter survival rates and lessen impacts on winter ranges. Current cultural and social philosophies regarding doe deer hunting opportunities, present some significant challenges in managing deer populations. As with mule deer populations across the West, computer modeling data and other information, including harvest and aerial surveys and various research studies that have been conducted involving this deer herd since the 1950s, show population trends in the White River deer herd to be very cyclic. Using the time frame of the current computer model ( ), population trend estimates for the White River deer herd were highest in 1983 (120,000 deer). The lowest population estimate in the range of this model is the current 2008 estimate of (56,000 deer). The CDOW has used different population objectives over the years. Prior to the 1980 s the population objective for D-7 was 85,000 deer. During the 1980's the population objective was 75,000 deer. In 1994, the CDOW set the current population objective of 67,500 deer. Historic population model estimates show a cyclical dynamic in this deer herd coinciding with the harsh winters of 72-73, 73-74, 78-79, and the notably harsh winter of when the deer herd was reduced by an estimated 25%. The D-7 deer herd experienced another set back during the winter of Most recently the winter of resulted in high fawn mortality and minimal recruitment resulting in yet another reduction to the D-7 deer herd. Currently, the CDOW is in the process of revising the current DAU plan and long term population objective for D-7. Starting in 1986, the CDOW instituted an antler point restrictions (APR) for the White River deer herd. The implementation of the 3 point regulation was intended to improve buck:doe ratios overall and to increase buck quality. While the APR increased buck:doe ratios, buck quality did not improve and the regulation was removed in In an effort to maintain an acceptable buck:doe ratio, the CDOW replaced the buck APR with a 3-day buck season starting in The 3-day buck season did not change the overall buck:doe ratio significantly, but did result in a decrease in yearling buck ratios. The 3-day buck regulation lasted through the year season structure. Since then, the buck:doe ratio has averaged 24 bucks:100 does, ranging from bucks:100 does. In 1999, deer licenses were limited statewide. The current sex ratio objective for the DAU is 22 bucks:100 does. The current D-7 sex ratio is below objective at 18.7 bucks per 100 does, post-hunt Every reasonable effort will continue to be made to increase and maintain the deer population to the DAU objectives. The post-hunt age ratio (fawns:100 does) has averaged 61.1 since Fawn ratios averaged 75.5 fawns:100 does during the 1970 s, 67.3 fawns:100 does in the 80s, and 52 fawns:100 does in the 90 s. The highest age ratio was 88 fawns:100 does in 2003 and the lowest was 47 fawns:100 does in The long-term trend for the fawn:doe ratio appears to be stable to slightly decreasing, with lows through the 1990s. Starting the winter of 2001, the Division expanded one of its mule deer survival monitoring areas to include DAU D-7. Fawn survival in the DAU has averaged 66.3% (+ SE 6.6, n=491 fawn winters) and doe survival has averaged 85.2% (+ SE 3.8, n =700 doe years) from In 2002, a draft DAU Plan for D-7 was written and public comment was received. However, due to management concerns associated with the discovery of CWD on the western slope of Colorado in DAU D-7

39 the DAU planning process for D-7 was put on hold until the present time. Public comment received in 2002, supported a moderate increase (26-50%) in the deer herd from the estimates at that time which was 80,000 deer. Public comment will be solicited through public meetings and questionnaires over the next few months as the DAU planning process evolves for D-7. White River Deer DAU D-7 Significant Issues and Conflicts In general deer conflicts in the White River HPP area have been minor in the past and are generally addressed through the game damage program. Alfalfa reseeding projects (cost-share) have resolved conflicts on certain localized properties in units 11 and 211 as a result of the heavy utilization of forage by the growing mule deer population. The issues identified in this DAU are primarily associated with oil and gas development, winter range habitat capability due to climatic conditions, livestock grazing, fire, fragmentation, doe deer management, and interspecific competition with elk. One of the biggest challenges in achieving an adequate harvest annually in the DAU is the current cultural and social philosophies on doe deer hunting. For management purposes, liberal antlerless license allocations and additional doe licenses have been implemented in an effort to increase doe harvest. In order to manage this population to the long term DAU population objective, it is important for the CDOW to educate the public on the importance of doe deer hunting and the concept of compensatory mortality and how it relates to the long term health of this deer herd and their winter range habitat. It will also be important for the Division to work closely with the BLM in the face of oil and gas development and the potential for mitigation that will have long term benefits and/or lessen the impacts on the D-7 deer herd. This area is part of Data Analysis Unit (DAU) D-7 known as the White River Deer Herd which is a large geographic area that includes game management units 131, 231, 12, 13, 23, 24, 11, 211, and 22. The upper White River area (GMU s 12, 23, and 24) serves primarily as summer and transitional range while the western portion of the DAU (GMU s 11, 211, and 22) is primarily winter range for the migratory White River deer herd. A large percentage of the deer in the White River herd migrate westward into units 11, 211, and 22 depending on fall/winter weather conditions. The Piceance Basin (Unit 22) is included in Data Analysis Unit (DAU) D-7. The upper portions of GMU 22 along the Roan Plateau and the Cathedral Rim serve as important summer deer range, while the majority of the Piceance Basin in GMU 22 is transitional and winter range habitat for deer. A significant percentage of the deer in the White River herd have historically migrated westward into unit 22 depending on fall/winter weather conditions. The main complaint about deer in GMU 22 and the Piceance Creek area in general has been that there are too few. Deer conflicts in this area on private lands have been nonexistent in the past. Fluctuations in the D-7 deer population over time seem to have a negative correlation with the E-6 elk population trend which indicates that the White River elk herd may be displacing, outcompeting and negatively impacting the White River mule deer population. It might be possible to indirectly increase the quality of available deer habitat in GMU 22 and the Piceance Creek Basin with some HPP projects that are designed to resolve elk related conflicts. HPP and landowners in the Piceance Creek area may want to promote legume production/deer forage along the riparian areas as well as prescribed burns and water development projects in the adjacent upland habitats to benefit the mule deer population. However, any of these habitat improvements that are designed to improve mule deer habitat would have to be carefully planned and strategically located to avoid indirectly attracting elk and increasing elk related conflicts.

40 Book Cliffs Deer Herd - DAU D-11 Game Management Units: 21 and 30 Current Population Estimate: 12,391 deer (post-hunt 2008) Current Population Objective: 10,000 to 12,000 deer Current Sex Ratio: 38 bucks per 100 does (post-hunt 2008) Current Sex Ratio Objective: bucks per 100 does Land Ownership: 19% Private, 80% BLM, 1% State The D-11 DAU plan was revised/approved by the Colorado Wildlife Commission in 2006.

41 D-11 Posthunt Population Size Number of Deer D-11 Buck: Doe Ratio Bucks: 100 Does D-11 Harvest Number of Deer Antlerless Harvest Antlered Harvest

42 DAU D-11 Background/History/Objectives GMU 21 is included in the D-11 DAU which also includes GMU 30, and is known as the Book Cliffs deer herd. The current population estimate for DAU D-11 is approximately 12,000 deer, with a long-term population objective of approximately 10,000 to 12,000 deer. The portion of the deer herd which occupies GMU 21 varies throughout the year and there is substantial interchange and migration between GMU 21 and 22. Many of deer that spend the fall/winter in GMU 21, likely summer in the Roan Plateau and Cathedral Rim areas of GMU 22. Deer will generally migrate westward off of the Cathedral Rim and out of the western portion of GMU 22 into GMU 21 as hunting pressure increases in the fall and as weather conditions force the deer out of the higher elevations. The Bookcliffs deer herd was very low at the turn of the century, but rebounded dramatically through the 1950s and 1960s. Deer populations in DAU D-11 continued to generally increase and were relatively high until the 1990 s. Since that time, the herd has shown a steady decline until about The decline of this herd mirrored the falling numbers in most mule deer populations throughout Colorado and the Western U.S., although it was more dramatic in this instance, and has been more prolonged. It was thought in the past that there were possibly limiting factors, including habitat loss and degradation that were keeping this deer population below objective but currently the population is at the upper end of the objective. The CDOW has conducted aerial sex and age composition surveys in D-11 since Early records in the 1980 s show that total buck to doe ratios were around 15 bucks per 100 does. These ratios have steadily increased to recent levels of 35+ bucks per 100 does, in large part due to totally limited male licenses implemented in The average buck to doe ratio in the DAU for the last 3 years is 37.8 bucks per 100 does. Post-hunt 2008 classifications estimated 37.9 bucks per 100 does. The post-hunt fawn to doe ratios are indicators of how successful the reproduction was for the past spring and how well fawns survived until December. This is a critical indicator of the condition of the herd. Fawn production in the DAU has been good over the years generally remaining between 50 and 70 fawns per 100 does. Since 1992, however, fawn production has been virtually static at fawns per 100 does. Deer harvest in the DAU D-11 has changed substantially over time, peaking in the late 1980 s and early 1990 s, followed by dramatic reductions, particularly since Prior to 1996 hunters averaged a harvest of about 1500 deer a year. Since 1996, an average of 452 deer was harvested each year. DAU D-11 Significant Issues and Conflicts Deer conflicts in this area on private lands have been nonexistent in the past. In recent years, with limited hunting license numbers since 1999 and mild winter conditions, the deer population has increased substantially within D-11 and the surrounding areas. It might be possible to indirectly increase the quality of available deer habitat in GMU 21 with some HPP projects that are designed to resolve elk related conflicts in this area. HPP and landowners in GMU 21 may want to promote legume production/deer forage along the riparian areas as well as prescribed burns and water development projects in the adjacent upland habitats to benefit the mule deer population. However, any of these habitat improvements that are designed to improve mule deer habitat will have to be carefully planned and strategically located so that the treatments do not indirectly attract elk and cause additional conflicts with landowners and livestock. Other issues within this DAU have arisen internally. The most significant issues involve habitat quality on winter range, continued inability of this herd to thrive, elk competition with mule deer, and, to a lesser degree, oil and natural gas development. The most significant of these is the continued inability to significantly increase deer herd size. In recent years, the CDOW s objective for this deer DAU has been to increase the population size. However, the deer population is stable and not growing significantly.

43 Although there are many contributing factors, winter range declines, competition with elk, and overall habitat quality degradation are the most likely contributors. The most important aspect of the DAU planning process is obtaining input from all segments of the affected local populations, including the BLM and interested public. Public meetings were held to solicit input from the BLM, the local public, and the Boards of County Commissioners. A questionnaire was available at these public meetings and on the DOW web site to solicit opinions from the public. The BLM response presented no objections to current deer management in this DAU. Public opinion was very centered on increasing deer herds, predation, and the loss of deer habitat to development.

44 Antelope Herds - DAU A-10 (Maybell) and A-34 (Axial Basin) Game Management Units: 11 (DAU A-10) and 12, 211, 23 (DAU A-34) Current Population Estimates (post-hunt 2008): DAU A-10: 2,200-2,500 DAU A-34: Current Population Objectives: DAU A-10: 1,500 antelope Current Sex Ratios (post-hunt 2008): DAU A-10: bucks per 100 does Current Sex Ratio Objectives: DAU A-10: 35 bucks per 100 does DAU A-34: 300 antelope DAU A-34: bucks per 100 does DAU A-34: 35 bucks per 100 does Currently, there are no formal DAU plans for A-10 and A-34 as of 2009.

45 A-10 Posthunt Population Estimate Estimated Posthunt Population Posthunt Population Estimate Min Count A-10 Observed vs Predicted Prehunt Buck/Doe Ratios Bucks/100 Does Observed Predicted

46 Harvest A-10 Harvest Bucks Does Faw ns A-34 Posthunt Population Estimate Estimated Posthunt Population Posthunt Population Estimate Min Count

47 A-34 Observed vs Predicted Prehunt Buck/Doe Ratios Bucks/100 Does Observed Predicted 120 A-34 Harvest Harvest Bucks Does Fawns

48 DAU A-10 (Maybell) and DAU A-34 (Axial Basin) Significant Issues and Conflicts The Maybell and Axial Basin antelope herds suffered declines from , likely due to drought reducing the forage and water availability in the core habitat/range. From , likely due to decreases in harvest and increases in forage/water availability, the Maybell (DAU A-10) antelope population gradually increased and currently seems to be stable. The White River HPP committee has implemented water improvement projects on the Bitterbrush State Wildlife Area in GMU 11 in order to hold antelope on the property during summer and fall. Conflicts from antelope in this area from the Maybell antelope herd (DAU A-10) have been minimal and can usually be resolved with game damage hunts on private property. Historically, the upper White River area was not inhabited by antelope and thus there have been no conflicts. However, with the drought conditions in recent years antelope from the Axial Basin Herd (DAU A34) have been forced to disperse from their historic ranges in search of forage and water. Between , a relatively small number of antelope moved eastward from GMU 211 into GMU 12 and also south to GMU 23 along several tributaries of the White River, including Little Beaver Creek and Flag Creek. There have been a few forage and crop related conflicts with the antelope that have dispersed onto the private ranch lands in the Milk Creek area of unit 12 and the Little Beaver Creek area of GMU 23, and these conflicts will likely increase if these sub-populations of antelope persist and expand longterm. All of the forage and crop related conflicts with A-34 antelope have been addressed through the game damage program with antelope damage hunts up to this point. The Axial Basin antelope herd suffered declines from , likely due to drought reducing the forage and water availability in the core habitat/range. A fair number of antelope actually dispersed from the Axial Basin Herd during those drought years out of their historic ranges to other nearby GMU s (12 and 23) where forage and water was more abundant during the drought. However, antelope will likely not be able to survive in these portions of GMU s 12 and 23 during harsh winter conditions so it is expected that they will eventually disperse back into their core/historic range when forage and water conditions improve. From , likely due to decreases in harvest and increases in forage/water availability, the Axial Basin antelope population has gradually increased and currently seems to be stable.

49 Flat Tops Moose Introduction Game Management Units: 12, 23, 24 Current Population Estimate: < 50 moose Current Population Objective: TBD Current Sex Ratio: N/A Current Sex Ratio Objective: N/A Currently no DAU plan exists for the recently introduced moose population in the White River/Flat Tops Area, but it is anticipated that one will be drafted in the near future.

50 White River/Flattops Moose Introduction Background/History In late 2006, the CDOW Northwest Region Terrestrial Wildlife Section began to address the feasibility of an introduction program in the Upper White River drainage including the Flat Tops Wilderness Area (FTWA). As part of this preliminary investigation, CDOW planned a study designed to provide information on the availability of willow in an area selected as a potential reintroduction site. Since the reintroduction of moose in Colorado, willow-dominated habitat has been a primary vegetation type used by moose for forage and cover. Other studies indicate a high preference for willow in the annual diet of moose. The moose habitat assessment report was completed in September of The results indicated that the willow, mountain shrub, aspen, and conifer forest habitats within the Upper White River Valley were most definitely suitable for sustaining a moose population. However, determination of carrying capacity for moose in the area was beyond the scope of the habitat assessment study in In 2008, the moose introduction proposal was advanced by CDOW and a series of public meetings were held in the Meeker area in order to assess concerns/issues from the public, landowners, and from the federal land management agencies that would be potentially impacted. Virtually all of the input was positive and the main issues/concerns that arose were potential competition with livestock, human safety, and game damage. The CDOW eased these concerns by emphasizing that the long-term population objective for a resident moose population in the Upper White River/Flat Tops area would be extremely low (likely less than 200), which should not result in any significant conflicts between moose and other big game animals, livestock, or humans. After the public involvement process, the CDOW decided to proceed with a moose introduction. Self-sustaining moose herds have been established in Colorado through translocations of founding animals in two general locations by the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW). Moose were first reintroduced into Colorado beginning in 1978 in North Park and subsequently a second herd has been established through captured and translocated moose in the Upper Rio Grande drainage in A third reintroduction project began in January 2005 in west-central Colorado on the Grand Mesa with translocation of moose initially obtained from the Upper Rio Grande population and followed with multiple translocations, mainly from moose captured in Utah. The first two projects have resulted in the establishment of self-sustaining herds and approximately 100 to110 moose presently occupy the Grand Mesa project area and appear to be establishing a resident herd. The desire to establish an additional self-sustaining moose herd centers on providing citizens with sport hunting and wildlife viewing opportunities. Other interests view the establishment of moose populations as an economic benefit to Colorado through increased tourism.

51 WHITE RIVER HPP PROJECT TYPES AND PRIORITIES In order to accomplish the various goals and objectives listed within this plan, the White River HPP Committee may utilize the following types of projects. PROJECT TYPES: Habitat Manipulation to include, but not limited to Prescribed burning water developments weed control Fertilization Seeding Mechanical (chaining, rollerchopping, hydro axing, etc.) Fencing Projects to include, but not limited to Fence vouchers distributed to landowners for materials Construction of new fences (usually > ¼ mile in length) Landowner reimbursement for fencing materials purchased Prototype or experimental fence designs for livestock and wildlife issues Wildlife crossings or retrofitting of fences to make more wildlife friendly Game Damage Projects to include, but not limited to Stackyard Repairs materials and/or labor New stackyards materials and/or labor Distribution hunts Hunt coordinators for distribution hunts, youth hunts, etc Forage purchases Baiting Small game damage claims (last resort) Information/Education Projects to include, but not limited to Seminars Workshops Brochures Electronic media (websites, etc) Research/Monitoring Projects to include, but not limited to Habitat Population Inventory Movement Conservation Easements (transaction costs only) Archaeological Clearances (and other NEPA required clearances)

52 Special projects White River HPP Committee has worked on include: 1. Dixie harrow treatments: WRHPP Committee purchased a Dixie harrow in 2001 to thin stands of sagebrush and improve habitat diversity for sage grouse, Antelope, elk, and antelope. Approximately 1,000 acres have been treated on public and private lands. 2. Weed Control: WRHPP has participated in the Moffat County and Rio Blanco County weed control programs for over ten years and has helped in treating several thousand acres of private and public lands. Invasion of noxious weeds (i.e., leafy spurge, yellow toadflax, and knapweed) is a huge threat to wildlife habitat in our area and is a forage conflict for livestock producers. Our committee will continue to be active in large-scale cooperative partnerships which implement integrated weed management strategies in an effort to protect our wildlife habitats from weed invasion and reduce forage related conflicts on public/private lands. Large scale weed control projects can be financially draining over the long-term, however, the loss and degradation of wildlife habitat as a result of noxious weed invasions is one of the major conflicts in the White River HPP area. WRHPP has helped treat thousands of acres through cooperative weed management efforts since Fences: WRHPP promotes and has cooperated in the construction of high tensile wire fence following CDOW height and spacing recommendations in place of barbed and woven wire fences. 4. Habitat Data Summary and Assessment: Dr. Gary Wockener of the Natural Resources Ecology Lab at Colorado Sate University developed a Habitat Assessment Model to aid in determining carrying capacity for big game populations in our HPP area. A copy of the habitat model evaluation report and habitat model data summary for the White River HPP area included in the HMP. 5. Water development: The WRHPP has been very active in participating in water development projects, both directly with landowners and through cooperative efforts with the BLM and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Adequate distribution of water throughout the semi-arid landscape (especially on the western half of the White River HPP area) is essential to reduce forage related conflicts and manage healthy rangelands. 6. Controlled Burns: It is the WRHPP Committee s intent to utilize prescribed burns to improve habitat and alleviate big game conflicts. We have participated in several USFS prescribed burn projects and one CDOW burn project on Oak Ridge SWA to date and hope to be involved with many more burn projects in the near future. 7. Education: The WRHPP Committee sponsored a seminar on Conservation Easements in It also sponsored a seminar on Ranching for Profit which was attended by approximately 35 people, and has offered some financial assistance to individuals who may want to attend the Ranching for Profit school. WRHPP hopes to expand the education portion of our program in the future to include landowner newsletters, brochures, and school/4-h/ffa programs. 8. Stackyard Protection: Our Committee has purchased approximately 150 wire panels (7x12 and 7x16 ) which we keep on hand at the Meeker CDOW Office for temporary use by landowners in order to protect stacks of hay from big game during the winter months. Landowners are then encouraged to request permanent stackyard fencing materials through the CDOW s game damage program as a long-term solution. 9. Landscape-Scale Mechanical Treatments: It is the WRHPP Committee s intent to utilize different mechanical habitat manipulations treatments, such as chaining, rollerchopping, hydro axing, etc., to

53 improve habitat and alleviate big game conflicts. In , WRHPP initiated a long-term, landscape scale habitat improvement project within the area. The primary goal of this landscape-scale project is to improve key transitional and winter range habitats to minimize game damage conflicts between elk and livestock on private lands. Oak Ridge State Wildlife Area, east of Meeker, was chosen as the starting point for this project and will serve as a showcase property to foster support and cooperation for future projects on federal and private lands in the area. A recent article (see below) which was printed in the local Meeker/Rangely newspaper describes the initial phases of this landscape-scale habitat project that began with mechanical treatments but will also be complemented with prescribed fire as well. Oil and Gas Development Impacts/Conflicts: Oil and gas development is having significant impacts on wildlife in portions of the White River HPP area (i.e., the Piceance Basin and Roan Plateau/Unit 22 and Douglas Creek/Unit 21) as these activities further change and fragment important wildlife habitat. The Piceance Basin, Roan Plateau, and Douglas Creek areas have been leased to oil and gas companies but these areas also serve as important seasonal habitat for big game animals and many other wildlife species. The oil and gas development in the western portion of the WRHPP area has and will continue to present many challenges to managing all wildlife populations, including sage grouse and non-game species in the future. The WRHPP committee would like to include the Piceance Basin and Roan Plateau within its landscape scale habitat manipulation project plans, but is currently holding off to avoid potential conflicts with ongoing and long-term CDOW mule deer, sage and sharp-tailed grouse and habitat research projects; implementation of uncoordinated HPP habitat treatments within the research study areas could potentially significantly impact and confound the results of the ongoing and long-term CDOW research efforts in the Piceance Basin and Roan Plateau. HPP may participate in some habitat manipulation projects in the Piceance Basin that are coordinated specifically with CDOW research projects, but it is likely that this area will be excluded from the long-term HPP landscape scale project until the CDOW research efforts are completed. Further, much of the research and habitat treatments that are currently planned through CDOW research activities in the Piceance Basin are being funded primarily by private energy companies or severance tax funds and therefore there has not been a large demand in the Piceance Basin or Roan Plateau for HPP funding. Noxious Weed Management in White River HPP Area: Noxious weeds are one of the most critical threats to wildlife habitats in the WRHPP area for a variety of reasons. The WRHPP Committee has contributed a considerable amount of money to the Rio Blanco, Garfield, and Moffat County weed management programs in the past. Recently, with the change in HPP area boundaries, the Committee has not been contributing to the Moffat County weed program and has focused primarily on Rio Blanco County weed conflicts. The major weed concerns have been Leafy Spurge, Whitetop, Houndstongue, and Toadflax. However, more recently concerns have also expanded to include concern about infestations of perennial pepperweed, knapweeds, and tamarisk. In the past, funding from the WRHPP Committee has been used to purchase various weed spraying equipment for government agencies but recent efforts have been focused on cost-share and payments for manual labor and herbicides for cooperative weed spraying projects. The WRHPP Committee has tried to contribute to and foster large scale cooperative efforts through

54 various agencies and private landowners, rather than small-scale isolated projects with individual landowners. This has allowed the WRHPP to leverage labor and financial resources more effectively over the entire White River Area to hopefully make as big of positive impact as possible over the long-term. Successful weed control efforts need an integrated, cooperative and coordinated effort from a number of entities. It is recognized that attacking weed problems piecemeal will have a very limited success. It is likely that the WRHPP committee will not be able to sustain these significant long-term contributions to the weed control programs in Rio Blanco County in the future, however the Committee plans to continue to support the integrated weed management programs as much as possible. Presently we are at a critical point in managing noxious weeds in the White River HPP area, especially with toadflax and leafy spurge infestations. With adequate effort now, it is possible to maintain low levels of noxious weed populations in key areas, keeping the infestations within manageable limits so that they do not disrupt normal ecosystem function on a large scale. This can only be accomplished by stepping up and sustaining adequate weed management efforts over the long-term. Failure to provide the appropriate level of inventory, monitoring, and treatment of noxious weeds at this time will ultimately result in degradation and possibly loss of some of the finest wildlife habitats in northwestern Colorado. Unfortunately, this has already occurred in some areas of the Upper White River, such as Crooks Park, where the severe toadflax (and other weeds) infestation has significantly reduced wildlife habitat diversity, forage quality, in addition to negatively impacting recreational values, livestock production, aesthetics, soil stability, and water quality. Without long-term support and funding for an integrated weed management plan for Rio Blanco County (mechanical, chemical, biological agents used together), it is not likely that we will ever gain control of the noxious weed infestations in the White River HPP area. Hopefully, WRHPP can continue to support large scale and long-term cooperative weed management efforts to prevent noxious weeds from destroying wildlife habitats in the White River ecosystem. Leafy Spurge: An unusually heavy infestation of Leafy Spurge occurs north and northeast of Meeker in the Nine-mile and Sulfur Creek areas on both public and private lands. The WRHPP Committee contributed to a variety of weed control projects in these areas and has developed some incredibly important partnerships with local landowners, BLM, Farm Services Agency, NRCS, and USFS so that money and labor can be leveraged to accomplish large-scale chemical treatments applied both from the ground (on foot and horseback) and from the air (with helicopters/planes). For many years, CDOW and WRHPP have also contributed to a sheep grazing project focused on areas with heavy leafy spurge infestations along the upper White River. This sheep grazing treatment is followed with chemical treatment of the leafy spurge and has had some positive results due to the large scale integrated weed management approach. The Forest Service, Rio Blanco County, and landowners are also cooperating in this endeavor. Some landowners in the Nine-mile and Sulphur Creek areas were initially reluctant to participate in weed control efforts. However, in the past several years, many of these landowners have agreed to participate and a major project has been initiated through Rio Blanco County with help from the Farm Services agency and surrounding landowners. Our Committee contributed $25,000 to help get a major herbicide treatment initiated. Our Committee has also contributed to chemical costs for Leafy Spurge control in isolated areas of the county with the Forest Service, BLM, and private landowners. These weed control projects have been beneficial to habitat, but fighting noxious weeds is a long-term effort that is not easily or quickly resolved. Recently, biological controls have also been released in many areas and are being tested and monitored to see if they can help control leafy spurge infestations for the long-term in Rio Blanco County.

55 Photos above show aerial herbicide applications occurring on public and private lands that have been very successful in treating noxious weed infestations in the White River HPP area. Aerial herbicide applications have been more cost effective (avg. cost of $25 per acre) and successful on a landscape scale than traditional ground herbicide application methods (avg. cost of $50 per acre). Landowners, government agencies, and Rio Blanco County have all cooperated with White River HPP to fund long-term landscape scale aerial herbicide applications. Whitetop: In previous years we cooperated with Moffat County in weed control efforts on Whitetop. The Axial Basin area had an especially heavy infestation. Control efforts have been reasonably successful. We have not been approached for funds from Moffat County as a result of the change in HPP area boundaries. Houndstongue: Houndstongue has been a major concern in Piceance for a number of years. WRHPP has cooperated with Rio Blanco County, private landowners, and the BLM since 1997 on chemical costs to control houndstongue and several other weeds which include some localized infestations of Leafy Spurge. This has developed over the years into a large-scale weed control program in the Piceance Creek Basin and has been extremely popular with private landowners and agencies. The project has been effective in improving the quality of forage for wildlife and livestock in the Piceance basin. In 2006, Encana contributed $60,000 and Shell contributed $2,000 to assist with the Piceance Creek Forage Improvement Project. WRHPP contributed $15,000 to this cooperative weed control effort for It is anticipated that WRHPP can focus on habitat improvement projects in now that the oil and gas industry is finally becoming an active participant/contributor to keep these long-term weed control efforts going in Rio Blanco County.

56 Toadflax: Toadflax is a great concern in the White River National Forest east of Meeker. WRHPP has cooperated in various weed control efforts with the US Forest Service for the purchase of chemicals, labor, and equipment. WRHPP contributed $10,000 to efforts to control a particularly bad infestation in the upper South Fork of the White River. WRHPP also contributed to the purchase of an 8x8 ARGO all-terrain weed sprayer for the USFS (Blanco Ranger district) specifically to assist in the chemical treatment of toadflax in the Upper White River area, which was an incredibly successful project. Many of these toadflax infestations are incredibly difficult to treat and control as they are often in remote wilderness areas where travel is restricted to foot and horseback only. The toadflax infestations in these remote areas are a huge threat/conflict to forage availability and quality for the White River elk and Antelope herds that summer in these areas. Photo (above) of 8x8 ARGO in action applying herbicide treatment to a major toadflax infestation on White River National Forest. Photo of private contractors that were hired by USFS/HPP to treat remote noxious weed infestations with horseback type sprayers.

57 Water Development/Improvement Projects: The majority of the water development projects that WRHPP has contributed to have been in cooperation with Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) through their WHIP and EQIP programs. These have included pipelines, spring development, solar systems, wells, tanks, and ponds. Through educational efforts and advertising with local landowners in the community, the White River HPP Committee has significantly increased the number of water development project proposals, especially in the Piceance Creek Basin and Meeker areas. Most of our water development projects have come as a result of frequent drought conditions and subsequent concentrations of elk around limited water supplies. These projects have benefited both wildlife and livestock. We have cooperated in many water improvement projects in the Meeker, Axial Basin, and Piceance Basin areas that have included spring developments, pipelines, wells, tanks and ponds that have drawn livestock out of riparian areas and allowed for a more even distribution of both livestock and wildlife over the range. These projects have been primarily on private lands but some have been on public lands as well. Water improvement projects were completed in cooperation with private landowners, USFS, BLM, and NRCS. These projects will also benefit the dwindling sage grouse population and many other species in this area. Photo of water improvement project in Piceance Basin in 2008 that consisted of redoing a well, installing a solar pump on an existing windmill tank to provide water for livestock, improve livestock grazing distribution, and reduce conflicts with elk on the public/private allotment. Brush Treatment, seeding and fertilization projects: Requests for brush treatment projects have been limited until recently with the initiation of the landscape scale habitat manipulation project which is focused on mountain shrub treatments. We have cooperated with NRCS on some limited sagebrush treatments with seeding. We have also cooperated on some projects which were solely seeding projects in which we wished to encourage planting of legumes for wildlife benefit. WRHPP has approached sage brush treatment cautiously because of sage grouse and big game winter range issues/concerns in the White River area. Our Committee purchased a Dixie Harrow which has been used on Division of Wildlife properties and has been loaned out to private landowners. It is very effective under certain conditions, especially when the goal is to thin the sagebrush and promote a diverse herbaceous response in the understory plant community. We also cooperated with the NRCS to purchase a rangeland seed drill which is available for loan to private landowners. The NRCS manages the use of the drill and this has been used to improve habitats on private lands.

58 The WRHPP Committee has recently funded several legume reseeding projects as a direct cost-share with landowners. Both of these projects were on private ranches that are located within migration corridors for deer and elk and see substantial utilization throughout the year. The reseeding projects were designed to offset the losses in yields from alfalfa hay crops that the landowners were having over the long-term due to the heavy utilization by big game. At the same time, the seed mixes were picked to increase the productivity and diversity of legumes that were available to the migrating big game animals and also to increase the quality and yield of hay that the landowner could produce and harvest. In 2008 and 2009, the WRHPP committee funded an alfalfa/hay fertilization project on the lower White River for a landowner that has had chronic elk conflicts. The goal of the project was to help offset the heavy utilization of hay crop from elk by increasing the yield and production through fertilization. This was a 50% cost-share directly with the private landowner and the committee decided that it may be necessary to set some committee guidelines in terms of a maximum cap for any fertilization cost-share projects that may be funded in the future. Prescribed Burning Projects: Requests for prescribed burn projects have been relatively few. The White River HPP Committee funded a prescribed burn project in for the Snell Rock and North Elk Creek areas in cooperation with the U.S. Forest Service and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. Unfortunately, this project was only partially implemented due to landowner relations problems and narrow burn windows. This project set the seral stage of some mountain shrub and forested areas back and improved the quality of the transitional habitat for mule deer and elk populations. These fires should help hold deer and elk on the public lands longer during their annual migrations and should hopefully reduce damage to nearby private lands. The White River HPP Committee would like to significantly increase the number of prescribed burning projects that it participates in, as fire can be an extremely cost-effective wildlife habitat management tool that can provide significant long-term benefits when properly planned and implemented. Photo of CDOW staff conducting prescribed burn project on Oak Ridge SWA in spring of 2000.

59 WHITE RIVER HPP PROJECT LOCATIONS: HPP projects may be undertaken on public lands, private lands or a combination of both as needed wherever the local committee believes the project has the best chance to effectively reduce, minimize or eliminate the big game/livestock conflict Evaluating Proposed Projects WHITE RIVER HPP PROJECT GUIDELINES: Step 1: The need for the proposed project is clearly described and includes a discussion of the conflict and the effects of the proposed project on big-game distribution (i.e. completed application form). Step 2: The WRHPP Committee sets priority for the proposed project based on the following criteria: 1. Will the proposed project distribute the conflicting animals to preferred areas? 2. Will the proposed project enhance/improve habitat conditions on preferred areas and effectively address the conflict over the long run by attracting conflicting animals to a preferred area? 3. Does the proposed project address a recurring conflict that involves a herd unit or a significant number of animals? 4. Will the proposed project benefit the landowners, agencies, big game, and the public? (i.e. is constructing a tall fence at a known big-game crossing point asking for failure?) 5. Have non-structural solutions been tried, such as distribution hunts, propane cannons, management changes, etc? 6. Does the proposed project replace or maintain an existing fence? If so, what is the age and condition of the existing fence? Is the fence design wildlife friendly? Does the project identify and address a recurring maintenance conflict? 7. Does the applicant/landowner allow low-fee or no-fee public hunting such as PLO (private land only) licenses, big game distribution hunts, or general public access? 8. Is the landowner willing to participate financially (direct funds and/or labor) in the project? 9. Is the proposed project experimental? 10. Is the project and its design cost effective?

60 PROJECT GUIDELINES (CONTINUED) Project participants must agree to maintain project for minimum of 10 years and report to the Committee as required. Fence projects are required to follow and implement the recommendations by the Colorado Division of Wildlife in the HPP brochure "Fencing with Wildlife in Mind". Projects on Ranching for Wildlife properties will be reviewed and considered on a case by case basis. No projects will be funded to build stack yards, unless extenuating circumstances exist. No decision of project participation will be given at time of proposal presentation. The Committee will be allowed discussion time and a Committee member will contact the presenter within a week of the decision.

61 WHITE RIVER HPP BUDGET HPP BUDGET GUIDELINES: The base-operating budget for the State HPP program is based on 5% of total annual revenues for big game license sales in the HPP areas. The Statewide HPP Council allocates funding to the individual HPP committees. The White River HPP budget was developed to best meet the goals and objectives outlined earlier in the plan, while maintaining the flexibility to deal with emergencies and take advantage of opportunities. The statewide HPP financial system allows local HPP committees to carry specific project dollars over from year to year if the project is ongoing or the funds have been committed. This allows us to better address long-term management and larger, more complicated projects as well as giving us the flexibility to more efficiently prioritize our projects. Additional funds are also available through the Statewide HPP Council and the HPP Coordinator for special projects or unforeseen opportunities outside of the capacity of the local committees. These dollars supplement our existing budget and allow us to take on special projects from time to time. WHITE RIVER HPP PROPOSED BUDGET: The White River HPP Committee has developed a budget allocation in line with our vision, which allows for short-term strategies to deal with immediate fence and forage conflicts caused by big game, but concentrates on adaptive, long-term management strategies leading to the establishment of healthy and sustainable rangelands. Our budget for the five-year period has been broken down as follows: WHITE RIVER HPP BASE BUDGET ALLOCATION Habitat Manipulation 65 % Fencing & Game Damage 15 % Information & Education 5 % Conservation Easements/NEPA Related Activities 5 % Research/Monitoring 5% Administration 5 % TOTAL ALLOCATION: 100% BUDGET GOALS: It is important to acknowledge that the budget allocation is based on past projects, future projects that are likely to be proposed as well as committee emphasis in funding certain project types. While these are desired and/or likely allocations, the committee retains the ability to shift funds as needed between categories as projects and opportunities arise or as situations dictate.

62 Weed control continues to be one of the dominant issues and conflict with both private landowners and governmental agencies in the White River HPP area. The White River HPP committee intends to continue cooperating at an appropriate level as noxious weeds pose a tremendous threat and long-term conflict to wildlife habitats within the White River area. However, the WRHPP Committee s future vision is to direct more HPP funding towards key water developments and landscape scale habitat enhancement/manipulation projects, and that has certainly been the trend recently in 2008 and PRIORITY AREAS FOR WR HPP COMMITTEE This plan does not identify prioritized geographic conflict areas in which to expend allocated resources. No area within the plan boundary has a higher priority over another. The DAU section of our plan provides a very in-depth and detailed discussion of the specific issues and conflicts that have occurred within each DAU/population/area. Our plan provides for implementation of the identified management strategies over a broad geographic area based on meeting the objectives of the defined goals. This will be accomplished by implementing the identified management strategies throughout the WRHPP area as specific issues or conflicts are identified and brought to the attention of the Committee. However, emphasis and priority will be given to areas that the Committee feels will lead to long-term solutions. HPP projects may be undertaken on public lands, private lands or a combination of both as needed wherever the local committee believes the project has the best chance to effectively reduce, minimize or eliminate the big game/livestock conflict It is the desire of the Committee to broaden our methods of operation. We recognize the need to develop long-term habitat treatment plans for identified priority areas. Habitat management plans for priority areas should better address long-term resource needs and issues with the hope of better, more permanent solutions. During the next five years the Committee will work toward the consideration of several candidate priority areas for implementation of the long-term landscape scale habitat manipulation project. Selection of these areas for consideration will be based on knowledge of identified resource needs and issues, landowner interest, availability of resource data, and any other available information. We will then work toward developing a long-term habitat treatment plan for selected priority areas across the landscape. However, there will always be the need to accomplish some projects on short notice due to the availability of funding, landowner needs, and shortness of the field season, special opportunities, or other reasons. The Committee feels strongly that the ability to be responsive on short notice is one of our strengths. We will work to continue to improve our planning and project review process without limiting our flexibility and potential for success. CONFLICT AREAS & SAFE HAVENS: Conflict areas are public or private land, where an excessive concentration of big game animals causes a problem with the management of those lands with respect to forage, growing crops, harvest aftermath, fences, and/or general use. Additional conflict areas are safe havens, parcels of land where restrictions on hunting result in a significant concentration of animals and a corresponding reduction in harvest of big game animals. These animals then cause significant conflicts with fence and forage to other landowners in the area. Other safe haven areas include private or government properties that restrict hunting to the point that efforts to meet the harvest objective are negatively impacted. Ranches that offer fee hunting and prioritize

63 bull harvest over antlerless elk harvest become safe havens. Also falling into this category are ranches, and other landowners/managers that allow no elk hunting. Over time elk have found these safe havens and the number of animals using them appear to be increasing. The location of safe havens has the potential to change over time and none of the current safe havens are considered permanent. The WRHPP Committee tries to resolve conflicts caused by these situations. Where possible, the Committee has undertaken habitat improvement projects in an effort to draw the elk away from the area of conflict. Conflict areas on federally owned land appear to be less significant than those on private ground, primarily due to hunting pressure being much greater on public lands. The Bureau of Land Management reports that they are unaware of any conflicts caused by elk on any of the property they administer. The United States Forest Service has some areas of concern, such as Lost/Salt parks, where concentrations of elk may have significant impacts on the vegetation but these are relatively small areas. ENHANCEMENT AREAS: Enhancement areas are locations where there are opportunities on public or private lands to improve/protect/enhance habitats to reduce or mitigate conflicts with other interests. As mentioned above, enhancement areas should be located near conflict areas in order to minimize the impacts of the elk causing the conflict. These are the areas/properties where the WRHPP committee is currently trying to identify and focus efforts for implementation of the long-term landscape scale habitat manipulation project. NON-CONFLICT AREAS: Non-conflict areas are locations where concentrations of big game animals are tolerated. These can be on private property where the ranch is managed to include significant populations of big game-mainly elk- or government owned land where big game are considered to be part of their multiple use philosophy such as U. S. Forest Service, BLM, or Colorado State Forest lands. We have found that non-conflict areas can change over time-especially with changes in ownership. Therefore, we have decided not to map them for this plan but will consider where they exist at the time when project decisions are made.

64 STATE WILDLIFE AREAS and WRHPP The White River HPP geographic area includes a multitude of land ownerships including BLM, National Forest, Wilderness, private, and state owned properties. Properties which are owned by the CDOW and are designated as State Wildlife Areas are substantial in size and are critical habitats for the big game animals that migrate along the White River corridor. These State Wildlife Areas were purchased for their high wildlife habitat values and are strategically located within the migration routes of Antelope, elk, and antelope populations. Improving habitat conditions on the State Wildlife Areas for big game can reduce many of the forage and fence related conflicts on the nearby private lands. State Wildlife Areas that are within the White River HPP area include: Name of SWA Acreage GMU Jensen SWA 6,000 acres 12, 23 / Deer, Elk Meeker Pasture SWA 48 acres 23 / Fish, Deer Oak Ridge SWA and Lake Avery 12,000 acres + 23 / Deer, Elk, Fish Piceance SWA Rio Blanco Lake 380 acres 22 / Fish Piceance SWA Square S Summer Range 4,880 acres 21, 22 / Deer, Elk Piceance SWA Square S Ranch 920 acres 22 / Deer, Elk Piceance SWA Yellow Creek 6,320 acres 22 / Deer, Elk Piceance SWA Little Hills 10,400 acres 22 / Deer, Elk

65 SUMMARY/CONCLUSION OF WHITE RIVER HPP HABITAT MGT. PLAN This updated revision to the existing HMP Plan given above will be submitted to the Wildlife Commission for their approval in the fall of It was submitted to replace the previous HMP which was approved by the Wildlife Commission in November, The significant updates and revisions were primarily necessary to address the additional changes in boundaries for the HPP area and name change from the original Yampa/White River HPP to just White River HPP Committee. This new HMP plan also offers a much more thorough description of all DAU/populations, game management units, analysis of habitats and ownership, and known wildlife conflicts/issues within the new geographic area for the White River HPP committee. Although the geographic area and name of the HPP committee have changed, the guidelines, goals, objectives, and strategies for the White River HPP Committee will be virtually identical to what was in the original HMP Plan that was approved in November, It is anticipated that this HMP will be updated and revised as necessary in the future to meet the overall goals and objectives of the White River HPP Committee. The success of the habitat management plan depends heavily on the WRHPP Committee's ability to foster cooperation between the landowners and the hunting public since a major tool for moving the animals from the conflict areas, and decreasing the numbers will be the public hunters. Landowners in the WRHPP area have been reluctant in the past to open their private lands to the general public for reasons ranging from protection of their property to maximizing hunting income. This lack of public hunting access to many large parcels of private property has resulted in primarily elk finding a safe haven/refuge on some private lands during the regular rifle seasons, which has made it difficult for CDOW to reach annual elk harvest objectives and has exacerbated elk related habitat damage and conflicts throughout the WRHPP area. The WRHPP feels strongly in the need to work cooperatively as a partnership with land management agencies, private landowners, and other entities. The WRHPP Committee also prefers to encourage people to leverage the funding available in order to implement as many projects as possible for maximum benefits to wildlife habitat. The WRHPP Committee also requires each participating landowner, agency, or other entity to submit a completed Conflict/Project Request Form prior to considering any proposed HPP projects. The HPP program has been extremely beneficial to many landowners and government agencies in the White River/Meeker area and there is substantial support for the HPP program from the surrounding communities.

66 APPENDIX A DOW Habitat Partnership Program at work in Rio Blanco County Special Article to the Rio Blanco Herald on June 30, 2009 MEEKER, Colo. - The White River Habitat Partnership Program and the Colorado Division of Wildlife are currently conducting some significant habitat treatments at the Oak Ridge State Wildlife Area. The work will highlight the good things that can be done 'on the ground' in this area to benefit wildlife and livestock forage. Treatments being conducted at Oak Ridge include mechanical treatment using heavy equipment and controlled burn treatments, which will occur later this fall when conditions allow. The primary goal of this landscape-scale project is to improve key transitional and winter range habitats to minimize game damage conflicts between elk and livestock on private lands. Oak Ridge State Wildlife Area, east of Meeker, was chosen as the starting point for this project and will serve as a showcase property to foster support and cooperation for future projects on federal and private lands in the area. In June, 2009, WRHPP contracted with West Range Reclamation LLC to mechanically treat approximately 233 acres of very thick, decadent mountain shrub and pinyon-juniper habitat on Oak Ridge SWA as the first phase of a long-term landscape scale habitat manipulation project. Pictured above is one of the hydro-axe/grinder implements that was utilized to complete the mechanical treatments on Oak Ridge SWA. The White River Habitat Partnership Program (HPP) committee has hired a private contractor to mechanically treat approximately 250 acres of thick mountain shrub habitat on Oak Ridge SWA.

67 Mechanical treatments are accomplished using heavy equipment such as hydro-axes. The work creates a mosaic pattern on the landscape which provides multiple small islands of varied habitat types and forage types and promotes better wildlife usage of treated lands (see photos below). Habitat treatments influence the plant community by setting back "succession" - the progression of plant species over time. Mature and decadent growths of mountain shrub can choke out access to habitat, decrease plant diversity and lessen quality of plants. Thinning these decadent areas improves the quality and diversity of wildlife forage and cover on the treated sites, which attracts animals to these areas and away from private lands where they may cause damage. The White River HPP committee is hopeful that additional habitat treatments can also occur on area private lands as landowners see the benefits for wildlife and livestock of the Oak Ridge work Pictured above is a pre-treatment photo of an area on Oak Ridge SWA prior to mechanical treatments. Pictured above is a post-treatment photo of same area on Oak Ridge SWA after mechanical treatments.

68 Pictured above is a post-treatment photo of one site on Oak Ridge SWA that was mechanically treated in June, 2009; notice the mosaic pattern that was created within the thick, decadent stand of mountain shrub vegetation. Other similar treatments are planned on other sites at Oak Ridge SWA and on other public and private lands within the White River HPP area in the future as part of the landscape scale habitat manipulation project. Colorado's HPP was initiated by the Division of Wildlife in 1990 to better address damage to forage and fencing that private landowners face from big game animals. The HPP program is funded by five percent of the big game license sales in areas with HPP committees. Funds are allocated back to local committees to alleviate agricultural conflict through habitat enhancement and other projects. The local committees ensure appropriate public involvement in identifying big game management issues and possible solutions. The local White River HPP committee works cooperatively with area landowners and government agencies to resolve immediate fence, water, and forage conflicts and to develop and implement long-term strategies that resolve conflicts. While conflicts between big game and livestock still exist in the White River area today, many conflicts have been reduced through the work of the White River HPP committee. The White River HPP committee currently includes: Mike Grady Landowner/Chairman; Joe Collins Landowner/Cattleman; Angelo Theos Landowner/Woolgrower; Mary Taylor BLM; Greg Glasgow USFS; Rich Parr Sportsman; Bailey Franklin DOW; Ann Franklin Administrative Assistant. Local communities served by the White River HPP include Rangely, Meeker, and Buford. The local committee also works closely with the Northwest Colorado HPP Committee, based out of Craig, since many of the big game herds and conflicts are shared by both committees. The expansive and diverse geographic area for the White River HPP committee includes the White River