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 sage- grouse on private land. Because sage-grouse and mule deer share similar habitats in the shrub-

2

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 shrub- steppe 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.

RESULTS Habitat Management

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 acres, miles, or other treatment units were implemented in 14 WMUs (Table 1). Total cost to implement these actions was $25.4 million dollars.

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. # Units Wildlife Management Unit(s) # of Actions Treated Cost Beatys Butte 1 578 $61,033.52 Beulah/Malheur River 4 140,602 $5,843,777.00 Fort Rock 17 2,854 $1,302,638.89 Heppner 9 7,535 $1,391,982.00 Interstate 5 7,709 $613,968.20 Keating 4 929 $187,207.59 Murderers Creek 11 17,641 $1,587,919.03 Ochoco/Maury 7 103,799 $8,154,746.95 Silver Lake 2 247 $45,705.00 Steens Mountain 4 40,508 $3,056,246.00 Wagontire 1 85 $4,487.50 Warner 9 64,599 $3,152,644.93 Grand Total 74 387,086 $25,402,356.61

6

Sources of funding to implement these actions was very diverse with funds provided by 19 different sources. Of the total funds expended, $21,610,045 (85%) were from federal sources including four federal agencies and one federal organization (Figure 3). Federal agencies included the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the US Forest Service (USFS), and the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The federal organization was the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF). NRCS funds were primarily associated with their own MDI allocations or with the NRCS Sage Grouse Initiative (SGI). USFWS funds were predominately Pittman Robertson Wildlife Restoration funds.

State funds accounted for 12% of expenditures not including staff time ($3,018,144) with the Department the primary source. Non-governmental organizations (NGO) provided $483,810 (2%) and included contributions from the Oregon Hunters Association (OHA), Mule Deer Foundation (MDF), Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (RMEF), Oregon Foundation for North American Wild Sheep (FNAWS), and the Oregon Wildlife Foundation (OWF). Some county funds ($114,527, 0.5%), mitigation funds ($107,751, 0.4%), and private landowner funds ($68,079, 0.3%) also were used.

Figure 3. Amount and source of funding used to implement Oregon Mule Deer Initiative (MDI) actions during 2015 –2019.

Juniper Treatment

With few exceptions, juniper encroachment was identified as a serious factor affecting habitat quality for mule deer in Oregon. As a result juniper management was one of the most common actions implemented on the landscape for mule deer in Oregon with 133,410 acres treated in 10 WMUs (Table 2) at a total cost of $13,571,891. Actions included juniper removal, piling, and burning. Similar to the first phase of MDI the Maury/Ochoco (101,952 acres) and Warner (12,998 acres) WMUs received the most effort. However significant acreage was treated in five other WMUs as well: Beulah/Malheur (4,778 acres), Interstate (4,656 acres), Murderers Creek (2,553 acres), and Steens Mountain (4,897 acres).

7

Table 2. Acres of juniper treated, and associated cost of juniper treatments by WMU under Oregon’s Mule Deer Initiative during the period 2015 – 2019. Wildlife Management Unit(s) Acres Treated Cost Beatys Butte 578 $61,033.52 Beulah/Malheur River 4,778 $1,772,400.00 Fort Rock 40 $8,460.00 Heppner 799 $68,774.00 Interstate 4,656 $451,019.80 Keating 159 $23,787.08 Murderers Creek 2,553 $291,153.10 Ochoco/Maury 101,952 $7,960,714.00 Steens Mountain 4,897 $1,962,800.00 Warner 12,998 $971,749.50 Total 133,410 $13,571,891.00

Juniper management funds were provided by multiple sources (Figure 4). Three federal agencies (NRCS, BLM, USFWS) provided 87% ($11,783,752) and 12% ($1,697,710) was provided by 2 state agencies, the Department and the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB). The remaining 1% ($90,429) was provided by two NGOs (OHA, FNAWS) and two private landowners.

Figure 4. Amount and source of funding used for juniper management actions in Oregon Mule Deer Initiative (MDI) WMUs during 2015 –2019. Invasive Weed Treatments

Non-native invasive weeds impact forage quality and quantity primarily on mule deer winter range. The major species of concern on winter ranges in the MDI units include cheatgrass,

8

medusa head rye, and various species of non-native thistle, white top, and knapweed. Invasive species were treated on 23,340 acres in 9 WMUs for a cost of $764,254 (Table 3). Treatments included aerial and ground application of herbicides, and various ground based techniques.

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. Wildlife Management Unit(s) Acres Treated Cost Beulah/Malheur River 6,160 $142,600.00 Heppner 1,863 $48,600.00 Interstate 2,193 $88,871.13 Keating 302 $22,933.00 Murderers Creek 5,000 $158,733.48 Ochoco/Maury 1,064 $75,351.33 Warner 6,758 $227,165.00 Total 23,340 $764,253.94

Management of invasive species was funded using federal and state funds (Figure 5). Three federal agencies (NRCS, BLM, and USFWS) contributed $287,975 (38%) and the Department contributed $476,279 (62%).

Shrub/Grass Seeding

It is quite common for undesirable and often non-native plant species to invade a landscape following disturbance. Disturbance may be from natural processes, planned habitat manipulation, a result of grazing, or a result of unplanned landscape events such as fires. Most invasive plant species tend to have less nutrient value for mule deer than native species; therefore, it is critical Figure 5. Amount and source of to re-establish native, palatable, nutritious forage to funds for invasive weed treatment disturbed areas. for Oregon MDI during 2015–2019.

Because of the importance of nutritious vegetation for mule deer and the purported poor condition of many mule deer ranges, grassland and shrubland reseeding accounted for more acres treated than any other action implemented during this phase. In total 179,828 acres were treated in 13 WMUs for a cost of $6,229,668 (Table 4). Seeding was done to establish desirable vegetation in areas that had been disturbed for a variety of reasons, including MDI activities such as juniper removal and invasive vegetation control, and for recovery of area impacted by recent large wildfires. Although native species are preferred, seed mixes were selected for their forage value, adaptability to precipitation zone and soil type, and competitiveness with less desirable species, primarily invasive non-native annual species. Oftentimes seeds were collected locally for planting locally. Seeding occurred in all seasonal mule deer ranges.

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. Wildlife Management Unit(s) Acres Treated Cost Beulah/Malheur River 128,793 $3,863,777.00 Fort Rock 525 $18,089.00 Heppner 3,215 $268,330.00 Interstate 798 $59,678.27 Keating 203 $66,855.17 Murderers Creek 9,396 $812,353.75 Ochoco/Maury 415 $40,186.00 Silver Lake 150 $7,300.00 Steens Mountain 35,121 $1,053,625.00 Wagontire 85 $4,487.50 Warner 1,127 $34,986.00 Total 179,828 $6,229,667.69

Of the costs associated with reseeding, 94% ($5,862,012) were federal funds from three agencies (NRCS, BLM, and USFWS) with 60% of those ($4,952,902) from the BLM for this action (Figure 6). The Department (state funds) provided the remaining 6% ($367,656) needed.

Aspen Stand and Meadow Improvement

Aspen (Populus tremuloides) communities play an important role for mule deer from gestation to adulthood. Aspen stands are described as a critical mule deer habitat component that provides hiding and thermal cover, diverse high quality forage, and fawning and fawn rearing Figure 6. Amount and source of funding habitat. The Oregon Conservation Strategy used for reseeding grasslands and (ODFW 2006) identified aspen communities as shrublands for the Oregon Mule Deer one of eleven strategy habitats to focus Initiative (MDI) during 2015 –2019. conservation and restoration efforts on. Unfortunately, aspen stands are in decline due to poor grazing management, lack of fire, and conifer encroachment. Forest meadows are equally as important and similarly impacted.

Actions to improve aspen stands or meadows were implemented in 4 WMUs. A total of 5,449 acres were treated for a total cost of $1,641,577 (Table 5.). Of the costs associated with aspen and meadow improvement, 76% ($1,242,251) were federal funds from three agencies (NRCS, USFS, and USFWS) with 91% of those ($1,128,865) provided by the USFS for this action (Figure 7). Ten percent ($170,000) was provided by three NGOs (OHA, MDF, RMEF) and 7%

10

($107,751)was provided by mitigation Table 5. Acres and associated cost of aspen stand funding (Ruby Pipeline). The remaining or meadow improvement treatments for mule deer 7% ($121,575) came from counties, the habitat improvement by WMU under Oregon’s Department (state), and private sources. Mule Deer Initiative during the period 2015 – 2019. Timber Stand Improvement Wildlife Management Acres In Oregon, the majority of mule deer Unit(s) Treated Cost summer range is forested habitat. Over Fort Rock 113 $68,174.37 the past 30 years changing silvicultural Heppner 2 $9,542.00 practices and forest maturation has Murderers Creek 30 $104,369.60 resulted in increasingly closed forest Warner 5,304 $1,459,491.00 canopies, understory conifer Total 5,449 $1,641,576.97 encroachment, and a buildup of duff, resulting in a decline in shrubs and forbs, important mule deer forage. Treatments to improve timber stands generally include pre- commercial and commercial thinning designed to decrease competition between trees resulting in increased growth of the remaining trees. Deer, and many other species of wildlife benefit from thinnings because the more open canopy increases sunlight reaching the forest floor which results in a more vigorous and diverse understory.

Figure 7. Amount and source of funding used for aspen stand and meadow improvement for the Oregon Mule Deer Initiative (MDI) during 2015 –2019.

During the reporting period 42,129 acres of forest were treated in nine WMUs at a cost of $1,622,362 (Table 6). The majority of the timber stand treatments occurred on National Forests, and may not have been specifically designed to benefit mule deer. However, except for rare situations any timber stand management actions implemented for any species will provide benefits to the majority of wildlife species that rely on the forest, including mule deer in forested summer ranges.

11

Of the costs associated with Table 6. Acres of timber stand improvement, and timber stand treatment, 91% associated cost of timber stand treatments for mule deer ($1,481,989) were federal funds habitat improvement by WMU under Oregon’s Mule Deer from two agencies (NRCS, Initiative during the period 2015 – 2019. USFWS) with 85% of those Acres Wildlife Management Unit(s) Cost ($1,258,155) provided by the Treated NRCS for this action (Figure 7). Five percent ($77,250) were state Beulah/Malheur River 650 $65,000.00 funds, county and private entities Fort Rock 539 $91,034.50 each provided 2% ($29,652 and Heppner 1,625 $836,617.00 $33471 respectively) of the Keating 265 $73,632.34 funding. Murderers Creek 645 $119,385.00 Ochoco/Maury 14 $9,014.62 Warner 38,391 $427,678.61 Total 42,129 $1,622,362.07

Figure 8. Amount and source of funding used for timber stand improvement for the Oregon Mule Deer Initiative (MDI) during 2015 –2019.

Table 7. Miles of barrier improvement or fence Fence Construction management, and associated cost for mule deer habitat improvement by WMU under Oregon’s Fences were constructed for two general Mule Deer Initiative during the period 2015–2019. reasons during this reporting period. Wildlife Management Miles Cost First, fences were constructed to help Unit(s) Treated manage livestock distribution for enhancing habitats used by mule deer. Fort Rock 3 $708,129.50 Secondly, deer proof fencing was Heppner 12 $118,406.00 installed to direct mule deer movements Total 15 $826,535.50

12 across Highway 97 to improve use of a newly installed wildlife crossing structure. A total of 15 miles of fence construction was completed in two WMUs at a total cost of $826,535.50 (Table 7).

Fifty-one percent of the funding for fencing ($423,080) came from 4 federal entities (NRCS, USFS, USFWS, NFWF). Four NGOs (OHA, MDF, RMEF, OWF) provided 25% ($205,000), and the remaining funds (24%, 198,456) were from two state agencies (the Department and OWEB) (Figure 9).

Water Developments Figure 9. Amount and funding In some areas within mule deer ranges available water sources for barrier improvement may be limiting. Water developments were completed in or fence management, Oregon 7 WMUs for a total cost of $379,066 (Table 8) during MDI 2015 –2019. this reporting period. Developments included actions such as drilling wells, developing springs, piping water, repairing guzzlers, and riparian area development.

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. Wildlife Management Unit(s) # Units Developed Cost Fort Rock 808 $195,482.89 Heppner 20 $41,713.00 Murderers Creek 17 $37,938.50 Ochoco/Maury 12 $58,879.00 Silver Lake 97 $38,405.00 Warner 6 $6,648.00 Total 960 $379,066.39

The bulk of the funding for water developments (86%, $325,566) was provided by three federal agencies; NRCS, USFS, and USFWS (Figure 10). State funds (the Department) provided 11% of the funding ($42,844). The remaining 3% came from OHA (2%, $6,648) and a private source (1%, $4,008).

13

Figure 10. Amount and source of funding used for water development and improvement for the Oregon Mule Deer Initiative (MDI) during 2015 –2019.

Other Habitat Projects

A number of other actions were implemented in seven WMUs that had a direct impact on mule deer habitats (Table 9). Actions implemented included removal of feral horses, prescribed fire, archeologic surveys, improvement of mountain mahogany stands, and the purchase of seeding equipment. Total cost for these actions was $247,108.

Table 9. Other habitat developments, and associated cost for mule deer habitat improvements by WMU under Oregon’s Mule Deer Initiative during the period 2015 – 2019. Wildlife # Cost Management Unit(s) Units Beulah/Malheur River 221 No Value Fort Rock 795 $213,268.63 Murderers Creek 1 $63,985.60 Ochoco/Maury 342 $10,602.00 Steens Mtn 490 No Value Total 1,819 $247,108 Figure 11. Amount and source of funding for other habitat actions.

Funding for other actions impacting mule deer habitats was provided by three sources (Figure11). Two federal agencies (USFS, USFWS) provided 70% ($172,520) of the funding. The Department provided 30% ($74,588) of the remaining funds.

14

Predator Management

During early development of MDI, all of the local committees believed predation was either the primary or secondary factor affecting mule deer numbers. As a result, the Department implemented cougar Target Areas in two WMUs (Steens, Warner), and conducted coyote control in the Heppner WMU during initial phase of MDI. However, results of predator management during the first period of MDI were inconclusive. Mule deer populations increased only slightly in the Steens, declined in the Heppner, and remained static in the Warner. Fawn ratios remained relatively stable in Steens and Warner but declined in the Heppner. For this reporting period Cougar Target Areas were continued in the Steens and Warner WMUs in an effort to maintain the reduced cougar populations resulting from the earlier removal efforts. Annual cougar removal objectives for the maintenance areas were set at levels approximating annual recruitment for cougar populations in the area. The desired removal objective was 10/year in Steens Mountain which was 50% of the initial objective. For the Warner WMU the desired removal objective was 9/year in the Warner WMU, 64% of the previous objective in this WMU. Cougar control efforts were also implemented in the Interstate WMU in an attempt to increase the mule deer population. Because objectives for the Interstate were to reduce predation effects on mule deer by reducing the cougar population with a relatively large coverage area, cougar removal levels were set at 50/year. Across all three areas for this reporting period 106 cougars were administratively removed (Table 10). Removal objectives were met in the Steens, but not in the Warner or Interstate units. Combined with other known sources of cougar mortality, 141 total cougars were removed from the three units. Administrative removal accounted for 75% of all known cougar mortalities in the three areas with hunting accounting for an additional 16%.

Table 10. Cougar mortality in the Steens, Interstate, and Warner Cougar Target Areas in Oregon Mule Deer Initiative WMUs, 2015-2019. Total Removal Removal Sport Damage Other Total Removal WMU Period Objective Removals Harvest Removal Mortality Mortality Cost Warner 2016–2019 36 15 9 5 2 31 $24,927 Interstate 2016–2019 150 62 8 1 2 73 $14,399 Steens 2016–2018 30 29 5 1 1 37 $39,821 Total 216 106 22 7 5 141 $79,147

Cougars were administratively removed from the Steens Mountain through a contract with Wildlife Services (WS). Administrative removal in the Warner was completed using Department Volunteer Cougar/Bear Agents. Both volunteer Agents and WS were used in the Interstate unit. Dogs were used as the primary method in all three areas for but considerable trapping effort was also used in the Warner and Interstate units. Total cost of cougar control for this reporting period was $79,147 (Table 10). Nearly 2/3 of the funds (62%) were ODFW damage funds with the remaining 38% provided by NGOs (Figure 12). NGOs providing funds included three OHA chapters (Lake County, Josephine County, Klamath Falls) and one MDF

15

chapter (Klamath Falls). Overall cost per administratively removed cougar ranged from $232 per cougar in the Interstate unit to $1,662 in the Warner unit. Cost per cougar removed in Steens was $1,373.

The mule deer population response to maintaining a lower cougar population in the Warner WMU was equivocal in that fawn ratios, buck ratios, buck harvest, and the population did not improve. The apparent increase in estimated population for this reporting period (Table 10, Appendix A) is a result of changes in survey methodology in 2016 and estimates for the reporting period are not directly comparable to previous estimates. Using the new survey methodology from 2016 – 2019, the Figure 12. Amount and source of funding used estimated population declined 10%. Fawn for administrative cougar removal in Steens, ratios remained relatively stable around 52 6 Warner, and Interstate units, Oregon Mule month old fawns per 100 does. The number Deer Initiative (MDI), 2015 –2019. of bucks per 100 does dropped slightly to 21:100.

Mule deer population response to continued cougar removals in Steens WMU also showed no positive response in the metrics monitored, similar to that in Warner. Estimated population size remained relatively stable at levels observed at the end of the first reporting period (Appendix A). Number of fawns per 100 does declined to about 45:100 whereas number of bucks per 100 does fluctuated between 30 – 34:100 does.

Mule deer populations in the Interstate WMU also failed to respond to cougar removal efforts. All indices of mule deer population performance (fawns:100 does, bucks:100 does, harvest) declined during the reporting period: observed fawn ratios declined from 57.1:100 in 2015 to 38.1:100 in 2019, observed buck ratios declined from 20.5:100 to 12.7:100, and buck harvest and success declined from 1,007 to 522 and from46% to 26%, respectively (Appendix A). Although reported mule deer population size appears to increase from 3,816 in 2014 to 4,700 in 2015 (Appendix A), this difference is attributable to changes in population survey methodology and estimates for the reporting period are not directly comparable to previous estimates.

Disturbance and Harassment

The primary method of reducing disturbance or harassment is the use of cooperative travel management areas (TMAs) and access closures. During this reporting period 11 TMAs and two access closures were maintained in the MDI action units (Table 11).

16

Table 11. Road closures and travel management areas implemented in Oregon Mule Deer Initiative WMUs, 2015 – 2019. Road Closure/TMA Square WMU Name Miles Closure Period Heppner West End 93 Yearlong Heppner Heppner 388 Various 3 days prior to opening of Controlled Any Weapon Ochoco Rager 352 Buck through the close of 2nd bull season. Ochoco South Boundary 47 Yearlong 3 days prior to General Bow through close of Murderers Murderer’s Creek – 185 Controlled Any Weapon Buck, and 3 days prior to 1st Creek Flagtail TMA bull through the close of 2nd bull season. Keating Summit Point 14 Yearlong Keating Eagle Creek 17 December 1 through April 15 Keating Melhorn 26 Yearlong Malheur Devine Ridge/ September 25 through October 9, and October 20 57.2 River Rattlesnake through November 10 Malheur September 25 through October 9, and October 20 Conroy Cliff 46 River through November 10 Silver Cabin Lake/Silver 342 December 1 through March 31 Lake Lake Winter Range 3 days prior to Controlled Any Weapon Buck through Fort Rock Walker Rim 113 the close of Controlled Any Weapon Buck. Fort Rock Sugar Pine Mountain 40 Yearlong

Population Management

Only one change was noted in objective for this reporting period: the buck ratio MO for the Silver Lake unit was increased for 12 to 15 bucks per 100 does. No changes to seasons or regulations were implemented during this reporting period. The Department has, however, been independently reviewing all big game regulations concurrent with this reporting period. Many of the changes implemented from the regulations review also will benefit mule deer management in the future. Additionally although not specifically an MDI action, the number of controlled buck tags authorized in a few in MDI units did change in response to observed changes in mule deer populations during the reporting period (Table 12). Controlled buck tags for Ochoco WMU declined 16% from 3,070 in 2015 to 2,585 in 2019 in response to a 54% decline in estimated population between 2015 and 2019. Controlled buck tags also were reduced significantly in the Keating (50%), Beulah (35%), and Malheur River (34%) WMUs in response to deer population impacts during winter of 2016–2017.

Although not specifically reported as an MDI activity during this period, two other actions stemming from needs identified by MDI have been initiated within Oregon’s normal mule deer

17

management and monitoring processes. First and foremost, the Department is in the final analytic stages of mapping mule deer population annual herd ranges across their Oregon distribution. Due to the extent and magnitude of this effort, and associated effects on mule deer management in Oregon, a detailed report on the process and a description of management applications will be integrated into the updated Mule Deer Management Plan.

Secondly, the Department began the process of implementing more rigorous, statistically-based methods of monitoring mule deer population parameters at the annual herd range scale across their distribution. These methods include sampling based estimators to determine population size, telemetry based estimates of annual adult and fawn survival, and development of rigorous herd range population models that incorporate all available data. As with herd range delineation, a detailed report on these methods will be included as part of an updated Mule Deer Management Plan.

Other Management actions

A number of other management activities were identified by the initial implementation teams as potential areas to take action. These areas included Law Enforcement, and Disease and Parasites. No new actions were implemented in these areas during this reporting period.

DISCUSSION

Similar to the first reporting period, population parameters for mule deer in the action areas did not improve. Mule deer populations declined from 4% to 54% in 12 of 14 WMUs (Table 13, Appendix A). Fawn ratios and buck ratios also tended to decline through the reporting period (Figure 13, Appendix A). In response to the observed declines in mule deer population trends, number of buck hunters, buck harvest, and buck hunter success rate generally declined through the reporting period (Figure 14, Appendix A).

Lack of improvement in mule deer population parameters does not mean Oregon’s Mule deer Initiative has not been successful. Information collected from Oregon field studies and data collected during routine management shows key population parameters tend to be lower than normal for mule deer and are lower than considered necessary for population maintenance. Adult female survival is often not sufficient to maintain the population (0.80 – 0.84, Jackson et al. 2021) given observed recruitment rates, and is consistently lower than 80% across most of Oregon’s mule deer range (ODFW Unpublished Data, Schuyler et al. 2018). Annual recruitment of fawns estimated during spring surveys is often below 30 fawns:100 adults (ODFW Unpublished Data). Recent work in northeast Oregon suggest poor nutrition is likely having an effect on adult and fawn survival (Merems et al. 2020, Jackson et al. 2021). In Starkey Experimental Forest average mule deer fecundity (number of fetuses per adult doe) was very low for the species at 1.5 fetus per doe (ODFW Unpublished Data) suggesting nutrition may be very poor for mule deer in this area. These observed low values for population parameters in Oregon suggest are suffering from chronic nutritional stress because populations are at or above carrying capacity: the capacity of the habitat to support the current population of deer. Habitat quality and quantity have declined for mule deer since the 1990 and it is unlikely that current habitat condition will support mule deer populations at historic levels.

18

Table 12. Trend in controlled mule deer buck tags in Oregon MDI action areas, 2002 – 2019. Murd. Malh. Steens Beatys Wagon- Inter- Silver Fort Year Maury Ochoco Creek Heppner Keating Beulah River Mtn. Butte tire Warner state Lake Rock 2002 1,315 5,536 1,170 4,597 778 1,907 1,962 309 361 259 810 1,862 2,222 4,301 2003 1,333 5,556 1,277 4,248 699 2,113 1,829 316 372 269 616 1,882 2,222 4,348 2004 1,000 4,444 1,075 4,000 511 1,702 1,469 266 375 272 457 1,505 2,174 3,889 2005 825 4,390 1,080 3,404 504 2,018 1,799 275 373 294 424 1,742 2,200 3,850 2006 768 3,841 1,199 3,410 537 2,466 2,156 273 350 295 410 1,649 2,230 3,850 2007 821 3,843 1,199 3,410 704 2,904 2,156 273 371 295 408 1,647 2,233 3,850 2008 821 3,514 1,199 3,404 489 2,961 1,923 273 314 263 283 1,372 2,233 3,850 2009 385 3,080 1,045 3,405 488 2,974 1,925 273 286 264 303 1,375 2,230 3,300 2010 512 3,080 982 3,429 485 2,750 1,925 409 272 209 420 1,123 2,233 3,300 2011 512 3,079 990 3,427 479 2,369 1,925 411 268 217 419 1,569 2,012 2,750 2012 512 3,074 981 3,647 477 2,374 1,925 401 261 212 420 1,650 2,012 2,750 2013 510 3,080 990 3,701 473 2,371 1,925 403 263 211 450 1,647 2,023 2,750 2014 510 3,080 990 3,702 489 2,647 1,925 413 270 217 447 1,703 2,024 2,750 2015 512 3,070 985 3,704 550 2,651 1,925 268 269 190 527 1,817 2,254 2,750 2016 500 2,905 990 3,694 540 2,490 1,925 260 269 215 530 1,793 2,254 2,750 2017 500 2,750 990 3,779 270 1,618 1,265 263 274 216 531 1,807 2,254 2,750 2018 503 2,585 990 3,775 273 1,655 1,265 265 219 216 531 1,807 2,034 2,750 2019 503 2,585 990 3,713 273 1,502 1,265 265 218 212 511 1,772 2,033 2,750

19

Table 13. Trend in mule deer populations in Oregon MDI action areas, 2002 – 2019. Murd. Malh. Steens Beatys Wagon- Inter- Silver Fort Year Maury Ochoco Creek Heppner Keating Beulah River Mtn. Butte tire Warner state Lake Rock 2002 4,500 18,300 4,950 12,850 2,535 11,300 11,800 6,200 1,700 1,200 4,250 6,900 6,100 7,200 2003 4,700 18,300 5,700 11,500 2,915 11,500 11,750 5,900 1,700 1,000 3,450 6,800 7,100 7,100 2004 4,500 17,800 6,050 10,800 2,362 10,500 10,950 5,600 1,600 1,000 3,000 6,250 7,800 7,850 2005 4,800 17,000 5,700 9,450 2,514 9,500 10,700 5,500 1,500 1,100 2,600 6,000 9,400 9,373 2006 3,800 17,000 5,670 7,560 2,549 11,000 10,700 5,000 1,600 1,250 1,630 6,685 8,500 8,511 2007 3,500 16,500 5,600 7,560 2,713 12,000 12,000 4,000 1,400 1,250 2,270 6,685 8,100 8,090 2008 3,500 16,500 5,600 7,000 2,274 13,000 11,900 4,300 1,400 1,100 1,036 5,841 8,600 8,560 2009 3,000 15,700 6,200 7,100 2,166 12,000 11,800 3,850 1,600 5,214 2,958 6,100 6,400 6,400 2010 3,000 15,500 5,050 7,200 1,950 12,000 11,100 3,700 1,600 1,100 2,389 10,424 6,100 6,100 2011 5,805 16,000 5,303 7,800 1,953 11,000 11,200 3,900 1,600 1,100 3,157 5,675 5,700 5,700 2012 4,297 15,400 5,885 8,015 1,764 10,000 11,150 4,350 1,700 1,100 2,468 4,061 5,400 5,400 2013 5,590 15,000 5,904 8,050 1,926 10,750 11,000 4,800 1,900 5,201 3,814 5,538 8,300 8,300 2014 3,866 14,800 5,699 9,100 2,447 12,250 11,548 5,257 1,900 4,455 1,986 3,816 8,500 8,500 2015 3,800 15,000 6,009 8,200 2,462 12,500 11,544 5,211 1,900 2,946 2,756 4,472 6,005 7,400 2016 5,200 15,000 6,244 7,800 2,433 12,000 11,050 5,300 1,950 2,946 3,997 4,700 7,400 6,005 2017 3,800 8,774 5,817 8,200 719 10,200 9,000 5,200 1,700 2,946 4,000 6,520 6,005 6,005 2018 3,650 8,181 5,858 7,300 1,391 10,800 8,800 5,200 1,600 2,543 3,900 6,500 4,478 4,478 2019 2,996 6,875 5,230 6,350 1,439 7,200 8,600 5,000 1,500 2,543 3,588 6,200 4,500 4,500

20

Figure 13. Average fawn ratio and buck ratio in Oregon MDI action areas, 2002 – 2019.

Figure 14. Average number of hunters, harvest, and success rate in Oregon MDI action areas, 2002 – 2019.

The possibility that mule deer are currently at carrying capacity at least in some parts of their range in Oregon is real. Immerging information indicates that nutrition value of vegetation on the landscape is related with mule deer fitness (Merems et al. 2020, Jackson et al. 2021). Overall nutritional value on the landscape may be lower than needed to support historic mule deer populations (Monteith et al. 2014, ODFW Unpublished Data, Schuyler 2020). Further, available nutritional resources appear to be inadequate to support the energetic demands of a lactating female, but may meet baseline energetic requirements for nutritional maintenance (Merems et al.

21

2020). The low quality forage resources available to mule deer lead to low average population level body fat levels that would suggest a declining population (Merems et al. 2020).

The observed declines in mule deer numbers suggest that populations are likely responding to long term declines in the carrying capacity. The decline in carrying capacity is likely due to interactions of many factors such as those addressed by management actions implemented by MDI, including juniper encroachment, invasive species establishment, and disturbance management. 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 necessary for mule deer population recovery will take time.

Mule deer exhibit strong fidelity to areas they use. Seasonal home ranges and migration paths used by individual varies very little from year to year (ODFW Unpublished Data). Thus the benefits of habitat treatments that improve habitats tend to be realized primarily by those individuals currently using the specific area treated. Individuals in improved areas should survive better and contribute more offspring to the population. However, it will take time to implement treatments covering the entirety of any given population’s entire use area. Thus, mule deer populations themselves will take time to respond to improving habitat conditions and recover to more sustainable levels.

Declines in habitat condition and associated mule deer populations have been further complicated by climate change. Climate change induced drought conditions dominated the report period over much of the area. These conditions tend to lead to changes in both vegetation composition and habitat quality for mule deer. Additionally, available free water and soil moisture may be reduced which further affects available vegetation. For example, at the Starkey Experimental Forest and Range, the growing season for forbs and grasses has declined by ~23 and ~12 days, respectively from the 1990’s to the late 2010’s. Further, the onset of senescence (i.e., curing plant material) of forbs and grasses occurs ~17 and 33 days earlier, respectively during this same time period (ODFW, unpublished data). This data suggests plant productivity and quality have declined over the past 20+ years. Changing temperature and moisture regimes make it extremely difficult to recover vegetation suitable for mule deer. These climate change issues are expected to continue and the net effect will be a prolonged recovery of mule deer habitats. It is likely that mule deer populations will recover to levels lower than observed during the 1980s and 1990s.

An additional impact of climate change is severity of weather events. As temperatures change the intensity of weather events tends to increase, which can lead to periodic severe events like winter 2016-2017. Severe weather events interacting with already stressed deer populations can lead to mortality in local populations creating dramatic population reductions, further prolonging recovery efforts.

An important result of Oregon’s MDI is the continued support we have received from collaborators emphasizing mule deer in their planning efforts. Because the Department formally made mule deer a priority for management and recovery, collaborators were able to leverage resources for projects specifically for mule deer or include mule deer as a secondary species benefitting from projects designed for other species. The magnitude of this support is

22

demonstrated in the resources spent during this reporting period: The state of Oregon through the Department spent $3,018,144 whereas collaborators spent a combined $22,384,212. For every $1 the Department spent nearly $7.5 was leveraged (Appendix B). When combined with mule deer activities from the 2010 – 2014 reporting period, over $53 million has been spent in Oregon on activities designed to directly or indirectly benefit mule deer in a 10 year period. An additional and very important benefit of the MDI is the scale of work being conducted in Oregon. Mule deer are a large landscape species and the changes to habitats leading to declining populations have occurred at the landscape level. As such, efforts to manage or improve habitats for mule deer need to occur at a large enough scale to have an effect at the population level. In this reporting period 387,086 acres-miles-or other units have been treated by only 74 individual projects. This equates to implementation of large enough projects to eventually lead to positive effects on mule deer populations. When coupled with activities from the first five years over 3/4 million acres/units (771,806) have been treated for the benefit of mule deer populations in a 10 year period.

MDI Recommendations

Oregon’s Mule Deer Initiative (MDI) continues to be a successful program addressing some of the factors contributing to the decline of mule deer populations. The MDI has been able to sustain a very high level of interest in mule deer and mule deer habitat management for 10 years. This interest exists in Department managers, federal and private land managers, hunters, and other users that share the mule deer landscape. An important component of this interest is willingness to commit time and money to support all aspects of the MDI effort. Given the duration of the declines in mule deer and their habitats, and given the time it takes to restore habitats and for mule deer populations to respond to improving habitats, the momentum demonstrated during both five year reporting periods of the MDI should continue into the future.

When MDI was established Department biologists identified six primary factors affecting mule deer populations in Oregon. These six factors served as focal points for implementing actions. Focal points included: 1) Habitat Management, 2) Predator Management, 3) Disturbance and Harassment, 4) Law Enforcement, 5) Disease and Parasites, and 6) Population Management. Following are recommendations for future activities by focal point.

Habitat Management

The Department feels that mule deer populations in Oregon are primarily limited by long term declines in the quality and quantity of their habitat due to climate change, loss of summer and winter range due to human development and disturbance, invasive plant species, and impacts from large scale wildfire on lower elevation winter ranges. These declines in habitat have dramatically reduced the carrying capacity of the landscape for mule deer. These limitations are leading to low adult survival, and poor fawn production, survival, and recruitment. Additionally, poor body condition resulting from poor nutrition reduces an animals’ ability to deal with inclement weather such as prolonged drought or severe winter, and may be predisposing animals to predation, increasing the magnitude of these affects and prolonging mule deer population recovery. Therefore, the Department’s priority for MDI in the future will be collaborative implementation of activities that will improve mule deer habitats in an effort to increase carrying

23

capacity for mule deer. Inherent in this priority is conducting activities at the largest scale possible, and expanding the number of WMUs involved where feasible.

Predator Management

Intense predator control can produce an immediate, short term responses in mule deer population Hurley et al. 2011. However, the evidence that predator control successfully increases mule deer populations over an appreciable time frame is inconclusive (Ballard et al. 2001). Further, when prey populations are at landscape carrying capacity predator control activities tend to be ineffective since predation rates are largely compensatory in the prey population (Ballard 2001, Hurley et al 2011, Murphy et al. 2011).

Evidence for positive mule deer population responses to coyote control and cougar control associated with MDI efforts has been anecdotal or inconclusive. Further, evidence indicates mule deer populations are at carrying capacity so predator control is not likely to produce a measurable positive long term effect in mule deer populations. Therefore predator control actions will be a low priority within MDI. However, when conditions indicate there is both a critical need (e.g. deer population is in danger of extirpation) and a high likelihood of a positive mule deer population response (deer population is below carrying capacity and predation is identified as limiting), predator control actions will be considered.

Disturbance and Harassment

Even on a high quality diet, mule deer tend to lose weight in the winter time and rely on fat reserves to make it through a long winter. Most winter ranges for mule deer provide only minimal levels of nutrition. As a result mule deer rely on fat reserves accumulated during summer and fall to make it through winter and spring. Protecting mule deer from harassment and disturbance on winter ranges and spring transition ranges reduces their energy expenditure and slows individual use of stored energy reserves. The desired net effect is to increase the number of animals surviving the winter.

All MDI Committees felt reducing disturbance, particularly during winter and early spring would be beneficial. With landowner/land manager support, the Department will continue to maintain existing winter range closures and maintain existing Travel Management Areas (TMAs) for mule deer. Where feasible new closures and new TMAs will be considered. Additionally, the Department will continue to participate in land use planning processes locally and with federal land management partners to ensure mule deer values are given priority consideration when management decision are made.

Law Enforcement

Information from Oregon studies confirms that illegal killing accounts for a relatively large proportion of known mule deer deaths in some areas (Schuyler et al. 2018). As a result, enhancement of law enforcement presence and actions was a high priority for all local MDI committees. Although no additional enforcement activities are reported during this period, existing levels of enforcement were maintained by the Oregon State Police (OSP). Law

24

enforcement remains a priority for the Department and opportunities to develop additional focused enforcement activities will be considered. To assist with this priority the Department increased funding to OSP for winter range patrols in the future. Additionally, the 2019 legislature approved hiring five new wildlife officers to address poaching issue. Three of these are in eastern Oregon and will add to the enforcement presence on Oregon’s mule deer ranges.

Disease and Parasites

Mule deer are susceptible to a variety of diseases. Most notable are epizootic hemorrhagic disease (EHD), adenovirus hemorrhagic disease (AHD), and chronic wasting disease (CWD). CWD has not been detected in Oregon at this time. EHD and AHD have both been detected in Oregon mule deer and are considered endemic. Diseases and parasites can cause population level impacts to mule deer populations. Impacts can occur as chronic low-level reductions in population performance with low but persistent prevalence rates. Acute disease outbreaks can cause large population losses, sometimes in a short period of time, when all-age die-offs occur. In some cases diseases such as AHD and EHD affect deer populations both chronically and acutely depending on prevailing environmental condition.

Very little can be done to mitigate for most disease and parasite losses to mule deer populations other than for agencies to respond with changes to management strategies for the affected population. Thus knowledge of disease events is critical for effective management. During this reporting period disease monitoring for Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) was increased with sampling of deer and elk as part of the Roadkill Salvage Program. Other monitoring occurs primarily through targeted sampling or follow-up when the Department is notified of potentially sick animals. This existing level of monitoring will continue.

Population Management

Regulation and management of mule deer in Oregon is dependent on mule deer population data such as population size and structure, harvest data, and data on factors affecting mule deer habitat quality and quantity. Collection of all relevant data for mule deer management will remain a high priority for the Department as MDI continues to move forward and expands in Oregon. This effort will include continued implementation of improved monitoring methods that provide more scientifically rigorous estimates of key parameters at the herd range level in Oregon.

As population and harvest data are collected the Department will continue to respond as needed with potential regulatory changes. Mule deer harvest regulations will continue to be evaluated annually as part of the Department’s normal hunting season setting processes. Data from herd range development studies will continue to help direct and improve monitoring processes and will be used to monitor MDI activities for improvements in mule deer populations.

25

Literature Cited

Ballard, W. B., D. Lutz, T. W. Keegan, L. H. Carpenter, and J. C. deVos, Jr. 2001. Deer- predator relationships: a review of recent North American studies with emphasis on mule and black-tailed deer. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29(1):99-115.

Hurley, M. A. J, W. Unsworth, P. Zager, M. Hebblewhite, E. O. Garton, D. M. Montgomery, J. R. Skalski, and C. Maycock. 2011. Demographic Response of Mule Deer to Experimental Reduction of Coyotes and Mountain Lions in Southeastern Idaho. Wildlife Monographs 178:1-33.

Jackson, N. J., K. M. Stewart, M. J. Wisdom, D. A. Clark, and M. M. Rowland. 2021. Demographic performance of a large herbivore: effects of winter nutrition and weather. Ecosphere 12(1): 1 – 20.

Mace, R. U., R. Denny, and R. Ingram. 1995. Big Game History: 1890 – 1990. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Salem, Oregon, USA. 40 pp.

Merems J. L., L. A. Shipley, T. Levi, J. Ruprecht, D. A. Clark, MJ Wisdom, N. J. Jackson, K. M. Stewart, and R. A. Long. 2020. Nutritional-Landscape Models Link Habitat Use to Condition of Mule Deer (Odocoileus hemionus). Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 8:98.

Monteith, K. L., V. C. Bleich, T. R. Stevenson, B. M. Pierce, M. M. Conner, J. G. Kie, and T. - Bowyer. 2014. Life-History Characteristics of Mule Deer: Effects of Nutrition in a Variable Environment. Wildlife Monographs 186(1):1–62.

Murphy, K. M., M. S. Nadeau, and T. K. Ruth. 2011. Cougar–Prey Relationships. Pages 41–70 in J. A. Jenks, editor. Managing Cougars in North America. Jack H. Berryman Institute, Utah State University, Logan, Utah, USA.

ODFW, 2006. Oregon Conservation Strategy. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Salem, Oregon. 372 p.

ODFW, 2011. Oregon Mule Deer Initiative. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Salem, Oregon. 128p.

ODFW, 2015. Oregon Mule Deer Initiative 5 Year Summary 2010 – 2014. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Salem, Oregon. 87p.

Schuyler, E. M. 2020. The Influence of Wildfire and Invasive Vegetation on Mule Deer. Dissertation, Oregon State University, Corvallis Oregon. 145 pp.

Schuyler, E. M., K. M. Dugger, and D. H. Jackson. 2019. Effects of Distribution, Behavior, and Climate on Mule Deer Survival. Journal of Wildlife Management 83(1):89–99.

26

27

Appendix A: Population and harvest information for MDI action area WMU’s in Oregon 2002 – 2019.

In some instances there are extreme variations in ODFW’s observed population data. This information comes from a variety of sources including various aerial and ground surveys, and unit specific population models. Movements and distribution of mule deer are subject to weather events and extreme weather can cause extreme variations in survey results, which in turn can cause extreme variation in population estimates. Further, as this information informs our population models it can lead potentially wide swing in resulting estimates. A source of additional variation in population data is the evolution of survey methodology and modeling techniques. In most units changes have occurred to both the models used to estimate populations, and to the survey methods used to inform the models as methods have improved. Typically, however, observed variations and/or population swings are short (one year). With this knowledge of factors effecting estimates, populations are best evaluated using a long time duration. Thus we present population information to include a broader time frame than just the MDI reporting periods. Values for Buck Hunters, Bucks Harvested, and % Success include controlled buck hunting opportunities and general archery hunting opportunities.

Unit 36 Maury: Mule deer population and mule deer buck harvest trend 2002 - 2019. % Change in Fawns:100 Bucks:100 Buck Bucks % Year Population Population Does Does Hunters Harvested Success 2002 4,500 56 13 1,182 267 23% 2003 4,700 4% 60 18 1,202 239 20% 2004 4,500 -4% 56 13 833 210 25% 2005 4,800 6% 52 12 770 193 25% 2006 3,800 -23% 62 11 806 222 28% 2007 3,500 -8% 64 18 841 258 31% 2008 3,500 0% 55 21 907 235 26% 2009 3,000 -15% 56 17 601 157 26% 2010 3,000 0% 58 12 386 176 46% 2011 5,805 66% 57 16 348 136 39% 2012 4,297 -30% 73 26 489 172 35% 2013 5,590 26% 52 18 488 195 40% 2014 3,866 -37% 67 16 508 180 35% 2015 3,800 -2% 61 26 479 138 29% 2016 5,200 31% 55 30 454 140 31% 2017 3,800 -31% 48 24 428 123 29% 2018 3,650 -4% 67 23 436 135 31% 2019 2,996 -20% 54 22 403 104 26% Average -2% 58 19 642 182 30%

28

Unit 37 Ochoco: Mule deer population and mule deer buck harvest trend 2002 - 2019. % Change in Fawns:100 Bucks:100 Buck Bucks % Year Population Population Does Does Hunters Harvested Success 2002 18,300 54 12 5,700 952 17% 2003 17,800 0% 54 12 6,018 1,185 20% 2004 17,000 -3% 56 15 4,883 956 20% 2005 17,000 -5% 61 14 4,823 1,113 23% 2006 16,500 0% 70 16 3,769 933 25% 2007 16,500 -3% 51 19 3,741 969 26% 2008 15,700 0% 65 13 3,403 820 24% 2009 15,700 -5% 54 9 3,108 785 25% 2010 15,500 -1% 57 14 3,077 705 23% 2011 16,000 3% 64 18 2,918 888 30% 2012 15,400 -4% 45 19 2,980 708 24% 2013 15,000 -3% 65 20 3,036 951 31% 2014 14,800 -1% 62 20 3,001 770 26% 2015 15,000 1% 60 16 2,952 754 26% 2016 9,919 0% 51 21 2,819 574 20% 2017 8,774 -54% 56 20 2,607 477 18% 2018 8,181 -7% 60 15 2,536 565 22% 2019 6,875 -17% 51 19 2,283 397 17% Average -6% 57 16 3,536 806 23%

Unit 46 Murderers Creek: Mule deer population and mule deer buck harvest trend 2002 - 2019. % Change in Fawns:100 Bucks:100 Buck Bucks % Year Population Population Does Does Hunters Harvested Success 2002 4,950 54 11 1,881 510 27% 2003 5,700 14% 85 16 1,985 730 37% 2004 6,050 6% 78 11 2,122 547 26% 2005 5,700 -6% 73 12 2,042 515 25% 2006 5,670 -1% 75 16 1,710 753 44% 2007 5,600 -1% 49 16 2,078 728 35% 2008 5,600 0% 50 12 1,996 726 36% 2009 6,200 10% 62 12 2,009 566 28% 2010 5,050 -21% 72 14 2,170 628 29% 2011 5,303 5% 58 16 1,736 604 35% 2012 5,885 10% 60 16 1,648 536 33% 2013 5,904 0% 48 13 1,762 596 34% 2014 5,699 -4% 64 17 1,708 603 35% 2015 6,009 5% 62 15 1,542 577 37% 2016 6,244 4% 59 17 1,572 536 34% 2017 5,817 -7% 50 20 1,671 590 35% 2018 5,858 1% 53 16 1,740 558 32% 2019 5,230 -11% 55 17 1,623 525 32% Average 0% 61 15 1,833 602 33%

29

Unit 48 Heppner: Mule deer population and mule deer buck harvest trend 2002 - 2019. % Change in Fawns:100 Bucks:100 Buck Bucks % Year Population Population Does Does Hunters Harvested Success 2002 12,850 37 9 4,936 1,342 27% 2003 11,500 -11% 43 16 4,153 894 22% 2004 10,800 -6% 45 10 3,707 754 20% 2005 9,450 -13% 45 9 3,198 1,224 38% 2006 7,560 -22% 52 14 3,327 1,080 32% 2007 7,560 0% 46 10 3,317 1,145 35% 2008 7,000 -8% 49 15 3,297 1,077 33% 2009 7,100 1% 56 15 3,609 1,025 28% 2010 7,200 1% 54 12 3,529 952 27% 2011 7,800 8% 64 13 3,484 1,075 31% 2012 8,015 3% 60 17 3,796 1,036 27% 2013 8,050 0% 51 17 3,932 1,056 27% 2014 9,100 12% 47 15 3,931 948 24% 2015 8,200 -10% 46 17 3,982 961 24% 2016 7,800 -5% 39 23 3,891 765 20% 2017 8,200 5% 34 22 3,768 589 16% 2018 7,300 -12% 54 19 3,853 672 17% 2019 6,350 -14% 36 11 3,356 425 13% Average -4% 48 15 3,726 946 26%

Unit 63 Keating: Mule deer population and mule deer buck harvest trend 2002 - 2019. % Change in Fawns:100 Bucks:100 Buck Bucks % Year Population Population Does Does Hunters Harvested Success 2002 2,535 943 329 35% 2003 2,915 14% 42 8 821 408 50% 2004 2,362 -21% 45 12 706 285 40% 2005 2,514 6% 50 16 661 436 66% 2006 2,549 1% 59 10 729 298 41% 2007 2,713 6% 50 19 918 463 50% 2008 2,274 -18% 45 15 737 248 34% 2009 2,166 -5% 57 19 806 289 36% 2010 1,950 -11% 35 14 658 291 44% 2011 1,953 0% 48 16 705 202 29% 2012 1,764 -10% 44 14 683 298 44% 2013 1,926 9% 48 13 698 320 46% 2014 2,447 24% 60 19 741 372 50% 2015 2,462 1% 50 25 710 364 51% 2016 2,433 -1% 46 13 732 353 48% 2017 719 -122% 52 12 514 141 27% 2018 1,391 66% 45 12 534 184 34% 2019 1,439 3% 59 18 550 227 41% Average -3% 49 15 714 306 43%

30

Unit 65 Beulah: Mule deer population and mule deer buck harvest trend 2002 - 2019. % Change in Fawns:100 Bucks:100 Buck Bucks % Year Population Population Does Does Hunters Harvested Success 2002 11,300 53 15 2,538 1,141 45% 2003 11,500 2% 57 19 2,613 1,165 45% 2004 10,500 -9% 51 17 2,335 917 39% 2005 9,500 -10% 55 22 2,341 1,213 52% 2006 11,000 15% 73 25 3,094 1,457 47% 2007 12,000 9% 69 24 3,097 1,724 56% 2008 13,000 8% 32 20 3,350 1,375 41% 2009 12,000 -8% 45 13 3,320 1,418 43% 2010 12,000 0% 58 14 2,941 1,392 47% 2011 11,000 -9% 51 14 2,608 1,078 41% 2012 10,000 -10% 50 14 2,808 1,250 45% 2013 10,750 7% 53 15 2,692 1,110 41% 2014 12,250 13% 48 15 2,911 1,379 47% 2015 12,500 2% 65 14 2,978 1,324 44% 2016 12,000 -4% 43 13 2,827 1,174 42% 2017 10,200 -16% 44 14 1,851 543 29% 2018 10,800 6% 38 14 1,936 639 33% 2019 7,200 -41% 42 13 1,937 691 36% Average -3% 51 17 2,676 1,166 43%

Unit 66 Malheur River: Mule deer population and mule deer buck harvest trend 2002 - 2019. % Change in Fawns:100 Bucks:100 Buck Bucks % Year Population Population Does Does Hunters Harvested Success 2002 11,800 70 15 2,606 891 34% 2003 11,750 0% 53 14 2,172 535 25% 2004 10,950 -7% 47 10 1,920 469 24% 2005 10,700 -2% 63 16 2,181 942 43% 2006 10,700 0% 76 21 2,419 846 35% 2007 12,000 11% 68 20 2,726 1,117 41% 2008 11,900 -1% 33 15 2,158 711 33% 2009 11,800 -1% 60 11 2,370 810 34% 2010 11,100 -6% 63 19 2,289 926 40% 2011 11,200 1% 61 11 2,349 923 39% 2012 11,150 0% 64 16 2,274 960 42% 2013 11,000 -1% 59 14 2,225 792 36% 2014 11,548 5% 56 12 2,279 902 40% 2015 11,544 0% 69 18 2,271 920 41% 2016 11,050 -4% 46 32 2,273 877 39% 2017 9,000 -21% 47 13 1,580 434 27% 2018 8,800 -2% 49 14 1,701 498 29% 2019 8,600 -2% 46 16 1,633 435 27% Average -2% 57 16 2,190 777 35%

31

Unit 69 Steens Mountain: Mule deer population and mule deer buck harvest trend 2002 - 2019. % Change in Fawns:100 Bucks:100 Buck Bucks % Year Population Population Does Does Hunters Harvested Success 2002 6,200 64.6 21.8 485 247 51% 2003 5,900 -5% 54.7 24.0 463 181 39% 2004 5,600 -5% 44.0 34.3 382 149 39% 2005 5,500 -2% 55.1 51.4 400 164 41% 2006 5,000 -10% 69.5 29.2 428 210 49% 2007 4,000 -22% 59.3 47.0 388 162 42% 2008 4,300 7% 34.8 29.4 360 128 36% 2009 3,850 -11% 67.5 27.5 425 148 35% 2010 3,700 -4% 57.0 37.0 383 140 37% 2011 3,900 5% 57.9 26.9 366 166 45% 2012 4,350 11% 65.6 27.2 378 183 48% 2013 4,800 10% 37.5 35.0 376 175 47% 2014 5,257 9% 51.5 31.5 410 185 45% 2015 5,211 -1% 61.3 34.7 405 211 52% 2016 5,300 2% 40.6 27.9 393 198 50% 2017 5,200 -2% 45.1 32.2 383 153 40% 2018 5,200 0% 47.4 34.9 392 143 36% 2019 5,000 -4% 44.3 31.0 381 144 38% Average -1% 53 32 400 171 43%

Unit 70 Beatys Butte: Mule deer population and mule deer buck harvest trend 2002 - 2019. % Change in Fawns:100 Bucks:100 Buck Bucks % Year Population Population Does Does Hunters Harvested Success 2002 1,700 413 182 44% 2003 1,700 0% 55 14 433 165 38% 2004 1,600 -6% 52 18 408 159 39% 2005 1,500 -6% 52 27 397 153 39% 2006 1,600 6% 61 15 405 166 41% 2007 1,400 -13% 40 32 452 180 40% 2008 1,400 0% 25 27 453 214.7 47% 2009 1,600 13% 73 11 343 130 38% 2010 1,600 0% 59 15 295 131 44% 2011 1,600 0% 45 15 325 172 53% 2012 1,700 6% 55 20 323 179 55% 2013 1,900 11% 53 30 302 156 52% 2014 1,900 0% 45 16 288 151 52% 2015 1,900 0% 56 17 281 135 48% 2016 1,950 3% 48 21 284 131 46% 2017 1,700 -14% 60 13 296 117 40% 2018 1,600 -6% 35 20 257 89 35% 2019 1,500 -6% 34 25 228 76 33% Average -1% 50 20 344 149 44%

32

Unit 73 Wagontire: Mule deer population and mule deer buck harvest trend 2002 - 2019. % Change in Fawns:100 Bucks:100 Buck Bucks % Year Population Population Does Does Hunters Harvested Success 2002 1,200 61 20 289 135 47% 2003 1,000 -18% 31 20 359 119 33% 2004 1,000 0% 49 19 383 149 39% 2005 1,100 10% 66 18 328 162 49% 2006 1,250 13% 83 17 434 196 45% 2007 1,250 0% 34 19 388 134 35% 2008 1,100 -13% 20 18 338 96 28% 2009 5,214 156% 45 16 290 93 32% 2010 1,100 -156% 55 8 242 57 24% 2011 1,100 0% 44 17 248 101 41% 2012 1,100 0% 64 29 311 114 37% 2013 5,201 155% 45 0 306 114 37% 2014 4,455 -15% 40 10 265 113 43% 2015 2,946 -41% 49 15 232 94 41% 2016 2,946 0% 40 18 267 116 43% 2017 2,946 0% 72 14 267 98 37% 2018 2,543 -15% 48 11 274 83 30% 2019 2,543 0% 25 25 243 52 21% Average 4% 48 16 304 113 37%

Unit 74 Warner: Mule deer population and mule deer buck harvest trend 2002 - 2019. % Change in Fawns:100 Bucks:100 Buck Bucks % Year Population Population Does Does Hunters Harvested Success 2002 4250 66.4 19.0 920 295 32% 2003 3450 -21% 40.6 21.7 757 275 36% 2004 3000 -14% 55.4 12.5 546 150 27% 2005 2600 -14% 56.1 14.7 552 224 41% 2006 1630 -47% 70.4 18.4 491 172 35% 2007 2270 33% 48.3 23.7 505 182 36% 2008 1036 -78% 36.7 13.7 453 132 29% 2009 2958 105% 49.6 14.6 396 148 37% 2010 2389 -21% 59.9 24.1 344 132 38% 2011 3157 28% 56.0 16.5 312 166 53% 2012 2468 -25% 51.0 23.3 368 168 46% 2013 3814 44% 56.3 25.0 391 191 49% 2014 1986 -65% 59.0 27.5 411 219 53% 2015 2756 33% 55.8 39.2 474 213 45% 2016 3997 37% 49.9 22.4 448 236 53% 2017 4000 0% 51.5 29.7 440 196 45% 2018 3900 -3% 52.4 21.2 443 177 40% 2019 3588 -8% 52.4 21.2 380 138 36% Average -1% 54 22 479 190 41%

33

Unit 75 Interstate: Mule deer population and mule deer buck harvest trend 2002 - 2019. % Change in Fawns:100 Bucks:100 Buck Bucks % Year Population Population Does Does Hunters Harvested Success 2002 6,900 75.8 24.2 2,055 740 36% 2003 6,800 -1% 48.7 18.5 1,974 683 35% 2004 6,250 -8% 62.8 15.5 1,535 567 37% 2005 6,000 -4% 73.5 16.3 2,033 948 47% 2006 6,685 11% 113.4 18.4 1,968 740 38% 2007 6,685 0% 62.0 20.3 1,910 808 42% 2008 5,841 -13% 38.9 17.8 1,620 603 37% 2009 6,100 4% 65.7 19.4 1,790 734 41% 2010 10,424 54% 44.2 15.4 1,425 423 30% 2011 5,675 -61% 66.8 20.9 1,794 806 45% 2012 4,061 -33% 52.5 24.3 1,939 751 39% 2013 5,538 31% 56.4 21.2 1,954 950 49% 2014 3,816 -37% 59.2 19.5 2,056 958 47% 2015 4,472 16% 57.1 20.5 2,173 1,007 46% 2016 4,700 5% 52.2 21.6 2,163 995 46% 2017 6,520 33% 49.9 24.0 2,124 714 34% 2018 6,500 0% 42.6 15.0 2,060 713 35% 2019 6,200 -5% 38.1 12.7 2,024 522 26% Average -1% 59 19 1,922 759 39%

Unit 76 Silver Lake: Mule deer population and mule deer buck harvest trend 2002 - 2019. % Change in Fawns:100 Bucks:100 Buck Bucks % Year Population Population Does Does Hunters Harvested Success 2002 6,100 69 10 1,785 314 18% 2003 7,100 15% 40 18 1,926 210 11% 2004 7,800 9% 64 13 1,756 283 16% 2005 9,400 19% 64 22 1,840 476 26% 2006 8,500 -10% 64 20 1,803 325 18% 2007 8,100 -5% 49 21 1,835 318 17% 2008 8,600 6% 61 19 1,864 329 18% 2009 6,400 -30% 56 18 1,780 344 19% 2010 6,100 -5% 55 16 1,910 337 18% 2011 5,700 -7% 43 13 1,645 362 22% 2012 5,400 -5% 48 19 1,632 321 20% 2013 8,300 43% 74 19 1,646 501 30% 2014 8,500 2% 61 25 1,733 451 26% 2015 6,005 -35% 63 23 1,907 449 24% 2016 7,400 21% 55 17 1,907 355 19% 2017 6,005 -21% 45 18 1,795 254 14% 2018 4,478 -29% 48 17 1,655 335 20% 2019 4,500 0% 48 17 1,596 205 13% Average -2% 56 18 1,779 343 19%

34

Unit 77 Fort Rock: Mule deer population and mule deer buck harvest trend 2002 - 2019. % Change in Fawns:100 Bucks:100 Buck Bucks % Year Population Population Does Does Hunters Harvested Success 2002 9,000 63 17 4,966 694 14% 2003 6,800 -28% 52 20 4,358 529 12% 2004 8,000 16% 57 15 3,786 864 23% 2005 11,000 32% 67 20 3,743 969 26% 2006 8,600 -25% 76 21 3,793 396 10% 2007 5,800 -39% 59 20 3,536 638 18% 2008 7,800 30% 69 20 3,543 334 9% 2009 5,600 -33% 51 21 3,122 356 11% 2010 5,300 -6% 53 26 2,985 243 8% 2011 5,700 7% 45 14 2,615 516 20% 2012 3,000 -64% 61 23 2,718 401 15% 2013 5,300 57% 56 29 2,859 511 18% 2014 5,500 4% 49 19 2,814 462 16% 2015 4,600 -18% 64 28 2,758 525 19% 2016 4,600 0% 49 25 2,748 452 16% 2017 5,264 13% 45 22 2,670 313 12% 2018 3,753 -34% 58 22 2,658 392 15% 2019 3,800 1% 57 22 2,597 213 8% Average -4% 57 21 3,237 489 15%

35

Appendix B: Actions, units treated, and source of funds by Wildlife Management Unit to implement Oregon’s Mule Deer Initiative, 2015 – 2019.

Units treated and source of funds for MDI actions implemented in the Maury (36) and Ochoco (37) WMUs 2015 – 2019. Fund Source Units Action Treated Federal State County NGO Private Other Total Juniper Removal (acres) 101,952 $7,251,885 $708,829 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,960,714 Weed/Invasive Species 1,064 $38,709 $36,642 $0 $0 $0 $0 $75,351 Control (acres) Shrub/Grass Seeding (acres) 415 $35,500 $4,686 $0 $0 $0 $0 $40,186 Timber Stand Improvement 14 $9,015 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9,015 (acres) Prescribed burning (acres) 342 $0 $10,602 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,602 Spring Development (each) 10 $10,565 $33,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $43,565 Pipeline Installation (miles) 2 $10,414 $4,900 $0 $0 $0 $0 $15,314 Ochoco/Maury Total 103,799 $7,356,088 $798,659 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,154,747

Units treated and source of funds for MDI actions implemented in the Murderers Creek (46) WMU 2015 – 2019. Fund Source Units Action Treated Federal State County NGO Private Other Total Juniper Removal (acres) 2,443 $152,547 $67,478 $0 $60,429 $0 $0 $280,454 Weed/Invasive Species 5,000 $0 $158,733 $0 $0 $0 $0 $158,733 Control (acres) Shrub/Grass Seeding (acres) 9,304 $568,154 $237,899 $0 $0 $0 $0 $806,054 Aspen/Meadow 30 $104,370 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $104,370 Enhancement (acres) Timber Stand Improvement 645 $119,385 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $119,385 (acres) Juniper Piling/burning 110 $10,699 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,699 (acres) Equipment & Supplies $0 $63,986 $0 $0 $0 $0 $63,986 Spring Development (each) 6 $8,400 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,400 Guzzler Repairs (each) 8 $8,400 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,400 Shrub Seed Collection (lbs.) 92 $0 $6,300 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,300 Pipeline Installation (miles) 3 $21,139 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $21,139 Murders Creek Total 17,641 $993,094 $534,396 $0 $60,429 $0 $0 $1,587,919

36

Units treated and source of funds for MDI actions implemented in the Heppner (48) WMU 2015 – 2019. Fund Source Units Action Treated Federal State County NGO Private Other Total Juniper Removal (acres) 301 $22,154 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $22,154 Weed/Invasive Species 1,863 $48,600 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $48,600 Control (acres) Shrub/Grass Seeding (acres) 3,215 $260,000 $8,330 $0 $0 $0 $0 $268,330 Aspen/Meadow 2 $3,942 $5,600 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9,542 Enhancement (acres) Timber Stand Improvement 1,625 $836,617 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $836,617 (acres) Juniper Piling/burning 498 $0 $46,620 $0 $0 $0 $0 $46,620 (acres) Spring Development (each) 16 $14,124 $4,944 $0 $0 $0 $0 $19,068 Fence Construction (miles) 12 $25,950 $92,456 $0 $0 $0 $0 $118,406 Pipeline Installation (miles) 4 $22,645 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $22,645 Heppner Total 7,535 $1,234,032 $157,950 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,391,982

Units treated and source of funds for MDI actions implemented in the Keating (63) WMU 2015 – 2019. Fund Source Units Action Treated Federal State County NGO Private Other Total Weed/Invasive Species 302 $22,933 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $22,933 Control (acres) Timber Stand Improvement 265 $73,632 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $73,632 (acres) Juniper Piling/burning 159 $23,787 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $23,787 (acres) Shrub/Grass Seeding (acres) 203 $66,855 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $66,855 Keating Total 929 $187,208 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $187,208

Units treated and source of funds for MDI actions implemented in the Beulah (65) and Malheur (66) WMUs 2015 – 2019. Fund Source Units Action Treated Federal State County NGO Private Other Total Juniper Removal (acres) 4,778 $1,730,400 $42,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,772,400 Shrub/Grass Seeding (acres) 128,793 $3,863,777 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,863,777 Weed/Invasive Species 6,160 $0 $142,600 $0 $0 $0 $0 $142,600 Control (acres) Timber Stand Improvement 650 $0 $65,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $65,000 (acres) Feral Horse Removal (each) 221 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Beulah/Malheur River Total 140,602 $5,594,177 $249,600 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,843,777

37

Units treated and source of funds for MDI actions implemented in the Steens Mountain (69) WMU 2015 – 2019. Fund Source Units Action Treated Federal State County NGO Private Other Total Juniper Removal (acres) 4,897 $1,202,800 $760,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,962,800 Shrub/Grass Seeding (acres) 35,121 $1,053,625 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,053,625 Feral Horse Removal (each) 460 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Cougar Control 30 $0 $39,821 $0 $0 $0 $0 $39,821 Steens Mtn Total 40,508 $2,256,425 $799,821 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,056,246

Units treated and source of funds for MDI actions implemented in the Beatys Butte (70) WMU 2015 – 2019. Fund Source Units Action Treated Federal State County NGO Private Other Total Juniper Removal (acres) 578 $61,034 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $61,034 Beatys Butte Total 578 $61,034 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $61,034

Units treated and source of funds for MDI actions implemented in the Wagontire (73) WMU 2015 – 2019. Fund Source Units Action Treated Federal State County NGO Private Other Total Alfalfa Seeding (acres) 85 $0 $4,488 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,488 Wagontire Total 85 $0 $4,488 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,488

Units treated and source of funds for MDI actions implemented in the Warner (74) WMU 2015 – 2019. Fund Source Units Action Treated Federal State County NGO Private Other Total Juniper Removal 12,998 $915,497 $32,253 $0 $12,000 $12,000 $0 $971,750 (acres) Timber Stand 811 $309,506 $0 $29,652 $0 $32,271 $0 $371,429 Improvement (acres) Aspen/Meadow 5,304 $1,116,865 $0 $84,875 $150,000 $0 $107,751 $1,459,491 Enhancement (acres) Alfalfa Seeding (acres) 407 $0 $14,120 $0 $0 $0 $0 $14,120 Shrub/Grass Seeding 720 $14,100 $6,766 $0 $0 $0 $0 $20,866 (acres) Weed/Invasive Species 6,758 $177,733 $49,432 $0 $0 $0 $0 $227,165 Control (acres) Forest Health Survey 37,580 $44,000 $12,250 $0 $0 $0 $0 $56,250 (acres) Cougar Control 15 $0 $0 $0 $24,927 $0 $0 $24,927 Guzzler Repairs (each) 6 $0 $0 $0 $6,648 $0 $0 $6,648 Warner Total 64,599 $2,577,700 $114,821 $114,527 $193,575 $44,271 $107,751 $3,152,645

38

Units treated and source of funds for MDI actions implemented in the Interstate (75) WMU 2015 – 2019. Fund Source Units Action Treated Federal State County NGO Private Other Total Juniper Removal (acres) 4,656 $412,950 $32,070 $0 $0 $6,000 $0 $451,020 Alfalfa Seeding (acres) 15 $0 $600 $0 $0 $0 $0 $600 Weed/Invasive Species 2,193 $0 $88,871 $0 $0 $0 $0 $88,871 Control (acres) Cougar Control 62 $0 $9,593 $0 $4,806 $0 $0 $14,399 Shrub/Grass Seeding (acres) 783 $0 $59,078 $0 $0 $0 $0 $59,078 Interstate Total 7,709 $412,950 $190,212 $0 $4,806 $6,000 $0 $613,968

Units treated and source of funds for MDI actions implemented in the Fort Rock (77) WMU 2015 – 2019. Fund Source Units Action Treated Federal State County NGO Private Other Total Juniper Removal (acres) 40 $0 $8,460 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,460 Timber Stand Improvement 539 $89,835 $0 $0 $0 $1,200 $0 $91,035 (acres) Riparian Enhancement 146 $139,101 $0 $0 $0 $4,008 $0 $143,109 (acres) Scab Rock/ Mt Mahogany 493 $164,603 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $164,603 Improvement (acres) Meadow Enhancement 113 $17,074 $18,500 $0 $20,000 $12,600 $0 $68,174 (acres) Alfalfa Seeding (acres) 450 $0 $15,151 $0 $0 $0 $0 $15,151 Shrub/Grass Seeding (acres) 75 $0 $2,938 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,938 Archeology Surveys (acres) 302 $7,917 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,917 Spring Development (each) 1 $5,315 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,315 Guzzler Repairs (each) 12 $4,034 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,034 Fence Construction (miles) 2 $30,130 $6,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $36,130 Water Trough Replacement 4 $3,025 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,025 (each) Well Drilling (feet) 645 $40,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $40,000 Road Decommissioning 3 $10,541 $7,958 $0 $0 $0 $0 $18,499 (miles) Road Closure (miles) 13 $13,780 $1,890 $0 $0 $0 $0 $15,670 Road Rehabilitation (miles) 15 $6,579 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,579 Wildlife undercrossing 1 $367,000 $100,000 $0 $205,000 $0 $0 $672,000 Highway 97 Gilchrist (each) Fort Rock Total 2,854 $898,934 $160,897 $0 $225,000 $17,808 $0 $1,302,639

39

Units treated and source of funds for MDI actions implemented in the Silver Lake (76) WMU 2015 – 2019. Fund Source Units Action Treated Federal State County NGO Private Other Total Alfalfa Seeding (acres) 150 $0 $7,300 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,300 Riparian Enhancement 97 $38,405 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $38,405 (acres) Silver Lake Total 247 $38,405 $7,300 $0 $0 $0 $0 $45,705

40