Full text of "Mule deer habitat guides"

See other formats

BLM LIBRARY

T/N 336

Filing Code 66ll

Date Issued September 1979

TECHNICAL NOTE

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR - BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

MULE DEER HABITAT GUIDELINES

BY RICHARD M. KERR

Additional copies of Technical Notes are available from DSC, Federal Center Building 50, Denver, Colo., 80225

AU OF LAND MANAGEMENF

Lib]
Dei

MULE DEER HABITAT GUIDES
by

Richard M. Kerr
Big Game Ecologist
Denver Service Center

Bureau of Land Management

U.S. Department of the Interior

Denver, Colorado

)F LAND MANAGEMENT

Libr

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION 1

Outlook 1

BACKGROUND 2

Historical 2

Distribution and Abundance 3

SPECIES LIFE HISTORY AND GENERAL HABITAT REQUIREMENTS .... 5

THE REGIONAL HABITATS 5

HABITATS AND THEIR USE 6

INFORMATION FOR THE HABITAT MANAGEMENT JOB 25

Strategic Information 25

Herd Unit Maps 25

Population and Harvest Statistics 26

Tactical Information 26

Inventory Information 26

Habitat Use Areas 31

Vegetation Inventory 31

Water Inventory 35

Human Disturbance 35

Tools for Inventory 35

Limiting Factors 37

Water 37

Water Quality 38

Water Quantity 38

Distance to Water 42

Cover 42

Food and Cover Relationships 43

Cover to Open Area Relationships 43

Size of Openings 44

Shape of the Opening 44

Shape of the Cover 44

Food 47

Fences on Mule Deer Range 47

Other Limiting Factors 47

Rating Mule Deer Range 53

Manipulation Practices 53

LITERATURE CITED 59

APPENDIX 1 - Physiographic Regions Map Pocket

ILLUSTRATION 1 - Approximate Distribution of Mule Deer

Subspecies in Relation to Physiographic

Regions Map Pocket

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this Mule Deer (Odoooileus hemionus) Habitat Management
Guide is principally to assist BLM managers and biologists in planning
for and managing mule deer habitat on public lands administered by the
Bureau of Land Management. For many years Federal land management
agencies have made the distinction between the Federal responsibility
for managing habitat and the State prerogatives of managing native wild
ungulate populations. Certainly the two are inseparably linked. These
responsibilities, and up to now "symbiotic relationships", are probably
best described succinctly in Title 43 of the Code of Federal Regulations
Part 24.

Outlook

The mule deer is well adapted to semiarid western lands. Although from
time to time the white-tailed deer {Odoooileus virginianus) appears to
be increasing in importance on some mule deer ranges, this smaller more
secretive deer will probably never replace the mule deer as the West's
most important big game animal. The small size of the mule deer's home
range and its ability, at least in small herds, to tolerate to some
extent human beings and their facilities will probably assure its
continued importance as a big game animal in the western United States
when other species have become scarce, endangered, or extirpated.

The present accelerated "development" of the West makes it imperative
that biologists manage mule deer habitat if any significant herds are to
remain after much important historic habitat has been lost.

BACKGROUND

Historical

Although the Spanish and French were the first white men to see mule
deer, these large-eared ungulates were not described until Lewis and
Clark left descriptions in their records in 1804. Apparently miners and
others who followed the trappers west were nearly as hard on mule deer
herds as they were on bison. The Columbian blacktail slaughter described
by Seton blames gold diggers for the slaughter of thousands. Commercial
use and waste diminished many herds (Seton, 1929). Of a later period
Dr. Frank Stanton summarizes:

"Records of various parties of the 1820 and 1830 period
indicate that deer were scarce over large areas of the
western mountains and Great Basin country where today
deer are abundant. Conversely, many of the original deer
ranges (e.g., the Sacramento Valley) are now virtually
deer-less because of agricultural development (Leopold, 1950).

Deer seem to achieve maximum densities in areas of disturbed
vegetation which produce palatable shrubs or tree reproduction
as secondary stages in plant succession. Logging, fire, and
grazing are the three principal influences.

Prior to settlement, deer seem to have occurred principally
along edges where forest and grassland met or on recent burns
in the forest." (Stanton, 1974)

Dr. Stanton is quoted here since he has pinpointed the very heart of
vegetation's long term and historic influence on deer habitat.

While Seton is quoted as estimating some ten million mule deer on
their original home range (prior to white man's disturbance), he
estimated only 400,000 remaining on their North American range in
1904 (Seton, 1929).

By the turn of the century concern for reduced populations of deer
gave support to the game preserve as a solution to the alarming
decrease in population. The Kaibab case is briefly related to
illustrate the rate at which fully protected mule deer can increase
under appropriate vegetational succession conditions.

Set aside as a game preserve in 1906 by Teddy Roosevelt, about 1000
square miles of the Kaibab National Forest held 3000 mule deer.
Four thousand head were estimated two years later. In 1912 there
were 10,000. (Seton, 1929)

By 1924 there were an estimated 100,000 mule deer and inspite of this
large starving over population, intense predator control continued
(Russo, 1970).

A drastic decline and die-off caused by livestock and deer overgrazing
and poor range condition occurred leaving 30,000 deer (Russo, 1970), as
die-off s and range destruction continued. Many ill-conceived plans for
solutions failed including trapping, an unsuccessful deer drive to move
deer off of the range, and feeding farms for fawns. The later appears
so uninformed in light of available knowledge that it is an excellent
example of the "beating around the bush" accomplished in resource manage-
ment if the real solution is emotionally, economically, or politically
distasteful. One must really read Russo' s account to appreciate the
story.

Catastrophic conditions finally led to U.S. Government action which was
contested to the Supreme Court. The killing of deer by government
hunters was begun to lower the deer population. In the first year of
shooting, over 1000 head were killed and removed (Russo, 1970).

In 1929 authorized sports hunting by the public took 3600 deer and
provided the tool which discontinued the government hunting and began
management of the herd. Even though the extreme over-population (mule
deer) had been eliminated, scars of range abuse remained decades later
(Russo, 1970).

As fully protected herds become large, mule deer eventually reach
populations which damage the food producing capacity of the range,
permanently impairing its capacity even after die-offs reduce
populations.

The author of the Deer of North America adequately describes the
progression:

"In most State and National Parks where deer have been
given full protection from man, their numbers have usually
declined." (Taylor, 1956)

Distribution and Abundance

Illustration 1, "Approximate Distribution of Mule Deer Subspecies in
Relation to Physiographic Regions 1978", serves to illustrate that the
Rocky Mountain mule deer, Odoooileus hemionus hemionus , is the most

widely distributed of the mule deer subspecies, as well as being the
most common on public lands. It is therefore of most interest to BLM
biologists and managers. With the exception perhaps of the Columbian
black-tailed deer and the Sitka mule deer, management varies more by
the variable of physiographic regions or vegetation associations than
it does between subspecies of deer. Consequently the management
guidance given here should be applicable to all subspecies with the
exception perhaps of Odoaoileus hemionus columbianus and Odoooileus
hemionus sitkinas.

Because of the ubiquitousness of mule deer, reiterating estimates of
North American populations over a period of years may be a very
inaccurate exercise and reminiscent of the plight of the young biologist
who discovered after hunting season that hunters had killed more deer
than his total population estimate. A typical mule deer state such
as Colorado, however, might be used to illustrate the trend in abundance
of mule deer throughout its ranges in the West. On public lands
administered by the Bureau of Land Management in Colorado, mule deer
ranges sustained approximately 161,000 mule deer in 1947 (the first BLM
report) (BLM, 1947). The same ranges reportedly supported approximately
265,000 deer in 1955 (BLM, 1956), 320,000 in 1965 (BLM, 1966), and
164,000 in 1975 (BLM, 1976). Although the correctness of these field
estimates may leave much to speculation, to an observer associated with
mule deer ranges in the West for over 25 years, it seems to give an
indication of what has occurred on many western ranges during that time
period.

SPECIES LIFE HISTORY
AND GENERAL HABITAT REQUIREMENTS

A great deal of information on life history, habitat description, and
species requirements has been covered in a general sense by Dr. Frank
Stanton in BLM 6601 - Species Life History and Habitat Requirements
Technical Supplement 6601-6, Mule Deer (BLM, 1974). The excellent job
done by Dr. Stanton does not require redundant coverage, and it is not
the purpose of this effort to do so. One interested in an excellent
treatment of these subjects should refer to Dr. Stanton's supplement
available from BLM. It is the purpose of this effort to briefly
describe how the job of habitat management is done.

THE REGIONAL HABITATS

Before entering the discussion of habitat management for mule deer, it
would be well to provide a general discussion of the composition,
structure, and use of various regional ecosystems which provide habitat
for mule deer populations.

A framework has been provided based upon accepted physiographic regions
and regional ecosystems based on potential natural vegetation as described
by A.W. Kuchler in BLM's Integrated Habitat Inventory and Classification
System (BLM, 1977). A map of these ecosystems regionalized by physio-
graphic regions is provided in Appendix 1 (BLM 6602).

These ecosystems as mapped by Kuchler were referred to as associations
by BLM-6602. In order to provide continuity, we may refer to these as
subformations in accordance with the Forest Service Ecoclass Hierarchy
(Hall, 1978).

HABITATS AND THEIR USE

Mule deer are principally animals of forest, woodland, or brush types.
This is probably because of their innate requirement to remain close
to visual or escape cover. Examples indicate that where vegetation
does not provide sufficient cover, habitat will be important only if
topographic cover replaces vegetation cover or supplements limited
vegetation (Severson and Carter, 1978). Even tall dense grass provides
escape cover for desert mule deer (0. h. orooki) in the valleys between
rough desert hills on the McGregor firing range in New Mexico, north of
El Paso.

Illustrations 2 through 13 illustrate typical types of habitats found on
public lands that are of important value to mule deer.

In addition to vegetation, regional and local topography play important
roles in the development and use of habitat by mule deer, as with other
ungulates (Linsdale and Tomich, 1953); (Loveless, 1974); (Hudson, Hebert,
and Brink, 1976). One of the most important values of varying topography
within a habitat area is that differences in elevation can offset adverse
weather or climatic conditions, since several elevation levels offer
better possibilities of favorable conditions in time of drought,
heavy snow, etc. 1/ In an undifferentiated land area such as a flat plain,
if conditions are bad in one place, they are bad all over. Where no one
particular elevation induced vegetation cover type provides complete
year-round requirements, the mixture of these elevation zoned cover
types formed by diverse topography does provide total yearlong
requirements.

This phenomena has resulted in the forming of large migratory mule deer
herds of the West. The need for various cover types located at different
elevations produces the goal of the migration, while cold, snow, or dry
forage are usually the causative agents starting the movement in the
winter. In the spring it is the desire for green succulent forage or
lack of forage on the winter range. Once learned, these movements
become habitual (Bartram and Rempel, 1977) and in adult animals are
generally faithfully repeated year after year with the same seasonal
ranges being occupied by the same animals (Gruell and Papez, 1963) or
their offspring. Illustration 14 is an illustration of the use of cover
types on a regional basis used by a migrating mule deer herd.

Most of the time winter ranges will occupy smaller areas than summer
ranges (Dasmann, 1971). This led to the viewpoint in the 1950's that
winter ranges were generally the critical problem areas. Although this

1/ Personal examination by the author.

f*if %sf -

■t- **;

Illustration 3. A typical hay meadow near Saguache, Colorado, which
serves as crucial spring range for mule deer. Wheatgrass-Needlegrass.

Illustration 4. The spruce fir type of mule deer summer range. The
highest (elevation) type utilized by mule deer. Western Spruce-Fir
Forest.

Illustration 5. The juniper-pinyon type, perhaps one of the most
valuable on public lands, furnishes crucial forage, especially in
winter from the subclimax interspersed browse areas. Juniper-Pinyon
Woodland.

Illustration 6. Juniper or juniper-pinyon areas are also valuable for
escape and thermal cover, especially in fall, winter, and spring where
feeding areas are adjacent. Juniper-Pinyon Woodland.

Illustration 7. A juniper-pinyon forest slightly past the best
successional stage for mule deer. Juniper-Pinyon Woodland.

Illustration 8. A ponderosa pine type with an understory of oak brush
(Quercus gcoribeli) . This type generally affords spring, summer, and
fall range depending on its location. Pine-Douglas Fir Forest.

.-I

4»

Illustration 9. The high elevation lodge pole pine-sagebrush combination
provides extensive spring, summer, and fall range in the mountain West.
Pine-Douglas Fir Forest.

Illustration 10. The high elevation lodge pole pine-sagebrush combination
provides extensive spring, summer, and fall range in the mountain West.
Pine-Douglas Fir Forest.

Illustration 11. This excellent deer range in Wyoming provides good
yearlong habitat except in years of deep snow when this high inter-
mountain basin offers no lower elevation for escape. Snow depths in
excess of 20 inches effectively prohibit mule deer movement and use
(Loveless, 1967). Pine-Douglas Fir Forest and Sagebrush Steppe.

Illustration 12. Even grassy plains like these west of Cheyenne,
Wyoming, offer deer habitat in draws covered with mountain mahogany

(Cercoearpus montanus) . Grama-Buffalo Grass.

Illustration 13. Where vegetation is sparse and offers poor visual
cover, topographic relief supplements the vegetation cover as in this
area north of Phoenix, Arizona. Creosote Bush-Bur Sage.

Illustration 14

£OAK?Q&\1& AAULE* PHsg- UA&tpH" PHE*40LOC3Y CHAJ2.T

M0NTU6 OF

3U&Fof2AAA"pO»J Ofc-

IM A KOI

VSAE.

3EA$0MA1_

RBPfcODucpoM

JAMUAfcX

Fe&£DAeY

MAB£H

APJ2.IL

AAAY

JUU&

JUDf

Auc*u&r

Juniper -piVion
woodland

Thi-b could be Mountain
Mahogany - oat^crulo,
juniper £hrub e-tep or
"a^ciaf-ionfr of -Kie*e V
in a Qrat&bnd
ewbfmwafion.

Opening , \n\eadowfr or
elevations! beH* *f
aretn -forage, in -foe
7>" non-jumper 2one

Pondero&a pine

Spruce -fir

£e.fTEMfi&R-

OCfO&Bfc-

HOVEA^E*.

Tondero63 pine/

I>£c£A^e£:l^-

Pinon-juniper
woodland

Ihi* could be Douglas
■jfir, lodac pole or
miioed conifer

*"ffti£ might be
"ponderous pine
£»uWbrtha+ion6 or
ou&fcoGi'a-Hon* or
Itovgla^ fir lodge pole
bhCjocJefowh or
&ubfbrwat»on$ if
elevaticw or et innate,
do not provide
spruce -Br.

-H

oujm

&am\e a^ above.

£awe a£ above

0)5"
CD

may be a valid concept, we have found in many ranges, especially on BLM
or Public Lands, that spring and summer ranges can be severe problems,
especially where there is competition with livestock for cool season
grasses and f orbs 1/ .

Illustration 14 presents the concept that different habitats have
different seasonal and life history uses for migrating mule deer. It is
of course impossible to construct a chart such as this that is accurate
for all years and regions where mule deer are found. A biologist
entering a new herd area would do well to prepare such a chart from
inventory information or field investigation. It should be remembered
that while snow date, snow depth, forage succulence, and storm dates
will influence migration dates, these can only directly affect the
rutting period. Fawning and subsequent nursing will take place
approximately 200 days thereafter, regardless of the weather. It should
also be remembered that traditional migration routes, seasonal home
ranges, and fawning and rearing areas will be used unless catastrophic
weather occurs.

Some general interpretations can be made from a chart similar to
Illustration 14. If the habitat manager were attempting to improve
occupied mule deer range which was in the spruce-fir cover type and
utilized in early summer, he would probably try to increase succulent
forbs and cool season grasses for does with nursing fawns. He would
generally not try to increase browse plants. If he were improving
spring holding areas, he would be encouraging succulent forbs and cool
season grasses and maintaining meadows in good condition for prefawning
conditioning of pregnant females (Kerr, 1968). If he were trying to
improve crucial winter ranges in the juniper-pinyon, he would encourage
browse in woodland parks or clearings for the maintenance of the total
deer herd. Illustration 15 gives a table of reproductive chronology as
displayed in various regional research or records, and Illustration 15A
gives an idea of when the migration periods occur.

While several broad interpretations may be made from a locally
constructed chart such an Illustration 14, on-site management interpre-
tation must be made from on-site information. Further, the seasonal
cover types or associations shown are not meant to indicate that these
are the only associations used during a particular season, but they are
examples of typical situations.

Migrating mule deer herds are common in the Sierra Mountains, Cascade
Mountains, Columbia Plateau, Northern Rocky Mountains, Middle Rocky
Mountains, Southern Rocky Mountains and portions of the Colorado Plateau,
Wyoming Basin, Upper Basin and Range, Lower Basin and Range, and Upper
Missouri Basin and Broken Lands which lie adjacent to more mountainous

1/ Author's personal observations through range examination - Nevada
BLM, HMP Evaluation, 1976.

i_
•t— >
GO

r»

cLj a.

•

u-i

<-i

u-N

•

t-4

CT»

I"H

t-t

•

a-.

Oti

-i

•

-»

•

-3-

«»•

r«

••

•

r-v

r->

C7>

•

•N

•

t-(

-o

■

i-H

•-i

— 1

i-l

i-H

•-<

-H

•H

c
to

S>l

•H

Cr,

■H

ON©
rHCN

C
3

-1

oo-h

«l

•T.

►->

3rH

>»

a c

-H

r 3

«5

•H

►"l

•-H

1 3

►n

-5

►1

LTl

r»»

t-i

» rV

C <fl

i-i

4-1

-O Li

•-H

-H

3 41

B CO

°3

►1

<->

"-S

■n cu

"-J

•■J

CM 41

■^

1-5

-1

h-l

p»

H O

3 °

H rH

co os

CTn

*£•

w w

■o

CJ CL

CNI

-»

r-t

►1

o
en

a
i

O
41

-3-

>«

41 iH

4J l-i

to <g

4-1

c
to

rH 01

*->

•->

P»

u-l

•o

-1

4-1

>-J

i->

<->

•■)

u-i

u-l

•a

■o

■H

4)
CO

0
z

•J

•O 01

#*^

»H

C T3

•

■

r-v

<§

rH TJ

o *

•H

■H

a 41

eox

j-i

n— ' r-N

M r-

41 «

•H

|L 4J

•

O 41

l-> «

O 3

■H

5tS

V 41

4-1

41 4.

o r

, £

*— '

-4

t-t

—i

-I Q

1 c

> 1

—

» *

•C3

n — ' r-s

. 4-

3 .*

1 5

eg a

<8 >,

•

41 41

41 •

O C

, L

•o "O

ii j;

L-i

u 41

Z rH

Z B

U H

eg a

o u

•H

-H

•H

•*-!

•H 41

•H

^-t

C —

■

C >

-H O

rH a

3 X

J z

-r*

a cc

> *-

a
<_

c5S

CJ -H

to
o

0
01

■

Illustration 15 A

MULE DEER

Table 2. Migration Periods

Location

Fall

Spring

Literature Cited

California

Oct -Nov

Apr -May

Leopold et al 1951

W. slope Sierras

Oct-Nov

Apr- June

Longhurst et al 1952

Yosemite

Oct-Nov

Apr-June

Dixon 1934

Sequoia

Oct

Apr -May

Schneegas et al 1972

Cal-Ore

Oct

Mar

Interstate Comm. 1947

Colorado

Oct-Nov

Apr -May

Bartmann 1968
Loveless 1964

Idaho

Nov-Dec

Jensen 1968

Nevada

Sept

Mar -May

Papez 1967

Oregon

Oct-Nov

Zalunardo 1965

Utah

Oct-Nov

May-June

Richens 1967

FROM: Bureau of Land Management* 1T7M- Species life
history and habitat requirements for mule deer*
BLM Manual Technical Supplement bbOl-b*

regions containing associations of needleleaf forest 1/ (BLM, 1977) ;
(Gruel and Papez, 1963); (Bertram and Remple, 1977); (Dasmann, 1971)
(Wood, 1970). Since regional topography is generally the boundary
determination between physiographic regions, in some cases migratory
mule deer herds will summer in one region and cross the boundary and
winter in another region. This is true of the North King's deer herd
in Fresno County, California (Bertram and Remple, 1977) and Colorado's
Piceance herd, as well as many others (McKeen and Bartman, 1971).

It is not uncommon for mule deer to travel significant distances in
migration. The interstate deer herd which ranges between a winter area
in California and its summer range principally in Oregon may travel
between 50 and 100 miles (Taylor, 1956). Shorter migrations are
necessary where topographic change drops from summer to winter range
in a short distance. This is true of the herd which summers on the east
side of the La Sal Mountains in Utah and in 5 miles or less drops
2000 feet to the winter range in Sinbad Valley in Colorado. 2/

Illustration 15B shows the effects of local topography on the selection
and use of habitat sites during migration by mule deer. A manager must
protect and maintain areas made unique by topography and proper
associated vegetation if he is to provide complete habitat for mule
deer. Because of the topographic uniqueness of these areas and their
traditional use, if they are lost, they are many times irreplaceable.
Their loss will either reduce or eliminate the deer herd.

Some mule deer do not migrate 3/ (Lang, 1957). This is because they
have never learned to do so, there is no change in cover types or
weather within practical distance, or old migration routes were cut off.
These animals must make do with the habitat they have at hand and make
do with it yearlong. Sometimes they seasonally share it with migrants
from other areas.

Non-migrating herds or individuals are not uncommon on portions of the
Colorado Plateau, the Lower Basin and Range, the Southern Pacific
Border, the Upper Basin and Range, the Columbian Plateau, the Wyoming
Basin, the Rocky Mountain Piedmont, and the Upper Missouri Basin and
Broken Lands. Within these regions one would expect mule deer to occupy
on a yearlong basis, plant formations of Western Shrubs, Western
Grasslands, Western Shrub and Grassland combinations and the associations
or subformations of: California Oakwoods, Oak- Juniper Woodland, Juniper-
Pinyon Woodland, and Juniper Step Woodland. The latter two are
particularly interesting since they, as well as some others, are the
nucleus for both migratory and resident herds.

1/ Personal observations of the author.
2/ Personal observations of the author.
3/ Personal observations of the author.

v£

<r^

Vfc

J *

INFORMATION FOR THE HABITAT MANAGEMENT JOB

Information necessary for the management of mule deer habitat can be
divided into two types based on the level of information and kinds of
information needed. The two types are strategic information (regional,
extensive) and tactical information (on-site, intensive).

Strategic Information

Some of the elements of strategic information will be different from
those of the tactical type. The following information of the strategic
kind is needed.

(1) Herd Unit Maps - In order to manage habitat for a herd of mule
deer, one must first know which habitat that herd occupies. It is not
sufficient to say that ponderosa pine provides mule deer habitat and
proceed to protect or improve all ponderosa pine for mule deer. In most
cases this effort would be wasted, since all ponderosa pine stands are
not important occupied mule deer range.

We must determine which areas are occupied and proceed from there. "In
view of the necessity for individual herd management, the combined
summer-winter range used by each herd must be considered as the minimum
management unit." (Taylor, 1956).

For herd unit or game management area maps, the scale is usually one-half
inch to the mile. These are normally produced with information from Game
and Fish Departments, animal counts or inventories, BLM personnel
observations, BLM habitat inventories, or miscellaneous recorded information.

The maps should contain as a minimum the following information:

1. The location of towns and cities, major highways, and other
important landmarks.

2. A map of the drainage pattern.

3. BLM rectangular survey grid.

4. Ownership status (private, State, USFS, BLM, and other Federal
land) .

5. An overlay showing mule deer seasonal use areas for winter,
spring, summer, and fall migration routes, fawning areas, and
other crucial areas.

This information is generally in spatial relationships only, and actual
use areas are usually included with areas that receive little or no use.
An example of the herd unit map is given in Illustration 16.

(2) Population and Harvest Statistics - These statistics are
necessary in order to allow sufficient forage, cover, and water for
herds of deer. These deer population estimates are normally received
from the State Game and Fish Departments and are usually compared to
demands of other grazing ungulates using an area, to determine if the
overall grazing capacity is in balance with the livestock and ungulate
wildlife using the area. Illustration 17 is an example of a method used
to store and record these figures.

If population data is not available, an estimate of the total harvest
and the percent of the herd being harvested can be used in the formula:

TOTAL POPULATION = NUMBER HARVESTED

PERCENT OF HERD HARVESTED

Normally, these population estimates will be useful to managers princi-
pally as a way of establishing mule deer demand in the allocation of
forage resources between big game and domestic livestock; therefore,
total accuracy of numbers is not only impossible but is not required. A
defendable estimate is. A classification of animals as to sex (bucks,
does, fawns) may be helpful in allocating forage, and a more intensive
breakdown of age classes might be helpful in allocating forage over
period of time with use of a forage allocation model based on continuing
and compounding allocation impacts (see Illustration 18). Game managers,
on the other hand, will use this and other supplemental population
information to establish hunting seasons and harvest goals.

Tactical Information

There are various types of tactical or on-site information that are
necessary to manage mule deer habitat.

(1) Inventory Information - Many times wildlife biologists will be
able to obtain information from other disciplines or activities which
will be very useful in the management of mule deer habitat. An inventory
of homogeneous vegetation and landform cells normally developed under
range or forest surveys can be a beginning point, providing a system for
locating, quantifying, and describing mule deer habitat. These cells
(habitat sites), if given a unique number, are used as pieces of a deer
range which can be accumulated to give a total picture of the size,
location, and productivity of the deer range. See Illustration 19 for
an example of habitat sites (homogeneous cells). The habitat sites are
normally delineated in the field on 1/24,000 aerial photographs and then
mapped at that scale on USGS 7.5' topographic quadrangle maps.

T 12N

— ! T.11N

™ — J T 10N

T.9N.

FALL MIGRATION
SPRING MIGRATION

BLM
MULE DEER MIGRATION STUDY

NORTH CENTRAL COLORADO

1980
1/2 0 I. 2

Scole In Miles

LE6END

WINTER RANGE ^

[ ] Public Lond

Forest Land

SUMMER RANGE
LAND STATUS

^^- - - - . .

State Land
Private Land

LOCATION MAP

lustration 16

oo
0>

CO
W
H

0)
•H
CJ

&
en

H
CO

•H
U

•H

trj

4-1

i-i

0)
>-

> #■-

3 1

1
U

O CO

3 6-S

-3

4-1

3 T3 U O

00 -H

>, Tj O O

■H

•

4-1

■H

3 <-«-i

3 rH

'01

. *

4-1

/— \

•H -H

*3 B>8

•H

•

4-1

•

-a en

C I^O 3

•H

«m

4-1

C en

-3

3 3 O 3

4-1

cfl

a> cO

e .h x

• «

■H

•H

ex >h

1-1

r-\

•H

cu o

03 01 O

i-H

4-J

4-1

C 00 4J OJ

•H

5 c i-i

***,

cfl

— ^

-3

v-l

"^•l °

•H

3 *H Cu O

V-l

4-J

4-1

■n '

tn X

4-J

<4-l rH 3 g

•H

ON
ON

C/j

m
on

<n|

•rH

l-i

•X

0) WW

M c/i c oo

O CU 3

0 O 3

PQ Q Pm

l-i

CO CO (0

M CO 3 00

O dl ?H

3 O 3 l-i

PQ Q PL, >H

CO CO CO

M CO 3 00

u a) ? h

3 o 3 l-i

fQP h (h

CO CO CO

^ CO 3 oo

CJ 0) ?H

3 O 3 l-i

pq Q Pl, >-i

CO CO CO

^ (II C M

O 3 3 rH

3 O 3 l-i

CO CO
3 00

^! CO

3 3 3 rH

3 O 3 1-4

pa q pi, >-.

c
o

•H
4-1
3
l-i

•U

Illustration 19

Always Identify Township, Range, Meridian and/or State, and Legend Items

A. Habitat Use Areas - Even though we know generally where
deer-use areas are from the herd unit maps, if an inventory is to be of
use in management decisions, more specific on-site tactical data is
necessary. A good form (approved by BLM) for collecting mule deer use
information is shown in Illustration 19A and B. The form is used to
list all the animals and their uses of a habitat site. (For further
information see BLM 6602) .

For mule deer habitat inventories, the delineated cell or habitat site,
if it is within suspected habitat (herd unit map) , is inspected to
determine if it is actually used by mule deer. This can be done by
ground inspection for tracks, fecal pellets, browse use on plants, or
other evidence of use. Aerial inspection can also be used to verify
mule deer use and season of use. Illustration 20 gives a brief descrip-
tion of the applicability of verification techniques. The instructions
for filling out the habitat site form in Illustration 19A are self-
explanatory. Where more specific information is necessary such as exact
dates of occupancy of the site or deer days use per acre (see BLM 6630) ,
in the comments column.

Having verified all of the sites used by deer, their season of use,
and their general and specific uses, the biologist can then construct
maps of deer habitat by any season, for any specific or general use, or
any combination. This is done by listing by their numbers either
manually or by computer the habitat sites with the characteristics
selected to construct either an overlay or a computer map. An acreage
quantification can be made by merely summing the recorded acreages of
each cell listed and on the map.

It is possible then to further quantify or map mule deer habitat within
selected characteristics. For instance, one could obtain a list and
map or overlay all habitat sites which are mule deer spring range and
feeding areas, or other combinations of available characteristics.

B. Vegetation Inventory - An inventory of the quality
(species composition) , quantity (cover density) , structure (percent
overhead cover and horizontal canopy layering) , production (pounds per
acre of forage by species) , and age and form class characterization by
habitat site is usually necessary for further analysis of deer range.
Production is not always necessary depending on the forage allocation
system used to distribute annually produced forage between livestock and
wild ungulates including mule deer. This vegetation data is normally
obtained from inventories completed for use by various disciplines
(integrated inventories) . Forage allocation is not discussed in detail
here. The Bureau of Land Management has used various allocation
procedures over a period of time. Through these various processes,

the vegetation production of a piece of public land was divided between
the portion of the production that was unavailable because of use by
small mammals, for structure maintenance, because of trampling, for

«l

3
tj C

C Q.

3 3
M «

* "£ c * .2

« .» i S ti
55 Q fX w <

OS
M

o
<

til

X
H

u
z

-J

3
U

«/>

< 1

<s>

60
S

»-
of)
o

in
>,
x:
a.
t

X>
3
GO

1/3

'■

£3

1
j

^~*

<
i

— '

—

>«

V-

y-^

-O

-a

«l

•o

*-*

»-l

■*

o z

a £

5 Z

a <

< u

DU 02

a DQ

<
x

CQ
UJ

Q£

3
U
U

v' n
hi w

_ U

z
<

ca
H

Z
W

s
s

o
u

w
u
g

5
u
u

U
UJ
D.
!/>

<
H

a
o

><
H

55
Z

W
Q

D
H
<
H

W
Z

H
O
U

I 1

co c/3
ii

o -

Z to

CQ 5

<a <

3 s

i ;

*-*

H
U)

-i

i , x I, I

^_ o \_,

, , i X

° I^ [Z

U OS

z o

O i— ' i— i i— i

►J

O Pu

l-l w

m w

H co

4 f-1

UJ
CO

co 2

-J

§ E

3 3

W O

Q 3C

<34

tfl

-J

4-1

■

I 1

4->

4-1

--.

.-.

-i

—

fBa

-C

4->

■—

J o

•H
•u
CO

1-4

4-1

watershed cover, and because of the physiological needs of the plant;
that part that could be consumed by domestic livestock; and that part
that could be consumed by wild ungulates. This was done by use of the
theoretical concept of "forage acres" corrected by actual use adjust-
ments and the "forage acre requirement" in the ocular reconnaissance
method, or the actual weighing and estimating of the forage production
in various other methods. In any event, the original allocation is only
a beginning point for stocking and must be corrected by livestock
control (numbers, seasons, etc.) and mule deer control (appropriate
hunting seasons) after regular reviews of the management prescription
and how it is working. For further information on range surveys or
vegetation inventory methods, one can refer to BLM Manual 4412.

C. Water Inventory - The mule deer habitat manager will need
to know the location, general quality, and approximate quantity of water
available on deer ranges. Many times just knowing that a perennial
stream traverses a deer range is sufficient. In more arid areas,
however, information on water becomes more critical to management. A
form similar to Illustration 21 can be used for recording drinking water
not reflected in other inventories.

D. Human Disturbance - The need to know the extent and
penetration of man and his facilities onto mule deer range is a recent
phenomenon brought on by the migration to the West. Cities such as
Phoenix, Denver, and Los Angeles have, for several decades, been focal
points for eastern migration. Recently smaller cities such as Aspen,
Reno, Santa Fe, and Boise have been heavily impacted. This will have an
impact on mule deer habitat all over the West where new roads, housing
areas, power lines, sewage plants, water works, etc. will be necessary.
Major impacts will be: the cutting of migration routes by new roads, or
widening and traffic increase on old roads; disturbances in fawning
areas by recreationists; elimination of lower winter ranges by land
subdivision, new towns or cities, or other construction or industry;
disturbance on the winter ranges by snowmobiles, etc. In most cases
these impacts will be adverse to the mule deer herd. They certainly
will not be helpful. Major impacts from man's expansion or immigration
should be documented, at least in narrative form, for each herd for the
record and later analysis.

(2) Tools for Inventory - Several tools are almost indispensable
for habitat inventories of the nature necessary for land and habitat
management today. Aerial photos at the scale of approximately 1/24,000
are usually a prerequisite for inventorying mule deer habitat. These
can be black and white, color, or color infrared films. They must
provide the capability for delineating homogeneous cells of vegetation
and land form down to approximately ten acres. After final delineation
on photos, the cells are transferred to a map base as in Illustration 19.

o
u

etc

frl

uj
s

a
<
z

3
1-
<
UJ

[L,

►J

<
t-

u-
o

=»

</>

o
o

CO
J3

Q.
CO

u
111
ti-
ll.
<
ui
UJ

U
Ul
CL
ui

1-
z
<
_i
Ql

z
o

H
O
Ul

UJ
U

Q
Ul

H
O
Ul

>
_1

a
<

_i
<

Z
<
1

z
o

H
O
Ul
Ul

D
H
<

Q
UJ

05
D
O
O

5
w

u
11

U
UJ

J
<

to
O

■o

I-
u.

_l
<

z
<

z
o

1-
u

UJ
05

D
H
<
UJ

D
O
u

UJ
UJ

u
ui
a.
eft

K
ui
z

w
O

[
C

u
k

1
1

Landsat images may be used in a general way but will not produce
definitive enough cells to provide site specific analysis in many cases.
Low altitude photography (1:2000 + or -) can be very site specific for
special studies. Although one-half inch to the mile or 1/100,000 scale
maps will give special relationships, their detail is not sufficient to
use as a habitat inventory base map. Illustration 19 demonstrates how a
]/24,000, 7 1/2' USGS topographic quadrangle is used to record habitat cells
or sites from the vegetation inventory of field delineated cells or
habitat sites.

The foregoing information is necessary so the biologist will know how
much mule deer range there is by season and use, where it is, and what
condition it is in. The successful habitat manager will not only
obtain, record, and retrieve his inventory data, but will also know
thoroughly the country with which he is dealing.

Limiting Factors

Having obtained inventory information as to where the habitat is and
how much there is, the mule deer habitat manager normally proceeds to
find limiting habitat factors in areas where deer production is not at
the level planned or desired. This is in the areas where the lower
production is controlled by habitat factors and not by disease, over-
hunting, etc., which are not under control of the land manager.

One would normally look to the components of habitat to find the flaw in
the long-term production scheme. Traditional among these components
would be food, cover, and water; but in the present area of management,
one more seems necessary and that is adequate space without critical
disturbance .

(1) Water - Water is most often a limiting factor in arid regions
where yearlong flowing water is scarce. While Stanton (1974) gives
emphasis that deer must have water for physiological needs, Swank (1958)
cites lack of water as an indirect cause of death. Lack of water
concentrates mule deer and livestock in the areas of permanent water
during the dry season. Heavy demand on the forage in these areas soon
causes forage depletion and inevitable die-offs.

Those regions where limiting water would be suspected are: the Upper
Basin and Range; Lower Basin and Range, Colorado Plateau; and to a
lesser extent the Wyoming Basin, Columbia Plateau, and perhaps some of
the Rocky Mountain Piedmont.

In some of the hotter drier areas, habitats that appear to have all the
ingredients and show no mule deer use at all may be found to be lacking
in permanent usable water. Some biologists have had the personal
experience of finding these unused areas usually about 2 miles from the

nearest water and installing various types of water tanks. Within a few
month's time, perhaps, the mule deer have extended their range to the
new water. If Ultimately one could expect a population increase of a
couple dozen or more animals, depending on the quality of the habitat.
All waters must be low enough for fawns to drink. Illustration 22
pictorially describes this situation.

A. Water Quality - Although most naturally occurring water is
usable, there are occasional times when an analysis by the State
University, USGS, or other laboratory will be helpful in appraising the
usefulness of water. This may well be true for well water which can
originate from salty strata and at times be unusable by ungulates.

B. Water Quantity - The quantity of water consumed by mule
deer varies with body size, age, sex, health, lactation, and physical
activity of the animal, as well as with the humidity and temperature of
the environment, and available succulent moisture. As a matter of
practical management, much of the research on water needs has come from
the more arid regions of mule deer habitat. The fact that water is more
plentiful and available in cooler or winter habitat types should not
mislead biologists to conclude that it cannot be a limiting factor or at
least a variable control factor.

The use of water will decrease with lower temperature, snow cover,
succulent vegetation, and dew or raindrops. Conversely, it will increase
with drier atmosphere, lack of snow cover in winter, dry forage, and
higher temperature.

It can be noted from reviewing the literature that experimentally held
deer appear to drink about one-half the amount of water required by
their counterparts in the wild. The amount and frequency of drinking
will vary according to the aforementioned factors. One would expect a
low daily water requirement of perhaps 2^ quarts (Taber and Dasmann,
1958). A high requirement might be 7.3 quarts for bucks in summer
(Elder, 1954). Elder found that in the summertime the average amount of
all water taken by individuals was 6.3 quarts per day. Clark found in
Arizona studies that consumption varied from four to eleven quarts at
one drinking. The mean in another study for 28 animals was 6.1 quarts
(Clark, 1953). Perhaps Dasmann had a good view of the problem in
southern Arizona when he observed that average daily consumption was
between 1 and lh quarts per hundred weight in winter and 2 to 3 quarts
per hundred weight in summer (Dasmann, 1971).

Illustrations 23 and 24 are examples of rain catching devices or water
developments which removed the limiting factor of water on Lower Basin
and Range areas.

1/ Author's personal experience in the Roswell, New Mexico, area,

TROUGH HEIGHT ABOVE 20 IN WATER NOT AVAILABLE

TROUGH HEIGHT 20 IN OR LESS WATER IS AVAILABLE

ILLUSTRATION 22 These two drawings illustrate the need for trough height
not to exceed 20 inches above ground level.

(Wilson, 1977.)

Illustration 23. An inverted umbrella type water catchment used in the
Lower Basin and Range Region near Carlsbad, New Mexico. Biologist
stands by drinking box with float valve.

Illustration 24. A fiberglass tank with half cover and corrugated
roof catchment. Principally used for sage grouse and antelope but
usable for deer also.

If the rain catching type of development is installed, the size of the
catchment must be calculated on a year of lower precipitation and must
allow enough rain catch to water the expected number of animals (based
on local existing densities of mule deer on similar ranges) . The use of
wells and pipelines is also desirable where water is a limiting factor.
In arid areas, springs and seeps must be protected from trampling by
ungulates to provide optimum water. This can be done with collection
boxes, pipes, and troughs.

C. Distance to Water - In arid or desert areas an observer
can obtain a rather good estimate of the distance mule deer will venture
from water by simply walking several radii from a water source. By
pacing distances one can observe the decreasing number of mule deer
tracks until a point is reached where no more tracks are seen. In the
Fort Stanton area in New Mexico (Juniper-Pinyon Woodland), John Wood,
et. al. , concluded "the desirable distance between water sources at Fort
Stanton should be 2^ to 3 miles;" further, "Since the fluctuations in
deer densities occur almost simultaneously with the fluctuations in the
number of water sources, it was concluded that the increased deer
densities were a result of the increased amount of permanent water
sources developed on the area." (Wood, et. al., 1970.)

(2) Cover - Perhaps the three main functions of cover, so far as
mule deer are concerned, are for hiding, cold weather thermal insulation,
and shade. It is significant that topography or land form may substitute
for or supplement vegetal cover in providing the three functions above
described (Loveless, 1974). Higher temperatures of south facing slopes
congregate deer for feeding on winter ranges; further, bedding areas are
found on the same slopes in conjunction with conifers which keep the
absorbed heat from escaping into the atmosphere. Conversely, aspen
offer shady areas in the hot summer, especially where they may be found
in conjunction with cool, downhill air drainage routes. In South
Dakota the juniper slope type was a valuable summer range and conversely,
southern exposure was valuable for feeding because wind and increased
solar radiation kept them relatively snow free (Severson and Carter, 1978)

In the rugged Rockies of British Columbia investigators found that
"mule deer utilized more rugged country at higher elevations, where
winds and insolation had cleared much area of snow." (Hudson, Hebert,
and Brink, 1976.)

California investigators noted, "the irregular topography makes it easy
for deer to escape a strong cold wind independently of the vegetation by
moving to the lee side of the ridge." (Linsdale and Tomich, 1953.) The
deer's inherent desire to remain concealed further works with these
other factors to make suitable cover indispensable.

Attempting to measure all aspects of cover precisely may be futile,
although one must realize that cover differs in its value. While
relatively open stands may provide thermal cover for bedding, during
particularly cold and windy days more dense cover, younger growth,
tighter canopies, or areas with much conifer reproduction may be sought.
Visual cover (hiding) will also require more dense foliage at lower
levels. Experience of the author has demonstrated that where brush,
woodland, or forest species reach about five feet in height, they become
useful as hiding or escape cover.

Likewise, the value of hiding cover diminishes as the density of vege-
tation or litter diminishes in the ground to the five foot level (viewed
horizontally) .

(3) Food and Cover Relationships - The relationships between food
and cover are extremely important in evaluating the condition of mule
deer range. The information needed in the evaluation is normally
collected in the soil vegetation inventory or a special inventory or
study if gross vegetation inventory data is not available. See BLM 6630
for supplemental methods.

A. Cover to Open Area Relationships - Many times complete
evaluation of the kinds of cover related to mule deer needs cannot be
made on large areas. Systems that suggest this type of analysis may be
impractical. The design of cover systems or their maintenance should be
guided by the good judgement of a biologist or manager familiar with the
local deer home range situations.

On the other hand, larger herd areas can be grossly evaluated as to
their condition for deer. One of the criteria in forest and woodland
cover types for habitat management, improvement of habitat, or evaluation
of condition is the ratio of food (open) areas to cover areas (tree or
brush canopy) .

The home range of deer is small, perhaps less than H mile diameter on
winter range and less than 3/4 mile on summer range in more productive
range and 1 to 2^ miles in diameter in desert areas (Dasmann, 1971).
All necessary seasonal vegetation (forage and cover) types, as well as
water, must fall into the home range circle. Since mule deer home
ranges are limited (as compared to elk) , it is probably particularly
important that the deer be within easy ranging distance of adequate
forage. For this reason, deer range characterized as 60 percent forage
area and 40 percent cover would approach optimum. This would be in line
with Reynold's (1969) recommendation to leave islands of 10-30 acres in
clearings. A wide ranging, more mobile cervid such as the Rocky Mountain
elk (Cervus canadensis') could stand more cover, not only because of more
need for connecting cover, but also because of its ability to move more

easily between smaller, more spread out patches of forage. It seems
logical, therefore, that as cover canopies close and feeding areas
become smaller and further apart, elk are benefited and deer adversely
affected.

B. Size of Openings - One should remember that the size of
open areas are general and in some areas should be adapted to local
conditions. It is, however, surprising that research conducted in
conifer forests at widely separated latitudes in the United States
revealed very similar results. Lyon (circa 1975), working in northern
conifer forests in Montana, demonstrates that 60 acres is preferred by
mule deer in that area of Montana. Hudson Reynold's work in ponderosa
pine cover in the Southwest reveals less than 46 acres to the opening is
proper. Exceptions must be made to general guidelines; for instance,
very little forest cover exists in the extreme southern portion of the
Big Horn Mountains in Wyoming. Where openings are not properly inter-
spersed in cover here, a biologist would want to reduce the size of the
openings to be cut, so they are consistent with limited existing cover.
A 40-60 acre clearing in this area would be too large. Blacktailed deer
in chaparral apparently need openings less than 600 feet across (Taber
and Dasmann, 1958).

Edgerton (1972) concluded that clearcuts, rather than thinning or partial
cuts, were more suited to deer use because of the better and larger
volume of forage produced. Also, the trees that were left provided poor
cover. Proper logging is beneficial to deer so long as enough protective
cover is left (Patton, 1976).

C. Shape of the Opening - Perhaps the shape of the opening is
as important as the size, particularly in large openings. Although
suggestions vary, it is probably reasonable to limit the width of clear
cuts for deer habitat to a maximum of approximately 1200-1600 feet
across (Reynolds, 1969) on winter range and 1050 feet across on summer
range (spruce-fir). If the edge is varied, the length of the opening
may be extended considerably. See Illustration 25.

D. Shape of the Cover - A mosaic or mottled pattern leaving
cover connected between feeding areas would be the best cover design
(see Illustration 26). This is somewhat reminiscent of the pattern left
by a cool, fast burning fire. Connecting cover should be from 600 to
1200 feet across. Reynold's work (1966) suggests, in addition to leaving
islands of cover, that an optimum cover width might be 900 feet. He
found heaviest use in spruce-fir forest to be between 400 and 450 feet

in from the edge. A series of openings of various widths connected by
corridors 900 feet wide or better would seem to offer optimum design.
Significantly larger areas could be left for bedding and escape from
cold winds, storms, and disturbance if these are locally necessary. In
needleleaf forests other than pinyon and juniper, down timber outside of
the opening may become a problem it if is over 18" high and should be
removed where it appears that it may block access to the opening.

Illustration 25

O.K.

BETTER

BEST

1600'

45 Acres Circular 45 Acres Asymmetrical 45 Acres Varied Edge

Scale 2" = 1 mile

Burned Area

Remaining Cover

Illustration 26

(4) Food - Although deer are somewhat opportunistic in their
feeding habits, for broad practical understanding of their food needs
the list below will give a basic concept of the seasonal major require-
ments. The construction of a desirable food table by local situation is
suggested in Illustration 32. There is no substitute for local preference
and use information based on field examination:

- Winter Season - browse species for winter body maintenance.

- Spring and Late Winter - browse species plus succulent species
(usually forbs and cool season grasses) to build up body condition
and for fetus production.

- Late Spring and Summer - succulent species especially forbs and
grass for lactating females and general body condition.

- Fall - succulents and browse for body conditioning and fat
storage prior to winter. ' This season is especially important for
quality forage if the winter range is small or poor in production.
Local studies or information on food habits is essential. An
elementary understanding of the physiological requirements of deer
as related to forage availability is helpful. Further reading on
this is recommended. Illustration 27 shows an exclosure used for
studying local mule deer food preferences.

(5) Fences on Mule Deer Range - Fence should be constructed only
where necessary for other important land uses. Woven wire fences are
generally more damaging to deer herds than are barbed wire fences of the
same height. This is because the small wire squares that compose the
fence make efficient traps into which deer legs slide easily but from
which extraction is seldom accomplished before death.

Fences on deer range should not exceed 42 inches to the top wire from
the ground with at least a 12 inch space between the upper two wires to
prevent leg twisting in the top two wires. Although mule deer can
negotiate fence of 48 inches with considerable success, when fences of
this height are placed on hillsides or in the paths of movement of
weakened animals, they can cause difficulty in crossing. Illustration
28 depicts this problem.

(6) Other Limiting Factors - There may be many possible limiting
factors other than those discussed which will vary from region to
region. Such things as snowmobile disturbance, harassment by stray
dogs, and dirt bikes are common problems. The problems being encountered
in many mountainous areas today are increased snowmobile traffic
(Illustration 29), widening of roads, and fencing of rights of way to
attempt to drift deer to crossing areas. The traditional problems
caused by overgrazing of domestic stock and wildlife are depicted in
Illustrations 30 and 31.

Illustration 27. A total 2 1/2 acre exclosure on the left and a 2 1/2
acre livestock exclosure on the right.

BARRIER HEIGHT INCREASE of 42" FENCE on CONTOUR
of DIFFERENT PERCENT SLOPES

</Z

>»

30%

¥84

/0%

40%

ao%

so%

/o8

from

Loren D. Anderson &

William C. Bernt

/oo%

Illustration 28

Illustration 29. Snowmobile traffic on winter ranges where deer are
hard pressed by snow and cold can be extremely harmful and fatal.

Illustration 30. Overgrazing by livestock can deplete quality mule deer
forage in otherwise desirable areas.

Illustration 31. Heavy mule deer grazing, along with closing tree
canopies, can deplete mule deer foods.

Rating Mule Deer Range

Having inventoried and applied the inventory information against possible
limiting factors, a general assessment of the mule deer herd area or
seasonal range can now be produced. This is normally called the condition
rating. Several condition ratings for the same area on succeeding years
can be compared and a trend rating can be established. These rating factors
should be established on criteria using those habitat factors which are
important and which can be managed. It does little good, for instance,
to say that the area is too flat, for that cannot be changed materially
(with the exception of large open pit mining reclamation) .

The general condition rating for the mule deer range or herd area can be
used for habitat management plans in reports to the Bureau Directorate,
reports to legislators or the Congress, for budgeting or legislation,
and in some cases as a major portion of environmental assessments in
conjunction with other programs carried out on these ranges. An
example of a condition rating system for mule deer ranges is given in
Illustration 32. (Deming, 1957; Hill and Brandborg, i960; Reynolds,
1961 and 1966; and USFS, et al., 1970.)

Manipulation Practices

To create optimum opening cover ratios in forests or woodlands, various
methods may be used. For example, commercial timber cutting will probably
be the major manipulation factor or tool in the Cascade Mountains and
Northern Rocky Mountains, and perhaps in other regions where commercial
forest stands are being harvested. In other areas, especially the
juniper-pinyon woodland and juniper steppe woodlands, other practices
may be employed.

Chaining is a common practice used extensively on large areas to reduce
tree cover. It was widespread until the late 1960's. This practice
consisted of dragging an anchor chain weighing about ninety pounds per
link between two D-8 sized caterpillar tractors and knocking down and
uprooting mature and older trees (Kerr and Hofman, 1964). There were
various methods used, but chaining one way without burning might produce
good immediate results for deer. This practice has the disadvantage of
regrowing a canopy sooner than more intensive, cleaner methods. Various
applications of seed were broadcast prior to the chaining. For seeding
applications on various types of disturbed areas, the various writings
of Perry Plumber are unsurpassed. Restoring Big Game Range in Utah is
a particularly good reference (Plumber, Christensen, and Monsen, 1968).

Cutting areas for firewood can be laid out to benefit the opening
(forage) to cover ratio.

Some work has been done using 2,4-D sprays on types such as Ceanothus-
Chamise Range (Hoffer, 1972).

Some bulldozing of individual trees has been done, but it is not effective
for large areas.

Maybe one of the most effective methods to manipulate vegetation for the
forage cover ratio is by the use of fire. A naturally occurring phenomenon
effective prior to man's encroachment, kept deer ranges in a mixture of
successional stages, thereby providing a variety of cover and forage areas.
It was in this situation that the mule deer evolved. The use of fire or
the imitation of its occurrence and effects is probably the best and most
practical way to manipulate large wild areas for mule deer habitat.

In order to plan for treatment of mule deer habitat, it is important to
know the full and natural cycle of the plant association from establish-
ment through climax.

Treatment should be spread out over a period of years to provide treated
areas in a variety of successional stages if possible. If uniform
treatments are given over broad areas (i.e., large denuding fires), we
have a situation whereby deer boom when the sapling or post pole stage
of the succession is reached and then decline drastically for the
remainder of the succession until disturbances occur again. By
periodically treating different small portions of a whole cover type, we
create several important serai stages of a succession for a particular
type and level out the boom and bust effect. In the past, man has not
directly managed ranges in this manner. Rather, they have been indirectly
managed by economics through homesteading, livestock grazing, timber
harvest, cutting large forest areas for mine props, etc. A new example
of economic control and management of habitat is rotating well irrigation
on the high plains in areas never before cultivated. The regional
habitat effect of this practice is yet to be observed.

Since these activities led by economic drives tend to be uniformly
spread over large regional areas, they tend to produce successional
ecosystems that are about at the same stage over whole areas. Unless
they are managed, they tend to produce boom and bust populations. Our
fire suppression activities have controlled or eliminated fire, which
tended to vary successional stages within a region and therefore provided
suitable habitat and deer numbers. We therefore need to overtly manage
large cover types if we are to provide the complete variety of successional
stages required by mule deer and other animals. There is little
literature to objectively prove this, since no one has studied it over a
200 year successional period.

Illustration 32.

MULE DEER RANGE RATINGS 1/

I. Vigor Rating (Information for Rating taken from Form 6630-3, Site
Inventory Forms). Rate a key species 2_/ of grass, f orbs , or browse. 3/

For Browse Ratings use 6630-3 or Site Inventory Forms.
For Grass Ratings use Site Inventory Information.
For Forbs use Site Inventory Information.

A. Age Class

1. If satisfactory enter 8 pts.

2. If unsatisfactory enter 4 pts.

B. Form Class

1. If satisfactory enter 8 pts.

2. If unsatisfactory enter 4 pts.

II. Forage Quality Rating (adjusted for quantity)

A. (Rate range that is least in supply or critical to the big game
species; if two or more seasonal ranges are critical, rate all that are
and divide by the seasonal ranges rated.)

B. Using a locally constructed table of desirable, intermediate,
and least desirable plants by species and use percent composition listing
for habitat site from the vegetation inventory or mean composition of a
group of sites determine if:

desirable species are present in quantities over 45%.
intermediate and desirable species make up at least 50% of

the composition with desirables at least 15%.
less than 50% but more than 25% of the composition is made

up of desirable and intermediate species,
undesirable species are 75% or more of the composition.

(Do not use these cores for final rating summation. Use the adjusted
figure described in C.)

C. The above score must be adjusted to reflect the amount of
forage available. From the vegetation inventory, take the total
cover density (by pace transect, usually) if the total cover density
is :

17
13

ADJUSTED SCORE FORAGE QUALITY

Q more than 35%, subtract nothing from the above -score and

enter at left.
Q 21% to 35%, subtract 2 points from the above score and

enter at left.
Q 11% to 20%, subtract 4 points from the above score and

enter at left.
Q 0% to 10%, subtract 6 points from the above score and

enter at left.

III. Food Area to Cover Area Ratio

A. Using the vegetation map or aerial photos, list those habitat
sites opposite their acreage which are considered food areas, and
similarly, those which are considered cover (all types including fawning
cover, escape cover, or thermal cover). Use areas known to be within
the occupied herd area only .

17 Q herd area being rated is composed of 60% food patches and
40% cover (trees or shrubs in groups and over 20 ft high
are mainly considered cover types) .
13 iJ cover or food area percentages vary 10% - 20% from above.
9 Q cover or food area percentages vary 20% - 30% from above.
5 Q cover or food area percentages vary 30% + from above.

IV. Forage Area Size

food patches 40-60 acres in size (20-40 acres in spruce-fir),
food patches more than 60 acres in size, less than ]/5 mile

across,
food patches 1/5 to 1/2 mile across,
food patches greater than 1/2 mile across.

V. Water Availability

average distance between permanent water sources of acceptable

quality is 2-1/2 miles or less,
average distance between permanent waters of acceptable quality

is 2-1/2 to 4 miles,
average distance between permanent waters more than 4 miles, or

snow must be substituted for long period (1 month or more),
permanent acceptable waters are scarce.

□

VI. Disturbance or Interference Rating

A. Taken from census or demographic trends, aerial photos, 6602-21.
These influences can be observed in a general way and are a subjective
judgement of the rater, but where major interference or disturbance is
indicated, it should be narratively explained.

18 Q Historic crucial, reproduction and/or migration areas are

undisturbed by an influx of people and/or their facilities
with little change in the last 10 years. Few if any conflicts
or hazards are documented.

13 p Historic crucial, reproduction and/or migration areas have been
slightly disturbed in the last ten years; only a few new roads
or facilities have been constructed; a small number of conflicts
or hazards are obvious enough to be documented.
9 Q Historic crucial, reproduction and/or migration areas have been
noticeably disturbed in the last ten years. Conflicts and
hazards could easily be identified and documented, kj
5 Q Historic crucial, reproduction and/or migration areas have been
severely disturbed in the last ten years. Many conflicts and
hazards could be identified and documented. 47

RATINGS SUM OF POINTS

Good 81 - 100

Fair 61 - 80

Poor 51 - 60

Bad 10 - 50

If the rater for purposes of evaluating range conflicts only desires to
rate big game range based on vegetation only, then ratings for Vigor
and Forage Quality only may be used and multiplied by a factor of 3.0
for the rating score.

For non-forest or non-tall bush types, do not use the Food Area to Cover
Area ratio or the Forage Area Size ratings. Multiply the total score of
the other ratings by 1.5 for the condition rating.

1/ Use on occupied or historically occupied ranges only can be applied
to a single habitat site or a group of them if the mean data is
used to rate the total group.

2/ A major forage species.

3/ Formulae shown below:

FORMULA FOR INVENTORY INFORMATION TO RATE
AGE AND FORM CLASS OF GRASSES AND FORBS

Age class is unsatisfactory for grasses if: class D "Decadent"
exceeds any of the other age classes of S "Seeding", Y "Young",
or M "Mature".

Form class is unsatisfactory if classes 2, 3, 4, and 5 totaled
exceed No. 1.

FORMULA TO RATE BROWSE

Age class is unsatisfactory if decadent plants outnumber live seedlings
and young plants combined.

Form class is unsatisfactory if severely hedged, unavailable, and dead
plants outnumber other categories (6630-3); or classes 2, 3, 4, and 5
outnumber class 1 (vegetation inventory) ; or limited availability and
unavailable classes outnumber available and partially available classes
(vegetation inventory) .

4/ Explain major distrubance in narrative.

LITERATURE CITED

Bertram, Ronald C, and Ronald D. Rempel. 1977. Migration of the
North Kings deer herd. California Fish and Game 63(3) : 157-179.

Bureau of Land Management. 1947. Report of the Director of the

Bureau of Land Management, statistical appendix. BLM. Washington,
D.C.

. 1956. Report of the Director of the Bureau of Land Management,

statistical appendix. BLM. Washington, D.C.

. 1966. Public Land Statistics 1965. USGPO. Washington, D.C.

. 1968. 6630 Big Game Studies. USDI, BLM. Washington, D.C.

. 1976. Public Land Statistics 1975. USGPO. Washington, D.C.

. 1977. 6602 Integrated Inventory and Habitat Classification

System. BLM, Denver Service Center.

Clark, E. Dan. 1953. A study of behavior and movements of the Tucson
mountain mule deer. M.S. Thesis. University of Arizona.
Tempe, Arizona.

Dasmann, William. 1971. If deer are to survive. Wildlife Management
Institute. Stockpole Books. Harrisburg, PA.

Deming, Milo. 1957. Range condition criteria for two phase method
surveys. BLM. Washington, D.C.

Edgerton, Paul J. 1972. Big game use and habitat changes in a recently
logged mixed conifer forest in northeastern Oregon. Proceedings of
52nd Annual Conference of the Western Association of State Game and
Fish Commissioners. Portland, OR. Pp. 234-246.

Elder, J.B. 1954. Notes on summer water consumption in desert mule
deer. J. Wildl. Manage. 18(4) :540-541.

Gruell, Geo. E. , and Nick J. Papez. 1963. Movements of mule deer in
northeastern Nevada. J. Wildl. Manage. 27 (3) :414-422.

Hall, Fredrick C. 1978. Pacific Northwest ecoclass vegetation
identification: Concepts and codes. USDA, Forest Service,
Pacific Northwest Region. Portland, Oregon.

Hill, R.R., and M.F. Brandborg. Correspondence to range analysis
handbook committee (Unpublished; June 20, 1960, December 16,
1960).

Hoffer, Marvin C. 1972. Lemon Ceanothus - Chamise mule deer
range improvement with 2,4-D. Proceedings 52nd Annual
Conference of the Western Association of State Game and Fish
Commissioners. Portland Oregon.

Hudson, R.J., D.M. Hebert, and V.C. Brink. 1976. Occupational
patterns of wildlife on a major East Kootaney winter-spring
range. J. Range Mgmt. 29(l):38-43.

Kerr, Richard. 1968. A discussion of the woven wire fence antelope
situation on BLM lands in New Mexico. Proceedings of the 3rd
Biennial Antelope States Workshop. Casper, Wyoming.

. 1978. Current wildlife habitat inventory techniques and their

use in habitat management. Integrated Inventories of Renewable
Natural Resources: Proceedings of the Workshop, Tucson, Arizona.
U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment
Station. Fort Collins, Colorado.

Kerr, Richard, and Ronald Ho f man. 1964. Buckskin Bonanza. Colorado
Outdoors 13(6): 18-21.

Lang, E.M. 1957. Deer of New Mexico. New Mexico Dept. of Game and
Fish. Santa Fe, New Mexico.

Linsdale, Jean M. , and Quentin P. Tomich. 1953. A herd of mule deer.
University of California Press. Los Angeles, California.

Loveless, Charles M. 1967. Ecological characteristics of a selected
mule deer winter range. Colorado Cooperative Wildlife Research
Unit, Colorado Department of Game and Fish. Denver, Colorado.

Lyon, L. Jack. Big game use of clear cuts in western Montana.
(Unpublished manuscript, civaa 1975.)

McKean, Wm. T. , and Richard M. Bartman. 1971. Deer livestock relations
on a pinon- juniper range in northwestern Colorado. Colorado
Game, Fish, and Parks. Denver, Colorado.

Patton, David R. 1976. Timber harvesting increases deer and elk use
of a mixed conifer forest. USDA Forest Service Research Note
RM-329. 3 pp.

Plumber, A. Perry, Donald R. Christensen, and Stephen B. Monson. 1968.
Restoring big game range in Utah. Publication No. 68-3. Utah
Division of Fish and Game. Salt Lake City, Utah.

Reynolds, Hudson G. 1962. Use of natural openings in ponderosa pine
forest of Arizona by deer, elk, and cattle. USFS Research Note
No. 78. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.
Fort Collins, Colorado.

. 1966. Use of openings in spruce-fir forests of Arizona by elk,

deer, and cattle. USFS Research Note RM-66. Rocky Mountain
Forest and Range Experiment Station. Fort Collins, Colorado.

1969. Improvement of deer habitat on southwestern forest lands.

J. Forestry 67 (11) :803-805.

Russo, John P. 1970. The Kaibab north deer herd - its history, problems,
and management. State of Arizona Game and Fish Dept. Wildlife
Bulletin 7.

Seton, Ernest Thompson. 1929. Lives of game animals, vol. Ill, part I.
Doubleday, Doran, and Co., Inc. Garden City, N.Y.

Severson, Keith E. , and Arthur V. Carter. 1978. Movements and habitat
use by mule deer in the Northern Great Plains, South Dakota. Rocky
Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Arizona State
University. Tempe, Arizona.

Stanton, Frank. 1974. Species life history and habitat requirements.
Technical Supplement 6601-6 Mule Deer. BLM. Washington D.C.

Swank, Wendell G. 1958. The mule deer in the Arizona Chaparral
and an analysis of other important deer herds. Arizona Game
and Fish Dept. Wildlife Bulletin No. 3.

Taber, R.D., and R.F. Dasmann. 1958. The blacktail deer of the
chaparral. California Dept. Fish and Game Bulletin No. 8.

Taylor, Walter P. 1956. The deer of North America. The Wildlife
Management Institute, Washington, D.C. Stockpole Company.
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

United States Forest Service, BLM, New Mexico Dept. of Game and Fish.
1970. Big game browse range analysis techniques for New Mexico.

Wilson, Lanny 0. 1977. Guidelines and recommendations for design and
modification of livestock watering developments to facilitate
safe use by wildlife. USDI, BLM. Denver, Colorado.

Wood, John E. , Thomas S. Bickle, Wainright Evans, James C. Germany,
and Volnez Howard, Jr. 1970. The Fort Stanton mule deer herd.
New Mexico State University Agricultural Experiment Station
Bulletin No. 567. New Mexico State University. Las Cruces,
New Mexico.

frU.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 19 79-0-681-346/7 7

BLM Library
D-553A, Building 50
Denver Federal Center
P. 0. Box 26047
Denver, CO 80225-0047

j9*U90 iBaap^j aaAuea
r- SuTPltng 'V2QS-CI

:mepjt

(fdfJS' uoOodojpuy)

(tjllAOLUWIWJUOOOdOJfHlV)

3uiud ujo^sanig

{*om?ng-wnot»inog-<iOi4dOjOy)
ssejfi oieunq-eujejS-ssej&ieegM

(wdijS-uoSodojpuy-uojtdoiOv)
ssei8aip9au-uiaiS9n|q-ssej8}eaqM

(tdrfs-uoifdoiBy)
ssejSsipdau-ssejSieaqM

(ao/qong-rnownog)

„, r

,t&.^j&&

*£'

C<^

V0V£

.e*

Appendix 1

AMERICAN GEOGRAPHICAL SOCIETY

| " | (Bo«Wovi-8vc'-h*> | n | IDaOcMifSpuUnt)

BLM Library

D-553A, Buil'Ji'
Denver Federal Center
P 0. Box 25047
Denver, CO 60225-0047

Illustration 1

APPeoXIMAJfc: t)l£Tfcl&UT\ON OPAAULEOEEB. 6UB6»P£.aB£
IM |2£LAJlOM 7D PU^IOaEAPVUG R£6I0M£> l^lft

L£6£NP

JX^I E06fc^ MOUNTAIN! MULE. DEEEL

Odocoileu^ hevwiowufc hemicMue

■DB6&(2T MULE "D&fcE,

O.h. crocte

t I &U(it2P "DEEI2-
O.h. erewiicue?

.t,*.-^

£OU]UE|2M MULET>E£R-
O.h. fuligwcx+u£

MYO MULE- "DEEfc.

O.h. myoene>ie>

^^ CAL4P012MIA MULE "DEE2-

Oh. caJ i form cue-

COUUM&lAkl £LA££- TAILED "DEER
Oh. columbiounu*

£l"]VA MULE: T>£££_

Illustration 1

££FE££MC£6- MAMMALS OP NOEru AM&ElCA-. HoJI E EAywond

and Kelson, Ka-tfi fc., 135^ (2ola*vd ire',', Cbmpany, N
PEE£ OP CAUFOfcNiA-; M£-Lea*i t*mald T?, |44o,

California. ViiM 0*6 &a/ne
■&LM. bk>0\ -i*
»LM fobOZ.

BLM Library
D-553A, Building 50
Denver Federal Center
P.O. Box 25047
Denver, CO 80225-0047

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Mule deer habitat guides"

See other formats