The Red Desert to Hoback

MULE DEER MIGRATION ASSESSMENT

HALL SAWYER MATTHEW HAYES BILL RUDD MATTHEW KAUFFMAN pring is not yet here, but one can feel winter loosening its grip on Wyoming. Soon the snow will melt and the Smountains will turn a vibrant green, flush with grasses and forbs. And soon, Wyoming’s iconic ungulates will leave their low-elevation winter ranges and head up to the mountains, knowing they will find abundant forage there. Elk near Cody will travel west into Yellowstone; some of them mingling with moose arriving from as far south as Jackson. Near Dubois, bighorn sheep will start to follow the receding snow into the craggy peaks of the northern Winds. Down on the sagebrush steppe south of Pinedale, pronghorn and mule deer will begin their migrations toward the Wyoming Range, the Gros Ventre Range, and Grand Teton National Park. Throughout the state, the arrival of spring will set Wyoming’s ungulate herds in motion once again. These long-distance move- ments are not only spectacular; they also allow our herds to exist in such high numbers. The more we learn, the more these animals surprise us. Recently, wildlife researcher Hall Sawyer worked with the BLM to collar what they thought was a resident herd of mule deer living near Rock Springs. Remarkably, they discovered that those deer undertake the longest migration ever recorded in the Lower 48, connecting the sage- brush steppe of the Red Desert with the mountain meadows of the Hoback Basin. This report is an assessment of their remarkable journey and the obstacles these deer encounter along the way. We hope that our evaluation of this route will provide information to agencies, landowners, industry, and conservation groups interested in assuring the long-term viability of this unique migration. This work is part of the new Wyoming Migration Initiative (WMI; migrationinitiative.org), which we initiated in 2012. Ungulate migrations require vast, wide open landscapes, and they are part of what makes Wyoming one of the few, truly wild places in the West. Wyomingites recognize this, and it was that broad public interest that prompted us to build the WMI. Our aim is to make research about Wyoming’s ungulate migrations more accessible – and more useful – to people working to manage and conserve these herds and their habitats. The long-term goal of the WMI is to bring scientific information to managers and the public through new types of outreach. We are compiling on Atlas of Wildlife Migration that tells the stories of all of Wyoming’s ungulate migrations, and we are building an online database to make migration data widely available. This report represents the first contribution of the WMI toward better understanding Wyoming’s migratory ungulates. There is much more we hope to do with the support of partners across Wyoming.

Matthew J. Kauffman Director, Wyoming Migration Initiative Laramie, Wyoming March 8th, 2014

BLM Bureau of Land Management SRMA Special Recreation Management Area BTNF Bridger Teton National Forest WSA Wilderness Study Area WGFD Wyoming Game and Fish Department WSR Wild and Scenic River WYDOT Wyoming Department of Transportation ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern USFS United States Forest Service CE Conservation Easement RMP Resource Management Plan RDH Red Desert to Hoback FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act WY # Wyoming State Highway OSLI Office of State Lands and Investments US # United States Highway NSO No Surface Occupancy CR # County Road SMA Special Management Area FS # Forest Service Road

SUGGESTED CITATION: Sawyer, H., M. Hayes, B. Rudd, and M. J. Kauffman. 2014. The Red Desert to Hoback Mule Deer Migration Assessment. Wyoming Migration Initiative, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY. OTHER CONTRIBUTORS: Photos by Joe Riis Cartography by James Meacham, Alethea Steingisser, Lauren Tierney and Emily Nyholm, at the InfoGraphics Lab, Depart- ment of Geography, University of Oregon Maps and charts provided courtesy of the Atlas of Wildlife Migration: Wyoming’s Ungulates (in production) Design by T2 Communications FUNDED BY: George B. Storer Foundation and Knobloch Family Foundation. Front Cover Photo: Mule deer buck migrating south near Boulder Lake Table of Contents Introduction...... 2 Approach...... 7 Migration Assessment...... 10 Red Desert Segment...... 10 Big Sandy Segment...... 18 East Fork Segment...... 24 Finger Lakes Segment...... 30 Upper Green River – Hoback Segment...... 38 Summary ...... 44 Management Considerations ...... 49 References...... 51

The maps in this document are for informational purposes only not suitable for legal or survey- ing purposes. Users that want to apply this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ensure accuracy and best available data. © 2014 University of Wyoming A mule deer buck pauses along the migration route at sunset. Introduction igration is a common young, nutritious plants3,4. The Mbehavioral strategy used increased foraging opportunities by all major animal groups, provided by migration allow including insects, fish, reptiles, animals to accumulate fat over amphibians, birds, and mam- the growing season, which in mals1. Among the ungulates, turn improves their reproduc- or hooved-mammals, migration tive capacity. Although some allows animals to access season- ungulates do not migrate and al peaks in food availability and may even reside in semi-urban can reduce the risk of preda- areas like backyards, parks, golf tion2. Ungulates generally mi- courses, or agricultural fields, grate along moisture gradients, migratory ungulates far outnum- where they track the vegetation ber their non-migratory counter- green-up and take advantage of parts worldwide5. In Wyoming,

2 INTRODUCTION collar studies that track the to the Hoback Basin (RDH) and mule deer interacting with their detailed movements of animals surrounding mountain ranges8 environment and passing infor- suggest that more than 90% of (Map 1). This newly document- mation on from generation to ungulates (including mule deer, ed RDH migration originates generation9. The journey these elk, pronghorn, moose, bighorn in the desert sagebrush basins deer undertake each spring and sheep, mountain goat, bison, and where deer winter. In spring, fall is truly remarkable and per- white-tailed deer) are migratory. an estimated 500 deer travel 50 haps the best global example of Western Wyoming in partic- miles north across the desert to a plains to mountains migration. ular, supports some of the largest the west side of the Wind River Although this migration involves and most diverse ungulate popu- Range. From there, they merge fewer animals, it is similar in lations in North America6. The with 4,000 to 5,000 other deer scope and complexity to the performance of these herds is that winter in the foothills of well-known migrations of wilde- largely dependent on their abil- the Wind River Range and then beest on the Serengeti, or cari- ity to seasonally migrate from travel a narrow corridor along bou on the arctic tundra. How- low-elevation winter ranges to the base of the Winds for 60 ever, whereas wildebeest follow high-elevation summer ranges, miles before crossing the upper the rainfall patterns across the where they convert abundant Green River Basin. In the final open plains, and caribou follow forage to fat reserves necessary leg of the journey, they travel latitudinal variation in forage to survive the long Wyoming another 30-50 miles to their production, the RDH mule deer winters. Landscapes of west- individual summer ranges in the exploit a 3,000 to 4,000-foot ern Wyoming, including the Hoback Basin. elevation gain from desert to southern Greater Yellowstone Migrations like this are an mountains. Long-distance migra- Ecosystem (GYE), are relative- important part of Wyoming’s tions like these were no doubt ly undisturbed, allowing many cultural, hunting, and conser- common in the Rocky Mountain migration routes there to remain vation heritage. The RDH route West before human settlement, intact. This is illustrated by the also reminds us why so many of but many have dwindled, as the well-documented Path of the Wyoming’s ungulates migrate – winter ranges and migration Pronghorn – a 100-mile route because it is a seasonal foraging routes have been converted that pronghorn follow from solution to living year-round in through residential, agricul- the upper Green River Basin to Wyoming’s dynamic landscapes tural, and other development. Grand Teton National Park6,7. and climatic conditions. It al- Wyoming’s wide-open spaces The longest ungulate migra- lows deer to access the abundant and low human population have tion ever recorded in the lower forage of Wyoming’s mountain allowed this route, and others, to 48 states was recently discovered ranges, but escape the deep persist. in western Wyoming. Here, mule snows that winter brings. This Increasingly, the landscapes deer travel a one-way distance of type of migration is a behav- that support these incredible 150 miles from the Red Desert ior shaped by a deep history of migrations are becoming more

3 Map 1. Migration routes of mule deer extend 150 miles from the Red Desert to the Hoback Basin and surrounding mountain ranges of northwest Wyoming8. These 12 deer were captured in 2011 and fit with GPS collars that recorded locations every 3 hours.

4 INTRODUCTION Mule deer follow the spring green-up across the upper Green River Basin.

difficult to navigate. Habitats are ments), recent research indicates intense disturbance along their being fragmented by roads, well that such disturbances alter the routes. Although threshold levels pads, and turbines associated behavior of migrating animals10,11. are not known, high levels of with energy development. Wy- In a study before and after ener- disturbance certainly have the oming’s roadways are seeing in- gy development in south-central potential to diminish the func- creasing traffic levels, and private Wyoming, deer migrated faster tionality of migration routes and lands are increasingly at risk of and stopped over to forage less of- threaten their persistence11. With development. Although migrat- ten following development 11 (see a migration route as long as the ing animals can typically move Box 1). Such behavioral respons- RDH, proactive management through disturbed habitats, so es to development indicate that will likely be necessary to assure long as routes are not severed by migratory ungulates may lose the persistence in the long-term. impenetrable barriers (e.g., game- foraging benefit of migration if The RDH migration crosses proof fencing or housing develop- they must move through areas of a mix of land ownership and

5 land-use patterns and highlights require collaboration among a format that is accessible and the challenges associated with a wide range of stakeholders. useful for the stakeholders in- conserving long-distance migra- Stakeholders can work together volved with local management tions outside of protected areas. to improve or protect habitat and conservation efforts. Spe- Conservation efforts outside of for Wyoming’s fish and wildlife, cifically, we provide an in-depth national parks and other pro- but to be effective these efforts analysis of the RDH migration tected areas are, by necessity, need reliable and accessible sci- along its entire route and map more complicated because they ence. The goal of this migration the route in the context of land must balance an assortment assessment is to present the best ownership patterns and land- of competing land-uses and available migration science in use policies.

BOX 1. "SPEEDING THROUGH DEVELOPMENT" Mule deer 6 A recent study in south-central Wyoming found that mule deer speed up while crossing developed gas fields compared to undeveloped areas. Individual deer migrate at different Mule deer 37 paces due to things like nutrition, past knowledge of the route, whether or not they have a fawn at side, and other factors. A few deer in the study slowed down as they moved through developed areas, but most individual deer sped up when they Mule deer 16 encountered development. Such a response could have a Route Segments negative effect if a deer hurries past important food sources. 02 mi. Depending on geology and lease juxtaposition, directional Through development 0 2 km Through undeveloped drilling technology could allow no surface occupancy (NSO) in Other migration corridors while still extracting gas reserves below. It remains unclear how much development migrating ungulates can tolerate along their seasonal routes.

Speeds up through development Rate of movement through undeveloped area 10 Slows down through development

5 Average rate of movement (mi/hr) Average Mule deer 6 Mule deer 37 (Each pair of points represents the spring migration of an individual mule deer) 0 Mule deer 16

Source: © 2014 Atlas of Wildlife Migration: Wyoming’s Ungulates (in production)

6 INTRODUCTION A mule deer buck considers the elk fence near Fremont Lake. Approach recent study by Western to ungulate migration can fit istered lands that manage more A EcoSystems Technology, into two categories: 1) physical acreage as designated wilderness Inc. used data collected from barriers, like fences and roads, or roadless areas. According- GPS-radio collars to delineate and 2) land-use practices, such ly, we characterized both the the RDH migration (Map 2a)8. as residential or energy develop- physical barriers and land-use For the purposes of this analysis, ment. Land-use practices, and patterns across the entire mi- we focused on the “high-use” the policies that shape them, are gration route. To further refine portion of the route, as this generally associated with land the assessment and account for reflects the area where most ownership. For example, private regional differences, we divided animals shared a common mi- lands have the potential to be the RDH migration into five gration route. This provided us subdivided for residential devel- segments (Map 2b). For each with a narrow and well-defined opment, whereas federal lands segment we provide detailed corridor where we could identi- do not. Lands administered by mapping, key summary statis- fy potential movement barriers the BLM are disproportionately tics, and information on physical and evaluate land-use patterns12. at risk for oil and gas develop- barriers and land-use patterns In general, the potential risks ment compared to USFS admin- relevant to the RDH migration.

7 Maps 2a. High, moderate, and low-use areas of the Map 2b. This migration assessment focuses on the Red Desert to Hoback mule deer migration route. high-use route area, which is further divided into 5 segments for analysis.

To conduct the migration route on agency maps and improve land-use planning and assessment we combined field- other GIS sources to develop conservation efforts. Addition- work – including an aerial a detailed view of land own- ally, we worked closely with survey along the entire route ership and use along the core wildlife photographer Joe Riis – with GPS movement data section of the route. The mi- to compile a traveling photo from collared deer to identify gration assessment makes this exhibit and short film to raise the specific locales of potential information available to agen- public awareness by providing risks (e.g., fences, road cross- cies, industry, landowners, and a window into the journey ings, bottlenecks, energy devel- NGOs so that they will have that these deer complete each opment). We overlaid the RDH the information they need to spring and fall.

8 APPROACH Hall Sawyer and Joe Riis fly the entire migration route in May 2013.

9 Migration Assessment

Red Desert Segment

The Red Desert Segment is characterized by sagebrush basins, rolling topography, rocky canyons, and sand dunes. North (back) and South (front) Table Mountains are dominant landmarks in this part of the desert and provide key habitat for migratory mule deer.

10 RED DESERT SEGMENT Migration Assessment

11 he Red Desert Segment extends from winter Tranges near the Leucite Hills and Interstate 80 (I-80) approximately 40 miles north to WY 28 (Map 3). In late winter or early spring, an estimated 500 mule deer leave winter ranges near I-80 and head north across Zirkel and Emmons Mesas to North and South Table Moun- tains. From there, deer continue north through a narrow 400- meter gap in the Killpecker Sand Dunes and enter Johnson Canyon between Steamboat Rim and- Steamboat Mountain. The deer follow Johnson Canyon north, across the lower end of Box Can- yon, and through the Jack Mor- row Hills, then cross the historic Oregon, California, and Mormon Trails just before they reach WY 28. Recent research indicates that mule deer spend 95% of their migration period in a series of stopover sites, where they con- gregate to feed in areas where the forage is especially nutritious4. Map 3. Migration route and stopover sites for the Red Desert Segment. Key stopover sites in this segment included parts of Zirkel and Em- mons Mesa, the North and South to track the vegetation phenology, RED DESERT SEGMENT – Table Mountains, and the John- or green up, and access young nu- PHYSICAL BARRIERS son Canyon/Steamboat Moun- tritious forage, which helps them To date, the 40-mile Red tain area (Map 3). Stopovers are recover body condition earlier in Desert segment of the RDH mi- important for migratory mule the spring and maintain it longer gration is relatively unaffected deer because they allow animals in the fall4. by physical barriers or impedi-

12 RED DESERT SEGMENT WY 28 and two right-of-way fences run perpendicular to the migration route. ments (but see Box 2). In fact, four strand barbed wire, with RED DESERT SEGMENT – the only fences deer must nego- an exceptionally high (~52”) LAND-USE tiate are the right-of-way fences top wire that requires deer find The Red Desert is charac- on either side of WY 28, which a place to move underneath terized by sagebrush and desert is the only paved road crossed the fence. When the Wyoming shrub basins, rocky outcrops in the Red Desert Segment. The Department of Transportation and canyons, and diverse to- main part of the RDH migra- (WYDOT) was informed of this pography. Most of this 40-mile tion crosses this rural 2-lane unusually high fence and the segment consists primarily of highway through a narrow (1- difficulties that deer have cross- federal lands (70%) adminis- mile) corridor near milepost 24. ing it, they committed to lower tered by the Rock Springs Field A smaller branch of the migra- the top wire of the fence in office of the BLM (Map 4). tion route crosses at milepost summer 2014 and ensure gates Federal lands in the region are 15. The right-of-way fencing are available to open at each managed for multiple use and along this section of highway is crossing. common uses include, livestock

13 grazing, motorized recreation, and energy development. Cur- rent guidance for land-use management of these federal lands is outlined in the BLM’s Green River Resource Manage- ment Plan (RMP)13, which is currently under revision as the Rock Springs Resource Man- agement Plan14. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 directs the BLM to inventory resources and values on the public lands and incorporate appropriate management into the RMP. The FLPMA also directs the BLM to manage some lands for retention of their natural condition to provide habitat for wildlife, and to prioritize special designations (see Box 3), like areas of critical environmental concern (ACEC). The RMP also identifies special recreation management areas (SRMA) and special manage- ment areas (SMA). The RDH migration route passes through Map 4. Land-ownership patterns in the Red Desert Segment. the Greater Sand Dunes, Steam- boat, and South Pass Historic Landscape ACECs, as well as the parts of the route also overlap and to a lesser degree, private Steamboat Mountain SMA (Map with parcels leased for oil and and state lands. The southern 5). In general, these special use gas or areas with ongoing energy portion of the Red Desert seg- areas can be more restrictive in development (Map 5). ment contains a considerable terms of allowable disturbance The land-use activities and amount of private land (26%). associated with recreation and patterns in the Red Desert are However, most of the private energy development. Several influenced primarily by the BLM land within the “checkerboard”

14 RED DESERT SEGMENT management, but development in these areas tends to be higher compared to areas with large blocks of federal land. To the best of our knowledge, none of the private lands in this segment have conservation easements and most remain unfenced. In addition to federal and private lands, 4% of the Red Desert Segment is comprised of state lands managed by the Wyoming Office of State Lands and Investments (OSLI). By Wy- oming legislative direction, state lands are managed primarily for “long-term growth in value” and “optimum, sustainable revenue production” to generate funds for public schools15. Accord- ingly, the primary uses of these lands are livestock grazing and energy development. The Red Desert Segment overlaps with the WGFD Steam- boat mule deer herd unit, which extends from I-80 north to WY 28. This herd unit is managed Map 5. Special-use areas in the Red Desert Segment. by the Green River region of the WGFD. pattern (every other section landowners have historically is private and public) along and currently allowed public ac- the I-80 corridor is owned by cess. The RSGA also holds most Anadarko Petroleum Corpora- of the BLM grazing allotments tion (a merger with Union Pacif- in the area. The BLM does not ic) or the Rock Springs Grazing have an official policy direct- Association (RSGA); these ed specifically at checkerboard

15 Box 2: Interstate 80 and mule deer migration

It is worth noting that al- though the RDH route does not extend south beyond I-80, the interstate appears to be a barrier to deer movement. The complet- ed construction of I-80 in 1970 severed the migration routes of thousands of pronghorn and mule deer. During the severe winter of 2011-12, nearly 40% of GPS-collared mule deer died on winter range adjacent to I-808. Deer and pronghorn are especial- Interstate-80 is a barrier to the seasonal migrations of ly vulnerable to deep snow that mule deer that winter in the Red Desert. makes forage inaccessible and movement difficult. If deer were Winter able to cross I-80 and move fur- distribution of ther south, it is likely that their mule deer during mortality rates could be reduced, winters 2011 and especially during severe winters. 2012. Interstate 80 prevents Restoration of such migrations movement to through underpass or overpass the south where construction has received serious deer would likely consideration in recent years. encounter less Several crossing structures have snow. been built in Wyoming and other western states and have proven effective at allowing mule deer and other migratory ungulates to safely cross roadways and access their seasonal ranges.24

16 RED DESERT SEGMENT Box 3. Special Designation Areas on federal lands managed by BLM

AREA OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL in Section 2 (c) of the Wilderness Act of 1964, the CONCERN (ACEC): characteristics of wilderness include: Areas within the public lands where special “(1) generally appears to have been affected management attention is required to protect and primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint prevent irreparable damage to important historic, of man’s work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has cultural, or scenic values, fish and wildlife resourc- outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primi- es, or other natural systems or processes, or to tive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at protect life and safety from natural hazards. The least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient identification of a potential ACEC shall not, of it- size as to make practicable its preservation and self, change or prevent change of the management use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also or use of public lands. contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.” SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA (SMA): The SMA label is a locally generated identifica- WILD, SCENIC, AND/OR RECREATIONAL tion designed to flag locations which have special- RIVER (WSR): ized management concerns or needs but did not The three classes of what is traditionally re- warrant ACEC designation. Generally, the SMAs ferred to as a “Wild and Scenic River.” Designated contain resources or opportunities that warrant a river segments are classified as wild, scenic and/or level of management narrowly focused on a local- recreational, but the segments cannot overlap. ized resource (e.g., wildlife, vegetation) or resource • Wild River Areas. Those rivers or sections use concern. of rivers that are free of impoundments and generally inaccessible except by trail, with wa- SPECIAL RECREATION MANAGEMENT tersheds or shorelines essentially primitive and AREA (SRMA): waters unpolluted. These represent vestiges of The SRMA is a designation where public primitive America. recreation (e.g., off-road vehicles) issues require • Scenic River Areas. Those rivers or sections of special or more intensive types of management. rivers that are free of impoundments, with shore- SRMAs require detailed recreation planning and lines or watersheds still largely primitive and greater managerial investment (e.g. facilities, shorelines largely undeveloped, but accessible in supervision, etc.). places by roads. WILDERNESS STUDY AREA (WSA): • Recreational River Areas. Those rivers WSAs are areas under study for possible inclu- or sections of rivers that are readily accessi- sion as a Wilderness Area in the National Wilder- ble by road or railroad, that may have some ness Preservation System. As outlined by Congress development.

17 18 BIG SANDY SEGMENT Big Sandy Segment

The Big Sandy Segment is characterized by sagebrush basins, rolling topography, rock outcrops, and scattered juniper.

19 he Big Sandy Segment of the RDH migration Textends approximate- ly 25 miles from WY 28 to the Big Sandy River (Map 6). Mi- grating deer use this portion of the route in March and April during the spring and October through December during the fall migration. From WY 28, deer move north across Hay Creek and Dry Sandy Creek, out of the sagebrush basins of the Red Desert and into the Prospect Mountains and foot- hills of the Wind River Range. From the Prospects, deer move northerly through Long Draw to the Big Sandy River, just east of Buckskin Crossing. It is in this general area where the estimated 500 mule deer from the Red Desert join another 4,000 to 5,000 mule deer that winter in the Buckskin Cross- ing/Prospects area. These deer represent the largest concentra- tion of mule deer in the Green Map 6. Migration route and stopover sites for the Big Sandy Segment.

20 BIG SANDY SEGMENT Mule deer move along fence line near the Big Sandy River.

21 River Basin and as large as any in Wyoming. Together, these deer migrate the remaining 100 miles to the Hoback Basin. The northern half of this route seg- ment, from the Prospect Moun- tains to Big Sandy River, is stopover habitat. Mule deer can spend days or weeks foraging in these large stopover areas. BIG SANDY SEGMENT – PHYSICAL BARRIERS Similar to the Red Desert, this route segment has relatively few physical barriers or impedi- ments. Mule deer cross approxi- mately eight fences, six of which are woven wire (near the Little Sandy River). Woven wire fence is the most dangerous for wild- life and can be difficult for deer to maneuver through, especially fawns16, 17. BIG SANDY SEGMENT – LAND USE Most of this 25-mile seg- ment consists of federal lands (90%) administered by the Map 7. Land-ownership patterns in the Big Sandy Segment.

22 BIG SANDY SEGMENT BLM Rock Springs field office (Map 7). The migration route passes directly through the Wind River Front SMA, some of which has limited avail- ability for oil and gas leasing (Map 8). We refer readers to the BLM’s Green River RMP13 for specific information on the Wind River Front SRMA. The remaining 10% of lands in the Big Sandy segment are state lands managed by OSLI (7%) and private (3%). None of the private lands have conservation easements. From WY 28 north, the entire Big Sandy Segment is in the WGFD Sublette mule deer herd unit, which is man- aged by the Pinedale region of WGFD. Because of deer declines associated with gas development in other parts of the herd unit, the deer in this region are especially important for sustaining herd unit popu- lation objectives.

Map 8. Special-use areas in the Big Sandy Segment.

23 24 EAST FORK SEGMENT East Fork Segment

The mule deer migration through the East Fork Segment is characterized by rolling topography and sagebrush foothills at the base of the Wind River Range.

25 he East Fork Segment of the RDH migration Textends approximate- ly 25 miles from Big Sandy Creek to the Scab Creek Road (CR 122; Map 9). Most deer migrate through this area during April in the spring and late-October and November in the fall. From Big Sandy Creek, deer move north along the foothills of Muddy Ridge. At Muddy Creek, they negotiate through the first of several elk feedgrounds operated by the WGFD. From Muddy Creek, deer continue north across the East Fork River, Pocket Creek, Silver Creek and Scab Creek. This part of the migration route is restricted to a nar- row sagebrush corridor that is bounded to the west by agri- culture and rural residential development, and to the east by the rugged terrain of the Wind River Range. With the excep- tion of a few agricultural areas, most of this route segment is Map 9. Migration route and stopover sites for the East Fork Segment stopover habitat. Deer often stopover to forage for days and sometimes weeks, during both spring and fall migration.

26 EAST FORK SEGMENT A young mule deer buck searches for a way around an elk fence.

27 EAST FORK SEGMENT – PHYSICAL BARRIERS The East Fork Segment does not cross any paved roads. The few county roads that deer must cross have low traffic volumes and do not pose any significant obstacles to deer at this time. Because the East Fork Segment contains more private and state land (Map 10), there are a considerable number (15 to 27) of fences that mule deer must negotiate through in this area. As part of their Corridor Conservation Campaign, the Green River Valley Land Trust has already modified some of the fenc- es in this area to meet wild- life-friendly specifications16, 19. However, other fences remain difficult for mule deer to ne- gotiate. As deer move through this section, they encounter the first elk feedground (Muddy Creek) of their journey that has 8 foot-tall woven-wire fences designed to keep elk off private Map 10. Land-ownership patterns in the East Fork Segment. lands (hereafter referred to as elk fences). In general, deer into the eastern side of the foothills along the base of the must move around these fenc- mule deer migration route. Wind River Range. This 20- es, but they will use open gates mile segment crosses a mix of EAST FORK SEGMENT – if available and sometimes find land ownership, including 43% LAND USE holes where they can move un- private, 37% BLM, 19% state The region is characterized derneath. Just south of Muddy lands managed by OSLI, and by mixed-shrub and sagebrush Creek, the elk fence extends 1% USFS (Map 10). The BLM

28 EAST FORK SEGMENT ment. The route passes through several special use areas, in- cluding the Scab Creek WSA, Scab Creek SRMA, and the Wind River Front SMA, where, other than existing lease rights predating 2008, no additional oil and gas leasing is allowed on federal lands (Map 11). Spe- cific information on special use areas can be found in the Pi- nedale RMP. Based on available data, 16% of the private land in the East Fork segment has been placed in conservation ease- ment20. The East Fork Segment contains a considerable amount (19%) of state land which is managed by the OSLI, and by Wyoming legislative direction, are managed to generate in- come for public schools. The East Fork Segment is in the WGFD Sublette mule deer herd unit, managed by the Pinedale region of WGFD.

Map 11. Special-use areas in the East Fork Segment. lands in the northern 17 miles vides direction for land-use of this segment are admin- practices and management of istered by the Pinedale field BLM lands18 in that field of- office, whereas the southern 3 fice. Federal lands in the region miles are in the Rock Springs are managed for multiple-use, field office. The Pinedale RMP including livestock grazing, was updated in 2008 and pro- recreation, and energy develop-

29 30 EAST FORK SEGMENT Finger Lakes Segment

The Finger Lakes Segment is characterized by a narrow band of sagebrush that runs along the base of the Wind River Range and crosses the outlets of Boulder, Fremont, Willow, and New Fork Lakes. An estimated 4,000 to 5,000 mule deer move through narrow bottlenecks (50 to 400 meters) at each of these lake outlets. Here, a group of 47 mule deer migrate across Pine Creek below the Fremont Lake outlet during fall migration.

31 he Finger Lakes Segment extends approximately T34 miles from the Scab Creek Road (CR 122) to WY 352, just west of New Fork Lakes (Map 12). Most deer migrate through this portion of the route during April and early-May in the spring and late-October and November in the fall. From the Scab Creek Road, deer move northwesterly towards the out- let of Boulder Lake, where they cross Boulder Creek about 200 meters below the outlet. Deer then move north across Pole Creek, into the flat and open shrubland at the base of Half Moon Ridge. From there, deer cross the Fremont Lake Road (CR 154) then travel in between the CCC Ponds and USFS Road 111 to the outlet of Fremont Lake. Here, most deer cross Pine Creek roughly 100 meters be- low the outlet. Other deer swim across Fremont Lake about 200 meters above the outlet, where the lake is 70 meters wide. From Map 12. Migration route and stopover sites for the Finger Lakes Segment. the northwest side of Fremont Lake, deer must negotiate ap- outlet of Willow Lake. At Willow side of the elk fence and across proximately 20 miles of elk fence Lake, deer move through a nar- Dumphy Hollow and the New intended to keep elk off private row bottleneck (about 50 meters) Fork River to WY 352. A smaller land. Deer continue northerly between the elk fence and the segment of the population moves along Fremont Ridge, then west Willow Lake Campground, then from Willow Lake north towards of Soda Lake, and are funneled move west towards the outlet, Little Flattop Mountain, then by the elk fence towards the where they move to the west west toward the outlet of New

32 FINGER LAKES SEGMENT A mule deer doe leads the way across Pine Creek, just below Fremont Lake.

Fork Lakes, where they cross an Ridge areas for days and some- sections for mule deer to travel elk fence and continue to WY times weeks during both spring through because of the assort- 352. Most of the stopover habitat and fall migration. ment of fences, paved roads, and in this route segment is located FINGER LAKES SEGMENT – narrow bottlenecks at the out- between CR 122 and Fremont PHYSICAL BARRIERS let of each of the Finger Lakes Ridge. Deer stopover to feed in The Finger Lakes Segment (Boulder, Fremont, Willow, and the Half Moon and Fremont is among the most challenging New Fork). Thousands of deer

33 must cross these waterways in close proximity to recreation- al areas or rural residential development. The elk fence associated with the Soda Lake feedground extends approxi- mately 20 miles from Fremont Lake to New Fork Lakes, keep- ing elk off private lands and containing them in the vicinity of Soda Lake. Mule deer will use open gates in the elk fence, but because the timing of the deer migration can overlap with elk feeding (or elk containment), gates are not always open when deer would be able to use them. The advantage of open gates is that deer can easily pass through them without spending extra time searching for an alternative route. Occasionally deer find small holes in the fence where they can crawl underneath, but this option appears limited to females and fawns, because the antlers of bucks prevent them from maneuvering underneath Map 13. Land-ownership patterns in the Finger Lakes Segment. the fence. Seven of the fence corners have dirt jump-offs, intended to allow deer to move Deer cross several county volumes. Most deer cross CR through the fence. However, the roads, including CR 125 to 154 within 200 meters of height (5 feet 6 inches) of the Boulder Lake, CR 154 to either side of the access road jump-off we monitored appeared Fremont Lake, and CR 119 to to Fremont Lake. The access to deter most deer from using it. Willow Lake. Of those, CR 154 road (FS 111) is also paved and The only deer we documented is the only one that is paved receives a lot of recreational jumping were mature bucks. and has the highest traffic use, as it provides access to

34 FINGER LAKES SEGMENT Pinedale field office and the Bridger Teton National Forest (BTNF) administer the public lands in this segment. Federal lands in the region are managed for multiple-use, but recreation (e.g., boating, camping, fishing, hunting, biking) is the dominant use. There are no active oil and gas leases on federal lands in this segment. The route passes through several special manage- ment areas, including the Scab Creek, Boulder Lake, and CCC Ponds SMAs, where land-use guidelines differ from surround- ing BLM parcels (Map 14). BLM lands in this segment are un- available for oil and gas leasing. We refer readers to the Pinedale RMP for detailed information on special use areas18. The route also passes through the Half Moon and Soda Lake wildlife habitat management areas, which are lands owned and managed by the WGFD for wildlife. Based Map 14. Special-use areas in the Finger Lakes Segment. on available data, approximately 9% of the private land in the CCC Ponds, Pine Creek, and FINGER LAKES SEGMENT – Finger Lakes Segment has been Fremont Lake. Mule deer cross LAND USE placed in conservation ease- FS 111 near CR 154, before This 30-mile segment crosses ment20 (Map 14). The Finger the road veers off to the west. a mix of land ownership, in- Lakes Segment is in the WGFD Although deer are able to cross cluding 46% private, 30% BLM, Sublette mule deer herd unit, these roads, they represent a 14% USFS, 8% WGFD, and 2% managed by the Pinedale region challenging part of the route. OSLI land (Map 13). The BLM of WGFD.

35 A mule deer buck swims across the outlet at Fremont Lake during fall migration.

Mule deer crossing FS 111 near Fremont Lake.

This corner jump-off in an elk fence near the Soda Lake feedground is approximately 5 foot 6 inches tall and rarely used by deer other than mature bucks.

36 FINGER LAKES SEGMENT Fishing Deer route and boating access points near outlet of Boulder Lake, where mule deer cross Boulder Creek.

NORTH

SOUTH

Boating, fishing, Deer route and hiking access points at the outlet of Fremont Lake where mule deer either swim across the outlet (shown here) or cross Pine Creek.

NORTH

SOUTH

Elk fence Campground Deer route and fishing access near the outlet of Willow Lake where most deer migrate along CR 119

WEST between the SOUTH elk fence and campground.

37 Upper Green River-

The Upper Greer River portion is characterized by pothole lakes intermixed with sagebrush, riparian meadows, and hay fields.

38 UPPER GREEN RIVER–HOBACK SEGMENT Hoback Segment

The Hoback Basin is characterized by timbered draws, aspen stands, sagebrush slopes, riparian draws and mountain meadows, bounded by the high-elevation peaks of the Wyoming Range to the west and Gros Ventre Range to north and east.

39 he Upper Green River– Hoback Segment ex- Ttends approximately 25 miles from WY 352, northwest- erly into the Hoback Basin and BTNF (Map 15). From WY 352, deer move west across mostly private land, traverse the Green River and move onto Aspen Ridge, where they stopover for several days. From there, deer continue west across the busy US 189/191 highway, across North Beaver Creek and onto the South Rim of the Hoback Basin, where they stopover on Signal Hill and Kismet Peak, just south of the BTNF bound- ary. Deer then move from the BTNF boundary into the Ho- back Basin, where they break off from the core migration route and disperse to various summer ranges in the Hoback, including the Wyoming Range, Salt River Range, Snake River Range, and Gros Ventre Range. Some deer migrate another 10-30 miles to Map 15. Migration route and stopover sites for the Upper Green River - reach their respective summer Hoback Segment. ranges. Most mule deer cross US 189/191 one more time before reaching summer range. After travelling roughly 150 miles between winter and summer range, most deer spend summer in specific home ranges that

40 UPPER GREEN RIVER–HOBACK SEGMENT A group of mule deer cross WY 352 and right-of-way fencing during the fall migration.

41 average 1 to 2 square miles and 3,000 to 4,000 feet higher than where they spent the winter UPPER GREEN RIVER – HOBACK SEGMENT: PHYSICAL BARRIERS The Upper Green River–Ho- back Segment has more fences per square mile than any other migration segment. This is due in large part to a higher per- centage of private land, some of which consists of relatively small parcels with various owners. Additionally, the route crosses both WY 352 and US 189/191, which have right-of-way fencing on both sides. Mule deer-vehicle collisions occur on both road- ways, but are more common along US 189/191 because of the volume and speed of traffic. Although the Green River is a formidable waterway, especially in the spring, mule deer are able to navigate it quickly. UPPER GREEN RIVER– HOBACK SEGMENT: Map 16. Land-ownership patterns in the Upper Green River - Hoback LAND USE Segment. This 25-mile segment crosses a mix of land ownership, includ-

42 UPPER GREEN RIVER–HOBACK SEGMENT ing 52% private, 28% BLM, 15% USFS, and 5% state (Map 16). The majority of private lands are used for agricultural purposes, such as hay produc- tion and livestock grazing. However, some of the private lands are rural residential developments. Based on avail- able data, approximately 2% of the private land in the Upper Green River–Hoback segment has been placed in conserva- tion easement20 (Map 17).The BLM and USFS lands in this segment are administered by the Pinedale field office and BTNF, respectively. The route passes through the BLM’s Green River SRMA and WSR (Map 17). On the west side of US 189/191, the route passes directly through the Franz elk feedground operated by WGFD. Guidance for management of the USFS lands is provided in the BTNF land-use plan21, which was recently amended to Map 17. Special-use areas in the Upper Green River - Hoback Segment. protect the Path of the Prong- horn migration22.

43 Summary he RDH migration rep- resents the longest mule Tdeer migration ever re- corded. Because it connects the desert region of the southwest with the mountainous region of northwest Wyoming, the jour- ney these deer make is emblem- atic of the Wyoming landscape. This route also illustrates the tremendous effort ungulates undertake to access high-quality forage in distant mountain rang- es. It is likely that other mule deer herds in Wyoming and the West historically migrated as far Mule deer on the move between Willow and Fremont Lake. or farther than the RDH deer, but those migrations have been lost due to habitat loss, barriers, corridor reminds us that land- large landscapes and provide and other factors. This type of use decisions made in one small stakeholders with the informa- long-distance migration is still parcel could affect thousands tion needed to effectively con- possible in parts of western of animals over a much larger serve ungulate migration. Wyoming because the vast land- region. Even though mule deer With the help of state and scape remains relatively open are able to navigate the migra- federal agency managers, we and intact. tion route in its current form, identified the top 10 areas of However, as more demands there are areas where the route concern along the entire route are placed on our public lands could be made more permeable of the RDH migration (Map (e.g., recreation and energy for mule deer, which would 18). In most cases, these ar- development), and some pri- improve the functionality (e.g., eas represent opportunities to vate lands are converted from movement and foraging bene- improve the permeability of the traditional ranches to residen- fits) of the route11. Fortunately, route by reducing the current tial development, the journey advances in GPS-telemetry and challenges faced by deer there- these deer make each year will associated mapping methods by helping to sustain the RDH become more difficult. The now allow us to accurately de- migration into the future. narrow width of this migration lineate migration routes across

44 SUMMARY Map 18. Top 10 areas of concern along the RDH migration route.

45 Top 10 areas of concern along the RDH Migration

1 Fremont Lake – The bot- mont Lake is a difficult area for history of mule deer – vehicle tleneck at Fremont Lake is a top mule deer, it is also a promising collisions, which could increase concern along the RDH migra- area for public awareness and with higher traffic levels as this tion for several reasons. First, is outreach. It is rare that such a route leads to popular national the narrow width and number migration coincides with a major parks and forests. Right-of-way of animals – an estimated 4,000 recreational center on the out- fencing on both sides of the to 5,000 mule deer cross the skirts of town. highway is effective at keeping outlet or Pine Creek in an area livestock off the highway, but only 400 meters wide. For mule 2 Rural residential can make these areas more dif- deer that choose to swim the development – Although the ficult for the estimated 4,000 to outlet, drowning is a real risk, summer and winter ranges of 5,000 mule deer that must cross especially in the spring when mule deer are predominately them multiple times each year. animals can break through the public lands, much of the RDH ice or have difficulty negotiating migration route (East Fork, 4 Boulder Lake – Thousands ice sheets. Adding to the con- Finger Lakes, and Upper Green of mule deer migrate through a cern is the high level of human River–Hoback segments) narrow (less than 1/2-mile) bot- activity that deer must contend consists of private lands (32%). tleneck at the outlet of Boulder with as they cross Pine Creek or The functionality of such Lake and the upper reaches of swim the outlet, move past the migration route segments rely Boulder Creek. This area is man- marina and multi-use trails at on landowner tolerance of large aged by the BLM as part of the CCC Ponds, and cross the paved numbers of animals moving Boulder Lake Special Recreation FS 111 and CR 154 roads. The through their property. Large, Management Area (SRMA). elk fence on the northwest side intact parcels of private land with Currently, the area provides of the outlet can also be a source wildlife-friendly fences are not a fishing access, a large parking of confusion for deer, as it runs concern. However, the potential lot, restrooms, and other day-use perpendicular to the lake, and for working ranches to be sub- infrastructure. If or when addi- the only place to easily cross is divided, developed, or fenced into tional infrastructure is built to a short fence gap near the high multiple smaller parcels presents accommodate increasing recre- water line. It is common to see a long-term risk to portions of the ational use, careful planning will deer walking back and forth migration route23. be needed to avoid impacts to along the north side of this fence migrating mule deer. during the fall migration, search- 3 US 189/191 crossings – ing for a way through or around Most mule deer cross US 5 Willow Lake – Thousands the fence. The outlet area is a 189/191 at least two times in of mule deer migrate through a mix of USFS, BLM, and private the Upper Green River–Hoback narrow (less than 1/2-mile) bot- lands. We note that while Fre- Segment. US 189/191 has a long tleneck near the outlet of Willow

46 SUMMARY Thousands of mule deer cross US 189/191 each year, just south of the Hoback Rim.

Lake. Mule deer must negotiate ground. The management of this Soda Lake and Muddy Creek, elk fencing through gates, corner area around the outlet is compli- use a network of 8-foot-tall jump-offs, or other means. Most cated by the mix of USFS, BLM, woven-wire fences to contain deer move along this elk fence and private lands. elk. For example, approximately to the corner at Willow Lake 20 miles of elk fence has been Campground. Here deer move 6 Elk fencing – The RDH constructed between Fremont a short distance on CR 119 in migration travels directly Lake and New Fork Lakes (see between the elk fence and the through or in close proximity Finger Lakes Section). Although Willow Lake Campground. The to several elk feedgrounds op- these fences have some gates and Willow Lake Campground is a erated by the WGFD, including corner jump-offs, the gates are popular destination area during Muddy Creek, Scab Creek, Fall not always open when deer need the fall migration, when many Creek, Soda Lake, Black Butte, them and the height (more than deer are forced (by the elk fence) Franz, and McNeel feedgrounds. 5 feet) of some of the jump-offs to travel directly by the camp- Some of the feedgrounds, like discourages deer from using

47 them. Deer can find several migration corridor, BLM par- 10 WY 28 crossing – The WY places to crawl underneath these cels leased and developed in the 28 crossing in the Red Desert fences, but bucks are often pro- corridor may directly affect the segment is a source of direct hibited from moving underneath functionality of this route. mortality for mule deer. The because of their antlers. Snow traffic volume, high vehicle events and human disturbance 8 State land use – Compared speeds, and unusually tall (52 are likely to exacerbate the nav- to BLM and private ownership, inches) right-of-way fencing igational challenge these fences state lands make up a relatively make this area problematic for pose for migrating deer. small percentage (6%) of the migrating mule deer. The Wy- RDH migration. Nonetheless, oming Department of Trans- 7 BLM parcels available state parcels are located in portation (WYDOT) has com- for leasing – Overall, BLM several key areas of the route. mitted to lowering the top wire lands comprise 54% of the RDH While many of the state parcels of this fence in 2014, but deer migration route. Much of the in the RDH are currently free will still need to cross WY 28 at BLM lands along the Wind of major impediments to migra- grade-level. River Front are managed for tion, state lands managed by the wildlife and not available for OSLI may experience a future energy leasing, as designated increase in energy development, by the Wind River Front Man- related infrastructure, and agement Area described in the grazing allotment infrastructure Pinedale RMP. Not all of the (fencing), to meet their fiducia- BLM lands in the Rock Springs ry responsibilities. Additional field office are similarly protect- development in these key areas ed, either along the Wind River makes their future land-use and Front or in the Red Desert. conservation uncertain. Additional BLM parcels in the Red Desert have some wildlife 9 WY 352 crossings – The protections through Areas of WY 352 crossing(s) in the Critical Environmental Concern Upper Green River segment are (ACEC) or other management a source of direct mortality for area designations. Recent work mule deer. The level of mule in south-central Wyoming11 deer-vehicle collisions is expect- and northern Colorado10 has ed to increase with traffic vol- documented impacts of oil and ume, as Sublette County grows gas development to migratory and as recreation in the Wind mule deer (see Box 1). Given River Range and Green River Mule deer searches for way around the narrow width of the RDH Lakes becomes more popular. elk fence near Fremont Lake.

48 SUMMARY A mature buck pauses along migration route near Willow Lake. Management Considerations he intact long-distance across agency jurisdictions and reduced mule deer–vehicle Tungulate migrations of land ownership boundaries. The collisions and maintained western Wyoming are not only toolbox for migratory mule deer migration routes in other parts a highly valued local resource, management and conservation of western Wyoming24. Given but also an iconic symbol of continues to evolve and includes the relatively well-defined and wildness that resonates with a many management options. narrow corridors where mule public far beyond Wyoming’s • Modifying or removing fencing deer cross highways WY 28, borders. Sustaining such migra- can improve landscape perme- WY 352, and US 189/191, the tions presents a challenge that ability for mule deer and other installation of wildlife under- will require stakeholder collabo- wildlife. Installing gates or let- passes and fencing modifica- ration to proactively implement down panels and ensuring they tions could improve roadway effective measures to accommo- are open during migration can permeability and mitigate problems with mule deer–vehi- date long-distance migration in also help mitigate deer move- cle collisions. a multiple-use landscape. The ment issues created by fences. RDH migration highlights the • Underpasses with game- • Dynamic signs and reduced need to coordinate such efforts proof fencing have effectively speeds may help to warn mo-

49 torists of migrating deer and • For some parcels, land ex- (RMP). In a few cases, federal reduce collisions. changes between state agencies land-use plans have designated • Understanding the timing of or between state and federal special protections for migration migration can help reduce po- agencies may be appropriate to routes, such as the (Trapper’s Point ACEC and Path of the tential impacts or disturbance consolidate lands and ensure Pronghorn through BTNF). to deer, especially near popular consistent management for Directional drilling technol- recreation areas. Such infor- habitat conservation purposes. ogy could provide a means to mation can also help agencies • Habitat improvement projects maintain no surface occupancy refine harvest strategies can take many forms (e.g., fire, (NSO) in narrow corridors, • Given the desirable location chemical, mechanical treatments, while still accessing gas or shale, and proximity to Pinedale, grazing modification, mar- and ensure that developed working ranches are increas- ket-based mitigation26) to im- parcels in the RDH route do not ingly at risk of rural develop- prove forage conditions for mule negatively impact the migration. 25 ment . Land trusts and off-site deer. Maps of migration routes • Outreach and education can mitigation programs have been and stopover locations can help play an important role in allocating considerable resourc- managers prioritize and appro- long-term management or es for conservation easement priately target such projects. conservation efforts. The RDH purchases in Sublette County. migration presents a unique The land ownership and spe- • Clear and spatially explicit maps opportunity for the public to cial use maps in this document of migration corridors can be understand and appreciate this may help identify areas where readily incorporated into land- migration that is unique and conservation easements would use planning documents, such emblematic of Wyoming's wide benefit migratory mule deer. as Resource Management Plans open landscapes.

Mule deer follow the spring green-up into the Hoback Basin.

50 REFERENCES References

1 Dingle, H. and V. A. Drake. 2007. What is mi- landscape structure and natural gas develop- gration? Bioscience 57:113–121. ment. Ecosphere 3:art 82. 2 Fryxell, J. M., and A. R. E. Sinclair. 1988. 11 Sawyer, H., M.J. Kauffman, A.D. Middleton, Causes and consequences of migration by large T.A. Morrison, R.M. Nielson, and T.B. Wy- herbivores. Trends in Ecology & Evolution ckoff. 2013. A framework for understanding 3:237–241. semi-permeable barrier effects on migratory 3 Holdo, R. M., R. D. Holt, and J. M. Fryxell. 2009. ungulates. Journal of Applied Ecology 50:68- Opposing rainfall and plant nutritional gradi- 78. ents best explain the wildebeest migration in the 12 Sawyer, H., M. J. Kauffman, R. M. Nielson, and Serengeti. American Naturalist 173:43–445. J. S. Horne. 2009. Identifying and prioritizing 4 Sawyer, H. and M.J. Kauffman. 2011. Stopover ungulate migration routes for landscape-level ecology of a migratory ungulate. Journal of conservation. Ecological Applications 19:2016- Animal Ecology 80:1078-1087. 2025. 5 Fryxell, J. M., J. Greever, and A. R. E. Sinclair. 13 Bureau of Land Management. 1997. Record of 1988. Why are migratory ungulates so abun- Decision and Green River Resource Area Re- dant? American Naturalist 131:781-798. source Management Plan. Rock Springs Field 6 Sawyer, H., F. Lindzey, and D. McWhirter. Office, BLM/WY/PL-97/027+1610. 2005. Mule deer and pronghorn migration in 14 Bureau of Land Management. 2012. Final western Wyoming. Wildlife Society Bulletin Scoping for the Rock Springs Resource Man- 33:1266-1273. agement Plan Revision. Wyoming State Office 7 Berger, J., S. L. Cain, and K. M. Berger. 2006. and Pinedale Field Office. Connecting the dots: an invariant migration 15 Wyoming State Lands, http://lands.state.wy.us/ corridor links the Holocene to the present. 16 Paige, C. 2012. A Landowner’s Guide to Fences Biology Letters 22:528-531. and Wildlife: Practical Tips to Make Your Fenc- 8 Sawyer, H. 2014. Seasonal distribution patterns es Wildlife Friendly. Wyoming Land Trust, and migration routes of mule deer in the Red Pinedale, WY. Desert and Jack Morrow Hills Planning Area. 17 Harrington, J. L., and M. R. Conover. 2006. Western Ecosystems Technology, Inc., Laramie, Characteristics of ungulate behavior and mor- WY. tality associated with wire fences. Wildlife 9 McCullough, D. R. 1985. Long range move- Society Bulletin 34:1295-1305. ments of large terrestrial animals. Contributions 18 Bureau of Land Management. 2008. Record in Marine Science Supplement 27: 444–465. of Decision and Approved Pinedale Resource 10 Lendrum, P. E., C. R. Anderson, R. A. Long, J. Management Plan. Wyoming State Office G. Kie, and T. R. Bowyer. 2012. Habitat selec- and Pinedale Field Office, BLM/WY/PL- tion by mule deer during migration: effects of 09/014+1610.

51 19 Mellinger, A., D. Hulme, L. Ryan, J. Vana, and State of the Space: A Comprehensive Review K. Teson. 2010. Improving Big Game Migration of Land Use Trends in Wyoming, William Corridors in Southwest Wyoming. William D. Ruckelshaus Institute of Environment D. Ruckelshaus Institute of Environment and and Natural Resources. University of Wyo- Natural Resources, University of Wyoming. ming-Laramie, WY, 70 pp. 20 Sublette County GIS, http://www.sublettewyo. 24 Sawyer, H., C. LeBeau, and T. Hart. 2012. Miti- com/ gating roadway impacts to migratory mule deer 21 United States Forest Service. 1990. Record of – a case study with underpasses and continu- Decision, Bridger-Teton National Forest Land ous fencing. Wildlife Society Bulletin 36:492- and Resource Management Plan and Final En- 498. vironmental Impact Statement. United States 25 United States Forest Service and the William D. Department of Agriculture and United States Ruckelshaus Institute of Environment and Nat- Forest Service. ural Resources. 2011. Private Lands and Conser- 22 United States Forest Service. 2008. Environ- vation Toolkit. Laramie, Wyoming: University mental Assessment, Bridger-Teton National of Wyoming William D. Ruckelshaus Institute Forest, Land and Resource Management Plan of Environment and Natural Resources. Amendment: Pronghorn Migration Corridor. 26 Hansen, K., A. Jakle, and M. Hogarty. 2013. United States Department of Agriculture, USFS. Market-based Wildlife Mitigation in Wyoming: 23 Hulme, D., C. Andersen, K. Parady, J. Hamer- A Primer. Laramie, Wyoming: Ruckelshaus In- linck, S. Lieske, I. Burke. 2009. Wyoming’s stitute of Environment and Natural Resources.

52 REFERENCES Back Cover Photo: View from migration route as it passes sand dunes and approaches Steamboat Mountain. View south of North and South Table Mountains migrationinitiative.org

MISSION STATEMENT: To advance the understanding, appreciation, and conservation of Wyoming's migratory ungulates by conducting innovative research and sharing scientific information through public outreach