WHITE-TAILED DEER SPOTLIGHT SURVEY IN LAKEWAY, TEXAS

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

PREDATOR CONTROL AND DEER MANAGEMENT: AN EAST TEXAS PERSPECTIVE

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

Management History of the Edwards Plateau

Life history Food Distribution Management... 98

Deer Management Unit 122

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

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

Deer Management Unit 152

DMU 056 Midland County Deer Management Unit

5/DMU 069 Otsego County Deer Management Unit

By: Stephanie Ray and Sarah Phipps

DMU 005 Antrim County Deer Management Unit

DMU 043 Lake County Deer Management Unit

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

DMU 038 Jackson County

RANCHING Wildlife. Texas White-Tailed Deer 2017 Hunting Forecast

021 Deer Management Unit

Deer Management Unit 252

DMU 046 Lenawee County Deer Management Unit

Deer Management Unit 255

Minnesota Deer Population Goals. East Central Uplands Goal Block

DMU 024 Emmet County Deer Management Unit

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

Deer Management Unit 127

7D Ranch & Cattle Companuy 2,544 ACRES FOR SALE IN SAN SABA COUNTY $10,216,000

Copyright 2018 by Jamie L. Sandberg

DMU 065 Ogemaw County Deer Management Unit

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

DMU 057 Missaukee County Deer Management Unit

Deer Population Survey

DMU 045 Leelanau County Deer Management Unit

White-Tailed Deer Management FAQ

DMU 361 Fremont Deer Management Unit Newaygo, Oceana, N. Muskegon Counties

DMU 082 Wayne County Deer Management Unit

Petty Ranch 1,660+/- Acres Shackelford & Haskell County, Texas $2,647,700 ($1,595/acre)

DMU 006 Arenac County Deer Management Unit

Minnesota Deer Population Goals. Sand Plain Big Woods Goal Block

Deer Management Unit 349

DMU 040 Kalkaska County Deer Management Unit

Deer Management Unit 249

Quality Deer Management and Prescribed Fire Natural Partners in Wildlife and Habitat Conservation

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

DMU 053 Mason County Deer Management Unit

Minnesota Deer Population Goals

DMU 008 Barry County Deer Management Unit

ROCKWALL CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT

Biologist s Answer: What are your goals? Deer Management. Define goals, objectives. Manager s Question: Should I cull or shoot spikes?

DMU 073 Saginaw County Deer Management Unit

DMU 047 Livingston County Deer Management Unit

Population Ecology Yellowstone Elk by C. John Graves

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

Deer Harvest Characteristics During Compound and Traditional Archery Hunts

Early History, Prehistory

Report to the Joint Standing Committee on Inland Fisheries and Wildlife

Summary of discussion

Kansas Deer Report Seasons

2017 DEER HUNTING FORECAST

J FLY LOOSE RANCH ACRES LAVACA COUNTY, SPEAKS, TX. JEFF BOSWELL Partner/Broker REPUBLICRANCHES.

JadEco, LLC PO BOX 445 Shannon, IL 61078

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

Buchanan Ranch 793+/- Acres Throckmorton County, Texas $1,308,450 ($1,650/acre)

Deer-Elk Ecology Research Project

Mule and Black-tailed Deer

Nevada Department of Wildlife Predator Management Plan Fiscal Year 2018

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

Mule deer in the Boundary Region: Proposed research and discussion

SUMMARY REPORT (Revised) Deer Distance Sampling Population Estimate. Kirkwood, Missouri. White Buffalo, Inc. 23 January 2018

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

CHECKS AND BALANCES. OVERVIEW Students become managers of a herd of animals in a paper-pencil, discussionbased

2018 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT PLAN

A Review of Mule and Black-tailed Deer Population Dynamics

Job Title: Game Management, Subsection B Game Management Predator and Furbearer Management. SPECIES: Predatory and Furbearing Mammals

Saguache Mule Deer Herd Data Analysis Unit D-26 Game Management Units 68, 681 and 682 March 2008

Salida Urban Deer Task Force Recommendations

Status and Distribution of the Bobcat (Lynx rufus) in Illinois

Introduction to Pennsylvania s Deer Management Program. Christopher S. Rosenberry Deer and Elk Section Bureau of Wildlife Management

Deer Survey In Jonathan Dickinson State Park. By Megan Riley

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

Recommendations for Pennsylvania's Deer Management Program and The 2010 Deer Hunting Season

2015 Deer Population Goal Setting

NORTH TABLELANDS DEER HERD MANAGEMENT PLAN

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

DMU 072 Roscommon County Deer Management Unit

NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE STATEWIDE FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

Deer Census - How to Use It to Calculate Harvest

Florida Key Deer Hurricane Irma Report

DEER AND ELK POPULATION STATUS AND HARVEST STRUCTURE IN WESTERN NORTH AMERICA: A SUMMARY OF STATE AND PROVINCIAL STATUS SURVEYS.

Beaver Fever. Adapted From: Oh Deer, Project Wild K-12 Activity Guide, Project WILD, p

Living World Review #2

Survey Techniques For White-tailed Deer. Mickey Hellickson, PhD Orion Wildlife Management

Michigan Predator-Prey Project Phase 1 Preliminary Results and Management Recommendations. Study Background

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

Findings of the Alaska Board of Game BOG

Caddo Lake Institute s -Hunter Research Team Report Hunting Program Statistics & Observations Longhorn AAP-Caddo Lake NWR February 7, 2004

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

2010 Wildlife Management Unit 510 moose

THE WOLF WATCHERS. Endangered gray wolves return to the American West

METHODOLOGY. Signalized Intersection Average Control Delay (sec/veh)

CITY OF BLUE EARTH AGENDA CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION MONDAY, 4:30 P.M. Old Business. 1. Chief Fletcher-Deer Hunt Management Process

Transcription:

WHITE-TAILED DEER SPOTLIGHT SURVEY IN LAKEWAY, TEXAS LAKEWAY, TEXAS PREPARED BY NICHOLAS R. KOLBE S AND WILDLIFE CONSULTING CONTACT: NICK@TURNKEYRANCH.COM SUBMITTED: 29 TH OF DECEMBER, 2017

LAKEWAY, TEXAS CITIZEN ADVOCATES FOR ANIMALS (CAFA) WHITE-TAILED DEER SPOTLIGHT SURVEY S AND WILDLIFE CONSULTING PREPARED BY: NICHOLAS R. KOLBE M.S. IN WILDLIFE ECOLOGY Spotlight surveys were conducted on December 5 th, 12 th, and 19 th, 2017 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Property Description: Lakeway, Texas is located west of Austin, Texas in Travis County and is home to approximately 14,000 permanent residence. The official city limits encompasses approximately 7,270 acres. The city sits within the Edwards Plateau ecoregion. Historically this type of environment would consist of open grassland with early successional brush mixed throughout. Today the majority of the area has been developed with homes, businesses and roadways replacing native habitat. Roughly 38% of the native habitat remains with the majority being brush mottes with species such as White brush, Live oak, Texas kidneywood, Cedar sp., Yaupon, Cenizo, Persimmon and others. Mission: Purpose: Citizen Advocates For Animals (CAFA) seeks to better understand the current population density and future population density trends in the urban White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) population within Lakeway, Texas. To do so, a spotlight survey was prescribed to survey the city and estimate deer density. With the expansion of urban sprawl throughout Texas cities, interaction between humans and wildlife has become much more frequent. In response to the increased interaction within city limits, Lakeway has implemented Trap, Transport and Process (TTP) procedures to remove White-tailed deer from the city annually to decrease the, what is perceived as, overpopulation of deer. However, currently there is little long-term data available that supports regular TTP efforts of White-tailed deer in Lakeway. With the use of long-term survey methods such as annual spotlight surveys, the city can begin to track changes in the White-tailed deer population more closely. In turn, the city will be able to better prescribe control measures, or lack thereof, annually that is warranted by long-term survey data. Target Indigenous Species White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus)

LAKEWAY, TEXAS CITIZEN ADVOCATE FOR ANIMALS (CAFA) SPOTLIGHT SURVEY PREPARED BY: NICHOLAS KOLBE Site Visit Conducted on November 27, 2017 Property Summary The city of Lakeway, Texas is located within Travis County and is approximately 7,270 acres in size. In reference to Austin, Texas, Lakeway is approximately 22 miles northwest of the downtown Austin metro area (30.3680º N, 97.9917º W). To the north of Lakeway is the Colorado River and manmade Lake Travis. Two major interstates border Lakeway. To the east is farm to market road 620. To the south is highway 71. Both roads are heavily traversed and increasingly important as city expansion continues. The Hills sits in the southern part of Lakeway and is not part of the city (Map 1). Lakeway is located within the Edwards Plateau ecoregion. Historically this ecoregion was predominately open grasslands with brush species interspersed. Native grasses that occur are species such as Silver bluestem, Canada wildye, Big muhly, Little bluestem, Indian grass and others. Brush species that are native to this ecoregion are American beauty-berry, Elbowbush, Lantana, Spicebush, Sumac, Sage and others. ( 2 Armstrong). Native terrestrial species that occur within this ecoregion are White-tailed deer, Grey and Red fox, Coyotes, Skunk sp., Nine-banded armadillo and many others. All of these species listed can still be found within Lakeway. However through urban development, invasive/exotic species introduction, climate change and cultural shifts such as urban expansion, many species have greatly decrease in abundance and thus shifted the ecosystem dynamics in the past 100 years. For this particular project, the species of interest was the White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus). In short, the White-tailed deer is a browsing species meaning that the majority, >50-60%, of the White-tail s diet is comprised of browse species like the ones listed above (Cathey et al.). If located in optimal range conditions, deer would prefer to consume a majority of forb species like Bundleflower, Knotweed Leafflower, Indian mallow, Arrowleaf sida and others. However because of drought condition, competition with other browsing/grazing animals and seasonality changes, forb species are not consistently available on the range. Therefore deer have adapted to consume a much higher percentage of browse to make up their diet as these herbaceous species tend to persist on the range throughout the year. It is also important to note that very little of a deer s diet is made up of grass. Approximately <5-8% of their diet is from grass consumption and this generally occurs when grass shoots are very young and tender (Cathey et al.). White-tailed deer are general in nature meaning the species can utilize many different habitat types to fulfil life processes. For this project, a delineated habitat map was constructed to depict areas within Lakeway that were suitable for White-tailed deer and areas that were unsuitable. Suitable space was defined as areas that encompasses basic rural habitat that White-tailed deer can use for carrying out life processes. In detail, habitat types that reflect this criteria are Native bottomland/riparian Timberlands

Goals Pasture/grasslands Native brush mottes Unsuitable habitat were spaces that represented development such as roads, houses, front/backyards, and businesses that White-tailed deer cannot and should not utilize for life processes. Understanding where these areas were located allowed for a survey route to be determined which holistically represented the entire Lakeway area. From the map, approximately 2,739 acres (38%) of Lakeway encompasses suitable habitat for White-tailed deer. The majority of Lakeway, 4,507 acres (62%), encompasses unsuitable habitat for White-tailed deer (Map 2). CAFA seeks to better understand the White-tailed deer density within Lakeway, Texas and begin accumulating long-term trend data. By conducting surveys, CAFA, city regulators, trapping agencies and residents of Lakeway can begin making more educated decision when deciding to remove deer from the Lakeway area. SURVEY Spotlight Survey Results Population Survey to Determine White-tailed deer Density (Fall 2017): In order to understand the dynamics of a White-tailed deer population, one must first grasp where the population is in terms of density (acres/deer). The Edwards Plateau ecoregion has historically and is currently characterized as a high population density area for White-tailed deer. Through research in the ecoregion and long-term survey and harvest data, adequate deer density should be approximately one deer per 12-15 acres (12-15 acres/deer) ( 1 Armstrong, Armstong and Young 2000). To estimate population density of White-tailed deer in Lakeway, vehicle spotlight surveys were conducted in line with Texas Parks and Wildlife spotlight survey protocol (Jester and Dillard). Visibility estimation was conducted on December 1, 2017 between 8pm-10pm. Surveys were done on December 5 th, 12 th, and 19 th of 2017 (Map 3). Trip: 1 of 3 Date: 5-Dec Start time: 8:00 PM CDT Official Sunset 5:30 PM End Time: 12:33 AM CDT Moon Phase n/a Start Wind Speed (MPH): light (10mph) Start Cloud Cover: 0.6 Start Wind Direction: NW Start Temp. (F): 45 End Wind Speed (MPH): n/a End Cloud Cover: 0.6 End Wind Direction: n/a End Temperature: 43 Trip Buck Doe Fawn Unknown Total Density (acres:deer) 1 of 3 13 57 25 0 95 7.62

Trip: 2 of 3 Date: 12-Dec Start time: 8:30 PM CDT Official Sunset 5:31 PM End Time: 12:45 AM CDT Moon Phase n/a Start Wind Speed (MPH): Calm (3-8mph) Start Cloud Cover: 0% Start Wind Direction: NW Start Temp. (F): 53 End Wind Speed (MPH): n/a End Cloud Cover: Clear End Wind Direction: n/a End Temperature: 46 Trip Buck Doe Fawn Unknown Total Density (acres:deer) 2 of 3 30 63 29 0 122 5.93 Trip: 3 of 3 Date: 19-Dec Start time: 8:30 PM CDT Official Sunset 5:34 PM End Time: 12:30 AM CDT Moon Phase n/a Start Wind Speed (MPH): Calm (5-8mph) Start Cloud Cover: 0.8 Start Wind Direction: NW Start Temp. (F): 68 End Wind Speed (MPH): n/a End Cloud Cover: Clear End Wind Direction: n/a End Temperature: 64 Trip Buck Doe Fawn Unknown Total Density (acres:deer) 3 of 3 15 97 22 0 134 5.40 White-tailed deer spotlight survey data in Lakeway, TX. Herd Composition Fawn 22% Buck 16% Doe 62% Herd composition of White-tailed deer in Lakeway, TX. Doe seen foraging on roadside in north Lakeway, TX. Over the three nights of surveying, a total of 351 deer were seen on a total of 2,170.59 acres surveyed (723.5 acres surveyed per night 3 nights = 2,170.59 total acres surveyed). Lastly, fawn recruitment is estimated at 35% (total fawns seen total does seen = 35%).

DEER DENSITY DATA Total Area Surveyed (Acres) 2,170.59 Total Deer Sighted 351.00 Acres in Lakeway, TX 7,271 Fawn Recruitment (Total # of fawns) (Total # of does) 0.35 Estimated # of Deer in Lakeway 379 Data breakdown of deer in Lakeway, TX Deer in front yard of homeowner in Lakeway, TX Discussion Many different research projects have been conducted to examine urban deer populations, their effect on habitat and cultural influences on population regulation (Schenck 2013, Clark 2012, Cathey et al., Greacy 2006). For this particular project, we sought to provide insight into the current population density within the city of Lakeway, Texas. Of the deer seen, roughly 90% of them were sighted in the front yard of homes, on roadways, or crossing golf courses within the city. The remaining 10% were seen in the sporadically dotted suitable habitat that still remains within Lakeway. It is important to note that the southern portion of Lakeway with the most suitable habitat (Map 2 and 3) was not included within the survey route because of the lack of access and necessity considering that the deer within the metro area of Lakeway was the population of concern. The total number of fawns seen in relation to the total number of does see (fawn recruitment) is an important indice to consider when tracking long-term density trends. This metric details how many fawns from the past fawning season made it to be recruited into the population. This value also provides insight into where the population is relative to carrying capacity (the number of animals the environment can support without causing detriment to the habitat). A high fawn recruitment is generally associated with a low population density as more fawns survive following parturition, make it to adulthood and are recruited into the population. High fawn recruitment implies that the population is below the carrying capacity level as more deer survive to be placed into the ecosystem. The inverse is true with a low fawn recruitment number. Lower fawn recruitment ratios express higher population levels as a fewer number of fawns make it to adulthood. Low fawn recruitment implies that the population is at or is reaching the carrying capacity threshold as fewer number of deer survive to make it to adulthood. For this survey, there was a 35% fawn recruitment observed. This also can be expressed by saying there were 0.35 fawns associated with every female seen during the survey. On its own and without multiple past years of fawn recruitment data, this indice can be quite crude and not provide that much insight into population trends. However this ratio will be crucial in coming years as surveys continue and population density fluctuates. Urban wildlife can be much more difficult to understand as they are, at times, not regulated by the same limiting factors as deer found in rural settings. For example, deer found within rural settings are

constrained to food/water availability within their range while animals in urban environments are at times provided supplemental feed/water by residents within the community or supplemental food/water stations. This in turn would allow those animals, which would have normally been removed from the population due to food/water constraints, to thrive and reproduce which artificially increases population density within that area. A similar situation can occur with the lack of natural predators. With most large predators like coyotes and mountain lions extirpated from the Lakeway area, predation as a limiting factor to keep population levels in check as it would in a more rural setting, is removed. However with an urban environment comes other limiting factors which, at times, are not so apparent outside of city limits. The number of deer that tend to be removed from the population by car accidents is a much larger problem in city limits than those in rural settings. Disease with urban populations can become problematic as well with a large number of animals congregated in a generally small area. Genetic inbreeding can also become a problem, however unlikely, as animals tend to not emigrate away from an area as they normally would. Given the differences in regulating factors, it is safe to say that deer density recommendations in rural habitats of the Edwards Plateau do not and should not mirror what should be seen in urban settings. Further surveys and comparing long-term data such as fawn recruitment ratios and population density trends will aid in providing the prescribed density for Lakeway. The more years of survey data that are available, the better the city will be able to track trends in the deer population thus enabling city regulators to make the most informed decisions when regulating the White-tailed deer population.

WORK CITED 1 Armstrong, W. E. Year N/A. How to Manage Deer Habitat: Edwards Plateau. Wildlife Management Handbook. II-D: 37-39. 2 Armstrong, W. E. Year N/A. Key Food Plants for Deer in the Edwards Plateau Region. Wildlife Management Handbook. II-B: 19-20. Armstrong, W. E. and E. L. Young. 2000. White-tailed deer Management in the Texas Hill Country. Texas Parks and Wildlife. 1: 1-53. Cathey, J. C., S. L. Locke, C. E. Adams, S. Ramirez, J. Alderson, and K. Schwausch, Year N/A. Managing Overabundant White-tailed deer. Texas A&M AgriLife Extension and Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 1-15. Clark, L. L. 2012. Urban White-tailed deer Management Plan For the Town of Harpers Ferry, West Virginia. Master Naturalist, Potomac Valley Chapter. 1-15. Creacy, G. 2006. Deer Management Within Suburban Areas. Texas Parks and Wildlife. 1-12. Jester, S., J. Dillard. Year N/A. Conducting White-tailed deer Spotlight Surveys in the Cross-Timbers and Prairies Region of North & Central Texas. Texas Parks and Wildlife. 1-2. Schenck, K. 2013. White-tailed deer Management in Northwest Austin: People and Wildlife in a Suburban Landscape. Honors Senior Thesis. 1-19.

S AND WILDLIFE CONSULTING MAPS 1.

2.

3.

PHOTOS