Gore Pass Elk Herd Management Plan

Home , Park Range (Colorado), Rabbit Ears Pass, Sarvis Creek Wilderness

DRAFT GORE PASS ELK HERD MANAGEMENT PLAN

DATA ANALYSIS UNIT E–07

GAME MANAGEMENT UNITS 15 & 27

PREPARED FOR COLORADO PARKS AND WILDLIFE

JEFF YOST and NATHANIEL MEADOWS

THIS PLAN WAS APPROVED BY THE COLORADO PARKS AND WILDLIFE COMMISSION ON XXXXXX

DRAFT E-07 HERD MANAGEMENT PLAN

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Gore Pass Elk Herd (DAU E-7) GMUs: 15 & 27 Posthunt Population: Previous Objective: 4,000-5,000 elk; 2019 Estimate: 4,697 elk. Preferred Alternative: 4,000–5,000 elk

Posthunt Sex Ratio (Bulls: 100 Cows): Previous Objective: 24-28; Posthunt 2019 observed: 22.5; modeled: 18.7. Preferred Alternative: 24–28 bulls: 100 cows Expected (OTC Unit)

8,000

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

NUMBER OF ELK OF NUMBER 3,000

2,000

1999 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 YEAR 1500 E-7 Population Estimate Figure 1. E-7 modeled post hunt population and objective range, 1986-2019.

1400 1200 1000 800 600

400 NUMBER OF ELK OF NUMBER 200

1992 2005 2018 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2019 YEAR Bulls Cow & Calf Total

Figure 2. E-7 harvest estimates, 1986-2019.

40 35 30 25 20 15 10 BULLS: 100 COWS 100 BULLS: 5

1992 2005 2018 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2019 YEAR Observed Sex Ratio Objective Range Modeled Figure 3. E-7 Observed and Modeled Bulls: 100 Cows, 1986-2019.

DRAFT E-07 HERD MANAGEMENT PLAN

Background Information Gore Pass DAU E-7 is comprised of GMUs 15 and 27 and includes all or portions of Grand, Routt, Jackson, and Eagle counties. Approximately 37% of E-7 is privately owned, while the remaining 63% is managed by a variety of state and federal land management agencies. The DAU straddles the Gore Range Divide between the Yampa River drainage and the Muddy Creek drainage. Elevations range from nearly 11,000 feet along the center of the DAU to below 7,000 feet on the edges of the DAU. Lower elevations are generally used for agricultural production, while higher elevations are grazed by livestock during summer months. The communities around the perimeter of the DAU include Steamboat Springs, Oak Creek, Yampa, and Kremmling. The E-7 elk population reached its peak of approximately 7,000 elk in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s. As a result of intentional strategies to increase harvest, the population has decreased and generally remained within or near the objective range since 2010. The bull: cow ratio has increased over time in response to limited 4th season cow and either-sex harvest. Calf: cow ratios are generally stable. Significant Issues Significant issues that affect the E-7 elk population include increasing residential development on important winter ranges and increasing recreational activity year round leading to both direct and indirect habitat loss that including beetle kill and wildfire. The long-term observed calf: cow ratio has declined slightly from 1986-2019 but is generally stable. Human pressure from both hunting and non-hunting activities on public lands push elk onto private lands leading to game damage by elk on private land. Management Alternatives The current management objectives for E-7 are 4,000–5,000 elk and 24-28 bulls: 100 cows. Note that the current designation for sex ratio in over the counter (OTC) license units is considered “expected” rather than a goal that can be achieved in OTC units. These objectives were set through a complete Herd Management Planning process in 2004. There is substantial internal CPW and public support for maintaining these current management objectives. Herd Management Plans with strong support for current status and objectives do not require a full revision and may simply be extended through a streamlined amendment process. In 2018, an abbreviated public outreach process was completed that included a public survey and input from Upper Yampa and Middle Park HPP Committees, the United States Forest Service, and Colorado State Land Board. All the HPP Committees and land management agencies, as well as 60% of public survey respondents supported maintaining the current objectives and extending the current management objectives.

DRAFT E-07 HERD MANAGEMENT PLAN

CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... i Background Information...... ii Significant Issues ...... ii Management Alternatives ...... ii INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE ...... 1 GORE PASS ELK DATA ANALYSIS UNIT DESCRIPTION ...... 2 Location ...... 2 Physiography ...... 3 Land Status ...... 5 HABITAT RESOURCE AND CAPABILITIES ...... 7 Habitat Distribution ...... 7 Habitat Condition and Capability ...... 10 Conflicts with Agriculture ...... 13 HERD MANAGEMENT HISTORY, ISSUES AND STRATEGIES...... 15 Overview of Procedures to Estimate Population Size ...... 15 Post-hunt Population Size ...... 15 Post-hunt Herd Composition...... 16 Harvest and Hunters ...... 17 Past Management Strategies ...... 3 Current Issues ...... 4 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ...... 6 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES AND NEW OBJECTIVES ...... 7 LITERATURE CITED ...... I APPENDIX I: POPULATION DYNAMICS, MAXIMUM SUSTAINED YIELD, AND DENSITY DEPENDENCE...... II APPENDIX II: COMMENT LETTERS...... IV APPENDIX III PUBLIC SURVEY ...... VIII APPENDIX IV PUBLIC SURVEY RESULTS ...... XI

DRAFT E-07 HERD MANAGEMENT PLAN

FIGURES FIGURE 1. CPW'S MANAGEMENT BY OBJECTIVE PROCESS TO MANAGE BIG GAME POPULATIONS BY DATA ANALYSIS UNIT...... 1 FIGURE 2. LOCATION OF DAU E-7...... 3 FIGURE 3. RUNNING AVERAGE SNOWFALL IN E-7 1981 - 2016...... 4 FIGURE 4. RUNNING AVERAGE TEMPERATURE IN E-7 1981 - 2016...... 5 FIGURE 5. RUNNING AVERAGE PRECIPITATION IN DAU E-7 (1981-2016)...... 5 FIGURE 6. LAND OWNERSHIP IN E-7...... 6 FIGURE 7. VEGETATION DISTRIBUTION IN E-7...... 7 FIGURE 8. ELK SUMMER ACTIVITIES IN E-7...... 8 FIGURE 9. ELK WINTER ACTIVITIES IN E-7...... 9 FIGURE 10. EXTENT OF MOUNTAIN PINE BEETLE DAMAGE, 1997-2014...... 10 FIGURE 11. SILVER CREEK FIRE PUBLIC INFORMATION MAP (OCTOBER 10, 2018)...... 11 FIGURE 12. E-7 MODELED POSTHUNT POPULATION SIZE AND OBJECTIVE RANGE, 1986 - 2019...... 16 FIGURE 13. OBSERVED CALF: COW RATIOS IN E-7, 1986 - 2019...... 16 FIGURE 14. E-7 OBSERVED BULL: COW RATIOS 1986 - 2019...... 17 FIGURE 15. LICENSE ALLOCATION BY METHOD OF TAKE IN E-7, 2000 - 2019...... 1 FIGURE 16. E-7 HARVEST 1986 - 2019...... 1 FIGURE 17. SUCCESS RATES BY METHOD OF TAKE IN E-7, 2000 - 2019...... 2 FIGURE 18. NUMBER OF HUNTERS BY METHOD OF TAKE IN E-7, 2000 - 2019...... 2 FIGURE 19. PUBLIC INPUT ON HERD MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES IN E-7, AUGUST 2018...... 7 FIGURE 20. SIGMOID GROWTH CURVE...... II FIGURE 21. MAXIMUM SUSTAINED YIELD...... III

TABLES TABLE 1. GAME DAMAGE CLAIMS IN E-7, 2009 - 2018...... 13 TABLE 2. LICENSE NUMBERS BY YEAR AND HUNT CODE IN E-7, 2000 - 2019...... 1 TABLE 5. ANNUAL ECONOMIC CONTRIBUTION OF HUNTING AND FISHING IN E-7...... 3 TABLE 6. CHRONIC WASTING DISEASE PREVALENCE IN DEER AND ELK IN E-7 AS OF JANUARY 2020. FROM (COLORADO PARKS & WILDLIFE 2020B)...... 5

DRAFT E-07 HERD MANAGEMENT PLAN

INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) manages wildlife for the use, benefit, and enjoyment of the people of the state in accordance with the CPWs Strategic Plan and mandates from the Parks and Wildlife Commission and the Colorado Legislature. Colorado’s wildlife resources require careful and increasingly intensive management to accommodate the many and varied public demands and growing human impacts. CPW establishes general season structure guidelines statewide, known as Big Game Season Structure (BGSS). CPW uses BGSS as a standardized framework for annual big game hunting regulations to ensure predictability and consistency geographically and annually for big game seasons. This framework is updated every five years through a public process and establishes what types of hunting opportunities will be available, when opportunities will be available, where opportunities will be available, and how the opportunities will be divided amongst methods of take. Within these overarching frameworks, CPW manages big game populations as individual herds called Data Analysis Units or DAUs. A DAU is the geographic area that represents the year- around range of a big game herd and delineates the seasonal ranges of a specific herd that naturally experiences little interchange with adjacent herds. A DAU includes the area where the majority of the animals in a herd are born, live, and die. Each DAU usually is composed of several game management units (GMUs) which are designed to distribute hunters within the DAU. In some cases only one GMU makes up a DAU. CPW uses a “management by objective” approach (Figure 1). With this approach, CPW manages big game populations to achieve population and sex ratio objective ranges established through an intensive public process that culminates in Herd Management Plans (HMPs). The purpose of a HMP is to provide a process to integrate the plans and intentions of CPW with the concerns and ideas of land management agencies and interested publics in determining the management practices of each big game herd.

Figure 1. CPW's Management by Objective Process to manage big game populations by Data Analysis Unit.

DRAFT E-07 HERD MANAGEMENT PLAN

In preparing a HMP, CPW personnel strive to balance the biological capabilities of the herd and its habitat with the public's demand for wildlife recreational opportunities. Primarily, the HMP process produces objectives for the number of animals in the DAU, the population performance, and the desired sex ratio (e.g., the number of males per 100 females). These numbers are referred to as the DAU population and herd composition objectives, respectively. Secondarily, the HMP process identifies strategies and techniques to reach the population size and herd composition objectives. Population and sex ratio objectives drive important decisions in the big game season setting process, namely, how many animals need to be harvested to maintain or move toward the objectives, and what types of hunting seasons are required to achieve the harvest objectives. Various publics and constituents, including the U.S Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, sports persons, guides and outfitters, private landowners, local chambers of commerce and the general public, are involved in the determination of DAU population and composition objectives and related issues. During the HMP process, public input is solicited, collected, and incorporated through surveys, public meetings, and written comments to the Parks and Wildlife Commission. The purpose of this herd management plan is to set population and harvest objectives for the Gore Pass elk herd (E-7; GMUs 15 & 27). The herd management plan will be in place from 2020-2030 with the expectation that it will be reviewed and updated in 2030. GORE PASS ELK DATA ANALYSIS UNIT DESCRIPTION Location The Gore Pass DAU E-7 straddles the Gore Divide between the Yampa River drainage, GMU 15, and the Muddy Creek drainage, GMU 27, on the northern portion of the DAU. On the southern portion of the DAU Canyon Creek divides GMU 27 and GMU 15. E-7 is bounded on the south by the Colorado River and Colorado Highway 9, on the west by Colorado Highway 131 from Steamboat Springs to State Bridge and on the north and east by U.S. Highway 40 along Rabbit Ears Pass (Figure 2). See current Colorado Big Game Hunting Brochure for the most up to date GMU boundary descriptions. The Gore Range is a long, relatively flat ridge running north to south from the Park Range on Rabbit Ears Pass down to the Colorado River. The Gore Range is surrounded by agricultural valleys on the east and west. The communities around the perimeter of the DAU are: Steamboat Springs, Oak Creek, Phippsburg, Yampa, Toponas, McCoy, Bond, and Kremmling. Gore Pass State Highway 134 runs east to west through the middle of the DAU. The Sarvis Creek Wilderness Area is in the northern section of the DAU.

DRAFT E-07 HERD MANAGEMENT PLAN

Figure 2. Location of DAU E-7. Physiography Topography The Gore Range, north of the Colorado River, is a long ridge (10,000 feet elevation) that runs north to Rabbit Ears Pass. The landscape north of Gore Pass Highway is heavily timbered, primarily with lodgepole pine, aspen, Engelmann spruce and sub-alpine fir. The terrain is not

DRAFT E-07 HERD MANAGEMENT PLAN

rugged by Colorado standards. South of Gore Pass the elevation drops rapidly into pinion- juniper habitat. There are several major geographical features besides the Gore Range in this DAU. They are: Thorpe Mountain, Blacktail Mountain, Green Ridge, Black Mountain, Congor Mesa, and Yarmony Mountain. The main drainages in the Yampa River drainage are Harrison Creek, Green Creek, Sarvis Creek, Silver Creek, and Morrison Creek. The main drainages in the Colorado River drainage are Muddy Creek, Blacktail Creek, Rock Creek, and Egeria Creek. The highest elevation is Red Dirt Peak (10,811ft.) on Gore Divide and the lowest is the Colorado River at State Bridge (6,744 ft.). Climate The Gore Range is characterized by long, cold, snowy winters and short, cool summers. The north end of the DAU, Rabbit Ears Pass, receives some of the heaviest snowfall in Colorado. Snowfall decreases going south from Rabbit Ears down to the Colorado River at the southern border of the DAU where there is significantly less snowfall. For most of this DAU the amount of snow is the defining feature and primary limiting factor for elk populations. The high amount of precipitation produces some of the most productive wildlife habitat in the state; however, snowfall drives the elk down in elevation to limited winter range areas where they must survive five months of winter weather. Snowfall varies dramatically during the winter (Figure 3).

45 40 35 30 25 20 15

Snow Fall Snow Fall (in) 10 5 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Kremmling Steamboat Yampa

Figure 3. Running Average Snowfall in E-7 1981 - 2016.

Temperature is quite consistent across the major population centers in the DAU (Figure 4). The hottest temperatures occur from June through the end of August, with the coolest months being January and February. When fall temperatures remain above average and snowfall is light during the rifle seasons, elk may stay longer at higher elevations resulting in lower hunting success rates.

DRAFT E-07 HERD MANAGEMENT PLAN

70 60 50 40

30 Temp Temp (F) 20 10 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Kremmling Steamboat Springs Yampa

Figure 4. Running Average Temperature in E-7 1981 - 2016.

In the southern and eastern portion of the DAU the average precipitation is fairly consistent, with most of the rain accumulating in July and August. However, in the northern portion of the DAU, near Steamboat Springs, most rain occurs in April and May with the driest months being July and August. The precipitation then picks up again in September through December (Figure 5).

3 2.5 2 1.5

1 Rain Fall RainFall (in) 0.5 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Kremmling Steamboat Springs Yampa

Figure 5. Running Average Precipitation in DAU E-7, 1981-2016.

Land Status Land Ownership Of the 689 square miles in E-7, approximately 37% (254 square miles) is privately owned, while the US Forest Service manages approximately 47% (322 square miles), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages -9% (64 square miles), State Land Board manages -5% (36

DRAFT E-07 HERD MANAGEMENT PLAN

square miles), and Colorado Parks & Wildlife manages 2% (13 square miles). Sarvis Creek Wilderness Area comprises 21% (74 square miles) of the National Forest land in E-7 (Figure 6).

Figure 6. Land Ownership in E-7.

Land Use Agriculture, in the form of hay production and livestock, are the primary private land uses in the two mountain valleys in this DAU. Recreation and tourism are rapidly becoming the economic emphasis, especially in the area around Steamboat Springs. The main focus of winter recreation is skiing with camping and bicycling in summer, but all other forms of summer and winter recreation are expanding rapidly including bicycling, camping, hiking, four-wheeling, riding ATV’s and snowmobiling. Hunting is still an important land use with big game hunting bringing in the largest number of hunters. Logging and timber harvest is an important use of forested land. Much of the private land in GMU 15 is being converted from family operated livestock ranches to housing developments or part-time ranch owners because of the proximately of the ski resort communities of Steamboat Springs and the Vail-Eagle Valley. Increasing housing developments are taking available habitat and displacing wildlife, including elk, in some areas of E-7.

DRAFT E-07 HERD MANAGEMENT PLAN

HABITAT RESOURCE AND CAPABILITIES The habitat in E-7 is in good condition and is adequate to support the elk population in the DAU. The vegetation varies throughout E-7 with sagebrush, mixed sage, and irrigated grass hay fields along the valley floors, a variety of willow species along stream courses, and mountain shrub, lodgepole pine, aspen, and spruce-fir at higher elevations. The montane zone is dominated by lodgepole pine stands, with lesser amounts of aspen and spruce-fir (Figure 7).

Figure 7. Vegetation Distribution in E-7. Habitat Distribution Elk Overall Range Elk utilize the entirety of DAU E-7 seasonally. There is substantial high-quality habitat available on all seasonal ranges. Elk Summer Range CPW defines summer range as “that part of the range of a species where 90% of the individuals are located between spring green-up and the first heavy snowfall.” Given the tremendous extent of high quality habitat found in E-7, elk are distributed across nearly the entire DAU all summer (Figure 8). There is slightly less use in the southern and eastern portions of the DAU. Elk are highly mobile and readily move to areas of better habitat and less disturbance. Increasing summer recreation and human development is no doubt having

DRAFT E-07 HERD MANAGEMENT PLAN

impacts on summer range use by elk in E-7. As the local human population continues to grow and recreationists from the rapidly growing Front Range of Colorado come into this area the effect will be amplified. High elevation Douglas fir, aspen, and aspen/conifer stands, interspersed with sagebrush mixed grasslands provide excellent forage and cover during summer and fall. The quality of summer range is important for both elk and deer to ensure they recover from winter weight loss and all animals in the population go into winter in good body condition.

Figure 8. Elk Summer Activities in E-7.

Elk Winter Range CPW defines winter range as “that part of the overall range of where 90 percent of the individuals are located during the average five winters out of ten from the first heavy snowfall to spring green-up”. Usable winter range is more limited than summer range due to deep snow and inaccessible forage at higher elevations. CPW further differentiates winter range into winter concentration areas and severe winter range. These areas are defined as: Winter Concentration Area: the part of the range where densities are at least 200% greater than the surrounding winter range in average winters. Severe Winter Range: that part of the range where 90% of the elk are located during the two worst winters in 10 years as determined by the maximum annual snow pack and minimum temperatures. Elk generally spend their winters in lower elevations areas to escape the heavy snow pack that accumulates in the mountains during the winter. The E-7 elk herd is no different; elk come down from the mountains to winter in the valley bottoms and southern exposures

DRAFT E-07 HERD MANAGEMENT PLAN

throughout the DAU (Figure 9). In the northern portion of GMU 15 elk take up residence in the valley that extends between Steamboat Springs and Lake Catamount; known as Pleasant Valley. Farther to the south, in GMU 15, is Thorpe Mountain. Elk will spend most of the summer along Thorpe Mountain and come down for the winter into the upper Grouse Creek area. Some of the elk will utilize the south facing slopes of Thorpe Mountain as well as the upper Grouse Creek valley during the winter depending on snow pack. To the east of Thorpe Mountain are Adams State Wildlife Area and Blacktail Conservation Easement. This is an important winter range for this elk herd because it is one of the only high elevation winter ranges consisting of public lands. Habitat improvements have been done to this portion of winter range and there are seasonal closures to public access after the rifle seasons. Adams State Wildlife Area and Blacktail Conservation Easement are closed to the public from the beginning of December to the end of June to lessen the stress of elk on the land and help prevent the elk form being pushed off on to private land. In the southern portion of GMU 15 elk will winter from Toponas to State Bridge, as well as Radium State Wildlife Area. In GMU 27 most of the elk will winter on the east side of GMU 27 from Whiteley Peak down to the Colorado River at Kremmling.

Figure 9. Elk Winter Activities in E-7.

Residential and Anthropogenic Development Patterns Like most DAUs around the state of Colorado E-7 has seen an increase in development over the last few years. There has been an increase in housing development in many towns and subdivisions throughout the DAU. Not only is the local population growing but tourism is soaring. The town of Steamboat Springs has themed events (car shows, farmers markets, bicycle races and running races, baseball tournaments, etc.) most weekends from early summer through August. As with most mountain towns this trend continues to grow

DRAFT E-07 HERD MANAGEMENT PLAN

exponentially during the summer months and the public demand for more and more winter and summer recreation is surely having a negative impact on wild animal populations that will only be amplified over time.

Habitat Condition and Capability A mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) epidemic has killed up to 85% of lodgepole pine trees across 3.5 million acres in Colorado and southern Wyoming since 1996 (Schoennagel et al. 2012) including a substantial amount lost in E-7 (Figure 10).

Figure 10. Extent of mountain pine beetle damage, 1997-2014.

The dead pines are now barren of their needles with a corresponding canopy cover decrease that has allowed the understory vegetation to explode with new growth. Even old stands of lodgepole where the forest floor had been barren of vegetation are now teeming with new growth of grasses, forbs, shrubs, aspens and young pines. In addition to significant habitat conversion from mountain pine beetles, wildfires have also altered the elk habitat in E-7. There have been several fires in the Silver Creek area of the Sarvis Creek Wilderness Area. A fire in 2016 burned just under 500 acres near the Silver Creek Trail within the wilderness boundaries of GMU 15. The 2018 Silver Creek fire, sparked by lightening burned over 20,000 acres (Figure 11).

DRAFT E-07 HERD MANAGEMENT PLAN

Figure 11. Silver Creek Fire Public Information Map (October 10, 2018).

Average frequency of fire in lodgepole pine has been estimated at 50 years but can range from as little as 12-25 years or as high as 300-400 years. Insect mortality cycles in lodgepole stands occur on average every 100 years followed by stand-replacing wildfire. These naturally occurring events, though devastating to look at, are nature’s way of renewing the forest. Decreased canopy cover allows more sunlight to reach the forest floor, which leads to an increase in understory vegetation which produces new growth including grasses, forbs, shrubs, aspen saplings and young pines that many species of wildlife need to thrive. The combination of wildfire and mountain pine beetle has set back succession and resulted in widespread improvement in habitat condition in E-7. Habitat conditions are adequate for the present number of elk and there are only a few major conflicts with agricultural operations. Severe winter range and winter concentration areas are the major limited habitat for elk. The U.S. Forest Service administers livestock grazing on the Routt/Medicine Bow National Forest. The Yampa Ranger District administers most of the National Forest in DAU E-7. As of 2018, the Yampa District of the Routt/Medicine Bow National Forest allocates grazing for 1,700 ewe/lamb pairs for 1,067 sheep head months and 2,699 cow/calf pairs for 9,241 cattle head months. The Hahn’s Peak/Bears Ears Ranger District contains a much smaller portion of E-7 authorizing grazing for 1900 ewes with lambs, which equates to a total of 1,157 sheep AUMs on the south side of Rabbit Ears Pass. The grazing season generally runs from July 1 – September 10. The Forest Service Range Conservationists in Yampa and Steamboat Springs do not see any conflict with elk and livestock or any resource damage from elk on this part of the National Forest.

DRAFT E-07 HERD MANAGEMENT PLAN

CPW owns land or holds conservation easements on several important winter range areas to benefit deer and elk herds in E-7. The Radium State Wildlife Area (SWA) on the Colorado River was purchased to provide important winter range habitat for big game. Adjacent to the Radium SWA, CPW purchased a perpetual conservation easement on the Leroux property. Additionally, CPW purchased a perpetual conservation easement on the Hill Ranch in big game winter range in GMU 27. The Adams State Wildlife Area (SWA) on Blacktail Mountain, near Stagecoach Reservoir, was purchased for elk winter range in a rapidly developing area south of Steamboat Springs. Adjacent to the Adams SWA Colorado Parks and Wildlife received a perpetual conservation easement from the Upper Yampa Water Conservation District on the south side of Blacktail Mountain. Near these properties, on the east side of Blacktail Mountain, is the Sarvis Creek SWA which provides some winter range and access to the Sarvis Creek Wilderness Area. This complex of properties and the BLM land on Blacktail Mountain and Woodchuck Hill ensure that the elk herd that moves down out of Sarvis Creek, Green Creek, and Morrison Creek drainages will always have winter range available. Additionally Routt County has a Sarvis Creek Area Plan protecting this area from development. These protected lands, combined with responsible management on public lands ensure that for the foreseeable future, elk populations in DAU E-7 have adequate year-round habitat. Potential future development in Thorpe Mountain, Green Ridge, and Morrison Creek areas could cause significant loss of elk habitat and CPW will actively engage with Routt County planning staff to protect these winter ranges.

DRAFT E-07 HERD MANAGEMENT PLAN

Conflicts with Agriculture Game Damage Human conflicts with wildlife will always be a struggle while managing wild animal populations. While some landowners love to see elk on their property and want more elk available for hunting or watching, there are others who believe that the population of elk is too large and needs to be reduced. Maintaining a population that meets hunting demands but also decreased conflicts is an important part of herd management. Most of the E-7 elk wintering range consist of private land, which, along with lack of food during the winter can cause conflicts with landowners. The elk will have a tendency to congregate near haystacks, consuming and destroying hay meant for private use. In the last 10 years, CPW has paid out over $30,000 in game damage claims, averaging approximately $2,500 each year (Table 1).

Claim Date Damage Type GMU Amount 2 /4 /2010 Stacked Hay 15 $1,920.00

4 /13/2010 Stacked Hay 15 $70.00

1 /14/2011 Stacked Hay 15 $525.00 2 /14/2011 Stacked Hay 15 $180.00

2 /14/2011 Stacked Hay 15 $100.00

3 /10/2011 Stacked Hay 27 $3,200.00 10/4 /2012 Growing Hay 27 $13,798.00

1 /14/2013 Stacked Hay 15 $3,510.00

11/5 /2013 Growing Hay 15 $4,564.15 6 /26/2014 Stacked Hay 15 $412.50

1 /15/2015 Growing Hay 15 $971.68

12/21/2015 Growing Hay 15 $673.86 12/19/2016 Growing Hay 15 $639.39

9 /1 /2017 Growing Hay 15 $439.50

9 /27/2018 Growing Hay 15 $170.94 Total $31,175.02

Table 1. Game Damage Claims in E-7, 2009 - 2018.

Historically game damage had occurred in Pleasant Valley primarily on private land winter range from elk damaging un-harvested or harvested stacked hay. Today some damage still occurs but the amount has decreased in recent years due to a decrease in agriculture practices in the area and an increase in urban development and the success of the Habitat Partnership Program (HPP). Additionally, in order to address elk damage to agricultural crops, ample PLO cow licenses are made available each year with many PLO hunt codes never selling out.

DRAFT E-07 HERD MANAGEMENT PLAN

Habitat Partnership Program In 1990 Colorado Parks and Wildlife created the Habitat Partnership Program (HPP) to address fence and forage damage conflicts on private and public land caused by big game. HPP Committees were formed and the Big Game Distribution Management Plans were approved by the Wildlife Commission in 1996. HPP is now an integral part of elk management efforts in Colorado. The Gore Pass DAU E-7 is split between two HPP Committees. The Middle Park HPP Committee administers the program in GMU 27 and the south 1/3 of GMU 15 which is south of Highway 134. The Upper Yampa HPP Committee administers the upper 2/3’s of GMU 15 which is north of Highway 134. HPP is a locally run program, funded by five percent of the big game license revenues generated in the GMUs. When necessary, distribution management hunts are conducted on private land using hunters that are designated by the landowner. These hunts are for antlerless elk only, and are available to landowners experiencing agricultural damage, generally starting August 15, and ending February 28, each year. This management tool has been effective in moving elk away from damage conflict areas. Habitat modification projects, such as prescribed fires, fertilizing, placement of salt blocks, and implementation of grazing management systems have been effective in drawing elk away from conflict areas by providing better habitat elsewhere. Elk proof fencing has been the most effective tool in reducing elk damage to haystacks. Alternative cattle fence designs, such as top rails of wood or plastic, lay-down, suspension, high tensile and vinyl covered wires have been successful in reducing damage to livestock fencing. Also, to offset fence damage costs, the HPP Committee has authorized funds to purchase fencing material to distribute to landowners. HPP has paid for prescribed burns on Blacktail Mountain.

DRAFT E-07 HERD MANAGEMENT PLAN

HERD MANAGEMENT HISTORY, ISSUES AND STRATEGIES Overview of Procedures to Estimate Population Size Estimating population size of wild animals over large geographic areas is a difficult and inexact exercise. A complete count of each individual animal in a population is prohibitively expensive and inherently inaccurate. Multiple research projects have attempted to count a known number of animals in large fenced areas. All of these efforts have failed to accurately count all of the animals. In most cases, fewer than 30% of the animals may be observed and counted. The most accurate method of estimating population size available at this time is through computer modeling using known biological parameters and the most accurate biological and harvest data for a given population. CPW conducts aerial classification surveys of deer and elk herds nearly every year in December or January. These aerial surveys document posthunt age and sex ratios. These surveys are not a census of the population and are at best a very coarse index of population trend. They are simply a snapshot of the composition of the herd immediately following hunting seasons. CPW then incorporates the observed post-hunt age and sex ratios, along with hunter harvest, estimated survival rates of adults and juveniles, and wounding loss rates into population models developed by (White and Lubow 2002). These population modeling methods represent CPW’s current best estimate of population sizes. It is important to note that these models are subject to revision and improvement as further wildlife management research provides more accurate modeling techniques. As better information becomes available, such as new estimates of age-specific or sex-specific survival rates, wounding loss, sex ratio at birth, density estimates, or new statistical modeling techniques, better population estimates may be derived in the future. Modeled estimates of the number of elk in E-7 have changed over time with the type and complexity of the models used. The population size is estimated from population models using observed values from classification flights, harvest numbers from hunter surveys, survival rates, and winter severity. As new knowledge is gained, models are improved to make the model more accurate in estimating the population. In most cases across the state, previous elk population models estimated much lower populations than present estimates. Research projects have found elk survival rates are much higher and elk live longer than was previously thought but wounding loss is also much higher. The models should be viewed as a tool to help estimate populations and herd trends. As more knowledge is gained on elk population models will become more accurate in estimating populations. For a more in-depth explanation of population modeling and population size estimates, see Overview of Procedures to Estimate Population Size.

Post-hunt Population Size The population distribution of DAU E-7 is approximately seventy-five percent in GMU 15 and twenty-five percent in GMU 27. The E-7 elk population reached its peak at over 7,100 individuals. In the early 1990s the population started to decrease with the increase of cow harvest and improved bull hunting, primarily due to 4-point antler restrictions on bull elk. For one year in 1998, unlimited either sex licenses were offered in an effort to mitigate the effects of severe drought. Cow harvest has also increased with the implementation of either- sex licenses that have replaced bull specific tags for many limited license hunt codes. Since

DRAFT E-07 HERD MANAGEMENT PLAN

2011 the E-7 elk herd has been at, or near, its population objective of approximately 5,000 individual and holding at that level (Figure 12).

8,000

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000 NUMBER OF ELK OF NUMBER 3,000

2,000

Figure 12. E-7 Modeled Posthunt Population SIze and Objective Range, 1986 - 2019.

Post-hunt Herd Composition The composition of the elk population in E-7 is monitored annually with helicopter surveys on winter range. Observed elk are classified as cows, calves, yearling bulls, two-year-old bulls, and mature bulls and provide a snapshot of the current condition of the population. Calf: cow ratios The long-term calf: cow ratio in E-7 has been declining slightly. The 1986-2000 calf: cow ratio averaged 52.8 and the 2001-2019 ratio averaged 48.3 calves/100 cows. In 2004, the E-7 elk herd saw its lowest calf: cow ratio of 34 calves/100 cows. Since then recruitment has increased and has been fluctuating between 40-60 calves/100 cows (Figure 13). The overall average has been 50 calves/100 cows for the last three years and the trend appears stable.

70 60 50 40 30 20 10

CALVES: 100 COWS 100 CALVES: 0

1992 2005 2018 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2019 YEAR Observed Linear (Observed)

Figure 13. Observed Calf: Cow ratios in E-7, 1986 - 2019.

Bull: cow ratios In 1985, CPW instituted an antler point restriction on elk to increase the number of older bulls and the overall total of bulls in the population. The bull: cow ratio has increased substantially since that regulation was put into place. 2010 saw the highest sex ratio in DAU E-7 with approximate 33 bulls: 100 cows observed on post-season classification flights. For the

DRAFT E-07 HERD MANAGEMENT PLAN

last 20 years the observed sex ratio has fluctuated annually between 20 and 30 bulls/100 cows with a 20-year average of 24 bulls/100 cows (Figure 14).

40 35 30 25 20 15 10

BULLS: 100 COWS 100 BULLS: 5

Figure 14. E-7 Observed Bull: Cow Ratios 1986 - 2019.

Harvest and Hunters License Allocation License numbers have changed over time and by hunt code in E-7 (Table 2). Unlimited over the counter (OTC) license hunt codes have a U in the 6th digit of the hunt code defining it as “unlimited”. Examples would be for OTC archery and 2nd and 3rd rifle seasons. These hunt codes depict the number of hunters estimated to have hunted in unit 15 or 27 by year. The remaining hunt codes depict the number of hunters estimated to have hunted E-7 with limited licenses by year.

DRAFT E-07 HERD MANAGEMENT PLAN

HUNT CODE 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 EE000U1A 1006 767 612 766 972 1041 971 760 1056 803 1068 1048 1038 1229 1199 1365 1390 1490 1311 1630 EF000U1A 0 0 0 191 119 151 193 103 131 191 171 171 188 187 173 168 120 138 141 143 EE015O1M 184 279 182 167 157 158 216 226 135 110 150 300 300 300 300 300 300 350 350 350 EF015O1M 147 210 206 268 250 257 263 184 174 202 200 100 100 100 100 100 100 50 50 50 EM000U2R 861 855 895 814 856 920 1026 903 878 788 709 899 893 883 825 781 882 859 804 757 EM000U3R 607 547 694 579 598 922 686 519 472 633 522 569 643 547 696 624 698 820 633 541 EE015O1R 500 450 500 300 350 200 200 200 200 225 225 225 225 250 250 250 250 300 300 300 EE015O4R NA NA NA NA NA 80 80 80 80 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 EE027O1R 200 200 200 150 100 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 100 100 100 EE027O4R NA NA NA NA NA 40 40 40 40 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 EF015O1R 350 450 500 350 300 200 200 200 200 225 225 225 225 225 225 225 225 175 175 17 EF015O2R 1150 1300 1500 1000 1400 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 EF015O3R Float Float Float Float Float Float Float Float Float Float Float Float Float Float Float Float Float Float Float Float EF015O4R Float Float Float Float Float Float Float Float Float Float Float Float Float Float Float Float Float Float Float Float EF027O1R 150 200 200 175 250 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 115 115 115 90 90 90 EF027O2R 195 195 200 175 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 260 260 260 260 260 260 EF027O3R 200 200 200 175 250 200 200 175 175 175 175 175 175 175 185 185 185 185 185 185 EF027O4R 150 300 200 175 250 100 100 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 85 85 85 85 85 85 EE015P1R 200 200 200 200 200 100 100 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 EE015P2R 200 200 200 200 200 100 100 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 EE015P3R 200 200 200 200 200 100 100 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 EE015P4R 200 200 200 200 200 100 100 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 EE027P1R 125 125 150 100 100 50 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 EE027P4R NA NA NA NA NA 20 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 EF015P5R 50 100 200 200 200 200 200 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 EF027P1R NA NA 50 50 0 50 50 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 125 EF027P2R 80 100 100 100 100 50 50 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 EF027P3R Float Float Float Float Float Float Float Float Float Float Float Float Float Float Float Float Float Float Float EF027P4R Float Float Float Float Float Float Float Float Float Float Float Float Float Float Float Float Float Float Float EF027L1R 30 50 100 100 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 125 125 80 80 80 80 80 80

Table 2. License Numbers by Year and Hunt Code in E-7, 2000 - 2019.

DRAFT E-07 HERD MANAGEMENT PLAN

Hunters have been able to draw limited licenses in E-7 for all hunt codes in the last ten years with no preference points the exception being the nonresident either-sex muzzleloader tag, which can require 2-3 points, depending on the year.

Antlered elk licenses are unlimited OTC for 2nd and 3rd rifle seasons. Archery elk licenses in E-7 are unlimited with both either-sex and antlerless archery tags available OTC. All other elk licenses in E-7 are limited and must be obtained through the drawing, or as a leftover when available. From 2000 to present archery hunters made up an average of 16% of all hunters but the percentage has almost tripled since 2002 rising from 10% to nearly 30% today. Total muzzleloader hunters in E-7 average 5% of all hunters, with rifle hunters accounting for an average of 79% of hunters from 2000 to present. Rifle hunters are on a declining trend going from over 80% in 2002 to just under 70% in 2017 (Figure 15).

100%

80%

60%

40%

20% % LICENSE ALLOCATION%LICENSE 0% 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 YEAR Archery Muzzleloader Rifle

Figure 15. License Allocation by Method of Take in E-7, 2000 - 2019.

Harvest The total number of elk harvested annually in E-7 has declined since 2000 as the population has reached the upper end of its objective range. The number of bulls and cows harvested are similar throughout the years with approximately 300 to 400 of each sex harvested annually. Calf harvest is the lowest with fewer than 100 individuals in the annual harvest (Figure 16).

1400 1200 1000 800 600

400 NUMBER OF ELK OF NUMBER 200

1992 2005 2018 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2019 YEAR Bulls Cow & Calf Total Figure 16. E-7 Harvest 1986 - 2019.

DRAFT E-07 HERD MANAGEMENT PLAN

Elk are harvested from DAU E-7 with three methods of take: archery, muzzleloader and rifle. Success rates of rifle hunters have averaged 16% from 2000 to present but has decreased a few percentage points beginning in 2008. Muzzleloader success rates vary annually between 7% and 24%, but since 2000, average similar to rifle success at 16%. Archery success is the lowest with an 11% average success rate which is typical for many OTC archery elk DAUs (Figure 17).

30%

25%

20%

15%

%SUCCESS 10%

0% 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 YEAR Archery Muzzleloader Rifle

Figure 17. Success Rates by Method of Take in E-7, 2000 - 2019.

Hunters The total number of elk hunters in E-7 has remained fairly steady since 2000 averaging just over 6,000 annually (Figure 18). Rifle season continues to be the most popular method of take but has been on a slow decline as the popularity of archery has risen. Since 2002 archery hunters have multiplied almost three-fold, increasing from approximately 600 to over 1,700 archers annually. Muzzleloader hunter numbers have remained relatively constant over that time by design. When muzzleloading licenses went limited by DAU in 2006 license quotas were set at the previous 3-year average number of muzzleloader hunters. The total number of muzzleloading licenses has remained around 400 with increases in ES tags and decreases in antlerless tags to better meet applicant demand.

7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000

1000 NUMBEROF HUNTERS 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 YEAR Archery Muzzleloader Rifle Total Figure 18. Number of Hunters by Method of Take in E-7, 2000 - 2019.

Hunter crowding In E-7 there tends to be a cyclical trend of hunter use in given areas. Areas that experience low hunter crowding and better success for multiple years will trend to increase once word of

DRAFT E-07 HERD MANAGEMENT PLAN

mouth, social media, and hunter to hunter interactions starts to spread. This scenario tends to increase hunting pressure in specific areas. Once hunter density starts to increase in an area the opposite trend will take effect, success rates will decline, and the trend will start over again. This is especially true with unlimited over the counter (OTC) archery licenses. With the ever-increasing popularity of archery elk hunting, hunter crowding will only increase, not only in this DAU but, across the state in OTC units. Economic Benefits Hunting provides a significant economic contribution to Colorado and DAU E-7. Economic data are available at the county level, but are not analyzed in alignment with DAU boundaries. However, the five counties that overlap with E-7 rely on substantial economic benefits from hunting expenditures (Table 3). Expenditures include lodging, equipment sales, meals, and supply purchases. These economic contributions are based on all types of hunting, including small game, big game, and waterfowl (Southwick Associates 2018). County GDP Contribution State & Local Taxes Jobs Grand $ 6,518,000.00 $ 1,174,000.00 251 Routt $ 8,222,000.00 $ 1,157,000.00 219 Jackson $ 2,222,000.00 $ 607,000.00 51 Eagle $ 8,917,000.00 $ 986,000.00 144 Table 3. Annual Economic Contribution of Hunting and Fishing in E-7. Past Management Strategies Like all big game DAUs in Colorado, E-7 is managed under general guidelines set out every five years in statewide Big Game Season Structure (BGSS). For a further explanation of BGSS, see INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE. Under the BGSS, the complexity of license structure in E-7 has increased over the years in response to the progressively more complex management issues facing this herd and elk across the state of Colorado. The Gore Pass elk population increased steadily from the 1950’s reaching its peak of approximately 7,000 elk from the early 1990’s through the mid 2000’s which was well above the 1991 objective of 3,000 elk. The various management strategies employed over the years have sought to reduce or stabilize the elk population in E-7 at the population objective and desired sex ratio. The number of antlerless elk permits increased steadily from 510 in 1983 to the highest level of 3,500 in 2004 and stabilizing around 2,500 by 2010 where the number stands today. In 1998 unlimited over-the-counter, either-sex licenses were available in the second and third combined seasons, and limited antlerless permits in the first season. The either-sex licenses proved to be a very successful way to increase cow harvest and antlerless elk harvest increased by 40 % over the previous year. Hunters given the opportunity will harvest a cow if they do not get the chance to shoot a bull. Before 1980 the average sex ratio in E-7 was 5 bulls/100 cows and the bulls were mostly yearlings. Surveys found the public wanted the herd sex ratio increased to 25 bulls/100 cows. To achieve the objective required reducing bull harvest. In 1985, a four-point antler restriction was instituted, except in E-7 where yearling bull elk could be harvested in the third rifle season and during the archery-muzzleloader season which dampened the effect of the four-point regulation. In 1994 the four-point antler restriction was instituted for all seasons and methods of take in this DAU resulting in the bull/cow ratio increasing to over 20 bulls/100 cows by the mid-1990’s. As the sex ratios increased cow harvest declined because bull hunting improved so much with antler restrictions hunters were shooting more bulls.

DRAFT E-07 HERD MANAGEMENT PLAN

Starting in 2000, the first rifle hunting season was limited to elk only with no deer hunting allowed in an effort to reduce hunting pressure, provide a better hunting experience, and increase harvest success rates for elk. The second and third rifle seasons were combined hunts with both deer and elk hunting allowed including unlimited bull and limited cow licenses available. The 4th rifle season was limited draw and generally has had fewer licenses available than earlier hunts due to limited availability of elk on public lands as they move to private land winter range. Currently archery elk licenses are unlimited OTC but specified as either-sex or antlerless. Muzzleloader was limited but open statewide for either-sex or cows until 2006 when all muzzle loading licenses became limited by DAU or GMU. Current Issues Recreation and Residential Development Recreational disturbance and human population growth continue to increase in E-7. This has not only direct impacts in loss of habitat, but indirect impacts of disturbance to elk and other wildlife making otherwise good habitat not available or limited in availability to wild animals. Furthermore, calf/cow ratios have been declining in some elk herds around the state indicating disturbance and habitat loss may already be impacting elk herds. Though calf/cow ratios are at acceptable levels now in E-7 they need to be monitored closely. These factors need to be taken into consideration for current and future land use decisions and when considering objectives for the E-7 elk herd. Balancing Hunting Opportunity and Game Damage The previous plan (2004) herd objectives have worked well striking a balance between game damage and hunting opportunity. Over the years PLO tags and extended seasons have been used to help alleviate elk damage on private lands and this practice should continue as necessary to protect landowners who provide not only winter range for elk, but increasingly, year round security cover from human disturbance on public lands. Habitat Change There have been many changes in the habitat in E-7 over the past decade including extensive beetle kill of lodgepole pine trees and multiple fires including the large-scale Silver Creek fire of 2018. These events are often reported as “devastation, destroyed or lost”. While it is devastating to those who lose life or property in these events, this is how succession is set back restoring the forest to an earlier state yielding many long term benefits to a variety of species that prefer new growth, and eventually the forest will return to its prior state until the cycle repeats. Controlled burns or mechanical treatments should be conducted on a rotational basis on elk winter range in this DAU. The winter range in the western portion of E-7 is primarily oakbrush habitat and controlled burns are the most effective method of improving the shrub winter range. Where and when burning is not practical, mastication of oak brush and mountain shrub has proven very beneficial in setting back succession and improving big game winter ranges. A prescribed burn on Blacktail Mountain was very successful with the area now receiving heavy winter elk grazing pressure and should be managed intensively.

DRAFT E-07 HERD MANAGEMENT PLAN

Disease Chronic Wasting Disease Chronic wasting disease (CWD) is a fatal, infectious disease that affects deer, elk, and moose in Colorado. It is characterized by progressively declining body condition and mental responsiveness due to deterioration of the brain and nervous system. CWD can have significant negative impacts to the health and sustainability of free-ranging herds (Miller et al. 2008). It is likely unfeasible to eliminate CWD from free-ranging cervids in Colorado (Miller and Fischer 2016). For this reason, CPW has focused on developing and sustaining practicable management actions of CWD surveillance, monitoring, and control based on the prevalence of CWD in each herd. Because CWD appears to affect deer at higher rates than elk, CPW’s management actions focus on deer and concurrently monitor prevalence trends for all deer, elk, and moose in each area. In 2018, CPW published a response plan to manage CWD in Colorado. The plan generally follows the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies’ plan Recommendations for Adaptive Management of Chronic Wasting Disease in the West (Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 2017). CPW’s Colorado Chronic Wasting Disease Response Plan outlines actions to assess and control CWD prevalence at the herd level (Colorado Parks & Wildlife 2018). The management recommendations include a 5% prevalence threshold in adult male animals for compulsory intervention in management. This compulsory intervention mandates the implementation of strategies intended to reduce the prevalence to below 5%. The overlapping deer DAUs, D-8 and D-9, are currently under the 5% prevalence threshold, but GMU 15 is above the threshold (Colorado Parks & Wildlife 2020a). There are insufficient samples to accurately estimate the prevalence in elk in the individual E-7 GMUs, but it is likely that the prevalence is below 5% in E-7 (Colorado Parks & Wildlife 2020b) as a whole (Table 4). As more information about CWD prevalence in E-7, D-8, and D-9 becomes available, CPW staff will heed all recommendations in CPW’s CWD Response Plan.

GMU Elk DAU Elk GMU Deer DAU Deer GMU Elk DAU Deer DAU Prevalence Prevalence Prevalence Prevalence

15 not available <5% E-7 6% <5% D-8

27 not available <5% E-7 [5%] <5% D-9

[Bracketed} values are less reliable due to small sample size.

Table 4. Chronic Wasting Disease Prevalence in Deer and Elk in E-7 as of January 2020. From (Colorado Parks & Wildlife 2020b).

DRAFT E-07 HERD MANAGEMENT PLAN

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Traditionally when DAU, or herd management plans (HMP), were updated, a complete revision and complementary public outreach process was completed. In many cases, a full re-write of the plan may not have been warranted. A LEAN process undertaken in 2018 provides several options to complete HMP revisions. One of those options which seems to fit E-7 well is an “Extension” of the existing HMP objectives and management approach. See definition of plan amendment below. Amendment/Extension: An extension is a continuation of the same objectives, course of management actions, and strategies. Therefore, we are not proposing any changes to objectives or management approach. Public involvement occurs to inform the public we intend to extend the same objectives and explain why. An Extension will be useful to quickly amend plans where we believe stakeholders are satisfied with the current situation and approach but the existing plan has expired. If significant concerns are raised by the public about the planned Extension, a full revision will then be undertaken. Because these plans are over 10 years old, a full update of the plan contents (figures, data, etc.) is required but there will be time savings by streamlining the public involvement process. Examples of good extension candidates would be: a. A DAU with ongoing research where we need to maintain management consistency to avoid confounding factors affecting the research findings. b. A DAU where CPW is confident that extending the existing objectives will continue to result in high public satisfaction and low potential for controversy or landowner conflicts. During the 2004 E-7 HMP update, the following management alternatives were presented to the public: Post-hunt Population Size Alternatives: 1. Reduce the elk population to 3,000 to 4,000 elk 2. Maintain the present population level of 4,000 to 5,000 elk Preferred Alternative and Management Objective 2004 - PRESENT 3. Increase the elk population to 5,000 to 6,000 elk.

Post-hunt Sex Ratio Alternatives: 1. Maintain the current ratio of 20-23 bulls: 100 cows 2. Increase the current ratio to 24-28 bulls: 100 cows *(Expected) Preferred Alternative and Management Objective 2004 - PRESENT 3. Increase the current ratio to 30 bulls: 100 cows *Please note that the strategy of managing to a sex ratio objective in OTC DAU’s has changed in recent years. It is not realistic to control a sex ratio in units where bull licenses may be purchased in unlimited numbers over the counter. Therefore the more accurate way to characterize sex ratio is by using “expected” sex ratio. In August 2018, a public survey was conducted to determine if constituents interested in elk management in E-7 preferred to have the current herd management plan extended or to totally revise the plan. Several sources were used to inform the public of the opportunity to comment including press releases, social media, CPW Insider, and the CPW website. There was an electronic survey available online as well as a paper form that was made available for

DRAFT E-07 HERD MANAGEMENT PLAN

anyone who preferred to print and mail in the survey. Hard copies of the survey were also mailed to anyone who requested them. The current herd objectives for GMU’s 15 AND 27 are set at 4,000-5,000 elk with an expected sex ratio of 24-28 bulls per 100 cows. Population models consistently show the herd within this population range or slightly above and at the expected bull to cow ratio. Approximately 60% of respondents chose to extend the current HMP objectives for both the population size and the sex ratio (Figure 19).

60%

40%

Maintain current objectives and Revise herd objectives and do a No preference Extend the Herd Management Total Herd Management Plan Plan for the next ten-year cycle Revision for the next ten-year cycle

Figure 19. Public Input on Herd Management Objectives in E-7, August 2018.

In addition, both HPP committees, local USFS and State of Colorado Land Board personnel provided written support for extending the current management objectives (APPENDIX II: COMMENT LETTERS). This overwhelming support, combined with healthy habitat conditions, a stable population size within the objective range, is the basis for extending the current management objectives during this Herd Management Planning Amendment.

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES AND NEW OBJECTIVES

A streamlined, but thorough public outreach process in 2018 determined that there was widespread support for maintaining the current management objectives. The preferred management objectives for E-7 are: Post-hunt Population range of 4,000–5,000 elk Expected sex ratio of 24–28 bulls: 100 cows.

DRAFT E-07 HERD MANAGEMENT PLAN

LITERATURE CITED Bartmann RM, White GC, Carpenter LH. 1992. Compensatory Mortality in a Colorado Mule Deer Population. Wildlife Monographs. 121:3–39.

Bishop C, White G, Watkins DJFBE, S T. 2010. Effect of Enhanced Nutrition on Mule Deer Population Rate of Change. WIldlife Monographs. 172:1 – 29.

Colorado Parks & Wildlife. 2018. Colorado Chronic Wasting Disease Response Plan. Colorado Parks & Wildlife. [accessed 2020 Apr 10]. https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Hunting/BigGame/CWD/PDF/ColoradoChronicWastingDis easeResponsePlan.pdf#search=response%20plan.

Colorado Parks & Wildlife. 2020a. Estimated chronic wasting disease (CWD) prevalence from harvested male deer. https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Research/CWD/CWDprevalence_GMU-DAU_deer.pdf.

Colorado Parks & Wildlife. 2020b. Estimated chronic wasting disease (CWD) prevalence from harvested elk. [accessed 2020 Apr 20]. https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Research/CWD/CWDprevalence_GMU-DAU_elk.pdf.

Miller MW, Fischer JR. 2016. The First Five (or More) Decades of Chronic Wasting Disease: Lessons for the Five Decades to Come. In: Transactions of the 81st North American WIldlife and Natural Resources Conference. Wildlife Management Institute.

Miller MW, Swanson HM, Wolfe LL, Quartarone FG, Huwer SL, Southwick CH, Lukacs PM. 2008. Lions and Prions and Deer Demise. PLoS ONE. 3(12). doi:https://dx.doi.org/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0004019.

Schoennagel T, Veblen TT, Negron JF, Smith JM. 2012. Effects of Mountain Pine Beetle on Fuels and Expected Fire Behavior in Lodgepole Pine Forests, Colorado, USA. PLOS ONE. 7(1):e30002. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0030002.

Southwick Associates. 2018. Economic Contributions of Outdoor Recreation in Colorado: A Regional and County-Level Analysis. Denver, CO, USA: Colorado Parks & Wildlife.

Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 2017. Recommendations for Adaptive Management of Chronic Wasting Disease in the West. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada and Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.: WAFWA Wildlife Health Committee and Mule Deer Working Group.

White G, Lubow B. 2002. Fitting Population Models to Multiple Sources of Observed Data. Journal of Wildlife Management. 66(2):300 – 309.

DRAFT E-07 HERD MANAGEMENT PLAN

APPENDIX I: POPULATION DYNAMICS, MAXIMUM SUSTAINED YIELD, AND DENSITY DEPENDENCE Numerous studies of animal populations, including bacteria, mice, rabbits, and white-tailed deer have shown that the populations grow in a mathematical relationship referred to as the "sigmoid growth curve" (Figure 20). There are three distinct phases to this cycle. The first phase occurs while Sigmoid Growth Curve the population level is still very low and is 10,000 characterized by a slow growth rate and a high mortality rate. This occurs because the populations 8,000 may have too few animals and the loss of even a few of them to predation or accidents can significantly 6,000 affect population growth.

The second phase occurs when the population 4,000

number is at a moderate level. This phase is Number of Animals of Number characterized by high reproductive and survival 2,000 rates. During this phase, food, cover, water and space are not a limiting factor. During this phase, 0 for example, animals such as white-tailed deer have 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 been known to successfully breed at six months of Year age and produce a live fawn on their first birthday and Figure 20. Sigmoid Growth Curve. older does have been known to produce 3-4 fawns that are very robust and healthy. Survival rates of all sex and age classes are also at maximum rates during this phase. The final or third phase occurs when stocking rate increases causing the habitat to become crowded or habitat conditions become less favorable. During this phase the quantity and quality of food, water, cover and space become scarce due to the competition with other members of the population. These types of factors that increasingly limit productivity and survival at higher population densities are known as density-dependent effects. During this phase, for example, white-tailed deer fawns can no longer find enough food to grow to achieve a critical minimum weight that allows them to reproduce; adult does will usually only produce 1-3 fawns; and survival of all deer (bucks, does and fawns) will decrease. During severe winters, large die-offs can occur due to the crowding and lack of food. The first to die during these situations are fawns, then bucks, followed by adult does. Severe winters affect the future buck to doe ratios by favoring more does and fewer bucks in the population. Also, because the quality of a buck's antlers is somewhat dependent upon the quantity and quality of his diet, antlers development is diminished. If the population continues to grow it will eventually reach a point called "K" or the maximum carrying capacity. At this point, the population reaches an "equilibrium" with the habitat. The number of births each year equal the number of deaths, therefore, to maintain the population at this level would not allow for any "hunt-able surplus." The animals in the population would be in relatively poor body condition, habitat condition would be degraded from over-use, and when a severe winter or other catastrophic event occurs, a large die-off is inevitable. What does all this mean to the management of Colorado's big game herds? It means that if we attempt to manage for big game herds that are at high stocking rates they are being limited by density-dependent effects, we should attempt to hold the populations more towards the middle of the "sigmoid growth curve." Biologists call this point of inflection of the sigmoid growth curve the point of "MSY" or "maximum sustained yield." In the example below, MSY, which is approximately half the maximum population size or "K", would be 5,000 animals. At this level, the population should provide the maximum production, survival, and available surplus animals for hunter harvest. Also, at this level, range habitat condition should be good to excellent and range trend should be stable to improving. Game damage problems should be lower and economic return to

DRAFT E-07 HERD MANAGEMENT PLAN

the local and state economy should be higher. This population level should produce a "win - win" situation to balance sportsmen and private landowner concerns. Maximum Sustained Yield A graph of a hypothetical deer population showing sustained yield (harvest) potential vs. population size 1,600 is shown (Figure 21). Notice that as the population 1,400 increases from 0 to 5,000 deer, the harvest also 1,200 increases. However, when the population reaches 1,000 5,000 or "MSY", food, water and cover becomes scarce 800

600 and the harvest potential decreases. Finally, when the Sustained Yield population reaches the maximum carrying capacity or 400

"K" (10,000 deer in this example), the harvest potential 200 will be reduced to zero. Also, notice that it is possible 0 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 to harvest exactly the same number of deer each year Population Size with 3,000 or 7,000 deer in the population. This phenomenon occurs because the population of 3,000 deer has a much higher survival and reproductive rate Figure 21. Maximum Sustained Yield. compared to the population of 7,000 deer. However, at the 3,000 deer level, there will be less game damage and resource degradation but lower watchable wildlife values. Managing deer and elk populations for MSY on a DAU basis is difficult if not impossible due to the amount of detailed biological information about habitat and population size required. Additionally, carrying capacity is not static, the complex and dynamic nature of the environment cause carrying capacity to vary seasonally, annually, and trend over time. In most cases we would not desire true MSY management even if possible because of the potential for overharvest and the number of mature of bulls and bucks is minimized because harvest reduces recruitment to older age classes. However, the concept of MSY is useful for understanding how reducing densities and pushing asymptotic populations towards the inflection point can stimulate productivity and increase harvest yields. Knowing the exact point of MSY is not necessary if the goal is to conservatively reduce population size to increase yield. Long-term harvest data is a gauge of the effectiveness of reduced population size on harvest yield. Several studies in Colorado have shown that density-dependent winter fawn survival is the mechanism that limits mule deer population size because winter forage is limiting (Bartmann et al. 1992; Bishop et al. 2010). Adult doe survival and reproduction remain high but winter fawn survival is lower at higher population sizes relative to what the winter habitat can support. The intuition to restrict, or even eliminate, female harvest in populations where productivity is low and when populations are below HMP objectives is counterproductive and creates a management paradox. In that, for populations limited by density dependent processes, this “hands-off” type of management simply exacerbates and perpetuates the problem of the population being resource limited, and countermands the goals and objectives of the HMP. As (Bartmann et al. 1992) suggest, because of density-dependent processes, it would be counterproductive to reduce female harvest when juvenile survival is low and increase harvest when survival is high. Instead, a moderate level of female harvest helps to maintain the population below habitat carrying capacity and results in improved survival and recruitment of fawns. Increased fawn recruitment allows for more buck hunting opportunity and a more resilient population, as half of fawns recruited to adults are bucks. Thus, the key for Herd Management Planning and management by objective is to set population objectives in line with what the limiting habitat attributes can support. A suitable population objective range must be below carrying capacity.

III

DRAFT E-07 HERD MANAGEMENT PLAN

APPENDIX II: COMMENT LETTERS

DRAFT E-07 HERD MANAGEMENT PLAN

VII

DRAFT E-07 HERD MANAGEMENT PLAN

APPENDIX III PUBLIC SURVEY

Colorado Elk Management in Game Management Units (GMUs) 15 & 27 Herd Management Plan (HMP)

Please return this form no later than August 27, 2018 to CPW Steamboat Springs Office [925 Weiss Drive Steamboat Springs, CO or mail form to E- 7 HMP PO Box 775777 Steamboat Springs, CO 80477]. Your contribution to this process is vital; thank you for taking part. This form is also available online at: http://cpw.state.co.us/HMP

Colorado Parks & Wildlife (CPW) is interested in your input on the management of elk herds in Game Management Units (GMUs) 15&27. Your input is a very important part of the planning process. The information you provide will help guide management of this herd for the next 10 years. Your responses will remain confidential and at no time will your name be associated with any of your responses.

1. Which of the following best describes how you interact with elk in GMU 15 or 27? (Please check all that apply.)

VIII

DRAFT E-07 HERD MANAGEMENT PLAN

As a viewer/wildlife watcher As a landowner As a hunter As a livestock producer As an Outdoor recreationist (e.g., hiker, skier, mountain biker, etc.) As a Guide/Outfitter Other (Please specify): ______

2. Do you currently live in GMU 15 or 27? (See map above) (Please check one.) Yes No

3. Are you? (Please check one.) Resident of Colorado Nonresident

4. Do you regularly hunt in GMU 15 or 27? (See map above) (Please check one.) Yes No

5. During which of the following seasons have you hunted elk in GMUs 15 or 27? (Please check all that apply.) Archery Muzzleloader 1st season (rifle) 2nd season (rifle) 3rd season (rifle) 4th season (rifle) Late season Private land only

6. Do you hunt mainly on public or private land in GMU 15 or 27? (Please check one.) Public Private Mixture

7. From your experience do you believe the elk population in GMU’s 15 or 27 is: (Please check one.) Increasing Decreasing Stable

DRAFT E-07 HERD MANAGEMENT PLAN

8. From your experience do you believe the bull to cow ratio in GMU’s 15 or 27 is: (Please check one.) Increasing Decreasing Stable 9. The current herd objectives for E-7 (GMU’s 15 & 27) are set at 4,000-5,000 elk with an expected sex ratio of 24-28 bulls per 100 cows. Population models consistently show the herd within this population range or slightly above and at the expected bull to cow ratio. The HMP is currently under review. Several options exist for the HMP including maintaining the current objectives or modifying them. Which option do you prefer? Update data in the existing plan and Extend Current Objectives for the next ten year HMP cycle Update data and do a Total Plan Revision for the next ten year HMP cycle 10. If you chose Total Plan Revision above: Please write comments in the space below to describe why you feel the plan needs a total revision.

Additionally: Please use the space below to describe aspects about elk hunting that would improve your hunting experience or to share any additional comments you have about the management of elk herds in GMUs 15 or 27.

Thank you for taking the time to provide comments.

DRAFT E-07 HERD MANAGEMENT PLAN

APPENDIX IV PUBLIC SURVEY RESULTS Response to Question One Which of the following best describes how you interact with elk in GMUs 15 and 27? (Please check all that apply.) 90.00% 80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% Responses

Response to Question Two Do you currently live in GMU 15 or 27? (See map below) (Please check one.) 120.00%

100.00%

80.00%

60.00% Responses

40.00%

20.00%

0.00% Yes No

DRAFT E-07 HERD MANAGEMENT PLAN

Response to Question Three Are you a Colorado resident? (Please check one.) 120.00%

100.00%

80.00%

60.00% Responses

40.00%

20.00%

0.00% Yes No

Response to Question Four Have you hunted elk in GMU 15 or 27 in the past 5 years? (See map below.) (Please check one.) 90.00% 80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% Responses 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% Yes No

XII

DRAFT E-07 HERD MANAGEMENT PLAN

Response to Question Five During which of the following seasons do you most prefer to hunt elk in GMUs 15 or 27? (Please check all that apply.) 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% Responses 10.00% 0.00%

Response to Question Six On average, where do you hunt elk in GMU 15 or 27? (Please check one.) 120.00%

100.00%

80.00%

60.00% Responses 40.00%

20.00%

0.00% On public land On private land On both public I do not hunt and private land

XIII

DRAFT E-07 HERD MANAGEMENT PLAN

Response to Question Seven From your experience do you believe the elk population in GMU’s 15 and 27 is: (Please check one.) 45.00% 40.00% 35.00% 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% Responses 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% Increasing Decreasing Stable Not sure

Response to Question Eight From your experience do you believe the bull-to-cow ratio in GMU’s 15 and 27 is: (Please check one.) 45.00% 40.00% 35.00% 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% Responses 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% Increasing Decreasing Stable Not sure

XIV

DRAFT E-07 HERD MANAGEMENT PLAN

Response to Question Nine

The current herd objectives for GMU’s 15 AND 27 are set at 4,000-5,000 elk with an expected sex ratio of 24-28 bulls per 100 cows. Population models consistently show the herd within this population range or slightly 70.00% above and at the expected bull to cow 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% Maintain current objectives Revise herd objectives and do No preference and Extend the Herd a Total Herd Management Management Plan for the next Plan Revision for the next ten-year cycle ten-year cycle Respon…

If you chose Total Plan Revision above: Please write comments in the space below to describe why you feel the plan needs a total revision. (One written comment received) End Over the counter licensing.