Wildlife & Watershed Planning Kevin Wagner, PhD WPPs & TMDLs Addressing Non-Domesticated Species (Wildlife) Wildlife Measures in 10 of 11 EPA Accepted WPPs Attoyac Bayou Buck Creek Cypress Creek Geronimo & Alligator Creeks Lake Granbury Lampasas River Leon River Plum Creek Upper Cibolo Creek Upper San Antonio River Wildlife Measures Included in TMDL Implementation Plans Copano Bay Dickinson Bayou Gilleland Creek Guadalupe River above Canyon Texas BST Studies To Date 5-Way Split (averages based on findings in 10 watersheds) Non-Avian Avian Wildlife Wildlife 32% 18% Pets Unidentified 5% 11% All Livestock Human 24% 10% Mean Background Levels in Runoff Fecal Coliform E. coli Site (#/100 mL) (cfu/100 mL) Reference Ungrazed pasture 10,000 Robbins et al. 1972 Ungrazed pasture 6,600 Doran et al. 1981 Control plots 6,800 Guzman et al. 2010 Pasture destocked >2 mos. 1,000-10,000 Collins et al. 2005 Ungrazed pasture 6,200-11,000 Wagner et al. 2012 Pasture destocked >2 wks. 2,200-6,000 Wagner et al. 2012 Impacts of Migratory Wildlife E. coli concentrations at ungrazed site BB1 (2009-2010) Date BB1 BB2 BB3 300,000 3/13/09 140 3/25/09 1,200 250,000 3/26/09 1,000 7,200 /100 mL) 3/27/09 2,000 200,000 cfu 4/17/09 1,155 980 450 4/18/09 4,400 2,225 2,100 150,000 4/28/09 7,600 12,200 24,000 100,000 10/4/09 57,000 5,114 3,065 Concentration ( 10/9/09 36,000 24,043 15,000 coli 50,000 10/13/09 42,851 23,826 5,591 E. 10/22/09 172,500 - 10/26/09 261,000 181,000 45,000 Jul-09 Jan-10 Apr-10 Feb-10 Jun-09 Mar-10 Oct-09 Apr-09 Sep-09 Dec-09 May-10 Aug-09 Mar-09 Nov-09 May-09 >80% of E. coli loading from wildlife at 3 sites in 2009 E. coli in edge-of-field runoff (Harmel) Species in Texas >680 Wildlife Species ◉ >140 mammals ◉ >540 bird species > 15 domesticated species Dog Sheep Pig Goat Cattle Cat Chicken Donkey Duck Horse Llama Alpaca Ferret Turkey Rabbit 1 Human species Challenges Obtaining population data ◉ Impacts Source Survey & Modeling ◉ Impacts Load Allocations & BMPs Selected/Implemented Identifying & implementing appropriate management measures Communicating with & keeping stakeholders engaged Sources of animal density data Livestock Texas Agricultural Statistics USDA Census of Agriculture Deer Density Sources TPWD County Biologists http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/landwater/land/habitats/county/ TPWD Publications Lockwood, M. (2005). White-tailed Deer Population Trends. Pineywoods Deer Herd Status Report ◉ http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/publications/pwdpubs/media/pwd_bk_w7000_0088a.pdf The Post Oak Savannah Deer Herd Past, Present, Future ◉ http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/publications/pwdpubs/media/pwd_rp_w7000_0237b.pdf Frio County White-tailed Deer Population Data ◉ http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/landwater/land/habitats/southtx_plain/regulatory/pop_trends/frio_pop.phtml White-tailed Deer Management In The Texas Hill Country ◉ http://www.texasconservation.org/resources/pwd_rp_w7000_0828.pdf Guidelines for White-tailed Deer Management in the Crosstimbers & Prairies Region of North TX ◉ http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/publications/pwdpubs/media/pwd_rp_w7000_1133.pdf Deer Densities Reported In WPPs Upper Llano – 10.1 ac/deer Copano Bay – 13.5 ac/deer Leon River – 27.5 ac/deer ◉ RMU23 – 56.6/1000 ac ◉ RMU24 – 8.4/1000 ac Buck Creek – 36 ac/deer Plum Creek – 127 ac/deer Feral Hog Density Data Sources TPWD County Biologists http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/landwater/land/habitats/county/ Stakeholder group Published studies in Texas Texas A&M Institute of Renewable Natural Resources. 2012. Feral Hog Population Growth, Density & Harvest in Texas. Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Publication SP-472, August 2012. Adkins & Haveson. 2007. Demographic and spatial characteristics of feral hogs in the Chihuahuan Desert, Texas. Human–Wildlife Conflicts 1(2):152–160, Fall 2007 Harveson, L. A., M. E. Tewes, N. J. Silvy, J. D. Hillje, and J. Rutledge. 2000. Prey use by mountain lions in southern Texas. Southwestern Naturalist 45:472–476. Ilse, L. M., and E. C. Hellgren. 1995. Resource partitioning in sympatric populations of collared peccaries and feral hogs in southern Texas. Journal of Mammalogy 76:784– 789. Other Published Studies on Feral Hogs Mapston, M. E. 2004, May. Feral hogs in Texas. Publication B-6149. College Station: Texas Cooperative Extension, Wildlife Services. Reidy, M. M. 2007. Efficacy of electric fencing to inhibit feral pig movements and evaluation of population estimation techniques. Thesis. Kingsville, Texas: Texas A&M University-Kingsville. Rollo, S., L. D. Highfield, and M. P. Ward. 2007. A novel estimation method for predicting spatial density of feral swine using ecological data. GISVET ’07 – Pre Conference Draft. College Station, Texas: Texas A&M University, Department of Veterinary Integrative Biosciences. Taylor, R. 1991. The feral hog in Texas. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. Federal Aid Report Series No. 28. Project W-125-R. 20 pp. University of Georgia. 1993. Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study. Feral Hog Densities Reported In WPPs Feral hog densities range from 12-26 hogs/sq. mi. ◉ Plum Creek – 12 hogs/sq. mi. ◉ Leon River – 18.9 hogs/sq. mi. ◉ Copano Bay watershed – 19.2 hogs/sq. mi. ◉ Upper Llano – 21.3 hogs/sq. mi. ◉ Geronimo Creek – 25 hogs/sq. mi. ◉ Buck Creek – 25.6 hogs/sq. mi. Other animal species Density data difficult to find or nonexistent E. coli conc. in feces of many species unknown BST currently best approach Non-avian wildlife contributions (Parker et al. 2013) Implications/questions of wildlife being identified as significant source of E. coli Implications: Background/wildlife loadings need to be considered when: ◉ Developing TMDLs and watershed based plans ◉ And possibly when applying water quality standards Ignoring background/wildlife contributions may lead to: ◉ Inaccurate load allocations and reductions ◉ Nonattainment of water quality standards Questions remain including: How do we better integrate background/wildlife loadings into water quality management? What can/should we do to address wildlife loads? Goals for today are to discuss: Wildlife Populations in Texas Better Integrating Wildlife Into Planning & Implementation Current Approaches for Addressing Wildlife Sources Watershed Coordinator Experience in Addressing Wildlife Funding for Implementing Wildlife Management Measures Other Approaches for Addressing Wildlife Contributions .