Mule deer and energy development—Long‐term trends of habituation and abundance |
| |
| Authors: | Hall Sawyer Nicole M Korfanta Ryan M Nielson Kevin L Monteith Dale Strickland |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Western Ecosystems Technology, Inc., Laramie, WY, USA;2. Haub School of Environment and Natural Resources, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY, USA;3. Western Ecosystems Technology, Inc., Fort Collins, Colarado, USA;4. Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Department of Zoology and Physiology, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY, USA |
| |
| Abstract: | As the extent and intensity of energy development in North America increases, so do disturbances to wildlife and the habitats they rely upon. Impacts to mule deer are of particular concern because some of the largest gas fields in the USA overlap critical winter ranges. Short‐term studies of 2–3 years have shown that mule deer and other ungulates avoid energy infrastructure; however, there remains a common perception that ungulates habituate to energy development, and thus, the potential for a demographic effect is low. We used telemetry data from 187 individual deer across a 17‐year period, including 2 years predevelopment and 15 years during development, to determine whether mule deer habituated to natural gas development and if their response to disturbance varied with winter severity. Concurrently, we measured abundance of mule deer to indirectly link behavior with demography. Mule deer consistently avoided energy infrastructure through the 15‐year period of development and used habitats that were an average of 913 m further from well pads compared with predevelopment patterns of habitat use. Even during the last 3 years of study, when most wells were in production and reclamation efforts underway, mule deer remained >1 km away from well pads. The magnitude of avoidance behavior, however, was mediated by winter severity, where aversion to well pads decreased as winter severity increased. Mule deer abundance declined by 36% during the development period, despite aggressive onsite mitigation efforts (e.g. directional drilling and liquid gathering systems) and a 45% reduction in deer harvest. Our results indicate behavioral effects of energy development on mule deer are long term and may affect population abundance by displacing animals and thereby functionally reducing the amount of available habitat. |
| |
| Keywords: | avoidance behavior disturbance indirect habitat loss land‐use planning mitigation |
|
|
