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

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

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

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

WILDLIFE HERITAGE TRUST ACCOUNT PROJECT PROPOSAL FORM

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

Mule and Black-tailed Deer

Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations

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

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

Deer Management Unit 152

DMU 065 Ogemaw County Deer Management Unit

Mule deer in the Boundary Region: Proposed research and discussion

Deer Management Unit 255

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

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

021 Deer Management Unit

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

submitted: fall 2009

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

Peace Region Wildlife Regulations Proposed Changes for Comment ( )

NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE HARVEST MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR HUNTING SEASONS

DMU 056 Midland County Deer Management Unit

2010 Wildlife Management Unit 501 moose and deer

Comment Letter 1 for Item 5

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

Population Ecology Yellowstone Elk by C. John Graves

The New Coyote and Deer Predation

Deer Management Unit 252

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

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

2009 Update. Introduction

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

DMU 053 Mason County Deer Management Unit

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

April Nisga a Fisheries & Wildlife Department

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

Wyoming Public Lands Initiative (WPLI) Fortification Creek Advisory Committee Meeting March 13, 2017

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

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

Report to the Joint Standing Committee on Inland Fisheries and Wildlife

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

Deer Management Unit 127

2018 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Wyoming Range Mule Deer Project. Summer 2017 Update

Colorado West Slope Mule Deer Strategy Public Engagement Report

Biology B / Sanderson!

Subject to sale, withdrawal, or error.

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

FINAL Drought Monitoring 2013 WildHorseEducation.org

White-Tailed Deer Management FAQ

Deer Management Unit 249

Title of the Selection Desert Bighorn Sheep in Texas Teaching Band Grades 3-5 Genre: Nonfiction Informational, Magazine Article

Regents Biology LAB. NATURAL CONTROLS OF POPULATIONS

White-tailed Deer: A Review of the 2010 Provincially Coordinated Hunting Regulation

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

DMU 057 Missaukee County Deer Management Unit

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

RANCHING Wildlife. Texas White-Tailed Deer 2017 Hunting Forecast

DMU 072 Roscommon County Deer Management Unit

Identifying Mule Deer Migration Routes Along the Pinedale Front

DMU 487 Northern Multi-County Deer Management Unit

Photo by Mark Hebblewhite

Deer-Elk Ecology Research Project

DMU 043 Lake County Deer Management Unit

Sinbad Wild Burro Gather Utah (Day 1)

Project Period 1/15/ /31/2017 Project Location Description (from Proposal) Project Summary (from Proposal) Summary of Accomplishments

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

IN PROGRESS BIG GAME HARVEST REPORTS FISH AND WILDLIFE BRANCH Energy and Resource Development

5/DMU 069 Otsego County Deer Management Unit

Chronic Wasting Disease in Southeast Minnesota. Drs. Michelle Carstensen and Lou Cornicelli Preston Public Meeting December 18, 2018

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

YELLOWSTONE BISON POPULATION MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES

Minnesota Deer Population Goals

Veronica Yovovich, Ph.D. Wildlife Conflict Specialist and Science Program Director Mountain Lion Foundation

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

DMU 005 Antrim County Deer Management Unit

DMU 008 Barry County Deer Management Unit

2017 LATE WINTER CLASSIFICATION OF NORTHERN YELLOWSTONE ELK

NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE

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

2008 WMU 359 moose, mule deer, and white tailed deer

BIG GAME STATUS STATEWIDE SUMMARY

ARIZONA GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT GUIDELINES FOR THE AND HUNTING SEASONS

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

CAMERA SURVEYS: HELPING MANAGERS AVOID THE PITFALLS

A Review of Mule and Black-tailed Deer Population Dynamics

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

Mule Deer and Elk Status Report for the San Juan/Chama Basin: Update

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

Deer Management Unit 349

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

DMU 040 Kalkaska County Deer Management Unit

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

Deer Management Unit 122

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

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

Transcription:

//CEMEX USA BLACK GAP WMA/ECLCC MULE DEER RESTORATION PROJECT UPDATE October 1, 2017 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 have remained 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 (EMWMA) 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. On February 9 11, 2016, we translocated an additional 75 mule deer does to the restoration area. Twenty does were captured from EMWMA and the remaining 55 does were captured from two private ranches in Brewster County (30 and 25, respectively) (Figure 1). Sixty-two animals were fitted with either GPS (23) or VHF (39) radio-collars. Thirty-five does were soft-released at BGWMA and 40 does were hard-released at ECLCC property. On February 20 22, 2017, another 98 mule deer does were transplanted to the restoration area. Twenty-seven does were captured from EMWMA and the remaining 71 does were captured from a 1 Page

private ranch in Pecos County (Figure 1). Thirty-two animals were fitted with VHF radio-collars. Fiftythree does were soft-released at BGWMA and 45 does were hard-released at ECLCC property. Figure 1. Route taken for transporting mule deer from EMWMA and private ranches to BGWMA and ECLCC. The stars represent the respective release sites to the year in which we used them. (Elephant Mountain WMA was a source of deer all three years). 2 P age

Survival 2015-Release: From February 2015 February 2016 (1-year following release), estimated survival for the 2015-released deer was 64% (Figure 2). Thirteen mortalities were investigated: six from mountain lion predation, one from coyote predation, one capture-related (died in trailer; was not incorporated into reported survival estimate for deer following release), and five from undeterminable causes. 2016-Release: Estimated survival for the 2016-released deer was 76% from February 2016 February 2017 (1-year following release) (Figure 2). Seventeen mortalities were found: five mountain lion predations, one bear predation, one coyote predation, two capture-related (one died in softrelease pasture, and one hard release area), and eight undeterminable causes. Based on the information gathered, 2016-released deer appeared to have a higher survival rate 1-year following release (76%) compared to 2015-released deer (64%). 2017-Release: The 2017-released deer s estimated survival is 78% up to August 2017 (26 weeks post-release) (Figure 2). Six mortalities have been examined: two coyote predations, one capturerelated (died in soft-release pasture), one pen-related, and two undeterminable causes. Thus far, 2017-released deer appear to have similar survivability as the two previous releases. Most translocated mule deer mortality (60%) has occurred from April July (weeks 9 25 following release) (Figure 2), which is the hottest and driest part of the year for this area. Eleven of the 21 mortality events during this time have been caused by predation, primarily mountain lions. In fact, during 2015, mountain lion predation accounted for about 50% of the mortalities. Management of mountain lions in the immediate release area has been conducted when depredations of mule deer were documented. We removed 3 mountain lions from BGWMA during 2015 2016 when these kills were found. Since then, identifiable mountain lion predation has been considerably lower in 2016 (20%) and 2017 (0%). Figure 2. Cumulative Kaplan-Meier survival estimates (up to 1-year following release) of the BGWMA and ECLCC mule deer released in February 2015, 2016, and 2017. Survival Rate 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% BGWMA/ECLCC Translocated Mule Deer Survival 2015 Release 2016 Release 2017 Release 78% 76% 64% 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 Weeks Following Release 3 P age

Preliminary Movements/Home Ranges 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 estimated locations while conducting aerial telemetry. Estimated locations of radio-collared deer (VHF and GPS) from both release sites were obtained in May 2015, 2016, and 2017 (~3 months following respective releases), September 2015, 2016, and 2017 (~7 months following respective releases), and January/February 2016 and 2017 (~1 year following each release) during telemetry flights. In May 2015, all 19 deer from the BGWMA release were located; only five of the remaining 12 ECLCC deer were located (Figure 3). The three farthest north locations were from BGWMA deer; they were roughly 25 35 miles north of the soft-release pasture. No flights were conducted over Mexico at this time. In May 2016, 29 of the 30 remaining BGWMA collared deer and 23 of the 29 ECLCC collared deer were located (Figure 3). Two of the BGWMA soft-released deer were approximately 30 miles north of the soft-release pasture and one of the ECLCC hard-released deer was about 50 miles northeast of the release site. Ten of the ECLCC were located in Mexico. In May 2017, we were able to hear all of the BGWMA 2017 collars remaining and 12 out of 15 of the ECLCC deer were found (Figure 3). We heard a total of three collars from 2017 release in Mexico with one being from the Black Gap WMA soft-release. Farthest movements from both release methods in 2017 have been about 30 miles from respective release sites; BGWMA (soft-release) had one individual, whereas ECLCC (hard-release) had two individuals (Figure 3). During September 2015, 11 of 15 BGWMA collared deer and three of the 10 ECLCC collared deer were located (Figure 4). Most of these deer were either near or within the BGWMA/ECLCC boundaries. In September 2016, 21 of 30 remaining BGWMA collared deer and two of the 29 ECLCC collared deer were located (we did not search ECLCC and surrounding areas at this time) (Figure 4). The furthermost collared deer found was an ECLCC hard-released doe; this doe appears to have made it back to the area she was originally translocated from, approximately 40 miles northwest of the release site. In August 2017, we detected 7 out of the 10 remaining BGWMA collars and 13 of the 15 ECLCC collared deer. Farthest movements were from the soft-release at 36 miles to the northeast near the Rio Grande. No flights were conducted in Mexico. In January 2016, 13 of 14 BGWMA collared deer and six of the 10 ECLCC collared deer were located (Figure 5). In February 2017, we located 22 of the 30 BGWMA 2016 collars and 15 of the 29 ECLCC 2016 collars (Figure 5). Outermost movements from two ECLCC deer were about 43 miles to the northeast, and one BGWMA deer was about 34 miles to the northeast (Figure 5). Still, the majority of deer located were either near or within the BGWMA/ECLCC boundaries with some residing in Mexico. It seems that the soft-release method may decrease dispersal distances; however, even deer dispersing greater distances appear to be 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. 4 P age

Figure 3. Estimated locations of radio-collared mule deer during May 2015 2017 telemetry flights. Maps show only the deer released in the respective transplant year. 5 P age

6 P age

Figure 4. Estimated locations of radio-collared mule deer during September 2015 2017 telemetry flights. Maps show only the deer released in the respective transplant year. 7 P age

8 P age

Figure 5. Estimated locations of 2015- and 2016-released radio-collared mule deer during January/February 2016 and 2017 telemetry flights, respectively. 9 P age

As of August 2017, 29 GPS radio-collars have been recovered from the 2015- and 2016-released deer, collectively. Of the 11 GPS radio-collars from the 2015-release, six were from the BGWMA soft-release and 5 were from the ECLCC hard-release (Figure 6). Of the 18 GPS radio-collars recovered from the 2016-release, 10 were from the BGWMA soft-release and 8 were from the ECLCC hard-release (Figure 7). Many does moved outside of the study site boundaries onto either private, federal (Big Bend National Park), or international (Coahuila, MX) lands (Figures 6 and 7). Based on collar data, estimated flight locations, and ground telemetry efforts, >25 collared deer (all releases combined) have traveled to Mexico at one point in time. The furthest doe located in Mexico was approximately 38 miles southeast of the hard-release site (as of June 2017). The area in Coahuila, Mexico that most deer are visiting and using is part of CEMEX s El Carmen Project; their land is all under a conservation program. Interestingly, >4 collared does from the 2015 and 2016 BGWMA soft-releases (one of which had a GPS collar) made their way to a private ranch ~35 miles north. These does originally came from EMWMA. They stayed on the ranch for some time, but ended up returning to the BGWMA area (Figure 6). In 2016, a collared doe from the 2016 ECLCC hard-release also made its way back to this same private ranch (source from which this doe came from). Once she found her original home, she stayed (Figure 7). This ranch is ~45 miles north of the hard-release site and she returned within 1 month of being released. From the 29 GPS radio-collars recovered, 20 (7 from the 2015-release and 13 from the 2016-release) have collected >1 year of movement data, and have been used to calculate home ranges for these individual does. Home ranges are calculated using package T-Locoh in Program R. Data has been separated and analyzed by release year (2015 vs. 2016) and release method (soft vs. hard). Although sample sizes are small, preliminary data suggests that there is not a difference between release years, but there is between release methods (Table 1). Statistical tests are still in progress to examine movements, home ranges, and travel corridors. Analyses of habitat selection (using the GPS radio-collar data) are also underway. Results should be completed by December 2017. Table 1. Home range (acres) calculations (1-year following release) for mule deer does translocated to the BGMWA/ECLCC Complex, Texas, Feb 2015 Feb 2017. Home Range (ac) Release Year/Method n Min Max Avg. 2015 Soft-release 4 1,028 5,718 2,906 Hard-release 3 1,490 21,718 8,560 2016 Soft-release 6 1,179 3,682 2,305 Hard-release 7 1,559 26,490 7,198 10 P age

Figure 6. Locations of 11 GPS radio-collared does from the 2015-release. Collars were programmed to record GPS locations every 3 hours. 11 P age

Figure 7. Locations of 18 GPS radio-collared does from the 2016-release. Collars were programmed to record GPS locations every 3 hours. Mule Deer Population The mule deer population at BGWMA is trending upward, from estimates of about 250 during fall 2015 to >400 in fall 2016. Mule deer numbers at ECLCC are also increasing because of the transplants. In addition, many translocated does have been observed with fawns during the project s timeline. 12 P age

Habitat evaluations conducted in 2014 2016 estimated that the BGWMA/ECLCC area could support more deer with very low utilization rates of important shrub species eaten by mule deer. We believe BGWMA alone can support approximately 1,000 mule deer long-term. Future Management Actions Plans are currently underway for the translocation of additional mule deer to the BGWMA/ECLCC area during March 2018. All mule deer will be ear-tagged for their respective release sites and a portion will be marked with GPS radio-collars. GPS radio-collars will continue to be used to monitor and assess survival, movements, and habitat preference. 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 build sample sizes and better analyze finite movements (rates, patterns), travel corridors, and habitat utilization. Sample sizes have been somewhat inadequate to draw concrete conclusions regarding differences between soft- and hard-released deer for each transplant year; therefore, radiocollaring another cohort of translocated animals will provide more information and improve sample sizes. 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. 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. Mule deer bucks visiting guzzlers at BGWMA in September 2017. 13 P age