BLACK GAP WMA/ECLCC MULE DEER RESTORATION PROJECT UPDATE. February 2, 2016

Similar documents
BLACK GAP WMA/ECLCC MULE DEER RESTORATION PROJECT UPDATE. October 1, 2017

WILDLIFE HERITAGE TRUST ACCOUNT PROJECT PROPOSAL FORM

Job Title: Game Management, Subsection B Game Management Mountain Lion. SPECIES: Mountain Lion

Job Title: Game Management, Subsection B Game Management Mountain Lion. SPECIES: Mountain Lion

Job Title: Game Management, Subsection B Game Management Mountain Lion. SPECIES: Mountain Lion

Job Title: Game Management, Subsection B Game Management Mountain Lion

CONSERVATION IN THE TRANS PECOS LANDSCAPE SCALE. From Mule Deer to Minnows. By Charlie Barnes

Nevada Department of Wildlife Predator Management Plan Fiscal Year 2018

WADE WEST INCENTIVE TAGS 2016 NDOW- REPORTING BIOLOGIST SCOTT ROBERTS

R E S T O R AT I O N A N D M A N AG E M E N T OF D E S E RT

Mule and Black-tailed Deer

Mule deer in the Boundary Region: Proposed research and discussion

Draft Nevada Predator Management Plan Fiscal Year 2005 July 1, June 30, 2005

Deer Management Unit 127

Photo by Mark Hebblewhite

Deer Management Unit 152

under the James Lathrop & Wayne Capurro Internship program. I am confident in saying that

Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations

If you would like to receive project updates as they are published please send your address to

Mana Pools National Park, Sapi and Chewore Safari Areas World Heritage Site

Wyoming Range Mule Deer Project. Summer 2017 Update

Deer Management Unit 252

submitted: fall 2009

Attachment 2 SPECIAL AUCTION AND RAFFLE TAGS

White-Tailed Deer Management FAQ

NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE HARVEST MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR HUNTING SEASONS

DMU 005 Antrim County Deer Management Unit

DMU 056 Midland County Deer Management Unit

make people aware of the department s actions for improving the deer population monitoring system,

2017 LATE WINTER CLASSIFICATION OF NORTHERN YELLOWSTONE ELK

Report to the Joint Standing Committee on Inland Fisheries and Wildlife

Early History, Prehistory

Jeffrey M. Ver Steeg Colorado Parks and Wildlife. December 14, 2016

The New Coyote and Deer Predation

Challenges of Florida Panther Conservation. Presented by: Darrell Land, Florida Panther Team Leader

Deer-Elk Ecology Research Project

The Role and Economic Importance of Private Lands in Providing Habitat for Wyoming s Big Game

JULY 2017 SUMMARY BULLETS

Competition. Competition. Competition. Competition. Competition. Competition. Competition. Long history in ecology

Deer Management Unit 255

White-tailed Deer Management in Urban/Suburban Environments: Planning for Success

48 7 ( ; $ 6 :, / ' /, ) (

5/DMU 069 Otsego County Deer Management Unit

Biology B / Sanderson!

BIG GAME STATUS STATEWIDE SUMMARY

021 Deer Management Unit

DMU 053 Mason County Deer Management Unit

2009 Update. Introduction

2009 WMU 527 Moose, Mule Deer, and White tailed Deer

GAO. ENDANGERED SPECIES Caribou Recovery Program Has Achieved Modest Gains. Report to the Honorable Larry E. Craig, U.S. Senate

Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Annual Performance Report of Survey-Inventory Activities 1 July June IS 0 N

DMU 024 Emmet County Deer Management Unit

Deer Management Unit 122

Behavior and survival of hatchery reared advanced fingerling largemouth bass using radio telemetry. Brandon Thompson

Carrying Capacity Activity. 5 th Grade PSI. Teacher s Notes Procedure: Simulation 1 Regular herds

Evaluating the Influence of Development on Mule Deer Migrations

Deer Census - How to Use It to Calculate Harvest

Enclosed, please find the 2018 Spotlight Deer Survey Report and Recommendations that we have prepared for your review and records.

RE: Development of an Environmental Assessment for a mountain lion management plan on the Kofa National Wildlife Refuge, Arizona

Full summaries of all proposed rule changes, including DMU boundary descriptions, are included in the additional background material.

2010 Wildlife Management Unit 501 moose and deer

Monitoring Asian Elephants and Mitigating Human-Elephant Conflict in the Core Landscape of the Southern/Eastern Cardamom Mountains, Cambodia

LEAPS BOUNDS. Growing up hunting as a kid in New Hampshire, I didn t. by Dan Bergeron

Population Parameters and Their Estimation. Uses of Survey Results. Population Terms. Why Estimate Population Parameters? Population Estimation Terms

Annual Report Ecology and management of feral hogs on Fort Benning, Georgia.

Copyright 2018 by Jamie L. Sandberg

Effects of Sage-grouse Hunting in Nevada. Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissioners August 13, 2011

RANCHING Wildlife. Texas White-Tailed Deer 2017 Hunting Forecast

April Nisga a Fisheries & Wildlife Department

DMU 006 Arenac County Deer Management Unit

Background. Kofa NWR historically had large numbers of desert bighorn average about 800 individuals

DMU 072 Roscommon County Deer Management Unit

Nevada Predator Management Plan Fiscal Year 2003 July 1, June 30, 2003

NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE

WILDLIFE RESEARCH PERMIT NUMBER WL

Mule Deer. Dennis D. Austin. Published by Utah State University Press. For additional information about this book

Pr oject Summar y. Principal Investigators: Walter Cook, Elizabeth Williams, Fred Lindzey, and Ron Grogan. University of Wyoming

DMU 065 Ogemaw County Deer Management Unit

2008 WMU 360 moose, white tailed deer and mule deer. Section Authors: Robb Stavne, Dave Stepnisky and Mark Heckbert

Deer Management Unit 249

Comment Letter 1 for Item 5

WGFD. News Release. Dec. 23, Contact: Al Langston (307) For Immediate Release:

Regents Biology LAB. NATURAL CONTROLS OF POPULATIONS

UTAH ACTION PLAN. For

Elk Restoration in the Northern Cumberland Plateau, Tennessee. Lisa Muller, Jason Kindall, Jason Lupardus University of Tennessee

Full Spectrum Deer Management Services

Northern Yellowstone Cooperative Wildlife Working Group 2012 Annual Report (October 1, 2012-September 30, 2012) Member Agencies

Identifying Mule Deer Migration Routes Along the Pinedale Front

WILDLIFE RESEARCH PERMIT APPLICATION MACKENZIE BISON POPULATION MONITORING

SPOTLIGHT DEER SURVEY YO RANCHLANDS LANDOWNERS ASSOCIATION ±10,400 ACRES KERR COUNTY

CENTRAL PROJECT: PLANNING EVERGLADES CENTRAL EVERGLADES RESTORING THE HEART OF THE EVERGLADES

Coyotes. The coyote, considered by many as a symbol of the Old West, now resides

Native Species Restoration and its Impact on Local Populations

ARIZONA GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT GUIDELINES FOR THE AND HUNTING SEASONS

Cariboo-Chilcotin (Region 5) Mule Deer: Frequently Asked Questions

Conservation of Elephants in Southern Murchison Falls Conservation Area, Uganda

Identifying mule deer migration routes to and from the Pinedale Anticline Project Area

NATURAL CONTROLS OF POPULATIONS: 3 CASE STUDIES

Lower Mainland Roosevelt Elk Recovery Project

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Feasibility Study on the Reintroduction of Gray Wolves to the Olympic Peninsula

Transcription:

//CEMEX USA BLACK GAP WMA/ECLCC MULE DEER RESTORATION PROJECT UPDATE February 2, 2016 Mule deer numbers at Black Gap Wildlife Management Area (BGWMA) and El Carmen Land & Conservation Company-CEMEX USA (ECLCC) (adjacent property) have decreased since the late 1980s and remain relatively low compared to other areas of the Trans-Pecos, while in the past this area had some of the highest mule deer numbers in the Trans-Pecos. Obviously, drought has significant impacts on Trans-Pecos mule deer populations. However, the mule deer herd within the project area has never rebounded from the last prolonged drought of the late 1990s and early 2000s, when almost all other herds in the Trans-Pecos did. This area also received a second blow to the population with a more recent drought from 2010 2014, which further impacted population growth. Therefore, objectives of the mule deer restoration project are to (1) conduct a multi-year translocation project to increase the mule deer population within the BGWMA and ECLCC property long-term, (2) evaluate success of restoration effort, (3) monitor mortality and factors that affect survivability, and (4) document movements and home ranges in relation to release sites/methods (hard-release vs. softrelease) and habitat components. During February 9 10, 2015, we translocated 40 mule deer does from Elephant Mountain Wildlife Management Area using the helicopter net-gun method (Figure 1). Thirty four animals were collared with either GPS (16) or VHF (18) radio-collars. The soft-release method was used at BGWMA with 21 does being liberated, while 19 does were hard-released at ECLCC property. One doe died during transport to the ECLCC release site, which was radio-collared.

Figure 1. Route taken for transporting mule deer from EMWMA to BGWMA and ECLCC. Orange stars represent release sites. 2 P a g e

Survival Since release, estimated survival is 73% (Figure 2). Nine mortalities have occurred: 5 from mountain lion predation and 4 undeterminable causes, estimating a mortality rate of 27% (9/33). There are currently two possible mortalities that have yet to be investigated. If these two are true mortalities, then the survival rate will decrease to 67%. Figure 2. Cumulative Kaplan-Meier survival estimates of the BGWMA and ECLCC mule deer released in February 2015. S u r v i v a l R a t e 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% BGWMA/ECLCC Translocated Mule Deer Survival 1 Year Following Release 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 Weeks Following Release Preliminary Movements Telemetry has been conducted >1 /week either by ground or airplane to help monitor movements and activities of the translocated mule deer. GPS radio-collars obtain locations of the mule deer s movements every 3 hours, but this data is not accessible until the radio-collar is recovered (either after radio-collar automatically drops off the animal or if the animal dies). Obtaining locations on VHF radio-collared mule deer is either done by getting visuals or estimating locations while conducting aerial telemetry. Estimated locations of radio-collared deer (VHF and GPS) from both release sites were obtained in May (~ 3 months post-release), September (~ 7 months post-release), and January 2016 (~ 1 year post-release) during telemetry flights. In May 2015, all 19 deer from the BGWMA release were located; only 5 of the remaining 12 ECLCC deer were located (Figure 3). The 3 farthest north locations were from BGWMA deer; they were roughly 25 35 miles north of the soft-release pasture. During September 2015, 11 of 15 BGWMA deer were located and 3 of the 10 ECLCC deer were located (Figure 4). Of these deer they were either near or within the BGWMA/ECLCC boundaries. In January 2016, 13 of 14 BGWMA deer were located and 6 of the 10 ECLCC were located (Figure 5). The majority of deer located were either near or within the BGWMA/ECLCC 3 P a g e

boundaries with some residing in Mexico. It appears that the soft-release method decreases dispersal distances; however, even with some greater dispersal distances from the hard-released mule deer, they are finding good habitat across the landscape. We hope this will lead to better mule deer production/numbers in the future throughout an expansive area, not just the BGWMA/ECLCC complex. Figure 3. Estimated locations of radio-collared mule deer during May 1, 2015 telemetry flight. 4 P a g e

Figure 4. Estimated locations of radio-collared mule deer during September 21, 2015 telemetry flight. 5 P a g e

Figure 5. Estimated locations of radio-collared mule deer during January 2016 telemetry flights. Of the 9 recovered radio-collars from mortalities, 3 were GPS radio-collars. Figure 6 illustrates movements of these does. White #3 and White #7 were hard-released at the ECLCC and Red #3 was soft-released at BGWMA. All 3 does moved outside of property boundaries into either private, federal (Big Bend National Park), or international (Coahuila, MX) lands. The area in Mexico is part of the CEMEX, El Carmen Project and lands are all under a conservation program. 6 P a g e

Figure 6. Locations of 3 GPS radio-collared does programmed to record GPS locations every 3 hours. Population/Browse Surveys Spotlight surveys conducted at BGWMA this fall indicated a population increase from less than 300 mule deer in 2014 to about 400 in 2015. Fawn crops also increased from 32% in 2014 to 48% in 2015. In addition, several translocated does have been observed with fawns. 7 P a g e

Habitat evaluations conducted in 2014 and 2015 estimated that the BGWMA/ECLCC area could support significantly more deer with very low utilization rates of important shrub species eaten by mule deer. Future Management Actions We plan to translocate 60 more mule deer does this winter (February 2016) to augment the population at BGWMA/ECLCC. At least 50 more radio-collars (20 GPS and 30 VHF) will be deployed with this year s translocation. Both GPS and VHF radio collars will continue to be used to monitor and assess survival, movements, and habitat preference. Weekly telemetry efforts will continue to be conducted over the next 1.5 years (until 2016-released GPS radio collars drop off animals in 2017). Timely investigations of each mortality will help us better understand causes of death and potential factors affecting population dynamics of the area. Data from GPS radio collars will be used to analyze finite movements (rates, patterns), travel corridors, and habitat utilization. Predator management efforts will continue to be implemented at crucial times (prior to translocation, fawning season, mountain lion depredations within immediate release) to improve survival. Continued Habitat Work In March 2015, the Texas Bighorn Society built three guzzlers on ECLCC and two on BGWMA, which all five were targeting not only bighorns, but mule deer and other wildlife. In the fall of 2015, Dallas Safari Club (DSC) and the Mule Deer Foundation (MDF) provided funding ($15,000 from DSC and $7,500 from MDF) for two additional guzzlers, one at each study site. Currently, CEMEX ECLCC has established 23 permanent water sources distributed across the landscape, with plans to continue guzzler developments in key mule deer habitat, as well as continue habitat enhancement projects. We will also be refurbishing 13 old wildlife guzzlers and installing 2 3 new guzzlers at BGWMA. The BGWMA guzzler project was made possible through a gift of $15,000 from the MDF and Shell Petroleum Company, as well as a match of $45,000 from Texas Parks & Wildlife Department s Pittman-Robertson funds for a total of $60,000. Thanks! Because of the many partnerships and generous donations we are making strides in bringing back mule deer numbers to levels that historically occurred throughout the lower Big Bend Region of western Texas and adjacent northern Coahuila, Mexico. 8 P a g e