Responses of Large Mammals to Forest Thinning Treatments in Southwest

Jemez Mountains, New Mexico

James W. Cain III1, Robert Parmenter2, Mark A. Peyton2, Sarah R. Kindschuh3, Kamal

Humagain4, Caleb Roberts4, Robert Cox4

1U.S. Geological Survey, New Mexico Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Conservation Ecology, New Mexico State University

2Valles Caldera National Preserve3Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Conservation Ecology, New Mexico State University

4Department of Natural Resources Management, Texas Tech University

Forest Landscape Restoration Act (PL 111-11, Sec. 4003(c)), the natural resources monitoring program objectives are:

(1) contribute toward the restoration of the structure and composition of pre-fire-suppression old growth stands,  (2) reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire, and/or maintain or re-establish natural fire regimes,  (3) improve fish and wildlife habitat, including endangered, threatened and sensitive species,  (4) maintain or improve water quality and watershed function, and  (5) prevent, remediate, or control invasions of exotic species.

Monitoring Objectives:

Forest Landscape Restoration Act (PL 111-11, Sec. 4003(c)), the natural resources monitoring program objectives are:

(1) contribute toward the restoration of the structure and composition of pre-fire-suppression old growth stands,  (2) reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire, and/or maintain or re-establish natural fire regimes,  (3) improve fish and wildlife habitat, including endangered, threatened and sensitive species,  (4) maintain or improve water quality and watershed function, and  (5) prevent, remediate, or control invasions of exotic species.

Monitoring Objectives:

Large Mammal MonitoringSouthwest Jemez Mountians CFLRP

• GOAL– To monitor the responses of mule deer, elk, black bear,

and mountain lion to forest restoration treatments associated with the Southwest Jemez Mountains CFLRP Project

Thinning and Burns

• RX BURN: San Juan, Thompson Ridge, Virgin Mesa, Banco Bonito, Pino (wild ignition)

• THIN: Los Griegos, Paliza, Thompson Ridge, Banco Bonito (ongoing), Las Conchas, Redondo

• WILDFIRE: Las Conchas, Guacamalla, Thompson ridge

OBJECTIVES

• Habitat Selection and Space Use– Determine habitat selection and space use

patterns of large mammals in relation to forest restoration treatments

– Determine if and when mule deer, elk, black bear, and mountain lions begin to use treatment areas• Time between restoration activities and changes in

use patterns• Timing of use of treated areas seasonally

OBJECTIVES

• Forage quantity and quality– Assess changes in abundance of key forage species in

response to treatments including lag effects• Herbaceous forage (elk)• Browse (mule deer)• Mast producing species (mule deer & bear)

– Estimate forage quality in treated and untreated areas• Treatment type, time since treatment, vegetation type,

aspect, fire history

METHODS• Fit mule deer and elk with telemetry collars

– Elk (adult female)• 15 GPS (store on board) and 17 VHF collars placed on elk in 2012

– Dropped-off in winter 2014-2015

• 10 fitted with GPS/Iridium collars in 2014 (Pueblo of Jemez)• 35 GPS (store on board) placed on elk in December 2014

– Mule deer (adult female)• 12 mule deer fitted with GPS (store on board) in 2012-2014• 10 fitted with GPS/Iridium collars in 2014 (Pueblo of Jemez)

– Elk will be recaptured Fall 2016 for GPS collar replacement

• 7 mountain lions to be captured – GPS/Iridium Collars– 4 lions captured to date • Capture efforts will continue

METHODS

• 36 black bears captured and fitted with GPS/Iridium collars 2012-2014

• 13 black bears will be captured in summer 2015

METHODS

METHODS

• Mule deer and Elk– 5-6 hr GPS fix interval– VHF signals to be relocated ≥ 2 days per week• Mortality monitoring

• Mountain lion and Black bear– 3 hr GPS fix interval– Mortality monitoring via GPS data transmission

and VHF (when necessary)

METHODS• Habitat Selection and Space Use– Habitat characteristics

• Elevation, aspect and slope• Vegetation type, woody cover• Treated/untreated, treatment type (thin, burn, untreated)• Proportion of sampling unit treated• Time since treatment• Forage biomass and nutritional quality• Distance to roads, campgrounds, developed areas• Predation risk index based on location data from black bear and

mountain lion—Elk and mule deer models– Model Resource Selection Probability Functions (RSPFs)

for each species and individual animals– Average individual-level coefficients to estimate

population-level model for each species

Vegetation MonitoringVegetation Monitoring• Assess changes in abundance and quality of key forage species in

response to treatments– Randomly located transects stratified by:

• Treatment type (including pre-treatment and untreated) within treated and untreated areas

• Vegetation type (P-J, Ponderosa, Mixed Conifer, Grasslands, Aspen, Oak)• Fire history• Aspect

– Estimate biomass of grasses, key browse and mast producing species– Estimate forage quality for mule deer and elk

• Collection of key forage plants– Nitrogen, ADF, NDF, digestibility, tannin (browse)

• Assess changed in vegetation structure and composition

• Herbaceous forage data (biomass and nutritional quality) useful for livestock management as well as big game

Vegetation MonitoringVegetation Monitoring

• Line-transect method• Grasses, shrubs and trees measurement

0m 20 40 60 80 100 200m120 140 160 180

Distance

DBH

Trees measurement

Point at 20 m

Herbaceous biomass

1 m2

Shrub measurement

1 m

2 m

Point at 5 m

Herbaceous Biomass (kg/ha)

Thinned Untreated

Veg Type Open canopy Closed canopy Open canopy Closed canopy

Mean (SE) Mean (SE) Mean (SE) Mean (SE)

Mixed Conifer 512.0 (94.0) 667.7 (93.8) 453.2 (27.9)

Ponderosa 552.2 (141.0) 168.8 (54.7) 517.7 (41.8) 556.4 (36.6)

P-J 542.0 (33.1) 319.4 (77.8)

Black bear use of thinned areas:(34,013 of 53,153 locations recorded in CFLRP Project area since 2012)

• Proportion of locations by individual bear in thinned areas: • Range 0 – 45%

• All except one bear 1-6%• Mean (SD) = 3% (9%)

Black bear use

Black bear use

Mule deer use of thinned areas:(20,214 of 23,638 locations recorded in CFLRP Project area since 2012)

• Proportion of locations by individual deer in thinned areas: • Range 0 – 19%

• 18 of 19 deer 0-5%• Mean (SD) = 2% (5%)

Mule deer use

Mule deer use

Elk use of thinned areas:(37,933 of 47,681 locations recorded in CFLRP Project area since 2012)

• Proportion of locations by individual elk in thinned areas: • Range 0 – 29%

• 19 of 20 elk 0-5%• Mean (SD) = 2% (6%)

Elk use

Elk use

Expected outcomes and timeframe:•Lag period between treatment and forage response (biomass and nutritional)

• Longer lag for browse and mast producing species than herbaceous forage• 1-2 years for herbaceous forage, 3-5 years for browse

• Timeline accelerated or slowed by precipitation•Expected use of thinned areas to reflect overall patterns in dietary preference

• As spatial extent and time since treatment of thinned areas increases, expect use to increase particularly in mule deer and bears

Observed outcomes:•Most thinning at higher elevations and limited in spatial extent

• Correspondingly, use of thinned areas was low for most animals• Animals with thinned areas in or near home ranges used them, but not

exclusively• Use more evident in some elk with home ranges near thinned areas• Some bear use in early spring• Limited mule deer use