Oregon Mule Deer Initiative - Dfw.state.or.us
Oregon Mule Deer Initiative Five Year summary 2015 – 2019
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Mule deer are an iconic big game species in the United States and in Oregon they provide significant recreation opportunities for both consumptive and non-consumptive users of Oregon’s wildlife. Mule deer populations have declined throughout their native North American ranges in recent decades and Oregon populations are no exception. Following a series of 2009 public budget meetings, then Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department) Director Roy Elicker responded to widespread and very vocal concern for mule deer from Oregonians and directed staff to develop a process emphasizing management actions to address declining mule deer populations. As a result, the Oregon Mule Deer Initiative (MDI) was created with the purpose of addressing factors affecting mule deer populations. MDI implementation started in January 2010 and during the first five years 394,975 acres, miles, or other treatment units were implemented in 10 Wildlife Management Units (WMUs) or comparison areas for a total cost of 27.4 million dollars (ODFW 2015). Building on efforts from the first five years of MDI, the Department added four new focal MDI areas. Additionally, the Department maintained a subset of activities in the original MDI areas and expanded efforts to address factors affecting mule deer in other areas of their Oregon range as opportunities presented. During the five year period from 2015 – 2019 mule deer focused actions were implemented within the range of mule deer in Oregon with the overall intent to maintain momentum in actions focused on mule deer restoration and apply what was learned from initial efforts to additional mule deer units. Most of the actions were implemented collaboratively with other agencies or organizations interested in habitat quality for mule deer or for other wildlife species sharing the range with mule deer. During the second phase of implementation (2015 – 2019) reported herein, 74 distinct actions totaling 387,086 acres, miles, or other treatment units were implemented in 14 WMUs. Total cost to implement these actions was nearly 25.5 million dollars. Population parameters for mule deer in the action areas did not improve. Evidence from current and ongoing research suggests the lack of improvement in mule deer numbers is likely due to mule deer populations responding to long term declines in the carrying capacity. The decline in carrying capacity is likely due to interactions of many factors including climate change and those addressed by management actions implemented by MDI, including juniper encroachment, invasive species establishment, and disturbance management. Declines have been further complicated by drought conditions dominating the period with a couple of severe winters. Given that the decline in carrying capacity for mule deer in Oregon has occurred over a time period approaching 30 years, and given that habitat recovery can take a great deal of time in the best of conditions, it is reasonable that habitat recovery at a landscape scale for mule deer will take time. Further, mule deer populations themselves will take time to respond to improving habitat conditions and recover to more sustainable levels. The momentum demonstrated during both five year reporting periods of MDI needs to continue well into the future. i
Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . i TABLE OF CONTENTS . ii LIST OF TABLES . iii LIST OF FIGURES . iv APPENDICES . v INTRODUCTION. 1 MDI ACTION AREAS 2015 – 2019 . 3 MANAGEMENT ACTIONS . 5 Mule Deer and Habitat Management . 5 Predator Management . 5 Disturbance and Harassment . 6 RESULTS . 6 Habitat Management . 6 Juniper Treatment . 7 Invasive Weed Treatments . 8 Shrub/Grass Seeding . 9 Aspen Stand and Meadow Improvement . 10 Timber Stand Improvement . 11 Fence Construction . 12 Water Development . 13 Other Habitat Projects . 14 Predator Management . 15 Disturbance and Harassment . 17 Population Management . 17 Other Management Actions . 18 DISCUSSION . 18 MDI RECOMMENDATIONS . 23 Habitat Management . 23 Predator Management . 23 Disturbance and Harassment . 24 Law Enforcement . 24 Disease and Parasites . 24 Population Management . 25 LITERATURE CITED . 26 ii
List of Tables Table 1. Number of actions, number of units treated, and associated cost of mule deer habitat improvement actions implemented under Oregon’s Mule Deer Initiative during the period 2015 – 2019. . 6 Table 2. Acres of juniper treated, and associated cost of treatments for mule deer habitat improvement by WMU under Oregon’s Mule Deer Initiative during the period 2015 – 2019. 8 Table 3. Acres of invasive plant species treated, and associated cost of treatments for mule deer habitat improvement by WMU under Oregon’s Mule Deer Initiative during the period 2015 – 2019. . 9 Table 4. Acres of grasslands or shrublands reseeded, and associated cost of reseeding treatments for mule deer habitat improvement by WMU under Oregon’s Mule Deer Initiative during the period 2015 – 2019. . 10 Table 5. Acres of aspen stand or meadow improvement, and associated cost of aspen stand or meadow treatments for mule deer habitat improvement by WMU under Oregon’s Mule Deer Initiative during the period 2015 – 2019. . 11 Table 6. Acres of timber stand improvement, and associated cost of timber stand treatments for mule deer habitat improvement by WMU under Oregon’s Mule Deer Initiative during the period 2015 – 2019. . 12 Table 7. Miles of barrier improvement or fence management, and associated cost for mule deer habitat improvement by WMU under Oregon’s Mule Deer Initiative during the period 2015 – 2019. . 12 Table 8. Number of water development units, and associated cost for mule deer habitat improvement by WMU under Oregon’s Mule Deer Initiative during the period 2015 – 2019. Units include springs, wells, drinking structures, piping, etc. . 13 Table 9. Other habitat developments, and associated cost for mule deer habitat improvement by WMU under Oregon’s Mule Deer Initiative during the period 2015 – 2019. . 14 Table 10. Cougar mortality in the Steens, Interstate, and Warner Cougar Target Areas in Oregon Mule Deer Initiative WMUs, 2015-2019. . 15 Table 11. Road closures and travel management areas implemented in Oregon Mule Deer Initiative WMUs, 2015 – 2019. . 17 Table 12. Trend in controlled mule deer buck tags in Oregon MDI action areas, 2002 – 2019. . 19 Table 13. Trend in mule deer populations in Oregon MDI action areas, 2002 – 2019. . 20 iii
List of Figures Figure 1. Trend in Oregon’s mule deer population 1979 – 2019. . 1 Figure 2. Wildlife Management Units where Oregon Mule Deer Initiative (MDI) action were implemented during 2015 –2019. . 2 Figure 3. Amount and source of funding used to implement Oregon Mule Deer Initiative (MDI) actions during 2015 –2019. . 7 Figure 4. Amount and source of funding used for juniper management actions for the Oregon Mule Deer Initiative (MDI) actions during 2015 –2019. . 8 Figure 5. Amount and source of funding used for invasive species management for the Oregon Mule Deer Initiative (MDI) during 2015 –2019. . 9 Figure 6. Amount and source of funding used for reseeding grasslands and shrublands for the Oregon Mule Deer Initiative (MDI) during 2015 –2019. . 10 Figure 7. Amount and source of funding used for aspen stand and meadow improvement for the Oregon Mule Deer Initiative (MDI) during 2015 –2019. . 11 Figure 8. Amount and source of funding used for timber stand improvement for the Oregon Mule Deer Initiative (MDI) during 2015 –2019. . 12 Figure 9. Amount and source of funding used for barrier improvement or fence management for the Oregon Mule Deer Initiative (MDI) during 2015 –2019. . 13 Figure 10. Amount and source of funding used for water development and improvement for the Oregon Mule Deer Initiative (MDI) during 2015 –2019. . 14 Figure 11. Amount and source of funding for other habitat actions. . 14 Figure 12. Amount and source of funding used for administrative cougar removal in the Steens, Warner, and Interstate units, Oregon Mule Deer Initiative (MDI), 2015 –2019. . 16 Figure 13. Average fawn ratio and buck ratio in Oregon MDI action areas, 2002 – 2019. . 21 Figure 14. Average number of hunters, harvest, and success rate in Oregon MDI action areas, 2002 – 2019. . 21 iv
Appendices Appendix A: Population and harvest information for MDI action area WMU’s in Oregon 2002 – 2019. . 27 Appendix B: Actions, units treated, and source of funds by Wildlife Management Unit to implement Oregon’s Mule Deer Initiative, 2015 – 2019. . 35 v
INTRODUCTION Mule deer are an iconic big game species in the United States and in Oregon they provide significant recreation opportunities for both consumptive and non-consumptive users of Oregon’s wildlife. Early explorers and settlers found mule deer to be scarce in Oregon and populations did not increase appreciably until the late 1920s (Mace et al. 1995). Beginning in the early 1930s mule deer began to respond to harvest restrictions, and to the favorable habitat conditions resulting from changes to livestock grazing, timber management, and unsustainable levels of predator control. By 1981 there were an estimated 306,000 mule deer in Oregon (Figure 1). However, habitats continued to change, becoming less favorable for deer. Population levels were too high for the declining habitat conditions and mule deer populations began a steady decline that continues today. Figure 1. Trend in Oregon’s mule deer population 1979 – 2019. Following a series of 2009 public budget meetings, then Department Director Roy Elicker responded to widespread and very vocal concern for mule deer from Oregonians and directed staff to develop a process emphasizing management actions to address the declining trend in mule deer populations. As a result, the Oregon Mule Deer Initiative (MDI) was created with the purpose of addressing factors affecting mule deer populations. Rather than attempt to address issues in all 46 Wildlife Management Units (WMUs) with mule deer, the Department selected five initial WMUs to begin implementing MDI: Heppner, Maury, Warner, Steens Mountain, and Murderers Creek (Figure 2). For each of these initial WMUs local implementation teams were created that developed an action plan for the respective WMU. The Department published a five-year summary report of actions implemented in the five initial WMUs in January 2015 (ODFW 2015). 1
Figure 2. Wildlife Management Units where Oregon Mule Deer Initiative (MDI) actions were implemented during 2015 –2019. Building on efforts from the first five years of MDI, the Department added four new focal MDI areas: Fort Rock, Ochoco, Keating, and the Beulah/Malheur River WMUs. The Department also maintained activities in the original MDI areas, and expanded efforts to address factors affecting mule deer in other areas of their Oregon range as opportunities presented. As a result, during the five year period from 2015 – 2019, mule deer focused actions were implemented in 14 areas within the range of mule deer in Oregon (Figure 2). The overall intent was to maintain the momentum of actions focused on mule deer restoration and use knowledge from successful initial efforts by expanding actions to additional mule deer units. Most of the actions were implemented collaboratively with other agencies or organizations interested in habitat quality for mule deer or for other wildlife species sharing the range with mule deer. The Department’s sustained focus on improving mule deer habitat allows cooperating agencies to continue securing funding for projects that would improve mule deer habitat while meeting other resource objectives. For example, the Natural Resource Conservation Service’s (NRCS) Sage-Grouse Initiative targets projects that will benefit sagegrouse on private land. Because sage-grouse and mule deer share similar habitats in the shrub2
steppe ecosystem, efforts intended to improve habitat for sage-grouse also affect habitat conditions for mule deer. In most cases changes are beneficial for mule deer. This report summarizes Department efforts focused on mule deer recovery during the five year period from 2015 through 2019. A brief description is provided for each area where work occurred. Actions and expenditures are summarized by action taken, at the area level, and in total for all efforts during the report period. Because this is a collaborative effort involving many partners and sources of funding, information on sources of funding is provide as well. MDI ACTION AREAS 2015 – 2019 Beatys Butte WMU: The Beatys Butte WMU encompasses 2,582 mi2 in south-central Oregon. Public lands represent 82% of the landscape with 18% privately owned. Shrub step dominates vegetation associations in the WMU with some aspen and ponderosa pine forest at higher elevation on Hart Mountain. Juniper is encroaching in areas of Hart Mountain, Beatys Butte, and the Pueblo Mountains. Winter ranges totaling 602 mi2 are scattered throughout the WMU. Beulah/Malheur WMUs: The Beulah/Malheur River action area includes two WMUs. The Beulah WMU is 2,742 mi2 with 57% in public ownership and 43% privately owned. Malheur River WMU is 2,894 mi2 with 69% publicly owned and 31% privately owned. Vegetation associations include large expanses of shrub-steppe transitioning into forested habitats at higher elevations. There are some large experimental crested wheatgrass seeding areas, some large areas where invasive annual grasses have established following wildfire, and substantial areas of juniper encroachment. There are 1,768 mi2 of winter range in the area. Fort Rock WMU: The Fort Rock WMU encompasses 1,764 mi2. Public lands dominate the WMU with 65% public and 35% private ownership. Vegetation associations in the unit are primarily forests with some juniper and shrub-steppe plant communities in the lower elevations. Forested areas transition from lodge pole dominated systems at mid elevations to mixed conifer dominated systems at higher elevations in the Cascade Range. Scattered aspen stands are primarily associated with more mesic soil conditions in the forests. There are 295 mi2 of winter range in the unit. Although the Fort Rock unit has a proportionately small winter range, a large number of mule deer migrate to summer ranges in the WMU. Heppner WMU: Heppner is 1,440 mi2 of which 34% publicly owned and 66% in private ownership. Vegetation associations are comprised of forested habitats typical of the Blue Mountains in Oregon and grassland habitats typical of the Columbia Basin. Most grasslands are used for cattle grazing or have been converted to dry land agriculture with some irrigated fields. There are 1,022 mi2 of winter range in the unit. The Heppner WMU was an original MDI unit but actions continued through 2019. Interstate WMU: Interstate WMU is 2,179 mi2 with 56% in public ownership and 44% private land. Vegetation associations in the unit vary and range from high elevation lodgepole pine forest, mixed conifer stands including Ponderosa pine/white fir/Western juniper stands at mid elevations, and shrub-steppe habitats at the eastern and southern margins of the unit at lower elevations. Scattered riparian corridors and isolated wet meadow aspen stands are common, though forest maturation in the last 50 years has dramatically reduced those habitat types. Although the WMU is relatively large, there are only about 530 mi2 of winter range in the 3
unit. However, consistent with the name of the WMU approximately 50% of the mule deer that summer in the Interstate WMU migrate to winter ranges in California. Keating WMU: Keating WMU is a small (608 mi2) in northeastern Oregon. Land ownership across the unit is 58% public and 42% private. Vegetation associations in the area transition from shrub-steppe at low elevations to fir dominated forests at higher elevations in the Wallowa Mountains. There are 231 mi2 of winter range in the area. Maury WMU: Maury is 1,100 mi2 with 56% public lands and 44% in private ownership. Vegetation associations in the unit are primarily sagebrush-steppe, juniper woodlands, there is some mixed conifer forest at upper elevations, with agricultural lands in lower elevations. Winter range makes up 822 mi2 of the unit. The Maury WMU was an original MDI unit but actions continued through 2019. Murderers Creek WMU: Murderers Creek is 1,550 mi2 with a 65% - 35% public - private split in land ownership. Vegetation associations in the unit are primarily forested habitats and shrubsteppe that has been heavily impacted by juniper encroachment and annual grass infestation. There is 408 mi2 of winter range in the unit. The Murderers Creek WMU was an original MDI unit but actions continued through 2019. Ochoco WMU: Ochoco is 3,024 mi2 with 54% in public ownership and 46% private ownership. Vegetation associations include primarily forested habitats at higher elevations with shrub-steppe and agricultural areas at lower elevations. Large areas of shrub-steppe have been impacted by juniper encroachment and annual grass infestation. There are 756 mi2 of winter range in the unit. Silver Lake WMU: Silver Lake WMU is 958 mi2 with 60% in public ownership and 40% privately owned. Vegetation associations in the unit are primarily forests with some juniper and shrub-steppe plant communities in the lower elevations. The WMU also includes a significant wetland area (Sycan Marsh). The 254 mi2 of winter range is focused along the eastern and northern edge of the WMU. Steens Mtn WMU: Steens Mountain is 1,916 mi2 with 64% in public ownership and 36% privately owned. Vegetation associations in the unit are shrub-steppe with aspen stands and substantial areas of juniper encroachment. Winter range makes up 672 mi2 of the unit. The Steens Mountain WMU was an original MDI unit but actions continued through 2019. Wagontire WMU: The Wagontire is a large WMU in central Oregon encompassing 3,137 mi2. Land ownership in the WMU is 85% publicly owned and 15% privately owned. Vegetation associations are almost exclusively shrub steppe: deeper soils are dominated by sagebrush systems whereas shallower, more acidic soils are dominated by rabbit brush. Private lands in the WMU tend to be dominated by agriculture. A very high proportion of the mule deer that winter on 971 mi2 of winter range in the WMU migrate to summer ranges in other WMUs. Warner WMU: Warner is 960 mi2 with a 70% - 30% public - private split in ownership. Vegetation associations in the unit are shrub-steppe plant communities and forested habitat primarily at higher elevations. There are extensive aspen stands throughout the unit. There are 124 mi2 of winter range in the Warner unit. The Warner WMU was an original MDI unit but actions continued through 2019. 4
MANAGEMENT ACTIONS During initial development of the MDI in Oregon, the Department developed a plan with six objectives for each WMU (ODFW 2011). Resulting management strategies for mule deer recovery were focused on: 1) Habitat Management, 2) Predator Management, 3) Disturbance and Harassment, 4) Law Enforcement, 5) Disease and Parasites, and 6) Population Management. Underpinning actions for habitat management, diseases and parasites, and population management are interaction with impacts of climate change in Oregon. For the original five MDI units the Department then used local committees to outline specific actions for each MDI unit. In the second phase of implementation the Department did not use local action committees. Rather, utilizing the Oregon Mule Deer Initiative Plan (ODFW 2011) as a guiding document, and capitalizing on what was learned during phase one efforts (ODFW 2015), the primary focus for all areas was to implement actions improving mule deer habitats. Mule Deer and Habitat Management A critical habitat component for mule deer is forage: specifically the quality and quantity of forage during both summer and winter. Deficiencies in either aspect of forage leads to a cascading impact on overall performance of mule deer populations. Animals on a poor summer nutritional plane tend to have lower fawn production and survival, and may be pre-disposed to higher predation rates and lower overwinter survival. Thus the major habitat actions implemented in Oregon’s MDI are focused primarily on forage improvement for mule deer. However, available water, and adequate thermal and security cover also are important habitat factors affecting animal distributions and condition and were also considered where habitat actions were implemented. Inherent to the MDI in Oregon is the understanding that the changes in vegetation associations and subsequent forage quality and quantity that led to the observed declines in Oregon’s mule deer have occurred at two major scales. First, the spatial scale of change essentially includes the entire landscape, or the entire range of mule deer in Oregon. Second, these changes have occurred over decades and are associated with climate change and several other factors discussed in this document. Thus the Department’s expectations for habitat improvement and rapid mule deer population responses are tempered with the knowledge that large landscape scale projects may require decades before full recovery is attained. Predator Management Mule deer are a common prey species for most large predators sharing the landscape with mule deer. Excessive predation is thought by many to be a primary cause of declining mule deer populations. However, the evidence that predator control successfully increases mule deer populations over an appreciable time frame is inconclusive (Ballard et al. 2001). Intense predator control can produce an immediate, short term response in mule deer survival but is not likely to improve population trend (Hurley et al 2011). Additionally, as noted earlier, animals on poor nutrition or at carrying capacity may be pre-disposed to higher predation rates and predator control will not provide the desired benefit to the mule deer population (Murphy et al. 2011). When predator control is implemented on a landscape potentially limited by nutrition like 5
Oregon’s mule deer ranges, it is preferable that it is partnered with activities to improve the habitat for mule deer. Disturbance and Harassment In some instances, human activity can cause enough disturbance or harassment to mule deer that it has an effect on habitat use or survival. These human caused factors can be direct such as habitat loss associated with energy development, road and highway development, or urban expansion. Factors can also be indirect, as when an increase in human activities such as creation of an all-terrain vehicle use area increases recreational activities causing mule deer to avoid using substantial areas of available habitat. Direct and indirect activities generally have the greatest effect on mule deer survival in winter when animals are already nutritionally stressed. Historically, Department biologists have been involved with programs to reduce disturbance and harassment to mule deer on winter and summer ranges. Under MDI some of these programs were continued, such as implementation of pre-existing travel management areas, or working with energy development proponents to minimize impacts of their projects on mule deer. Further, some existing programs were enhanced such as targeting permanent road closures on USFS lands within MDI units, or removing juniper in rights of ways to reduce vehicle collisions. Habitat Management RESULTS MDI activities implemented during the 2015 – 2019 phase focused primarily on direct or indirect improvements to habits for mule deer. During this phase, 74 distinct actions totaling 387,086 ac
five year period from 2015 - 2019, mule deer focused actions were implemented in 14 areas within the range of mule deer in Oregon (Figure 2). The overall intent was to maintain the momentum of actions focused on mule deer restoration and use knowledge from successful initial efforts by expanding actions to additional mule deer units.
New Mexico is known for its mule deer hunting, and it is a destination for both residents and non-residents who wish to harvest a high-quality mule deer buck. New Mexico has two subspecies of mule deer, Rocky Mountain mule deer and desert mule deer. In
Volleyball . Business Lists . Business Scorecard 150/2007 Collin County Business Directory 2008 DBJ 2008 Book of Lists DFW 200/2001 DFW 200/2002 DFW 200/2003 DFW 200/2004 DFW 200/2005 DFW 200/2006 DFW Women 02 Good News Touch List Good Touch List Metroplex Business Council (MTBC) MTBC Fast 5
survive the winter. If many fawns survive the winter, managers know mule deer populations are doing well. If fewer fawns survive, managers may need to take steps to help the population. Many things may make mule deer numbers decrease. It will take time, money and patience to increase the number of mule deer living in
3. We have to just unzip the downloaded file and go to bin directory of mule runtime. 4. In MS windows Operating system we have to run mule.bat file with admin privilege. 5. Mule will deploy default app and up now. Now you can manually deploy mule app by just past mule app zip file at app directory of runtime and check log in log directory. 6.
Functioning mule deer winter habitat within all areas of CCLUP and FRPA designated MDWRs, to support regional mule deer population over winter Objectives to Achieve Demonstration of net benefit to MDWR, in terms of working towards achievement of Long-term objectives as well as stand level objectives. 1. Long-term Spatial Stand Structure Objectives
need the hunting effort of all of Maine’s 170,000 deer hunters to achieve needed harvests of antlerless deer. Consequently, we limit participation in antlerless deer hunting during the firearms and muzzleloader seasons using variable quota deer permits or “any-deer” permits. This document details how any-deer permits are
overall beauty. In either case, humans are always impressed to catch a glimpse of a white-tailed deer. White-tailed deer are members of the cervid family which is represented in the United States by four genera; Cervus (elk), Alces (moose), Odocoileus (mule deer and white-tailed deer), and Rangifer (caribou). In the modern form,
Pradeep Sharma, Ryan P. Lively, Benjamin A. McCool and Ronald R. Chance. 2 Cyanobacteria-based (“Advanced”) Biofuels Biofuels in general Risks of climate change has made the global energy market very carbon-constrained Biofuels have the potential to be nearly carbon-neutral Advanced biofuels Energy Independence & Security Act (EISA) requires annual US production of 36 .
